Docstoc

October 18_ 1999

Document Sample
October 18_ 1999 Powered By Docstoc
					October 18, 1999

The Hendricks County Board of Zoning Appeals met in the Hendricks County Government Center, Meeting Rooms 4 and 5 on October 18, 1999. The meeting began at 7:30 P.M. Members present included: Jo Ann Groves, C. Richard Whicker, Sam Himsel, Roger Call and Allen Hardin. Also present were: Tamera J. Richardson, Zoning Technician; Teresa Campbell, Recording Secretary; Carol Smith, Recording Secretary; Todd Barker, Planner and Greg Steuerwald, Attorney for the County. Ms. Groves called the meeting to order and stated that a quorum was present. Ms. Groves stated the first order of business would be the approval of minutes from the September 20, 1999 meeting and asked if there were any additions or corrections. Mr. Call moved to approve the minutes from the September 20, 1999 meeting. Mr. Himsel seconded the motion. Mr. Hardin stated he was abstaining from the vote as he was not present for the September 20, 1999 meeting. VOTE: For - 4 APPROVED Groves-yes Whicker-yes Himsel-yes Against - 0 Abstained - 1 MINUTES

Call-yes Hardin-abstained

Mr. Steuerwald stated that the following cases requested to be withdrawn: 1. 2. VAR-17/WA99-07: KENNETH W. GROSS VAR-19/ER99-01: DAVE MORELAND

Mr. Steuerwald also stated that the following case requested continuance until the November 15, 1999 meeting.: 1. VAR-20/WA99-09: DAVID AND DENISE MCMILLAN

Ms. Groves asked staff about the continuance of VAR/20/WA99-09. Ms. Richardson responded that Mr. McMillan was looking into what he was going to do about his septic system that was located on another parcel.

Mr. Himsel moved to continue VAR-20/WA99 until the November 15, 1999 meeting. Mr. Call seconded the motion VOTE: For 5 Against-0 Abstained-0 CONTINUED till the November 15, 1999 meeting. VAR-20/WA99-09

VAR-22/BR99-02: HARTSEL WILHITE (Terry Kessinger, Attorney), for a Variance from the development standards as required in Section 2.2-161 to permit two (2) principal buildings and two (2) principal uses on a parcel and a Variance from the development standards as required in Section 9.6E1 to permit a ground floor area of less that 1,260 square feet in a R-1: Low Density Single Family District, S16-T17N-R1E, Brown Township, located on the west side of County Road 650 East, 0.25 mile north of County 1000 North, (10386 North County Road 650 East, Brownsburg, Indiana 46112), 2.68 acres. Mr. Kessinger representing the petitioner, stated that the situation was that an existing garage had been converted into a one bedroom residence. Mr. Kessinger presented pictures marked Petitioner’s Exhibit “A” that showed the outside of the house and did not feel that it would create any problems for any of the neighbors. Ms. Groves questioned the number of septics and wells that were on the property. Mr. Kessinger stated that there was one septic and three wells on the property. Mr. Himsel asked who was living in the main house. Mr. Kessinger said that a couple was renting from Mr. Wilhite and that they were not involved in the welldrilling business. Ms. Groves opened the public portion of the hearing. The following remonstrators came forward in opposition to the request: 1. 2. 3. 4. Roy Fuller; Merrill Butler; Elzee “Steve” Abney; and Patricia Wynn.

Their concerns were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. \ The lack of control over the rental units, and the tenants; The long term investment standpoint; property values; Their understanding was that the previous variance was for Dan Wilhite only and could not be transferred; If the well and septic systems were hooked up legally; The business being operated by someone other than the property owner; and The people living on the property were not the property owner.

The following respondent exhibits were presented: Exhibit “A” Exhibit “B”. Photos of the property; and Letter to the Board Members from an adjoining neighbor in opposition to the request.

Ms. Groves closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Kessinger stated that Mr. Hartsel Wilhite still owns the property and his son, Dan Wilhite, still owns the business and therefore the Wilhite property had not changed in appearance and would not be detrimental to Mr. Wilhite’s neighbors. Ms. Groves asked the staff if they could explain what was going on with the original variance, regarding the condition that it be for the sole use of Dan Wilhite? There was discussion between the Board Members and the staff that the original variance was not an issue with the current variance. Ms. Richardson did respond that the original variance was approved for the sole use of Dan Wilhite. Mr. Steuerwald stated that there was some issues that he had discussed with the staff, but it did not have anything to do with the case that was being presented.. Ms. Groves asked who was living in the main residence, the rental and the garage; Ms. Groves asked if they were family members or did they work for the welldrilling business? Mr. Dan Wilhite stated that they were not family members but the gentleman that lived in the converted garage did work for the welldrilling business. Mr. Himsel asked how long someone had lived in the converted garage.

Mr. Dan Wilhite stated they had at first fixed the garage up for his sister-in-law, approximately three (3) or four (4) years ago and she lived there for a year or so. Mr. Wilhite stated that he moved out and his father bought the property, but the welldrilling business was still in his name. Mr. Wilhite stated that he had sold the equipment to Mr. Josh Abnour, but the business paperwork and business phone calls still went through him. Mr. Dan Wilhite stated the little apartment was very neat and a husband and wife did live there. Ms. Groves asked if there was ever a variance granted for when the sister-in-law lived there. Mr. Dan Wilhite responded no. Mr. Dan Wilhite stated he thought that when he got the zoning variance for the welldrilling business that the apartment was included. Ms. Groves asked for any additions from staff. Ms. Richardson stated that under item #4 of the analysis that there was no building permit obtained or Health Department approval. Mr. Dan Wilhite stated that they did not change the exterior of the building except for taking the garage door down. Mr. Whicker moved to deny Var-22/BR99-02 . Mr. Whicker stated he did not believe that the ownership of the well business was at issue nor who lived in the house or who lived in the front house. Mr. Whicker stated that it was zoned as an R-1: Single Family residence and that the surrounding homes being priced as they were had no bearing, it was residential use and should be left that way; there should not be a rental on the property. Mr. Hardin seconded the motion. VOTE: DENIED. For-4 Against-1 Abstained-0 VAR22/BR99-02

Whicker-yes Groves-yes Hardin-yes

Call-yes Himsel-no

VAR-23/LB99-01: DAVIS FLORAL, for a Variance from the development standards as required in Section 4.8 to permit the expansion of a nonconforming use (Floral Shop) in a R-2: Medium Density, Single Family Residential District, S34-T15N-R1W, Liberty Township, located on the southeast corner of State Road 39 (Iowa Street) and Crawford

Street, Lots 2 and 3, Harlen’s Addition in the Town of Clayton, (21 Crawford Street, Clayton, Indiana 46118), 0.35 acre. Mr. Jim Davis stated that he and his wife had owned the flower shop since 1979. Mr. Davis stated that they had expanded the gift line and had ran out of room. Mr. Davis stated he would like to expand into what is their current garage and had already built another garage at the back of the building for their own personal use for which he had already received a permit. Mr. Himsel asked if the flower shop was in the house. Mr. Davis stated that the house was at one end and the two car garage at the other, and the flower shop wraps around the garage on the east side. Ms. Groves asked if there was going to be anything else built. Mr. Davis stated no. Ms. Groves opened the public portion of the hearing. There were no remonstrators. Ms. Groves closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Himsel moved to approve VAR-23/LB 99-01, subject to the recommendations of the staff. Those recommendations were: The expansion will be limited to the 24’ X 24’ area as shown on the applicant’s sketch (see attached sketch received September 22, 1999); 2. The applicant must obtain any required Improvement Location Permits, prior to remodeling, from the Hendricks County Planning and Building Department; 3. A Variance Permit must be obtained from the Hendricks County Planning and Building Department; and 4. If the terms and conditions of the Variance approval are not met, the applicant must reappear before the Board of Zoning Appeals to provide justification for noncompliance. 1 Mr. Hardin seconded the motion. VOTE: For-5 APPROVED Against-0 Abstained-0 VAR-23/LB99-01

VAR-24/WA99-10: HAROLD L. FRYE, II (Lee Comer, Attorney), for a Variance from the development standards as required in Section 2.2-161 to permit more than one (1) principal building and use on a parcel in a C-2: General Commercial District, S5-T15NR2E, Washington Township, located on the northwest corner of U.S. Highway 36 and Raceway Road, (10834 East U.S. Highway 36, Plainfield, Indiana 46168), 0.96 acre. Mr. Lee Comer, Attorney, representing the petitioner, stated that there were six (6) rental spaces within the buildings and four (4) of them were in use and two (2) of those spaces were vacant. Mr. Comer stated that they had originally filed to rezone this property as a Shopping Center, but had found out that there was not enough acreage for the Shopping Center District and therefore had to file for the multiple use variance. Mr.Comer stated that this property had been used for multiple purposes for years but was not sure if it was legal or not and had decided to petition the board for permission to have these six different spaces. Mr. Comer stated that with the staff recommendation being favorable that it was understood that they would have to go back to the Plan Commission for a Site Plan Review. Ms. Groves opened the public portion of the hearing. There were no remonstrators. Ms. Groves closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Whicker asked Mr. Comer to explain exactly what they were requesting from the Board. Mr. Comer stated that there were three (3) buildings, six (6) different spaces, but one tract, that they were there to request the multiple use of the tract. Mr. Hardin motioned to approve VAR-24/WA99-10, subject to staff recommendations. Those recommendations were: 1. All uses located on this property will be limited to permitted uses within the C-2: General Commercial District; 2. The applicant must submit a Site Plan Review for the entire development, addressing drainage, signage, parking, etc., and be approved by the Hendricks County Plan Commission; 3. The adjoining property to the west must be included in the Site Plan Review if the parking area on that parcel is to be included in the overall requirement; 4. The applicant must contact and receive approval for the entrance off of U.S. Highway 36 because of the increase in the number of uses on this parcel;

5. The variance approval will be limited to a maximum of six (6) uses on this parcel; 6. There will be no outside storage permitted; 7. The applicant must submit plans and receive approval from the Indiana Department of Fire and Building Services and the Indiana State Department of Health; 8. The applicant must obtain an Improvement Location Permit prior to any remodeling at this site, from the Hendricks County Planning and Building Department; 9. The applicant must comply with Chapter 29 of the Hendricks County Zoning Ordinance for signage; 10. The applicant must comply with Chapter 28 of the Hendricks County Zoning Ordinance for parking. 11. The applicant must receive approval for the Site Plan Review within one (1) year of the variance approval or the variance will be null and void; 12. The applicant must obtain a variance permit from the Hendricks County Planning and Building Department; and 13. If the terms and conditions of the variance approval are not met, the applicant must reappear before the Board of Zoning Appeals to provide justification for noncompliance. Mr. Call seconded the motion. VOTE: For-5 APPROVED Against-0 Abstained-0 VAR-24/WA99-10

Todd Barker, Planner, gave a brief summary of the new text amendment that was passed on the accessory maximum lot coverage requirement which went from three percent (3%) to five percent (5%). There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 P.M. _________________________________ Jo Ann Groves, Chairman

_________________________________ Tamera J. Richardson, Zoning Technician


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:11/7/2009
language:English
pages:7