Shelby County Plan Commission s2

Shelby County Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes July 7, 2009

Members Present: Carolyn Blackford Ann Sipes Doug Warnecke Richard Whelen

Members Absent: Kevin Carson

Staff Present: Amy Dillon Mark McNeely Deona Smith

Call to Order and Roll Call: Ann Sipes called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm in Room 208 A at the Court House Annex.

Approval of Minutes: Ann Sipes moved to approve the minutes of the June 2, 2009 meeting, and Carolyn Blackford seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0-1 with Doug Warnecke abstaining. The minutes were signed.

Public Hearings: Ann Sipes began the public hearing portion of the meeting by explaining the proceedings for the petitions.

New Business: BZA 09-10 Mary Schilling Development Standards Variance The applicant is Mary Schilling of 5774 West 900 North, Fountaintown, IN. The current zoning of the property is RE (Residential Estate). The address of the subject property is 5774 West 900 North, Fountaintown (Moral Township, Section 17). The existing use of the property is residential. The total area in acres is 2.50. The petitioner requests a development standards variance to exceed the maximum structural height of 20 feet for an accessory structure located in an RE zoning district.

Deona Smith read the petition into the record and indicated that she had received proof of publication in the newspaper and proof of notification to the adjoining property owners. She stated that the petitioner is requesting a Development Standards Variance of Unified Development Ordinance 2.12 to exceed the maximum structural height of 20 feet for an accessory structure that is located in an RE zoning district.

Mary Schilling presented her case to the Board. She informed the Board that they want to have larger doors on the pole building so that they can get their new boat in and out of the building easily. She also stated that they wanted a higher pitched roof to match their home and the other homes around them. She added that there are several pole buildings in the general area that exceed the twenty-foot height allowance.

The Board then opened up the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor or in opposition of the petition.

After questions and comments from the Board, Doug Warnecke made a motion to vote on the petition, and Carolyn Blackford seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.

Mark McNeely presented the Findings of Fact to the Board. They affirmed these were the basis for their decision.

BZA 09-11 Brian and Kelly Tackett Development Standards Variance: The applicants are Brian and Kelly Tackett of 1422 West Aaron Drive, Shelbyville, IN. The current zoning of the subject property is RE (Residential Estate). The address of the subject property is 2202 Kent Road, Shelbyville, IN. The name of the subdivision is Canterbury Subdivision. The existing use of the property is single-family residential. The petitioners are seeking approval of a Development Standards Variance UDO 2.11 to reduce the minimum lot size requirement to allow for the subdivision of 3.51 acres into three lots. They are also seeking approval of a Use Variance of UDO 2.11 and 5.06 to allow an existing accessory structure to be located on a lot without a primary structure (one of the proposed new lots.)

Deona Smith read the petition into the record and indicated that she had received proof of publication in the newspaper and proof of notification to the adjoining property owners. She stated that the petitioners are requesting approval of a Development Standards Variance to reduce the minimum lot size requirement to allow for the subdivision of 3.51 acres into three lots. Petitioner also requests a Use Variance to allow an existing accessory structure to be located on a lot without a primary structure (one of the proposed new lots). She noted that the subject property is surrounded by the corporate limits of the City of Shelbyville, but the subject property has never been annexed into the City. She added that there is an existing single-family home on the property along with a detached structure, which is the subject of the use variance request. She also stated that the petitioners’ single-family home directly adjoins the subject property to the south.

Brian and Kelly Tackett presented their case to the Board. They affirmed that the statements made by Smith were correct. Brian Tackett stated that he would like to divide the property into three different tracts. He stated one lot would include his existing home, while one would contain the existing pole building. He also stated that the remaining 1.25 acres would be for a buildable lot.

The Board then opened up the meeting for public comment.

Seven individuals made public comment regarding the petition. Lowell Armstrong was the first individual to speak. He stated that he was concerned about what type of development will be put in here. He also noted that any future development of this site might ruin the country view for the residents of Simpson Lane.

Dan Offinger was the next to speak. He questioned what type of home would be built here. He also asked if the property would be annexed in the future. He also noted that he was concerned about how development of this site might affect the drainage ditch adjoining his property.

Kenneth Belch was the next to voice his concern. He was concerned about what type of structure would be put there. He also questioned who would maintain the Theobald ditch. He also questioned the definition of an accessory structure.

Kevin Redden was next to speak. He noted that he was also concerned with flooding and drainage. He asked how sewage waste would be handled. He asked if the petitioners propose to use septic systems or hook onto the City’s sewer system. He asked about the setback requirements for the property as well.

James Sartin was the next to speak. He stated that he really likes the country view. He questioned what type of building is proposed to be built and where it would be located on the property.

Eric Harley was the next to speak. He stated that he does not want the barn to be used for business purposes.

Jennifer Chase was the last to speak. She stated that she enjoys her open view behind her home. She also stated that she was concerned about the resale value of her condo and her enjoyment of property after development occurs.

Smith read a letter from Stephen and Apryl Bryant into the record regarding access.

Tackett offered his rebuttal by stating that there are no plans for annexing the property into the city. He indicated that his proposal to subdivide the property would only allow for one additional one to be constructed on the property. He added that he is uncertain at this time if he would even sell the third lot. He simply wants to have the option to create a new building lot. He explained that they have already improved the value of the neighbors’ properties by cleaning up the subject property. He also explained that they have no plans for the building to become a business. They intend to use it for their own personal property. After questions and comments from the Board, Carolyn Blackford made a motion to vote on the development standards with the following stipulations: 1) The overall property shall not be divided into more than three lots. One lot shall contain the existing single-family home, one lot shall contain the existing accessory structure, and one lot shall be a new single-family residential building site. 2) There shall be no home built on the lot containing the accessory structure. Doug Warnecke seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.

Doug Warnecke made a motion to vote on the Use Variance. Richard Whelen seconded the motion. The motion was approve 4-0.

BZA 09-12 Fred Hamilton Special Exception: The owner of the property is Fred Hamilton of 5992 West 400 North, Fairland, IN. The address of the subject property is 273 North 875 West, Needham, IN. The current zoning of the property is A1 (Conservation Agricultural). The existing use of the property is agricultural, tillable acreage with agricultural structures. The petitioner is requesting a special exception to be allowed to utilize an existing pole building on property that is zoned A1 to be used as a single-family detached dwelling.

Smith read the petition into the record and indicated to the Board that she had received proof of publication in the newspaper and proof of notification to the adjoining property owners. Smith gave a brief overview of the request. She stated that the petitioner is requesting a Special Exception to allow for an existing pole building on property that is zoned A1 to be utilized as a single-family detached dwelling. She explained to the Board that the petitioner had come to the Plan Commission office and purchased a building permit for a pole barn with an office and a bathroom. When completing a routine building inspection of the new pole building, David Adams, Shelby County Inspector, observed that the petitioner had constructed living quarters inside the pole building as well. Adams informed the Plan Commission office of this situation, and a thorough inspection was conducted. Smith informed the Board that she had notified the petitioner of the zoning violation, and he promptly began the process of the filing for a special exception for the requested use. She noted that the petitioner desires to make the home inside the pole building his permanent residence; therefore, he is required to request a special exception to allow the construction of a single-family home on property zoned A1. If the special exception is approved, then the petitioner will be required to proceed through the formal site plan approval process and obtain all of the necessary permits for construction of a new home. Fred Hamilton presented his case to the Board. He explained that is mother has declining health problems, and he would like to be near her. He explained that she lives in the home located at 273 North 875 West, which is on the largest parcel. He noted that the subject barn is located on property that was subdivided from the parent tract around 1998.

There was no public comment regarding this petition.

The information provided by the petitioner contradicted the information provided in the application and the County’s GIS records. At this time, Amy Dillon interjected and questioned the petitioner regarding the lot that contained the subject pole building. The petitioner indicated that the pole building was located on a 1.263-acre parcel located directly south of the parent agricultural tract with the single-family home. Dillon informed him that if this was the case, the petition was incorrect, and an amended petition needed to be filed. She noted that the 1.263–acre tract is zoned R1 rather than A1, and development standards variances and possibly a use variance would be needed rather than a special exception. Dillon recommended that the Board continue the matter until it could be definitively determined which property the pole building is located on and what the zoning of that parcel is. Once this determination is made, it would be decided if the current petition was correct or if an amended petition would need to be submitted.

After questions and discussion from the Board, Richard Whelen made a motion to vote on continuing the petition to the September meeting with the requirement that the petitioner re-notify the neighbors. Carolyn Blackford seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.

Old Business: BZA 09-09 William Watson Use Variance The applicant is William P. Watson (4 of a Kind Realty) of 7916 West 275 North, Boggstown, IN. The current zoning of the property is C2 (Highway Commercial). The address of the subject property is 6405 East State Road 44, Shelbyville, IN. The current use of the property is vacant. The petitioner seeks approval of a use variance to allow for a semi truck maintenance facility to be located on a property that is zoned C2.

Deona Smith noted that this case was continued from the June meeting. She explained that there were some drainage and parking issues that not have been addressed. Dillon interjected to note that the site plan and business plan provided by the petitioners at last month’s meeting did not adequately address many of the concerns with the proposed use of the site. She indicated that a site plan prepared by a professional engineer or registered surveyor so that the full development plan of the petitioner could be analyzed and presented to the Board. She added that this investment would allow the Board to make the most informed decision and for the petitioners to determine if the business plan that they have developed is feasible at this particular location. William Watson and Troy Lockard asked to continue the petition to a future month’s meeting. They indicated that they would like to have a professional site plan prepared.

Richard Whelen made a motion to vote to continue the petition to a future meeting with the requirement that the petitioners re-notify neighbors. Doug Warnecke seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.

Discussion: Frank McClintic Zoning Violation Deona Smith presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals with information regarding a zoning violation at property located at 11600 North 100 East and owned by Frank McClintic. She provided the Board with an outline of actions taken by the Compliance Board and the Plan Commission office and a copy of the letter that she had sent McClintic regarding his violation. In the letter and in conversations with McClintic, Smith has requested that he remove the items located on his porch and around his property and from the vehicles parked on the property. She has informed him that failure to comply may result in the imposition of fines. She indicated that his deadlines for compliance have passed and that she informed him that she would be presenting his case to the Board of Zoning Appeals at this meeting.

Smith requested that the Board take some sort of formal action against McClintic. After discussion, the Board decided that McClintic should be ordered to pay $25 per day in fines starting on July 8, 2009 until the violation is resolved. The Board also requested that he appear before them at the August BZA meeting. Doug Warnecke made a motion to vote on the action to be taken. Carolyn Blackford seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.

Adjournment: With no further business to come before the Board, Richard Whelen moved to adjourn, and Doug Warnecke seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned.

President Date

Secretary Date