Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

Town of Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 24, 2012 Pledge of Allegiance was said and attendance was taken by the Secretary. Present: Steve Schanke, Kathi Postlethwait and Larry Mitchell, Jay Parks Absent: Al Wopshall Staff attending: Terry Jones, Carol Sparks Drake, attorney. A quorum is present. Mitchell Good evening to you and welcome to the January 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals. There’s agendas out in the front. Hopefully everybody got one. The first item on the agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. Mitchell Mr. Secretary will you please take attendance. Mitchell Four of the five members are here, so therefore there is a quorum to conduct business. The next item on our agenda is the election of officers. I would entertain a motion for, we have three officer positions to elect tonight. We have Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary, so we are entertaining a motion for the position of Chair. Schanke I nominate Larry Mitchell. Postlethwait Second. Mitchell All those in favor signify by saying, aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed, nay. Postlethwait Congratulations. Mitchell Is there any nominations for Vice Chair? Schanke I’m the current. Can I nominate myself? Mitchell You can. Schanke I nominate Mr. Schanke. Mitchell All right. Is there a second? Parks I’ll second. Mitchell All right a motion has been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying, aye. All Aye. 1 Mitchell Against, nays. Hearing none, motion carries. Secretary. I nominate Terry to be our, Terry Jones, to be our secretary. Is there a second? Schanke I’ll second that. Parks By acclimation. Mitchell By acclimation. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying, aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed, nay. Motion carries. Approval of the November 22 meeting minutes. Everybody’s had a chance to look at them, read them over. Schanke I reviewed them. They looked complete to me and accurate. Parks I move that we approve the minutes as they’ve been submitted. Postlethwait Second. Mitchell A motion has been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying, aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed, nay. Motion carries. Okay here’s how this works tonight. Basically each petitioner will be allowed to come up to the microphone. You’ll be given 15 minutes to present your case when you come up and anybody that’s going to speak tonight needs to state their name and their address before they start speaking. We are recording all of this and so that way we know who’s speaking when you actually get up there. You’ll be given 15 minutes to come up and give your presentation. The Board can ask questions throughout the process or after and that will not be counted against your 15 minutes. Any remonstrators in attendance will be given 15 minutes. After their time the petitioner will be given five minutes to rebut and then the remonstrator would be given five minutes to rebut the rebuttal. That being said, if there’s any questions please feel free as you go along to ask. We’re a friendly Board. First item on the docket is docket #2012-01-DSV Tom and Sharon at 4647 Rock Crest Court. If the petitioners will please come forward. Cornacchini Hello, good evening, good evening. Tom Corncheney. I live at 4647 Rock Crest Court here with my wife, Sharon, and we’re requesting a zoning approval for an in-ground pool in our neighborhood at our house at 4647 Rock Crest currently in the restriction of 20 percent lot compliance. This pool and skirt area amounts to 932 square feet which is roughly 5.5 percent over the 20 percent allotment in our neighborhood, so we have, as stated in our case, we have a cul-de-sac lot with a small front and fanning wide back lot, so in the back lot area seen in the packages it’s a pretty large expansive backyard for the pool. It’s westward facing. It backs up to a pond. The in-ground pool we chose was about the smallest we could get in terms of square footage. We chose a kidney-shaped pool to try to cut down on the square footage and tried to use the skirt area to create safety for the use of the pool, so we feel that there’s plenty of room both to our neighbors 2  on both sides and to the pond and with the 20 percent it’s very difficult to accommodate this type of item, so we are requesting this slight extension of the 20 percent. Mitchell Are there any questions for the petitioner? Schanke I have one question. In reviewing your application I didn’t see if you have approval, I assume you have a homeowner’s association. Cornacchini Yes, yes. I’ve been on the board in the past up until about a year ago, so our plan is to submit this to the architectural committee assuming approval here, so we do not have their approval. They were notified as one of the letter recipients in the certified letter. We would approach them assuming approval here. Schanke Would there be a problem if we were to approve it conditioned upon their approval. Would that be a problem for you? I don’t know, I’ve never had a homeowner’s association, but I have dealt with them and I know sometimes they can be a bit of a pain. Cornacchini We don’t think there will be a problem with the current homeowner’s association. We have other in-ground pools in our neighborhood with similar configurations, so that’s acceptable to me. Again, they would probably say the same, but we’ll go to them assuming we get the approval here. Postlethwait Just by way of clarification on the staff comments it makes reference to a 6’ privacy fence encompassing the pool and deck area and I notice in your application you are describing a 4’ wrought iron style fence. Which of those is correct? Cornacchini Yeah we’re planning a 4’ wrought iron. Postlethwait Okay, so it’s not a 6’ privacy fence? Cornacchini No. Schanke I believe the, our zoning requires or at least recommends a pool cover for safety if it’s not a tall fence. Is that right, Terry or? I was reading them – T. Jones The building code requires either the 6’ fence or a safety pool cover and I presume you are planning to place the safety pool cover on – Cornacchini No, with the kidney-shaped pool we were not planning to put a retractable safety cover on. T. Jones By code, by building code you would be required to either have the safety pool cover or a 6’ fence with a gate. Schanke And I just heard it was going to be a 4’ fence, so. T. Jones Yeah the 4’ fence would not meet that requirement. Cornacchini Okay. We would most likely do a 6’ fence then in our situation. Jones That’s with a gate capable of closing, self-latching, capable of being locked. 3 Cornacchini Correct. Thank you. Mitchell All right. Are there any more questions about the petition, which is in regard to the lot coverage increase? Seeing none, are there any additional staff comments? T. Jones No, that pretty much covers it. As pointed out there is a retention pond in the rear of the property which separates the nearest rear property owner by several hundred feet, but other than that (I did want to point that out) but I have nothing further unless you have any questions. Mitchell All right thank you. Are there any remonstrators tonight? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion on the docket. Schanke I will move that docket #2012-01-DSV for a 626 square foot in-ground swimming pool and 306 square foot surrounding concrete deck with a property located at 4647 Rock Crest Court be approved. Postlethwait Second. Mitchell A motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Parks I would add an amendment that it be approved with the condition that the fence be a 6’ fence, so there will be no confusion as to that particular height. Mitchell An amended motion is on the floor, is there a second of the motion? Postlethwait I second. Mitchell Okay, so the amendment has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Postlethwait I would just point out Terry that there is an error on the staff comment sheet with the address incorrect. Jones I apologize for that. Mitchell Okay, so no further discussion on the amendment. We are voting on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying, aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed, amendment carries, so we now have the recommended motion with the amendment attached. Are there any other further discussion? Schanke I elected not to include the homeowners’ association. Mitchell So the homeowner’s requirement is not included just so you know. Okay any further discussion on the motion as amended. Hearing none all those in favor signify by saying, aye. All Aye. 4 Mitchell Opposed, nay. Motion carries. Thank you. Cornacchini Thanks very much. Mitchell Next item on the docket is 2012-02-DSV Linda Kays at 4681 St. John Circle a petition for development standards variance for an increase of lot coverage of 2.6 percent above the allowable 20 percent for an installation of a deck screen porch. Kayes Hi, I’m actually Lisa Kays. Linda was his old girlfriend. Mitchell I’m sorry. Kayes My name is Lisa Kays. You said Linda. Lisa Kays. Mitchell Thank you. I apologize. Kayes That’s okay. Mitchell Sometimes my mouth goes faster than my head. Kayes Lisa Kayes, 4681 St. John Circle, Zionsville, Indiana and this is my contractor, John Barrett. Barrett John Barrett, 6289 Briar Gate, Zionsville, Indiana. Kayes My husband and I would like to seek a variance for a screen porch at the rear of our home. We bought our home seven years ago with the current deck existing when we purchased the home and when we went for a, last summer when we tried to build this we decided to put a screen porch in place of the aging deck and discovered that we were 20.1 percent of lot coverage, 0.1 percent over the 20 percent allowance and so we weren’t able to replace the deck, let alone put a screen porch in its place, so that is why we are seeking a variance today and we have, are asking for 2.6 percent over to allow for a little patio and grilling area outside the screen porch. If you look in the architect’s plan in the pink section of the folder I have given you you’ll see some photos of our lot and the side view shows that there are quite a few trees. There are evergreens between our home and the home behind us and then our screen porch will actually face a retention pond and large common area around our home. If there’s any detailed questions my contractor can answer those for you. Mitchell Are there any questions for the petitioner? Schanke I just have general information on the drawings that were submitted. It says check for sprinkler heads. Are you going to sprinkle the, oh I bet those are underground sprinklers. Barrett Yeah they’re existing. Kayes We have an existing sprinkler system. Schanke I was an engineer forever and I get fire systems I see sprinkler head I think, sorry. Barrett The actual screen porch is only – 5 Schanke So you don’t dig one up when you put it in. Barrett The actual screen porch is only about 100 – Mitchell When you’re talking make sure you’re on the microphone. Barrett The screen porch is actually only about 70, 60 square feet bigger than the existing. It’s almost the identical footprint. Mitchell All right thank you. Are there any remonstrators here tonight? Seeing none, any staff comments on this docket number? T. Jones Before I do, I don’t know if there’s anybody that wanted to speak in favor of this as well. I don’t know if there was anyone in the audience. I know there’s some folks here. Kayes You know I did want to make note. Can I say one more thing? Mitchell No, please. Kayes If you notice in the back I have letters in support from the president of my homeowners’ association and my surrounding neighbors. T. Jones To clarify a comment made in the staff report concerning the construction of the home at the time the home was constructed a permit was issued based on the fact that there wasn’t a deck. The builder who was building a spec home at this location decided after the permit was issued to add a deck. The deck then caused the property to exceed the allowable coverage at no fault of these folks this evening, and so I felt it was necessary to point out to you that the original permit under the amount the addition of the deck today exceeds the allowable percentage and so that’s how this all kind of came to fruition and some of the confusion was how did it occur and so it has been brought to the owner’s attention. Even if they wanted to build what’s there existing they would need a variance as well, so just wanted to for the record clarify that and again point out it’s not anything that the Kayes have caused to occur. Mitchell All right. Thank you. Hearing that, is there any other further questions and if not I would entertain a motion. Parks I move that docket 2012-02-DSV, development standards variance to construct a 420 square foot screen porch and a 482 square foot patio and cooking area for the property located at 4681 St. John Circle which causes them to exceed the lot coverage requirement by 2.6 percent be approved as presented. Postlethwait Second. Mitchell A motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all of those in favor of the motion signify by saying, aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay. Motion carries. Thank you. Next item of consideration will be findings of fact on previous dockets that we have reviewed. 6 T. Jones Mr. Chairman if I might real quick we are passing down the findings for these two last projects that you just acted on and I’d also like to thank both of those applicants for the organization that they provided in putting these packets together. They were quite informative and left very little to be questioned, so thank you. Thank you both. Mitchell It’s my understanding and correct me if I’m wrong, but I think, counselor, were you going to run us through these other matters to be considered the findings of fact? Drake I’d be glad to or I encourage Mr. Jones to chime in if he has comments as well. Mitchell All right thank you. Please do. Drake The first item that remains needed are findings of fact from Noah Grant’s. In your packet I believe was shared with you the handwritten findings that were originally proposed when this was before you in September. Our recollection is those were determined to be insufficient at that time and Noah Grant’s was to come back with updated findings. We did receive alternative findings today on behalf of Noah Grant’s. It would be my recommendation that those need to be further revised as they do not completely track with your minutes as to what was presented and what was approved that evening, so subject to your approval or acquiescence we will continue to work with Noah Grant’s to bring you acceptable recommended findings of fact. Mitchell Hearing no objection, we will postpone that finding. Drake Okay on the Stonegate matter, that would be your docket #2011-13-DSV your preliminary decision was in December to deny that variance of development standards and I have prepared findings of fact and a decision that reflect the discussions that evening as shown in your minutes, so these have been prepared by myself consistent with your discussions and are recommended for your consideration. Mitchell All the Board members have the findings of fact for Stonegate Section X, which is Docket #2011-13-DSV. Are there any questions for counselor or staff? Schanke No. I see that I reviewed it and went back and looked and that is what we completely detailed that that’s what he said and item 3 failed to be established and item 4 failed to be established, so. I agree with the findings of fact. Mitchell So we need to vote on these? Drake Yes. Schanke I’ll make a motion that we accept the final findings of fact as presented for petition 2011- 13 Development Standards Variance Stonegate Section X as presented. Is that okay, Carol? Drake Yes. Schanke As presented. Mitchell Is there a second? 7 Postlethwait Second. Mitchell Motion has been made and seconded, is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those of favor of the motion signify by saying, aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay. Motion carries. Next item is 2011-14-SE Morning Dove. Drake I believe the next item is Mullin, Mr. Chairman. Mitchell Oh okay. Drake The Mullen findings of fact were before you last month, but in connection with your discussions there was a discussion regarding capping the sewer system, so Mr. Andreoli was asked to incorporate that into the statement of commitments and submit revised findings of fact. He has done so and the revised findings and commitments I believe are consistent with the discussions including the capping of the plumbing. Mitchell Are there any questions for counselor or staff? Hearing none, is there a motion? Parks I would move the acceptance of the findings of fact they be approved for signing based upon what has been presented for 2011-18-DSV. Schanke I will second that. Mitchell Motion’s been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying, aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay. Motion carries. Next item on my agenda is 2011-19-DSV Craig Melton. Drake We have received proposed findings from Mr. Melton, and in item E of those findings he has indicated that in the event the septic is installed prior to permitting of the primary residence, oh I’m sorry I’m reading Mullin. Let me read Melton. His proposed findings would allow a temporary Port-A-John or Port-A-Let to be placed on the property. In going back to your minutes of November, specifically on pages 15 and 16, there was an exchange between Mr. Melton and Mr. Jones wherein Mr. Melton agreed there won’t be anything permanent like that, i.e., Port-A-John and Terry asked, “No that would be a temporary.” Mr. Melton, “Okay, nothing.” Mr. Schanke “No Port-A-Johns.” Mr. Melton “No Port-A-Let.” So, if that continues to be your intent then we will need to go back to Mr. Melton to revise his findings. He was made aware of that difference and he asked that the findings be brought to you as you see them. Schanke Can I make a comment also I guess without a motion on that. I have a problem also in his CCR, in his commitments. Under item 4, where he states that the primary structure will be, the primary house when constructed will be subordinate in size and dimension. I’m not sure what he’s trying to say. We wanted to make sure that he had in the CCR’s that he was aware of the fact that the, any primary structure he built after the barn was 8  constructed would comply with our zoning requirements in size, so that the house be basically bigger than the accessory structure by 50 percent, so I wasn’t sure what the subordinate meant, what he was trying to say in that, but what we wanted him to say was that any primary structure he built would be in compliance with the existing zoning regulations pursuant to the ratio of sizes between accessory structures and primaries. You understand what I’m saying? Drake Yes. Schanke Also, I would like to see them add that as well. We specifically talked about the Port-A- Lets because of the conversations on him wanting to store his construction equipment there and let his workers park their cars there. I didn’t want to see outhouses. Sorry, portable sanitary facilities. Mitchell All right. The findings of fact are in front of you. Parks And we’re not ready to vote on that one because they’re not ready to meet the commitments we insisted upon, so I move that we continue the discussion of those until they conform with what we had agreed in our meeting on November 22. Postlethwait I agree. Mitchell I don’t think we need to vote on that, we just continue it. Drake Thank you. We’ll go back to Mr. Melton consistent with those discussions. The next item is Morning Dove. We have or we did receive commitments from Morning Dove at the end of last week. Those have been reworked and they are not ready for your review yet. I anticipate them being brought to you at your next meeting. Mitchell Those will be carried forward to the next meeting also. Is there anything else to come before the Board? Hearing none and all the items on the agenda being taken care of and handled we are adjourned. 9