Nov 25, 2024 Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Meeting

[A. Call to Order ]

[00:00:09]

>>> I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25TH, BZA

[D. (V) Martin Front Porch Setback Variance.]

WELCOME, JUST ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR A FRONT PORCH. A 27 FEET SETBACK WHICH IS ABOUT 35 FEE REQUIRED. THAT IS ALL WE

WERE LOOKING AT. >> I APPRECIATE IT. IF IT CAN BE SHORT AND SWEET, THAT IS GOOD.

>> I TRY. >> DO WE HAVE ANY WINE IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? DON'T ALL RUSH AT ONCE. I OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:16 AND I WILL CLOSE IT ADD 5:16 AND 16

SECONDS. DEPARTMENT REPORT? >> THEY WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A PORCH THAT IS A SETBACK FOR THE ZONING ENTRANCE. THERE IS A PLANNING ZONING SETBACK SO THEY WILL ALSO HAVE TO SUBMIT A REPLY AT APPLICATION TO GET THAT REMOVED OR REDUCED AND THAT HAS BEEN FILED. IT IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REVIEWED.

I DO RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE.

THANK YOU. >> ENJOY YOUR PORCH AND MAKE

[D. (V) Worrell Residence Variances.]

SURE YOU DO THE COMMITMENTS. >> WE CAN'T GET A SURVEY DONE FOR THREE MONTHS. WE ARE WORKING ON IT. IT'S ALL

COMING. >> HAVE FUN IN THE SPRING.

>> THANK YOU. >> HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

>> ITEM NUMBER TWO. DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2024-00200 V, PZ-2024-00210 V, PZ-2024-00211 V.

>> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS JON DOBOSIEWICZ AND I AM WITH NELSON & FRANKENBERGER, LLC. WE ARE REPRESENTING JEFF AND SHARI WORELL AS WELL AS A REPRESENTATIVE FROM OLDTOWN COMPANY, THE BUILDER. THIS MATTER INCLUDES THREE VARIANCE REQUEST. THE FIRST IS WITH REGARD TO LOT COVERAGE. THE ORDINANCE REPRESENTS 45% AND 49% BEING ARRESTED. THE SITE PLAN REPRESENTS A PLAN OF THE REAL ESTATE. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SITE IS ADJACENT TO THE ALLEY HERE ON THE EAST SIDE AND ANOTHER HERE ON THE SOUTH. ALONG THIS PERIMETER. THE SECOND VARIANCE REQUEST PERTAINS TO THE GROWING WITH. I WILL SET THIS LIKE THIS. NORTH IS HERE TO THE BOTTOM. THIS IS THE NORTH-SOUTH ALLEY AND THIS IS THE SOUTHEAST ALLEY RIGHT HERE. I WILL SHOW YOU IN A MINUTE, THE ELEVATION OF THE DWELLING. THE WIDTH IS ABOUT 51 FEET, 10.5 FEET WHICH IS THE OPEN PORCH, SO THE ORDINANCE PERMITS A 45 FOOT WIDE HOME ON THE LOT IN COMBINATION WITH THE FACT THAT THERE IS AN ALLEY TO THE EAST AND THE PORCH IS OPEN. IT IS NOT ENCLOSED AND THAT WILL MITIGATE ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE LOT WITH AND THE DWELLING REQUIREMENT. THIS LAST EXHIBIT AS OF THE HOME ITSELF.

THE LOT FALLS FROM EAST TO WEST AND YOU CAN SEE THAT REPRESENTED HERE, HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME. THIS IS THE BACK AREA INCLUDING THE GARAGE ON THE ALLEY HERE THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT FALL EXISTS FROM FRONT TO BACK AND THERE IS A REDLINE THAT I DREW HERE ON THE PLAN.

THAT REPRESENTS THE AREA ABOVE WHICH WE WOULD EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF 35 FEET. THE CHARACTER SUBDISTRICT OF THE ORDINANCE AND WE ARE PROPOSING 35 TO CHANGE THIS LINE THAT REPRESENTS THE AREA THAT WOULD BE ABOVE THAT SEGMENT OF HEIGHT. WITH THAT, OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED A FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION UNDER ONE CONDITION, WE HAVE REVIEWED THE CONDITION AND FIND THAT CONDITION ACCEPTABLE. WE WOULD ASK FOR THE OFFICERS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE ONE CONDITION RECOMMENDED BY

STAFF. THANK YOU. >> OPEN TO PUBLIC HEARING. IS

[00:05:03]

>> WE NEED JEOPARDY MUSIC. >> STAFF REPORT?

>> THANK YOU. THE PETITIONER DID A GREAT JOB DETAILING OUT THREE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED. STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST AS LONG AS THE EXISTING ALLEY RIGHTS OF WAY ARE PRESERVED IN THE PETITIONER HAS CONCERNED THIS. WE RECOMMEND POSITIVE VARIANCE REQUEST AS LONG AS THEY PROVIDE STORMWATER RETENTION. THANK YOU.

>> WE SEE NO REASON TO DISAGREE WITH THAT. THIS WILL BE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION. THE CONDITIONS ON THE STORMWATER FUND AND FINDINGS OF FACTS. ENJOY BUILDING YOUR HOME. NEXT

[D. (V) Berman Garage Addition Variance.]

>> HENRY BERMAN, 9820 DEERFIELD CIRCLE. A REQUEST TO EXTEND MY GARAGE 13 FEET. SECTION 5.02 B3 WHICH WILL BRING ME TO 87% AESTHETICALLY. I'LL BE USING ALL OF THE EXISTING BRICK. I WAS ABLE TO RECOUP BREAK FROM THE OLD PATIO AND ALL OF IT WILL MATCH THE EXISTING HOUSE AND I DO HAVE BERMAN FOR

APPROVAL. >> LET'S START PUBLIC HEARING.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY FOR OR AGAINST? OKAY,

DEPARTMENT REPORT? >> THANK YOU, THIS REQUEST IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. PLANNING STAFF ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCE AND WE DO RECOMMEND POSITIVE

[D. (V) Schneider Accessory Building Variances.]

>> I AGREE. YOU ARE GOOD. NEXT, WE HAVE SCHNEIDER ACCESSORY BUILDING VARIANCE. DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2024-00212 V AND PZ-2024-00213 V. PLEASE COME FORWARD. TAKE YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU. OKAY. >> IF ANYONE CAN FIND A WAY TO SPEED UP THAT CONNECTION, THAT WOULD BE FINE.

>> I'M HITTING ALL THE BUTTONS ON MY SIDE, SO. YEAH, I GOT IT.

>> YOUR GOOD. WAIT JUST A SECOND, IT WILL COME UP THERE.

IT SHOULD DO IT INSTANTLY. >> OKAY, THERE WE GO.

>> IT'S A LOT BETTER THAN IT WAS 16 YEARS AGO, TRUST ME.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR HEARING FROM US TODAY. THIS IS THE SCHNEIDER VARIANCE REQUEST. I AM LAUREL SCHNEIDER AND ANDREW SCHNEIDER IS SITTING OVER THERE WITH THE TERRIBLE MUSTACHE. WE ARE HERE ON BEHALF OF OUR TWO KIDS AT THIS TIME. WE ARE LOCATED AT 1631 WEST MAIN STREET AND WE PURCHASED THE LAND IN 2012. WE BUILT A NEW HOME IN 2013 AND MOVED IN IN 2014. WE ARE AT 2.70 ACRES, JUST UNDER THE THREE-ACRE MARKET WERE NOT PART OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT IS JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT OF WHERE WE ARE. THIS IS THE PROPERTY LINE THAT WAS PROVIDED. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE OUR PROPERTY IS RIGHT HERE. OUR NEIGHBORS PROPERTIES, WE HAVE ONE TO THE WEST. WE HAVE THREE TO THE SOUTH. AND THEN THREE TO THE EAST AND TWO TO THE NORTH. WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, IT WAS A 1920S HOME AND WE ENDED UP TEARING AT HOME AND BUILDING A NEW ONE. WE ALSO OWNED A PROPERTY AT THE TIME. WHEN WE PURCHASED IT, IT WAS A SHED. WHICH YOU CAN KIND OF SEE RAY HERE. IF IT IS NOT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, IT IS VERY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE WEST ON THE SOUTH. THIS IS OUR

[00:10:03]

SHE IS CONCRETE AND WOOD. WE HAVE'S MADE SOME IMPROVEMENTS HERE AND THERE, GARAGE DOORS, WINDOWS. SHE IS KIND OF REACHING HER END-OF-LIFE. WHAT YOU CAN SEE HERE IN THIS PICTURE IS THE NORTH FACING WALL. IF YOU CAN SEE MY CURSOR.

THIS ONE ON THE WOOD WHICH FACES NORTH ONTO OUR PROPERTY ON MAIN STREET. THE GARAGE DOORS PHASE OUR PROPERTY. GOING IN, HERE ARE SOME MORE PICTURES OF OUR LOVELY LADY. THIS PICTURE DOWN YOUR ON THE LOWER LEFT IS WHAT FACES WEST , JUST SHOWING THE WEAR AND TEAR ON THE BUILDING. I DON'T HAVE AN IMAGE OF THE SOUTH FACING WALL. OUR NEIGHBORS WILL SHARE THAT LATER. YOU MIGHT NEED TO DO THAT FROM US. WE WANT TO TEAR THAT LITTLE GORGEOUS GIRL DOWN. WE ARE GOING TO INVEST IN HER, SHE NEEDS TO RETIRE AND WE NEED TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT MEETS THE NEEDS OF OUR FAMILY NOW GOING INTO THE FUTURE. OUR PLAN IS TO BUILD NEW AND MOVED THE NEW BUILDING FIVE FEET FROM THE SOUTH AND WEST PROPERTY LINES TO MAKE THEM COMPLIANT WITH THE ORDINANCES. THIS IS MOVING IT FURTHER AWAY FROM OUR NEIGHBORS. AND FURTHER INTO OUR PROPERTY. THIS ALLOWS US TO APPROVE THE AESTHETIC. SHE IS NOT LOOKING SO GREAT AND WE ARE LOOKING TO START NEW. ONGOING MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS TO ALL OF THE SIDES. IT PROVIDES UTILITY OF THE USE THAT WE WANT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING THE FOOTPRINT. WE ARE LOOKING AT GOING FURTHER NORTH INTO OUR PROPERTY WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S NOT COMPLIANT AND WHEN WE ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR IT. OUR PLANS IN TERMS OF WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE, THIS IS THE EXTERIOR AESTHETIC. OUR PRIMARY HOME IS A FARMHOUSE. WE WANT TO DO A BARN AESTHETIC TO LOOK AND FEEL CONSISTENT WITH THE STYLE OF OUR HOME. WE ARE DOING A BLACK EXTERIOR WHICH WE FEEL COMPLEMENTS THE WHITE HOME THAT IS ALSO A NEUTRAL COLOR THAT CAN BLEND INTO SURROUNDING LANDSCAPING. EASEMENTS, TREES, PLANTS, WHATEVER MIGHT BE THERE. WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS A VAST IMPROVEMENT ON WHAT IS EXISTING THERE TODAY. THIS IS THE NORTH ELEVATION AND EAST ELEVATION INTO THE SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY. THIS IS THE WEST ELEVATION. THIS GOES WEST INTO OUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT TINY BUT IT IS LOOKING THAT WAY. LOOKING SOUTH INTO THE OTHER PROPERTY. WHY ARE WE HERE? WE HAVE TWO VARIANCE REQUEST THAT WE REQUESTED. VARIANCE REQUEST FOR HEIGHT. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 18 AS PART OF THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. WE REQUESTED 22 WHICH IS A DIFFERENCE OF FOUR FEET. GROUND FLOOR AREA, THE MAXIMUM REQUESTED IS 24÷30. WE HAVE REQUESTED 30÷52. WE ARE COMPLIANT HERE ON THE 30 FEET EAST AND WEST. THAT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT STANDARDS. THE EXTENSION, IF WE ARE GOING FOR THE GROUND FLOOR AREA IS GOING NORTH FURTHER INTO OUR PROPERTY. MAXIMUM GROUND-FLOOR PERCENTAGE, 74%. REQUESTED 97%. THAT CALCULATION INCLUDES THE EXISTING PRIMARY RESIDENCE ATTACHED GARAGE. IF YOU TAKE THE STRUCTURE, 1586 SQUARE FEET WHICH IS A NETVIEW GROUND-FLOOR ADDITION OF 61% WHICH WOULD BE LESS THAN THAT MAXIMUM GROUND-FLOOR PERCENTAGE. WHY DO WE NEED THE HEIGHT AND WHY DO WE WANT THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE GOING NORTH? ONE IS THAT THIS IS THE ROUGH INTERIOR OF THE SPACE. WE PLAN TO HAVE A LOFTED AREA OVER A PORTION OF IT. WE WANT TO USE THAT LOFTED AREA FOR STORAGE. WE WANT TO HAVE THE HEADSPACE FOR IT AND FOR TO STAND UP IN THERE. THE REASON WHY WE WANT TO HAVE A HIGHER LOFTED FLOOR IS TO FULFILL A FAMILY PASSION WHICH IS GOLF. WE ARE A GOLF FAMILY.

THE THING THAT WE ENJOY, OUR KIDS ARE VERY MUCH INTO IT. IT IS OUR HOBBY THAT WE DO AS A FAMILY. ONE OF THE THINGS WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS PUT A GOLF SIMULATOR INTO THIS NEW BUILDING. WE CAN'T PUT INTO OUR EXISTING BUILDING THAT IS

ALREADY BUILT. >> TAKE A BREATH, YOU ARE

[00:15:02]

NERVOUS. TAKE A BREATH. >> SORRY. WE CANNOT BUILD IT INTO THIS NEW BUILDING. THIS IS REALLY OUR ONLY OPTION TO DO THAT. WORKING WITH FULL SWING SIMULATORS, WE GOT THESE FACTS FROM THEM. THE REQUIRED HEIGHT FOR THE SIMULATOR WOULD BE 12 FEET. 12 FEET THROUGH THE LOFTED AREA AND INCREMENTAL SPACE ABOVE ALLOWS FOR A PERSON TO STAND GIVEN THE SLANTING OF THE ROOF. AND THEN FOR FOOTPRINT, A SIMULATOR TAKES ABOUT 20 FEET WHICH I WAS COMPLAINING EARLIER, THAT FELT LARGE. IT WAS REQUIRED EARLIER. AND THEN HE YOU FEET BEHIND JUST FOR PEOPLE TO STAND AND HAVE HIGH TOP CLUBS. THINGS TO BE SAFE. WE WANT EXTRA SPACE OUTSIDE OF THAT FOR FUTURE USE CASES AND TO HAVE A COUCH THERE. POTENTIALLY WHEN THE KIDS GET EARLIER -- OLDER, TALLER ARCADE GAMES TO MAKE IT A MORE FUNCTIONAL SPACE SO THAT PARENTS CAN BE GOLFING, THE KIDS CAN BE THERE AND HE WILL BE ABLE TO USE SPACE. OUR PROPOSED BUILDING STANDARDS FOR VARIANCE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO HEALTH OR SAFETY ISSUES, NO SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. WE ARE REMOVING OUR PRIOR STRUCTURE AND REPLACING A NEW ONE. THE APPEARANCE AND SETBACK OF NEW BUILDING IS ONE FOR VALUES WE BELIEVE. REQUESTING A VERTICAL HEIGHT THAT IS ABOVE OUR OWN PROPERTY. MOVING THE NEW BUILDING FURTHER INTO OUR OWN PROPERTY AND EXPANDING SPACE FURTHER INTO THE PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE WHICH IS ALL OF OUR PROPERTY. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE WILL RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES FOR INTENDED USE.

WE NEED THE HEIGHT FOR THE LOFTED AREA TO MAKE IT FUNCTIONAL. WE NEED SPACE FOR THE SIMULATOR AND ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR FUTURE USE OF THAT SPACE AS OUR FAMILY CONTINUES TO GROW. THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED AND SUPPORTED THIS.

ACCORDING TO THE REPORT. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBMITS THE REQUEST AND RECOMMENDS POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST. WE HAVE HAD NEIGHBORS SEND IN LETTERS OF SUPPORT ON THIS. THE ONLY THING THAT WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR IS THIS COMMITMENT CONCERNING SETBACK -- I WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS REALLY QUICKLY. SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS DOCUMENT, IT WAS DRAFTED IN 2013 WHEN WE WERE BUILDING OUR PRIMARY STRUCTURE. IT HAS A LOT OF DETAIL. THERE ARE A LOT OF SETBACKS FROM THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND LANDSCAPING.

OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT. THE INTENT OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS NEVER TO WAIVE OUR RIGHTS TO MAKE FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR PROPERTY. IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT US ASKING FOR A VARIANCE.

VARIANCES ARE PART OF THE ORDINANCE PROCESS AND STRUCTURE AND ALLOWED BY CITY LAW. UDO -- ALSO SAYS THAT THIS IS NOT BINDING TO ANY DECISION THAT THE CITY OF CARMEL WOULD MAKE.

POINTS WE HAVE SATISFIED THE COMMITMENTS BY SEEKING THIS VARIANCE. THERE ARE TWO POINTS HERE. ONE WAS HIGHLIGHTED THAT SAYS ANY NEWER FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WORKING ON THE PLANS ATTACHED, OPEN FORM WITH ANY ZONING OR DEPARTMENT OF ETHICS. WE ARE SEEKING THIS VARIANCE, FOLLOWING ALL THE STANDARDS OF THE VARIANCE PROCESS AS DETAILED IN A LOT OF THE LAWS BY CARMEL. INSTANCES THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED VARIANCES. THIS IS FOLLOWING ALL OF THOSE PROCEDURES. THE PROVISION IN THE DOCUMENT THAT ACTUALLY DEALS WITH THE OUTBUILDING ARE BEING MET. THE SOUTH WALL WILL BE IMPROVED.

WITH A NEW BUILDING, WE ARE ABLE TO MAINTAIN IT AND WE ARE CHANGING IT TO A NEUTRAL COLOR, BLACK. IN CLOSING, WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE MET ALL OF THE VARIANCE STANDARDS FOR CONSIDERATION. WE ARE IMPROVING THE PROPERTIES, NOT ONLY OURS BUT AROUND US. WE ARE MAKING THIS SUITABLE FOR OUR CURRENT USE CASE NEEDS FOR THE SIMULATOR AS WELL AS FUTURE NEEDS OF OUR FAMILY AS WE GROW OLDER. VARIANCES ARE FOR FOUR FEET OF HEIGHT GOING VERTICAL NORTH AND FEET GOING FURTHER NORTH INTO OUR PROPERTY. DEEPER INTO OUR PROPERTY. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. WELL DONE, EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE NERVOUS. HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE LOOKING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST? AGAINST, LET'S GO WITH AGAINST. FOUR? OKAY. SO THREE.

[00:20:07]

>> THANK YOU. I LIVE JUST EAST OF THE SCHNEIDERS AND WE HAVE ACTUALLY LIVED THERE AS THEIR NEIGHBORS SINCE BEFORE THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE WHEN THEY FIRST BUILT THEIR HOME. WE DID NOT COME AND SPEAK AT THAT TIME, I'M GLAD THAT IT WAS APPROVED. I CAN SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THEM IS AN AMAZING FAMILY THAT FRANKLY, I AM EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED IN THE NEIGHBORS AND THE PRESIDENT OF OUR HOA BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING FOR THEIR FAMILY. THE FACT THAT THEY ARE PUSHING BACK ON FOUR FEET OF HEIGHT FOR SOMETHING THAT MAKES THEIR PROPERTY LOOK NICER AND ULTIMATELY IS GOING TO MAKE THEIR PROPERTY VALUE BETTER WHICH WILL BENEFIT ALL OF US.

IT IS ABOMINABLE. I KNOW THERE ARE PROCESSES, EVERYONE IS GIVEN THAT RIGHT. THIS IS A NO-BRAINER. THEIR PLANS ARE AMAZING, THEIR FAMILY IS AMAZING, EVERY MINUTE THAT THEY HAVE MADE TO THEIR HOME HAS MADE IT BETTER AND HAS BEEN DONE IN A HIGH-QUALITY WAY. THANK YOU.

>> NEXT? NEXT ONE CAN COME UP ON BEHIND HER.

>> I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MY HUSBAND AND MYSELF AND WE ACTUALLY SHARE A PROPERTY LINE WITH THE SCHNEIDRS. WE HAVE BEEN NEIGHBORS OF THEIRS FOR 12 YEARS. I HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE SIMULATOR, NEITHER DOES MY HUSBAND. I HAVE HOUSE AND BE OF THEIR HOME, LANDSCAPING IS STUNNING. WE LIVED THERE WITH A NEWBORN WHEN THEY WERE BUILDING THEIR PROPERTY AND EJECT AND REGULATE TO MAKE SURE WAS NOT TOO LOUD DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH A SLEEPING BABY. THIS WILL INCREASE OUR PROPERTY VALUE AND THE STRUCTURE THEY ARE TAKING DOWN IS AN EYESORE THAT THEY HAVE WANTED TO TAKE DOWN FOR SOME TIME. IT IS GOING TO BE LOVELY AND THERE ARE TREES EVERYWHERE . WE ALL VALUE OUR PRIVACY. THAT IS SOMETHING I LOVE ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS IS A NO-BRAINER TO ME AND MY HUSBAND. WE SHARE PROPERTY LINES WITH THEM. IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO ENHANCE OUR PROPERTY. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS GO FORWARD. I AM DISAPPOINTED WE ARE HERE AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. WHOEVER IS NEXT, PLEASE COME UP BEHIND TIM.

>> MY NAME IS BRIAN AND I REPRESENT MYSELF AND MY WIFE.

WE HAVE THE PROPERTY THAT IS JUST WEST OF THEIRS. WE ARE PROBABLY THEIR BIGGEST NEIGHBOR, THE SHORTEST BUT THE BIGGEST. THE STRUCTURE THERE THAT THEY ARE TEARING DOWN IS ACTUALLY AN EYESORE AND IT BORDERS OUR PROPERTY SO WE ARE HAPPY TO SEE IT GO. EVERY IMPROVEMENT THEY HAVE MADE SINCE THEY HAVE BEEN THERE, WE CAME A FEW YEARS AFTER THEY DID. EVERYTHING WITH THE FENCING AND LANDSCAPE HAS DONE NOTHING BUT INCREASE OUR PROPERTY VALUES. AS I CAN ATTEST BY OUR TAXES GOING UP TREMENDOUSLY EVERY YEAR. WE ARE

ALL IN FAVOR OF IT. >> THANK YOU.

>> I AM BUILDING THE BARN/SHED. THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS NOT SAFE. IT HAS SOME STRUCTURAL DEFECTS AND IT NEEDS TO COME DOWN. WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO BUILD IN ITS PLACE WILL BE GREAT FOR A YOUNG FAMILY WHO WILL ENJOY STAYING OUT OF THE HOUSE MOST OF THE TIME. IT IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. I HAVE BUILT A FEW OF THESE BARNS PREVIOUSLY. WE TAKE VERY GOOD CARE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING AND MAKE SURE IT IS DONE CORRECTLY. PROFESSIONALLY, THE STRUCTURE THAT IS THERE IS CURRENTLY NOT SAFE AND DOES NEED TO GET TORN DOWN. THAT'S

ALL I'VE GOT. >> THANK YOU.

>> YOU HAVE 10 ON THIS ONE. >> THANK YOU, MR. RIDER. THIS

[00:25:05]

THIS ASSERTION REGARDING OUR PROPERTY IS CATEGORICALLY FALSE. ATTACHED IS A STATEMENT FROM MR. KYLE DIXON, LIFELONG CARMEL RESIDENT, ON SPRINGVILLE STREAMS, A 30 YEAR FULLY CREDENTIALED REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL IN THE AREA STATING UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THE PROPOSED BARN WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE VALUE OF OUR PROPERTY. MR. DIXON REVIEWED THE BUILDING PLANS AND MADE AN IN PERSON VISIT TO OUR PROPERTY. THE DAMAGE TO THE VALUE AND SALABILITY OF OUR PROPERTY IS REAL AND SIGNIFICANT. WE WILL SHOW YOU , IN THE NEXT COUPLE MINUTES, THAT WE BELIEVE ANY REAL ESTATE AGENT IN THE COUNTRY WHO COMES TO VISIT OUR PROPERTYAND TAKES A LOOK WILL SAY THE SAME THING. IN HARMS OUR PROPERTY VALUE.

THE SUBMISSION STATES THAT THE PROPOSED BARN WILL NOT IMPAIR ANY CLEAR SIGHTLINES IN ANY WAY. THIS IS CATEGORICALLY

FALSE. LOW IS A PICTURE -- >> REAL QUICK, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE, WORLD MENTIONED 22 FEET, AND ALL OF OUR SUBMISSIONS WE WERE TOLD IT WAS 27 FEET. THE SIZE OF THE BARN WILL BE --

>> I WILL EXPLAIN IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WASTE YOUR TIME

ON THAT. >> IS THE WITH NOW 30? IT IS

24? 52? THE WIDTH IS 30. >> WE ARE NOT GOING BACK AND

FORTH, GUYS. >> THIS IS CATEGORICALLY FALSE.

THE PICTURE OF THE CURRENT OUTBUILDING WITH THE OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED BARN SUPERIMPOSED. YES, THIS IS TO SCALE. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PROPOSED BARN DWARFS THE CURRENT OUTBUILDING.

THE HEIGHT OBLITERATES THE SIDELINES TO THE NORTH WITH A LITTLE BIT OF MIDDLE SCHOOL GEOMETRY, THE VIEWING AREA WILL BE 2.5 TIMES OF THE CURRENT OUTBUILDING. DOES ANYBODY ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS NOT OUT OF PLACE AND WOULD NOT DAMAGE OUR VIEW, OUR SIGHTLINES, OUR LIVING EXPERIENCE AND PROPERTY VALUES? ALL DUE RESPECT, MR. RIDER, IMAGINE THIS BEHEMOTH ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY LINE, IT IS ABSURD. THE SCHNEIDER PROPOSAL ATTEMPTS TO MINIMIZE HER VIEW BY STATING A HEAVILY WOODED PROPERTY LINE PROVIDES SUFFICIENT COVER FORCE FOR THAT IS FALSE. THE PICTURE SHOWS THAT THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO COVER FOR US. NONE OF THE EXISTING TREES, SPARSE AS THEY ARE, ARE PROVIDED BY THE SCHNEIDERS, THE TREES PICTURED PROVIDING NO COVER ARE OURS. IT IS CONVOLUTED LOGIC AND FRANKLY BEYOND WHAT OUR OWN LANDSCAPING IS BEEN USED AGAINST US TO SUPPORT A BARN THAT IS TO OUR

[00:30:04]

JUST A COUPLE OF NOTES, I WANT TO BRING THAT OUT, IN THE SHORTAGE OF TIME. ONE THING THAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN, WE TOOK A VIEW OF THE PROPERTY RECORDS A LIST TWO OWNERS OF THE SCHNEIDER PROPERTY. WE CANNOT TELL OF THE TWO PARTIES OPEN LAUREN -- WE WERE SURPRISED THAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST DID NOT INCLUDE THAT. FOR THAT REASON, WE ARE NOT LOOKING TO PRY INTO THE LLC OR ANYTHING. WE SIMPLY WOULD LIKE A CONFIRMATION THAT THE LLC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAND THAT THIS SITS ON, THE FINANCING OF A, THE FUTURE USE OF IT. BECAUSE IF IT DOES, IF WE THINK THAT IS PERTINENT TO KNOW, WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE SCHNEIDERS RESUBMIT THEIR VARIANCE REQUEST INCLUDING BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS EXPLAINING THEIR INVOLVEMENT. AGAIN, WERE NOT SURE HOW TO READ THIS. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK OF WHEN THEY THINK VARIANCE. INSTEAD, THE VARIANCE COMPLETELY OBLITERATES THE CODE. IT IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE. IT IS A SERIES OF INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS. EACH ABOVE PERMITTED CODE. FOR THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING MAILING, 27% WIDER THAN CODE.

THE BARN IS 73% LONGER. 50% HIGHER, 220% BY SQUARE FEET. IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE COMBINED GARAGE BUILDING MIGHT BE LIMITED TO 75% OF THE GROUND FLOOR AREA OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE. THE PROPOSED BARN AND GARAGE EXCEEDS THIS REQUIREMENT BY 31%. WE WANT TO GO BACK QUICKLY. I WANT TO GO BACK TO 2013 AND THIS ISSUE. THE SNYDER'S WANTED A NEW HOME. ON THE PROPERTY LINE. WHERE THE GARAGE WOULD BE, WE, THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY OWNERS OFFERED TO COMPROMISE. TO GET THEM EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED IN TERMS OF HOME SIZE, GARAGE SIZE, NOTHING HAD TO CHANGE WITH THE ARCHITECTURE OF THEIR HOME, NOTHING. WE JUST ASKED TO PUSH BACK A FEW FEET. WE OFFERED A COMPROMISE. IT WAS EVENTUALLY ACCEPTED, AT THE LAST MINUTE. IT WAS MEMORIALIZED IN THIS AGREEMENT. THIS IS A LEGAL AND BINDING AGREEMENT. DRAFTED BY OUR COUNSEL AT THE TIME. KYLE PROFIT. SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES. THEY ALL HAD LEGAL COUNSEL. IT WAS ALL NOTARIZED. I WILL POINT AGAIN TO SECTION E OF THAT AGREEMENT. PROPERTY OWNERS COMMIT THAT ANY NEW WAR FUTURE CONSTRUCTION NOT OTHERWISE DESCRIBED IN THE PLANS ATTACHED SHALL CONFORM WITH ANY AND ALL APPLICABLE ZONING OR DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES. ALSO ATTACHED ARE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 25TH, 2013 MEETING. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE BOARD ACKNOWLEDGED THE AGREEMENT UTILIZED AS A BASIS FOR GRANTING THE SCHNEIDERS VARIANCE REQUEST. THE BOARDS FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ALL PARTIES WERE ADVISED BY LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE SIGNING THE AGREEMENT. THE AGREEMENT IS VALID AND THE ONE WE WRITE THAT THEY ALL BE HELD IN COMMITMENT.

THE SNYDER'S RECEIVED THE BENEFIT MOSTLY IN THE ORIGINAL FORM. THE HOA EXPECT THEM TO ADHERE TO THE COMMITMENT THEY MADE THEN TO US AND TO THE BZA, YOUR PREDECESSORS, IN THE AGREEMENT. I DID HAVE SCOTT WYATT WHO WAS THE DRAFTER OF THIS AND WHO REPRESENTED US AT THE TIME, I SPOKE TO HIM THIS WEEK. HE REVIEWED AND CONFIRMED, YES. IT IS STILL A LEGAL DOCUMENT. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED VARIANCE REQUEST SHOULD BE DENIED ON ITS OWN MERITS. WE REQUEST THAT THE BZA DENY THE REQUEST IMMEDIATELY. I

[00:35:08]

COVERED IT. >> YOU HAVE TO WRAP IT UP.

>> THANK YOU. >> NEXT?

>> HI, I AM ERIC MILLER. MY WIFE, DEB AND I LIVE JUST SOUTH OF THE SCHNIEDER PROPERTY. WE HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS OF CARMEL SINCE 2011. RANDY MADE A LOT OF POINTS THERE. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND I WILL COUNTER THREE OF THEM IN A MINUTE. PROPERTY VALUE BEING NUMBER ONE . WE BELIEVE IT IS DETRIMENT TO THE PROPERTY VALUE AS STATED. I'M A REALTOR. JUST DUE TO THE EXCESSIVE SIZE AND WIDTH AND HEIGHT. NUMBER TWO, WOULD BE SIGHTLINES. OUR LIVING SPACE IN OUR HOUSE IS IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE WHICH FACES NORTH. WE DO HAVE SOME WOULD COVER IN THE BACK FOR SIX MONTHS OF THE YEAR WE GET COVER. FOR THE REST OF THAT PORTION OF THE YEAR WE HAVE A FULL VIEW OF THE HOUSE AND GARAGE CURRENTLY WHICH IS MUCH LIKE A WHITE WALL. IT LOOKS LIKE THE PLANS ARE MORE OF A DARK WALL INSTEAD OF WHITE AND THIS JUST ADDS TO THAT WAS A STRUCTURE THAT IS NEARLY AS LARGE AS THE HOUSE. SO AGAIN, FROM A SIDELINE PERSPECTIVE NEAR THE PROPERTY LINE, A LARGE WALL. THE THIRD THING WOULD BE THE AGREEMENT AS REFERENCED.

>> FINISH YOUR THOUGHT. >> WITH THE AGREEMENT, I THINK APPROVING IT IS GREAT AND GOLF SIMULATOR SOUNDS VERY COOL.

I'VE SEEN A LOT OF THEM THAT GO 10 FEET HEIGHT AND NINE FEET HEIGHT. LET'S FOLLOW THE CODE.

>> NEXT? >> I PROMISED I WOULD MAKE THIS SHORT. I AM PART OF THE SPRINGVILLE STREAMS HOA. I WANTED TO PRODUCE THIS DOCUMENT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAD IT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. DOCUMENT WAS DRAFTED AND SIGNED BY THE SCHNIEDER'S AND THE H AWAY. WE WENT OVER THE DOCUMENT FAIRLY WELL AND THE PLANS HERE. THE DOCUMENT COMPLIES WITH THE CODE. WITH PARAGRAPH E WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED EARLIER IN YELLOW.

THAT IS REALLY IT. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAD IT AND YOU CONSIDERED IT. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING IT.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ANYTHING ELSE? FIVE MINUTES. IT

IS FIVE, RIGHT? TO RESPOND? >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THE CONSIDERATION AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. LOOK, IF YOU GET DOWN TO IT, I UNDERSTAND THAT MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT TO BUILD IT THERE. THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN A BUILDING THERE.

>> SPEAK TO ME, NOT THEM. >> THERE IS BEEN A BUILDING THERE FOR 30 YEARS. THE QUESTION IS NOT WHERE WE ARE PLACING THE BUILDING. LEGALLY WE CAN PUT A BUILDING WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE SIDE YARD AND THE BACKYARD. WE CAN PLACE ANYTHING WE WANT THERE. OKAY? NOW LET'S TAKE SOME OF THE GRIEVANCES, RIGHT? THE WIDTH OF THAT BUILDING IS 30 FEET. WE CAN BUILD AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT IS 30 FEET WITHOUT A VARIANCE. LET'S SEE WHERE THE BURDEN IS. MOVING THE BUILDING FURTHER NORTH. THAT IS WHERE ALL OF THE BUILDING IS EXPANDING INTO OUR PROPERTY AND THAT IS NOT IN THE LINE OF SIGHT OF THE BROOKS. THAT IS NOT IN THE LINE OF SIGHT OF THE MILLERS. OUR NEIGHBOR, WHO IS NEIGHBORING US HAS ALREADY SAID THAT HE IS IN FAVOR OF IT. OKAY? THIS ISN'T A QUESTION OF WHERE THE BUILDING IS. OKAY? IT IS A QUESTION OF FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT. THAT IS WHAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR THE FOUR FEET OF HEIGHT. YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS IS WHAT IT ACTUALLY WOULD LOOK LIKE. THIS IS WHAT WE LEGALLY CAN BUILD.

OKAY? FOUR FEET SMALLER. THIS IS THE 30 FOOT WITH THAT WE CAN BUILD. THIS IS VISUALLY WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. WE CAN BUILD THAT TOMORROW AS LONG AS IT'S 20 FEET TO THE NORTH. WE ARE ASKING FOR 50 FEET TO THE NORTH. THE BURDEN IS ON THE SCOTS, THEY AGREE WITH IT. THE OTHER POINT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS, THIS IS ONLY A STARTING WHEN I WAS 25 YEARS OLD TO PUT ON PARTIES TO SUPPORT RILEY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL. WE DID A CONCERT. IT IS A DEFUNCT LLC AND THE FACT THAT IS BROUGHT UP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE DOING

[00:40:01]

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY. SOMEBODY'S OPINION OF WHAT IT CAN DO TO PROPERTY VALUE WITHOUT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR OPINION. OUR OPINION IS THAT THE AESTHETIC WILL NOT HARM PROPERTY VALUES, THAT IS MY REBUTTAL THERE.

>> THANK YOU. >> STAFF.

>> THE PETITIONER GAVE A VERY GOOD PRESENTATION. I'M NOTHING TO ADD BESIDES THE PLANNING STAFF TO SUPPORT THE TWO VARIANCE REQUEST AND THE ADOPTION OF THE FUNDING

REQUEST. >> LEGAL, TALK TO ME ABOUT THE

DOCUMENT. >> SORRY, I DID NOT HEAR THE PRESENTATION. BUT I CAN TALK ABOUT THIS. WE REVIEWED THE COMMITMENT THAT WAS EXECUTED WITHIN THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE MINUTES AND THE LETTER FOR THE GRANT. THE LETTER OF THE GRANT WHICH IS WHAT BZA APPROVED AND THE MINUTES DO NOT INCLUDE THE COMMITMENT THAT WAS IN QUESTION. THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.

SPECIFICALLY, BZA APPROVED TWO COMMITMENTS IN 2013. ONE THAT THE HOUSE WILL BE 18 FEET SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IN THE GARAGE WILL BE 10 FEET. THREE, LANDSCAPING WILL BE PUT INTO PLACE TO THE SATISFACTION OF NEIGHBORS. AND FOUR, THE BUILDING WILL BE PAINTED. THESE ARE THE ONLY FOUR COMMITMENTS THAT BZA APPROVED. NOW, AS FAR AS IF THE QUESTION IS, IS BZA BOUND BY THE COMMITMENTS IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND AS WAS EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES? THE ANSWER IS NO. BZA IS ONLY BOUND BY THE FOUR COMMITMENTS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE LETTER OF THE GRANT. AND SUPPORTED BY THE MINUTES. THE COMMITMENT CERTAINLY CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE BZA AND THE BZA OFFICER IN YOUR CASE. THAT IS UP TO YOU TO DECIDE. THE PARTIES HAVE A PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION TO ENFORCE THEM BUT NOT IN FRONT OF BZA. THE COMMITMENTS ALSO GAVE THE ABILITY TO BZA BUT NOT

THE OBLIGATION TO ENFORCE THEM. >> I GET IT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, REAL QUICK, I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS, THIS IS MY 17TH YEAR. AND THERE IS NOTHING I HAVEN'T HEARD. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THE PROPERTY VALUE THING, THAT IS A MATTER OF OPINION. 10 TO SAY ONE SIDE AND TEND TO SAY THE OTHER. THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT. TWO, THEY ARE CORRECT, MOST OF WHAT THEY ARE BUILDING IS NOT AFFECTING THE PEOPLE THAT ARE AGAINST WHAT THEY ARE BUILDING. AND THIS IS NOT -- WE TALK ABOUT IT LIKE IT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE. I HAVE SEEN THIS GET APPROVED 100 TIMES. THIS IS NOT ASKING FOR THE WORLD. I'M

[D. (V) Carmel Medical Office Building at The Bridges, Sign Variance.]

THANK YOU. WE HAVE ONE LAST ITEM. DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2024-00215. THAT IS THE CARMEL MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING

AT THE BRIDGES. >> JIMMY CLARK WITH CORNERSTONE

COMPANIES. >> BEFORE YOU GET GOING, REMEMBER, EVERYBODY, YOU HAVE TO LIVE NEXT TO EACH OTHER.

>> JIMMY CLARK WITH CORNERSTONE COMPANIES INC. HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER, PZ-2024-00215 FIBER THEY OWN A THREE-STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AT 11380 ILLINOIS STREET. HERE AT THE REQUEST FOR A SIGNAGE AREA AND VARIANCE FOR EXTERIOR SIGNS WERE FOUR TOTAL SIGNS ARE ALLOWED PER STREET

[00:45:05]

THEN SPRINGVILLE TO THE WEST. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST? STAFF?

>> THANK YOU. THE PETITIONER IS EXPERIENCING THREE WALL SIGNS FACING EAST TOWARDS ILLINOIS STREET AND THREE WEST TO THE INTERIOR PARKING LOT. PLANNING STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS VARIANCE. THE SIGN ON EACH LENGTH OF SIDE WILL NOT HINDER THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING. WITH THAT, WE RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE

REQUEST. THANK YOU. >> I AGREE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. WE ARE ADJO

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.