HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA April 30, 2024 MINUTES OF THE
JEFFERSONVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
April 30, 2024
Call to Order
Chairman Mike McCutcheon calls to order the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. It is Tuesday,
April 30, 2024, it is 6:30 pm in the City Council Chambers, Jeffersonville City Hall, 500
Quartermaster Ct., Jeffersonville, Indiana. The meeting was held in person and streamed live on
the City's website and City's Facebook page.
Roll Call
Chairman Mike McCutcheon was present. Other members present were Duard Avery, Dennis
Hill, Kelli Jones, and David Stinson. Also present were Planning & Zoning Attorney Les Merkley,
Planning and Zoning Director Chad Reischl, and Secretary Zachary Giuffre.
(Secretary's Note: All drawings, letters, photos, etc. presented before the Board of
Zoning Appeals on this date can be found in the office of Planning & Zoning.)
Approval of Minutes
Approval of the minutes from March 26, 2024. Mr. Stinson made a motion to approve the March
26, 2024 minutes, seconded by Ms. Jones. Roll call vote. Motion passed 5-0.
Approval of Findings of Fact
Approval of the Findings of Fact. Mr. Stinson made a motion to adopt the Findings of Fact for
the March 26, 2024 docket items, seconded by Ms. Jones. Roll call vote. Motion passed 5-0.
Approval of the Docket
Approval of the Docket. Ms. Jones made a motion to approve the docket, seconded by Mr.
Stinson. Roll call vote. Motion passed 5-0.
Oath
Les Merkley administered the oath. When you speak, please state your name and acknowledge
you took the oath.
Old Business
None
New Business
BZA-24-19 Development Standards Variance
Millennium Builders LLC filed a Development Standards Variance for the property located at
425 W. Maple Street. The applicant requests a variance from the standards for minimum side
yard setback. The property is zoned CN (Commercial — Neighborhood). The docket number is
BZA-24-19.
Brad Reinhardt stated he took the oath and the following:
• Asking for a variance for a side yard setback to bring the side yard setbacks down to 4ft.
1
• There are several nearby zone districts that have 3ft or Oft side yard setbacks so we will
be matching the surrounding area.
Chad Reischl stated this is a curious case as the property is zoned Commercial Neighborhood
which allows for single-family homes; however, what they are looking for is a setback that is a
little closer to the nearby R4 zone district and the Commercial Downtown zone district which
have smaller setbacks. Staff has no issues.
Open public comment
No comment
Closed public comment
Move to findings
The Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Jeffersonville, having heard the application for
variance described above, and all opposition from parties claiming to be adversely affected
thereby, does now enter the following findings:
1. The variance of the development standards will not be injurious to the public health,
safety,morals, and general welfare of the community.
2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not
beaffected in a substantially adverse manner.
3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will result in a practical
difficulty. This situation shall not be self-imposed, nor be based on a perceived reduction
of or restrictionof economic gain
Based on the findings described above, the Board does now approve this application. So
ordered this 30th of April, 2024
BZA-24-20 Development Standards Variance
Melba Gomez filed a Development Standards Variance for the property located at 2005
Woodland Court. The applicant requests a variance from the standards for maximum lot
coverage. The property is zoned R3 (Single Family Residential — Small Lot). The docket number
is BZA-24-20.
Melba Gomez stated she took the oath and we already built a garage. I want it for storage of my
cars.
Chad Reischl stated the applicant had a carport on the site, they took the carport down, and
built a large garage without permits from the City. We noticed this on an inspection and noted
that the unauthorized construction of the garage put the property over the lot coverage. Now
they are asking for a variance to keep the garage as designed. Ultimately, this is not a case
where this is injurious to the public health. This is one of those cases that is self-imposed as the
applicant could have asked us before building the garage; however, it appears that there are a
number of lots nearby that are over their lot coverage. Perhaps that has something to do with a
practical difficulty in a contextual nature.
2
Open public comment
Dan Ohlmann, who owns an adjacent property at 2005 E. 10th St., stated he took the oath and
the following:
• My property is a commercial warehouse.
• We are concerned about the 10ft roadway easement extending northwestwardly along
the property line which allows for ingress and egress to my property.
• The fence that was installed cut off the ability for the Gomezes to park in their backyard
and they can no longer make the turn in the roadway easement without encroaching on
my property.
• Our roadway easement is now constantly blocked by cars. The roadway is essential for
emergency services, the USPS, our tenants, and more. A new pole barn will only
increase the number of vehicles as they are operating a small auto mechanic business.
• Over the past 6 years, the Planning and Zoning Department rejected 11 different
applications to apply to the lease space in our building because they were in the
automotive industry due to the moratorium imposed along the 10th Street Corridor; it
doesn't seem like this business should be allowed either.
• I also have pictures of the easement way which was not taken into consideration on the
photos on the website that shows how far the building sits off of the property line. 10ft of
that is easement way for our ingress and egress. I made copies of the easement survey.
Mr. McCutcheon stated you can submit those to the record. Sometimes the lines are not correct
on the GIS system.
Chad Reischl stated the setback is measured off of the property line; not the easement.
District City Councilperson Donna Reed stated I have taken the oath and spoken to a few
people in the area. They were concerned because there was some type of auto business going
on. They are afraid that, by approving this garage area, the amount of cars in this single-family
area will increase.
Closed public comment
Ms. Jones asked what is the use of the garage? Is this for personal use of your vehicles? Is this
for a business?
Melba Gomez stated this for my personal use. My car and my lawn mower.
Ms. Jones asked so there is no business being run out of the house?
Melba Gomez stated no.
Ms. Jones stated I am concerned as many vehicles are shown parked on page 4. We cannot
deal with the easement situation here; though, it is an issue. I would suggest that the gentleman
who commented talk to David Blankenbeker as he conducted the survey for this property. If that
easement is being blocked, then there is legal action you can take; however, we cannot deal
with that here today. All we are dealing with is whether the applicant can exceed the maximum
lot coverage.
Mr. McCutcheon stated please realize that you took an oath that states that you are not running
a business. If you are in fact running a business, it could be a problem down the road. Though,
we are not here to determine that.
Mr. Avery asked is there a fence in the easement?
3
Ms. Jones stated even if there is, I am not sure we can do anything about that today.
Mr. Avery asked should we table this request then to investigate the easement?
Mr. McCutcheon stated that has no impact on our decision here today.
Move to findings
The Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Jeffersonville, having heard the application for
variance described above, and all opposition from parties claiming to be adversely affected
thereby, does now enter the following findings:
1. The variance of the development standards will not be injurious to the public health,
safety,morals, and general welfare of the community.
2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not
beaffected in a substantially adverse manner.
3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will result in a practical
difficulty. This situation shall not be self-imposed, nor be based on a perceived reduction
of or restrictionof economic gain
Based on the findings described above, the Board does now approve this application. So
ordered this 30th of April, 2024
BZA-24-21 Development Standards Variance
Larson Land Holdings, LLC filed a Development Standards Variance for the property located at
4403 Hamburg Pike. The applicant requests a variance from the standard for maximum lot
coverage, parking lot setback, lighting structure height, and fence material. The property is
zoned I1 (Business Park/Light Industrial). The docket number is BZA-24-21.
Christian Stone and Nathan Smith stated they took the oath.
Christian Stone stated the following:
• There is an additional parcel on the south side of the main parcel that has been
acquired.
• The variances that we are requesting are not too outrageous as we are keeping with the
same fence material, expanding the lot coverage a little more with the expansion of the
facility, and we are increasing safety by integrating another entrance.
Chad Reischl stated Staff does not have any issue with the fence, lighting, or parking setback
variances as they are meeting some of the conditions on the site. We do take a bit of an issue
with the maximum lot coverage for the property. There is a stream/creek that runs through the
property. We are not sure why every inch needs to be paved or what practical difficulty exists for
this request other than to increase the number of trucks Peterbilt can put on the site and sell.
Open public comment
No comment
Closed public comment
4
Ms. Jones stated I would like to know more about the drainage ways that Chad talks about in
the staff report.
Nathan Smith stated the drainage is still draining the same way. Instead of being in the ditch,
the drainage will go underground.
Ms. Jones asked do we need to condition our approval on them following the drainage board
processes?
Chad Reischl stated no, that will not be necessary. Our engineering team did not seem to have
an issue with the ditch going underground.
Chad Reischl asked do you want to hear all of the variances together?
Ms. Jones stated let's do the variances that Staff did not have any issues with together and then
do the other variance separate just in case.
Move to findings for parking setback, fence type, and lighting height.
The Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Jeffersonville, having heard the application for
variance described above, and all opposition from parties claiming to be adversely affected
thereby, does now enter the following findings:
1. The variance of the development standards will not be injurious to the public health,
safety,morals, and general welfare of the community.
2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not
beaffected in a substantially adverse manner.
3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will result in a practical
difficulty. This situation shall not be self-imposed, nor be based on a perceived reduction
of or restrictionof economic gain
Based on the findings described above, the Board does now approve this application. So
ordered this 30th of April, 2024
Move to findings for maximum lot coverage.
The Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Jeffersonville, having heard the application for
variance described above, and all opposition from parties claiming to be adversely affected
thereby, does now enter the following findings:
1. The variance of the development standards will not be injurious to the public health,
safety,morals, and general welfare of the community.
2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not
beaffected in a substantially adverse manner.
3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will result in a practical
difficulty. This situation shall not be self-imposed, nor be based on a perceived reduction
of or restrictionof economic gain
Based on the findings described above, the Board does now approve this application. So
ordered this 30th of April, 2024
5
BZA-24-22 Development Standards Variance
Shanker Chandiramani filed a Development Standards Variance for the property located at
3117 E. 10th Street. The applicant requests variance from the development standards for
parking distribution. The property is zoned C1 (Commercial — Medium Scale). The docket
number is BZA-24-22.
Mike Hill, with Land Design and Development, stated he took the oath and the following:
• We are designing an orthodontist office on this vacant commercial lot.
• The plan does not comply with the parking ratio for the front, side, or rear of the building;
therefore, we are requesting a variance to allow all of our parking to be located in front of
the building.
• The lot is irregular in shape and is only about 65ft wide. In order to accommodate the
parking requirement, we would have to incorporate a very narrow building that would not
be functional at all.
• Our access will come directly from the adjacent AT&T parcel.
• There is a similar development pattern along this corridor such as the Madhouse of
Bricks parcel.
• Without adding parking to the rear of the building, we believe that the building itself will
buffer any noise from the parking lot.
Chad Reischl stated as the applicant stated, this is an unusually shaped lot. The condition to the
north of the lot is almost identical to this configuration. Staff has no issues with this request.
Open public comment
Luis Nava, who lives at 3002 Douglas Boulevard, stated he took the oath. My property is
adjacent to the AT&T store and this property. I am objecting because ever since the AT&T store
was developed, my property has been littered with trash. I am concerned about additional foot
traffic. Adding anything of any kind without discussing a fence at minimum would not help my
property.
Closed public comment
Mike Hill stated that the rear of the property will have trees preserved. There will be no
development activity behind the building.
Ms. Jones asked will you be adding a sidewalk along the frontage?
Mike Hill stated there is an existing sidewalk.
Ms. Jones stated developing the property should aid with trash.
Mr. Stinson stated I am with Ms. Jones on this. I would think developing the property would
make it cleaner than if it were a vacant lot.
Move to findings
The Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Jeffersonville, having heard the application for
variance described above, and all opposition from parties claiming to be adversely affected
thereby, does now enter the following findings:
1. The variance of the development standards will not be injurious to the public health,
safety,morals, and general welfare of the community.
6
2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not
beaffected in a substantially adverse manner.
3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will result in a practical
difficulty. This situation shall not be self-imposed, nor be based on a perceived reduction
of or restrictionof economic gain
Based on the findings described above, the Board does now approve this application. So
ordered this 30th of April, 2024
BZA-24-23 Use Variance
Jeff Murphy filed a Use Variance for the property located at 1820 E. Park Place. The applicant
requests to establish an event space/short term rental facility. The property is zoned NS
(Institutional Uses). The docket number is BZA-24-23.
Jeff Murphy and Dennis Sharron stated they took the oath.
Jeff Murphy stated the following:
• We want to update the property with landscaping and paint the inside.
• We will use this property for short-term rental Airbnb.
• We will use a service that invokes a thorough screening process for clients that use the
property.
• There will be less traffic.
• Our clients would come one at a time with maybe six cars from Thursday to Sunday.
• Our clientele will be higher end.
• We will not be using the entire church.
• There will be no outside activities; it will all be inside.
Dennis Sharon stated the following:
• The people that we will rent this to are normally the people attending events like the
Kentucky Derby or the PGA.
• We do some wedding parties, not weddings, but parties. Their families will come in from
out of town and stay at the Airbnb.
• We have a similar Airbnb in Persimmon Ridge and Gordon Guttmann and have had no
complaints.
Chad Reischl stated I asked Mr. Murphy to be here tonight. The City does not have regulations
for Airbnbs. I had some issue with this request in that sleeping 20 people in the structure goes a
little bit further than a typical Airbnb in a single-family house. The State's definition of an Airbnb
is the rental of a single-family home, a dwelling in a single-family home, a dwelling unit in a
duplex or multi-family building, or a dwelling unit in a condominium. That said, having a dwelling
unit in a church is a little different.
Les Merkley stated state statute says we cannot regulate owner-occupied short-term rental
properties; however, we can regulate short-term rentals that are not owner-occupied. This
requires a special use under our code.
7
Dennis Sharon stated I understand what Chad is talking about as the building is 7,500 square
feet. The basement is not of use to us. The one I have in Persimmon Ridge is 8,000 square feet
and can accommodate 18 people. There will not be 50 people staying here.
Open public comment
Jim Moon stated he took the oath. I have been a pastor here for 17 years. When it came
apparent to us that the number of visitors in the neighborhood was dwindling, we decided to
move to a new building. I am part of the neighborhood association. I received 43 calls from
neighbors and most people were concerned about the noise. This will bring the property back in
the taxable area of the City.
Connie Conen stated she took the oath. I was a member of Park Memorial before we combined
with Cook. Our preference would be for another Church to come in or for this use to go instead
of something like apartments.
Gail Roederer stated she took the oath. I approve of this venue coming in; it will be about the
same as what is already there.
Michelle Law, who lives on Jacobs Lane and is a member of Park Memorial, stated she took the
oath. This meets a certain need for the community. The beautification of the property is a plus.
Mark Sanders, who lives at 1835 or 1829 E. Park Place, stated he took the oath. Both of our
properties back up to the Church. This property being rented out for an event space/short-term
rental facility is too vague. I have watched numerous parties and wild shenanigans going on in
the last few years. There have been people trespassing on my property. There have been
shenanigans with wrestling going on in the gymnasium. People have been doing drugs on the
property. Do not make a hasty decision on this and determine if this is feasible for the
neighborhood.
Jerry White stated he took the oath. I am neither for nor against; rather, I am fact-finding. I am
concerned about the event aspect of the zoning variance. The Airbnb could be a good fit here,
but what else could be allowed for the event part? How restrictive is the variance? Does the
variance expire if the current property is sold again?
District 5 City Councilperson Donna Reed stated I have received several calls and emails from
constituents who have an emotional attachment to this property as this is a residential area. I
live on Kewanna Drive and many are worried that this will increase the traffic problem. When I
looked at the other Airbnbs that these gentlemen own, they appear well kept and beautiful;
however, when I read the reviews on them, people talked about enjoying that they were happy
these areas were located in industrial areas so they did not have to worry about noise issues. I
would hope that these applicants would keep true to the family-oriented culture of the
neighborhood. I am concerned about the types of events that might occur.
Evan Stoner stated I agree with a lot of what was said tonight. I have also heard a lot from
people about short-term rentals. This is one of the issues with the restraints we have in
regulating short-term rentals. I have heard a lot of people not in support of this project.
Closed public comment
Jeff Murphy stated we are an open book. The traffic would cut down from what is going on with
the current Church function. We are not associated with the gymnasium beside the church
building; however, we may be interested in purchasing it in the future. We have a screening
8
process for guests and do not want big parties happening. We have a 24 hour service. We
believe the garden area is part of our property.
Mr. McCutcheon stated I think there are some things that are not in your control. There are
some questions that need to be addressed. If we grant them the use, I believe that the use is
only with them. If they sell or vacate the building, the use changes and it is no longer with them.
Chad Reischl stated that is not correct. The use variance only ends when the use ends for a
period of more than six months. If they close shop and it sits vacant for a year, then it goes
away.
Mr. McCutcheon asked what other items could come in there if they decide to shift gears?
Chad Reischl stated it could go back to a church or a school.
Ms. Jones asked can you do multi-family in institutional?
Chad Reischl stated no. Single-family dwelling is allowed in institutional zoning as a parsonage
or groundskeeper's house could be associated with the church. There are a number of parcels
attached to this facility. I am curious how these parcels will get broken up. According to my
records, the garden is on its own parcel, the church is split between two parcels, the gymnasium
is on another parcel, and the house is on another parcel. Where will people park at the church?
Jeff Murphy stated there are 32 spaces. In front of the Church, there are spaces up against the
sidewalk. There are spaces for the garden area as well. The gym parking lot, which is located
on a different property, is totally separate.
Ms. Jones stated I am a sucker for an adaptive reuse project. I have some concerns. You said
you have 24/7 service. For the neighbors, will they have a phone number they can call if there is
a situation?
Jeff Murphy stated yes. We will want to be notified if there is a situation where things are being
torn up. If there is any issue, it would be addressed within minutes as a result of our staff.
Ms. Jones stated Chad you said that the use variance would continue until it has not been used
for 6 months. Is there a way to put a condition on the approval that with a sale of the property
beyond the initial sale, that could void the use variance?
Chad Reischl stated no per State statute.
Ms. Jones asked can we limit the number of people? They said 7 rooms so could there be 14
people.
Chad Reischl stated yes.
Jeff Murphy stated we are not sure as we do not know the inside of the building well enough yet.
Mr. McCutcheon stated the individuals have some concerns and would like to work with you.
Maybe you will want to table this request. If the case is voted down, it will be permanent.
Ms. Jones stated yes, I would like to know more information such as how many units there will
be, how many people there will be, where the parking spaces will be located, etc.
Jeff Murphy stated we would be lucky to have this property ready by next Derby with the
renovations we will be conducting. For the parking spaces, we will need to work that out with the
current owners.
9
Dennis Sharon stated in terms of how many people it would sleep, we do not know because we
have not completed the build-out yet. We want to talk to you all first.
Mr. McCutcheon stated I want you to understand that there are a lot of unanswered questions
that the public has posed.
Mr. Avery stated we approved the zoning change for apartments in a well-established
neighborhood. They have a good reputation, but this could be too detrimental to the
neighborhood overall because of the drastic change. This seems like too broad of a change for
the usage of what is being proposed.
Ms. Jones stated you have to look at it this way. What are the other options? Come in and tear
down the building and build something that is more impactful to the neighborhood or let it sit
there vacant and rot? I think they are trying to respect the existing building and make it
functional again for something that is not going to be that big of an impact compared to the
daycare that is already there. The Church is having wedding and events. I do not feel like this
will be a big impact to the neighborhood. I think that since they have the 24/7 service available, I
feel better. I am still confused on what the event space terminology means.
Chad Reischl stated somehow we had to codify this into things that are listed in the ordinance.
Ms. Jones stated I do not want the event space language to be morphed into something that
allows large parties.
Dennis Sharon stated our usual renters include people attending family reunions, bridesmaids,
etc.
Mr. Stinson stated I will need to know the number of people.
Chad Reischl stated maybe we should strike the event space part and grant the use variance
for short-term rental only.
Ms. Jones stated if we move forward, we need to put a cap on the number of people. If the
applicant decides they want more people then they can come back before us. We want to put a
number so that the next people who buy the property before the 6 month lag do not put one
million bunk beds in.
Mr. McCutcheon asked what is your number?
Dennis Sharon stated we will not use the basement. There are 6 classrooms that we would turn
into beds that would give us 12 but I would say 20 because it might be more than that.
Ms. Jones stated I am good with 20 because there may be bunk beds.
Dennis Sharon stated we usually do not do bunk beds because that is not the clientele we are
looking for. People tend to feel safer in Jeffersonville than Louisville.
Ms. Jones asked are we voting or are we tabling?
Mr. Stinson state does the variance go with them or the property?
Chad Reischl stated it goes with the property.
Mr. Stinson stated that if they do not buy it and the use is already approved for the property,
someone else can come in and do something different.
Ms. Jones asked can we condition it on the sale of the property to the applicant?
10
Mr. Avery stated the variance could be permanent and open to different interpretations.
Ms. Jones stated we could make some of the things they committed to such as adding 24 hours
service conditions.
Mr. McCutcheon stated we should not rush through this. I would suggest tabling the request.
The applicant to request to table the request.
Dennis Sharon stated my only issue is that the people selling want to sell the church as soon as
possible.
Mr. McCutcheon stated now you are turning it around and putting pressure on us.
Ms. Jones stated I think Pastor Moon will work with you to narrow down what will happen on the
property.
Mr. McCutcheon stated you have heard the comments today. Do you want to table or would you
like us to move for a vote?
Dennis Sharon stated we could take the 30 days and decide how many people are going to be
in there. I need a list of concerns.
Ms. Jones stated you can watch this recording back.
Dennis Sharon asked if we get a vote today on the request and you vote no, can we come back
in 30 days?
Chad Reischl stated no, not without a substantially different proposal.
Dennis Sharon stated we want to table the request to ensure that all questions are answered.
Ms. Jones made a motion to table the request, seconded by Mr. Stinson. Roll call vote. Motion
passed. 5-0.
Reports from Director and Staff
None
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:05 pm.
C
Mike McCutcheon, Chair Submitted by: Zachary Giuffre, Secretary
11