[A. Call to Order]
[00:00:07]
>> GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
THIS MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER.
LET'S STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> WILL THE SECRETARY CALL THE ROLL.
[E. Approval of Minutes and Findings of Facts of Previous Meetings]
>> WE HAVE A QUORUM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS OF FACTS OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS.
IS THERE A MOTION? >> MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY MEETING AND TO ADOPT FINDINGS OF FACT FOR PZ-2022-0084V AND 22-22-87V.
>> SECOND. MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES AND ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACTS AS REFERENCED ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY
>> ANY OPPOSED? >> COMMUNICATIONS BILLS AND
[F. Communications, Bills, and Expenditures]
EXPENDITURES. STAFF, ANYTHING?>> THE ONLY THING WE HAVE THE REQUEST FOR THE RULES OF PROCEDURE SUSPENSION REQUEST FOR THE POLE BARN AND
[G. Reports, Announcements, Legal Counsel Report, and Department Concerns]
VARIANCES. >> WE'LL GET TO THAT AFTER I CHECK WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT.
>> NOTHING FROM LEGAL, MR. PRESIDENT.
I THINK ANGIE HAS A SUSPENSE OF RULES REQUEST.
>> RIGHT. >> ANGIE, DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT REQUEST IS?
>> SURE. THE REQUIRED -- FOR THE BZA RULES AND REQUIRED PUBLIC NOTICE LEGAL AD IS SUPPOSED TO BE PUBLISHED 20 DAY PRIORS TO MEETING.
THAT MEANS U.SUSPENSION OF E BZA RULES OF PROCEDURES?
CONCERNS? >> IF NOT IS THERE A MOTION
TO SUSPEND THE RULES? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES FOR DOCKET PZ-2022-00134V.
>> 00132 HAVE. >> AND 000135V.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED WE SUSPEND THE RULE TO HEAR PZ-2022-00134V. PZ-2022-00132V.
AND DOCKET NUMBER PZ. 2022-00135V.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY "AYE"?
[H. (V) Scott Residence Variances. ]
IT'S BEEN ADDED. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FOLLOWING DOCK ELT NUMBERS. PZ-2022-00104V.>> UDO SECTION 3.64C1B MAXIMUM 55 HOUSE WIDTH
ALLOWED, 72 REQUESTED. >> DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-00105V. UDO SECTION 3.64C3-D.
>> DOCKET PZ-2022-0010 # V. UDO SECTIO 3.64C9A.
MINIMUM 8:12 ROOF PITCH. ALLOWED 6:12 REQUESTED.
DICKETTE NUMBER PZ-2022-0 # 010 # V.
UDO SECTION 3.64C6. MAXIMUM 12 FOOD WIDE DRIVEWAY ALLOWED AT STREET, 21.5 REQUESTED.
SITES LOCATED AT 211 FIRST AVENUE SOUTHEAST.
IT'S ZONED R3 RESIDENCE AND OLD TOWN OVERLAY CHARACTER SUBAREA. FILED BY ANDREW WERT OF CHURCH, CHURCH HITTLE ANTRIM ON BEHALF OF JON SCOTT
[00:05:06]
OWNER. KNOWN AS SCOTT RESIDENCES.WILL THOSE REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER PLEASE COME TO THE FRONT? SIR, IF YOU WOULD TURN ON THE MIC AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.
>> YES, ANDREW WERT. GOOD EVENING, MR. PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I'M ANDY WERT WITH PROFESSIONAL LAW FIRM OF CHURCH, CHURCH HITTLE AND ANTRIM. WITH ME IN THE AUDIENCE IS OUR CLIENT. AND KATHLEEN BEAUS WHO IS AN ATTORNEY WITH OUR FIRM. WE'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD A 9,000 FOOT HOME. THIS IS LOCATION WE'RE IN OLD TOWN. IT'S THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SUPPLY STREET AND FIRST AVENUE SOUTHEAST.
EARLIER THIS YEAR WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN VACATING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SUPPLY STREET EAST OF FIRST AV.
THE SOUTH HALF OF THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY IS NOW BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE NORTH OF THE TWO PARCELS THAT THE SUBJECT OF OUR PETITION. WE'RE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT SEEKING FOUR VARIANCES. THREE OF THEM HAVE TO DO WITH THE SCALE OF THE HOME PROPOSED.
THE FOURTH SPECIFICALLY GOES TO ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE HOME. WE'RE ASKING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE HOME WITH FROM 55 TO 72 FEET.
INCREASE IN LOT BID 90 TO 167.
THIS IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF THE HOME PROPOSED. FOR THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH WE'RE SEEKING THAT COMING OFF OF THE PRIVATE STREET.
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED STREET SIDE GARAGE, 3-BAY, THE ROADS THERE ARE EXTRA WIDTH JUST NECESSARY FOR PROPER TURNING MOVEMENTS. FINALLY, THE SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE ROOF PITCH TO ALLOW FOR 6-PITCH.
THE PITCH IS PRAIRIE STYLE ARCHITECTURE.
IT'S BEING PROPOSED. STYLE IS VERY POPULAR AS I UNDERSTAND IN THE EARLY PART OF THE 20TH CENTURY.
WE'VE WORKED WITH ANGIE. SHE'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL ON THIS. WE'VE RECEIVED NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING STAFF ON OUR REQUEST. I'M NOT GOING TO STAND HERE AND SAY THEY ARE WRONG. WHAT IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO DOES THIS -- IS THIS HOUSE COMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD. WE BELIEVE IT IS.
IT'S CERTAINLY UNUSUAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO HAVE DIFFERENT BUILDERS AND STYLES.
YOU HAVE LARGER HOMES. ACROSS THE STREET FROM SMALLER ONES AND ALL WORKS IN A PLEASING HARMONIOUS WAY. IF WE ARE APPROVED TONIGHT WE WILL SEEK A PLAT. WE WILL BE PLATTING THE PROPERTY. ONE LOT SUBDIVISION.
VERY SIMILAR TO THE LOTS TO THE SOUTH OF US.
WITH THAT PLATTING PROCESS WE'LL LOOK AT THE TECHNICAL ASPECT OF THE PROJECT. SPECIFICALLY STORMWATER DRAINAGE. AND SUMMARY WE BELIEVE THIS WILL BE ATTRACTY ADDITION TO THE SECTION OF OLD TOWN.
WE RESPECTFULLY SEEK THE COURTS A APPROVAL TONIGHT AND ARE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. AND THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPENED ON THIS MATTER. ALL THOSE -- IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR
AGAINST THIS PETITION? >> TWO PEOPLE?
>> OKAY. SIR, IF YOU WOULD STEP UP TO THE MICROPHONE, INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
AND THE AREA OF CARMEL WHICH YOU RESIDE.
SIR, IN THE BACK, WOULD YOU FOLLOW HIM OVER HERE TO KEEP THE MEETING GOING. THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING. >> MY NAME THE JIM THOMAS.
I'M HERE WITH MY LOVELY WIFE CHRIS THOMAS.
AND WE'RE BUILDING THE LARGE WHITE HOUSE IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF JON SCOTT'S PROPERTY.
AS WAS MENTIONED, IN STAFFS A REPORT.
WE TOO WERE GRANTED SEVERAL VARIANCES FOR OUR HOUSE TO THE SOUTH. OUR HOUSE HAS BEEN A SINGLE HOME ON TWO SITES FOR OVER 100 YEARS.
I BELIEVE ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1880.
AND SO LITERALLY THAT'S THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN FOR THAT SECTION OF THE STREET.
WE HAD TO REPLACE THE PRIOR 1920'S HOUSE BECAUSE THE
[00:10:05]
THINGS JUST CONDEMNABLE STATE.AND THE MOVING PROCESS DIDN'T WORK WITH THE CITY.
AND WHEN WE NEEDED TO REPLACE THE HOUSE WE NEEDED VARIANCE BASE OUR HOUSE WAS JUST SLIGHTLY WIDER THAN THE EISTING HOUSE BY THE WIDTH OF THE SCREENED-IN PORCH.
WE TOO NEEDED THE WIDTH VARIANCE.
THE LOT VARIANCE, BECAUSE IT ALWAYS HAD ALWAYS OPERATED THAT WAY BUT THE ZOENING CHANGED.
WE APPRECIATE THE INVESTMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.RWE'VE HOMES IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. YOU JOHN'S INVESTMENT WOULD CONTINUE POSITIVE MOMENTUM ON OUR STREET.
IN FACT, I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT JOHN'S ASSESSMENT WOULD BE MORE THAN IF TO SMALLER HOMES WERE BUILT AS STAFF SAYS WOULD BE AS THE RIGHT DEVELOPMENT.
IMPORTANTLY, AS NOTED OUR STREETS IN THE CHARACTER SUBAREA OF THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY, CHRIS AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING ALMOST FOUR YEARS TO GET WHERE WE ARE, ALMOST WRAPPED UP ON OUR HOUSE.
I WOULD ECHO ANGIE AND STAFF HAVE BEEN HELPFUL.
WE'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF SELF OF YOU FOLKS TO GET OUR STUFF. EVEN IF THE PROCESS HAS BEEN FRUSTRATED. THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED TO ACQ ACQUIRE PARCEL CADDY-CORNER FROM JOHN'S PROPERTY FOR THE 1933 LOUNGE AND LOWER HEADQUARTERS AND SOME TOWN HOMES.
AND THEY NEED THE TOWN HOMES TO PAY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO HENRY. AND THAT TOWN HOME SITE IS ALSO IN THE OVERWHILE CHARACTER SUBAREA.
AND SO THE CITY IS GETTING READY TO REZONE THAT LAND, C-2 AND PRESUMABLY ACCEPT THAT ONE PARCEL OUT OF THE OVERLAY. JOHN DOESN'T HAVE THAT MAGIC TRICK. HE NEEDS THESE VARIANCES AND IF HE'S WILLING TO MAKE THIS INVESTMENT CHRIS AND I WELCOME HIM AS COSTABILIZING FORCE ALONG WITH THE OTHER NEW NEIGHBORS THAT WE HAD DEVELOPED A GOOD RELATIONSHIP OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS.
I KNOW THAT JOHN HAS PUSHED HIS HOUSE CLOSER WEST TO THE STREET AS STAFF REQUESTED. I WOULD ACTUALLY TALK TO HIM ABOUT MAYBE MOVING FURTHER NORTH.
LO AND BEHOLD I WENT OUT THERE AND LOOKED AT MATURE TREES THAT HE WANTED TO RETAIN, AND ACTUALLY HE'S NESTLED RIGHT IN THE DRIP LINE OF THOSE THREE TREES.
IT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY THOUGHTFUL PLAN BY INTENTION OR ACCIDENT WHERE IT SITS IS IN BETWEEN THOSE TREES.
SIMILARLY, TO ME, IF HE UPPED THE PITCH ON HIS ROOF ACCORDING TO MY CALCULATION, HE WOULD BE RIGHT AT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT. BUT THEN ALL WE REALLY HAVE A TALLER HOUSE NOT A LOWER STREET, JUST TALLER AND I DON'T SEE A HUGE DIFFERENCE FROM THAT VARIANCE.
IN SUMMARY, CHRIS AND I LIKE THE CHARACTER SUBAREA A LOT.
WE RELY ON THE PROTECTIONS OF THE CHARACTER SUBAREA.
IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE BUILT AN EXCEPTIONALLY NICE HOUSE ON OUR LOT AND IT PROVIDES STABILITY FOR WE AND OUR NEIGHBORS. BUT WE ALSO AVOID THE JOHN'S REQUEST REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE OUR REQUEST THAT WE CAN SUPPORT.
WE'RE VOICING OUR SUPPORT. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> SIR -- [INAUDIBLE] .
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK FOR OUR
AGAINST THIS PETITION? >> SEEING NONE.
STAFF REPORT. >> MR. PRESIDENT CAN I ASK A
CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. >> ARE YOU IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR OR AGAINST IT. [INAUDIBLE]
THE PETITIONER REQUESTING FOUR VARIANCES FOR AGAIN FOR HOUSE WIDTH, LOT WIDTH. ROOF PITCH AND DRIVEWAY WIDTH. SOME OF THE VARIANCES DEVIATE UP TO 86% CHANGE FROM WHAT IS ACTUALLY
[00:15:02]
REQUIRED. ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO JUST SPOKE HE WAS CORRECT THAT JUST ACROSS THE STREET TO THE NORTHWEST OF THIS SITE IS PROPOSED TO BE C2-MIXED REZONE. MIXED USE BUILDINGS, 12 TOWN HOMES, BE FAIRLY DENSE DEVELOPMENT WITH MULTIPLE ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.HOWEVER, THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT IS TO PRESERVE CERTAIN BUILDINGS AND SIDING CHARACTERISTICS. OF COURSE THAT'S THE SMALLER LOTS, THE QUAINT HOMES THAT ARE BUILT MORE TO WHAT I CALL A HUMAN SCALE. NOT TOO TALLER NOT TOO WIDE.
THAT'S MOSTLY WHY PLANNING STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL. THE HOUSE JUST IS MORE OF A SUBURBAN DESIGN IN SCALE. THIS SEEMING TO BE THE DESIGN PRESERVATION OF THE PETITIONER.
AND PLANNING STAFF THINKS THAT HOUSE COULD BE DESIGNED TO FIT IN WITH THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. PLANNING STAFF FEELS LIKE THERE'S NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR HARDSHIP.
ONE HOUSE OR TWO HOUSES COULD BE BUILT ON THESE PARCELS OF LAND AND STILL BE ABLE TO MEET THE CHARACTERISTIC SUBAREA REGULATION.
WE RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THESE VARIANCES.
>> WITH THAT I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> BOARD, ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS OR STATEMENTS?
>> YES? >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THE VARIANCES. I THINK THE HARDSHIP WE MADE OLD TOWN AND DOWNTOWN IN THE CITY OF CARMEL SO BEAUTIFUL.
EVERYONE WANTS TO LIVE THERE REGARDLESS OF INCOME LEVEL AND ABILITY TO BUILD. I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH PEOPLE WANTING TO MAKE INVESTMENTS IN THAT AREA.
SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS. >> ANGIE OR JOE, COULD YOU CONFIRM. I DON'T RECALL SEEING.
WAS THERE ANY OPPOSITION FROM THE CARMEL VIEW? ANY RESIDENTS PARTICULARLY TO THE EAST OF THIS SITE?
>> I RECEIVED NONE FOR THE RECORD.
>> YES. >> I WILL MOVE APPROVE DOCKET 3Z-2022-00 # 05V. THROUGH PZ-2022-00170V.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE APPROVE DOCKET PZ-2022-00105V THROUGH 107V.
AND THE FINDINGS OF FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS IS A VOICE VOTE. >> YES, MR. PRESIDENT.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, LET'S DO THIS
INDIVIDUALLY. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR
PZ-2022-00104V SAY "AYE." >> AYE.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF PZ-2022-00105V.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-00106V
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-00107V. SAY "AYE."
>> AYE. >> YOU BEEN UNANIMOUSLY
I'M VOTING NAY ON DOCKET 00104 AND 00105.
>> DID YOU GET THAT? >> 04 AND 05 WERE 4-1 IN FAVOR. 06 AND 07, UNANIMOUS.
[H. (V) Gravelie Pole Barn Variances.]
>> NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS GRAVELI POLE BARN VARIANCES. APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT STANDARD VARIANCE APPROVAL.
>> PZ-2022-00134V. UDO SECTION 0 POINLT 02.5.6.
[00:20:02]
PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO EXIST ON SITE BEFORE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REQUIRED. NO PRIMARY STRUCTUREREQUESTED. >> DOCKUT NUMBER PZ-2022-00132V. UDO SECTION 0.02.B.3.
MAXIMUM 24 FEAT BY 30 FEAT ACCESSORY.
STRUCTURE ALLOW 32 BY 40 FEET REQUESTED AND DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2022-00135V. UDO SECTION 2.08, MAXIMUM 18 FOOT TALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ALLOWED.
19 FEET HEIGHT REQUESTED. THE SITE LOCATED 945E101ST STREET. IT'S ZONED R1/RESIDENCE FILED BY JIM PIERCE OF INDY GENERAL CONTRACTORS ON BEHALF OF JAMES JIM GRAVELIE, OWNER.
ARE EITHER ONE OF THE PETITIONERS HERE.
IF YOU COULD COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF. YOU ARE FREE TO GO.
>> IT'S OFF NOW. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HEARING OUR DOCKET THIS EVENING.
I'M JIM PIERCE. I'M WITH INDY GENERAL CONTRACTOR HERE TO REPRESENT MR. GRAVELIE.
>> WE ARE LOOKING TO GET A VARIANCE ON THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. BEFORE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, MAXIMUM 24 BY 34 STRUCTURE AS WELL AS 18-FOOT TALL VARIANCE WHICH WE ARE REQUESTING 19.
WE'VE OBTAINED PERMITS FOR THE BUILDING OF THE DETACHED POLE BARN STRUCTURE. EVERYTHING IS ON HOLD DUE TO THE HEARING. MR. GRAVELIE AGREES TO PUT IN A SIDEWALK AS WELL IF THE BOARD APPROVES HIS PROJECT.
THAT'S TO BRING IT UP TO CODE? [INAUDIBLE] .
>> THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE PETITIONER AGREED TO DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND INSTALL THE SIDEWALK.
>> YES, SIR. >> DOES THAT COMPLETE YOUR
IT DOES. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
AND IT'S NOW OPEN. IS THERE ANYONE HERE EITHER IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS PETITION?
>> THANK YOU. AS A PETITIONER STATED, THEY WILL DEDICATE THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRED AS WELL AS INSTALL SIDEWALK ALONG THEIR 101ST STREET FRONTAGE. THIS SITES BEFORE YOU BACK IN 2011. WITH SIMILAR VARIANCES THAT WERE DENIED. IT SEEMED LIKE THE LARGE CONCERN WAS ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS HAD TO CONCERN ABOUT THE STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT.
AND ALSO CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC AND NOISE.
BUT OUR -- I DID CONTACT OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT AND THEY HAVEN'T HAD ANY ISSUES WITH THE PROPERTY IN THE LAST EIGHT YEARS. ONLY RECENTLY A SITE VISIT SHOWED THAT THERE'S PILE OF GRAVEL AND A SMALL BOBCAT ON THE SITE. WE THINK IT MAY ONLY BE
THAT'S FOR THE PERMIT THAT WE ALREADY HAVE OUT THERE.
>> OUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE REQUEST.
IT'S THERE TEMPORARILY. THE PETITIONER HAS ADDRESSED ALL REMAINING REVIEW COMMENTS.
WE DO GENERALLY SUPPORT THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE SHOWING THAT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF COMMERCIAL USE ON THIS SITE.
AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL STORAGE.
AS LONG THOSE CONDITIONS ARE MET.
WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >> AT THIS TIME I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BOARD, ANY QUESTIONS OR
THANKS MR. CHAIRMAN. I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THIS NEW ACCESSORY BUILDING IS ALL THE WAY AT THE BACK OF THE LOT; RIGHT? RIGHT UP AGAINST THE
>> RIGHT. >> DO YOU KNOW WHAT LIGHTING WILL EXIST OR WHAT LIGHTING WILL CHANGE AS A RESULT OF
THIS? >> THE LIGHTING AT THIS TIME I'M NOT SURE. I WOULD HAVE TO SPEAK WITH
MR. GRAVELIE ABOUT THAT. >> IS THAT A SEPARATE
[00:25:05]
PERMITTING OR ADLS? >> IT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL.
AS LONG AS IT'S RESIDENTIAL TYPE LIGHT FIXTURE.
IT SHOULD BE OKAY. >> WE COULD MAYBE PUT A COMMITMENT THAT DOWN LIGHTING NO THE NEIGHBORS CAN'T VIEW THE LIGHTBULB FROM THE STREET OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT. >> IT'S RESIDENTIAL ZONING BUT THIS IS AN ACCESSORY BUILDING ABSENT PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE RESIDENTIAL LIGHT FIXTURES? .
>> YES. >> THE ONLY REQUIREMEND IS FOOT CANDLE LIMIT AT THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THE
RESIDENTIAL. >> OKAY UTILITY TYPE --
>> A COMMERCIAL STREET LIGHT TYPE FIXTURE WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE AS LONG AS THE BOUNDARY IS RIGHT.
>> CORRECT. >> I HAVE -- ANGIE, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THAT ONE POLE BARN TORN DOWN. THAT WAS A -- THAT NO LONGER EXISTS AND NOTHING REPLACED THAT.
>> THERE'S ONE THAT EXIST ON THE SITE THAT WAS NEVER TORN DOWN. IT WAS REMODELED.
AS LONG AS IT STAYED ON SITE IT COULD EXIST.
NOW THEY WANT TO ADD A SECOND POLE BARN.
>> THIS IS FOR PERSONAL USE. >> THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN
TOLD. >> IS IT UNUSUAL TO HAVE A SITUATION LIKE THIS WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON THE LOT BUT YOU ARE AL -- YOU WANT -- YOU'RE
ASKING US TO ALLOW -- >> I WOULD SAY IT'S RARE.
BUT IT DOES OCCUR EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE.
>> STAFF HAS NO PROBLEM OTHER THAN WHAT'S IN THE
REPORT WITH REGARDS TO THIS. >> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> LEO? I THINK REAL ESTATE IS SO EXPENSIVE HERE IN CARMEL, JUST PUT A UTILITY BUILDING ON IT. IT DOES BLACK UP TO 465.
IT WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> MOVE THAT APPROVE DOCKET PZ-2022-00134, 001 # 2V.
AND 00135V. >> IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED SECOND.
2022-00134V, 00132V. AND 00135V.
AND THE FINDING OF FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING DOCKET PZ-2022-00134V SAY "AYE." AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR APPROVAL PZ-2022-00132V. SAY "AYE."
>> ALL THOSE IN GAVE OF DOCKET NUMBER
PZ-2022-00135V, SAY "AYE." >> AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? >> WE'VE ALL BEEN APPROVED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.
>> IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD?
>> NO. >> HEARING NONE THIS MEETING STANDS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU, ALL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.