Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

MEETING RESULTS - ZIONSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MAY 14, 2019 The meeting of the Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals occurred Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 6:30 p.m. in the Zionsville Town Hall Council Chamber, 1100 West Oak Street, Zionsville, Indiana. The following items are scheduled for consideration: I. Continued Business Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered Approved subject to Commitments, as presented & filed w/exhibits & per staff report – 4 in Favor, 0 Opposed 2018-46-DSV R. Pabst 8090 E 550 South Petition for Development Standards Variance in order to permit the establishment of a 1.83 acre lot. (Minimum lot size is 2 acres) in the Low-Density Single-Family Residential Zoning District (R1). II. New Business Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered Approved with Right to Farm Commitment as presented & filed w/exhibits & per staff report 2019-12-SE E. Jackson 1153 S 700 East – 4 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Special Exception to allow for new residential building(s) in an Agricultural Zoning District (AG). Approved subject to ongoing review of buffer yard plantings by the Plan Commission, as presented & filed w/exhibits & per staff report Town of – 4 in Favor, 0 Opposed Zionsville Petition for Variance of Development Standards to: 2019-13-DSV Wastewater 855 Starkey Road 1) allow for buildings to be constructed on the property Treatment Utility which utilize only one exterior building material (steel) Buildings 2) locate buildings within the required buffer yard(s) 3) utilizing Type A landscaping while not providing for foundation planting(s) in the Urban Special Use Zoning District (SU-8). Respectfully Submitted: Wayne DeLong AICP, CPM Town of Zionsville Director of Planning and Economic Development May 16, 2019 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 In Attendance: John Wolff, Joe Kremp, Larry Jones, Steve Mundy. Absent is Julia Evinger. Staff attending: Wayne DeLong, Darren Chadd, attorney. A quorum is present. Wolff Good evening, and welcome to the May 14, 2019 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. Kremp? Kremp Here. DeLong Mr. Jones? Jones Present DeLong Mr. Wolff? Wolff Present DeLong Ms. Evinger? Evinger I don’t think Julia was here… DeLong Mr. Mundy? Present…. I think Steve was there… Wolff Thank you. The next item on our agenda is the approval of the April 9 meeting minutes. Any comments or discussion amongst the group? Jones I just want to confirm I still have my brand-new chair, and I now have a new computer and printer. Wolff Congratulations. Jones Things are coming up down here. Wolff You are moving up in the world. I’m telling you. Jones I’m telling you. Wolff Seeing no other points for the minutes. Is there a motion? Jones I move we approve the minutes. Wolff Thank you. Is there a second? Page 1 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 Kremp Second. Wolff All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Wolff Those opposed please say nay. [No response.] Wolff Motion carries. Next item is continuance requests. Are there any petitioners here tonight seeking to continue their business to the next meeting? Seeing none, moving on to continued business. Docket #2018-46-DSV. Will the petitioner’s representative please come forward and please state your name and address for the record? Jacob My name is Jeff Jacob. I’m an attorney with Hackman Hulett with offices here in town at 1620 West Oak Street, Suite 200. I’m here on behalf of Reesa Pabst, the petitioner who is here this evening, and we also have with us Gary Ladd of Ladd Engineering. To refresh your memory, I know this has been in front of you several times. Ms. Pabst owns 3.83 acres on East 500 South in Zionsville, and she is seeking a development standards variance to permit the establishment of a 1.83-acre lot. Since we were last here, you have been supplied with, as well as the adjoiner, Mr. Paddock, with an amended storm water drainage evaluation. And, Mr. Ladd met with Mr. Paddock on site and walked through some of the drainage issues that he was experiencing on his property. And, I want to use that term loosely because there was confusion amongst, I think, certainly me, the petitioner, and Mr. Paddock as to what was really going on the property. We believe that we have solved or kept any drainage issue from happening on the north of the property. However, Mr. Paddock is experiencing water that is collecting on the western edge of his property, really where his driveway is, and he has a very narrow lot, or narrow drive, that gets back to his lot. That is the common boundary between Ms. Pabst’s property and Mr. Paddock’s property. So, we have provided you a storm water drainage evaluation, which makes a couple additional recommendations, which we have included in our commitments, which you have also been provided with. Now, to remind you, we have committed that we will install perimeter drains around residential structure so that no additional stormwater will go to the north. That picks up on my comment, Mr. Paddock did experience at one point a drainage issue to the north because of, or we believe development north of him. We are not going to put any more water in that direction. Additionally, any septic that would be installed on the site would drain to the south. Now, the new issue that Mr. Ladd and Mr. Paddock discussed, and we have committed to install prior to this issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 2-acre lot, would be to install a drainage swale along the eastern boundary of the Paddock property, or an infiltration trench, or a combination of both. The intent here is, and as we discussed this, and Mr. Paddock believes that this will solve any issue in keeping water from flowing over onto him, we are going to move all that water to the south. Additionally, we have added a commitment that we are not going to put any more water to the east other than what we are already doing. So, hopefully those commitments, and Page 2 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 those engineered fixes in concert will prevent, and not just prevent a problem, but will enhance the drainage in the area. So, we think we have put together a pretty detailed set of commitments where we have attached some drainage exhibits showing what needs to happen in the future. Part of our struggle here is not knowing where the house will go, not knowing where the septic will go, and how that will impact the usability of the lot. So, we have come up with a couple of ideas, and Mr. Paddock is certainly here and will speak to any of those issues. The last item relative to the commitments that I was asked to address, if you will note, in Item 3F, we have indicated that these commitments are independent of any state or local building permit or building code requirements. So, as charged last time, I believe that we have addressed drainage in the area. We thought we had it solved last time with any issue to the north. That remains solved, and we believe we have picked up the issue on the common east-west boundary. So, we believe that we have met the requirements and intent of the Board, and we would ask that you follow staff’s recommendation and approve our variance request. Wolff Thank you, Mr. Jacob. Just a couple points of clarity, and overall speak of the same language, when we create these commitments and these documents, what happens to that is that it is tied to the property itself, and so if someone purchases the property and develops it, they are obligated to honor and fulfill, or live by, these commitments. Correct? Jacob Absolutely. Wolff Okay. And, then you mention the 2-acre lot, and I looked at my exhibit, but just so we are clear, the 2-acre lot is the lot that is directly next to Mr. Paddock’s lot. Jacob Correct. Wolff So, the 1.83-acre lot is the - - Jacob --West from that. Wolff Perfect. Thank you. Any questions for the petitioner’s representative? Jones Quick question for Wayne. What is the setback requirements for this type of parcel? In other words, how close can a house be built on any given property line in the R1? DeLong In the R1, generally it is 5 feet. Jones Okay. Just the nature of my question is, once this kind of drainage swale or, what is being proposed is basically a re-grading of a portion of the site to create an area that the water off the Paddocks’ has access to the south. I cannot foresee somebody building a house in that area. I mean, that does not make - - Jacob -- It would not be, Mr. Ladd is certainly here and happy to address this issue, but the property is low, and then it crests on the north part of the property, and that is where a building pad is going to go. Jones Yes. Page 3 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 Jacob We had Mr. Ladd look at re-grading the entire site to move all of the water to the southwest, and it was just not feasible. Jones No. Jacob So, we think that this, either an infiltration trench or a swale, will pick up that water, and that is going to direct us realistically a house is going to have to go up on the higher ground. Jones Right. You always build on the hill. You shouldn’t build on the bottom. Jacob When you have them Boone County, absolutely. Kremp Mr. Jacob, on the commitments. Jacob Yes, sir. Kremp With respect to the ditch option exhibit and the trench option exhibit, my copies don’t have those exhibits. What’s the intent to come up with those? Jacob My apologies. I thought they had been provided. Kremp It may be out of order in my packet. I’m not sure. Does anybody else have a, nobody has that? Jacob My apologies. Jones I think it’s Exhibit 7. Kremp So, it may be in the report? Jacob Exhibits 4 and 5 I believe are what you’re talking about. Kremp Okay. Jacob They site schematic showing the topography and showing a general concept where the drainage swale would go, or infiltration trench, as well as a cross- section of the infiltration trench detail. Jones Mr. Jacob, just real quick. So, I’m looking at a, what’s marked Exhibit 7. Is that the same? Jacob No, sir. No, sir. Jones Do you have Exhibit 7? Kremp I think that whole document is Exhibit 7. Jacob So, I believe that’s part of the staff report, if I may. It would be attached directly to the commitments. It would look like this. Page 4 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 Kremp We have blank pages. We have Exhibit 1, legal description, and then Exhibit 2, site plan with nothing attached. Jacob If I may, I’d be happy to hand this to you. My apologies. DeLong These same pages are in the storm water drainage evaluation. Exhibits 4 and 5. Kremp Great. Thanks. DeLong Again, if you look at the storm water drainage evaluation, it’s not labeled Exhibit, but I believe that gradient, or maybe the page back. Oh, it is labeled Exhibit 4 down there. Jones I’m sorry. Earmarked Exhibit 4 on the site plan provided by the engineer, they have ended up as Exhibit 7 in our packet. Jacob Apologies. So, the intent is that those would be part of the commitment and part of the recorded document. Wolff And, as always with commitments we do ask that our legal counsel review those and just make sure we have the verbage right. Jacob Absolutely. And, these are taken from somewhat of your standardized. DeLong Yes. Jacob But, absolutely we would want that, and we would have those recorded within 30 or 60 days. Kremp And, then one other small question about the commitments and maybe I misread it. In your Section 3, dealing with, I’m sorry, let me flip back to it, 3E, you refer to one of three drainage improvements shall be installed. Jacob Yes. That is a typo that has been corrected. As we were looking at regarding the entirety - - Kremp --Okay, so it’s just one of two. Jacob Two options. We took the possibility of grading the whole site out, and that typo did not get picked up. Kremp Okay. Jacob It has been corrected, though. Wolff Good catch. Mundy Mr. Jacob, in the commitments, 3A talks about collecting all of the water that comes from the roof downspouts. Page 5 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 Jacob Yes, sir. Mundy Not knowing what someone might wish to have, could that be expanded to any impervious surface, such as a patio with a ground drain, which would take it to the south. Jacob I think that might be, and we’re happy to talk about it, and I could have Mr. Ladd address that. I think if we are saying that we are not going to put any more water to the north than what’s occurring, I believe that we have captured that. Gary, your thoughts on. Wolff Would you please state your name and address for the record? Thank you so much. Ladd Gary Ladd with Ladd Engineering, Lebanon, Indiana. If they put an additional patio on, I’m not sure that’s going to be a significant enough impervious surface to worry about, particularly since one of the requirements is to capture that drainage before it flows off the east side of the lot. So, I think the objective with the perimeter drains would be to collect as much as we can off the roof, and divert that to the south, but I don’t know. Wolff So, your opinion would be that with, and I’m using the incorrect term, but the swell, the raised earth on the east side of the property towards Mr. Paddock, that and in addition to the fact that you have a commitment saying that no more water will go to the north, do you feel like those two issues address any other patio or any other impervious material? Ladd That’s correct, because the drainage ditch or the infiltrate should trench either one would intercept the water is heading off to the east toward the Paddock property. Wolff Okay. Mundy Well, I take position to say the same thing would happen if you did not put the downspouts into some form of tile and move it to the south. Theoretically that trench should catch any water flowing that direction and then move it to the south. My point is that you never know what someone may wish to do. If they wish to have a 40 by 40 patio, that is a lot of impervious surface and it’s very easy as long as you’re putting tile in to move that water to the south to just collect it through a ground drain or a couple of ground drains, and also move it to the south, not relay upon the trench and gravity to get it there and then gravity to get it out to the southern portion of the lot. Ladd Yes. I think it just comes down to how restrictive you want to be, and, you know, where we draw the line. Mundy That’s a fairly low cost, low operational procedure to do that if you’re doing it anyhow. And, water is a great thing when you don’t have too much of it. Wolff Mr. Mundy, what commitment was that? Page 6 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 Mundy That’s 3A. Wolff Okay. And you were suggesting roof downspouts, and then add, you were suggesting to include any impervious - - Mundy --Any impervious surface in the improvement. Wolff Thank you. Jacob Mr. Mundy, if I may ask a question. You know, that kind of begs the question if you’ve got a sidewalk. You know, to Gary’s point, where do you draw that line. If you said that you had an area that was larger than, you know - - Mundy --I would say a sidewalk isn’t much less even than a driveway. You know, you could have a paved driveway and you would have a significant amount of impervious surface. Jacob Absolutely. Mundy I’m just saying that the drainage allowing gravity to take it where you want it, and then creating this trench that takes it to the south, just as I think Mr. Paddock is experienced, you get silt and buildup, and eventually if you don’t maintain those, you eventually wind up with a problem again of it continuing in the direction that he doesn’t want it to go, and I don’t think that your petitioner wants it to go either. Jacob Absolutely. So, if we were to include some language in 3A that said that additional impervious area around the residential structure or, you know, patios and sidewalks and the like, would that satisfy your concern? Mundy It would. Jacob Okay. And, my client would not have a problem with that. Mundy Thank you. Wolff Any other questions for the petitioner’s representative? Jones I’d like to confirm with Mr. Paddock that he’s happy with what’s been presented. Wolff Thank you, Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Jacob. Mr. Paddock, you know the routine. Name and address. Paddock Jim Paddock, 8164 East 550 South. The only thing I really need to bring up is after talking to Gary and working this thing out, I think we’re on the same page now, what needs to be addressed. If they add something on the patio, just the drain to tie into that, which is no big deal, I’m totally happy with that. I mean, so, the only fight I had was the drain. So, I think we got that worked out. If that all goes through, and is backed by you guys, where down the road we come across this, we have something to go against. I’m totally happy with it. Page 7 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 Wolff Thank you, Mr. Paddock. Any other remonstrators here? Seeing none, I feel obligated to start this conversation and say that Mr. Jacob, Mr. Paddock, thank you. We asked you both to work together last month and you did. And, thank you very much for that. It certainly makes our discussion more productive. With that said, and no Julia, gentlemen, any further comments? Seeing none, can we have the staff report? DeLong Thank you. Staff is supportive of the petition as it has been filed, and certainly amended this evening. I think brevity is best here. Staff again is recommending approval, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Wolff Thank you. And, as we discussed, the commitments will be reviewed with our legal team. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Mundy I move that Docket # 2018-46-DSV, design standards variance, in order to permit the establishment of a 1.83-acre lot, which results in a deviation from the required minimum of 2-acre lot size within the low density single-family residential zoning district R1 for the property located at 8090 East 550 South be approved as filed, and recommended by staff, including commitments made and altered by the petitioner this evening. Jones I just have one question. Maybe I better read back through. The commitments really just apply to the 2-acre parcel that is being separated off. Correct? They’re not retroactive to the 1.83. Wolff That’s what I understand. Jacob They are not. They’re specific to the 2-acre parcel. Wolff Two-acre parcel adjacent to. Jacob Yes, sir. Wolff Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Kremp Second. Wolff All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Wolff Those opposed, please say nay. [No response.] Wolff Motion carries. Jacob Thank you for your time. Page 8 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 Wolff Thank you. The next item on our agenda is Docket #2019-12-SE, for 1153 South 700 East. Will the petitioner please come forward and state your name and address for the record? Jackson My name is Erin Jackson, if you can hear that, 1153 South 700 East. Let me just say I’m like super nervous. I don’t know why. Wolff You know, Ms. Jackson. I am as well. So, we’ll get through this together. Jackson Okay. Wolff What I ask is that you are asking for tonight? Why are you here in front of us? Jackson I would like to build a house on agricultural zoned land. Wolff Okay. Can you tell us a little bit about the house? Jackson I can. So, let me tell you the process, because on the plot plan that you see, that you should have, you see two houses. Correct? Wolff Yes. Jackson Yes. So, that’s not actually going to happen. Like, it’s going to happen, but okay, we’re moving, we’re building a garage. And, when I say we, it’s me, my fiance and his mother. So, we’re going to build a garage to residential standards first. And, we’re going to move into that and live in that probably for 5 years, or more. Probably. Then, we’ll build our 2800-square foot house that I have plans for if you would like to see. So, no, it will not be two houses. It will turn back into a garage. It’s just financially, that’s just how it’s having to work out for us. So, that’s the plan. Wolff Thank you. And, how many square feet is this first structure that we’re discussing tonight? About. Jackson Over 1200, I believe. Wolff Okay. Jackson Which is the minimum, correct? I think. Wolff It may say. And, as you look at the property, it looks like, I’m not sure what exhibit I have here in front of me. The plot plan. We’re talking about the structure that is towards the rear of the property, towards the east of the property? Jackson Correct. Wolff Okay. I’m just going to bring up something that should be obvious. Hopefully you are aware, have you been made aware of the Right to Farm Act? Do you know what that is? Jackson No. Page 9 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 Wolff Okay. So, what that means is, that part of this is that you will have to sign that document. And, what that says is that people around you have the right to perform agricultural things. Like plant fields, and till dirt and things like that. So, you can’t get upset with them when they do that because that’s their privilege. Jackson Yes. Wolff Okay. Any questions for our petitioner tonight? Kremp So, just to confirm. The garage structure, you’re building in accordance with residential requirements, then once you move into the new house, you’re not going to use that for residential purpose at all? Jackson Correct. Yes, it will be strictly for, my fiance wants to build a car for his daughter. So, that’s what it’s going to be used for. He likes working on vehicles. Kremp When you described it, I heard man-cave. Jackson Or man-cave. Yes, it could be basically a garage man-cave. Kremp Man-garage. Okay. Jones And, generally, a garage is going to be built that will have residential facilities. Bathroom and sleeping area or something like that. Jackson Yes. Jones And, then will the future house be then attached to the garage? Jackson No, it will be separate. If you look at the plot plan, you see proposed, there is a long driveway, then there is a proposed house. That’s the garage. Jones Okay, I got it. Jackson Barn, or whatever you want to call it. And, then the future house, that big rectangle, that’s where our dream home is going. Jones Gotcha. And, then the septic field to the north will serve both. Jackson Correct. Yes. Jones Do we have to put out a provision that once one structure is no longer used as a residential structure, the second structure, does that make sense. You know where I’m going. DeLong Right. We see this happen from time to time where parties acquire a piece of property, build a small structure to minimum standards, if you will, related to square footage. That 1200 square feet would need to be finished living space, so there would not be a car component storage to this building if it’s 1200 square feet, but as the property moves forward into its next life, the second building Page 10 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 permit is sought for the future home. A demolition permit is also filed and approved simultaneously, providing for the conversion of the 1200-square foot building to garage. Wolff An accessory structure. DeLong Accessory structure, exactly. So, we have, within the ordinances today, this process is permissible. The timing gets very tight at the very end related to weather and other life challenges that can pop up to, you know, hinder the progress, if you will, and certainly the timing slips a little bit. I mean, we have mechanisms to encourage compliance, but certainly there is no variance in front of you this evening. You’ve seen petitions before where someone petitions for a 3-year period, for example, to build an accessory structure that maybe has a 400- square foot living component in it. That’s not what’s in front of you this evening. This is merely just a special exception to provide for residential use of a piece of property. Jones And, it’s not really so much anything needs to be demolished. It just needs to be no longer used as living quarters. DeLong Correct. And, the ordinances would still allow a pool house, if you will, or some sort of other accessory structure that does have residential features. Jones Yes. You can have a bathroom in a detached garage? DeLong Correct. And, the bathroom, but you could not have a full kitchen, for example. There is ways that the ordinance limits that. But, this could be, basically some level of accessary building that has finished features within it. Jones And, then what she is asking for, she should only need to ask for once. So, if it gets approved, should provide her both for the existing structure they want to build currently, as well as the future structure on the site. Wolff That would be within, if the accessory structure, there is some limits there based on the size of the primary structure, correct? DeLong Correct. Wolff But, we don’t have that in front of us, and I’m assuming they’ll figure that out when they get to the primary structure. DeLong Correct. And, certainly building a 2800-square foot home, if there is a basement underneath, some other features, yes, they will already be into the conversation a certain percentage already. It might impact things a little bit, but the rural area is much more generous in its ordinances to facilitate this exact type of program. Wolff And, it’s a large lot. It’s 5.86 acres. Jones We’ve had more problems with somebody who wants to build a 12,000-foot accessory structure first, and then not a 1200. So, okay. Yes. Page 11 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 Wolff We just had a conversation. Is there anything I can clarify for you about that conversation, or any concerns of what you may have heard? I think what you’ve asked, I think we agree is what we can handle tonight and I think you’re just fine. But, is there anything I can clarify? Jackson You guys just let me know if we’re doing anything wrong. Wolff Maybe what I was trying to say is the Town would be upset if we had two resident buildings on that single property. And, so what is going to happen is when you go to build that big nice dream home, there is going to be a period of time where that your current home that we are discussing tonight needs to transition from a primary residence to an accessory structure. Jackson Correct. Wolff Which means garage, or barn, or pool house, or whatever the case may be. So, there will be some work that happens then, but as you mention, that’s 5 years from now or some other time. Jackson Right. Yes. Wolff So, I think we’re covered. Jackson Yes. And, it’s like a, I don’t think I provided it, which that was silly, but I have the, you know, floor plan of the barn/garage that shows there really should only be a sink and, you know refrigerator and dishwasher and, maybe dishwasher. I don’t know. And stove, and you know, that’s really it. It’s not going to be anything fancy. We were trying to keep it extremely simple so we can tear it down and put the money towards the nice house. Wolff Sort of a studio-esque. Jackson Yes. Exactly. Yes, it is basically. Wolff Any questions for the petitioner? Mundy I have another Wayne question. Is it required that when the permit for the primary residence five years from now, or whenever that is, and that is completed, that indeed this structure that they’re talking about this evening be revert to a garage as opposed to, oh, this would be nice for my cousin who is looking for a place to live, and could it remain a residential structure? DeLong The structure would be permissible to be a structure that had residential features such as dry wall, heated, cooled, access to the septic system, a sink, a toilet, but it cannot have features that makes it qualify to be a standalone single-family dwelling without a separate zoning relief. So, we do have plenty of accessory buildings in the rural area and the urban area that have very nice features that can support various levels of occupancy, but when the building inspection is done, the level of occupancy is reduced because the building might have a full bathroom, but it might only have a kitchenette. It might have a full kitchen, but the restroom is lacking a shower. So, there is pieces and parts that move around. Page 12 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 Mundy So, it can have residential features, but it should not have residents. DeLong Correct. It is not a rental property. It is not a second dwelling. Those are mortgaged separately. Those have different entitlements. Those are very different conversations to lenders, as well as the Town. Kremp Just a quick follow-up on that. So, the special exception, if we approve it this evening, it doesn’t relate to the number of structures that are built on the property, right. We’re just approving the right to build a residential structure on the property. So, if something else were to change in the zoning ordinance. DeLong Be seen again. Kremp Yes. DeLong Now, there have been cases in the past with special exceptions like this where maybe a neighbor would be an interested party that would want to have a little bit more detail as to the fit, feel and finish of the new structure. You’ve had petitions in front of you where even the setback itself was debated by the Board with interested parties interacting. That’s apparently not the case this evening, but you may recall times where the data that’s been provided to you is more complex. Jones Just to confirm, we’re basically at this point approving both the existing 1200- square foot structure, as well as the future construction of a home. So, we’re nailing this property to have the residential construction both current and then five years down the road, correct? DeLong Correct. You have an opportunity to maybe have a little bit more information about their plans than what you would typically have. I mean, if you distilled this down to somebody coming in seeking a special exception to occupy this property for residential purposes with a 1200-square foot home, that would be the end of the story, and as long as you met the findings it would be approved. Five years from now, if they sought a building permit to demolish the existing structure or convert it, it would not come back in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals for a modification to the special exception. It’s earning that right this evening if that’s something that you grant. Jones And, then the second statement is, this exception only allows for a single residential use on the property, so as they build the future house and use the existing as a house, as a residence, there will come a point where they need to move over. What we have within our jurisdiction is the ability to go back out and cite them for having two residential structures if they don’t make the move from the garage to the house, or try to use the garage as a secondary structure. So, we don’t really have to go, you know, typically the Town does not go out and look for violations, but this would be a situation by requesting what they’re requesting they have kind of put everybody on notice that at some day they’re going to move over, and if they don’t move over, we have the right to go back out and write them up for staying. Does that make sense? Page 13 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 DeLong Correct. And, that right, if you will, is already dictated by the zoning ordinance as it is written, so that is something that would happen with or without execution of the Board on that particular comment. But, certainly in this way you’ve routinely executed this type of scenario is we would go out and do the final inspection on the new home. We would either be issuing a temporary certificate of occupancy or full CO, and those are words that are of interest to lenders who are then looking for a final certificate of occupancy issued to the homeowner so they can close out construction loans. There is different pieces of the conversation that are different motivation points to the conclude the conversation. Jones And, then Ms. Jackson, the whole reason we are doing all this is just trying to keep you from having to come back and talk to us. Not that we’re not delightful individuals. Jackson You don’t like me? Jones We’re really trying to find a way to make sure this just kind of moves on down the road. Jackson Yes. No, I appreciate that. Wolff Any other conversation or comments? Are there any remonstrators here tonight? Seeing none, can we have the staff report? DeLong Thank you. Staff is supportive of the petition as it’s filed. The petition that’s in front of you is a petition seeking for special exception for residential use in agricultural area from the site plan that is attached to the staff report. There is a number of homes that are in proximity to this piece of property, the characteristic that is being reduced residential occupancy of a less than 6-acre site, is not introducing a characteristic into the area that is not already established. One of several factors that staff finds favorable with this petition. Certainly the right to farm is a document to be executed as previously described, and Chrissy in our office would help facilitate that. And, I would be happy to answer any questions about the petition. Wolff Thank you, Wayne. I missed it earlier. Also, there is a proximity to the airport. Do we have a document for that, or do we just acknowledge the fact that it’s near the airport? DeLong We find it beneficial to put that number in staff reports when it comes to petitions like this. Wolff Okay. DeLong There is a, it’s just a gentle reminder. There is no standard, per se, for the Town to provide that notice, but certainly we always encourage folks that are building in proximity to the airport to communicate to the airport, with the airport, to see if there is any standards that they are required to by law to enhance their home with, such as, a denser shingle or a thicker wall, just for sound-proofing. The airport does plan on expanding to a 7000-foot long runway at some point in time, Page 14 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 so you will see eventually an increased aircraft traffic, and certainly increased usage. Wolff Thank you, Wayne. Any other questions for the staff? Any other discussion? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Kremp I’ll make the motion. I move that Docket #2019-12-SE, special exception petition in the agricultural district for the property located at 1153 South 700 East be approved based upon the staff report and proposed findings. If approved, it shall be required that the petitioner execute the right to farm commitment documentation. Wolff Thank you. Is there a second? Jones Second. Wolff All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Wolff Those opposed, please say no. [No response.] Wolff Motion carries. Jackson Yay! Wolff Good luck on your new home. Jackson Thank you, very much. Wolff The next item on our agenda tonight is Docket #2019-13-DSV, the Town of Zionsville, at 855 Starkey Road. I should say Town of Zionsville wastewater treatment utility buildings. Wayne, you want to do your dance? DeLong Yes. I will step down from the deus here. Wolff Please state your name and address for the record. DeLong Wayne DeLong, Director of Planning and Economic Development for the Town, 1100 West Oak Street here in Zionsville. Wolff Thank you. DeLong I am presenting this evening on behalf of Mr. Barry Cook, wastewater treatment plant superintendent. Barry had a number of obligations today, and could not attend the meeting this evening, but certainly would be here if his schedule permitted the activity. The petition that the Town has filed is a request to improve the existing wastewater treatment plant’s property with several accessory buildings. Now, these accessory buildings would be functioning for the Page 15 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 purposes of support for the existing wastewater treatment facility. It’s occupied the site for several decades. The location is rather interesting. The site where the buildings would be constructed is the western-most edge, the southern-most edge, of the property in question, and ultimately this property is a high spot to the property to the south. That does have a ridge that climbs to this particular location. The variance is necessary for three reasons. The buildings themselves would be constructed of steel. This is the characteristic that exists on the property today when it comes to accessory buildings. This is captured in the exhibits that are in the staff report. The project in totality would build up a little bit less than 10,000 square feet of accessory buildings over a period of years, and this could be a period of decades. It depends on funding mechanisms of the Town, and certainly needs. It’s envisioned that this construction of structures would facilitate sort of a wall, if you will, along this property line about 25 feet give or take off that property line, which is seen as advantageous for winds and blockages of viewsheds and things of that nature. In the future, the Town does envision facilitating some additional safety items along that property line, enhancing the fence, potential walls or other types of structures in that 25-foot setback. I’m not here this evening to speak to that right now. The property is enclosed with a chain-link fence that’s three to six feet in height with three strands of barbed wire. It has been there for a number of years. Again, the structures are steel, is the first variance request. The second variance request is because these structures would be located within the 30-foot buffer yard. The setback that’s proposed mirrors the existing setback that’s existing on the property for this exact setup of accessory buildings. And, then the third variance is associated with foundation plantings. The ordinance requires that the buildings enjoy foundation plantings. Given the southerly exposure, the 30 to 50-foot tall tree canopy that’s there, the survivability of foundation plantings is seen as somewhat reduced. The property itself is adjoined by a very heavily wooded tree line. That tree line sits on both the Town’s property and the adjoiner’s property. Certainly the Town would garner the benefit of calculations of the tree, the existing mature trees, as towards its landscape requirements, but in the event there are shortcomings, the Town would certainly be willing to put in the Type A landscaping. And, really, we envision that as a column of arborvitae. A tall, slender type tree, more commonly known as a golf ball catcher when it comes to that type of planting, but they do reach a pretty good height. They are a pretty hardy tree and they’re rather inexpensive if we do have a loss rate because of the shade that we would be experiencing. With that, the Town concludes its comments and I would be happy to take questions. Wolff Thank you, Wayne. I have a couple. So, you mentioned, this property is surrounded by a fence. Is it gated, as well? DeLong It is. There is a rolling electronic gait with a key pad that lets people in and out of the property if they have the property - - Wolff --So, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Doe resident, Jane Doe resident, shouldn’t be back at this property? DeLong No. For when folks need assistance from the wastewater treatment plant, we have the financing records office here. Also has a deputy director that is the wastewater treatment plant point of contact, and so you would be paying your bill Page 16 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 here at Town Hall. Really all functions lead to Town Hall, except for the functions of the wastewater treatment plant itself. Jones It’s really gated just to keep people out. Not so much worried about people actually stealing anything from the wastewater treatment plant. Wolff I don’t know what you would steal from a wastewater treatment plant. I don’t want to think about that too much. DeLong No, I mean, that’s it. There is no public reason to be on the property. Certainly the Town historically has had visitors to the property over time. That’s certainly something that’s been reduced with different fencing. The pedestrian trail traverses the side of the property. But, really the intention is to keep, you know, the public out of the realm of the wastewater treatment plant. Jones So, the property actually to the south of this, what is that junk back through there. Is that private property? DeLong So, the pictures that you see, Exhibits 4, for example. Those are all existing condition pictures of the site itself, so the tank, the steel buildings. The tree line behind there is partly the Town’s and partly the adjoining property owner to the west. And, we did reach out for notice purposes to contact adjacent property owners. We did speak specifically to Mr. Knighten, who represents the property owner of the property to the south. We did have that opportunity. Wolff Thank you. And, the current structures, they use similar materials as to what you’re proposing? DeLong They are an all-steel building. So, looking at Exhibits 4, there are several pictures in Exhibit 4. You can see the steel buildings that are just monochrome in color, slightly pitched steel roof. The building that’s proposed is a standalone, or the standing-seemed steel building with a steel roof. Kremp So, that’s the building that’s proposed as the 75 by 60 barn? DeLong Correct. That is one of four different structures on Exhibit 3. There is a series of rectangles and squares that would be the totality of the nearly 10,000 square feet of accessory structures. The way the Town envisions rolling out this program is as it builds each individual building, it would propose that individual building and present that at the Plan Commission in a separate public hearing. So, for example, next week there is a public hearing that is set to happen on May 20 where the 4500-square foot building would be discussed, and then with subsequent buildings if those are ever sought,those individual buildings would be presented at future public hearings with public notice. Kremp So, just for clarification then, all those, the additional buildings, the approval this evening would be for the steel exterior on all buildings? DeLong Correct. Kremp Okay. Page 17 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 Jones And, these are just equipment storage? Or, what’s the purpose? DeLong There is some buildings that will be equipment storage. There will be some buildings that will be more open, maybe just to bring a Bobcat or a small trailer in from undercover and out of the weather. The enclosed buildings would be used for storage of the vacuum truck, for example, that does not have a good place to be stored, or to be washed. There is no wash bay right now that can facilitate that. These buildings would be for mechanical storage of equipment. There is, I’m not aware of, there is no plant use. There is no piping to this side of the property for any expansion of the plant. These are merely storage buildings. Kremp How visible would these be from the trail? DeLong From the trail. The buildings themselves will be placed in-between existing buildings, so the property, the area that is closest to the trail is already improved with a standalone steel building. So, these structures would be tucked in. So, certainly, as you walk down the trail and look over the multiple basins you would then see these structures. And, also looking over your shoulder, if you were to be walking north, again, gazing over the existing structures. Wolff My experience, though, is it’s pretty dense back there at this time of the year. So, in winter time it would be more visible, but at this particular time of the year it would be pretty difficult to see anything. DeLong Yes. Wolff Any other questions for our petitioner? Thank you, Wayne. DeLong Certainly. Wolff Are there any remonstrators here tonight? Please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Knighten I’m Jim Knighten, and I live at 211 Wakefield Way. My partner and I own the 22 acres directly to the south. And, I wouldn’t say that we’re remonstrators. We just want to make sure that if they’re going to be granted the right to build all steel buildings with no foundation planting or anything of that nature, that the property line that separates our property, which we are in current planning stages to become a residential development of that 22 acres. We would just like to see that they follow through with, like, what Wayne was talking about. Putting some sort of trees that would make good visual buffers to where our residents that will be looking right into those buildings, that they would be buffered as a result of that, and maintain those plantings and that fence. Because, it’s pretty rough back there now. And, that’s fine. We’re not trying to cause any issues other than the fact that we just know we’re going to build houses back there in the future. And, we don’t want them looking straight into those metal buildings. Wolff I actually have not been on your property. I think there is some elevation changes to it, as I understand, some ridges and things like that. Page 18 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 Knighten Yes. Wolff Are you more concerned, and it’s kind of, as I look at it, the property we’re discussing right now shares a small western border, and kind of a southern or northern border, depending on how you’re looking at it. Are you more concerned about the larger border, or the western border? Knighten The border that is between the two existing buildings. Wolff Okay, so I’m going to call that the north-south border. Do you think we’re all on the same page? It’s the larger of the two borders. Knighten Yes. Yes. Wolff Okay. Perfect. Knighten Just something to make it look reasonable. Wolff Yes. As you think about your future development, you don’t feel that your residents want to see the steel structures as they pull into the neighborhood, or something along those lines? Knighten Right. Right. Wolff Correct. Okay. Knighten That’s all. Wolff Thank you. And, was it Mr. Knight. Knighten Knighten. Wolff Knighten. Thank you. Are there any other remonstrators here tonight? Jones I have a question. So, looking at the aerial on Exhibit 2, the larger structure we see to the left of the page, is that kind of opened-based. I don’t know how you describe it. It’s kind of looks like an existing barn structure of some form. DeLong Correct. I don’t know the exact dimensions of that. It is an open-bay building with open sides. It is a structure that bio-solids are dried and batched, and distributed off-site. Jones Okay. And, then the other building appears tan on Exhibit 4, but it appears kind of whitish on the previous. That’s the one that’s existing all the way in the far eastern corner. Or I’m sorry. I’m looking, into, it’s the far southern end of the property, right? DeLong Correct. That is the building that is closest to the existing trail system. Jones Okay. Page 19 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 DeLong And, so you’d be looking at this, in Exhibit 4, you’d be looking at the side of the building. If you were looking through the tree line, and you see the LP tank, and the side of the building, that building is used for storage currently. It’s vehicular. Be it the vac truck and another larger vehicle. Jones We’ve got a fairly clean property line there along the western side currently, except for the tank. DeLong Yes. Jones And, then the tank is a propane tank, of some form? DeLong I believe so. Yes. Jones And, that’s all the way down there at the tip somewhere sitting? Yes, there is it. Kremp Do you believe the variance will address the remonstrator’s concerns? I’m trying to understand the, you know with the elimination of the foundation plantings, what obligations the city actually would have if we grant the variance to address his concerns. Is it specific to, because, I’m hearing him concerned about what the structures may look like from a property that’s probably very valuable and could be developed in the future. It sounds like he has comfort level based upon discussions that may have occurred, but in the variance, are we addressing anything specific that would require the city to address his concerns. I think that, as I read it, we are just, we would be relieving the city from the obligation with respect to the landscaping to put any foundations plantings in place. DeLong Correct. That’s the relief that’s requested, is to not require landscape or the landscaping at the foundation and with the property. This property being at the top of the hill, the benefit of the viewshed being interrupted by the foundation plantings is probably pretty reduced, eventually looking at the density of the vegetation. And, even if there is no foliage, the tree trunks themselves will provide a pretty strong way to interrupt the viewshed. What is left, I believe to be, to Mr. Knighten’s concern, is that vertical element, and that viewshed from there. And, that’s where the column of arborvitae come in. They are rather inexpensive plantings. They are rather hardy, and certainly the Town has not formulated a plan, is it 2 feet on, or is it 20-feet on center, 30-feet on center, 10- foot on center. That’s, we’re not, the Town has not advanced the plans yet. Certainly that is something that the sewer wastewater treatment plant is willing to commit to, is that it will provide column arborvitaes within, you know, as these buildings are constructed, but to the density height at planting, those types of characteristics, I cannot speak to those. I do know that the Town is committed to not creating a situation where the property owner is not pleased with the outcome. Wolff Certainly. So, and with what we’re discussing tonight. The new building we’re discussing tonight, is there any intention to remove the foliage that is, any of the foliage that’s there, or passed the property line, or anything? DeLong Not in the least. No. The chain-link fence itself, I mean, there is 25 feet give or take between where this existing building would be put in, then the chain-link Page 20 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 fence, and then beyond that is another 3 to 4 feet before you get to the original farm fence. This project would not remove the chain-link fence. Wolff Okay. DeLong In reverse, there will be opportunities to put in some retaining walls to shore up the ground in that area, and certainly enhancements to the fence in it’s existing location. Wolff So, we have a remonstrator, that brings up an interesting point. And, I think I heard Wayne say that the Town would be amenable to adding some arborvitae or some sort of vertical plant to help alleviate our remonstrator’s concern. Did I speak out of turn? DeLong No, we are amenable to that. Wolff Okay. And, I’m not sure, I’m not terribly concerned about the specifics of height or anything like that. As long as the intent is to obstruct or improve the view from the neighboring property, I think I’m okay with that. DeLong And, certainly as this project rolls out, if you will, there will be additional opportunities for the property owners to interact with this project via the Plan Commission. We set that up very specifically so if there is dissatisfaction with the first element of the project, when the project comes in for its second run through the program, there can be an opportunity to augment the previous approval and add additional plantings if things didn’t work out as we think they will. Wolff Certainly. That’s a good point. Jones Two questions. So, the actual treatment facilities sit on a separate parcel? DeLong It is within the 7.46-acre site. The way these parcels were acquired, this particular parcel where these buildings sit, is about two and a half acres, was acquired in the late 60s, early 70s. So, technically, it is a separate parcel, but for purposes of notice, we cast a ring around the entire property. Jones So, is the other parcel also a SU8. DeLong Correct. Jones Okay. And, my other question was when it comes to SU8 zoning, what is allowed in terms of outdoor storage? DeLong I don’t have that answer off-hand. We can look for that. I do know the intention of this petition is to bring all items that are currently outdoors, with the exception of the LP tank under-cover, to eliminate outdoor storage. Jones Just to address, you know, once again, eliminating foundation plantings and that kind of stuff, if you look at the site, from a maintenance standpoint, it’s easier to keep it kind of clean grass up to the building. I’m just thinking for future Page 21 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 development, the storage of the drainage pipe and the other stuff you see in the pictures would be more of an issue than the lack of flowers. So, as long as the intention is to kind of build the buildings, clean up the site, I think that benefits the adjoining property owner, and keeps everything moving forward. That make sense? DeLong Makes sense. Good point. Wolff Seems reasonable. Do we need a staff report? Jones And, then who gives it? DeLong Well, uniquely we’ve had this conversation recently about the staff report. It is not just me alone. I am the staff presenter. I am certainly not the lone staff reviewer when it comes to petitions that are filed with various Boards and Commissions. But, certainly, the Town staff is supportive of the petition as it’s been filed, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Wolff Okay. Any additional questions for Wayne? I think I heard that the Town would be amenable to adding some vertical foliage or arborvitae. With that in mind, I would entertain a motion. DeLong And, I would offer a suggestion that the motion could include, “subject to additional vertical plantings as approved by the Plan Commission.” That way you keep that conversation an ongoing point. Wolff I think it allows the adjoining properties to continue to be a part of this, and make sure that their needs and concerns are addressed. DeLong That’s staff’s intention. Wolff Perfect. Thank you. With that, I would entertain a motion. Jones I’ll move that Docket # 2019-13-DSV, variance of development standards to allow for a building to be constructed on the property which utilizes one, exterior building material steel, locate buildings within the required buffer yards, and utilize Type A landscaping, while not providing for foundation plantings in the urban special use zoning district SU8 zoning district for the property located at 855 Starkey Road be approved as filed and as presented. Was there another condition we were going to add? DeLong Subject to ongoing review of landscaping by the Plan Commission. Jones Okay. Subject to ongoing review of the site plantings via the Plan Commission. Wolff Thank you. Is there a second? Mundy Second. Wolff All those in favor, please say aye. Page 22 of 23 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 14, 2019 All Aye. Wolff Those opposed? [No response.] Wolff Motion carries. Thank you, Town. The next item on our agenda is, we had planned on doing some additional training for the BZA members, and at this point, we are going to move that to our next meeting, or some future meeting so we have everyone present. With that, Wayne, any updates? DeLong Certainly, very, very quickly. For the # 2019-07-SE, that petitioner’s recording, working on recording those commitments. # 2019-06-DSV, that petitioner is working on recording those commitments. Zionsville Underground, we are working through some updates on language. That’s, different attorneys are working on that. Petition for 31SE and 32DSV, as well, there is language that’s being reviewed. That matter is now pending with the Plan Commission next month. So that is moving right along. No updates on Wildwood Design, and specific to # 2017-11-DSV, we have another workout meeting this Friday with another potential buyer for the project of Ainsley Park, and we’re certainly hopeful that those conversations are fruitful. And, that concludes my update. Wolff Thank you, Wayne. With no further matters, this meeting is adjourned. Page 23 of 23