Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] getting close. Ready, Nathan? All right. Good evening, everybody. I'm going to bring the regular July Columbia City Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to order. Roll call. in Kathy Gardner here. Patricia Hatcher here. John Kissinger here. Anthony Romano here. Dennis Warick present. All right board. We're going to look at our meeting minutes tonight.

We're going to approve three of them. So, we're first start with the April April minutes. Does anybody have any um discussion on that or questions? If not, I want to entertain a motion. I'll make a motion that we approve as submitted. Second. Second. I got a motion by Kathy. Kathy and a second by Patricia. All those in favor raise the right hand. We'll abstain. Okay. April's over. All right. Now, we're going to look at May. Um, does anybody have any questions or comments on that one? I just had a couple quick corrections here on page two down in the middle where it says Miss Gardner asked, could you do um building slashfire code please requirements and then also then on page three at the top paragraph um the last full line um starting any new development please. Thank you. All right. Does anyone else have any comments, questions? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Make a motion to approve as amended. Second. I have a motion from Kathy and a second from Tony. All those in favor raise the right hand. Okay. Oh, I have to abstain on that one. I'm sorry. We have one abstain. Okay. Which month was the night I hear? All right, we're going to move on to the

last one. We got June um meeting minutes here. Has everybody had a chance to look those and have any questions or comments? None. I'll entertain a motion. I have a motion from Tony, second and a second from Patricia. All those in favor raise your right hand. All right. Thank you. Okay. All right. Anybody here that's wishing to speak on behalf of the petitioner, um, please stand up and our legal representative Cohen will swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? If so, say I do. I do. Thank you. All right. First new order of business, we have 25- C-V8. David Shared Sers is asking for a variance of the rear setback at 1750 East and nervous. Circle Nathan Stport. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, going to the slides here. This is located at 1750 East Verest in Vernest Circle. Uh it is zone R3 as is all of Eagle Glenn. Uh it's half of lot 120 of Eagle Glenn section one part of the Villa area as you uh may know it from from long time ago I guess. Uh what is being proposed is to construct a 12x6

pergola on the rear of the dwelling the east end of the dwelling which would cover the existing uh and this measurement is from the submitted survey uh 9.6 6 foot by 12t patio area and the purpose is to provide diffused sunlight for the petitioner um who uh well yeah that's the purpose stated uh the resulting setbacks would be uh 2 to 7 foot uh from the eastern property line uh that would be in line with the existing concrete patio uh petitioner has talked about in their submission mention how the pergolo would be constructed such that it would be uh the existing patio concrete would be notched out in order to maintain the existing step path rather than getting closer. And as a reminder, uh concrete patios of course are exempt from zoning code regulations. That's why it was allowed to be so close without further uh variances being needed. It's been there many years. Uh but as soon as you put a structure above that that actually is subject to zoning requirements and so that's why we're looking at a variance for dignite. The R3 code requires a 10T setback. Thus the request variance is 9.8 ft. Uh going to review materials here. Uh this is the uh not the entire billet area but almost I think I got one or maybe one unit off there off to the east. Uh but highlighted there in blue is the subject property. Uh closer view of note uh is the fact that this is a inside of a corner lot. uh inverse circle

comes and winds up being basically the western and the northern side. So it's kind of a corner lot. And then when the home was built in order to accommodate that, this particular unit was shifted back quite a bit more than you can see even the uh the attached unit to the south. Uh and by doing that it gets shifted back to the rear setback line and the rear easement line which is there in the purple. Uh as opposed to virtually every other unit in this villa area which uh even the corner units on other uh lots are not quite as constrained as this particular one. So uh this one does definitely have some unique arrangement to the lot. uh oblique view here kind of shows you again how that uh unit to the south and the subject unit are quite a bit different as opposed to most of the others which are more or less lined up with each other. The submitted plot plan and survey hatched over here is the existing concrete patio area which is also uh the proposed pera And then uh the plot plan overlaid over the aerial. And of course the aerial is uh because it's photography doesn't necessarily line up perfectly with the plot plan. Uh plus the plot plan is based at the foundation line. What you're seeing from aerial is of course eaves which would overhang that. So, but again, you can see uh in more context how everything shapes up. Uh going to the review criteria,

uh staff doesn't particularly have any um concern about the proposal being injurious to public health, safety, morals. Uh the fact that this would be an open pergola still means that there's access around the property. Uh being a villa lot being low maintenance uh that does help to uh control the amount of development that goes on on each lot. Uh which again kind of helps to uh promote access around. Uh so far less concern about uh fire safety uh uh that we sometimes have when you have buildings encroaching closer to the uh property lines. Uh general welfare could be injured of course if this sets a a precedent uh for the overall area. Uh looking at use and value, highly unlikely that this would uh substantially affect the use of this surrounding area. Uh it's the patio is already there. This is just putting a pergola above that. The value of the area probably would uh not be substantially and adversely affected. Uh it's very similar in appearance to many other pergolas, decks, patio enclosures on adjacent dwellings. uh for those uh who drive by they wouldn't necessarily be able to discern where that property line is. So it would it fit in in character and therefore uh not likely change the value overall at least not adversely might adversely it might be positive actually. And then finally, as I mentioned before, the strict application of code uh resulting in practical difficulties. Uh as I mentioned, this is a inside corner lot

does appear that this is a very tight lot for many reasons. While there is an area on the north side of the dwelling that a uh addition could go, uh because that's on the north side, the entire intent is to allow for diffused sunlight. it's not very helpful to have purple on the north side where you don't get sun. So that too is a difficulty overall. Uh so it does seem to be that there are some practical difficulties uh in this your judgment whether that's self-imposed or not based upon the overall uh request. Even though this is a variance uh I do have two suggested conditions regarding this as I mentioned uh being an open pergola uh and the factor that of whether if if it were enclosed that would probably have a greater effect overall. So I want to make sure that or I'm suggesting that we make sure that number one it's an open pergola and number two because of the absolute thin line of of 2/10 of a foot between the concrete and the property line. Number two uh clarifies that no part of burgla shall extend beyond the property line. That's really goes without saying many times, but because this is so close and because the post of the pergola and oftent times the structure of the pergola overhangs the posts, it's worth noting for clarity here. So, uh I am suggesting those two conditions in addition to anything else you may uh wish to add. Uh or you could not take these if you wish. That won't hurt my feelings.

Uh, so any questions for me? Anybody any questions for Nathan? All right, hearing none. Would the petitioner or the representative? Please come to the podium, state your name and address, and kind of fill us in on anything that Nathan might not have touched on. My name is Adam Blind with W. Zimmer Company in Huntington, 1700 North Broadway, Huntington, Indiana. Um I guess back up to the last slide my only question or request. So line item two you said no part of the pergo shall extend beyond the property line. So the pergo is going to be designed in such that the permanent portion is going to be the same size as the patio itself. The posts are going to be notched into the corner of the patio. Um and then the permanent structure is going to be the size of the patio. There is a 16inch extension out the front that can be removed. Um, can that be on there for decorative purposes? And if there there's no the mowing and everything's taken care of by the villas. Um, I don't look at it any different as a neighbor having a tree that their branches come over onto the neighbor's property line. An extension can be removed if it has to be removed to get ease of access for the neighbors to get into the property. Just a matter of pulling two screws out of the front and that extension can come off. It's just a decorative piece that goes on there to clean it up a little bit. Give it a little more class so it's not just a flat edge stopping at the edge of the pergola. Most every house in the area has a one foot overhang and such on the house. So we try to mimic the same design so you have the overhang so it doesn't just stop at the end of the patio and just look like a box is put on. That would be my only question. is if we can leave that on there. Like I said, it just neighbors have trees that overhang the property line. There's really no rules against that. Um, and if

it has to be removed to gain access, if they have to get a piece of equipment or something around to the back of the yard, it can be removed. But there's still, I believe, over 20 feet between where the edge of that patio is going to be and the edge of the neighboring house. So, I don't really see it as an obstruction. Do you have a picture of this pergo that we could look at? Um, sort You want like an overhead? I don't know if you just had some type of design that we could see what the actual So, there's no sides or anything on this thing. It's no sides. It's just It's a post on each corner and then it's open. The center portion is uh solid for rain protection. Then the rest of it slatted around the outside. the slatted portion can come off. So the main the solid the main fixed area is going to be the same size as the existing patio being as we can't cross that with solid with the roof itself. That's where the support post will be. And then it has a decorative trim on the outside just to add some character to it. Does anybody else have any questions for the petitioner? I just said it would still be nice to see that we could see what we're approving. So I can uh you guys have airdrop or you just want me to bring a picture around for you to see? Uh what's the best way? If he shows it, you got to present it, right? We have to keep a copy of it. Yeah, if you could email it to us at to us as staff afterwards, that'll go into the file. But yeah, you can present that to them. Yeah, I mean, I can send you a picture of one that we just completed for Wayne went through

same issue setback requirements. Um, you get your work done here better than us. I mean, essentially, so this piece right the post will be on the corner of the patio just like what you have there. This front piece can be removed. So, it's uh I mean that's pretty much the same setup as far as concrete goes. Noting into the corners, that's going to be the way that it's constructed. That front piece is overhanging the fence there can be removed. Show me this one. Show us, please. Yeah. So, right here is a support post from corner concrete. That's going to be what is permanent all the time. This front piece right here can come off if it has to. that over it. It's got a little bit of an overhang mount to about 16 inches that can be removed. Just a matter just a matter of removing screws and that part. This is the piece right here. Yeah. So, does this extension then go on beyond that? The extension can come out. Yeah. So, this part right here. Yes. So, that's the piece that they can take off. All of these right here. Yeah. That's removable. I mean, it's a five minute job. It's just a matter of taking two screws out, pulling each end, and it pops right off. But that just gives it a little more character instead of looking at like a shed style porch roof. Sure. It spruces it up, makes it look nicer for the community and the neighbors around. Thank you. So, that be my only request is we can still put that piece on for all the neighbors of the community as a whole, especially being a corner lot. Does anyone else have any questions for the petitioner? No. Hearing none. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here wish to speak on behalf of the

petitioner? Does anyone uh wish to speak against the petitioner? Hearing none, I close the floor and open up the floor discussion. So, I guess I'm going to put our attorney on the spot. So, according to the staff report, it said that granting um that the board does not have the authority to grant a variance beyond the property line without the consent of the adjoining owner. I I personally do not agree with that. My years experience in that department, I've not heard of that before. I guess I'm asking to subordinate. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Does the give give me more detail what you're saying there because I think you and I are saying the same thing but in different ways and I want to make sure the adjoining owner I don't the adjoining owner has no right to approve. Well, he does. He can. But then again, we've talked about that before because if the if the property owner I put this in specifically because of what you've said before and I'm trying to convey what your feelings were before. That's why I'm jumping on you here because I want to make sure we're saying the same thing. I I can get approval from the neighbors. That's what you guys think in order I don't agree with that either. So what I'm trying to say is you don't have the authority to grant a variance for onto somebody else's property. If they give the adjacent property owner, if the two property owners agree, that's one thing. But you can't trump that. That's what I'm saying. Is that what you're saying, too? I just remember the one that we had off of Hannah Street. We made him take it down even though the next door neighbors said they they didn't have a problem with it. But then again though, who's to say that that neighbor doesn't change and then they don't agree with that being on their property? They have the right then to

tell them, "You got to get that off my property." Correct. Or what they Yeah. There could be easements and stuff in place. But without the other property owner here, which they haven't submitted anything for your consideration, that's what I meant. So I think we are on the same page. I apologize for jumping, but I wanted to make sure we on the same page here. Nathan, is that a is that easement that runs in between those? Is there an easement that goes in behind that? There is an easement there. And I believe we have nothing from the utilities of concern, right? Because there's an existing patio there. Okay. So, there is an ement that goes through we got the approval. Oh, you got the Okay. It's been a while since I wrote this. So yeah, they they So they do have an easement approval. Okay. But then you guys know that if the city has to go down that easement, use that easement at some time, there's a likelihood you have to take that extension off. Correct. So they can get in and out of there. Correct. I don't know if there's electric poles or wiring. Uh actually there's no utilities in that ement. They all come in from a different direction. Okay. Which is why they were quick to give the approve on it. All the utilities come in from different directions so they don't use that east. Okay. If I recall correctly, there's a grade there too. Yeah. Um Okay. If I might suggest to petitioner and board, uh a possible edit to line two, um that no part no permanent part of the pergola shall extend beyond the property line. That's the part that is triggering the need for the variance. That's all you would be approving. And correct me if I'm wrong on this, legal counsel. You'd have to be removed. And anything that they tack on later. That's removable

is not again, we measure to the foundation line. You don't have the authority to prove something beyond the property line. But if they tax something on later and the neighbor doesn't care at that point, that's between them. Is that not okay with you? Yes. Because they could do some kind of agreement, whether it's a contract or or some kind of temporary license or easement permitting them to which could be revoked by them or pursuant to another agreement at a later time. Well, and I realize this seems to be very trivial. However, you know, I personally don't I don't like to approve something that I don't have the authority over. So, I always question things. Okay? So, um I don't want to set a precedence and I don't want it to come back um upon us. So, um because I question the fact that the pergola is being proposed at 12 by 16, but the area of the patio is 9.6 feet by 12. So, those overall dimensions go off of the removable part too. So it goes off in total top dimension, not foundation dimensions. Is that the 12 then from the house out? Yeah, it's actually going to be it'll actually be like 11 change. The 12 ft is just what we put in there for sizing. The dimensions you're looking at would be the overall top with removable sections. Okay. your foundation footprint which was submitted for the building approval shows the post location. So none of the permanent structure will overhang on none of the permanent structure will all all the permanent lies within the existing correct structure of the patio and the 16 runs like north south. Okay. All right. So there's no issues with that. It's just the projection of the 12 ft. That's

where we make that front removable. So if it has anybody else have any questions? Somebody have a I'll make a motion to approve with the conditions added to it stated by staff with the staff. Do you want to edit edit? All right, I'll second that with you. I have a motion from Dennis and a second from Tony. All those in favor raise the right hand. Passes. Thank you. be done in your office. I do have one quick report if you want to move on. You have any other business statements? Other business? No. But I have a report. Okay. Um, so you probably may well you may have noticed I can't remember. I think you got two copies of the agenda. Uh, one was an older format that just had your names listed on the left hand side and then the second version has your name listed along with your count with your appointing body and also your terms.

and see that. Yeah, that was added uh last week or the week before. Uh the reason for the additional information as of July 1, so you guys are the first one under the new requirement, state law requires any appointed boards to include all of that information on their agendas, meeting notices, and website. So that's why that stuff is there. And it's very clear that it's date of beginning and end of your term. That's why it's January 1, 23 through January 1,27, for example. Um, thank you very much, state law. Uh, but I just wanted to highlight that I knew this was coming down some something like this. That was one reason we changed the format at the beginning of the year because this bill has been was pending then. But the addition of the turns was something that was added kind of late in the game. Um, wasn't really sure exactly what to expect, but was easy enough to accommodate, but uh, little took a little bit to try and squeeze everything in there without running over. So, wanted to highlight highlight that for everybody's information. Um, thank you for those who came to last night's training session on ethics. I think it was a fun discussion once we got to the scenarios if you can call ethics fun. Um, lively discussion. I have a I'll wait till we get in. I'll wait till that. That's all I had. I wanted to say thanks. So, is is Mr. Wibble retiring? Dan is retiring from GIS as of uh August 7th. Yeah, 7th. It's a Thursday. coming up.

Um, we coincidentally just offered the position to uh Beverly Perry uh who accepted it. Uh, she does not come from GIS background, but she does have a degree in ge uh geography. Uh, she spent I don't know how many years, let's say 10, I think I'm give or take 10 in meteorology. Uh, that was her initial passion. Uh but for various reasons, uh she's worked for TV stations around the country, wound up back at Fort Wayne, and is ready for a career change. And she This is going to be kind of boring compared to that. It's definitely not nearly as early mornings. Um one thing she said, and not nearly as much on call either or effectively on call. So, she's there's more to it, but we're glad that the opportunity came up and glad she's wanting to make a career change. Um, it'll be a learning curve for her because she doesn't have a hands-on GIS experience. Unfortunately, uh, we didn't have any applicants who really could walk right into the role. Um, those with that type of experience would be looking for a higher up job than what this is. So, um, he'll still be on the city council and still be a board member. Yeah, that's not changing. He's just his his day job he's retiring from. All his other stuff he's still on. So, yeah. Okay. All right. Do we have anything else, Navas? Do we have anything else? There's a case for next month. You guys are going to be racking up the stipens. I move a journ. All right. So So

[Music] [Music] [Music]