HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA August 29, 2023 MINUTES OF THE
JEFFERSONVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
August 29, 2023
Call to Order
Chairman Mike McCutcheon calls to order the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. It is Tuesday,
August 29, 2023, 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 July 25, 2023. Mr. Hill made a motion to approve the July 25, 2023
minutes, seconded by Mr. Stinson. Roll call vote. Motion passed 4-0 (Ms. Jones abstained).
Approval of Findings of Fact
Approval of the Findings of Fact. Mr. Hill made a motion to adopt the Findings of Fact for the
July 25, 2023 docket items, seconded by Mr. Stinson. Roll call vote. Motion passed 4-0 (Ms.
Jones abstained).
Approval of the Docket
Approval of the Docket. Mr. Stinson made a motion to approve the docket, seconded by Ms.
Jones. Roll call vote. Motion passed 5-0.
Les Merkley stated that, as a reminder, when you grant a variance and impose a condition, it is
important that whatever condition that you impose is specific and becomes part of the findings that
you adopt. Not being specific enough makes it hard for the City to legally enforce the imposed
conditions.
Oath
Les Merkley administered the oath. When you speak, please state your name and acknowledge
you took the oath.
Old Business
Mr. Stinson stepped out of the room at 6:34pm and recused himself from the vote as he is an
adjacent property owner of the applicant.
1
BZA-23-24 Development Standards Variance
Cheryl Gettings filed a Development Standards Variance application for property located at
5204 Idle Dice Drive. The applicant requests variances from the development standards for
driveway placement and accessory structure height. The property is zoned R1 (Single Family
Residential — Large Lot). The docket number is BZA-23-24.
Ronnie Borden and Cheryl Gettings stated they took the oath. Ronnie Borden stated the
following:
• There are various pole barn, one-car garages in the area. We are being picked on for
our request.
• There are multiple people submitting public comment that cannot see our property from
their homes. The only people that should be here are the people that can see our
property directly. Not those that live multiple blocks away
• There are multiple properties nearby that have two driveways or looping driveways on
within the subdivision.
• The color of our pole barn, potentially black and grey, will not stand out as much.
Chad Reischl stated the applicant has the right to construct a 2,000 square foot pole barn on the
property that is 20ft tall; however, he does not have the right to build the structure 23ft tall and a
second driveway on the same street face. The Board has two options: they can approve the
request and impose design conditions, or they may choose to deny the variances. In the event
of denial, Mr. Gettings would need to reconfigure the driveway on his property and construct a
smaller building to meet the zoning regulations.
Open public comment
Kimberly Just stated she took the oath and the following:
• I live in this neighborhood and I pass by this residence every day.
• This residence already has a 4-car-wide driveway on Idledice leading up to a garage.
• There is a shed and another garage on the property.
• If this home is going to be used for commercial use, a commercial piece of property
should be purchased.
• If we allow this, who is to say that others in the neighborhood won't build the same
thing?
Michael Vejar, who lives on 3402 Tootenhill Road, stated he did not take the oath.
Les Merkley administered the oath.
Michael Vejar stated the following:
• There is potential for traffic in this neighborhood with the business.
• The sign announcing the variance has not been up; therefore, the neighborhood
probably thought this variance was over.
• This will dilute our property values.
• There is currently commercial equipment on the property right now.
• There are covenant restrictions on driveways for this subdivision.
2
• This will open the door for others to do the same thing.
Donald Bohannon, who lives on 3303 Justin Drive, stated he took the oath and that the location
of this pole barn will be an eyesore.
Chad Reischl stated I have letters from Shannon Hayes at 3407 Tootenhill Road, Lisa Bottorff at
5209 Idle dice, Brittany Barret at 3406 Tootenhill Road, and a call from Kenton Wooden, who
lives at 3401 Old Tay Bridge, who were all opposed to the project.
Close public comment
Mr. Gettings stated the structure will be built regardless. There is no business operating there. I
have equipment at my house which we bring with us to work on the job site. There is a painter in
our neighborhood who does the same thing. I can have five buildings on my property as I have
a lot that is over one acre.
Mrs. Gettings stated having the driveway on Idledice makes it easier for us to get into the
property.
Mr. McCutcheon stated how long have you lived there?
Mrs. Gettings stated I have lived at the property for over 30 years.
Ms. Jones stated you said you would like to build the building as far forward as the home;
however, that is not what is shown on the site plan.
Mr. Gettings stated we would like to bring it closer to make the driveway shorter.
Ms. Jones stated, to the gentlemen in the audience who raised the issue of the covenants, we
cannot enforce those rules.
Mr. Gettings stated I could have constructed a 35ft tall barn home and no one would have said
anything.
Ms. Jones asked if we choose to vote in favor of the two variances, would you be willing to add
windows to the Tootenhill-facing side and landscaping to the street-facing sides of the pole
barn? I would like to draft some conditions once everyone else has finished asking questions.
Mr. McCutcheon stated I would be supportive of conditions.
Ms. Jones stated:
• I would like to suggest that the front facade of the pole barn is located no further than the
rear facade of the existing home. This would give you a shorter driveway but ensure that
the structure is secondary to your home.
• Secondly, I would like a condition that states that there will be no storage of equipment
or construction-related material outside at any time.
• I would like for you to install landscaping on the side of the facade that faces Tootenhill
Road for screening purposes. There should be taller plantings that hide the blank facade
where there are no windows.
Ms. Jones stated, even if they have no employees, I do share the concern of the neighbors that
a business is being run from this home. I want to make it clear that we are not approving this
property to be used as a business.
3
Les Merkley stated that, even if the applicant is granted the variance, he can choose not to build
the pole barn 23ft tall and not have to adhere to any conditions imposed.
Mr. Gettings stated that I do not need all of these stipulations. I can do without the height as well
and make the driveway extension off of the existing driveway.
Mr. McCutcheon stated that we just want it to look aesthetically pleasing.
Chad Reischl stated you can choose to hear the findings separate or together.
Les Merkley stated zoning does not allow for the operation for a business outside of the home. If
we determine that a business is operating there, code enforcement will take the appropriate
action.
Move to findings with conditions that the front facade of the pole barn is located no further than
the rear facade of the existing home, there will be no storage of equipment or construction-
related material outside at any time, and landscaping will be installed on the side of the facade
that faces Tootenhill Road for screening purposes. There should be taller plantings that hide the
blank fagade where there are no windows.
No official action taken due to a lack of majority vote.
Les Merkley stated that, by state statute, official action must be taken. Right now, his request for
a variance is still alive.
Ms. Jones stated that, if we deny this with no conditions, we have no way to make this pole barn
look any nicer. I am asking for a little bit on landscaping on the property.
Mr. Avery stated it is tied so I do not know what the attorney will say.
Les Merkley stated you can make a motion to hear the variance requests without the conditions
mentioned.
Mr. McCutcheon stated we will move forward without the conditions mentioned earlier.
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 restriction of economic gain.
Based on the findings described above, the Board does now deny this application.
4
New Business
BZA-23-29 Development Standards Variance
Ezzi Signs filed a Development Standards Variance application for property located at the 1713
E. 10th Street. The applicant requests variances from the development standards to maximum
cumulative signage area and to retain nonconforming signage. The property is zoned C1
(Commercial: Medium Scale). The docket number is BZA-23-29.
Kevin Coon stated he took the oath and the following:
• This previous company called storage express was purchased by ExtraSpace.
• We have put a banner around the sign.
• This sign helps customers know where to turn and to locate our business.
• A monument sign is infeasible as it would have to be way too small.
• The sign from the previous company has been up for 14 years.
• There have been no issues generated by this signage.
Chad Reischl stated the following:
• In 2014, the City created a deliberate effort to phase out pole signs in the area.
• Allowing this pole sign would undermines the City's pursuit to maintain a uniform visual
identity.
• ExtraSpace did not come to us before making changes to the sign.
• Per Article 9.7 of our code, a change in business entity and change in business
ownership triggers the signage to come into compliance; therefore, the pole sign should
be removed.
• You are also hearing a variance for cumulative sign area as the amount of building
signage combined with the pole sign area exceeds our standards. Cumulative sign area
is less of an issue for aesthetic reasons. We understand that there are tight dimensional
standards for the front of this building and that there are a couple of existing monument
signs on the exterior of this property. We could still manage to advertise the business
with a slightly taller monument sign.
Open public comment
No comment
Closed public comment
Mr. Avery stated that if we vote to agree with the staff opinion, we are denying the pole sign but
allowing for a taller monument sign?
Ms. Jones stated the company could use the box on top of the pole if they lower it down. They
would still need a variance for the height of the sign.
Chad Reischl stated ExtraSpace would have to come back to us with a variance for the height
of the sign. We do have a number of monument signs that are taller than our 8ft maximum
height.
5
Ms. Jones stated, as I drove here this evening, I watched for the sign. This sign has visibility for
miles and miles away. My personal opinion is that the extra height for the pole sign is not
necessary if you can see a monument sign that is much lower. There is still visibility there even
with a shorter sign.
Chad Reischl stated there are impediments as existing signs are near the property.
Ms. Jones stated that the applicant could choose to table this and come back with a different
sign plan.
Chad Reischl stated that you would have to deny the pole sign variance.
Ms. Jones stated could we deny the pole sign request and table the other variance request. We
do not want to deny the variance for cumulative sign area as there would be a timeframe for him
to comeback.
Les Merkley stated my advice would be that, if the pole sign variance is denied, the second
variance for cumulative sign area be withdrawn.
Kevin Coon stated that there really is no room for a monument sign to go onto the property.
Could we bring the existing pole sign down in height maybe to where the lower cabinet is
located?
Chad Reischl stated you would have to come back and ask us for an increased height. We do
not want to undo years of work of getting rid of pole signs along the corridor.
Move to findings for prohibited sign variance.
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 deny this application. So
ordered this 29th of August, 2023.
Les Merkley stated that you can choose to move forward with the cumulative sign area
variance; however, if it gets denied you will not be able to come back for 6 months to petition
the same variance.
Kevin Coon asked if we withdraw, can the pole sign stay until the next hearing? We choose
to withdraw the request for the cumulative sign area.
Chad Reischl stated that, if you are not back at the Board of Zoning Appeals in a couple of
months to seek another variance, the fines will resume.
6
BZA-23-30 Development Standards Variance
Toni Hedrick filed a Development Standards Variance application for property located at 811
Allison Lane. The applicant requests variances from the development standards to exceed
setback standards for a house addition. The property is zoned R1 (Single Family Residential-
Large Lot). The docket number is BZA-23-30.
Toni Hederick stated I took the oath and the following:
• We filed the variance because I would like to build a 12x24 room addition on the south
side of my home.
• The room will have a bedroom/office space and a walk-in closet.
• It will come out 12ft from my home which will exceed the setback standards.
• There is currently a concrete patio in this area and the new structure will not go beyond
the concrete or fenced-in area.
Chad Reischl stated we have a building addition in front of you. It would not meet the setbacks;
however, there is an existing structure on the property that is already three feet from the
property. There is enough room between this structure and the structure nearby as there is
already a non-conforming piece of this building in place.
Open public comment
Janice Trengove stated I took the oath and that I am Toni's neighbor. I do not mind the
variance; however, I would like to make sure that the variance is only for this project and not for
the entire property line. The windows will be facing each other.
Closed public comment
Mr. Reischl stated I would like to clarify that granting this variance would just be for the existing
project as there is a standard for expanding nonconformities.
Ms. Jones stated that if we grant this variance, it will be just for the 12'x24' addition.
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 29th of August, 2023.
7
BZA-23-31 Development Standards Variance
Chad Sprigler filed a Development Standards Variance application for property located at the
350 Eastern Boulevard. The applicant requests variances from the development standards to
exceed maximum impervious lot coverage. The property is zoned C2 (Commercial: Large
Scale). The docket number is BZA-23-31.
Camille Hesen stated that she took the oath and the following:
• We are requesting to exceed the maximum lot coverage.
• We are proposing to take our site, which already has a lot of impervious coverage, and
subdivide it into two lots. In doing so, lot 1 would be over the maximum lot coverage
area. The current lot already exceeds the coverage allowed. The subdivision would
cause lot 1 to rise to 83%. We plan to redevelop lot 1 which would end up decreasing
the lot coverage as we have to incorporate greenspace.
• We will be converting the existing hotels into apartments and then construct townhomes
on the property. There will be multiple landscaping features introduced to the property.
Chad Reischl stated the applicant received a special exception earlier this year to begin the
conversion. This is an odd technicality. The site is already over the impervious coverage
allowed. Staff has no issue with this application and feels that the final development will warrant
this minor variance.
Mr. Avery stated that this lot has been vacant forever. This is a great reuse. The state did try to
bring beavers into the neighboring adjacent waterway.
Mr. McCutcheon stated this was supported by the Claysburg neighborhood.
Open public comment
No comment
Closed public comment
Ms. Jones stated we have increased open space, a better distribution of trees on the site
compared to the current property, and detention. This project is a win-win.
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.
8
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 29th of August, 2023.
BZA-23-32 Development Standards Variance
Upon A Rock Construction, LLC filed a Development Standards Variance application for
property located at the 511 E. Market Street. The applicant requests variances from the
development standards for maximum accessory structure size and to exceed setback standards
for an accessory structure. The property is zoned R4 (Single Family Residential- Old City). The
docket number is BZA-23-32.
Joshua Marshall stated that he took the oath and the following:
• I have updated plans for that site to show the board. The drawings I will pass out to
board members are different than what I proposed; however the variances requested still
stand. The major difference is that the lot width is lower than what was shown in the
drawings. We thought the lot width was 41ft; however, the actual width is 36ft.
• We are seeking variances for setback and the size of the garage.
Chad Reischl stated there is already a non-conforming garage on the property that will be torn
down. They will be replacing it with a garage that will be further from the property line.
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
9
Based on the findings described above, the Board does now approve this application. So
ordered this 29'h of August, 2023.
BZA-23-33 Development Standards Variance
Emily Hill filed a Development Standards Variance application for property located at the 3513
E. 10th Street. The applicant requests variances from the development standards for minimum
main floor area. The property is zoned C2 (Commercial- Large Lot). The docket number is BZA-
23-33.
Emily Hill stated that she took the oath and the following:
• This project is a Chipotle restaurant along 10'h Street located in close proximity to River
City Bank and the Take 5 Car Wash.
• The proposed restaurant is just over 2,300 square feet.
Chad Reischl stated this is becoming an increasingly common variance request as restaurants
are downsizing and relying more on drive-thru and quick pick up post-COVID-19. We recently
approved a Qdoba that was smaller in size but subject to the standards of a planned
development right down the street.
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 29'h of August, 2023.
10
BZA-23-34 Use Variance
Brian and Nancy Smith filed a Use Variance for property located at 4312 Charlestown Pike. The
property is zoned I1 (Business Park/Light Industrial). The proposed use is a single-family
residential home. The docket number is BZA-23-34.
Brian Smith stated that he took the oath and we are requesting to construct a single-family
residence at this location.
Chad Reischl stated, when the applicant approached us, we considered rezoning; however, we
worried that rezoning to residential could open up the doors to larger projects/subdivisions. We
do not have an issue with this request. Mr. Smith will also be living near another property being
used as a home that is zoned industrial.
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 the
variance described above, and all opposition from parties claiming to be adversely affected
thereby, does now enter the following findings:
1. The variance of use 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 will not be adversely be affected.
3. The need for the use variance does result from conditions unusual or peculiar to the subject
property itself.
4. The strict application of the terms of the Jeffersonville Zoning Ordinance would result in an
unnecessary hardship in the use of the property.
5. The approval of the variance would not contradict the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Based on the findings described above, the Board does now approve this application. So
ordered this 29th of August, 2023.
Reports from Director and Staff
None
11
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the meeting was
adjourned at 7:56 pm.
Mike McCutcheon, Chair Submitted by: Zachary Giuffre, Secretary
12