Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

MEETING RESULTS- ZIONSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS June 13, 2017 The Regular meeting of the Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals occurred Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 6:30 p.m. in the Bev Harves Room at Zionsville Town Hall, 1100 West Oak Street. The following items were discussed: I. Continuance Requests Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered None at this time II. Continued Business Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered Continued to July 11, 2017 – due to lack of supportable motion Petition for Development Standards variance in order to allow for two (2) integrated center signs (one permitted), which: Stonegate 6885 W Stonegate Drive 1) Exceeds allowed square footage 2017-10-DSV Signage (Common Areas T & U) 2) Exceeds allowed height 3) Is proposed to be installed zero (0) feet from the front yard setback all within the Stonegate subdivision in the Rural Professional Business Zoning District (PB). III. New Business Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered Approved, with commitments – 3 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards Variance to allow for: 1) an accessory structure to exist prior to a primary 2017-18-DSV R. Albers 401 W Pine Street 2) a driveway to encroach into the required minimum 5 foot side yard setback line when associated with new construction in the Residential Village Zoning District (RV). Approved – 3 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards Variance in order to provide for an addition to a single family home to: 2017-19-DSV L. Hackman 130 N Maple Street 1) Deviate from required side & aggregate side yard setbacks 2) Deviate from required rear yard setback in the Residential Village Zoning District (R-V). June 15, 2017  Approved – 3 in Favor, 0 Opposed 2017-21-SE B. Traylor 11001 E CR 100 North Petition for Special Exception to allow for a new residential building in an Agricultural Zoning District (AG). Approved – 3 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards Variance in order to 2017-22-DSV B. Traylor 11001 E CR 100 North provide for a new single family home on a lot which: 1) Deviates from the required 3:1 lot width to depth ratio in an Agricultural Zoning District (AG). Approved – 3 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards Variance in order to allow existing accessory structures to remain which: 2017-23-DSV P. Dykema 8225 E 550 South 1) Exceed the allowable accessory square footage & height in the Rural Low Density Single-Family Residential Zoning District (R-2). Respectfully Submitted: Wayne DeLong AICP Town of Zionsville Director of Planning and Economic Development June 15, 2017  Town of Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Pledge of Allegiance was said, and attendance was taken by the Secretary. Present: John Wolff, Julia Evinger, Steve Mundy. Greg Morical and Larry Jones were absent. Staff attending: Carol Sparks Drake, attorney; Wayne DeLong. A quorum is present. Wolff Good evening and welcome to the June 13, 2017 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. The first item on our Agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. All Pledge. Wolff The next item on our Agenda is attendance. DeLong Mr. Morical? DeLong Mr. Jones? DeLong Mr. Wolff? Wolff Present. DeLong Ms. Evinger? Evinger Present. DeLong Mr. Mundy? Mundy Present. Wolff And considering the fact that we are without Greg or Larry this evening, we probably need a motion for me to act as or someone to act as Chairman tonight, excuse me, so I would entertain a motion. Mundy I move that Mr. Wolff act as Chairman this evening. Evinger I second. Wolff Thank you. All those in favor? All Aye. Wolff Those opposed? All right. The next item on our Agenda is the approval of the May 9 meeting minutes, but as I reviewed them, I’m not sure we have the correct members present to do that task tonight, so let’s move on from that to item 4, which is continuance requests. Seeing none at this time we can move on to item 5, continued business, which is Docket #2017-10-DSV for the property at 6885 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 West Stonegate Drive. Would the petitioner please come forward and state their name and address for the record? C. Reitz Carol Reitz, 6250 Stonegate Lane, Zionsville. Wolff Thank you. And would you be willing to review your request tonight with us? We have heard this a couple of times and it has been continued, so please briefly review what you’re asking for tonight and also what the difference is for tonight that we may be seeing. C. Reitz Okay. I have a couple of things I’d like to give you. Wolff Sure. C. Reitz The reason why we’re here is because the professional business and the urban business within the subdivision of Stonegate are asking for permission to put a sign on 334, so that all of the businesses can have some street sign frontage out there or because the ones that are tucked back in, in the urban business it’s really difficult for people to find and also there, you know people just go by 334, and they don’t realize that there are things within the urban business area as well as the professional business area. So those were the reasons why we were asking for the signs for 334, and we’ve sent in several different designs, and this last one was one that you received, I think, two weeks ago or so, and it was approved by the Stonegate architectural committee, and their stamp is on the picture that I gave you plus the people that were there also signed off on the sign. Wolff Okay, thank you. C. Reitz The second set of things that, this was the urban business and this was the number of businesses that could possibly happen in the urban business area, and in the professional business, there’s also a section for professional business and the number of businesses there could be in the professional business area. Wolff And this is representing the number of potential – C. Reitz Yes, there are some already in place, but this is potentially what could be in right now. We have two buildings going up in the urban business area right now so. Wolff Currently. C. Reitz Currently. Wolff Okay. Page 2 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 C. Reitz They’re under construction. Wolff And have you seen the Staff Report? C. Reitz No. Wolff Okay. There are a couple of things that I have questions on. One being, I think it’s fairly straightforward, well actually I wonder if we should go over all these. Let’s start with the harder one. Currently, as I understand it, the sign is to be located on the property line, and Staff has recommended that it be pushed back at least a couple feet, so that it could be maintained without having to step on the neighbor’s property line. Would you be amenable to pushing the sign back 2 feet off of the property line, a distance of 24 inches, so that a mower could get through or a string trimmer or during the construction of the sign we wouldn’t have to, or the builder wouldn’t have to encroach on the neighbor’s property? C. Reitz It’s all without, it’s not really on the property line, the property line is the wall. Wolff I think I may have misspoke. It’s actually the right-of-way is what it’s on. C. Reitz Okay you’re, we could push it back a couple of feet from the right-of-way if that’s what you’re saying. Wolff You’d be amenable to 2 feet from the right-of-way? C. Reitz I think so. Ask my husband. Larry, is that all right? Yes. Wolff Okay. In addition, I’m going to review some of the Staff’s recommendations. It sounds like you haven’t seen this. C. Reitz I have not. Wolff So I think it’s probably good for the record for us to review these. C. Reitz No I have not. I have only been back from Florida for two days so. Wolff Okay, welcome back. C. Reitz Thank you. Wolff So, in fact, without trying to summarize this, I’m just going to read it. Staff is supportive of two freestanding signs at a reduced setback with allowance for height that is no greater than 8 feet in overall height with the condition that one, each sign structure be substantially compliant with the concept sign elevations attached to this report, I think this reflects that, which illustrates the utilization of stone and/or masonry components of the design. Two, that upon completion of the initial sign’s installation, the developers of Stonegate will cause the removal of all other wood frame sign structures, Page 3 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 including both the Hub sign and the Carolina Grill sign from the common areas, acreage parallel to Whitestown Parkway, so we would ask that any temporary signs be removed. C. Reitz Right. Wolff Are you amenable to that? C. Reitz Yes. Wolff That any existing temporary wood signs be removed with the – C. Reitz Yes. Wolff Thank you. Removal of those is to occur within 10 days of the passage of the Town’s final inspection of the initial proposed sign. Three, that all signs shall be at least 2 feet from the current right-of-way, we discussed that, of Whitestown Parkway. Four, that only tenants within Stonegate’s subdivision shall be permitted to have copy installed on contemplated freestanding signs, so only tenants of Stonegate can be -- C. Reitz Right. Wolff And five, that the timing of the installation of the eastern most sign shall be timed to the establishment of improvements to the 10.07 acre tract in the proximity of the contemplated sign. Are you agreeable to those? C. Reitz I’m not sure if you’re telling me that the acreage, which is not included in the Stonegate campus, that has to be done before we can place the second sign. Wolff Wayne, would you be willing to address #5? DeLong Certainly. That acreage is owned by, you know, a separate entity, which may or may not include agents that are owners of other portions of Stonegate. The acreage when designed, Beam Longest and Neff did the work of the drainage and other things that were, you know, contemplated. It’s not saying it’s an integrated center, but it certainly, it’s not absent of features that bring it into Stonegate. There’s a sub-street that is to the, touches the western boundary coming out of Stonegate. Certainly, if and when 7250 Whitestown Parkway comes in for development, it will be subject to conversations with the Plan Commission, ultimately because of the commitments that are executed against the entirety of Stonegate. If those commitments do not involve this parcel then there’s no relationship. The discussion of freestanding signage would occur at that time and given that Stonegate proper, in theory, would have two freestanding signs within a piece of right-of-way that’s, or frontage rather, that’s 500 feet, that may negatively impact a future conversation with the Plan Commission about any freestanding sign that’s for 7520 Whitestown Parkway. So just saying all that for the record. If the BZA is inclined to support both the signs without restricting the timing, Staff is certainly supportive of that; however, Stonegate having two Page 4 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 freestanding signs along the frontage, which may or may not be a part of Stonegate, meaning 7250 Whitestown Parkway, that’s going to be a future conversation. I’m just again repeating it might have a negative impact. Wolff Yeah. DeLong With the Plan Commission’s future conversations. Wolff Understood. C. Reitz Are you saying that the second sign, the one furthest to the east, should be placed on that other parcel? DeLong Not necessarily. C. Reitz I thought it was the plan that I have seen shows it within the Stonegate boundary lines. DeLong It is. C. Reitz Okay. DeLong I’m just saying that even though it’s represented tonight that this parcel, 7250 Whitestown Parkway, is not a part of Stonegate, the presence of two freestanding signs within Stonegate, when this area is developed out, and is integrated with Stonegate by infrastructure becoming an integrated center potentially, that may have negative repercussions in the future Plan Commission meeting directly related to future freestanding signs for 7250 Whitestown Parkway. C. Reitz Okay. DeLong But if that’s, as long as we’re very clear on the record, that’s something that maybe given up tonight, and Staff is certainly not in objection. Wolff So Staff maybe, if I could restate that, there’s two signs. If we approve two signs tonight without the understanding of commitment 5 or the execution of commitment 5, then potentially going forward when 7250 is developed, it may be looked upon negatively to add a third sign to that short of a distance, you know linear feet wise, on the road itself. DeLong That is correct. I mean, certainly, there’s no drawings or things to review tonight. There’s no filing, but certainly just – Wolff So your point was, the point of commitment 5 was, it is difficult to support that sign without understanding what happens to 7250? DeLong Correct. Wolff Okay, I understand, thank you. Thoughts on that? Page 5 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 C. Reitz I’m okay with that. Wolff You’re okay with commitment 5? C. Reitz Yes. Wolff Without the understanding of what happens to 7250? C. Reitz Right. Wolff Any other questions for the petitioner? Mundy Just for clarification, just the 10.07-acre tract that you’re referencing, the one you’re referring to now, is 7250? DeLong Correct. They’re one and the same. Mundy Okay. And that is not part of what you were here to represent, is that right? C. Reitz That’s correct. Mundy Okay. Evinger Is there an alternate location where that eastern most sign would be acceptable, if we were to approve both signs tonight, where it could be erected? DeLong The petitioner has put it at the most supportive location possible at the eastern most extent. Evinger Okay. C. Reitz That’s the furthest point. Wolff Yeah, and when I was reading the Staff recommendations, I discussed that only tenants within the Stonegate subdivision, I think we may want to discuss, I’m not sure the elementary school is a tenant of Stonegate subdivision, but I think the Staff, I think we would be supportive of allowing their signage. DeLong Correct. Wolff So. Page 6 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 C. Reitz We were told that it needed to be on there. Wolff Perfect. DeLong So we encouraged it. Wolff We agree, great. C. Reitz Great. Wolff Any other discussion? Are there any remonstrators tonight? Seeing none, Wayne, I think we’ll take the Staff Report. I know you’ve covered a lot of it or we have. DeLong I think collectively we have. Staff really does not have much more to offer. The petitioner is in agreement with the items identified in the Staff Report. Certainly, again, Staff would repeat that there’s no objection from Staff’s point of view to the installation of the two freestanding signs as requested this evening and not being time related to the language that’s in the Staff’s report. We still continue to repeat the same information related to the procedural note, which speaks to the recorded executed commitments related to this property. Certainly, the BZA’s counsel could speak to these items certainly in greater depth, and better than I, but in summary, in reviewing the recorded commitments, it’s Staff’s opinion that the commitments conflict with the signage as presented and as proposed. Certainly, the Board, if it’s supportive of the petition, Staff is certainly supportive of the petition. The petitioner is asking for the request this evening; however, this does not negate in our opinion, in Staff’s opinion, the presence of those commitments that were executed some years back. Those commitments would, in order to obtain a building permit and move forward, would be required to be modified by both the Town Council and the Plan Commission. That’s simply a matter that is defined by state statute, so we’re just repeating that this evening. We’ve met several times with the petitioner to discuss this, suggested if there were any additional questions that certainly they could revisit with, I believe, legal counsel that authored the commitments some years back if they were still practicing. I don’t know that, of course, and I don’t know if there’s any additional information related to that this evening, and certainly, again, if there’s any specific questions, maybe Carol has additional information above and beyond what I have shared. Wolff Carol, do you have any color to add to that? Drake Not really. Wayne has accurately described our discussions in that there are prior commitments that would need to be modified. Wolff Okay. Mrs. Reitz, are you familiar with that conversation? Page 7 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 C. Reitz Are you talking about the 5-foot commitment? L. Reitz __ Drake Sir – Wolff Would you mind coming to the microphone, so we can record you? L. Reitz The way the original commitments read there’s just one sign on 334, Oak Street or whatever you want to call it, and – C. Reitz Whitestown Parkway. L. Reitz Pardon? C. Reitz Whitestown Parkway. L. Reitz And that’s only 5 foot in size and consequently that’s certainly not adequate to service. We feel strongly that our attorney, Mike Cook, the intent you know, wasn’t communicated at this time that probably, we think, was communicated back at that time and, of course, in those commitments, the original commitments, we can have a 5-foot sign at each location of a business within the development. It allows that but, you know, as you can see from the two sheets we gave you for both professional business, which essentially is a commercial area. I mean it’s all business whereas back in the urban businesses, the mixed use area, and we have a concern that although we’re really not marketing our people or ones who have businesses in there, and so that we can continue to model the conception, which had been approved originally by Zionsville, I believe, as far as a mixed use, and so we’re concerned about, you know, not necessarily now, because it’s not totally built out in the business, since as far as in the urban business where it’s mixed use but, you know, we want to anticipate the future, too. Wolff Certainly. Would you mind stating your name for the record? L. Reitz Larry or Lawrence Reitz. Wolff And your address? L. Reitz 6250 Stonegate Lane. Wolff Thank you very much. I have not seen those previous commitments, and so I think what I’m hearing and I don’t speak lawyer, so I’ll turn to our legal counsel, is that there may be previous commitments that need to be addressed despite what we do tonight? Drake Yes, they are noted in Wayne’s report for information purposes. Wolff Okay. Page 8 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Drake Similar to the Staff Reports where he notes where the Indianapolis Airport is, etc. for the benefit of both the BZA as well as the applicant. Wolff Okay. Drake And that’s what we have found so far with respect to commitments. Wolff Okay, so this is the Staff providing us additional information that may be relevant, but we can still address this particular petition? Drake Yes, and also providing it to give the heads up to that – Wolff Yeah, to the petitioner. L. Reitz Something I failed to say was Mike Cook, the attorney who drew up the original commitments and all, he is out of town, and we tried very hard for the last two weeks trying to get him, in touch with him, so that we could communicate to you that intent, you know, what was originally intended with Boone County. DeLong And certainly Staff was not bringing this up to create a delay, or you know, find, you know, a mechanism to not be supportive. We have a Staff Report that is supportive of the project. This is a procedural issue. It’s a legal issue, and certainly if there’s information that Mr. Cook wants to provide to our office, we’re happy to review it. Certainly, we would want to find the easiest and the fastest path to get you what you’re looking for. L. Reitz Sure. DeLong But we also have to do it in a most defensible manner possible, and so, certainly, if there’s something that could be provided at a later date that’s why this is a procedural note and not a commitment or a condition. That way it can be lifted out, and taken away in the event that, hey, there’s a solution. Let’s work with that. C. Reitz Are these the commitments that you’re speaking of? Drake I believe so. Ordinance, yes. Wolff Any other questions or comments for the petitioner? Okay. Seeing none, I would entertain a motion. Mundy I move that Docket #2017-10-DSV, development standards variance, for the property located at 6885 West Stonegate Drive, which is the closest address to the common area, be approved as recommended by Staff and noted this evening. I assume that the Staff recommendations, which have been read into the record, is sufficient. Drake I recommend that your motion include a reference that you are incorporating those conditions into your motion. Page 9 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Mundy And how detailed would you like that to be? Drake If you just simply indicate the five conditions set forth in Staff’s recommendations are incorporated. Mundy All right, included within those the Staff recommendations – DeLong Mr. Mundy, just to clarify for the record, Staff is supportive of not adhering to the fifth item in this, but the petitioner agreed to it, which would require that the second sign not be installed until the 10.07 acre tract, which I have also referred to tonight as 7250 Whitestown Parkway, its installation would not occur until that property is improved. Mundy Which leaves point #5 intact. DeLong Exactly. C. Reitz Excuse me, I don’t understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that we can’t put the second sign in now? DeLong That’s what I’m trying to clarify for the record. Earlier you had indicated you were in agreement with #5, but yet your presentation was not in support of #5, so if you’re looking to install both signs right now or sometime once we work out this issue with the procedural note, we need for you to clarify that you’re supportive of conditions #1-4 in the Staff Report. C. Reitz Okay, I’m in support of conditions 1-4 in the Staff Report. Wolff And with the exclusion of condition 5 Staff has said this may create problems going forward with that additional, that 10.07 acres, because we have too many signs for that small area. You understand that if we exclude that condition 5 – C. Reitz Yes. Wolff We may be setting this up for that. C. Reitz Yes. Mundy Meaning that if a second sign is there it could be removed, or ordered removed at a later point, is that – DeLong It would not be ordered to be removed, it would just, it could potentially restrict future signage on 7250 Whitestown Parkway. Mundy All right. Drake You will have granted them the authority to have the second sign there. Page 10 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Mundy If we eliminate #5? Drake Yes. L. Reitz Yeah. Mundy All right, I will be more specific about the Staff recommendations that include points 1-4 as mentioned previously this evening. Is that sufficient, counsel? Drake Yes. Wolff Thank you. Is there a second? Hearing none, is there another motion? I think now might be an opportunity for me to discuss the fact that, which I probably should’ve brought up earlier, with only three members of the Board of Zoning Appeals present, a quorum of three is required, so without that the petition would be continued to another meeting. Is that correct, counsel? Drake That’s correct, but you would need a second even if you had five people here. Wolff Certainly. So, without a second, should I entertain another motion? I’m stuck here on this one. Drake If someone wants to make another motion. Otherwise, it’s continued to your next meeting. Wolff Is there an interest in making another motion? Hearing none, Docket 2017-10- DSV is continued to the July 11, 2017 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting. Thank you. C. Reitz Thank you. Wolff Moving on to item #6 on our Agenda, new business, Docket #2017-18-DSV for property at 401 West Pine Street. Would the petitioner please come forward and state your name and address for the record? Lantz Good evening my name is Lance Lantz. I am the Superintendent of the Streets and Stormwater Department for the Town of Zionsville. With me this evening is Gavin Merriman, Assistant Superintendent of the Stormwater Division, and we are here on behalf of the Town. Our offices are at 1075 Parkway Drive, right here in town, and we are here on behalf of the town representing Greg and Susan Albers, owners of the property known as 401 West Pine Street, seeking a variance to allow an accessory structure to exist prior to a primary structure and a driveway to encroach into a 5-foot side yard setback. Wolff Mr. Lantz, would you briefly describe why this is required or why this is necessary? Lantz Absolutely. As a summary and background of the request before you this evening, the Town over the past few years has been developing a very significant Page 11 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 drainage improvement project along the Fourth Street corridor essentially from Sycamore Street at the south, north to Pine Street. This is an area where about 75 percent of the storm water runoff from The Village ultimately ends up, and it is discharged to Eagle Creek. We have recently completed construction of Phase I and that southern block from Sycamore Street to Hawthorne Street, and we are currently in design in anticipation of construction yet this year of Phase II of the Fourth Street corridor from Hawthorne Street over to Pine Street. Now, anyone familiar with The Village will go, wait a minute Fourth Street doesn’t go between Hawthorne Street and Pine Street, but the drainage and old storm sewer pipes do. These pipes exist probably as a result of long ago private property owners putting in storm drainage when the area was under common ownership, but they do serve a common good for the community, and they are accepted as public infrastructure, so the nature of this corridor of the project pipes are weaving in, around, between homes and so obviously communication and coordination with the neighbors is very important in this project, and Mr. Merriman has done a yeoman’s job of engaging the area residents in this who for the most part stand to benefit greatly from the introduction of improved drainage and reduced flooding occasions. Now the Albers purchased their property based on certain conditions, and this project is going to change those conditions. There will be a new stormsewer proposed along their southern property line and that’s going to require the demolition of the existing detached garage structure, which is the sole structure on the property currently. To exacerbate impacts through the development of this project, we have discovered a previously unknown sanitary sewer main, which is further going to reduce, potentially, the ultimate use and enjoyment of the Albers’ property. Despite these new impediments, the Albers remain very supportive and cooperative in this project. They have, in fact, offered to use their lot as a staging area for the contractor who ultimately will build this project, so they can store their equipment and materials, and this potentially could save the town quite a bit of money on the project. They will, of course, be losing the use of the existing garage and are seeking to replace that with a much smaller structure than the current 900+ square foot with a no greater than 10 x 10, simply so they can keep some lawn implements in there and maintain the property until they ultimately reside there. The driveway that currently exists along the western edge of the property will be demolished or destroyed in the process of the construction of this project. So, we understand that your verdict and deliberation are not subjective and are driven by process, but we request that these unforeseen hardships of the owners be acknowledged, and certainly could not have reasonably been anticipated by either the Albers or anyone looking at this property at the time of their purchase, so we are requesting that these variances be granted as recommended in the Staff Report to restore the rights, use, and privileges of this property that will be lost as a result of this project. We thank you for your time this evening, and we’d be happy to entertain any questions or comments that you might have. Wolff Mr. Lantz did you provide, not to put you on the spot, but did you provide a timeline for this particular phase of the project or this particular area of construction? Page 12 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Lantz Yeah, we hope to have this under construction yet this year. The actual construction of the project might extend into next year. It’s somewhat seasonally constrained, but we want to lock in contractor pricing before the end of this year, so we are aggressively pushing this timeline. Wolff Any other questions for the petitioner? Evinger So I want to thank the Albers and thank you for your, that you’re on this project because obviously it seems like it is very complicated, and they’re being very gracious to be able to stage the equipment there. Lantz I feel a little bit disingenuous being a mouthpiece for this project because the gentleman to my left has done, as I said earlier, the yeoman’s job and a lot of leg work and coordination. These properties in the area stand to benefit greatly from this improved drainage, and we’re trying to minimize the impacts at each unique scenario to each property. Right now everyone’s playing very, very well in the same sandbox, and we hope to continue that. Wolff Speaking of which, are there any remonstrators here tonight? Seeing none, Wayne would you provide the Staff Report. DeLong Certainly. Staff is supportive of the petition. There are two requests here this evening. The first is to maintain some level of accessory use on the property prior to the installation of a primary dwelling. The second request is related to the setback associated with a driveway. The Village District is unique in that it’s the only residential district within the town that has a setback within the zoning ordinance related to driveways. What’s unique about this situation as described by Mr. Lantz, and Mr. Merriman’s you know commentary within the Staff Report, who worked with their office to get this to you this evening, is the property to the east also enjoys a reduced setback with the driveway, which has been there for some time. So, the neighborhood already enjoys some level of deviations, which we bring to your attention, and certainly this area was platted as the Fourth and Pine Estates, and the lot lines in between these common lots have moved around a little bit simply because of these unique characteristics. Finding additional infrastructure and other items that have caused the lot lines to move, as you can see the drawings, the lot lines, are no longer straight. They’ve been bent and curved to meet the needs of the owners, but again Staff is supportive of the petition as filed. We note language in the report, which is very, you know, certainly customary for the Board of Zoning Appeals, less than customary for the petitioner to see, but certainly we speak about a timeline for the construction of the new dwelling, and I don’t know if the Albers have articulated any sort of timing as to when they anticipate construction. Lantz If I may speak on their behalf, the answer was after the project has completed. I think this project may have thrown a little monkey wrench in their life plans. DeLong Okay. So the timeline of three years, which is what we put in the Staff Report, is more than adequate? Page 13 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Lantz It’s my understanding that would be more than adequate. Wolff Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Seeing or hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Evinger I move that Docket #2017-18-DSV, development standards variance, to allow for an accessory structure to exist prior to a primary and a driveway to encroach into the required 5-foot side yard setback line when the new home is constructed in the Residential Village Zoning District, RV, for the property located at 401 West Pine Street, be approved as filed, based upon the findings of fact, and as presented. Wolff As a procedural note, should we note the two commitments below that? Drake If you want to include the commitments as part of your motion, they should be noted. Evinger Okay, now amending to include the two commitments, do I need to read them or can we just--? Drake I think the two commitments that are recommended in the Staff Report be reduced to writing within 60 days. Evinger Okay. The two commitments in the Staff Report should be reduced to writing within 60 days. Wolff Thank you. Is there a second? Mundy Second. Wolff All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Wolff Those opposed? Motion carries. Lantz Thank you. Wolff Thank you very much. Moving on. Docket #2017-19-DSV, 130 North Maple Street. Would the petitioner please step forward, state their name and address for the record. Hackman My name is Lisa Hackman, and I’m at 935 Williamsburg Lane, Zionsville. Wolff Ms. Hackman will you please describe why you’re here in front of us tonight? Hackman Well, my addition got approved in March, but then the survey came in, and we were off 25 inches, and so we’re back for re-approval. Page 14 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Wolff Okay. As I understood it, the initial survey was done by an architect and now we’ve had some sort of outside surveyor or something that’s come back, and consequently the lines have moved? Hackman Well maybe, I don’t know. I thought it was just something that we already had in the, at Town Hall. That they kind of revered back to what they all have. You know, what they have in the office or whatever. I don’t think it was my architect, but maybe it was. I don’t know. Wolff Okay. Hackman I really don’t know. Wolff Somewhere along the line. But now that we have a formal survey in front of us, it has, okay. Hackman Yes. Wolff Okay, and could you please describe what you’re proposing for the property? Riddell So it’s the, trying to get approval for the side setback – Wolff Could you please state your – I’m sorry to interrupt. Riddell Oh yeah, sure. Wolff Name and address for me. Riddell Yeah my name’s Jenny Riddell, 7713 Imperial Eagle Drive. Wolff Thank you. Riddell Okay, so just a little bit of history, you know when she came back in March the things that got approved were the lot coverage, the side yard setbacks, and the rear yard, and the side aggregate setback, and the rear yard setback, and then accessory, something about accessory uses, which I don’t think is anything about what we’re doing today, but okay so I’m not sure if there actually was a survey first time around, but anyway, yeah, so then, but then, after all this stuff got accepted, then they wanted Lisa to get a survey. So she got the survey, and it was just, you know, I think the same. I think the lot was still the same size, but it like, almost like, shifted over a little bit. Okay, which then kind of changed the, I mean, I guess, before the side yard setbacks were 2 feet and 4 feet, 10 inches with a total side yard aggregate of 6 foot 10. Okay and now after the survey, it’s going to be instead of 2 feet on one side, it’s 2 feet 9 inches. Page 15 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 That got a little bit bigger, but then the other side got a little smaller. Instead of 4 feet 10, it’s 3 feet 8 inches and so instead of an aggregate of 6-10, it’s an aggregate of 6 feet, 5 inches, so it kind of only changed by 5 inches. The aggregate only changed by 5 inches. Wolff Correct. Riddell Yeah. Okay. Wolff So to be clear, if I may interrupt, the structure hasn’t changed from what we discussed at our previous meeting? Riddell Right. Wolff And consequently the lot hasn’t shrunk, but it has moved interestingly enough. Things happen. I get it. So, the lot coverage hasn’t changed. Riddell Correct. Wolff But when we approved the side yard setback and the rear set back, those numbers have deviated because of the adjusted survey. Riddell Right, right. Wolff Okay. Riddell Okay, so then, yeah so then the side yard setback and aggregate is part, you know one thing we’re asking for, and the other part was the rear yard I guess before was 15 feet, but then with the new survey somehow became 13 feet, 3 inches okay and that’s really from the garage that was already there when Lisa bought the property, so the garage that, you know, that was supposedly 15 feet, I guess was 15, you know. Wolff So the 13 feet, 3 that has come before us today is what it actually is right now if we went out to the property? Riddell Right, right. Wolff And so you’re going to do some renovations and that structure is not going to move? Riddell Right. That’s never even been. Yeah, that was there when she bought it, and that’s not being changed. It’s not moving anywhere right or being torn apart or changed or. Wolff Okay. So the setback that is there now is the setback that will be there after the renovations? Riddell Right. Page 16 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Wolff I don’t know if you recall this, do you recall having this one last time? Any additional questions for the petitioner? Mundy I think they’ve been, my questions were answered. It’s the same thing that was requested in April. It’s just that the lot now has changed dimensionally and positionally. Riddell Exactly, yes. Mundy And, I guess I didn’t understand until now that the garage is already, I guess, not at the setback that was anticipated, so. Wolff Thank you. Are there any remonstrators here tonight? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. You guys can have a seat. We’ll bring you back up for some questions. Fisher Good evening. Can you hear me? Wolff Certainly. Fisher My name is Robert Fisher. I live at 50 East Poplar Street in Zionsville. The easiest way for me to address my concern is off the sketch that the petitioner submitted for this hearing, and I assumed that you all had had this, and I’m hoping you do. Okay. My property is located at the top left corner of that drawing, 50 foot of it. So that garage that you’re looking at that is 2 foot, 9 inches off the property line, that’s my property line. Wolff One moment. And, I’m sorry, Mr. Fisher, can you, as I look at this sketch, can you, which side, where is your house located on this sketch? Fisher I’m sorry. I’m on the top left-hand corner of that sketch. Wolff Okay. Fisher 50 foot of it. 50 foot to the left of the sketch is Poplar Street. Wolff Okay. Now, I’m sorry to interrupt, thank you. Fisher Sorry. Wolff Please continue. Fisher On the first petition I didn’t have any concern. I didn’t show up. I didn’t make any statement. I saw all of this beforehand. It’s a nice house. It’s a nice addition and the addition, as you can see in the numbers that are scratched out, showed the new addition to be 7 foot off my property line. Now although that, if you add that to the 2 foot that they thought was on the other side, that’s 9 foot and not a 15 foot aggregate. I thought okay it’s 7 foot, it’s far enough away from me, so Page 17 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 let’s let it go. Well, now we come to find out that it’s not 7 foot off my property line, it’s 4 foot, 11 inches off my property line. And that is the singular reason I’m here. I think given the size of the lot, the fact that 4 foot, 11 does not adhere to the ordinance of 5 foot, and the fact that the side setback in total is not per ordinance, I just think the structure should be pushed and centered toward the middle of her property. Wolff Mr. Fisher, as I look at the drawing, and you’re going to be much more familiar with it than I am, but the top of the structure of the drawing, that 476.53 square feet, do you see that label there, is that on your drawing? I believe it’s the garage. Fisher I don’t see the square feet. I saw it somewhere, but not on one of – Wolff Her garage. Fisher Oh yes, yes, I’m sorry, the garage, 476.53 yes. Wolff Yep, okay and that is there today, correct? Fisher Yes and it’s not going anywhere. Wolff And that, directly adjacent to that is your property, correct, so if we were to go out to the garage and take a left -- Fisher That’s adjacent to my property. Wolff Okay. Fisher It’s not going anywhere and nothing’s going to change that. It’s 2 foot 9 off my property line, and nobody’s going to do anything about that. That’s the way it is. Wolff But the new structure is what you’re concerned with, which is not as close as that existing structure. Fisher It is not as close as 2 foot, 9, that is proposed to be 4 foot, 11. Wolff Okay. Fisher Yes, sir. Wolff Okay. Wayne, sometimes I can get lost in the weeds, and just for a moment of clarity, what is the actual setback that should be on that particular property line? DeLong The minimum ordinance setback is 5 feet, aggregate of 15. The ordinance does allow for 2 foot lateral encroachments into a rear or side yard setback, so you could see a structure as close as 3 feet to a side or rear or side lot line in The Village District. Page 18 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Wolff Thank you for the clarity. So okay, Mr. Fisher, I think I understand your concern. It sounds like it’s, I don’t mean to minimize it, but it’s an inch, correct at 4 feet, 11? The side yard setback is 5 feet. Fisher Yes. Wolff Okay. Fisher 4 foot, 11 is less than 5 feet, right? Wolff I think so. I went to public schools though so. Okay. Fisher I thought about how silly it would be to show up for 1 inch and then just for the fun of it I decided to multiply 1 inch times 100 foot and I found out that was 8 square feet and it’s all of a sudden it’s not an inch anymore. It’s 8 feet. Wolff Are there any other questions for Mr. Fisher? Mundy Mr. Fisher, your property faces Poplar, is that correct? Fisher Yes sir, I’m on Poplar. Mundy And do you have a neighbor immediately to your east also facing Poplar? Fisher Oh my neighbor – Mundy I think at the corner. Fisher My neighbor’s on the corner of Maple and Poplar. Mundy And I’m not sure, but it almost appears to me that the addition that’s being proposed, which would be 4 feet, 11 inches is really adjacent to your neighbor. Fisher The 4 foot, 11 would affect my neighbor also, yes sir. Mundy Is your neighbor here? Fisher No sir. Wolff Mr. Fisher, and I’m, the petitioner is required to notice all the neighbors. Do you happen to know, I want to clarify and make sure that neighbor was noticed. Do you know the name of that neighbor, the last name, if you don’t – Fisher I’m sorry sir, I don’t. Wolff Okay. Any other questions for the remonstrator? Seeing none, Mr. Fisher thank you for participating tonight. I’m going to give the petitioners a chance to come back and answer some of your thoughts or concerns. Page 19 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Fisher Yes. Okay, thank you very much. Wolff Thank you. Fisher Thanks for your time. Wolff Ms. Hackman, would you mind coming back forward? Thank you. You both. Okay, as you heard your neighbor is concerned about the feasibility or that structure being too close to his property line. What is the feasibility of moving that structure 1 inch? Hackman It just doesn’t make any sense to me to do all this work that I’ve been working for, you know, got okayed already in March, and paid out to everybody to pour, I mean you know to dig and whatever and to pay for an architect for 1 inch. I mean – Wolff So it’s not very feasible? Hackman You know, it’s not too feasible to me. I mean I think it’s, it’s his concern and I understand that, but I don’t think even if I did it he would be able to see a difference in 1 inch. I just don’t think he would be able to see it. I want to get along. Wolff Certainly. Hackman You know. But all the work that’s been done and if we change it for him I wouldn’t mind, but I just don’t, with all the things that are negative towards it, it’s just too much work for 1 inch, which I don’t believe that he’ll be able to see the difference. Wolff Okay. Any other questions for the petitioner before the Staff Report? Mundy Is that the screened porch? Is that the portion of – Hackman Screened porch and my bedroom. Mundy And it appears there’s a little portion that sticks out – Hackman Oh, the screened porch sticks out further than the bedroom, which again would affect that other neighbor more. Wolff More of the corner lot. Hackman More of the corner, the whole thing affects the corner lot more. Wolff Okay. Riddell I didn’t even think it was his lot that was even affected by it or am I not seeing that right. Page 20 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Wolff It looks as the, the exhibit we have it does look like he certainly does share a property line. Riddell Okay. Wolff That’s Exhibit 2 I’m referring to. Thank you. Any other questions for the petitioner? Evinger Just a question to clarify, so they had started moving dirt. Have you, you’ve already started the process? Hackman Yeah, we dug out when we got the okay March 14. We started digging and then somewhat later, not that much later, the survey came in and they halted it and said I’d have to come back tonight, so you know we’ve waited, we’ve dug, we’ve done what everybody told us to do along the way, and for one reason or another you know it was, you know the survey screwed us up, so here we are. Evinger Thank you. Wolff Wayne, could you provide the Staff Report? DeLong Certainly, certainly provide the Staff Report and some additional background clarity. I certainly appreciate Ms. Hackman’s information this evening. It really helps, you know, describe the situation. Certainly, what you saw back in March was a petition based upon an exhibit as provided by a licensed architect, Exhibit 4, and other pieces behind that exhibit are all provided by that same individual. It’s very clear from the font and the typing. It’s all the same document. It’s something that was provided to us as part of the petition packet in March. Certainly, it’s always a suggestion of our department that the petitioner secure a licensed land surveyor to prepare a drawing based upon title work and other things that a surveyor will follow related to preparation of that type of document. That was not available to the Staff. Certainly Staff is not going to object to receiving information as best the petitioner wants to rely on that information, and that was the information that was presented and approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Certainly, the petitioner then moved forward and secured the appropriate permits for both the addition, and the entry renovations. At some point in time in the survey that’s in your packet that’s dated April 17, the petitioner brought that to our office. I don’t believe it was solicited, but certainly it was certainly encouraged, but we certainly applaud the petitioner for bringing it to our attention that, in fact, the survey had information that was different than what was on the drawings that were provided with the original filing. Since the petitioner had started work they were at a very, you know, fortunate time that they had not, as Ms. Hackman, the petitioner, has indicated this evening, they had commenced with digging of the footings, but they had not poured the concrete, and so luckily they were able to stop work in order to allow this action to happen again. This without being brought to our attention would not be in front of you this evening, so again applaud Ms. Hackman for her efforts to correct the Page 21 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 situation. So what’s in front of you this evening is two particular requests related to setbacks. Staff is generally supportive, and tonight again as well, requests that, that are requesting setbacks that they already established on the property, and in fact, what the additions that are in front of you this evening for discussion are requests that are less than, they’re additions that are less than the setback that the other portions of the property enjoy, and I do want to point out that the ordinance would allow the expansion of the existing garage at the existing setback, so while, you know, the remonstrator had, you know, concerns about the 4 feet, 11 inches, the ordinance actually would allow an expansion of the garage along the nonconforming setback, which would be a greater impact as this testimony was focused on that rather than the addition that’s requested this evening and was approved under different dimensions at a prior meeting. So, certainly pointing all that out this evening, again thanking Ms. Hackman for her information tonight, and clarity for you all, and again Staff is supportive of the petition as filed, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Wolff Thank you. Any questions for the Staff? Mundy Testing my memory. My recollection is we had some neighbors who were supportive of this when it was first presented to us several months ago. Having driven by, it would make a substantial improvement to the neighborhood, and while I don’t want to diminish Mr. Fisher’s concern about the encroachment on what would be your backyard setback, but their side yard setback, I think there was such strong neighborhood support, and I guess, testing my memory is, is this one where we had neighbors that were supportive I think of the project several months ago? It would seem to me that this is, the gain is much greater than the loss in my opinion. DeLong That’s correct. There were letters to the original file that were in support of the request. I think there was even testimony from support at that meeting. Wolff Thank you. Any additional questions or comments? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Mundy I move Docket 2017-19-DSV, design standard variance, to provide for an addition to a single family home to: 1) deviate from the required side and aggregate side yard setbacks and; 2) deviate from the required rear yard setback, as illustrated in the materials we’ve received, in the RV, Residential Village Zone District for the property located at 130 North Maple Street be approved as filed. Wolff Is there a second? Evinger Second. Wolff All those in favor please – Drake Just for clarification, are you also approving the findings of fact? Page 22 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Mundy To include the findings of fact, approval of findings of fact. Drake Thank you. Wolff Is there a second? Evinger Second. Wolff All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Wolff Those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Hackman Thank you, I appreciate it. Wolff Next for tonight is petition #2017-21-SE for the property of 11001 East County Road 100 North. Would the petitioner please step forward and state your name and address for the record? Price Yes, Mr. Chairman, my name is Matt Price with the Bingham Law Firm with an address of 10 West Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. I’m here tonight on behalf of Bryan and Lindsay Traylor. Lindsay Traylor is with me here this evening. Bryan is out of town at a conference. We have a petition here that would allow the Traylors to build a two-story home on an approximately 8.39 acre parcel that’s on County Road 100, about a mile east of US 421 in what is former Union Township area. The first petition relates to a special exception, which is required for the property because the proposal is for a dwelling in an agricultural district. The zoning district contemplates that there will be dwellings in the AG district, but it provides a mechanism to assure that it’s done so in a harmonious way and in a way where the homeowner acknowledges a right-to- farm, which they’re prepared to do as part of this application here this evening. We feel that the Staff Report is right on target as far as acknowledging that the proposal is harmonious with the existing land development pattern in the vicinity, and believe it would not injure any adjoining property owner, and for those reasons believe that the special exception warrants approval this evening. Lindsay and I would be available to answer any questions that you have, and we would respectively ask for your approval on that petition. Thank you. Wolff Thank you, Mr. Price. And, I would make a note that we are going to treat these two requests separately, so yeah you’ve addressed the appropriate one. Thank you. And you also mentioned the right-to-farm. This also may be subject to proximity to the airport and you’re aware of that and all those things? Price Yes, we noted that. That was noted in the Staff Report as a courtesy, and Bryan and Lindsay are very familiar with the area, and are aware of that proximity. Wolff Okay. And do your, I guess I’m just trying to get my hands around all of this. Do your clients currently own this property? Page 23 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Price They do, yes. Wolff Okay. And do they also own the property in front of it? Price Well the property to the north is owned by a different family. Mrs. Traylor’s mother owns property to the east, directly to the east. Wolff Okay. Got it. Thank you. Any additional questions for the petitioner? Evinger I’ve got just a couple. So looking at this, for the parent tract, so this would become three parcels then from the parent tract because it’s still a minor plat basically? Price No, it’s just one property division. The one in the northwest corner there, the square. Evinger And then the second one is carved off though where their property would go. They don’t own the whole portion. They just own what’s outlined in black? Price They own what’s outlined in black. That’s correct. Evinger So then again, the parent parcel is originally this parcel? Price The parent parcel? No. The parent parcel is the property immediately east, and it wraps around to the south. It did not include Mr. Harmon’s property to the northwest corner there. Evinger Okay. All right. Because my question is just how many more times this property could be divided before creating a major plat, and, too, just because this is giving the appearance of a little bit of a flag lot, is the intention to do another, are you going to continue to carve this up or what’s the intention? Price No, the intention is just for this to be a single family home site just for Bryan and Lindsay’s home. Not for any further division. Evinger Okay. Price And you’re correct, any further division would require a subdivision approval before the Plan Commission. This division was done just by right because there had not been any prior divisions. Evinger Okay. And then one more question, too. Just, have you thought about placement? Are you going to end up in the flood plain or would you be able to build your house outside the flood plain? Price They are able to build their house outside the flood plain. What the map does not show is that the, if you come back from County Road 100 North past the Harmon Page 24 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 property in the northwest, there’s essentially a rise there south of the Harmon property that’s very suitable for a dwelling. Evinger Okay thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. Price Sure. Wolff Any other questions for the petitioner? Seeing none, are there any remonstrators tonight? Seeing none, Wayne could you provide the Staff Report, please? DeLong Thank you. Staff is supportive of the special exception petition as filed and in the Staff recommendation we actually reference an incorrect petition number. That petition number should be 2017-21-SE. Certainly, the items as noted in the report, and certainly the items as noted by the Board and the petitioner are all items that are certainly relevant to the discussion, either with this petition or the related variance petition. First and foremost is the right-to-farm, and that would be a document our office would put together related to acknowledging the agricultural uses as indicated this evening. The information related to the presence of the floodway, uniquely the surveyor is referencing the prior maps, flood maps, the farm maps. Those maps were amended in January 2012, so it’s certainly at the time of seeking a building permit they’ll want to reference the more accurate information that’s from 2012, and other than that, again Staff is recommending approval of the file or approval of the petition. I’d be happy to answer any questions. Wolff Thank you. Any questions for the Staff? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion. Drake Just before the motion, counsel, would you clarify in your findings of fact, finding #4, that those findings are to say will not, please. Price Which finding now? Drake #4 in your box. Council #4 in my box. Oh I’m sorry. Yeah, will not. Yeah. Drake Thank you. Price Sure. Wolff Thank you, counsel. You reminded me of that earlier, and I forgot. Any further discussion? I would entertain a motion. Evinger I move that Docket #2017-21-SE, special exception, petition in the Agricultural District for the property located be approved based upon the Staff Report and proposed findings as presented and that the petitioner will execute the right-to- farm acknowledgment document. Did I miss anything? Page 25 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Wolff No. I think for record the property is 11001 East County Road 100 North. Is there a second? Mundy Second. Wolff All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Wolff Those opposed? Motion carries. Price Thank you. Wolff Don’t go far. Price I’ll stay put. Wolff Next on our Agenda is Docket #2017-22-DSV, design standards variance, located at the property 11001 East County Road 100 North. Would the petitioner please restate your name and address for the record. Price Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record my name is Matt Price with the Bingham Law Firm, 10 West Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana here tonight on behalf of Bryan and Lindsay Traylor. This is the companion petition to the one just heard. This is a variance of development standards to permit deviation from the lot width to depth ratio requirement in Zionsville’s Zoning Ordinance. The standard requires a maximum width to depth ratio of 3 to 1. The proposed ratio is slightly over 4 to 1. A couple of things to point out that we think support the variance in this case. One, being that the property is somewhat confined, both to the east and to the west. The property, the natural contours, allow for it to be developed in a way that at the current configuration will allow for separation from the property owner to the west, and then perhaps most importantly the property does provide for 200 feet of frontage, which is more than four times the minimum amount of road frontage required for a lot in this district, and so for those reasons, and for the reason that this will help preserve the agricultural uses to the east, we believe that the variance is warranted, and that it will not be injurious to any neighboring property owner, and will, in fact, promote a development that’s orderly and harmonious with the surrounding community. For those reasons, we’d ask for your approval of the variance, and be happy to answer any questions you have. Wolff Thank you, Mr. Price. Any questions for the petitioner? I think your point is well made that it is 200 feet of frontage, which doesn’t really bring to mind a flag-shaped lot by definition, yes. I’m sorry, did you guys have any additional questions? Seeing none, is there anyone here to remonstrate tonight? Seeing none, Staff would you please provide the report? DeLong Yes, again Staff is supportive of the petition as filed. Certainly, again repeating a few items from the last matter are certainly relevant, so in particular, the Page 26 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 floodway designation on the survey drawing. Specific to the subdivision of any piece of ground in the rural area, by right a party can subdivide a parent tract if you will one time as long as that parent tract was created prior to January of 1999, and that is the case here, and once those two new deeds are recorded, if you will, it resets the clock and no further subdivision can happen by right. It would all require, as Mr. Price indicated, a visit with the Plan Commission, and other subsequent approvals tied to that. So, we’re not seeing an establishment of a future land use pattern. Certainly, the dimensions of the lot, again it is indicated the frontage is well in excess of the minimums, the parcel, its unique location on the western extent of the tillable acreage, and then the eastern extended tillable acreage or western extended tillable acreage rather, and then the presence of the floodway, you know, does impact the buildable area of the parcel somewhat. Again, Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Wolff Thank you. Any questions for the Staff? Seeing or hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Mundy I move Docket 2017-22-DSV, design standards variance petition in order to provide for a new single family home on a lot which deviates from the required 3 to 1 lot width to depth ratio in the Agricultural Zoning District be approved. Wolff Would you be amenable to it being approved based on the findings and based on the Staff Report and presentation? Mundy Yes, based on finding of fact and the Staff recommendation. Wolff Thank you. Is there a second? Evinger Second. Wolff All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Wolff Those opposed? Motion carries. Price Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Wolff Good luck with your new house. Last, but certainly not least, petition Docket #2017-23-DSV for the property of 8225 East 550 South. Would the petitioner please come forward and state your name and address for the record? Andreoli The petitioner is forward. My name is Mike Andreoli, 1393 West Oak Street here in Zionsville. I’m representing Peter and Leigh Dykema. The Dykemas purchased 19+ acres or thereabouts almost 30 years ago from Sylvester Johnson and his wife, and they’ve lived in that property all this period of time. The improvements that are currently on the property, and some of the old charming, you know, stalls and barns and various out structures there have been on the Page 27 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 property since they bought it. They have not been modified or torn down or anything of that nature. The Dykemas are moving to Montana, and this is an R-2 property. They were able to go ahead and sell off, and split off two lots, one where their existing residence is along with the accessory uses and structures and then a pasture. Their property is 11+ acres, and then the balance is 8+ acres that they’re selling to another individual. The people that are buying the Dykemas’ home want to keep the older accessory uses there. Not from the standpoint that they’re necessarily usable, just from the charm standpoint, and the fact that historically they’ve been on the property for many, many, many years, and in essence, when the Dykemas indicated that they were going to move forward with this in checking with Chrissy, who was most helpful to them, they were made aware of the fact that some of their accessory structures exceeded, in terms of square footage, their residential structures, and as you’ll see in the Staff Report, it’s approximately 520 or thereabout feet, so it’s not a substantial amount, but it is exceeding that particular square footage of the residential and requires a variance to be able to go ahead and get approval for that. So, it’s nothing more elaborate than that. They don’t have to plat these lots. Each lot will be a minimum of 5 acres, so there’s no platting required of it. Both of them have frontages. We can’t anticipate any other variances that would be necessary. A lot of frontage on 550 for both of these lots, and as I said, if anything occurs with some of these accessory structures as they continue to age and get older, the people may take them down, and they will be made aware of the fact that if they seek to add any additional structures they are going to have to come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals to get further variances because they will have exceeded that, but the Dykemas just felt like if they’re going to sell the property to them, rather than make that their responsibility to come in, they’ll be upfront with them, and get approvals for this if in your good offices you feel they should be approved, and that way when they sell the property they have a clear conscious, and they can move on. I’m sorry to see them leaving the Zionsville area after so many years, but Montana is not a bad second best arrangement, I guess, so. I’d be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Dykema is in the audience as well if you have any questions of him. Thank you. Wolff Just for clarification Mr. Andreoli, the property was 20 acres? Andreoli Pardon me? Wolff It was 20 acres and it was divided up into approximately 8 and some change, and 11 and some change, correct? Andreoli Yeah, it was roughly 19 acres and you had 11+ that they’ve decided to split with their house, and all the accessory structures on them. The rest have no structures on it at all, the other 8 acres. It’s just pasture land, so they’re selling both of those, but their property, the 11 acres, has all of the accessory structures on them. Many of them are in back of the property. There’s not many close to the road, and again, it’s a fairly substantial size being so close to Zionsville with 11 acres, so it’s well maintained throughout the property, and I think we even had an exhibit with our packet that kind of showed where the location of these structures, some small, some a little bit larger, and then also a barn. Thank you. Page 28 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Wolff And the math is such that the residential square footage is approximately 3,508, and the accessory structures square footage is approximately 3,999? Andreoli Well I think with the help of Chrissy we did some additional figuring, and I think the Staff Report shows the living space, as some of these things are taken out, and even after all these years of doing it, I have to sit down with Chrissy, and go through the actual numbers. The square footage of the single family dwelling is 3,100 and the roof structures of the accessory uses are 3631. That gives us a difference of 500 and some. Wolff And the petitioner’s okay with those numbers? Andreoli Pardon? Wolff The petitioner, your client, is okay with those numbers? Andreoli Yes, yeah. In fact, we may have even submitted an additional narrative on that after we worked through that with Chrissy. May or may not have made it into your packet, but those numbers that are in the Staff Report are accurate numbers. Wolff Thank you. Any other questions for the petitioner? Evinger Everything on the 11-acre tract then there’s nothing that’s encroaching on the 8 acres? Andreoli I’m sorry? Evinger There’s nothing that’s encroaching from the 11-acre parcel on the 8-acre parcel. They’re clearly defined. There’s nothing that’s like crossing the property line now that the – Andreoli They’re obviously right next to each other. Maybe I didn’t understand your question. I apologize. Evinger I’m asking if any of the structures are encroaching on the other property now that you’ve divided the two properties, two tracts. Andreoli Yes. Evinger Is there anything that’s like straddling a line? Andreoli No, there won’t be any setback issues or anything like that, and that was one of the things we looked at in terms of where they were located. There won’t be any setback issues between the two properties. So we really don’t think that this is going to require any other variances, and the thing that I looked at was road frontage issues and those types of things as well as where this property line was located to make sure that there weren’t any further setback issues because if Page 29 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 we’re going to do that, we come in to ask for whatever we needed. Now, we didn’t think that was going to be necessary where these existing structures are. Evinger And as a follow-up, are any of these structures that are currently in place something that’s deteriorating that may be pulled down in the next year? Andreoli I’m sorry? Evinger Are any of the structures, the accessory structures, is there anything that may be pulled down in the next year due to age or deterioration? Andreoli The structures? Evinger Yes. Andreoli There very well might be, and when I inquired of the Dykemas about whether they might be able to just remove some of them now, the actual new prospective owners, they actually have a buyer and a purchase agreement, they wanted those structures to remain due to the historic nature, and what they look, they were looking for that experience, and you know, eventually I think what’s going to happen, no matter how well built, things tend to age or they may have different ideas of what they should look like, and maybe they’ll take them down, at least smaller ones be taken down, but right now they wanted everything to remain in that condition because it was charming, and they just like the look of it, so. Evinger I have a question for Staff. Wayne, for the patio when we looked at some of our other subdivisions that have come before us recently, and we look at some of the other subdivisions and nearby communities, patios are not necessarily included in the square footage, if the patio were to be removed that would bring them almost into conforming wouldn’t it, 780 square feet, we’re looking at a 500-foot difference? DeLong If the patio were to be removed? Evinger Well, if the patio were not to be included. DeLong Right. Evinger As we’ve granted other variances in the past. DeLong Correct. Yeah, I would feel comfortable in saying that, you know, we have a zoning ordinance that identifies many things as counting towards lot coverage, and the time is sooner rather than later to make some modifications to relax that language which would actually be helpful, so I wouldn’t really be too concerned. I’d like to think that we’ll work this out in the near future. Evinger Okay, thank you. Page 30 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Andreoli I could tell you that in looking at these things, the more detail you can provide for some of these calculations on how they’re done, will make it a lot easier when we try to do it, and not take up as much of Chrissy’s time when we have to go in and look at it all. We provide property records and all kinds of things with regard to dimensions. Sometimes they’re not entirely accurate, and it can become a little bit of a chore to try to make sure we’ve got the right numbers from time to time. Wolff Thank you. Any other questions for the petitioner? Seeing none, is there anyone here to remonstrate against tonight or for? I’m guessing no. With that, Wayne would you be willing to provide the Staff Report? DeLong Yes. Certainly, the detail provided by petitioner is a good summary of the matter that’s in front of you. Staff is supportive of the petition. Certainly, in looking at the lay of the land, if you will, in Exhibit 2, this may be the most unique area of the Town of Zionsville when it comes to land use patterns, and the simple fact that the petitioner is requesting to take 20 acres, and basically split it in half is rather subtle compared to some other choices that have been made through the years. So, certainly that editorial aside, again Staff is supportive of the petition as filed, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Wolff Thank you. It does appear to be a bit of a wild, wild west. Any questions for the Staff? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Evinger I move that Docket 2017-23-DSV, design standards variance in order to allow existing accessory structures to remain, which exceed the allowable accessory square footage and height, being 3,631 square feet of existing roofed accessory structures in association with a 3,110 square foot existing dwelling, be approved as filed based on the findings of fact. Wolff Thank you. Is there a second? Mundy Second. Wolff All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Wolff Those opposed? Motion carries. Andreoli Thank you very much for your time. Wolff Mr. Andreoli, thank you for your patience. Counselor do we need to do anything else on the record? Drake I would just offer an update on some of the commitments. On the Coyote Lake commitments, those have been signed, and as of yesterday, they were going to be recorded soon. On the C. Hams commitments, if you’ll recall that was the recognition of being in an industrial area, those have been recorded. The Beazer Page 31 of 32 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 13, 2017 Home Hampshire subdivision commitments, I have emailed counsel multiple times, and received no response, and the remaining commitments I do not know the status of. DeLong Right, the matters with the Estridge Homes amending its plat, and the Fischer Homes amending its plat, both plats known as Oxford Woods and Ansley Park. We are not aware of actions being taken to follow through with the requirements of the Board of Zoning Appeals. To the contrary, the Ansley Park signage that indicated Fischer Homes was to be locating in that neighborhood is now missing from the property, and the entrance to the neighborhood is blocked off with barrels. As far as Oxford Woods, the petitioner in that matter has not been able to finalize conversations with the owner of Oxford Woods to move forward with an amended plat, assuming we remain optimistic that something will be worked out. Wolff And the C. Hammes docket was the one with the right to industrial. The Town and Staff created a document, I believe, Larry, Mr. Jones, defined it as sort of a right-to-farm, but a right-to-industrial and that was – DeLong Staff did put one together. It did take, you know, a little bit of time to make sure it was done in a format that could be recorded without too much resistance from the County Recorder’s office because they do have several standards related to layout, and I want to say that we’ve already had a second matter that’s been either filed or to be filed that will be almost the exact same format where the party is looking to maintain a dwelling on an industrially zoned piece of property, and the lender is commenting, and will most likely force some sort of matter to be filed and discussed at a future date. Wolff With no additional business, the June 13, 2017 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting is adjourned. Page 32 of 32