Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 1 of 8 Town of Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 Pledge of Allegiance was said and attendance was taken by the Secretary. Present: Larry Mitchell, Jay Parks, Steve Schanke Gregory Morical. Staff attending: Bryan Stumpf, Carol Sparks Drake, attorney. A quorum is present. Mitchell Thank you. The next item on the Agenda is Oath of Office for our new member. Stumpf Our new member is Mr. Greg Morical. Mitchell Okay. Stumpf Please raise your right hand. I, state your name, Morical Gregory Morical. Stumpf do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America, Morical do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America, Stumpf the Constitution of the State of Indiana, Morical the Constitution of the State of Indiana, Stumpf and the ordinances of the Town of Zionsville. Morical and the ordinances of the Town of Zionsville Indiana. Stumpf I will faithfully, honestly, and impartially discharge all my official duties Morical I will faithfully, honestly, and impartially discharge all my official duties Stumpf as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals for the Town of Zionsville, Indiana Morical as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals for the Town of Zionsville, Indiana Stumpf without malice and to the best of my skill and ability so help me God. Morical without malice and to the best of my skill and ability so help me God. Stumpf Thank you, welcome aboard. Morical Thank you. Mitchell Next item would be the approval of the January 24, 2012 meeting minutes. Schanke I looked through, they and they looked complete and accurate to my reading. 1 Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 2 of 8 Parks I have one correction to make on page 9. About halfway through there is a sentence that is incomplete which I was quoted as saying that we’re not ready to vote on one because they’re not ready to meet the, and it should say the commitments we insisted upon. Mitchell All right. Are there any other changes to the minutes? Hearing none, I entertain a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Parks So moved. Mitchell Is there a second? Schanke I second it. Mitchell Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay. Morical I abstain. Mitchell Mr. Morical is abstaining, so therefore I am voting also, so we have a three- member vote for that. Stumpf Okay. Mitchell Now we’re moving on to new business. How our meetings work is we allow the petitioners to speak first. The remonstrators speak second. The petitioners will have time to rebut anything the remonstrators may say and then the remonstrators will have a time limit. It’s 15 minutes for the petitioner, 15 minutes for remonstrators, 5 minutes for the petitioner again, and 5 minutes for any remonstrator. We are recording these proceedings, so anybody that comes up and speaks at the microphone we ask that you first state your name and address clearly into the microphone before speaking, so that way we can get it on record on how was speaking. We have a board Counsel that will advise us on legal matters and we have staff that will advise us on matters of our code and policy. We have one item on our Agenda tonight and that item is 2012-03-DSV. The address of the project is 4998 Turkey Foot Road. Would the petitioner please come forward and state your case? Cross Good evening. My name is Pat Cross and I’m the petitioner and Barry Smith who is both the architect and the contractor on the project will present the request. Mitchell Mr. Cross, could you please state your address? Cross My current address is 9437 Green Thread Drive. We own the property that you mentioned 4998 Turkey Foot Road. Mitchell Okay, thank you. Smith As Pat mentioned, I’m Barry Smith. I’m the architect on the job and we’re asking for a variance of design standards on both the house and an adjoining barn that 2 Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 3 of 8 have to do with the height of the buildings. The architectural design calls for a fairly steep pitched roof and that exceeds the current zoning standards. I have a couple of graphics here that I think would illustrate that. This is a front elevation of the house. It’s essentially a one-story building with a very steep pitched roof. The blue line is the height limitation. The orange line is what we’re requesting. As you’ll see the house is actually under the current standard, but it is so close that if we change a grade or do something here that we ask for a little additional space just as a safety margin because that could easily happen and we didn’t want to get the house completed and somebody measure it and say you’re 6” too tall. We have a barn that sits back from the house and it’s a little different there. The blue line again is the height restriction. The barn is also a one-story building with a very steeply pitched roof and it has a fairly good sized cupola on top, so the orange line is what we’re requesting and as you can see in the end elevation that really affects only a very small triangle of the roof and the cupola itself. Most design ordinances are written to provide exceptions to things like this, but in Zionsville it’s a little unclear, so to be safe we thought we should ask for that also. Mitchell The only thing I would ask is to state your address also and the reason we do that is for notifications. Smith All right. Again, my name is Barry Smith. My office is at 170 South Main in Zionsville. Mitchell Thank you. Are there questions for the petitioner? Schanke I have one. On the barn, accessory structure, sorry. How high is it from the ridge line to the top of the cupola? How much extra is that? Smith That’s about – Schanke Would probably be the ridge line on the right gable there. Smith This one here? Schanke Yes, yes. Smith Uh – Schanke It looks like about half the distance. Smith It’s about 8’, about 8’. Schanke Above. Smith Yes. Schanke And then the remainder is – Smith The remainder is this portion in here. Schanke And the cupola, yes, yes. Okay. Is that property fairly level or is there a fairly large grade change in it or? 3 Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 4 of 8 Smith There’s uh, on the entire property there’s quite a bit of grade change. In the immediate area of the house there’s uh, I don’t know, probably 6’, 6/8’ of angulation. Schanke I think there’s a drawing here. I’m just, I’m just thinking, you know, we do have these, these restrictions on the height and it looks like that’s gonna really stick out, well not really you won’t be able to, line of sight won’t be that much for it. Smith I would point out that this area was originally scheduled to have 26 houses on it and that’s been reduced to six, so I think that some of the or to three I’m sorry. So I think that has some bearing on the amount of open space and the lines of view and that sort of – Schanke Yes, this is just lot 3, I believe, a few months ago we, there were two others weren’t there? Smith Yes. Schanke Subdivided about three, three total. Mitchell Okay, Mr. Cross I understand that there was, has been some, uhm, information regarding the notification as required of the surrounding property owners and as I understand that you have gotten signatures from all your property, surrounding property owners that required notification, except for one. Cross Correct, there were 11 notices that were mailed by certified mail. Through a mixup they were not return receipt requested. We received receipts that we delivered to the office for 10 of those properties, uhm, the property owner was out of town on vacation for the last two weeks and just by chance called me. I had left a message for him and he called me this evening around 5 to say that they were back and that they had received the notice several weeks ago and that he’d be happy to sign a receipt, so I’m happy to obtain that receipt and deliver it to the Town. Mitchell Would it be acceptable for you to, for us if, so if the will of this Board is to approve the petition with the requirement that you obtained pending that requirement that you get that last signature. Cross That would be fine. Mitchell Okay, okay. Are there any remonstrators here tonight for this petition? Seeing none, staff do you have a report on this? Stumpf Yes, we reviewed the report and you’ll see in the staff report that was in your packets we find that we recommend approval of both of the variances that were identified here. We looked at a variety of factors. This is a six-acre lot that’s on it and it’s consistent with some of the heights of the homes that are in the surrounding area. Mitchell All right. Are there any additional questions for the petitioner or staff at this time? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Parks I would move that Docket #2012-03-DSV design standard variance to exceed the maximum height for both the primary and secondary accessory structures in the urban single family residential district for the property located at 4998 Turkey 4 Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 5 of 8 Foot Road be approved with the condition that the signature for the remaining neighbor be obtained as part of the file. Mitchell All right. The motion has been made. Is everybody clear on the motion? The motion has been made. Is there a second? Voice Second. Mitchell All right the motion has been properly made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Schanke I have another question, uhm, just on the address. The other lots will have a separate address. We’re just doing this for lot #1. Cross Correct. Mitchell All right. Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay, motion carries. Thank you. Cross Thank you. Mitchell The remaining items to be considered tonight. The first is the Letter of Engagement with Lewis and Kappes, our Board attorney that was provided in your packet. Are there any questions on that for me or for staff or for counselor? As you can see this is a Letter of Agreement that goes to both the Zionsville Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. Morical I’ve got a couple of quick questions if that’s all right. Carol, how does this track with the fees that you guys charged for 2011? Drake In 2011 my recollection is our fees were $30,000 and our time expended was approximately equivalent to $62,000. Morical Okay, thank you. Mitchell Are there any further questions? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to approve the Letter of Engagement. Parks I would move the, that the Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals engages the firm of Lewis and Kappes as their professional attorneys for this calendar year at the rate in the letter agreement that was submitted to us and that the Board Chair be empowered to sign on behalf of the Board for us. Mitchell Good motion. Is there a second of the motion? Morical Second. Mitchell A motion has been made and seconded, is there any further discussion? Schanke I was just going to may be amend it to the year 2012, but we can say this year, that’s okay. 5 Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 6 of 8 Mitchell I think “this year” was in the original motion. Schanke It was, right, right, right. I don’t think we need to further clarify that. Mitchell Okay, uh, no further discussion. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Group Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay, motion carries. All right. The next – Drake Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and the Board. I appreciate continuing to provide services on your behalf. Mitchell Okay, thank you. Thank you for your excellent counsel. Next item on the list. There’s three items, which will be our finding of facts and commitments, which were provided to you. These three items let the record reflect that our newest member is going to abstain from these because he was not involved with their decisions, so therefore all three of them will require all three remaining voting members to approve them, so that they pass. Let’s start with the first one which was Docket 2011-10-DSV Noah Grant’s findings and fact and commitments. Are there any questions for counselor or staff on that finding of fact? Schanke I went through it and reviewed it back with the minutes from the meeting and my recollection and it appears to have everything now. There are some restrictions in here that they’re agreeing to. If they do change their dinner hours they may have to come back to or they will have to come back to us showing where they’re going to, how they’re going to handle the parking, but it looks like what we talked about. I don’t see anything the matter with it. Mitchell Now do we have to vote on these? Drake Yes. Mitchell Yes, okay. Schanke I will make, I will make a motion that we accept the findings of fact on petition 2011-10-DSV as presented, we approve them as presented. Mitchell A motion has been made, is there a second? Parks Second. Mitchell Any further discussion, hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay, motion carries unanimously. The next item is 2011-14-SE Morning Dove finding of commitments. Are there any questions for staff or counsel on this? Schanke Again, I went back and reviewed it. If you recall the major issue at that time that the findings of fact or the CCR’s have something in it so that it remained a therapeutic riding stable and not a public stable and that if it was sold or 6 Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 7 of 8 transferred or somehow transferred to someone else they couldn’t open a public riding stable in the rural equestrian area. That’s all covered in, in infinite detail, perhaps not infinite, but that’s all covered in the findings of fact, so I again we’ll, well no, somebody else can. Mitchell No, go ahead please. Parks I just note that these are not findings of fact, but these are actual deed restrictions and commitments that we’re being asked to review and what is that we’re asked to actually approve or – Drake You are, you need to approve these similar to how you did at the Plan Commission. Parks Okay. Drake We are an author on behalf of the applicant or the petitioner, which they need you to also approve before they’re recorded. Parks Okay. Then I would move that we accept the offer of commitments that they have presented for us and agree that they should be incorporated into the deed as part of the commitments that they’ve made on developing the property. Mitchell All right, a motion has been made, is there a second? Schanke I’ll second that. Mitchell Is there any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay. Motion carries unanimously. Next item is Docket 2011-19-DSV Craig Melton findings of facts and commitments. Questions for counselor or staff? Schanke Again, if you’ll look at the minutes we just reviewed, uh, my primary concern was the wording of the initial statements or CCR’s that or conditions/restrictions where they said that the primary structure would be smaller than the barn and they specifically said that it would meet our zoning requirements and be larger that has been covered and our extensive discussion on portable sanitary facilities has been covered in details, no Port-A-Johns will be allowed on the site, so it looked complete to me and again this is just their presenting of their CCR’s for the properties, is that correct Carol? Drake Yes. Schanke So it will be the same as last time. Mitchell Yes and this one should also be noted that it will run with the land. Schanke That’s right. Mitchell We have a legal description attached and it will run with the land. All right. Are there any further discussions? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. 7 Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2012 Page 8 of 8 Schanke I will make a motion that we accept the commitments concerning petition #2011- 19-DSV as presented and approved, and yeah I guess we accept them if we approve them, so. Mitchell Thank you, motion has been made. Is there a second? Parks Second. Mitchell Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed, motion carries unanimously. Any other matters come before this Board? Seeing none, we are adjourned. 8