Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

MEETING RESULTS - ZIONSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APRIL 10, 2018 The Regular meeting of the Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals occurred Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. in the Zionsville Town Hall Room 105, 1100 West Oak Street, Zionsville, Indiana. The following items were discussed: I. Continuance Requests Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered None II. New Business Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered Continued to May 9, 2018 - 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards Variance, to provide for ZCS Wireless the construction of a 125’ wireless communications tower 2018-05-DSV Telecommunication 4400 South 875 East which would: Structure 1) Exceed the allowable height in the Special Use Zoning District (SU-1). Continued to May 9, 2018 - 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed ZCS Wireless Petition for Special Exception to allow for the construction of 2018-06-SE Telecommunication 4400 South 875 East a 125’ wireless communications tower in the Special Use Structure Zoning District (SU-1). Continued to May 9, 2018 - 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to 2018-07-DSV S. Herron 955 W Oak Street provide for the construction of a detached garage which: 1) Exceeds the allowable accessory square footage in the Urban Residential Village Zoning District (R-V). Continued to May 9, 2018 - 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to B & D Homes First 640 & 650 Mulberry provide for construction of single family homes which: 2018-08-DSV Addition Street 1) Are not connected to public water 2) Deviate from the minimum road frontage – Lot 3 only in the Urban Residential Single Family Zoning District (R-SF-2). April 12, 2018  Approved – 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to provide for or permit single family homes which: 2018-09-DSV Estridge Homes Oxford Woods 1) Exceed the required lot coverage of 20%, to 24% for lots 3, 5, 6, 14, & 15 within the Oxford Woods subdivision in the (R-SF-2), Residential Single Family Zoning District. Respectfully Submitted: Wayne DeLong AICP Town of Zionsville Director of Planning and Economic Development April 12, 2018 Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 Pledge of Allegiance was said and attendance was taken by the Secretary. Present: Greg Morical, Larry Jones, John Wolff, Julia Evinger, Steve Mundy. Staff attending: Darren Chadd, attorney; Wayne DeLong. A quorum is present. Morical Good evening and welcome to the April 10, 2018 meeting of the Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals. The first item on our Agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. All Pledge. Morical The next item on our Agenda is attendance. DeLong Mr. Morical? Morical Present. DeLong Mr. Jones? Jones Present. DeLong Mr. Wolff? Wolff Present. DeLong Ms. Evinger? Evinger Present. DeLong Mr. Mundy? Mundy Present. Morical The next item on our agenda is the review and approval of the March 13, 2018 meeting minutes that were distributed to the Board as part of the Board meeting packet. Are there any questions or comments on the minutes? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Evinger I’ll make a motion that we approve the minutes as presented. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Wolff Second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. The next item on our agenda is continuance requests, and we received a request to continue Docket#2018-08-DSV, B&D Homes, first addition. And, that was submitted earlier today. I believe our rules state that it would be continuance by right if it had been submitted a week in advance, but at this point, it is in our discretion whether or not to grant the continuance. Does the petitioner want to make any statements about whether we should or should not continue this particular matter? Andreoli I’m sorry. I didn’t hear that, Mr. President. Morical Not a problem, Mr. Andreoli. So, we’ve received a continuance request as it related to this particular matter. Do you, as the petitioner’s representative, want to make any comments before we consider whether to grant the request? Andreoli See the letter. I don’t know that it met your statutory requirements, or 10 days, or maybe it did, but I anticipate - - Morical -- Step one, I apologize. Please state your name and address for the record, even though we’re quite familiar with you. Andreoli Mike Andreoli. 1392 West Oak Street. Morical Thank you. Andreoli We’ve had some discussions with Mr. Augustino, here tonight. We were going to go ahead and make a presentation, but we’ve not yet talked to the nice lady who wrote the letter, and voiced some of her concerns. There may be some things that we can do to help with those particular concerns. So, depending on the what the sense was of the Board, we probably would not have been adverse to try to continue the public hearing tonight in order for us to have some further discussions with some of the neighbors. I don’t think we had an appropriate timeline to do that before the meeting, and, as you know, that’s generally my course of conduct to try to do that. With spring break, Mr. D’Angelo is out of town, we really didn’t probably engage with the neighborhood as best as we could. It may not solve anything, but there may be some opportunities for us to do that. So, I really don’t have any particular difficulty with that, and to the extent there was going to be some remonstrants, and we couldn’t answer those questions for those folks, I was going to anticipate making a request to the Board anyway to go ahead and table to allow us opportunities to discuss with the neighborhood our proposal. So, I guess - - Morical --So, you’re amenable to continuing. Andreoli Yes. I’ll leave it in your good graces and the graces of the Board, but, in all likelihood, that was going to be our anticipated thought process given the fact that there is some concerns that were raised that we’ve not yet had an opportunity to sit down with them and address, and it would truly be nice if we took that opportunity to do that. Page 2 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 Morical I think that makes sense. Do you think a continuance for one month would be sufficient? Andreoli Yes, certainly. Morical Okay. Thank you. Andreoli I would request appropriately that we not have to re-notice the public hearing since we did appropriately notice everyone and that affidavit of mailing has been submitted, and given the fact that you’ve given notice of the next meeting, I would not anticipate we’d have to do that, but I wanted to be clear on that to make sure we didn’t have to. Morical No, I understand. Andreoli Thank you. Morical So, I think at this point in front of us we’ve got a continuance request to continue this particular matter. 5:09-5:48: Inaudible due to equipment malfunction. The Board continued discussion concerning continuance of Docket #2018-08 DSV, B&D Homes Wolff --agree I would always appreciate feedback from the neighbors and others who are involved in a petition. Evinger Quick question, I know we talked about not re-noticing, but because it’s an odd date, because it’s a Wednesday, do you think that that has any bearing on notice? Morical So, Mr. Chadd, do you want to weigh in on that? Chadd Legally, no. Evinger Okay. Morical Because, it would have been noticed for tonight. Chadd Everybody who is entitled to notice has already gotten notice of tonight’s meeting. If you announce the date, time and place of the next meeting, that’s fine. Morical Here on the public record? Chadd Yes. Morical Right. DeLong And, just one more piece from the Commission. Your rules and procedures actually spell out if the BZA does not meet because of a holiday the meeting is the next day anyway. So, you’ve got this issue double covered. Page 3 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 Morical Any further discussion? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Mundy I move that Docket#2018-08-DSV, design standards variance, in order to re-plat for the construction of a single-family home, which are not connected to public water and deviate from the minimum road frontage as illustrated in the site plan in the report we received in the urban residential single-family zoning district be continued to the May 9 meeting. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Evinger Second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much, Mr. Andreoli. We’ll see you next month. The next item on our agenda is Docket #2018-05-DSV, DCS Wireless Cell Communication structure. And, we also know there is this special exception, as well. So, we’ve got another essential continuance that we need to address, as well. That’s Docket#2018-07-DSV, S. Herron. If you’d please approach the podium and state your name and address for the record. Herron Steve Herron. 955 West Oak Street. Morical Thank you. So, Mr. Herron, it’s come to our attention that the timing of your notice in the newspaper didn’t meet our statutory requirements. And, for us, that’s jurisdictional. That means we really can’t deal with it here tonight. Are you amenable to continuing your petition to May 9? Herron Yes, absolutely. I appreciate that. The only comment I have, or question I have, would be similar to what was just requested since my neighbors have all received notice of this date, and all have replied, and that was all, you know, within the guidelines. Is that also a notice that I would have to re-send out, or just the publication notice to be re-sent out? DeLong I think the thing is, the situation is that you have, the only statutory requirement there is in the state of Indiana is to publish notice in a newspaper. The local jurisdiction is the place and the entity that establishes the local mailing. So, the local mailing advertised a hearing that did not occur. So, tonight’s meeting did not occur for the benefit of your petition. So, my suggestion would be to continue the petition with personal notice and published notice being required. Morical So, but he provided the certified mail notice. DeLong But, for tonight’s meeting. So, certainly counsel can - - Page 4 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 Morical --He provided that notice. So, those people, similar to other people, were on notice of tonight, and we’re going on the public record again, it’s just nobody else in the public other than those immediate neighbors would have received adequate notice. So, we could probably say redo the newspaper notice to make that legally effective, but no need to actually do the certified mail piece. DeLong Certainly, I would suggest that we, you know, waive our local rule and, just for safety. Morical Sure. For the - - DeLong --personal notice. Morical Okay. The certified mail piece. DeLong Yes. Morical I think that works. DeLong Yes. Morical Any further discussion? Wolff Are there any remonstrators here that were planning on talking about this petition? Morical Not that we know of, but the challenge is by virtue of not filing, or having the notice run in the paper on time, it’s not legally sufficient. So, we just don’t even have the jurisdiction to deal with it tonight. Wolff Yes. I guess I was concerned about, I was going back to the notification issues. I mean, do we, yes, okay. Morical So, you know, they essentially provide notice in 2 ways. Certified mail to all the neighbors, and then in the newspaper. And the certified mail piece to all the neighbors was sufficient. Just the newspaper one wasn’t. So, if all of them got notice that this was going to happen tonight, presumably they’d be here if they’re interested, and they’ll follow - - Wolff - - That’s what I was asking. Is there anyone here that’s interested? Because, if they were then we need to make sure that they’re - - Morical - - Well, if they’re here. Wolff Do we need to ask for any remonstrators? Morical Watching all this happen in real time, I don’t think so, because we can’t actually deal with it because the newspaper part was legally insufficient. Wolff Perfect. Page 5 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 Morical Any further discussion? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Wolff I will make a motion that Docket#2018-07-DSV for 955 West Oak Street be continued to the Wednesday, May 9 2018 BZA meeting. Morical Is there a second? Mundy Second. Morical Would you be amenable to amending your motion to note that we would waive the personal notice requirement, but the petitioner would still need to put a sufficient notice in the newspaper? Wolff I am amenable to that addition. Morical Great. Is there a second? Mundy Second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion passes. Herron Thank you very much. Morical Thank you, Mr. Herron. We’ll see you next time. Okay, now onto the cell tower. Docket #2015-05-DSV, and #2018-06-SE. Please approach the podium and state your name and address for the record, and give us an overview of what you’re interested in tonight, and I should let you know, we’ll deal with, if you could address both petitions together, and then we’ll deal with them separately. But, you can talk to them. Buddenbaum Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Jim Buddenbaum. I represent Crown Castle USA Inc., and its petition for special exception and developmental standards variance. The special exception is to allow for a wireless communication structure to be located at 4400 South 875 East, which is athletic facility, or property, owned by the school building corporation or the school corporation. I think the actual site that we’re located on is Zionsville Community Schools building corporation rather than Zionsville Community schools. You all know what that means, I’m sure. By our petition for special exception, we are asking for that wireless communication support structure, which will hold up to four wireless communication providers. The need for the developmental standard is that at 120 feet, which is the size of our actual structure, we wouldn’t need a developmental standard, but we have a 5-foot lightening rod on the top of it, and that requires us to get developmental standards variance for that 5 feet. Some communities require it, some don’t. Sometimes they treat that as impertinence and not as part of the Page 6 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 structure. Somewhat technical. Like I said, the special exception would be permitted as long as they meet the criteria in the ordinance at 120 feet. This is located at the southernmost portion of these athletic facilities. To the north, there is two softball fields. To the south, there is two baseball fields. We are at the southernmost edge of one of the baseball fields located outside of the actual playing area, of course. We’re located within a stand of probably, if you took all of the light stands that exist at that facility, there is probably 15 or so light stands. I don’t have an exact measurement of the light stands because we don’t know who manufactured or who put them up. I did float a drone up there to get to the same height and it looks like they’re between 45 and 50 feet high, or so. That’s what we believe. The site is located as much as could locate it at the center of, sort of, the parent tract. We are 371 feet from the west property line, 470 feet from the south property line, 875 feet from the center line of 875, and to the north, we don’t have an exact measurement because there is multiple parcels before you get to any development, but it’s probably more than 1000 feet before you get past the open field there. There is no lights on this except for all on the inside of the fence down at, you know, eye level or so. There will be a security light that’s motion-detected activated, just not that it’s going to prevent, but hopefully it will scare off anybody who tried to, you know, enter the property after hours. There is no sounds. There is no noxious emissions from this. And, there will be no employees. It’s just periodically occupied by maintenance personnel, who go check on it to make sure that the facilities are okay, and then in emergency situations if there was an outage at that particular cell site. The site was chosen initially at the request of Verizon Wireless, which provides, we all know, provides wireless services. And, so they want a site in an area that’s equidistance approximately between existing sites that they may have. And, so then they come to Crown Castle and Crown Castle then assists them in locating an appropriate or acceptable site location. This was the one that was located for that purpose. Crown Castle will ultimately own the tower structure, have owned the rights to the lease area underneath it, and that’s what provides the opportunity for the co-location of the additional 3 providers. I don’t know how many of you have been on the Board for a long period of time, but the industry has migrated from each carrier building its own towers and competing with each other, and not wanting to tell each other where their towers were, that the carriers have all divested themselves of owning real estate and they’re in the business of owning just the antennas and the equipment that’s at the site, and they locate with companies such as Crown Castle, which, I don’t want to say this incorrectly, but I think it’s the largest company, or certainly one of the largest companies that manages wireless communication structures, and you know, I liken it to be a landlord of office buildings or industrial parks. You know, their goal on life is to help with the co-location, which, of course, has been the goal for many, many years in the wireless industry. So, that’s how this site got located. The nearest site is more than a mile and a half away the nearest other wireless support structure. As you’ll note, the height of the structure is 120 feet. Over time, too, is as the population has migrated from using land line phones to more than 50% of the population not owning a land line, but using wireless structures, or wireless communication as a primary form of communication, as well as for data transfer, the height the structures has shrunk. In the early 90s when we were building out systems initially, there would be 300-foot tri-legged, painted, lighted structures because they were just trying to get radiofrequency out there so that people could drive down the major thoroughfare and have uninterrupted service. I can answer some questions about how cellular works. Page 7 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 I’m not an engineer, but I’ve done this a long time, so kind of like the guys, I’m not a doctor, but plays one on TV. The staff recommends approval of both petitions. Let me do note that in addition to these two petitions, the development standards petition for the additional 5 feet for the lightening rod and the special exception, we also have filed a petition which will be heard, assuming there is approval tonight, before the Plan Commission for the development plan approval. We do have a few things that we need to do with our site to satisfy local building permit authorities such as making sure we have the necessary drainage calculations for the drainage, including the drainage that would be on, what we think is pervious, but the Town consider impervious surfaces such as gravel drives and all that. And, we’re working on those calculations. We just don’t have them. We understand that those will have to be approved and presented before we could pull a building permit. Let me just add, and then answer questions, because I don’t know that there is much more I can say. I would ask that our proposed findings of fact, both for the special exception and for the development standards be incorporated into the record by reference. Those have been presented through the Planning Board, and I’m glad to answer questions with that. Morical Thank you, Mr. Buddenbaum. Did you receive a copy of the email from the Peters, raising the concerns on your petition? Buddenbaum Yes, we did. And, do you want me to address some of those concerns? Morical Please. Buddenbaum With regard to, and I’ll go in no particular order. I’ll pull out his, I don’t have it as my top. I have it here somewhere. But, with regard to the ones that I remember initially, his environment question, which really relates to the farm that is on the national registry directly to the south, and it’s kind of over a hill. I don’t know if everybody knows the lay of the land here. The FCC requires that there be NEPA filings on every cell site and that’s going to be required on this one, and the filing is complete or is in the process, and to the extent that that’s not approved, or that there is an alteration to the site, we will be subject to those limitations for that as well. So, we understand, you know, there is some risks that will have difficulties there, although we don’t anticipate that given the distance that exists between our location and that national registered site. As you can imagine, in urban areas, there is registered historic sites that are very, very close to wireless facilities and there is things that are worked out and done to ameliorate any effect that someone might feel from that. Morical I should note, and it would be helpful if you can find the actual copy of his email because he does raise a number of different questions. The National Historic Preservation Act, which is what you talked about in the context of the FCC, certainly makes sense, and that’s the federal concern, but we’ve got our own Town regulations that address historic preservation. We independently, as a Town, have the right to address historic preservation separate from the federal National Historic Preservation Act. So, we need to make sure that we’re complying with our own regulations as well. Page 8 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 Buddenbaum We would gladly, you know, submit ourselves to making sure that we comply with that. I’m not sure that we’re aware of, I’m not as aware of the jurisdiction. Morical So, if you look at Mr. Peters’ fifth stated concern, which is the historic preservation concern, he cites signs of a regulation, 194.102, and he quotes it and I didn’t confirm whether this is an accurate quote, though I expect it is. “The views and vistas from architecturally or historically significant structures should not be impaired or diminished by the placement of telecommunications towers.” Buddenbaum You know, with all due respect to Mr. Peters, and I do understand his concern with that, like I said, part of the, you know, the trick to getting a cell tower in a location that both provides the necessary engineering so that it actually does what it’s supposed to do, so that as you travel down the road, you have the uninterrupted service, or if you’re inside of a structure like your home, you have uninterrupted service. The trick is you’ve got to find a site that’s as close to perfect as you can get, but so far, I haven’t seen a perfect one yet. And, so the difficulty is finding out whether is not a problem. This site was attractive in part because of its vast expanse, and with all due respect, it’s somewhat peppered with these light standards, while not as tall as ours from the ground, if you look up, you’re going to see all of these light standards, and we’re hopeful that that will make ours not disappear, but be less obvious. And, so I think that maybe that condition already exists at this particular site in terms of having a structure in the air. Morical And, I think that’s a legitimate argument to make. But, the thing that I think that’s important for us as a Board is to make sure to comply with our requirements, which is we need to address that particular regulation and not just rely upon the federal government and their application of the National Historic Preservation Act. Buddenbaum I agree. Morical So, we need to address that one specifically, and then his fourth concern that he raised with respect to the urban special regulations for wireless telecommunications facilities, that’s also cited as 194.102. Buddenbaum That, I think what Mr. Peters is saying there is, have you gone out and made sure you couldn’t just go locate somewhere else. And, because we got this yesterday, we were able, but didn’t get it until this morning, we were able to do a more detailed analysis of all the sites that we could find of existing structures, and I’m glad to hand this out to you. You will see the distances. Morical Because we record all of our hearing, if you could wait to give comments until you’re back to the mic that would be great. Otherwise, our transcript will be wanting. So, you had told us before that the closest one was 1 1/2 miles away. It looks like it may be slightly under 2 miles. 1.96 miles. And, then the question is, is that is 1.96 miles too far away? Buddenbaum Well, as all of you know, when you go out to that area, they’re building lots and lots of subdivisions, it appeared to me anyway. And, so I think they’re anticipating a capacity problem. Because there is 2 main elements to providing wireless Page 9 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 communication, and you know, somebody, my client, Tom Crowes, here representing Crown Castle, he can correct me if I get beyond my skill level here, but you know, really cell phones are just radios. It’s super sophisticated radios that have lots of computers involved, and they scramble and de-scramble the signals, and they, you know, the way you can have continuous operation is you drive down the road and you’ve got, you’re hearing the call and you’re speaking a call. That’s two channels. And, your device that your holding is really looking for the next place that it’s going to connect to, and then, once it makes that connection, then it will pull one of the other ones over. This is very simple. I’m simplifying it way beyond what it is, but that’s how an engineer described it to me. And, so, the difficulty is that if you’re too close, or you’re too far, those connections that I just described don’t occur properly. If you’re too close, you have interference, or does no good because the, you know, if you’re more to the east than to the west, you’re going to end up having to have a structure that you otherwise wouldn’t need. This one just happens as close as it can possibly, sits right between a whole bunch of other antenna structures. Many of those, I don’t know the height of those, but I know a couple of them, or a couple pretty tall ones. Like I said, those will start coming down. There is two main parts of wireless communication. There is that, what I just described, which is coverage, and then there is capacity. And, as you’re adding all of these homes, people are not going to put wire line phones in their home. They’re going to want to be able to make a call from their family room and not have to go out onto the front porch, so the structures come down. They get lower and lower, and you got to have that capacity there and that’s hopefully what will occur with this site. It will provide that capacity in that immediate area. Morical The regulation that Mr. Peters identified, as reported by Wayne, requires that the applicant, and again, it’s just an excerpt, had to submit a master plan for its wireless telecommunication facilities throughout the Town. Has your client done that? Buddenbaum I’ll let Mr. Crowe. Part of the difficulty is we’re going to have four different providers on this site. Crowe My name is Tom Crowe. I’m a project manager with Crown Castle. Our offices are at 9045 River Road in Indianapolis. To answer the questions, so the tower on your map there that’s 2 miles away from our proposed site, Verizon Wireless is on that site. The sites that are 1.96 miles away, the other carriers are there. That’s at the high school, those sites there. If you go northwest towards Whitestown, Verizon is on that site there. So, we’re going right in the middle of a number of Verizon sites. So, and that’s kind of basically within the Town of Zionsville where Verizon is currently. As Jim has said, as wireless is developed out and capacity issues have become the problem. Cell towers used to be 4 miles apart, then they were 2 miles apart. You get close to Indianapolis, now they’re 1 mile apart, and in some cases, they’re going to be less than that. So, this is going to be a capacity issue. Not so much a coverage, but a capacity issue. It’s going to offload some of those other sites around there that I was just talking about, but those are the three sites. 31:55-32:01 Inaudible due to equipment malfunction Page 10 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 Morical --I read the excerpt from Mr. Peters’ remonstrance and the fourth point, it says that the applicant shall submit a master plan for its wireless telecommunication facilities throughout the Town. Not should, but shall. So is that essentially a requirement that needs to be addressed before we can grant a variance that allows for the placement of another facility? DeLong Correct. That master plan shall be submitted. Certainly, if this document suffices what you’re submitting as a master plan, but certainly the comprehensive master plan also anticipates future towers. Morical Which this doesn’t? DeLong Correct. Except for the center tower is the anticipated tower. Morical Right. “Master plan shall demonstrate efforts to minimize the size and number of telecommunications, antenna locations throughout the geographical area.” Crowe So, the purpose of the fourth carrier tower we’re developing, and then there’s the two at the high school compounding three carriers, and then Verizon is on, I think it’s not too far from here, it’s a cell support tower. Morical So, all I’m looking at is this excerpt that Mr. Peters cited in remonstrance. My concern is whether or not trying to deal with this just in the context of this special exception is adequate or whether they need to be working this directly with the Town first, and once that’s done, then they come before us. DeLong Yes, and uniquely, the last time we approved a cell phone tower was 2005. Morical That’s before my time. DeLong You do not have a really strong history to validate against. Because, we did look into that. What have we done in the past. Morical So, I would suggest, in light of these questions, and based upon the excerpts we’re looking at, it looks like they’ve got requirements they need to meet before they can put a cell phone tower in the Town of Zionsville. And, it’s not clear that they’ve met those. So, I’d be inclined to give them 30 days to work those issues, make sure we’re comfortable and aware of what the requirements are and that they’re satisfied, and then address this at the next meeting. Buddenbaum Let me, on the master plan, and I, you know, for whatever it’s worth, not worth much, I did a lot of cell towers in the early years starting in ’92, lots of them, and there was, you know, it was the wild west. There was no wireless zoning ordinances. It was what it was. And, then, smartly, communities said, hey we need to figure out a way to regulate this and deal with it. And, my firm was involved in drafting a lot of the ordinances, and a lot of them required the master plan, and that made a ton of sense when I would present a case and it was Verizon or Cingular Wireless, because I could get all of their master plans from their engineers. I’m just raising an issue and Tom can jump in if I’m wrong, I’m a little worried that we’ll never really have a true Page 11 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 master plan from the carriers because they’re not really, you know, the market’s changed. You have a landlord and then you got these guys who come and locate on them, and this site is attractive for the reasons that we’ve all talked about here, which is there is a lot of new homes, it’s equal distance between existing structures, but I’m not sure that we have the capacity. I’m just pointing out something that’s a change of times, the capacity to make these carriers tell us where they’re going to be next. Morical Two points. Number one, according to this excerpt, you have to do it. And, if so it is the law of our little part of the land. Buddenbaum We gotta do something. Morical And number two, actually, the changes that have happened in terms of wireless carriers really relying upon your client, and cooperating more than they have in the past, probably facilitates clearer planning than it did when everybody was doing their own plans. So, what I think makes sense is, you guys spend the time talking with the Town before the next meeting to work through these to make sure we feel like all the different requirements have been satisfied, and that when you come back to us again, also be prepared to discuss the view shed impact under our local historic preservation ordinance, which may include some pictures that show what the existing lighting structures are there, and how those may blend in with this as well, so we can assess whether there is a view shed impact. Any further comments? Jones I’ve got two. One basically just supports what you just said, Greg, is that, you know, the installation of a cell tower is basically being put in to better facilitate the service that Verizon can supply, as well as the other carriers. So, basically, it’s providing, how to I want to say, better market penetration. In other words, it’s really a benefit to them. It’s not really a benefit, it’s a benefit to them in that their ability then to get more clients. So, for us to actually ask, is there sort of a master plan for laying these out around the community, it’s a two-way street with, given what we all pay for our cell-phone bills. It going to the benefit of the providers. The second question I have is, so I’m over at Willow Road and Michigan, and recently they just installed one or two, they’re like street-pole. Now, were those cell towers, or were they more data. Do you? DeLong Those are micro-cell towers. They were 30 feet in height. They’re frequency range is rather limited. It’s a very low net. That’s why there is a number of those. Those were installed by Zayo. A very similar situation where they’re looking to provide opportunities for a carrier, and that they’re had drops. It’s mostly related to holiday traffic, as well as event traffic in the Town of Zionsville during peak events. They’re having a larger number of dropped calls. Jones Are there more of those around town? DeLong There are, I think number of 5 and there will be more. Jones Okay. So, there’s 5 more cell towers in addition to what’s being shown on this master plan that we’re being told is the master plan, which isn’t quite complete. Page 12 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 Buddenbaum There is a big difference between small-cell and micro-cell. So, - - Morical --Make sure you speak into the microphone otherwise we won’t be able to pick it up. Buddenbaum There is a difference. I mean, small-cell is exactly what it says. It only covers a small, maybe a few block area. Where the cell tower will cover, you know, probably up to mile in radius. Morical So, it would be fair to say, and maybe for you to provide us as we consider whether this is kind of the least impactful development that can be done for this variance, you’d say we can put in this 120-foot plus 5 feet tower, or we could have 12 of these itty bitty towers all over the place. And, you could say, well, just this one is probably better than sprinkling all these other ones all over the place, but that would be helpful to know. Buddenbaum Yes. And, we’re happy to do that. I don’t think our map is going to change much, as you can see. We tried to pick the surrounding towers around this so there is a tower up to the northeast that’s going to suffice for the four carriers up there. That’s about ours. Ones in the red boxes are Crown Castle owned towers. So, you can kind of see we’re going right in the middle of the four or five towers that I have lined out there, and from a tower standpoint, that’s probably going to solve the problem in that area. As things develop, 10-20 years down the road, you might see the small-cell, the need for a small-cell in there. Morical Okay. So, that’s part of the question when you engage with the Town on the plan-- do you think this gets it done? For the foreseeable future, in light of our expected development pattern? And, that’s best done with your engagement with the Town directly. Any further questions or comments? Evinger Just one other question, because you have a 5-foot lightening rod on there, and without that you probably would not be before us today, is there another way of engineering the tower to be grounded without having to have that lightening rod? Buddenbaum Well, I think we’d have to be before you, because all special exceptions have to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals, but that 5-foot required us to file an additional petition for developmental standards variance. Morical Any other questions for the petitioner? Hearing none, I would suggest a motion to continue be voted on. Marine Mr. Chairman, are you going to do public comment? Morical Certainly. You can come up and state your name and address for the record and let us know what you’re interested in. Marine My name is Mike Marine. I represent the Boone County Tennis Center, doing business as Pearson Automotive Tennis Club. We’re in dire need of this tower for the purposes getting wifi coverage. We cannot get land lines into the tennis club, and this would provide us with an ability to have wifi, which is really necessary any more if Page 13 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 you’re going to run a business, to have people to register for courts and that type of things. So, we’re very much in favor of this. In terms of, and for, I’m also a Zionsville resident, a former Zionsville Town attorney. The current guidelines under the Zionsville code is pretty antiquated when it comes to cellular towers. I’ll just tell you that is my experience. And, the idea that there would be, it was written at a time when there was competition that is non-existent any more for placing towers. And, we are very much in favor of it, and would like to see it go up as quickly as possible. Morical Okay. Thank you, Mr. Marine. Any other people want to come up? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Mundy I move that Docket #2018-05, both the DSV and the SE, for the property located at 4400 South County Road 875 East to allow for the construction of 125-foot tall wireless communication tower be continued to the May 9 meeting. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Jones Second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. We’ll see you guys next month. Buddenbaum Without notice? Morical Yes. You don’t need to provide notice again. The next item, okay, the next item on our agenda is Docket#2018-09-DSV, Estridge Homes, Oxford Woods. Will you approach the podium and please state your name and address for the record? Resetarits Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Board. My name is Kyle Resetarits. I’m an attorney with the law firm of Bingham, Greenebaum, Doll located at 2700 Market Tower, 10 West Market Street in Indianapolis. I first want to say that my colleague, Matt Price, attorney for the petitioner sends his regrets as he’s unable to be here this evening due to a prior conflict. I’m joined by three members of the petitioner, Estridge Homes, who are seated at this third row. Rob McGraw, COO and VP of Operations, Clint Mitchell, VP of Land Development, and Roger Fosser, Director of Land Development. The location at issue for this petition #2018-09-DSV are 5 lots located within the Oxford Woods subdivision located at approximately the 5100 block of South US Highway 421, Michigan Road. Across Michigan Road from the Clarkston subdivision. Oxford Woods is a 21-lot subdivision zoned R-SF-2, and subject to a 2015 primary plat and development plan approvals. My client, Estridge Homes puts forth this petition for variance of development standards to provide for five of the 21 homes to exceed the lot coverage allowed for a bit of, I guess, procedural history that this follows an approval variance approved by this Board on April 10 of last year that included some stipulated conditions. Originally the petitioner was seeking relief from the lot coverage, maximum for 8 of the lots. We Page 14 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 are reducing that number to 5 of the lots due to some constraints kind of out of our hands, particularly that the petitioner has a lack of control of some of the real estate involved in the Oxford Woods subdivision. So, in summary, we are requesting up to a 24% lot coverage for 5 of the 21 lots, whereas otherwise, the maximum allowed would have been 20%. So, as a general matter, the subdivision does generally comply with the open space subdivision requirements for the amount of open space in the subdivision if the subdivision had been originally designated an open subdivision, and I should step back a bit to say that my client was not involved in the original development of the subdivision, but the open space subdivision would have allowed for a maximum lot coverage of 50%, more than twice the 24% requested for these 5 lots this evening. So, within the subdivision, there are over 4 acres currently set aside and approved by the primary plat and development plan, and again, keeping in with many of the characteristics of an open space subdivision included with the petition is a site plan to show that. That 4 acres is made up of 3 common areas, A, B and C, to A and B that run directly adjacent to Michigan Road. Common area C, and then an additional lot block A, there on the southeast corner of the Oxford Woods subdivision. The 4 of those areas, those parcels, add up to about 4 acres. So, the reason for this petition and this request for variance really comes down to the hardship that would be placed on Estridge Homes, if not permissible. There is a market demand in Zionsville, in particular in this area, and if there are any further questions on that specifically, I’ll let one of the gentleman from Estridge Homes speak to that, but specifically, from buyers of these homes, two elements. And, architectural diversity and, you know, a price point for these homes, of which semi- custom homes can range, you know, $500, 000 to $1.4 million, and a key to the customers of these homes, and the appeal of these homes, including the architectural diversity is outdoor areas, patios, porches, whatnot, that would contribute to the lot coverage of each individual lot to accommodate the homes built in this subdivision. The reality is that, in our view, the variance requested, the increase to 24%, is primarily technical in nature and would not be visually discernable from anyone driving by, walking by in the subdivision, really living nearby, aside from the enjoyment of the individual lot and homeowner. Granting the slight increase in lot coverage for these 5 lots, again, would allow for great architectural diversity in the subdivision increasing the potential for home designs and, again, just a small departure from the 20%, which again, would have been permissible underneath the open space subdivision. We do not control the portion of the open space that is considered Block A. That is controlled by the previous developer, a firm which Estridge Homes purchased the 5 lots in question today, and kind of by no fault of our own, or for lack of effort, we have not been able to secure the owner, and previous developer of the development, the owner of that Block A to consider that a dedicated open space. Morical Thank you very much. So, your client only owns those 5 lots. Resetarits Those 5 lots. Yes, Sir. Morical Okay. Because I look at Exhibit 4 - - Resetarits Well, excuse me, I may dive into that question. My client owns more than 5 of the lots, but my client is the sole owner of those 5 lots. Page 15 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 Morical Okay. Thank you. Can you turn to Exhibit 4 of your petition, titled ‘Typical Ranch Plan Requested Variance’? Resetarits Yes, sir. Morical So you’re before us tonight asking for the variance from above 20% to 24% for these 5 lots. On Exhibit 4, ‘Typical Ranch Plan Requested Variance’, it identifies 4 other parcels that would be contemplated to have proposed lot coverage above 20% that are beyond these 5 identified. That includes Parcel #2 at 23.17%, Parcel#4 at 23.55%, Parcel#8 at 20.44%, Parcel#20 at 20.54%. In addition, you have noted that Parcel#15, which is subject to the variance request, you’re requesting 24% and it identifies 25.68% with a footnote that says going to 24% of that lot provides relief, but would still require a slight reduction. So, I guess we need to deal with those 2 items separately. There are 4 of the parcels that are identified in Exhibit 4 that are not subject to this petition that would appear to be above the permitted lot coverage. Is that a typo in this exhibit, and you guys are comfortable living at and below 20% on those parcels? Resetarits I believe there is a second page to Exhibit 4 that would correct the Typical Ranch Plan Requested Variance page to include Lots#3,5,6,14 and 15 to be the 5 lots in question. Morical Maybe I’m missing something. I see there are two different Exhibit 4s. One titled ‘Typical Ranch Plan Requested Variance’, and one titled ‘Typical Ranch Plan Current Requirement’. Resetarits I’ll let Clint Mitchell speak for this. Morical Please state your name and address for the record, and walk us through your request. Mitchell Sure. I think I’m following you. Clint Mitchell with Estridge Homes, 12965 Old Meridian Street is the Estridge address. There are additional lots that we would, that if we wanted to build a ranch home with the square footage in this exhibit, they would violate it. However, we have only asked for 5, knowing that these other lots we would have to build a 2-story home that would have a smaller main area square footage, and we would be able to fit a variety of homes in the neighborhood, giving 5 lots at least provides those lots that we could build a ranch, that the market is asking for, and the other lots that you mentioned. We would have to find something that’s a smaller square footage, but 2 stories. So, the total square footage of the home would be larger, but it wouldn’t violate the 20%. Morical So, just to make sure our record is crystal clear, despite what you filed in these exhibits, you’re again only asking for a variance above 20% to 24% for Lots#3,5,6, 14 and 15. Mitchell Correct. Morical Okay. Got it. Thank you. Page 16 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 Resetarits That’s noted with an asterisk in both pages of Exhibit 4 as well, lots with the requested variance next to those five. Morical I notice that, except for the column that then said your proposed lot coverage exceeded it. So, I like footnotes, and so - - Resetarits We all like clarity for the record. Morical We love clarity for the record. Resetarits Just those five, #3, 5, 6, 14 and 15. Morical Great. Any further questions for the petitioner? Jones To confirm what I’m hearing, so what you’re saying is on the other lots, which would be #2, 4, 8, and 20, you’re going to build basically a smaller house than your typical 3852 plan. Is that correct? 3852 square foot plan. Resetarits Per the definition, it would be a smaller footprint than that. It may be a 2-story house, but it would be a larger square footage. Jones Yes. Whatever the lot coverage number. I’m sorry. It’s a better way to put it. Okay. Resetarits The lot coverage would be less than 20%. Mundy Just for clarity, Lot#15, the one with the double asterisk, your footnote says going to 24% at Lot#15 provides relief, but would still require a slight reduction to the targeted square footage, so I’m assuming that the square footage would be less than that. Is that correct? Resetarits It’s similar to the other lots where the proposed lot coverage would need to be, percentage would need to be decreased. That will need to be decreased for Lot#15 as well, so that it would be lower than the 24% if that variance is requested. So, a slight adjustment of at least 1.68%. Mitchell So only that would change, the plan of the house. Resetarits Again, which I understand it to be an unattractive quality for homebuyers of my clients. Morical Any further questions for the petitioner? Thank you very much. Are there any remonstrators here tonight? Seeing none, may we have the staff report please? DeLong Thank you. Staff is supportive of the petition. Certainly, this Board recalls the prior discussion with prior variance assuming that’s something to consider rescinding this evening if the Board is inclined to approve this petition. Certainly, staff at the last sets of hearings brought to the attention of the Board the concept of, you know, attempting to obtain some sort of additional requirement on the Block A to have that Page 17 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 function more in line with the open space subdivision standards. Certainly staff recognizes the practical issues of the petitioner, you know, securing that right, if you will, and certainly over the time that has passed, this variance that was granted has been now reduced to just encapsulate 5 lots that are seeking this relief. Given those changes, staff is supportive of deviating from that previous discussion and looking to secure that Block A as dedicated open space, and just leaving that as Block A as it is platted. Again, staff is supportive of the petition as filed, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Morical Thank you, Wayne. Any questions for staff? Evinger Quick question. As far as an approval of variance, what we did last year, this is the same that’s associated with Lots#2, 4, and 13. Are there any other lots that were associated that have been built upon or have been now excluded from this? I’m just asking if we rescind this variance to be in danger or change anything with any of the other lots that might have been associated with that originally. DeLong I don’t believe so. I mean, the universe of that prior request included a total of 8 lots, and the variance was unusable, so that really any relief that was ever, no relief could ever be enjoyed on Lots#2, 4 or 13, and I don’t recall off hand if 13 is built out yet or not. Resetarits Lot#13 is not build out. Morical Wayne, is the variance number listed in the procedural note, should that be 2017? Any further questions for - - Jones --I’ve got one, just because, you know me. Morical Does it relate to drainage? Jones Part and parcel of the reason they’re requesting this is just because they’ve been limited by the width of this entire parcel. You know, to comply with road widths, setbacks, turning radiuses for emergency vehicles. If you sort of go through this site plan, you know, they’ve consistently maintained a 100-foot wide lot, but I think where the core issue is, they just ran out of depth, which is getting their gross square footage down to a point that the home that the market is requesting gets over the coverage limit. Does that make sense what I’m saying? Is there benefit to having these other lots also included in the 24%? You know, I know, or does that cause a whole bunch of headache if we look to Lots#2, 4, and 8 to include those, 2, 4, 8 and 20, to add those to the mix that’s been asked. Or if we do that, do we, is that throwing a real monkey wrench into the whole? Morical Mr. Chadd, my sense is that would be a legal challenge because they would have noticed the scope of the petition, requested petition would be, you know, this big and - - Jones Bababababum. Page 18 of 19 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals April 10, 2018 Chadd That’s my immediate sense as well. I get where you’re coming from, but that wasn’t published. Jones I got it. Morical But, the record does reflect how practical you are, Larry. So, thank you. Jones I’m a very practical person. Very. Morical Any further questions? Okay. Hearing none, I would entertain a motion, and again, as part of this, I think we need to take action to rescind the prior variance. Evinger I move that Docket#2018-09-DSV, design standards variance, to petition for development standards variance for specific lots in Oxford Woods known as #3, 5, 6, 14 and 15 to provide for single-family dwelling utilizing a lot coverage which does not exceed 24%, while establishing the creation of a permanent open space within the overall development known as Oxford Woods subdivision be approved as recommended by staff and based upon findings of fact, and further, that the variance of #2017-05-DSV, associated with Lots#2, 4, and 13 within Oxford Woods subdivision be rescinded. Do I need to add anything else to it? Okay. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Mundy Second. Morical Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Have we got other matters to be considered? DeLong An update on Estridge Homes, Oxford Woods. The status of that plat amendment is now unnecessary given the action of this Board this evening, so we can strike that off your list of things to discuss. #2017-11-DSV, Fisher Homes, status of the plat amendment, Ainsley Park is a project that continues to struggle in the marketplace related to a variety of legal challenges, and so we have no update for you specific to that project. Specific to the Campens, it’s our understanding that those commitments have been recorded. We just continue to await the arrival of that copy. Morical Great. Thank you. Is there anything else we need to deal with tonight? Audience members? Anything? No zoning questions, drainage questions? Okay. We are adjourned. Page 19 of 19