- For which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
- David Drake? Here. Travis Conyer? Here. Pat Wesolowski? Here. Caleb Plummer? Here. First item on our agenda is approval of the minutes for our May 14, 2025 meeting. So moved. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
- Monthly conflict of interest statement. Does any member of the board have a conflict of interest with any of the issues on our agenda this evening? Seeing none, our first item of new business is request for a variance from development standards to waive the landscaping requirements and the unified development ordinance. Section 4.5 K1 for the Harmon Farms phase one subdivision. Petitioner Harmon Farms developments
- Case number PC25-08. Denise? Good evening, thank you for your patience. First on the agenda tonight is a development from a variance from development standards for landscaping for Harmon Farms. Petitioner of Harmon Farms land LLC on behalf of Harmon Farms phase one.
- is requesting a variance from development standards, specifically Unified Development Ordinance Section 4.5K1, required front yard and foundation plantings. Harmon Farms is zoned commercial one. Previously, the BZA approved a special exception to allow single family detached and attached in the commercial one zoning district. The required front yard and foundation planning requirements are based on the zoning district and not the zoning use.
- Per the UDO for C1 zoning, the minimum plantings required per 100 linear feet are two canopy trees, four evergreen trees, and six shrubs or ornamental trees. Minimum foundation plantings required per 100 linear feet of building is six shrubs or ornamental trees. The UDO, however, does not require minimum plantings or foundation plantings for residential one or residential two zoning districts.
- As you are aware, Harmon Farms is a mixed use village center that aligns with the comprehensive plan. Over the past several months, the BZA has granted several variances to accommodate the mixed use residential in phase one of Harmon Farms. Petitioner has created architectural landscape guidelines which have been recorded and I will let him explain his guidelines.
- Planning and the petitioner are in the process of establishing a building permit process. The builder will submit plans to meet the petitioner's architectural guidelines and we'll have a sign off for the same. Along with the building permit application will be some type of submittal for landscaping and we are still working on that. The petitioner's request for development standard variance is the only item to be considered by this Board of Zoning Appeals.
- In taking action on all variance requests, the Board of Zoning and Appeals shall use the following decision criteria consistent with the requirements of Indiana code. Number one, the approval of the variances from development standards will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. Staff finding approval would not cause any significant problems in relation to public health and safety.
- Two, adjacent property, the use or value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. Staff finding the development standard variance will not affect adjacent properties in a substantially adverse manner. The variance will improve the design of the development. Three, practical difficulty, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance
- will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. The strict application UDO section 4.4K1 will not enhance the different types of housing approved by the plan commission and variances previously approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Number four, compliance with the comprehensive plan. The variance request is substantially in compliance with the existing comprehensive plan.
- The variance from development standards will enhance the mixed use residential and the village center concept as outlined in the comprehensive plan. Five, financial hardship. The need for the variance does not arise from some condition peculiar to the property involved. The current status of the development does not result in financial hardship from a condition peculiar to the property. However, it will result in financial hardship as the landscaping required by the UDO
- does not take into consideration the variances from development standards for lot sizes and other considerations previously approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Plan Commission. Six, compliance with other town codes. The variance request is substantially in compliance with other town codes. The property is currently in compliance with all other town codes. The Board of Zoning Appeals action shall be in the form of approval, approval with conditions, denial, or a continuance.
- The Board of Zoning Appeals takes final action on all variance petitions. The purpose of a variance is to provide relief in situations where the land or other condition offers resistance to meeting a particular zoning regulation through no fault of the occupant of the land. Therefore, based on the above analysis, it is the staff opinion that the variance meets all requirements and therefore recommends approval of the variance request.
- The board may approve the variance if, after testimony and discussion, it finds that the request meets all six of the stated requirements. If the board denies a variance, it shall state which requirement has not been met. And that's all for me, and petitioner is here if you have any questions. So let me, I think, simplify this by saying all we were doing is changing the landscaping requirements
- for the R1 areas in the C1 zone that we already approved? Correct. At this time, the petitioner is only developing phase one, which is all residential, but as you know, both plan commission here, he has some alley load property, there's gonna be some townhouses, and the landscaping requirements in the C1 zoning district just really don't
- and would look out of place. Cause as you know, some of the variances narrowed the lot width and the lot size. So as per 100 feet, so they'd be a little off. Does anybody on the board have any questions for Denise before we hear from the petitioner? I don't. Okay, it's all yours.
- Good evening, I'm Chris Smith. I'm the developer and owner of Harman Farms Land LLC. Thanks for hearing us tonight. This is just a product of all the other conversations we've had in that we're putting a residential use in what is a blanket C1 zone. Mr. Drake nailed that. And when looking at the C1 zone code, it's not possible to put it in, so that's why we're here. And we will be putting in great street trees per the residential code, and we do have
- This is what we call our pattern book. It's part of our covenants. It's a large document that covers how houses have to sit on the lots, and it includes a landscape section which requires street trees and actually some foundation plantings, depending on if you're in a corner or in an infill lot. So we're going to actually above what your current residential code is, but below what your current commercial code is. So it's kind of a balance. So with that, I appreciate your approval. Happy to answer any questions.
- What's going to happen in the future? Are we going to be doing this every time? So that's a good question because I was thinking about that way over here. Our village center is styled after an old downtown like Spencer or Bloomington. OK, that's the way it's set up. Your code was written for strip zoning in my mind, meaning a building standalone, setback, parking in front of it along a street. And you want to buffer on the street and then buffer in front of the building.
- We won't be able to do that in our downtown, but that's a year or so away. I will probably be back for our commercial downtown, but we'll come back with a landscape plan for that that will meet the requirements of your master plan or your, yeah, your Envision Ellisville plan, which the UDO doesn't quite grasp.
- with what we're trying to do here. So we're kind of the guinea pig, and we're working through it. Denise has been great, and we're being very cautious of how your UDO is written to make sure we meet it. And if we don't meet it, then we come talk to you. So the answer to that question is yes. We'll probably be back. At this time, all he has platted that's even come before the planning commission is phase one. Yeah. We'll be back to town council and planning commission for the rest of it as we get it going. We should just pencil him in now.
- And we're we're curbing today. We've got asphalt on half of it and we're hoping to file for some building permits your next couple weeks to get some things started this fall. Exciting to see some houses going there. Okay. Any more questions. Does the code outline the type variety or species that you guys put in or do you guys have that? Well, we follow your yeah, we follow your planting guidelines and I love hard maples. I love the fire maples. That's what I planted my other neighborhoods and we
- We'll probably head down that road. Probably some oaks here and there will just depend. But whatever your code allows is what will follow. Your shrub and tree requirement, whatever you allow is what we use. So the UDO specifies all the species they cannot plant. And then so what happens when they submit their grading plan and also for the primary plat, they'll have a tree list.
- We'll go through and look at it and see if we agree. Sometimes nurseries email us and said this is what we're looking at, but we have to do substitutions. Are you okay with it? DPW takes a look at it as well because they're the ones that have to deal with a lot of the items in the right-of-way, the trees and landscaping and right-of-ways.
- All of those are gonna be just primarily native species. Yes. I'm gonna add no invasive or anything, I'm sure. Yeah, we just want a little. Like the ornamental pairs or? No Bradford pairs, I won't allow it, no. Don't even mention that. So anyway, there's what I'm trying to say is we approve what will go in. Okay, any more questions?
- Seeing none, I will make a motion that we approve the request for a variance from the landscaping requirements for the R1 areas of this development. Phase one. Phase one as outlined in case number PC25-08. I'll second it. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. David Jerry. Yes. Travis Conner.
- Sorry, was there any public comment? Okay, go ahead. Okay, the next item on our agenda is a request for a variance from development standards to reduce the west front yard setback to nine feet four inches and the east front yard setback to
- Three feet 10 inches from the property line at 740. 724 South Deer Run. The petitioner is Kenneth Long. It's case number PC25-07. Denise? Second on the agenda. Tonight is petitioned by Kenneth Long for a variance from development standards to allow a carport within the front yard setback established by the Unified Development Ordinance. Parcel is located at 724 South Deer Run.
- Petitioner has already installed a 22 by 30 foot carport equal to 660 square foot on his driveway. Carport is located within the front yard setback that's required in residential one zoning in the unified development ordinance. West side of the carport is nine feet four inches from the property line and the east side of the carport is three feet 10 inches from the property line.
- The petitioner has not been assessed defined for installing a carport without a permit because they're appearing before the BZA. Petitioner's request for development standard variance is the only item to be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals. In taking action on all variance requests, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall use the following decision criteria which is consistent with the requirements of Indiana code.
- Number one, general welfare, the approval will not be injurious to the public health safety morals and general welfare of the community. Staff finding approval of the variance request to allow the carport to remain in the front yard setback will not cause problems in relation to public health and safety. Two, adjacent property, the use or value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected
- in a substantially adverse manner. Staff finding the variance request is related to allowing a carport to remain in the front yard setback and will not affect the use or value of adjacent properties. Three, practical difficulty. The strict application in terms of the zoning ordinance will not result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. And I had difficulty with this criteria.
- I couldn't find a practical difficulty because the petitioner's already put up his carport without a building permit, so therefore without consideration of the UDO. The terms of the zoning ordinance do not result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. Compliance with the comprehensive plan, the variance request is substantially in compliance
- With existing comprehensive plan, staff finding the variance request is not under the guidance of the comprehensive plan. Five, financial hardship. The need for the variance does not arise from some condition peculiar to the property involved. Staff finding the requested variance is about allowing a carport to sit in front yard setback and is obviously not due to financial hardship since petitioners already installed the carport.
- Therefore, the condition is not peculiar to the property. Six, compliance with other town codes. Variance request is not substantially in compliance with other town codes. The property is currently in compliance with all other town codes except for the encroachment of personal property in a driveway on the Tecumseh Pocket Park owned by a town in Ellsville.
- Town manager is advised not to seek compliance at this time. When we are ready to work on the pocket park, we will notify the petitioner. The Board of Zoning Appeals action shall be in the form of approval, approval with conditions, denial or continuance. The Board of Zoning Appeals takes final action on all various petitions.
- The purpose of the variance is to provide relief in situations where the land or other condition offers resistance to meeting a particular zoning regulation through no fault of the occupant of the land. Due to this requirement, staff does not find a practical difficulty or other condition or land that makes it difficult to meet the zoning regulations. Therefore, based on the criteria, staff does not recommend approval of the carport tolling 660 square feet
- The board may approve the variance if after testimony and discussion it finds that their request meets all six of the stated requirements. If the board denies the variance, it shall state which requirements have not been met. And I think the petitioner is in the audience. I have not met him. He worked with. Not yet. We'll get to you.
- assistant planner in my office, and I was going to try to meet with him before the meeting, but I had Zoom difficulties. I was going to introduce myself. That's all I have, and I'm thinking you can probably come up with a practical difficulty that I wasn't able to come up with. First off, I know the way the regulations are set out calls this.
- a front yard, but I wouldn't really call that a front yard. He's basically got a front yard, a long deer run. Second, I have to say that if I wasn't involved in planning and zoning, I don't know that I would really think anything about putting up one of those metal structured carports over my driveway. I see people do it
- all over, a lot of them are the canopy, tent kind of things. I mean, it's not like it's really a building, it's just a metal structure as a carport. So I don't know that I would really think I couldn't do that if I wanted to. I'm not really sure about the shed that's underneath it though. Well, that is part of the structure. It's built in there and somebody else
- knew enough about planning and zoning, though, to call and complain about it, knew it wasn't permitted. Okay. And this is the site plan. Doesn't the town own the property next to him on the back? Yeah, so on this other side, that's the park. Yes, right there. Isn't that the town? Yes. Is the town complaining? No. Not yet. Not yet.
- been there a number of years, but our UDO states, you can't bring anything forward if there's an existing violation. So I didn't know what to do about that because it'd been there for a while. So I talked to town manager and he said, we won't require anything until we get ready to do something in that park. And as you know, that's probably a little ways off. I agree with David. This don't remind, this don't look like a front yard to me.
- Matter of fact, I just went past it yesterday, and it seemed like it's always been there. I mean, I didn't see anything new. Okay, so if you request it to be a side yard, it's still in a setback, side yard setback would be 10 feet. Right, right, right. Yeah, no, I get that, but I mean, it doesn't extend any farther than his driveway, so I don't know, like I said, that I would have really thought much about that. I'll ask him when he gets up here about
- how the shed's connected, I couldn't really tell that. Yeah, our building inspector went and looked at it because I wondered if a separate permit was required, but to me it looked like it was less than 99 square feet anyway, which is our minimum requirement for accessory dwelling unit or accessory structure. It has to be 99 square feet or more. And he said, oh, that's connected to it.
- He said it's part of it. Okay, but so the shed would be allowed then under code? Yes. Okay. But it would have, yeah, because it would meet the setback because it's further down. Because I have a shed about that size and I didn't get a permit when I put it in. Well, if it's under 99 square feet, you don't. But thanks for letting us know.
- So does anybody have any questions for Denise? Was that the biggest problem with it is that it was unpermitted? Yeah, the assistant planner and I discussed it and we felt that if he had come in to have it permitted, we could have prevented some of it or maybe he could have gone with a smaller carport and if he couldn't, he could have said, well, can I get a variance and we would have accommodated him, so.
- That was the biggest problem in the carport. So the shed, and then the roof system above the shed, is that the existing, and then just the lean-to carport is what's added, or is the field? Well, he can probably explain it better, but he said it's all part of one structure.
- that that's built into it. And what makes it need a permit is the roof of the carport. So you could build a carport without a roof and it'd be okay, huh? Yeah. Wouldn't be much use in that. Okay, anybody else? Before we hear from the petitioner. Okay, now it's your turn. Come on up and state your name and sign in on that
- sign-in sheet up there. Now, technically, you only have three minutes, but we're not real busy tonight, but try not to take forever. Yes, sir. My name is Kenneth Long. I'm the owner of 724 South Deer Run. And I put the carport up out of ignorance. I thought it was a carport in the driveway that existed, but that didn't require me to do anything.
- but now I know otherwise. It is one structure. The majority of it is carport with the back west corner being where the storage area is. I request you to grant the variance. If I had to,
- I could probably take five foot off at the end of it, but then I'd only be able to put one vehicle, one vehicle. You just kind of need to stay back a little bit. Then I'd only be able to put one vehicle under the carport. So really, it needs to basically stay like it is. But if required, I could
- So how did you end up with the driveway and the shed in the part that actually belongs to the town? Yeah, on your, I'm bad about directions, that'd be the north side. Kind of the west. Northwest corner. Yeah. I'll put that in. You need to stay back just a little. 25 years ago.
- wasn't your part of the property? That is on my property. No, actually that's the town's. The town has a little piece of property they own right there. That driveway and then one of those sheds is actually on the town's property there. And that's what they were saying earlier. The town eventually will probably put a park or something in there when they do.
- They're gonna make you move that driveway in that. We've designated it a pocket park already. So this is your property line. There's probably a little difference with the GIS, but this is what we're talking about. Right. That's our land. Right, honestly. And so what is the problem with that? You're encroaching on it here with the shed of the driveway. Oh, that's not a shed, that's a concrete pad. Okay, we couldn't tell it's area.
- But we're not dealing with that tonight. I just wanted you to understand to know that someday you may be hearing from the town about that.
- Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Long about his petition? I think it was good. So here this may explain the shed a little better. Okay, yeah, I see now. I drove past it, but I couldn't really tell. I didn't want to just stop and get out. Did you have a question? Yeah, is that a kit?
- or did you have to purchase materials to lay out your own design parameters there? I laid out the design, but the company that's up near Arby's, they installed it. And they probably didn't tell you you should have had a permit either, did they? I can tell you they never do.
- Well, that's another thing. If I had a company come and do it, I would assume that they knew what they were doing and that they would have told me if I needed a permit. When did you build that? When was the carport built? May, June timeframe of last year, this year or this year. Oh, okay. I thought it had been there a long time. It looks like it has. It looks like it's been there.
- Well, I could have put it back where I thought 20 foot. Well, see, the road curves. And on one corner of it, the part that's got the little shed on it, it's 20 feet from the edge of the road. But the road curves. And it goes towards the east. It drops back to 15 foot.
- So it's a five foot. Yeah, it's a weird lot and I'm going to say that the practical difficulty is the shape of the lot and the layout. Was that the answer we were looking for? Yes, because I have to go by the UDO code. Right, but we can do whatever we want. Yes you can. Within the law. Within the law.
- I need you to repeat that so I can write. I'm going to say that the practical difficulty is the layout of the lot and the street and the fact that the driveway accesses off the side of the house as opposed to the front of the house. If that makes any sense. Yes. Thank you. Does anybody have any more questions? Nope.
- Seeing none, I'm going to make a motion. I just make the motions myself now because it's quicker. That we approve the variance from development standards to reduce the West front yard setback to nine feet, four inches. And the East front yard setback to three feet, 10 inches from the property line at 724 South Deer Road pursuant to case number PC25-07. Second. We have a motion, a second roll call, please. Yes. Yes.
- Yes. Yes. Okay. Motion carries. In the future, check with the town before you build anything. Yes, sir. Thank you. So, um, the assistant planner will be getting with you about your building permit and getting that all wrapped up. Okay. Thank you. So you'll contact me or yeah, I think he has your email. Yes. Yeah. So he'll email you and get it all ready and you come in and pay and pick it up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank y'all. Bye bye.
- Okay, next item on our agenda is planning department comments. We will have new business in September, so you will have a meeting September 10th. Anybody from the board have any comments? Seeing none, we're adjourned.