Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

BZA MEETING RESULTS- ZIONSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JUNE 3, 2020, 6:30 p.m. (Local Time) MEETING WAS FACILITATED BY REMOTE ATTENDANCE - NO IN PERSON PARTICIPATION BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OR THE PUBLIC OCCURED The following items were scheduled for consideration: I. Approval of the May 6, 2020 Meeting Minutes – approved 4-0 as written II. Continued Business Address of Item to be considered Docket Number Name Project Withdrawn by Petitioner – Approved by Board after approving a waiver of the Rules of Procedure to allow consideration of the withdraw request (as withdrawing the petition once testimony occurs is not permissible) - 4 in Favor, 0 Opposed Continued by Board from May 6, 2020 to June 3, 2020 Meeting 2020-10-DSV A. Nester 720 W Pine Street Petition for Development Standards Variance in order to provide for the addition of a carport to a Single-Family Home which: 1) Deviates from the required side yard setback and 2) Deviates from the required rear yard setback in the Urban Residential Village Zoning District (R-V). III. New Business Address of Item to be considered Docket Number Name Project Approved as presented & filed w/exhibit dated 5/29/20 with conditions – 4 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards Variance in order to provide for the addition of an outdoor living space to a Single- 2020-11-DSV S. Greve 596 Starkey Road Family Home which: 1) Deviates from the required side & aggregate yard setbacks and 2) Exceeds the required lot coverage of 35%, to 38% in the Urban Residential Village Zoning District (R-V). June 8, 2020  Approved as presented & filed w/exhibits & per staff report – 4 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards Variance in order to provide for an addition to a Single-Family Home which: 2020-13-DSV M. Lohmeyer 880 Starkey Road 1) Deviates from the required side yard setback (new improvement) 2) Deviates from the required aggregate side yard setbacks (memorializing existing improvement) in the Urban Open Land Zoning District (OL). Respectfully Submitted: Wayne DeLong AICP, CPM Town of Zionsville Director of Planning and Economic Development June 8, 2020 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 In Attendance: John Wolff, Laura Campins, Jeff Papa, Steve Mundy. Absent is Larry Jones. Staff attending: Wayne DeLong, Chrissy Koenig, Darren Chadd, attorney. A quorum is present. Wolff Let’s go ahead and get started and hope that Mr. Jones joins us shortly. With that, welcome to the June 3, 2020 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. The first item on our agenda is the pledge of allegiance. Wayne, we’re going to turn to you and I’ll start us. All Pledge. Wolff Thank you, everyone. The next item on our agenda is attendance. Wayne, will you help us with that? DeLong Yes. Mr. Mundy? Mundy Present. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Present DeLong Mr. Wolff? Wolff Present. DeLong Ms. Campins? Campins Present. DeLong Mr. Jones? Wolff Note that hopefully Larry will join us shortly. Wayne, let’s stop right now and see if any members of our community want to be recognized as participating in our meeting. DeLong Okay. Mr. Tousley has raised his hand. S. Greve, which is one of your petitioners, has also raised their hand. Earlier I saw the hand of Mr. Lamb. Noting those three attendees. An attendee only showing the name of Blake. Wolff Welcome to all of our community members. DeLong Another attendees, Matthew L. Again, names that are single, or just with one letter, I am noting that because that’s the only thing that’s on my screen. Wolff Understood. The next item on our agenda is the approval of the May 6, 2020 meeting minutes. You should have received those electronically. I think it was Page 1 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 maybe Thursday or Friday. I will turn it over to the group for any discussion, and if not, I will entertain a motion to approve those minutes. Mundy If there is no discussion, I move to approve the May minutes. Papa Second. Wolff Thank you. And, thank you. Wayne, let’s do a roll call vote on that. DeLong Very good. Mr. Mundy? Mundy Aye. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. DeLong Mr. Wolff? Wolff Aye. DeLong Ms. Campins? Campins Aye. DeLong Still noting that Mr. Jones is absent. Wolff Very good. The next item on our agenda is the continued business, which also has a withdrawal request. And this is going to be a bit of a conversation, so let us get engaged in that. So, this is referring to Docket # 2020-10-DSV for 720 West Pine Street. As the group recalls, it was, we had some concerns about the data that we had received regarding the overall lot coverage, and I believe it was due to no fault of the petitioner. I think there was a survey that was a little bit inaccurate and confusing. So, with that, we requested a continuance for more information, and more accurate information specifically. As you have noted, in your email account you received the petitioner has asked for a withdrawal request. And typically, because it is on the agenda, we would need to vote on that, but we have a slightly unusual circumstance, and I would read from our rules of procedure. ‘No petition may be withdrawn by a petitioner after the Board has received any evidence or testimony regarding the petition at the public hearing scheduled on the petition.’ So, I think what that means is we probably need to have a motion and a vote on that petition. Now, with that being said, I don’t know the intent of the petitioner, and nor do I not want to be neighborly. So, we have, I think, a couple options. One is we could have a motion and a vote on that. I do not believe the petitioner is here. I believe they just anticipated withdrawal. So, we could vote to deny the petition. We could vote to continue the petition, and explain in more detail to the petitioner what’s going to happen, or we could have a vote to amend those rules for this particular petition, and then have a vote to grant the withdrawal. I don’t have a strong opinion on this. I will defer to my fellow BZA members, but trying to be neighborly, you know, I Page 2 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 would be amenable to changing and modifying the rules for this particular instance. But, again, I would kind of turn it over to the group for discussion. Mundy Wayne, can you shed any light on the reason for their request to withdrawal? DeLong Certainly. As we discussed last month, there was a potential lot coverage variance that was as well necessary. The final determination on that specific topic was never realized. The petitioner included, and certainly Chris, you might have any additional details here, but I think the petitioner concluded to simply move on from the project and focus energy on other things, and other improvements at the home that did not require a variance. Wolff And, I think the consequences of this decision are if we deny the petition, we can’t hear something substantially similar to it for 12 months. If the petition is withdrawn, it may be 6 months. Chadd Yes. Wolff Yes. I am amenable either way. Mundy Although, could we not, if we agree, we could hear it sooner than that timeframe, if the Board agrees with that? Wolff There are provisions in our rules and procedures to allow that, yes. We would have to vote on allowing a second petition within the 1-year window. Darren, have I accurately assessed this? Chadd You have. It is a kind of unique circumstance. But since you’ve already heard evidence, the rules say they typically can’t just withdraw at that point. So, you could act on it, or suspend the rule, waive that rule to allow you to accept the withdraw. Mundy I’ll make the assumption that they indeed wish to withdraw and move that we amend our rules to allow for a withdraw of petition # 2020-10-DSV. Wolff Okay. So, to be clear, this is a motion to suspend that rule. Is there a second to that motion? Campins I second. Wolff Thank you. Wayne, will you roll call vote on the motion to suspend the rule not allowing the petition to be withdrawn after it’s been heard? DeLong Certainly. Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. But only because there was conflicting evidence when we heard it last time. DeLong Mr. Wolff? Wolff Aye. Page 3 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 DeLong Ms. Campins? Campins Aye. DeLong Steve Mundy? Mundy Aye. Wolff Very good. That motion carries with a vote of 4-0. Now we will need a motion to accept the withdraw of that petition. Mundy I move to accept the withdraw of petition # 2020-10-DSV. Wolff Very good. Is there a second? Papa Second. Wolff Thank you, Mr. Papa. Wayne, I’ll turn it to you. DeLong Mr. Wolff? Wolff Aye. DeLong Ms. Campins? Campins Aye. DeLong Mr. Mundy? Mundy Aye. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. Wolff Very good. Motion carries. Okay, the next item on our agenda is new business, which brings us to Docket # 2020-11-DSV, which is 596 Starkey Road. Wayne, will you assist in getting the petitioner and the representative brought forward? DeLong Certainly. I believe Blake is the architect or site design professional. Mr. Greve has been promoted. Certainly, I don’t know from his team who he wishes to have address the Board first, but I’ll leave it to the Board’s choices as to what to do next. Wolff Very good. Mr. Greve, are you there? Greve Yes, I’m here. Can you hear me? Wolff Absolutely. Would you, for our record-keeping, please state your name and address? Page 4 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 Greve Sure. My name is Sean Greve. I live at 596 [inaudible], Zionsville. Wolff Thank you, Mr. Greve. And, would you please, in your words, describe what is in front of us tonight? What you’re asking and what your project looks like? Greve Sure, yes. Thank you for hearing the appeal. I’ve been under a contract with Blake Herbst since January to add an outdoor living space to my property, and along the way we’ve done everything up until now to get this project approved and properly permitted. We do have some permits. What we have, I think, are two variances, lot coverage and setback, and which is why we’re in front of you tonight. We’re looking for approval to move forward [inaudible]. Wolff Very good. Mr. Greve, as I looked at this petition, I got a little bit lost in the numbers. So, I’m hoping you could add some clarification to us. Can you describe the space of the patio, or the square footage of the patio that you are proposing to add? Greve Blake, do you have the specifics? I don’t want to give any wrong information here. Wolff And actually we may need to promote Blake. One moment. Blake, I see you now as presenter, but I feel like you might be muted. Herbst Can you see me now? Wolff Absolutely. Herbst Okay. Wolff Would you please state your name and address for the record for me? Herbst Yes. It’s Blake Herbst, and I live at 4478 East 300 North, Greenfield, Indiana, 46140. Wolff Very good. So, I believe the question was, can you describe the dimensions of the proposed addition? Herbst Yes. So, late I think last week it was, we amended the plan to show, to basically take away the roof structure, which was going to throw it over the lot coverage of impermeable surface. So, we kind of in the 11th-hour changed that roof structure, and Sean agreed to doing a pergola, which is an open-air structure that will allow water to penetrate the ground. And, so beneath that, and some of the info and how it got kind of confusing there in the end was the survey that I was going off of was submitted by the builder, and it had numbers that were conflicting with the actual assessment. And that’s what kind of confused things. And, so what we did to, you know, stick with the motion to allow lot coverage to be 38%, because the overall lot, with the overall lot area and what the house is, there was I think 283-square feet of difference between what the survey I had and what the assessment actually was. And so that’s a big deal on this lot, because we’re not proposing a large space. So, to make the numbers work, what we’ve chose to do is not have a roof structure, make that a pergola. The outdoor kitchen you guys Page 5 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 see, the footprint of that being 45 square feet. That’s not going to, I mean, that’s an impervious surface. That’s not going to allow water, and so that needs to be counted, and then we’re going to do a small paver area in front of that kitchen, and then the rest is just going to be a cover, or a pergola, excuse me, area. And, based on that, that gets us to that 38%, which is 3% over, but it’s also to my understanding that if we propose that permeable area, that 35 square feet, there’s an allowance of maybe 2% of additional lot coverage, which I think is already covered in the total. And, then the setback is another issue. We’re, and it has to do with the aggregate, and the side-yard we’re needing 5 extra feet. So, our aggregate is only going to be 10 instead of the 15 required. And, so those were the two issues. Wolff Okay. So, I want to make sure I heard that correctly. There is a, like a countertop kitchen area. Assuming a grill or something, that is 45 square feet. Herbst Correct. Wolff And, then kind of in front of that, where the barbeque may stand, is a paver patio that is 35 square feet. Herbst Correct. It will be permeable. Wolff Okay. And, above that, all that structure is a pergola. Herbst Correct. So, you’re traditional or you’re standard open-air 4-post with joists and beams. Wolff Okay. So, what I think I heard was, and as I look at the rest of it, it looks like the rest of the area is - - Herbst --It’s landscaping. So, you’ve got some open lawn, and landscaping. There is no other, but I guess, also I think should be noted, and considered, is what he currently has on his property now, which is a 12 x 12 roof structure with a 200- sqaure foot paver patio, and that roof structure is only 2 feet off the property line, and so what I’m trying to do with this project is actually, because that didn’t conform, and that got by the builder, whatever. It’s, that was a done deal, but we’re actually wanting to make it better, and get that structure off the property line, and actually it goes away and we’re replacing it with a pergola, and something that is going to allow water to pass through instead of shed off of that roof structure. Wolff Okay. So, what happens, I have, according to the property record card, I have the house at 3010 square feet. You’re proposing an additional 80 square feet of lot coverage. Herbst That’s correct. Wolff And, the lot appears to be, again, with property record card, 8117 square feet. So, if I do the math, I think you do come out to 38.0%. And then, can you go back, today what you’re suggesting is that you’re going to remove a 12 x 12. No, you’re going to remove a 200-square foot? Page 6 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 Herbst I believe it’s your, you know, it’s not the quality of what we would have constructed, but it is definitely a 4-post structure, 4-hipped, metal roof, 12 x 12 structure, and underneath most of that is a paver patio, and again it was erected, constructed at the time of building, and Mr. Greve, when he bought the home, assumed that without really knowing he was in fault there, and so we’re trying to work with, come up with a better solution so he can still have a space outdoors. Wolff Okay. So, you’re proposing, the house, we’re not changing the house. So that 3010 square feet is not changing. Herbst Correct. Wolff What you’re suggesting is that there is a 200-square foot paver patio today, and a 12 x 12 structure, roof structure over it, or at least part of it, and you’re going to take that out and you’re going to replace it with an 80-square foot structure. So, one way to think about this is the total lot coverage is going to go down by 120- square feet. Herbst You’re correct. Greve And, hopefully properly permitted, which we don’t have today. Wolff Yes. Okay. I will turn it over to my fellow Board members with any additional questions for the petitioner. Oh, actually, one more. I’m sorry. Maybe Blake, you mentioned it. The paver patio today is how far off of the property line? Herbst Well, the roof structure, and then I guess the paver patio, as well, it’s like 1-foot 11. I mean, it’s really, it’s really close based on my site measurements, and I had it on my CAD drawing as context, but it’s not on the current one. But it’s definitely close to that property line. Wolff Is this the property line to the north, or the property line to the east? Herbst To the east. Wolff Okay. So, the side, sort of side-yard. Herbst Correct. Wolff Okay. And, you’re proposing a 5-foot setback. Herbst I’m proposing maintaining that 5-foot, and part of my motive, too, for doing that is one, that easement, realize that easement, and then so I can provide a little bit of landscape barrier, kind of a soft green hedge there to give Mr. Greve a little bit of privacy without being too harsh there. Wolff Okay. Fellow Board members. What questions do you have for the petitioner? Mundy So, the total square footage, or percentage of lot coverage will be 38%, which includes this new paver with the pergola, no roof above it. And, Wayne, can I Page 7 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 ask, I know that you pointed out that your percent coverage was different than was originally submitted. So, I guess I’d like to hear from you if the proposed lot coverage that we just heard from the petitioner is in agreement with what you believe it is. DeLong Thank you, Steve. And, what I would do here is Chrissy Koenig with our department has spent some hours combing through these details, and I think she’d be in a great position to speak to that as the technical expert on this particular portion of the petition. I’ll turn it over to Chrissy here. Koenig Thanks, Wayne. Yes. Board members and everyone, the original plan that was submitted as Blake just described. The numbers that were originally used for the overall square footage that was covering the lot were deemed from a survey that was done and submitted for the proposed original building of the home. And so those numbers were not, I think what Blake I believe you said, 283 approximately less than, as we think sometimes everyone realizes things get built a little bit differently in the field, but what we are going on is the numbers from the assessor’s office since they send people out to do measurements after the home has been built. So, when those numbers were realized that they were not matching up, then the numbers were reworked, and at that point, the staff report, we were already, you know, complete with that, and though Blake and Mr. Greve were able to come to an agreement on how to change that and make it to where it fit the 38%, staff’s report was already done at that point in time, so that’s why what you’re seeing is a little bit conflicting. Did that answer your question, Steve? Mundy It did. Yes. And, the landscaping that Blake, I believe mentioned, that’s what you received on I think it was the 29th of May. So, we do have that, that’s the one we have in our package? Koenig Correct. The most recent one was put up towards the front of the petition packet, and date-stamped May 29. So, the difference that you’ll see if you look at the original one in the staff’s report, had a much larger patio area on it, and it had a roof structure, whereas this most recent one we got rid of, I will say, the portion of the patio that went further south, I think if my direction is correct there. Herbst Correct. Koenig So, that part of the patio has been omitted to get that lot coverage down, and they’ve changed it from the closed-roof structure to a pergola impervious structure. We did verify, and Blake spoke to the fact that it won’t be one of those pergolas, the Smart pergolas that will open and close. It will be open to the elements at all times. Campins If I may, I did drive by to look at the area that is being proposed, and it is kind of a tight, narrow area. How does the, does the water drain okay between those two properties currently? It almost looks like there is a little elevation to your neighbor behind you. Do you now have a water issue or anything with standing water when it rains? Greve Yes, we have no issues whatsoever. Page 8 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 Campins Okay. Greve The side yard between myself and the Sycamore address, it was made that way. That’s a drainage area, and it works quite well. Campins Okay. Thank you. Wolff Are there any other questions for the petitioner? Okay. Seeing none. Papa Sorry. So, what’s the, I’m confused. What’s the, before these changes, what’s the current lot coverage? Wolff Jeff, I believe, if they had zero changes. If they had zero accessory structures, no patios or anything, I think the house itself is 37%. Herbst Correct. Koenig And, staff’s review of the parcel with everything existing out there right now if you were not to remove the patio and roof structure, they were at 39.2%. So, with, you know, they’re well over right now with the unpermitted pergola, patio, excuse me, roofed patio structure. Greve And, I don’t know if this matters to the Board or not, I did not put that up. I purchased the house that way. It’s a spec home. You know, as Blake has said, we’re trying to make it nicer, of course. This is a premium project. It will be very nice if you guys approve us to complete it, but also bring it into code, or closer to code, I guess. Papa That’s part of why I asked the question. So, in a practical sense, you’re reducing the lot coverage. Herbst That’s correct. Greve But also making it by a lot nicer. Wolff Any other questions for the petitioner, or petitioner’s representative at this time? Okay. Wayne, do we have any remonstrators queued up? DeLong I’m looking to see if any hands are raised. I do not see any hands. I would mention that you do have a few letters in the file that were submitted. Oh, Mr. Tousley has raised his hand. We can promote him to panelist if the Board is ready. Wolff Absolutely. DeLong We will do that and simultaneously we will move the petitioner and the agent back to attendee, and so everybody will experience a slight pause. Wolff It appears that Mr. Tousley is muted. Page 9 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 DeLong Okay. We’ll get these, the slight pause might as well be on staff’s. Tousley Can you hear me now? Wolff Yes. Tousley Yes. I hit the wrong button. Wolff No problem. Mr. Tousley, will you please state your name and address for the record? Tousley Yes. My name is John Tousley. My address is 305 West Pine Street, Zionsville, Indiana. Wolff Thank you. Mr. Tousley, what would you like to share with us tonight? Tousley Actually I didn’t mean to share anything. I thought I originally had the audio open. I clicked the button to turn it off, and apparently that wasn’t quite what happened. Wolff No problem, Mr. Tousley. We certainly appreciate our community members participating. So, if you have no comment, we won’t force you to make one. Tousley Thank you. Wolff Wayne, do you have anybody else that is queued up on purpose or accidentally? We’ll talk to anybody. DeLong I am not aware of any other parties. We’ll move Mr. Tousley back to the attendee role. And, I see no other hands raised. Wolff So, Wayne, now may be a good time for the staff report. DeLong And, certainly as outlined this evening, this is a very interesting petition for discussion. It revolves around a parcel of land that was created just a few years ago, and the division of a larger tract to provide for two single-family homes to be constructed. And the parent tract, the existing improvements were left and reduced in lot size. Certainly, as the Board is well aware, there has been variances that have been sought in the Village for years, and a preponderance of those requests are associated with lots that existed prior to the adoption of your zoning ordinance. Of course, the zoning ordinance has been updated from time to time. The particular petition that’s in front of you this evening, again, the lots were created after the most recent adoption of your ordinance, and that’s really, it’s very challenging to consider with that specific fact in mind, regardless of the other merits or the other discussion points that have been brought up after the fact, construction, permitting issues. Not dismissing any of those, or reducing those important items, but just isolating this conversation at this moment to the specific fact that the petition is seeking variances from standards which were well-known at the time the lots were platted as the ordinance was in place for years at that time. With all that, and as the staff report indicates, staff is not in a position to support this petition as it’s presented, as it’s been amended, as it’s Page 10 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 originally filed. Simply reducing this issue down to seeking variances for lots that were platted well after the adoption of the ordinance. There are other remedies that would have been in place to provide for those solutions, including the ordinance actually being changed to 37% lot coverage if specific metrics are met. With those thoughts in mind, staff is again not in support of the petition be it for the setback or the lot coverage, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Wolff Thank you, Wayne. I do have a couple thoughts or questions directed towards you. You know, what happens with this property if we move to deny this petition? It would appear that the property is out of compliance if they remove the patio structure today that they did not put in, the petitioner did not put in, it appears that they’re still over the lot coverage issue. DeLong Well, likely what needs to happen here is a true assessment of the size of the home. Certainly, the assessor, the County Assessor does a wonderful job. Certainly, we’d want to make sure that an inch is an inch in this conversation. Certainly, with knowledge becomes responsibility with the things that have been presented. If the home is truly over the lot coverage maximums, that’s something that likely will need to be addressed either in the short term or will ultimately need to be addressed in the long-term. Certainly, if nothing else from lending issues or future transactional conversations. Wolff Okay. Is there any other questions for Wayne? Or Chrissy for that matter? Okay, hearing none. Wayne, would you promote, go ahead. Papa Can I ask Wayne really quick? Sorry. Did that to you again. Sorry. I understand the reasons why that would be the position, but how would the homeowner have been aware of any issue? Or is it just by default that the builder did something, and that’s the way it ended up, and so here we are? DeLong Yes. I suspect that’s the case. I mean, the petition is revolving around the peculiarities with the property, and the hardships related to that. The petition, as it’s been filed, seeks to expand lot coverage. I don’t believe what’s in front of you this evening is trying to address what has potentially been constructed that is over the lot coverage. So, certainly, if that’s, if a different petition were to be filed, or amended, we would discuss those merits. I would strongly suggest a survey, a very detailed survey, just to validate the size of the home. I know again the County Assessor does a wonderful job, but I wouldn’t, I think this conversation about a variance and lot coverage is different than what a property is paying in property taxes. Papa Okay. Maybe I misunderstood. Because I thought, set aside for a moment that where we are in terms of what the builder should have done or should not have done. If the property is currently at 39% and you’re talking about going to 38%, okay, how is that an increase? You’re saying it’s an increase from what should have been allowed? Isn’t it a practical decrease? DeLong It’s an increase from what should have been allowed. Papa Okay. I wasn’t. All right. I follow you there. Page 11 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 Mundy Yes. I think, Jeff, it looks to me like that if we strictly follow the rules, we would deny this. At the same time, if we ignore the rules and just look at the outcome of completion of the position that they’ve asked now for a pergola and a smaller print, footprint, of impervious surface, we’d probably improve the likelihood of drainage, and have not, yet we’ve ignored the rules, which say you can’t exceed a certain amount. Papa I think you’re right. That’s why I asked the two questions of how would the homeowner know that if they bought a house and the paperwork that was available to that person showed that it was in compliance, and then now they’re trying to fix it by reducing the footprint. I understand both arguments. I’m just saying, or just making sure I understood. Wolff Yes. I mean, one way of looking at this would be if we were to deny the petition, we are going to have a home that has exceeded the lot coverage at 39%, a little bit more than 39%. And, it’s not compliant. And, if they take out all the structures, all the patio that’s there, they’re still at 37%. If we approve the petition, the lot coverage will go down from what it is currently, 39% and some change, down to 38%, and we will have a home that has a variance and is now compliant. And, it’s an interesting question. I would offer more discussion for the group, and we’ll do that in just a moment. I do have, I think we need to cover the findings of fact. Wayne, will you please promote Mr. Greve and Mr. Blake. DeLong Both are being promoted. Wolff Okay. Gentlemen, as you know the burden is on you to prove the findings of fact. And, so, I think the first one it’s not going to be injurious to public health, safety, I think that’s, we probably don’t need to spend a lot of time discussing that. The use or the value of the adjacent area, I would be curious if you would briefly address that. I think you’re adding a nice structure. Do you think that the side- yard setback would decrease the value of your neighbor’s property? So, I would like you to address that. I would like to hear your thoughts on that. And, then third is, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will not result in an unnecessary hardship on the property owner. So, what is your, so two, how will this affect property values, not only yours, but I would be curious about your neighbor’s, and then the question number three, I would like to know what the hardship is here. Hang on, you’re on mute. I didn’t want you to, there you go. Greve Thanks. So, as it related to the setback and the property value, I have submitted a letter from my property adjoiner, Kevin Homan, the Sycamore address. They split that setback with me. They went through this process with you, as well, to get their back-yard space approved, as well. He has submitted a letter that I have supplied to you guys, and he specifically states in there he appreciates the project. He likes it, and he appreciates the fact that I’m taking steps to improve the value of both of our properties. Hopefully that addresses your commoner question there. This has support of my most nearest property adjoiner. I think the second question was related to hardship, is that right? Wolff Yes. So, the rule is the rule, and you need to demonstrate a hardship so that we can grant a variance, so that you can have this change. So, what is your hardship? Page 12 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 Greve Yes, so clearly, we bought a home on a small lot. That’s clear. Not a lot of space. I guess if you apply the rule there is none outside of the house. And, we want to enjoy the investment that we made in purchasing this property. There is not a lot there. What we have we want to make it nice. We want to enjoy it. We want to be able to improve on our investment that we made. And the other thing I’ll say is listening to the previous conversation, and I appreciate the question that we’re asked, but there was a question about recourse, in terms of what happens next. You know, in terms of the path that I think is right to go down is to deny and then I’m stuck with a non-compliant house. [inaudible] maybe have to remove what I have. The little space that I do have, and have to remove it and therefore have none. Hopefully taking a common sense approach. Look at what we’re trying to do here. We have access to the file. We have tried every step of the way to get this project done, permitted properly. That’s why we’re here tonight. You can approve it. We have a property with less lot coverage that’s approved by you guys, and I can’t imagine how [inaudible] best way to go. Wolff Okay. Mr. Greve, I think I want to try to summarize that, and I think your first point was interesting in it is perhaps there is a hardship demonstrated by the fact that you, unknowingly to you, and maybe this is your fault. Maybe it’s not. I probably would have made the same mistake. But you purchased a home that exceeded the lot coverage. The Town didn’t know that at the time. And so, there is perhaps a hardship where you can’t, if we did nothing, you would not be allowed to have an outdoor space, because your home is at 37%. So, if we failed to act or deny the petition, and I think an outdoor space, even if it’s a very small one at 80 square feet, is an amenity that many people enjoy. Is that similar to what you were saying? Greve Yes. Thank you. Yes. Wolff Okay. Does anyone have any questions for the petitioner or the landscape architect before I turn it over? I would like to hear some thoughts from my fellow Board members. Okay, Wayne. I think you can probably demote our petitioner. And, I’ll start the conversation. I think it’s an interesting problem. I certainly appreciate the staff’s position on this, and I completely agree with the thought that this was plotted with the rules that we currently live by, and you know, with proper planning, this could be completely avoided, and it should have been. But now we have a situation where new property owner and they have a house that is not compliant today, so we could be creating another issue. And, if we deny it, we will be creating an issue where they have a non-compliant house and we’ll have to deal with that process. I’m sure we could work through that if necessary. If we approve the petition, we are getting it closer to compliant, and it is, you know, the Town permits 37% with 2% permeable. I’m sorry, let me re-phrase that. The Town permits 35% with 2% buffer for a permeable surface. This is 38%. So, it is certainly a violation of our rules. I don’t know. I would turn it over to the group, and I’d be curious on your thoughts on where we go next. Mundy I have a technical question, which I suppose would be either for our legal counsel or for Wayne, but given that this has changed from the time that they sent out notices to adjoining property owners, and we originally received it, can we move ahead tonight with the modified petition? Page 13 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 Chadd I’ll weigh in on that really quickly. It’s my understanding that that issue came up because there was some question about whether they’re now asking for more than what they included in their notice. That the notice said they were asking for permission for 38% lot coverage. I think there was some notion at some point they might have been asking for more than that. I think the conversation earlier was to address just that issue. That they are, in fact, asking for 38. That’s what they noticed. So, in my opinion anyway, based on that I think we’re okay. Mundy Okay. Wolff Go ahead. I’m sorry. Mundy My feeling is that this is, you know, either way, we will be applauded by some and condemned by others. But I think that it is at least approaching the just outside what the rules do allow for with the modifications that they have agreed to, and I think if we deny it and do nothing, my guess is that everything that’s there will continue to stand right there. I don’t think we’ll have them slice off part of the house. Unlikely that he would have to remove the outdoor improvements that are currently there. So, I think this is the best for the homeowner and probably the best thing for the Town, and it brings is closer to compliance. Campins I agree. Papa That’s what I’m getting around to, too, because I don’t know how the homeowner would have known this when they bought the house. The Town didn’t know it. And, if the lot coverage is being reduced by doing this, it seems like it’s better for everybody. Now, I do understand the staff’s position, and I think they have to take that position. They have to defend the way the ordinances are written and what we expect to be, but this particular circumstance it seems like the hardship to the homeowner is that they didn’t have any way to know this, and if we don’t do anything they’re stuck even more out of compliance with really nowhere to go. Wolff And, Mr. Papa, I would add that I think that’s exactly why we exist. This Board exists for those very reasons. Is to look at these things as a case by case basis, and I think you articulated that well. Laura, I’m not going to put you on the spot, but do you have any further comments, and if not, I will entertain a motion from any of the Board members? Campins You know, I don’t. I agree. You know, I think it’s only going to improve the value, and for their neighbors. The improvements with all the landscaping and the patio is being reduced. So, I don’t know. I agree with Steve. Wolff Very good. I will entertain a motion. Papa Can I ask, because I’m relatively new, a question about, when talking about they’re going to be removing some things. There is no need to specify that in the motion, is there? Because they’re, in the end, they’re still, they would still be stuck even if it was approved with the 38% limit? They’d have to get there somehow? Page 14 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 Chadd I’ll weigh in again briefly, I guess. I don’t think you have to include that, because you’re exactly right. You’re approving up to 38%. They have to get there. Generally, your approval is, you know, subject to, or approving as presented in their plans, as discussed. So, I think you’re at least implying including that anyway. DeLong And, weighing in here, as well. If there’s the inclination to support the petition as presented for the new improvements that are to be proposed, it sounds like there is a strong benefit that site plan be provided that encapsulates all of the existing built environment on the lot. Just to memorialize the information that’s being discussed. Certainly, it’s not something that’s reflected in any of the Town’s files. Papa That would - - Wolff --Wayne. Papa Go ahead. Sorry. Wolff I was just going to say, Wayne, are you suggesting that we should, part of the motion to request that the petitioner provide a site plan for the Town? DeLong I would say as a part of the building permit process to instead of just submitting a site plan that just shows the back of the home, the side-yard if you will, that a corner to corner drawing be done of the entire set of improvements on the property simply to memorialize the conversation and the potentially sounds like it could be supported by the Board. Wolff Very good. Without any other conversation, I would entertain a motion. Mundy I will attempt to motion. I move that Docket # 2020-11-DSV, development standards variance, in order to provide for the addition of an outdoor living space to a single-family home, which deviates from the required side and aggregate yard setbacks, and exceeds the required lot coverage of 35% to 38%, 2% of which would be allowed the use of permeable pavers in the residential village zoning district RV, for the property located at 596 Starkey Road, and approved based on their filing with the stipulation that they provide at the request for a building permit a detailed corner to corner lot submission outlining the coverage and dimensions. That sufficient, Wayne? DeLong I believe so, yes. Thank you. Wolff I was, I’m sorry. Mr. Papa? Papa I was just going to say, Mr. Mundy had specified 2% permeable. Is that in line with what they just presented? I don’t know. It’s not, is it? Because isn’t the house 37%? Wolff Mr. Mundy, would you be amenable to changing your motion so that the lot coverage not exceed 38%? Page 15 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 Mundy I would. I just think we want to be certain that a permeable surface is placed in there in that outdoor living excluding the portion that we know will be impervious. Wolff You’re raising a good point. Mundy Strike the 2%, but that all except those, what 80 square feet, which will be impervious will be constructed with pervious pavers. Wolff So I think we’re there. Darren, are we there? You’re on mute. Chadd Sorry. I think you’re there. I think all that’s a really a long way of saying approved conditioned that it’s constructed as it’s shown in the plans presented and discussed. Wolff Duly noted. Is there a second to that motion? Papa Second. Wolff Thank you, Mr. Papa. Wayne, will you host a roll call vote please? DeLong Certainly. Mr. Wolff? Wolff Aye. DeLong Ms. Campins? Campins Aye. DeLong Mr. Mundy? Mundy Aye. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. Wolff Thank you. Motion carries. Mr. Greve, good luck with your project, and thank you for helping to bring that property more into compliance. Next item on our agenda is Docket # 2020-13-DSV for 880 Starkey Road, just up the street. Wayne, do we have our petitioners in front of us? Are they available to you? Let’s say it that way. DeLong Promoting Mr. Lohmeyer here, who is currently on mute. Wolff Mr. Lohmeyer, how are you this evening? Lohmeyer I’m doing well. How are you all? Wolff Very good. Would you please state your name and address for the record? Page 16 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 Lohmeyer Matt Lohmeyer at 880 Starkey Avenue in Zionsville. Wolff Thank you, Mr. Lohmeyer. Would you, in your words, describe what you’re asking for tonight? Lohmeyer I’m before you this evening. I purchased 880 Starkey back in January and moved in. When I purchased the property, I did so with the intent of doing an internal renovation and kind of modernizing the home. As I kind of evolved through the process it become apparent, and some of the beauty of living here is you get to live and experience it, and then make some decisions from there, but kind of throughout this process have decided that, you know, taking the existing garage structure off, doing an over-sized garage structure, which will help to, if we lower the garage floor in doing so, help to lessen the drive slope, but then also be able to park vehicles actually inside the garage. Prior owners had really small cars, apparently. I don’t have small cars. So, trying to solve a couple of issues. One being drive slope. One being able to park vehicles inside. But then, you know, probably more important to any of it is the fact that we’re creating some additional living space above the garage that’s more serviceable to the rest of the home. So, there is space above the garage currently, but it’s completely disjointed from the rest of the home. You can only access it from a flight of steps, and it’s really, it’s a short ceiling. You know, even have to go through a short passageway door to get into that space. It’s not conditioned. So, you know, the improvements that we’re working on are really kind of a broad-stroke improvement to the overall property. But, in doing these, you know, what happens is we actually begin to encroach into the side-yard setback on the one side that’s considered a side yard given the condition and size and shape of the lot. But then also we encroach into the aggregate side-yard setback because of an existing deck that’s actually on the opposing corner of the home or the property today. So, here looking for request for variance on two different notes. Wolff Thank you, Mr. Lohmeyer. Would you, who are your neighbors at this property? Lohmeyer Well - - Wolff --I think they’re unusual. Lohmeyer I’m sorry. Two of the neighbors are the Town of Zionsville. One is the sewage treatment plant, and the other is the Parks and Recreation Board. And then, you know, we’ve got two neighbors that live kind of back the shared drive that creates one of my property lines, Mr. Wilson. Mr. and Mrs. Wilson are the ones that live in the back that actually own the driveway. There is some new neighbors that moved in just a couple of weeks ago. They’re not actually adjacent property owners, and then pretty much, I guess Lennar is north of me with Manchester Square townhomes. So, it’s really more common space to the north. Wolff Yes. So, it looks like you don’t have anyone very close to your property at all, and the majority of your property is surrounded by the Town of Zionsville. Is that correct? Lohmeyer Correct. Page 17 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 Wolff And then, as I look at your property, it’s an unusual shape. And, is that why you would describe, or is that why, you know, if you round off one square edge, it actually is a triangle. And, is that essentially the reason why you have the setback issues created? Lohmeyer I think, you know, and part of it’s the shape and the configuration of the lot, yes, but then additionally, if you drive by and look at it, and I kind of eluded to it when discussing the drive slope, it’s literally in a hillside. So, when placing a structure into a contour, you pretty much have to go in line with what that contour is, and I believe is what they did when they built this back in the 70s. So, you know, the addition that would be proposed really can only go one way given the configuration of the lot being size and contour, or shape rather and contour. Wolff So, Mr. Lohmeyer, that’s what you would describe as the hardship, this is the reason you need this particular variance is because of the particular lot, the unusual lot shape and the contour or the elevation changes on the lot? Lohmeyer That’s correct. Wolff Very good. What other questions to we have for the petitioner tonight? Mr. Lohmeyer, I don’t see that this is not terribly relevant, but I’m just curious. I’ve driven by that home many times, and thought it an interesting structure. Do you know what year the home was originally built? Lohmeyer They started it in 1975. It took them about 3 years to build. And then it changed ownership one time, shortly after it was built. And, Mr. and Mrs. Marshall lived in the home until I bought it, so they lived here almost 39 years. Wolff Very good. And, it looks like you have a thoughtful plan in place. If there are no other questions for the petitioner at this time, Wayne, do we have any remonstrators? Or anyone who would like to speak on this petition? Wayne, you’re on mute. DeLong Flipping and looking at the same time. Yes, there are three attendees, and no hands are raised. Wolff We’ll certainly have more opportunity for discussion as a Board, but Wayne, while we have you unmuted, would now be an appropriate time to hear the staff report? DeLong While we do that, we’ll also move Mr. Lohmeyer back to an attendee. Wolff Very good. DeLong Staff will pause here to start their presentation giving Mr. Lohmeyer a chance to rejoin. As the staff report indicates, that’s been provided to you and published related to this petition, staff is supportive of the petition as it’s been filed. The petitioner has done a very eloquent job describing the issues that the staff sees, as well. You have a unique parcel. Uniquely shaped. Its boundaries are joined by special uses, including the Town’s own wastewater treatment plant, and public Page 18 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 space. The distances from common property lines to adjacent structures is somewhat lengthy. The purpose among many of the open space ordinance is to provide for agricultural uses, as well as homesteading and preservation of open space. Certainly, the language of the ordinance anticipates in part the redevelopment of areas that are zoned open land, but that are improved with housing stock at the same time. This area, uniquely, it’s housing stock has stayed in place well after the adoption of the open-land standard. Certainly, it does present some challenges for the owners of these properties to move forward with modifications and updating. Certainly, staff recognizes all those challenges, and certainly the unique shape, unique topography, as well as the unique land uses adjacent to the parcel. With all those thoughts in mind, staff is supportive of the petition as it’s been filed, and I’m happy to answer any questions. Wolff Thank you, Wayne. Any questions for staff? Very good. Any discussion amongst the group. I mean, in my opinion this is the classic, you know, the classic use case for these types of variances. It’s just a very unusual-shaped lot, and if we adhered strictly to the rules, then you’d almost have very little usable or buildable space. I think the petitioner has demonstrated that in their findings of fact. And as we think about the findings of fact, I don’t think it would be injurious. I think the petitioner is accurate in what he has presented with that, as well. So, and then I can’t imagine why updating this property would at all affect in an adverse manner property values, including our wastewater treatment plant, park space and those types of things. So, I think we’re covered there. Any other discussion amongst the group? Mundy I agree with your points, John. I think this is a classic. Wolff Quiet group. I accept that. If there is no discussion, I would entertain a motion. Or, if there is any other questions for the petitioner, let me know, but otherwise I’d entertain a motion. Papa I can make a motion. I move that Docket # 2020-13-DSV, development standards variance in order to provide for the addition to a single-family home which required side-yard setback improvement and deviates from the required aggregate side-yard setback and realizing existing improvement in the urban open land zoning district O1 for the property located at 880 Starkey Road be approved as filed based on the findings of fact and substantial compliance with the submitted site plan in concept elevations. Wolff Thank you, Mr. Papa. Is there a second to that motion? Campins I second it. Wolff Thank you, Ms. Campins. Wayne, could I turn it over to you for a roll call vote please? DeLong Certainly. Ms. Campins? Campins Aye. DeLong Mr. Mundy? Page 19 of 20 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals June 3, 2020 Mundy Aye. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. DeLong Mr. Wolff? Wolff Aye. Thank you. Motion carries. Mr. Lohmeyer, I know we can’t hear you right now, but we wish you luck with your renovation. The next item on our agenda is other items to be considered, which I believe, Wayne, is the Wildwood Designs. DeLong Yes. Staff has no update on that matter. We will look to reach out to the petitioner on that matter this month and see if we can drop that from your agenda altogether. Wolff Very good. And, then, Wayne or Chrissy, we got the negative findings of fact signed. Was everyone able to make it to Town Hall and get that taken care of? DeLong I believe we need one more set of signatures. Wolff Okay. DeLong An individual, and then we will have that wrapped up for you. Wolff Okay. Very good. And, at this particular junction, while we’re here before we adjourn, any update, and I know I’m going to ask the impossible. Are we still planning on, any thoughts on what our July meeting might look like? Do you think it will be in person, or is it too early to say what the Governor is going to do, and more specifically maybe our Mayor or Town Council, as well? DeLong I would say that we’re striving for an in-person meeting. I mean, that would certainly be the goal of the Town for July. Certainly, many, many things are opening up. I think we want to try to strive towards that. Certainly, we cannot dictate lots of items that are happening in this world currently, but I would suspect the answer is stay tuned. We will see here in the next couple days if there is any extension of any specific items by Governor Holcomb. But in the meantime, we will shepherd towards an opening of Town Hall, and we’ll leave it at that. Wolff Wayne, you just look lonely in that room. So, we don’t want you to be that. If there are no other matters to discuss, this meeting is adjourned. I don’t have a gavel in my office. Sorry. Page 20 of 20