Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA April 29, 2025 MINUTES OF THE JEFFERSONVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS April 29, 2025 Call to Order Board President Mike McCutcheon calls to order the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. It is Tuesday, April 29, 2025, it is 6:46 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 Board President Mike McCutcheon and board members Duard Avery, Kelli Jones, David Stinson, and Dennis Hill were present in the City Council Chambers. Also present were Planning & Zoning Attorney Les Merkley, Planning and Zoning Director Chad Reischl, Secretary Shane Shaughnessy and Planner Shelby Walsh. (Secretary's Note: All plat maps, public letters, photos, etc. presented before the Plan Commission on this date can be found in the office of Planning & Zoning.) Approval of Minutes Approval of the minutes from March 25, 2025. Mr. Hill made a motion to approve the March 25, 2025 minutes, seconded by Mr. Stenson. Roll Call vote. Motion passed 5-0. Approval of Findings of Fact Approval of the Findings of Fact from March 25, 2025. Mr. Hill made a motion to approve the March 25, 2025 findings of fact, seconded by Mr. Stenson. Roll Call vote. Motion passed 5-0. Approval of the Docket Motion to approve the agenda made by Ms. Jones, seconded by Mr. Stenson. 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 BZA-25-12 Development Standards Variance Danielle Bowen filed a Development Standards Variance for the property located at 2010 Cherry Hill Court. The applicant requests variances from the standards for Accessory Dwelling Units. The property is zoned R1 (Single Family Residential — Large Lot). The docket number is BZA-25-12. Danielle and Terry Bowen of 2010 Cherry Hill Court stated they took the oath. Ms. Bowen said that they had submitted new documents after this matter was tabled last month. They said the layout of the building was updated to more closely match what is allowed with the square footage being decreased to 864 and two bedrooms instead of three. She said that the building wouldn't be a manufactured building but would be stick built. 1 Mr. Reischl said that at the previous meeting the BZA approved the Special Exception to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit on the location and the current case is for variances from the City's standards for the size of the ADU, the maximum number of bedrooms, and that the ADU must match the primary structure. He also stated that the ADU would not be a manufactured home and thus would not require a variance for that, which Ms. Bowen corroborated. He stated that while staff is generally OK with the ADU, he still has concerns about the variance particularly the square footage and extra bedroom which are typical of other ADUs. Mr. Reischl stated that he had received 14 letters of opposition to this variance. Open public comment Marty Chalfant of 2304 St. Andrews Drive stated he took the oath and that he sat on the Board of Zoning Appeals before and knows the challenges the Board faces. He stated that this would be changing a single family lot to a multi-family lot and would devalue the neighborhood. He stated that there was no practical difficulty as the applicants could just follow the standards. He said that because the ADU would be attached to the pool house, the ADU would be over 1000 square feet and would have negative impacts on the neighborhood. He said that the applicant could also use the ADU for short term rentals. He said that approving these variances would set a precedent for other variances to ADU standards that would affect the entire City, not just this neighborhood. He said that the neighborhood was opposing it because it would affect their housing values. Alan Applegate of Stoll Keenon Ogden stated he took the oath and that he has been retained by the neighborhood HOA. He stated that when the Special Exception was approved, one of the criteria was that all of the development standards in the UDO would be met and that granting the variance for this case would violate that criteria. He said that the three variances that are being requested amount to roughly 25% of all of the standards for ADUs. He said that it is the applicant's burden to show proof that these variances would meet the criteria for findings of a variance and that evidence of practical difficulties for these variances has not been shown. He said that Indiana law prescience does not allow zoning ordinances to relieve private covenants or restrictions and that granting these variances would be promoting private lawsuits between property owners as the covenants of the neighborhood state that no more than one detached house can be placed on a lot. Hal Kovert of 2019 St. Andrews Road stated he took the oath and said he previously served on the Plan Commission and BZA and that his concern is that the square footage of the ADU is being misrepresented because its being attached to an existing pool house and feels that the square footage of the pool house should be added to the requested variance of an additional 64 square feet. Mr. Reischl stated that Bill Burns had asked him to read a letter into the record. The letter stated that he was in opposition to the variances and was concerned about the precedent this would set if approved. He stated that the zoning district regulation exist to protect the character, stability, and integrity of established neighborhoods and that allowing ADUs that do not meet these standards undercuts the foundation of the zoning regulations. He said that ADUs can lead to issues of more density, parking, and traffic and an erosion of the quality of life the area has experienced. He said that granting these variances would be a slippery slope that would lead to weakening the community's ability to regulate orderly development. He said that the neighborhood was planned with restrictions against ADUs to ensure the long-term livability, protect property values, and community cohesion and that deviating from these rules for short- term convenience would be a disservice to those who have invested in the community. He asks that the BZA deny these variances to maintain the standards that have served our community thus far. 2 4 Closed public comment Ms. Bowen said that while the unit doesn't have to be 864 square feet, she said she would still be requesting the variance for the makeup of the interior of the ADU. She said that the structure it's being attached to is just a pool house that is used for storage and would not be used as part of the ADU and should not be considered part of the overall structure. She said that the only reason it is being attached is because they had to in order to meet the standards for maximum number of accessory structures. She said that at the previous meeting, that such a small deviation of square footage would be fine. Ms. Jones stated that the floor plan that is in the staff report is completely different from the floor plan that they handed the commissioners at this meeting were completely different and asked if the new floor plan is what they are proposing to build. Ms. Bowen said that the builder changed the plans in order to meet what was being asked of him and the commission. Mr. Bowen said that they changed the plans based on the feedback the Board gave them last month and that if the 64 square feet was going to be a problem, they would have chosen a different plan that would have worked. He said they weren't going to change the neighborhood or move people in or do an AirBnB, they are just trying to put a place for their mother to live. Ms. Bowen said she understands the concerns from the neighbors about devaluing their homes but said she also lives there and wouldn't do anything to devalue her own home. She said that the restrictions on ADUs is from a 60 year old restriction and would not have bought the home if it was going to be enforced. She said she has not signed up for the neighborhood HOA and has not paid any dues for the HOA. Ms. Jones asked why they needed two bedrooms and two bathrooms when it was just her mother living there. Ms. Bowen said that one bedroom would be for storage of all of her furniture and property. Ms. Bowen said that the extra bathroom is for visitors or caregivers to use rather than using her bathroom. Ms. Jones said she can see that the second bathroom is only a half- bath and that there will only be one full-bath. Ms. Jones asked if the pool house was just used for storage and didn't have any bathrooms in it which Ms. Bowen said was the case. Ms. Jones stated that despite what had been said, this is not a rezoning but is just an ADU which has already been approved and they were only looking at variances from the standards. Ms. Jones said that the covenants of the neighborhood is not something the BZA takes into account as that is a private matter between neighbors. Mr. Avery said that he has learned a lot from this process and said that he initially didn't think the variance would be an issue on this particular lot but he recognizes that granting this variance would set prescient for ADUs for the entire City. He said that while they do not want to restrict the use of the applicant's property, granting the variance could have a negative impact for other areas of Jeffersonville. He said that granting the variances could have a negative impact on the property values of the neighborhood. Mr. McCutcheon asked Mr. Reischl that if the applicants were to meet all of the requirements, they would not be at the meeting which Mr. Reischl said was correct. 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. 3 • Ms. Jones, Mr. McCutcheon, and Mr. Hill voted in favor with Mr. Avery and Mr. Stenson opposed. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. • Ms. Jones voted in favor with Mr. McCutcheon, Mr. Stinson, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Avery opposed. 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 restriction of economic gain. • Ms. Jones ad Mr. Hill voted in favor with Mr. McCutcheon, Mr. Stinson, and Mr. Avery opposed. Based on the findings described above, the Board does now deny this application. So ordered this 29th of April, 2025. New Business BZA-25-17 Special Exception This application was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting. BZA-25-18 Special Exception Robert lezzi filed Special Exceptions for the properties located at 427 and 429 W. Maple Street. The applicant requests to establish Short Term Rentals on the properties. The properties are zoned CN (Commercial— Neighborhood). The docket number is BZA-25-18. Mr. lezzi stated he took the oath and said that he has built two homes for the purposes of renting them and would like to offer them as short-term rentals which requires a Special Exception. Mr. Reischl said that these are newly built homes that back up to the Interstate and does not believe this will have a detrimental impact on the community. Open public comment No comment Closed public comment Mr. Avery said he thinks that this is a great infill project. Mr. McCutcheon agreed and stated that he would like the applicants ensure that their properties are maintained and enhance the surrounding neighborhood. He said that the downtown needs these types of uses but they need to be managed properly. 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 special exception will not be injurious to the public health, safety, moral, and general welfare of the community; and 4 2. The requirements and development standards for the requested use prescribed by this Ordinance will be met; and 3. Granting the special exception will not subvert the general purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and will not permanently injure other property and uses in the same district; and 4. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district therein, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and the Jeffersonville Comprehensive Plan. Based on the findings described above, the Board does now approve this application unanimously. So ordered this 29th day of April, 2025. BZA-25-19 Development Standards Variance Austen Dockens filed a Development Standards Variance for the property located at 4219 and 4223 Utica Sellersburg Road. The applicant requests variances from the standards for the unit size and setback. The property is zoned R2 (Single Family Residential — Medium Lot). The docket number is BZA-25-19. Austin Dockens said he had been administered the oath and said that at the Plan Commission meeting earlier that day they had received a favorable recommendation to rezone the property from R2 to M2. He said that they are wanting to build a small cottage community with 9 units total and to do that they need variances to reduce the minimum average square footage per unit from 700 square feet to 500 square feet and to decrease the sideyard setback standard to 6 feet which would be consistent with the setback requirements of the R2 zoning district. He said these variances would allow them to bring more affordable housing to the community. Mr. Reischl said that they would also require a variance from the buffer yard standards as the buffer yard between M2 and R2 zoned properties would require an additional 15 feet of setback though because they are wanting to put small units next to a small house it may be less needed than if they were building an apartment building. He said that this variance is contingent upon the rezoning being approved by City Council. He said that Staff has mixed feelings about these variances as there does not appear to be any practical difficulty and that reconfiguring the development may alleviate the need for some of the variances. He said that 500 square foot units are allowed elsewhere but have to be balanced with larger units to bring the average unit size up to meet the standards and doesn't feel the unit size is as big of an issue as the other variances being requested. He said that the concentration of similar looking units may not be perceived well even if the units look nice on their own. He said that they were also not sure if this is the correct development type for this area though that would be determined by Council. Mr. Reischl stated that they had received letters from the neighbors that were not in support of the development. Open public comment No comment Closed public comment Mr. McCutcheon said that this is a challenging area and that the City has invested in the area to connect to SR 62. He said there's a mixture of uses in the area including commercial, industrial, and some blighted areas. He said that he wasn't sure what to do in this situation, if it was better to wait for something more impactful or if they should allow something unique like this to occur. 5 4 He said that he was concerned with these types of developments that try to cram as many units in as possible. Mr. Hill asked where specifically this property was which Mr. Reischl said it was about halfway between Charlestown Pike and SR 62. Ms. Jones said that she doesn't feel like she has enough information on the site plan that was provided to understand what was being requested as there are no setbacks noted and the dimensions are not very legible. She said she would prefer to see an engineered site plan and doesn't feel like she can make a decision without it. Mr. Hill asked if there were houses currently on the site which Mr. Dockens said that there were two dilapidated houses on the lots. Ms. Jones said that this type of development is becoming more popular and doesn't really have an issue with the unit size and that she very much supports affordable housing but based on what has been presented, she doesn't have enough information. Mr. Avery said that this area of town use to be very dangerous which has been cleaned up now and said that this is a good infill development to try out and a good spot with a good product. Ms. Jones said she agrees but still had questions. She asked if the units would all be on separate lots or on one lot which Mr. Dockens answered all the units would be on one lot. Ms. Jones asked if the 25 foot setback was from the property line which Mr. Reischl said was the case. She asked what the setback dimensions were going to be as they were not evident on the applicant's drawings to which Mr. Dockens said they would be approximately 10 feet from the side property lines and approximately 20 feet from the rear. Mr. Docken said they would abide by the rear setback of the code if the drawings were too close as they are not asking for a rear setback variance. Ms. Jones asked if they would be adding the required landscaping along the roadway and property lines which Mr. Dockens said they would. Ms. Jones asked about the buffer variance that was added which Mr. Reischl said would be on the apply to the western property line where there is a single family house. Mr. Reischl said that the M2 standards are set up to apply to an apartment style building which requires additional setbacks and buffers from single family zoning districts however in this case, one could argue that because of small size of the proposed units, the buffer may not be as applicable. Ms. Jones asked the distance between building which Mr. Dockens said would be 12 feet. Mr. Reischl said that fire code requires structures to be at least 10 feet from each other so the units couldn't get much closer without increasing costs but wonders if removing a unit or reconfiguring the site would remove some of the variances. Ms. Jones said she is not a fan of the documentation that was provided but is a fan of the project. She asked if they had done a survey of the property and asked if once they did a survey, if more variances would have to be requested which Mr. Dockens answered they would not be asking for additional variances in the future. He said they hadn't done a survey and that the dimensions were based on the deeds but that they feel like there is enough room to achieve what they are wanting to do and if there isn't, they would reduce the project. Mr. McCutcheon asked if they would have to go to the Drainage Board which Mr. Reischl said they would. 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: 6 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 be affected 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 restriction of economic gain. Based on the findings described above, the Board does now approve this application with Ms. Jones abstaining from voting on Finding #2. So ordered this 29th day of April, 2025. BZA-25-20 Development Standards Variance Nate Koets of Greater Clark County School Corporation filed a Development Standards Variance application for the properties located at 5302 Highway 62, 5314 Highway 62, and 3418 Utica Sellersburg Road. The applicant requests variances which include height and signage to build a new school. The property is zoned NS (Institutional). The docket number is BZA-25-20. Nate Koets stated he had taken the oath and said that he is the Director of Facilities for Greater Clark County Schools. He said they are currently planning on building a new middle school on the property and that they had already had the property rezoned for that and are working on combining the parcels. He said the variances are for building height as the building would be 42' 9"for the gym and said this was going to be shorter than Pike Elementary which also received a height variance prior to its construction. He said the signage variance was for display area which was the same that received a variance for Pike Elementary and was working to standardize these signs throughout the district. He said they would only have one digital sign which would be on SR 62 and would only have a lit sign on Utica Sellersburg Road. Mr. Reischl said that Staff does not have issues with these as they are standard variances for schools and are consistent with the variances Pike Elementary received. Open public comment No comment Closed public comment Ms. Jones said she was involved with the project during the rezoning case but is no longer involved with the project and will not be abstaining. Mr. Hill asked where the school would be exiting onto New Chapel Road which Mr. Koets said that there would not be an exit there rather the only exists are onto Utica Sellersburg Road and a right-in right-out on SR 62 and that there is a parcel between the school and New Chapel Road 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 be affected in a substantially adverse manner. 7 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 restriction of economic gain. Based on the findings described above, the Board does now approve this application unanimously. So ordered this 291h day of April, 2025 Report from Director's and Staff None Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm. Mike McCutcheon, Chair Secretary 8