[A. Call to Order]
[00:00:05]
>> I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE ZONING OF APPEALS OFFICER MEETING FOR MONDAY JULY 27TH TO ORDER.
LEGAL OR STAFF, YOU GOT ANYTHING?
[C.(V) Hale Accessory Structures Variances. ]
NO. ALL RIGHT.PUBLIC HEARINGS? FIRST WE HAVE THE HAIL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE VARIANCE, PZ-2026- PZ-2026-00110V.
AND PZ2026-00142V. THE PETITIONER? AT THE BASE OF THE MICROPHONE THERE'S A BUTTON THAT WILL TURN
IT RED AROUND THE TOP. >> OKAY.
GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ROD HEAL.
MY WIFE BRENDA AND I ARE THE OWNERS OF 965 GREEN TREE DRIVE IN CARMEL AND WE HAVE APPLIED FOR TWO VARIANCES, ONE FOR THE PLAICHT PLACEMENT OF A 112 SQUARE FOOT SHED. OUR PROPERTY -- IT'S A CORNER LOT BUT IT'S NOT ONLY A CORNER THROUGH LOT, SO WE HAVE FRONTAGE ON THREE SIDES SO WE REALLY HAVE NO SIDE YARD, NO AVAILABLE SPACE TO PUT A SHED. SO THIS VARIANCE IS FOR THE PERMISSION TO PUT A SHED ON THE SIDE YARD.
AND THEN THE SECOND VARIANCE, WE WANT TO PUT A 196 SQUARE FOOT PERGOLA ON OUR PATIO, WHICH ADJOINS THE HOUSE, IT'S NOD TACHT NOT ATTACHED WITH THE HOUSE BUT WITH THE PERGOLA WHICH WOULD BE PERMITTED, THAT PUTS US OVER THE ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY SQUARE FOOTAGE, SO WE'RE AT OUR SECOND VARIANCE IS TO ASK FOR AN 82% SO THAT WE CAN -- AS OPPOSED TO THE ALLOWABLE 75% OF THE MAIN PROPERTY SQUARE FOOTAGE, SO THAT'S WHAT OUR TWO VARIANCES -- VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR THIS
>> THANK YOU. AND WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST? ALL RIGHT. STAFF?
>> THANK YOU. AS THE PETITIONER STATED, THEY HAVE A UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE THEY HAVE A LOT ON THREE STREET FRONTAGES SO THREE FRONT YARDS. SO THE TWO VARIANCE REQUESTS, THEY DO MAKE SENSE. THEY HAVE ADDRESSED ALL OF OUR REVIEW COMMENTS AND WE DO RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCES, AS WELL AS THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE
FACTS. >> SO MOVED AND I VOTE YES.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> SECOND, WE HAVE -- I'M NOT
[C.(V) Brinegar Deck Setback Variance. ]
EVEN GOING TO SAY THE FIRST NAME BUT DECK SETBACK VARIANCE, DOCKET NUMBER PS-2026-00143V. IF YOU WOULD JOIN US AT THEMICROPHONE. >> MY NAME IS COLE BRINEGAR.
WE'RE APPLYING FOR A SET BACK VARIANCE FOR A DECK THAT WE HAD BUILT EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT SITS INSIDE OF THE EXISTING FENCE, BUT WITHIN 5 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
WE HAD INITIALLY OUR CONTRACTOR WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT A PERMIT WAS NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT.
WE LATER FOUND OUT THAT WAS NOT THE CASE.
WE CONTACTED THE PERMITTING OFFICE, WENT THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS. THE PERMIT HAS BEEN APPROVED, PENDING THE RESULT OF TODAY'S HEARING.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT.
PUBLIC HEARING. ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST? RAISE YOUR HAND.
JUST ONE, TWO -- TWO? OKAY, COME ON UP.
I'LL ALLOW EACH OF YOU 5 MINUTES.
THAT'S A LONG TIME TO TALK, TRUST ME.
>> I APOLOGIZE, I THINK I SAW A THIRD HAND.
>> OH, WAS THERE A THIRD? WAIT A MINUTE. SO FOUR OF YOU ARE GOING TO SPEAK?
THAT WILL WORK. >> SO I'M JOHN FITZGERALD.
I LIVE NEXT DOOR TO 1507. I'M AT 1 A 11 AND WE'RE HERE TO OBJECT TO A VARIANCE FOR THIS PROJECT.
SO HERE ARE OUR OBJECTIONS. THE VARIANCE ASKS THAT THE SETBACK STANDARD AT 1507 IS CURRENTLY NON- PERMITTED AND IT WAS NOT PERMITTED AT THE TIME OF BUILD, AND THE CITY HAS
[00:05:05]
CURRENTLY FLAGGED IT AS AN AFTER THE FACT BUILDING APPLICATION.THE PROPERTY OWNERS, MY WIFE AND I, WE OBJECT TO THE VARIANCE BECAUSE IT NOT ONLY VIOLATES CITY CODE BUT ALSO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED IN OUR HOA.
WE ALSO FIND THAT THERE'S SOME FINDINGS OF FACT THAT HAVE BEEN STATED THAT ARE NOT EXACTLY CORRECT.
SO HERE ARE SOME FACTS OR OMISSIONS REALLY TO THIS PROJECT. THERE'S NO CURRENT APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT. NOTIFICATIONS OF THE BUILD WERE NOT MADE AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE CITY OR THE HOA. THE BACK OF THE STRUCTURE IS BUILT WITHIN 12 INCHES OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
IT ABUTS THE FENCE, ONLY 5 INCHES AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. AND THE FENCE IS ACTUALLY BOLTED INTO THE BACK OF THE DECK AT THE 5-INCH MARK.
THE FINDINGS OF FACT FROM THE PETITIONER STATE THAT THE DECK IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD AT 1511 COLE CREEK. THAT'S INCORRECT.
IT'S ALSO INCORRECT THAT THE PETITION CITES AN ELEVATION OF -- RISES OF 6 INCHES, SINCE IT'S BUILT OVER A SLOPE WHEN IT ABUTS THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE, THE ELEVATION IS GREATER THAN 3.
THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS IS AS FOLLOWS: THIS IS NOT MERELY A DECK, IT'S IN PLAIN VIEW, ITS APPROXIMATE ENTERTAINMENT AND MEDIA STRUCTURE IS QUITE HIGH ABOVE THE FENCE.
IT HAS A BIG SCREEN T.V. AND AUDIO.
FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE THERE IS AN INTRUSIVE PHYSICAL PROXIMITY, A VIOLATION OF -- DEFINITION OF THE VIOLATION OF CITY AND HOA SETBACK. POTENTIAL PROPERTY DEVALUATION HAS OCCURRED AS WE CAN WELL IMAGINE THAT THERE ARE A POOL OF BUYERS WHO WOULD NOT WANT TO LIVE NEXT TO A STRUCTURE SUCH AS THIS IN SUCH CLOSE PROXIMITY. TO DEMONSTRATE THE PROXIMITY, I PULLED A LINE AT THE TOP OF THAT YELLOW LINE IS AT THE NEW LEVEL OF ELEVATION BETWEEN THE TWO YARDS.
THAT'S THE TOP OF THE DECK. TO SHOW YOU THE DISTANCE THERE FROM THAT, HERE IS A PHOTO OF THE MEASUREMENT FROM GROUND LEVEL UP TO THE NEW ELEVATION, AND YOU CAN SEE THROUGH TO THE DECK THAT IS ROUGHLY APPROXIMATE TO THAT.
TO ESTABLISH THE 10-INCH OR 5-INCH PLAY, THERE IS A SURVEYOR STAKE AT THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY AND AS THE RULE SHOWS, IT'S ONLY 5 INCHES AWAY FROM THE PETITIONER'S DECK.
I ALSO TOOK A MEASUREMENT FROM THE EDGE OF THAT FENCE, WHICH IS 5 INCHES AWAY, TO THE BACK OF THE DECK ITSELF.
THAT'S 5 INCHES, FOR A TOTAL OF ONLY A 10-INCH SEPARATION FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ITSELF. TO FURTHER EMPHASIZE HOW CLOSE THE STRUCTURE IS TO THE PROPERTY LINE, THERE'S A BOLT THAT YOU SEE IN THE BACK OF THE FENCE. THAT BOLT IS HOLDING UP THE FENCE AND IS BOLTED INTO THE BACK OF THE DECK.
SO FOR THE CLAIM THAT THE PROJECT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM OUR SIDE OF THE YARD, THERE IS THE STRUCTURE THAT'S BUILT ON TOP OF THE DECK. THERE'S A PICTURE OF THE STRUCTURE, TAKEN FROM OUR SUN ROOM THAT WE LOOK OUT AT FROM THE -- FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE. THIS IS A SIDEWALK VIEW OF THAT SAME STRUCTURE THAT SITS ABOUT D THEN HERE IS AN EVEN CLOSER LOOK, SO THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE SCALE OF THE STRUCTURE, AND IT REALLY WASN'T CLEAR FROM WHAT I SAW IN THE STATEMNT FROM THE PETITIONER THAT THAT WAS CLEAR.
THEY ALSO STATE THAT, AS FAR AS THE VISIBILITY ISSUE IS CONCERNED, HERE IS A PHOTO FROM INSIDE OUR YARD LOOKING THROUGH TO THE DECK WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE POOL AND YOU CAN EVEN SEE A SUN BATHER RIGHT THERE ON THAT DECK.
AND THAT IS THE SAME VIEW FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE.
SO HERE IS OUR SUMMARY, SIR. THE CITY OF CARMEL CODE AND HOA SETBACK REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN MET.
THE PETITION CONTAINS ERRORS AND OMISSIONS.
[00:10:02]
IN THE ATTACHMENT FINDINGS OF FACT.NEIGHBORS AND HOA HAVE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THROUGH THE NORMAL BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS THE SETTINGS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN DIMINISHED.
S ADJACENT PROPERTY HAS LIKELY -- ADJACENT MEANING MY PROPERTY HAS LIKELY BEEN VALUED SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE'S -- WILL BE A DIMINISHED POOL OF BUYERS WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN LIVING NEXT TO SUCH A STRUCTURE. THE KOLE CREEK HOA HAVE BEEN ON SITE AND THE PRESIDENT IS HERE EQUALLY TO VERIFY THAT.
SO THE RELIEF THAT WE REQUEST IS THIS: IT'S REQUESTED THAT THE PROPERTY AT 1507 BE HELD IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF CARMEL AND KOLE CREEK ESTATES HOA REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND RELEVANT SETBACKS.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO PRESENT SO -- I WILL -- SORRY, TRENTON HEALMOSTTON. MY ADDRESS IS 604 MOHAWK COURT.
>> BY THE WAY NOBODY HAS TO GIVE AN ADDRESS, YOU CAN JUST SAY YOU LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE DON'T MAKE YOU SAY YOUR ADDRESSES ON CAMERA ANYMORE. THEY USED TO.
WE DON'T ANYMORE. >> I WILL SAY THAT FROM OUR SIDE, THERE -- OUR BACKS -- OUR BACKYARDS BUTT UP TO EACH OTHER.
I WILL SAY THAT FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNERS TO THE NEW DECK, IT IS VERY DIFFERENT. LIKE, WE HAVE ACTUALLY -- I DON'T WANT TO GET MYSELF IN TROUBLE EITHER BUT LIKE WE'VE WENT TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE PLANTED LIKE HIGH GROWING SPRUCE TREES IN A COLLAGE SO IT WILL BLOCK THAT WHOLE DECK AREA, BECAUSE IF I STAND IN MY BACKYARD, I CAN -- I CAN SEE IT.
LIKE I CAN SEE THEIR DECK, I CAN SEE EVERYTHING.
SO THAT IS WHAT I HAVE DONE FROM MY SIDE.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE STRUCTURE THAT JOHN WAS SHOWING, LIKE IF I'M OUTSTANDING NEXT TO MY POOL, I CAN SEE THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE, BASICALLY FROM THE SEATS OF THE CHAIRS THAT GO IN FRONT OF IT, BECAUSE THEY'RE BAR STOOLS, I CAN SEE EVERYTHING FROM THE SEATS UP. SO I WILL JUST DOUBLE DOWN AND SAY THAT -- I HAVE NOW PLANTED TREES TO OBSCURE SO IT'S NOT IN OUR VISIBLE PATH. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> NEXT. >> ALL WE NEED IS YOUR NAME.
>> I'M SUSAN MCLEAN. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE COOL CREEK ESTATES HOA, AS JOHN STATED.
I AM HERE JUST TO VERIFY THE INFORMATION THAT JOHN STATED, THAT WE DO HAVE -- AND WE JUST VERY, VERY RECENTLY UPDATED OUR CCN REARVIEW MIRRORS REARVIEW NS AND IN THE CURRENT ONES.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED TO SEE THOSE.
IT DOES STATE THAT YOU MUST HAVE A 10-FOOT SETBACK FOR THE STRUCTURES. THIS WAS NEVER BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION. WE WERE NEVER ASKED TO APPROVE THIS. BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE OBSERVED AND LOOKED AT, WE AS A BOARD DISCUSSED THIS AND SAID WE NEVER WOULD HAVE APPROVED THIS TYPE OF A STRUCTURE.
ANYTHING ELSE? PETITIONER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
RESPOND? >> SO WITH RESPECT TO THE GAZEBO THAT WAS PUT ON TOP OF THE DECK AFTER IT WAS BUILT, WE UNDERSTAND THAT WAS THE IMPETUS FOR THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WHEN WE WERE MADE AWARE OF THAT, WE WENT TO THE CITY PERMITTING OFFICE, EXPLAINED THE STRUCTURE, TOLD THEM THE DIMENSIONS ANDIBLE IT'S TIM, TIM OR TOM OVER AT THE PERMITTING OFFICE TOLD US THAT BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE, IT DID NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT AND HIS ONLY CONCERN WAS WITH THE ACTUAL DECK ITSELF.
[00:15:05]
SO THEN WE PROCEEDED WITH THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST. WITH RESPECT TO THE HOA, THAT WAS JUST A MISREADING OF THE COVENANTS APPARENTLY ON MY PART.I READ STRUCTURES AND BUILDINGS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS NOT TO APPLY TO A DECK, BUT IF AN HOA APPROVAL IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO GO TO DO, WE'RE HAPPY TO DID IT. THE GAZEBO ITSELF WAS A DIY KIT THAT I BOUGHT ON AMAZON FOR LIKE A THOUSAND DOLLARS, SO I JUST -- DIDN'T SEEM TO ME THAT THAT WOULD RISE TO THE LEVEL OF SOMETHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE SOME SORT OF FORMAL APPROVAL TO PUT IN SOME BACKYARD SINCE IT COULD BE MOVED OR REPOSITIONED IF NEEDED. AND I THINK THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT THE BOLT GOING INTO THE DECK.
THAT WAS SOMETHING, WHILE WE WERE BUILDING THE DECK, ISSUE IT WAS JOHN'S WIFE SPOKE TO OUR CONTRACTOR AND ASKED IF WE WERE FIXING THE FENCE AND THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE PROJECT THAT WE WERE WORKING ON, BECAUSE THAT FENCE WAS IN BAD SHAPE WHEN WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND WAS LEANING INTO THEIR YARD.
SO THE PURPOSE OF THAT BOLT WAS MERELY TO KEEP THE FENCE FROM LEANING INTO THEIR YARD AND TO HELP MAKE IT STURDY.
AND AGAIN, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE MEASUREMENTS THAT OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE MADE BUT YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, IT'S BASICALLY FLUSH WITH OUR EXISTING POOL DECK AS IT IS, SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF STANDING ON THE POOL OR STANDING A FEW FEET TO THE LEFT OR TO THE RIGHT AND IT'S ONLY A 6-INCH DIFFERENCE FROM THERE, BUT LIKE I SAID, IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS A MISREADING OF THE HOA COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON MY PART AND WE NEED TO GO TO GET AN HOA APPROVAL, WE ARE HAPPY TO TRY TO DO SO.
SO WHEN WE WROTE THE STAFF REPORT, WE WERE -- WE FOUND OUT THROUGH THE PATIO PERMIT THERE WAS KIND OF A FORM THE APPLICANT FILLS OUT AND IT WAS CHECKED THAT THERE WAS NOT AN ACTIVE HOA, SO WE WERE GIVEN WRONG INFORMATION THERE.
OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE DOVE A LITTLE DEEPER INTO THE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS. ALSO, THE WRITTEN DEMONSTRATION WE RECEIVED WAS RECEIVED TODAY AT 2 O'CLOCK.
USUALLY WE RECEIVE THAT AT LEAST FIVE DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING SO WE DO APOLOGIZE IF YOU HAVE NOT HAD TIME TO REVIEW IT, WE UNDERSTAND YOU'RE A BUSY PERSON. OUR ORIGINAL RECOMMNDATION WAS TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, BUT SEEING THAT THERE ARE A FEW FACTORS WE NEED TO FURTHER REVIEW, I THINK WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU EITHER TABLE IT TO THE NEXT MONTH'S MEETING OR EVEN FORWARD TO THE FULL BOARD FOR REVIEW.
THANK YOU. >> EXCELLENT ADVICE, BECAUSE THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY -- A FEW COMMENTS FOR BOTH SIDES.
ONE, YOUR SIDE. IGNORANCE OF THE LAWS DOES NOT FORGIVE THE LAW. I MEAN, IF THERE'S RULES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHEN YOU BUY YOUR HOUSE YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOURSELF AWARE OF THOSE RULES. AND MR. FITZGERALD, JUST SO YOU KNOW, I AM NOT DISAGREEING WITH ANYTHING YOU SAID BUT THE BZA EXISTS FOR THE REASON OF DOING THINGS LIKE THIS, IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY GET APPROVED BUT THERE ARE RULES SET THAT THE BZA EXISTS SPECIFICALLY AND WE DO THIS ALL THE TIME, I'VE DONE THIS FOR 18 YEARS, BETWEEN COUNCIL AND HERE.
AND THESE THINGS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME.
SO THIS IS NOT AN UNUSUAL THING. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S RIGHT OR NOT RIGHT, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO CONTINUE IT AND IT IS GOING TO GO TO THE FULL BZA. SO STAFF WILL HAVE SOME MORE TIME TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING AND GIVE US ADVICE, SO IT WILL COME TO US NEXT MONTH. AND IT WILL NOT GO TO THE HEARING OFFICERS, TO THE FULL BZA, ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. AND NO, I DIDN'T HAVE TIME NO READ IT BECAUSE I GOT IT WHEN I WALKED IN SO I'LL HAVE MORE TIME TO READ IT BY NEXT MONTH. AND IT IS NOT RUDE TO GET UP AND LEAVE. YOU DO NOT NEED TO SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO ME FOR THE REST OF THE MEETING.
[C.(V) Ramos Outdoor Kitchen Variance. ]
NEXT, WE HAVE RAMOS OUTDOOR KITCHEN VARIANCE.DOCKET NUMBER PZ-2026-00144V. PETITIONER, HOW ARE YOU, SIR?
EPIFANIO CARBAJAL ON BEHALF OF MR. RAMOS CONSIDERING VARIANCE OF DEVELOPMENT -- TO ALLOW FOR HIM TO BUILD 550 SQUARE FEET
[00:20:02]
OTHER KITCHEN, PATIO AREA. EXCEEDS -- WITH A COMBINATION OF THE EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS COMES UP TO 114.WHAT IS ALLOWED IS 75%. WE CONSIDER AT THAT THE REQUESTS NOT GOING TO BE INJURIOUS TO HEALTH, SAFETY AND MORALS, BECAUSE THE PROPOSED KITCHEN/PATIO AREA WILL NOT CAUSE ANY UNSANITARY CONDITIONS, TRAFFIC -- IMPAIRED TRAFFIC OR ANY OTHER DRAINAGE ISSUE. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL SIT 25 FEET EAST OF THE WEST PROPERTY LINE, BEHIND THE -- IF YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE, THAT'S WHERE THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL BE. THAT IS 20 FEET FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. OUR NEIGHBOR, HIS NEIGHBOR ON THAT SIDE, HE HAS CALLED US TO GIVE US HIS SUPPORT.
FROM THE EAST SIDE IS NOT VISIBLE OR FROM THE FRONT OR THE REAR. AGAIN, WE REQUESTING TO BE ALLOWED BECAUSE WITH THE COMBINATION OF ALL THE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS COMES UP TO 114 SQUARE FEET AND 75% IS WHAT IS ALLOWED.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? YOU MAY HAVE A SEAT.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> ANYBODY HERE WANTING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST? I'M GOING TO TAKE THAT AS A NO.
THIS OUTDOOR KITCHEN AREA WILL HAVE A ROOF ON IT, AS WELL AS A FIREPLACE WITH CHIMNEY. IT WILL BE NESTLED IN BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE POOL SO WON'T ENCROACH FURTHER OUT OF THAT COMPACT BUILDING FOOTPRINT. AND PLANNING STAFF DOES SUPPORT THE VARIOUS REQUESTS ALONG WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THANK YOU.
>> SO DOES THE HEARING OFFICER. YOU'RE APPROVED.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> NEXT, WE HAVE JOHNSON GARAGE
[C.(V) Johnson Garage Addition Variance. ]
ADDITION VARIANCE. DOCKET NUMBER PS-2026-00146.JIM CAN'T BE HERE. I'M ALSO HIS NEIGHBOR SO I CAN SPEAK FOR THIS. THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO EXTEND THE EXISTING TWO CAR GARAGE SPACE BY 13 AND A HALF FEET TO THE WEST TOWARDS HYDE DRIVE. THE PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE EXTRA STORAGE SPACE FOR STORAGE SPACE, CABINETS AND TOOLS AND SPACE FOR HOUSING TWO VEHICLES. THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EXTERIOR WILL EXIST OF MATERIAL AND RIM THAT WILL MATCH THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON ALL THREE SIDES.
THE PICTURE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU GUYS ALREADY.
EVERYTHING WILL BASICALLY MATCH. THERE'S A NEW GARAGE DOOR BEING PUT ON. I MEAN, YEAH, IT'S BASICALLY -- THE 75% VARIANCE, HE HAS TO GO OVER BY 3%, SO I THINK IT ENDED UP BEING 40 SQUARE FEET TOTAL, EXTRA.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY.
>> 3%, THAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE LONG TIME.
NIKE HERE TO SPEAKANYBODY HERE R OR AGAINST.
>> I CAN SPEAK -- >> YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK AGAINST
YOU MAY HAVE A SEAT. >> THANK STAFF?
>> IT'S A SMALL VARIANCE REQUEST OF 3% INCREASE.
PLANNING STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS AND SO WILL MEET ALL SIDE AND FRONT YARD SETBACKS AND THE COLORS AND MATERIALS WILL MATCH THE EXISTING HOUSE. SO WE RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION ALONG WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THANK YOU.
>> SO MOVED. THANK YOU, YOU'RE APPROVED.
>> THANK YO SO MUCH. >> WE'RE ALL GOOD? OH, DO I HAVE ONE MORE? THERE WE ARE.
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HERE. GOT TO GIVE ME ONE SECOND.
I'LL CATCH UP WITH YOU. BISHOP RESIDENCE VARIANCE.
[C.(V) Bishop Residence Variances. ]
I HAD THE PAGE HERE. DOCKET NUMBER PS-2026-00147V AND.COM NUMBER PZ-2026-00148V. WELCOME.[00:25:02]
MY NAME IS DAVID BISHOP. I'M A CARMEL RESIDENT, HOMEOWNER RESIDING AT 709 HOWE DRIVE, LOT 1, RURAL WOODS.THIS IS A CORNER LOT AT THE INTERSECTION OF HOWE DRIVE AND OAK RIDGE ROAD. HERE THIS EVENING REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THREE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD VARIANCES RELATED TO A PROPOSED 6-FOOT PRIVACY FENCE AND RESIDENTIAL SHED OR ACCESSORY BUILDING. FIRST FOR THE FENCE, REQUESTING RELIEF FROM UDO SECTION 5.09B. LIMIT IS NORMALLY 42 INCHES IN VISIBILITY AND I AM REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR A 6-FOOT PRIVACY FENCE. SECOND AND THIRD FOR THE STORAGE SHED, I AM REQUESTING RELIEF FROM UDO SECTION 5.02B.
BECAUSE THIS IS A CORNER LOT. PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING IS CONSIDERED FORWARD OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND THE REQUIRED SETBACKS ARE AFFECTED BY THE EXISTING EASEMENTS.
AS SUMMARIZED IN THE SUBMISSION MATERIALS, THE APPLICABLE SETBACKS FOR THE STANDARD WOULD BE 13 FEET AND 23 FEET.
I AM REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR THE SHED AT APPROXIMATELY 3 FEET FROM THE RELEVANT EASEMENT AREA, WHICH WOULD ALSO PLACE THE STRUCTURE FORWAR OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ADDRESS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ARISING FROM THE COMBINATION OF THIS BEING A CORNER LOT, THE WAY THE ORDINANCE CREATES THE OAK RIDGE FRONTAGE AND THE LOCATION OF MULTIPLE LARGE EASEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY.
AND SEE HERE, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN OF THE LOT.
AND YOU'LL NOTE MULTIPLE LARGE EASEMENTS ON THREE SIDES OF THIS LOT HERE. THIS BEING OAK RIDGE AND THIS BEING THE FRONT OF THE HOME, FACING HOWE DRIVE.
AND THIS IS THE -- YOU CAN SEE THE REQUESTED PLACEMENT OF BOTH THE FENCE AND THE SHED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ALONG THE WEST AND THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPERTY HERE, AFFECTED BY THESE EASEMENTS. SO THE SUBJECT AREA IS THE FUNCTIONAL BACKYARD OF THE PROPERTY.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE CORNER LOT CONFIGURATION, IT'S NOT TREATED THE SAME WAY A TYPICAL INTERIOR LOT BACKYARD WOULD BE TREATED.
STRICT APPLICATION OF THE STANDARDS WOULD MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO USE THE YARD IN A NORMAL RESIDENTIAL WAY.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WOULD ALLOW ORDINARY RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS THESE WHILE KEEPING THE PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL IN CHARACTER AND CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE FENCE, THE PROPOSED 6-FOOT FENCE IS INTENDED TO CREATE PRIVACY, SCREENING, CONTAINMENT FOR USABLE PROTECTED BACKYARD.
RESIDENTIAL STORAGE AND SEPARATION OF POTENTIALLY HARMFUL AND DANGEROUS ITEMS SUCH AS FUEL, COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS, CHEMICALS, ET CETERA FROM PEOPLE AND PETS.
NONE OF THE REQUESTS VARIANCES IN MY OPINION WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, GENERAL WELFARE NOR WILL ADJACENT PROPERTIES BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
FOR THESE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL OF THESE THREE VARIANCES, THE 6-FOOT PRIVACY FENCE VARIANCE, AND THE TWO SHED RELATED VARIANCES UNDER U.
DID O SECTION 5.02B. THANK YOU.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> THERE'S NOBODY HERE BUT I'M GOING TO ASK -- ARE YOU GOING TO -- I'M ASSUMING NOBODY IS HERE FOR EITHER.
>> THANK YOU. THE PETITIONER GAVE A DETAILED PRESENTATION, WHICH WE AGREE WITH.
WE DID ASK FOR A COPY OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION APPROVAL, IF THERE IS AN ACTIVE HOA. BUT AGAIN, THAT IS MORE JUST FOR OUR RECORDS, JUST TO UPKEEP. AND WE HAD RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF BOTH VARIANCES, WITH THE CONDITION OF FINALIZING THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS CONSENT TO ENCROACH APPROVAL AS WELL AS THE HAMILTON COUNTY NON- ENFORCEMENT EASEMENT APPROVAL AND THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
THANK YOU. >> I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO READ THOSE THINGS BUT NOW I DON'T HAVE TO BECAUSE IT'S IN THE RECORD. YOU'RE APPROVED.
>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FUN IF YOU HAD GOTTEN UP AND RECOMMEND ON STRAIGHTED. NOW WE'RE DONE.
THANK YOU. WE'R
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.