Shelby County Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes July 5, 2006

Shelby County Board of Zoning Appeals

Meeting Minutes

July 5, 2006

Members Present:

Carolyn Blackford

Kevin Carson

Randy Miller

Ann Sipes

Richard Whelen

Staff Present:

Amy Butcher

Mark McNeely
Call to Order and Roll Call:

President Randy Miller called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm in Room 208 A at the Court House Annex.

Approval of Minutes:

Ann Sipes moved to approve the minutes of the June 6, 2006 meeting, and Carolyn Blackford seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. The minutes were signed.

Public Hearings:

President Randy Miller began the public hearing portion of the meeting by explaining the proceedings for the petitions.

BZA 06-22 Manning, Alan Use Variance: c/o Alan Manning, 184 Amys Run Drive, Carmel, Indiana 46032. The current zoning of the property is A and the current use is undeveloped. The petitioner is seeking approval of a use variance to allow the construction of a temporary dwelling unit in a detached structure until such time as a primary residence is completed on the property located at 8293 South PR 435 West.

(Jackson Township, Section 16)

Amy Butcher read the petition into the record and indicated that she had proof of publication of the legal notice in the Shelbyville News and proof of notification to interested parties. The petitioner is seeking approval of a use variance to construct a carriage apartment in a horse barn so that his children can begin school in the Southwestern School District this year. At the end of the construction of his home, the carriage apartment will be converted into an arts and crafts room and honey processing center.
The petitioner was represented by his mother because he had a prior engagement with his son at a horse camp. She explained that Alan is the nurse at the camp and he could not attend so he asked her to represent him. She noted that she has a letter from the petitioner that states what Butcher previously indicated.
No one spoke in favor or in opposition of the petition.
After questions and discussion from the Board of Zoning Appeals, Ann Sipes made a motion to vote on the petition with stipulations the following stipulations:

1. 
   The construction of the home must be completed within the time period stated in the statement of intent (13 months after the start of the foundation.
   
2. 
   If the single-family home is not completed within the specified timeframe, then the petitioner shall re-apply for an extension of the approved use variance.
   
3. 
   The subject dwelling unit shall not become a permanent residential structure (for rental purposes). When the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the primary residence the temporary dwelling unit shall be converted to a use other then a residence or a business.
   

Richard Whelen seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 to 0. Mark McNeely presented the Findings of Fact to the Board for their review, and they affirmed that these were the basis for their decision
BZA 06-19 Escamilla, Joe Use Variance: c/o Joe Escamilla, 4361 North 575 East, Shelbyville, Indiana 46176. Petitioner request approval of a use variance to store business equipment for off-site work in a detached structure located on the same property as the single-family home. The property is currently zoned A and is the current use is single family residential. The address of the subject property is 4361 North 575 East (Union Township, Section 7).

Amy Butcher read the petition into the record and indicated that she had proof of publication of the legal notice in the Shelbyville News and proof of notification to interested parties. She noted that her office received complaints about a business operation occurring at the subject property. The necessary paperwork was sent to Mr. Escamilla concerning a zoning violation. Upon receiving the letter from the Plan Commission office, Mr. Escamilla came in and completed the proper paperwork for the zoning variance. There is a detached structure on the property and there is equipment such as welding and concrete equipment being stored in this structure.

Joe Escamilla, petitioner, spoke. He owns his own business. He has a vehicle that he uses to do repairs on homes when he is called. He loads the equipment from his property into his truck, which is a non-commercial vehicle, to do his work. He is asking for a variance to keep his equipment in this detached structure when he is not at a job site. The equipment is weather sensitive and is considered very high-tech equipment that cannot be left outside.

Mary Escamilla spoke in favor of the petition. She is married to Escamilla and supports him having a shop to store his equipment. She states that he is not using his shop as a business.
Dawn Elrod spoke in opposition of the petition. She noted that in 2004 Escamilla requested a variance for his property to run a welding business out of his garage. The request was withdrawn because of covenant restrictions. All residences sign covenant papers stating that there would be no business ran from the homes. The covenants have not changed. The covenants also state that the driveway would not be used for commercial use. She feels that Escamilla has been very dishonest. He has placed business stickers on his truck doors and continuously drives the vehicles up and down the driveway. She also feels that he is running a business out of the garage. All of the residences share the same driveway. Joe has continuously complained about the upkeep of the driveway and she feels that he does not pay for the stone for the driveway like the rest of the residents do. One neighbor stays home during the day and she witnesses large commercial trucks driving down the lane daily. These trucks are causing pot holes that residential vehicles would not cause. She requested that the Board not pass this and if choosing to pass this put strict limitations on this variance. She concluded by stating that the residents of the area feel that Joe should solely take care of the driveway and should have limitations on the hours that large trucks can pass on the driveway.
Rick Laney also spoke in opposition of the petition. He agrees with Ms. Elrod. The commercial trucks have damaged the access easement to his property.
Chris Elrod spoke in opposition of the petition. The common drive has become a big issue. There is a large problem with the commercial vehicles traveling up and down the drive. He spent over a $1000.00 having stone put in on the drive just last week. He wants the children in the neighborhood to enjoy riding their bikes and taking walks without there being any concern.
Byron Barkley spoke in opposition of the petition. His biggest concerns are with Escamilla running a welding business out of his garage. He is concerned with the noise and the fumes of this business. He also has concerns about the driveway and the covenant.
Joe Escamilla offered a rebuttal. He admitted to applying for a variance previously. He stated that his business consists of a portable welding company with a residential vehicle. It is not a commercial vehicle. In the winter time he plows the driveway to help keep it passable. He states that most of the road problems are caused by Chris Elrod. Joe states that he has been buying gravel for the past ten years and has receipts from purchasing gravel. Escamilla read a letter from Terry King into the record. In the letter it stated that no commercial vehicles were kept on the property. The letter came from someone that had paved Joe Escamilla’s driveway. Joe Escamilla presented pictures to show the conditions of the property.
After questions and discussion from the Board of Zoning Appeals, Kevin Carson made a motion to vote on the petition with stipulations the following stipulations:

1. 
   Only one business-related vehicle may be parked on the property at any one time.
   
2. 
   No signage shall be added to the site to advertise the business.
   
3. 
   Any lighting added to the site shall not adversely impact adjoining properties.
   
4. 
   The business truck shall be parked inside a structure on the site.
   
5. 
   Any expansion of the business beyond the existing buildings or more vehicles will not be permitted.
   

Ann Sipes seconded the motion. The motion was defeated by a vote of 3 to 2 with Ann Sipes and Carolyn Blackford casting the assenting votes. Mark McNeely presented the Findings of Fact to the Board for their review, and they affirmed that these were the basis for their decision.
­BZA 06-20 Douglas, Jim Development Standards Variance and Special Exception: c/o Jim Douglas, 9596 South 350 East, Flat Rock, Indiana 47234. Petitioner seeks approval of a development standards variance to expand an existing confined feeding operation at 9596 South 350 East, and he seeks approval of a special exception to construct a new confined feeding operation at 10142 South 350 East, Flat Rock. The current zoning of the property is A and the current use of the property is agricultural. (Noble Township, Section 23 & 26).
Amy Butcher read the petition into the record and indicated that she had proof of publication of the legal notice in the Shelbyville News and proof of notification to interested parties. She highlighted that there is an existing confined feeding operation that the petioner wants to add onto and that the petitioner would like to construct an additional confined feeding operation at another property. At this point in the process IDEM the petitioner has not received IDEM approval at this point. If IDEM approves the proposed confined feeding operations, they will set certain guidelines and standards as well. Jim Douglas, the petitioner, desires to obtain local zoning approval so that he can proceed with the rest of the approval process.
Jim Douglas, petitioner, spoke about the petition. There is a map of each site provided in the application packet. One of the buildings that will be constructed is connected to an existing confined feeding facility , while the other will stand by it self. They desire to have most of their hogs located in one general location rather than spread throughout the County.
No one spoke in favor of the petition.
Amy Romig spoke in opposition. She is the attorney representing the Walkleys. She is objecting the petition because she is not certain of the size of the CFO. She also wants to know why the petitioners need to build another operation when they plan on moving the animals to one location. The reason the Walkley’s are objecting is because they just purchased a greenhouse to use on their property. They are concerned about health issues and safety on their property. They are worried about manure running down the creek next to their property. She is also worried about property values. She believes that there will be too many hogs in this area. She does not want to stop Douglas from doing business. She simply wants to control the areas where he places his hogs.
Jeremy Wisker spoke in opposition of the petition as well. He supports farming values. He read a letter about his views of the petition. He is worried about the air quality in the area. When he built his home he was aware of the hogs in the area. However, he does not want his property value to decrease.
Paul Mason spoke in opposition. He is not against Jim Douglas expanding; however, he is worried about some drainage issues and about the water quality in the creeks.
Elizabeth Walkley spoke in opposition. She has concerns about the creek. She also read some facts about hogs and hog farms. She requested that if the Board decides to grant the variance and special exception that the Board place some stipulations on the petition.
Jim Douglas offered a rebuttal to the remonstrators’ comments. Jeff Smith and Paul Mason are the two closest property owners. His CFO operation has never been in violation of IDEM requirements and standards. There can be an environmental impact with CFO’s; however, they try really hard to deal with the issues. The drainage in the area should not change from its current state.
After questions and discussion from the Board of Zoning Appeals, Kevin Carson made a motion to vote on the development standards variance. Carolyn Blackford seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 5 to 0.
Kevin Carson then made a motion to vote on the special exception. Richard Whelen seconded the motion. The exception was approved with a vote of 4 to 1 with Richard Whelen casting the dissenting vote. Mark McNeely presented the Findings of Fact to the Board for their review, and they affirmed that these were the basis for their decision.
BZA 06-21 Fletcher, James 20-Acre Cropland Variance: c/o James S. Fletcher, Jr., 2220 West 900 South, Flat Rock, Indiana 47234. The petitioner seeks approval of a development standards variance to waive the 20-acre cropland preserve requirement to develop a 7.3 acre tract at 2220 West 900 South for residential purposes. The current zoning of the property is A and the current use of the property is undeveloped. (Washington Township, Section 14)
Amy Butcher read the petition into the record and indicated that she had proof of publication of the legal notice in the Shelbyville News and proof of notification to interested parties. She explained that Mr. Fletcher lives on the subject property. If the variance is approved, he desires to create two new lots on the 7.3 acres that he owns.
Greg Cantwell represented the petitioner. He noted that he did not have anything further to add.
No one spoke in favor of the petition.
Jim Emerick spoke in opposition. He does not want two additional home sites near his property. If Mr. Fletcher would be willing to develop one home and then tear down the existing home he would be okay with the development.
Tim Emerick spoke in opposition. He wants to know what the purpose of the proposed development is. He also wants to know about the drainage issues since water stands on the property at least two months out of the year. He does not want his property to be adversely affected.
Grant Hamner spoke in opposition. He does not want any more development in this area. He has lived on this road for about 26 years. He is also concerned about the drainage problems.
Dave Crisman spoke in opposition. He and his wife live in Bartholomew County, but he owns the adjoining property. He feels like there are enough houses in this area. They are also concerned about the water issues in the area. He does not want a lake on his property. He wants stipulations placed on the property. He wants to know what his recourse will be if the development adversely effects his property.
Phyllis Crisman spoke in opposition. She also lives in Bartholomew County. Her parents have lived in this area for many years. This area has always had problems flooding. She does not understand where the houses will be positioned and how they are going to fix the flooding. Could there be a retention pond built?
Greg Cantwell offered a rebuttal to the remonstrators’ comments. The property will be split so that the properties face two separate roads. The drainage issues will be resolved after the variance gets approved. The property’s site plan will go in front of the drainage board.
Mr. Fletcher, the petitioner, offered a rebuttal as well. The houses are going to hopefully be built for family. There is a culvert that runs underneath 225 West and there is a ditch line that will drain the property.
After questions and discussion from the Board of Zoning Appeals, Ann Sipes made a motion to vote on the petition. Kevin Carson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 to 1 with Randy Miller casting the dissenting vote. Mark McNeely presented the Findings of Fact to the Board for their review, and they affirmed that these were the basis for their decision.
Miscellaneous Business:

Amy Butcher noted that the Comprehensive Plan’s Open Houses, to review the public documents, will be taking place the last week of July and the first week of August. The post cards have been mailed out to everyone. If you know anyone that is interested in attending pass the information along to them. There will be 5 different open houses throughout the County. The Comprehensive Plan is getting close to the final draft.

Adjournment:

With no further business to come before the Board, Richard Whelen moved to adjourn, and Kevin Carson seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned.

­­­­­­­President Date

Secretary Date