Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Evening. Welcome to the February 26th meeting of the Hancock County Board of Zoning Appeals. Go ahead and call this evening's meeting to order. Unfortunately, this evening we're an abbreviated board. We have three of our five members this evening, which means that uh any action taken would have to be unanimous. So, if that is troublesome to you with your case, you have the option to request a continuence until next month when uh your case comes forward. Uh I'd like to advise everybody this evening that your testimony is being recorded and will be taken under oath. Anyone wishing to speak will do so only when called upon. Please come up and face our attorney to my left to be sworn in. Uh you'll be asked to give your uh full name and spell your last name for our accurate meeting minutes. Please turn off all of your cell phones, electronic devices, and other noise makers. Our order for speaking is uh um Maria gives a staff report and then our petitioner is given seven minutes to make their presentation and that's followed by a collective seven minutes of uh remmonstrance. Uh we offer any government official that is here this evening uh three minutes to speak e uh one way or the other and then three minutes for petitioner's rebuttal and our attorney will give you a two-minute and a one minute warning as your time is expiring. We ask that all persons conduct themselves in a civil manner and reserve the right to request you to leave if you aren't able to adhere to that. Uh the this meeting this evening is being recorded and streamed for public viewing. By participating, you acknowledge that your image, voice, and comments may be captured and made publicly available. This meeting has been properly noticed in accordance with Indiana code 5141.5. Uh with Miss Willard being absent this evening as our secretary, I'd like to make a motion that we appoint a standin secretary. I'd like to nominate um Miss Casey as the this evening secretary.

Second. All right. Moved and seconded uh for Miss Casey to be our our secretary for this evening and count our ballots. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

Oppos. Same sign. Motion carries. Our first order of business then would be the adoption of last month's meeting minutes, but I don't think we'll be able to do that because Scott was absent from that meeting and that would just give us two to vote for that. So, we'll have to push that to next month to approve that. So, you might want to put that on the agenda. And with that, we have two hearing items this evening. And we'll go ahead and get started with hearing item number one. Uh Carlson Kale Residential, Hickory Drive, Greenfield. field. technology. There we go. It's going to take her a while to do her staff report. So, you might want to just sit down until time for when we call you up for your presentation.

First item on the agenda, um, Carlson bearing variance. Uh the subject property is located at 11 West Hickory Drive in the Center Township under the residential 2.5 zoning district. The petitioner Kell Carson is representing the property owner um Brian Vonol. Um they are requesting a sideyard setback reduction um from the required 15t to six feet to allow the construction of an accessory structure. In your package you should see the site plan that was provided by the petitioner. In the site plan, it shows uh in the red box the proposed accessory structure being a garage um proposed in the back end of the property. The petitioner state um that the variance will allow him to use the existing concrete pad currently on the property um to allow the placement to be away from the accepted finger. Um the garage meets all other requirements in our standards like lot coverage only being at 18% which includes the proposed garage. Um, out of the 25 permitted, uh, percentage of the lot coverage. On the top, uh, you'll see the plat of the property. Um, this was platted back in 1962. And down below it is the present, um, layout of the site. Um a little bit of the timeline of the subject property. Um during the permit review, the application was received back in November 20 November 24th, 2025. Um we received an initial application

where it was file stamped and started a review process. But um in doing so, we saw that the um side yard setback was insufficient. Um, we didn't receive a revised site plan until December 9th where it was showing compliance to the 15 side setback. Um, and then it was sent over to the surveyor's office for review. On December 11th, it received uh approval and sign off by the surveyor office. December 12th, it received approval and sign off from the health department and the building department. Then on December 16, it received approval and sign off by the planning department which followed by the 19th where the IOP building permit was issued for the initial application. So, in January of this year, we received um a request for a pre-fin um the builder was representing the homeowner and stated that they wanted to revise the size of the garage and make it larger. Um proposing a new uh the newer side size of the garage was determined. um it would require a sideyard setback variance. The petition then was filed on January 27th. Um between February 3rd to 11th, um staff was reviewing the materials and touch base with the health department in the surveyor's office. Um when touching B base with the health department um they notified the planning department that the septic finger was beneath the existing concrete pad um which resulted in um the size they originally wanted wouldn't be feasible and that they would only approve the um size of 30 by 36 um without with it being pushed back to

avoid the septic finger. um surveyor office didn't see any concerns with it um just adding gutters where it didn't um affect the neighboring properties. Um we work with the petitioner to be able to um bring a site plan to the board that would res um receive compliance and approval through the health department which is what is being presented um today. in our residential 2.5 um our lot standards. It states that the minimum sideyard setback is 15 ft. Um therefore they're requesting that variance. Um some of the other standards that apply to accessory structure is um our height standards where in in this zoning district um it cannot exceed more than 26 feet. Um other provisions are in our accessory use and structure standards where it states that um no accessory structure shall be placed in an operable sept. um as well as the location of the uh accessory structure um not being allowed in the front yard or within the required side or rear setback. And here are some of the um elevations that the petitioner provided showing um how that garage will look like. As I mentioned, after consulting with the surveyor office, um they indicated they had no concerns with the proposal as long as they provided um gutters to be installed in a manner that doesn't um

affect the neighboring properties. The original petition with the larger garage wasn't feasible due to the health department determining the location of the septic system. So, um the only size they would approve would be the 30x 36 um to allow accommodations without impacting the um viability of the septic system. So staff is recommending approval with conditions. Um the following conditions read a building permit related to the variance must be obtained within 12 months of the approval date and the occupancy permit must be attained within 12 months of the approved building permit or the variance will automatically expire. Um, the variance approval shall only apply to the garage and shall run with the property. The setback shall be six feet measured from the wall with a 1 ft overhang. Um, the structure shall not be larger, um, shall be no larger than what was presented to the Hancock County Board of Zoning Appeals, um, which is 30 by 36. Um the building permit application shall substantially conform to the site plan and architectural elevation submitted by the petitioner. The accessory structure must not exceed the height standards and the barn in the barn shall include gutters and downspouts directed away from the adjoining neighbor. And finally, a stake survey must be obtained and the stakes remain in the ground until final inspection is completed. These are also um conditions from um our typical conditions. Are there any questions?

No questions. All right, we'll have the petitioner come up. I'll swear you in if you could raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Please state your name and spell your last name for the record, and you have seven minutes. KL Carlson, C A R L S O N. Go right ahead.

Um, we're just trying to get the new garage for our customer up here about six foot from the property line. Looking at his septic field. There's not really anywhere else a uh garage for him could go. Um other than that, uh we've gone ahead and downsized the building just to comply just to actually stay away from the septic field and um not much else here for me. Is this is the size of it was driven also by the size of an existing concrete slab. Is it an existing foundation as well? Yes, it appears to be.

Okay. guys have any any questions for the petitioner? So, are they going to put a drive back to this garage? Uh, currently that's not part of the plan, but Oh, no. And this is not for a home business. This is just for personal personal use. Correct. Personal storage lawn equipment.

Right. Has there been any any discussion about the variance with the neighbor next door? I'm sure they've gotten notice and everything, but you haven't heard anything from them? Uh, well, actually the customer has. Um the the neighbor sounds to be in favor according to the customer. Okay. Or property owner. All right. Any more questions?

All right. That's good. Thanks. Do we have anybody here that wants to speak in opposition to this variance? All right. Seeing none, do we have any discussion? We have um pretty pretty clear staff conditions that are pretty typical for this sort of thing

business. Yeah, we could add that that personal use only.

Yeah. that as a number nine. So, as Maria stated, we have our our standard uh recommended conditions. I'll just read them off real quick if somebody wants to make a motion to attach them if the thing is um approved. So, building permits related to the variance must be obtained within 12 months of the approval. An occupancy permit must be obtained within 12 months of the building permit or the variance will expire. Variance approval shall only apply to this garage and shall run with the property. Set back shall be 6 ft measured from the face of the wall with a 1 ft overhang over the top of that. The structure shall be no larger than what uh is presented here this evening, 30x 36. The building permit application shall substantially conform with the site plan. Architectural elevation submitted by the petitioner. That's in our packet here. Accessory structure must not exceed our height standards. Barn shall include gutters and downspouts directed away from the adjoining neighbor. A stake survey must be obtained and stakes remain in the ground until final inspection is complete. And that the structure would be used only for personal use and not a home business. Well, I just was reading them all for the record. So, if you wanted to make a motion to uh attach them to uh the variance if it's approved, we could do that.

Yeah. Make a motion that we accept the uh staff recommendations one through eight and then also number nine with the uh variance for this that. Okay. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to should the variance be approved, it be subject to staff um conditions 1 through nine as stated for the minutes. All those in favor signify by saying I.

I oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. You can fill out your ballots. I saw a ballot. There it is. Okay. So, variance 26-2654 uh pass majority uh

three to zero. All right. All good. Very good. Thank you. Yep. You check in with the office on your next steps with your building permit. All right. Uh Maria, when you're ready, item number two, Mr. and Mrs. Matsi State Road 9, a variance to reduce required 125 foot road frontage to 30 and 63. Second item on the agenda is a Matsy. varants. Um the petitioner uh Robert and Deborah Matsie um sate property is located at 5831 North State Road 9 in

the center township under the residential 1.0 zoning district. Um the there are requesting tonight two variances for road frontage in order to be able to plat a three lot minor subdivision. The subject property is being proposed as a three lot minor subdivision. Um which indicates in the site plan they will utilize the share drive um by extending it um to be able to provide access to all three lots as shown in the site plan. um in the copy that you can find also in your packets. Um lot two and lot three have frontage on along State Road 9. However, um as shown, they do not meet the requirement of 125 ft of road frontage and therefore they're each requiring a variance. Lot number one meets the minimum frontage that is required. Um the proposal did receive preliminary review by the tech committee and all comments have um that have been identified during that have been addressed. Um if the variance is granted this will still um be required to be filed as a minor subdivision which would go to tech and plat committee under residential 1.0 know um lot standards the minimum lot width states that it has to be 125 ft um and as shown um in the site plan lot two is being proposed approximately at 63 ft of road frontage and lot three is shown at 30 ft. Um as a result these both um require

varian variance from the lot standards on the zoning district. Um highway department did not express any issues with the width. Um, INDOT did state um to us that a permit for the existing driveway um to be extended will be required from them. So in order for the minor subdivision to proceed on um to be filed and head to tech and the into plat um the approval of the two variances uh must be granted um since they do not meet the minimum lot frontage standards. Um if these is granted this would allow the petitioner um to create an additional lot in order to um build a single family residential which um is his ultimate goal with this um proposal. So these are two variances. Um so um you will vote individually for lot two and lot three. Um staff is recommending approval for both. Um with the typical conditions of road frontage being that the variance shall automatically expire after 12 months unless a minor subdivision plat is approved and recorded within the time frame. And then a driveway permit um shall be approved um by the county county highway department prior to issuing a building permit. Um staff also would like to add um as well another condition um based on a conversation from INDOT that we would

like a letter of approval from INDOT um stating that um they are okay with the proposal. Any questions for staff? I I was a little curious. I guess maybe the petitioner can um elaborate, but there's a there's an access easement on I guess the south of the property and then that that seems to serve lot three and they're showing the driveway and everything there. So, I was just curious what even is the purpose of the 30foot flag pole. strip.

I would defer it to the petitioner. Yeah. All right. Any more questions for the staff? No. All right. We'll have the petitioner come up.

Swear affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Okay. State your name.

Mike Gibson. GIB Sen um with Gibson Land Surveying. We have offices at 1898 West US40. Uh good evening. Uh thanks for being here and thanks for allowing us to be here this evening. I'm here tonight uh representing Bob and Deborah Matsie and their daughter Tracy in this uh request for the two variances that you have in front of you. The Matsis came to me about 3 months ago, maybe longer, to start the process of figuring out how we could actually make this work to have their daughter move closer to them to help take care of them and their uh aging like we all are. So, I'm getting to that point and I understand that completely to have the kids around. So, um the property has its challenges as you can see uh with the layout that you have in front of us. Um, to answer Mike's question, Mr. Long's question is that we left frontage for both of those lots that are proposed just for the future. Who knows what happens in the future with shared driveways and those issues that could come along. Uh, we do have that stated in the covenants for a shared driveway access for maintenance, but when we're long gone, maybe family's not there anymore, and we just wanted to make sure that there was an out for that in the future. Um, we met with had several meetings with the Matsis. We've met with the county. We had to go through tech tech committee. Typically, you don't have to, but with a project like this, we wanted to get their input prior to moving forward. Uh, so in meeting with the technical committee, mutual aid, uh, the county engineer Gary P, and, uh, commissioner Janine Gray, we came up

with this plan. They are all in favor of the way we finally have it. the 20 foot driveway or the existing driveway that actually has access now to the front lot and then to the house that the Massis live in now services those two parcels. That same driveway would service lot three where Tracy would build her house in the back. um mutual aid asked for a 20 foot wide driveway gravel with a turnaround and that's shown on that plan and that's what the minor subdivision that we'll have to go back through the process with tech committee again and to get minor subdivision approval for that. So that's uh that's where we're at. Um, kind of ironic. The Indiana Department of Highway actually in 2015 when the Matsis built their property, built their house now, had actually given a driveway permit for the driveway along the 30ft strip that you see on the plan. So, we we will adhere to their request. If they need a drive permit uh for that, uh we can extend that. So, we'll we'll ask them for that permit. So, um I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have answered my questions. So, you have Yeah.

All right. Anything? Nothing. Nothing. All good. All right. Great. Do we have anybody that would like to speak in opposition to the these variances this evening? Oh, come on up.

You swear affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do state

Larry Sedam SEDAM coming for the last close to 5 years to the planning commission. Um I've seen a lot of these lots handed back for them to figure out to replplat this a little bit better. I think you're opening a little bit of a can of worms um with this a 30ft variance and a 60ft variance. I think you're going to open it up to have a lot of people come stack houses in a really narrow strip. And I just think I I know they want to have their family there. I've seen this with a lot of things. But you're opening up something that I don't think you really want to. I have I live in the country and I don't want people to start stacking houses in narrow lots, you know, to be honest. I could stack one behind my house. I don't think that's what we want to do. There's enough of that. We've avoided that. We've pushed back on it. I know it's, you know, with the especially with the planning commission, we have pushed back as a community to keep our zoning the way it is. 125 ft gives the frontage for a house. And you've got two houses going where it's where you're not you're not going to have it. You shouldn't have it. you should stick with what we're doing. That's why it's here. A 30foot. Yeah, they're going to have a driveway. Basically, you'll have a driveway back to a house. No frontage, no nothing. That's not what we've planned. It's not

what this was designed for. Um, and like I said, I have not seen very many of these pass at all in the planning commission, if any. I I've seen more of them probably in the last year where they've just been handed back saying, "Redesign it. It's not or it can't fit. It won't work." And I understand, you know, I'm getting old. I'd love to have my family live near me, but I don't think my neighbor really wants me to stack a house behind mine. That's not what it's for. That is not what this is for. And I urge you again, I don't have a I don't have any cash in this fight. It's it's but I do because it's I want to hold our neighbors to the same standards. I don't want you've got so many houses that have been built on these 10acre slots that can easily if you let this go, you're going to have all these houses go in where that's not what we designed it for. I really encourage you to vote no, please. Thank you. Any questions for me?

Thank you. Any questions? No.

All right. Thanks, Ry. Anybody else like to speak in opposition? Get a rebuttal period, Mr. Gibson, if you'd like. Okay. Uh, stacking the houses back. Gosh, I've been doing it a long time, 40 years of doing this. U, there was a time where they didn't want flagshaped lots uh because of houses being behind houses. Well, what that instigated was a house being built up front and the property behind it never being taken care of. High weeds, whatever might been. So, I know for a fact in the last five to 10 years, I've been involved in five or six subdivisions with private drives just like this with lots coming off of it, three three lots at a time, which minor subdivision will allow. So, uh those have to come through the board of zoning appeals, not necessarily planning commission. So, those have been approved. Um the other other thing is when we're developing lots on frontage roads, if you will, State Road 9 is not a county road, but it's probably as a road that we really need to watch safety in. Um Gary Pull, the highway engineer, wants us to have shared driveways for these lots. It's lower access points coming off of those roads, and this just makes perfect sense to have one driveway servicing those three lots, especially on State Road 9. So, uh, it's better way to take care of that 13 acres that is a long narrow piece of property. Mr. Massie didn't create that parcel. He bought 15 acres. It's 13 acres. And yes, it's long and narrow, but uh, it's a better way to take care of the property. So,

all right. Any questions? All right. All good. Thank you. Just to clarify, um I don't think this was written out. Um we're lot one is or I'm sorry, we're reducing the required 125 ft road frontage on lot two to 63 feet. Yeah. And on the other parcel which is lot three to 30 ft. Correct. Yes, that is on this picture right here. Okay.

Yeah, you might might note that's a good point. You might note that on your that into the record. Yeah. And note it on your ballots. So I just wrote a 63 on Okay. 63 and 30. Thanks. On the one on lot two and and put a 30 feet on your on your lot three. Okay. Thanks. If if I may. Yeah. On one of the conditions for lot number two, it stated that county highway drive permit would need to be that that lots that driveway is already in. So in that condition, I don't know that that makes a makes a big deal or not for lot two.

Yeah. So, in the one of the conditions for lot two, it mentions a county highway drive permit would need to be on one of the conditions, I believe. Are you and that would be the 63 foot wide variance. Is that driveway the one that's on the far south? Yeah, it already services the first house and lot two. So, our drawing Yeah. The propo the proposed driveway will be widened but also go back to lot three which we'll have to get a permit for that which is what is drawn in this 11 by this lot

this drive is the drive. Yeah. Yep. Mhm. So we need we need a driveway permit for three but not for two. Well that that wouldn't be county. It' be state, right? clarification there as well. It's it's a private drive, so it's not coming off of county road. So, I think that covers it with the state driveway that state highway permit that we have to have, but not a county. Maybe that's on both of them, Scott. Yeah.

Okay. The staff conditions need to be modified accordingly. Well, we were going to add they just they wanted us Maria suggested adding that to variance two. So, I guess we just wouldn't need it necessarily, right? That's what they're saying because they've got their driveway already in place. So, the permit is just to take that. So, talking with INDOT, um we sent over the site plan um that's being shown to you tonight and they stated they would require a new driveway permit.

They just probably just for the paperwork essentially then they want a new permit. They probably are going to make them do an N dot concrete section or something in their new rideway or something like that. And that would just be and that would just be for lot number. It's for the expansion of that driveway. For the expansion of that driveway. Oh, so you're gonna widen it. Okay. Okay. You widen it. Yeah. Yeah. Please. If the motion just went county, the county would be

Oh, that's what I had written down here was an INDOT permit. Yeah, that's for lot two. Yeah. So, the driveway permit shall be approved by INDOT and the county or just INDOT? They just wanted a letter of approval from INDOT? By end. And that's for lot two cross out the county condition number two on for lot three the same a driveway permit shall be approved by the county highway department prior to issuing a building permit correct on lot three

would be INDOT as well oh both of them change both to INDOT Yeah. So, I think we're taking the county out of both of them. Okay. And it's Yeah. And it's INDOT. Got it.

Okay. Any further discussion? Not adding any recommendations, changing the Yeah, just the um the 12 month and the and the end dot letter of approval for the driveway work. That would be the permit though.

Yeah. For them to widen their driveway. and serve lot three. I guess the county doesn't want anything from you for to serve lot three. Okay. Interesting. Okay. And that's the sole purpose of the 30 foot easement. Correct. Mhm. Yep. All right. Any discussion or any motions on uh conditions of approval?

So, I make um motion that we approve the staff recommendations for lot two. The two recommendations and changing the driveway permit to uh INDOT prior to issuing the building permit. And then on the variance for lot three move to approve the staff recommendations, the two recommendations and also changing second recommendation recommendation to the driveway permit shall be approved by the INDOT prior to issuing the building permit. I'd second that.

All right. It's been moved and seconded that should these variances be approved, they be subject to the stated conditions. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries.

Go ahead and fill out your ballots. Okay. Variance 26-2657 lot number two reducing the required 125 road funage to 63 feet is unanimous 0 to three granted. And then variance 26-2657 lot number three to reduce the required 125 road frontage to 30 ft is granted 0 to three unanimous.

All right. Both uh both variances approved. So, give it to staff on the on the building permit stuff. All right, that uh our hearing item number three was uh continued or requested to be continued to March. We might want to just take a motion to accept that continuence for the March meeting. Make a motion that we continue item number three to the March meeting. um date is for that need to

March 26 March 26 meeting. Um I need to read that number off. Yeah. Okay. Did somebody second that? A second. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, it's been moved and seconded to to accept the continuence for special exception 262660 uh for the March 26th meeting. All those in favor signify by saying I.

Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. So that will conclude our hearing items this evening. Um move on to uh other business. 2025 annual report. 2025 annual report will be posted on the website. Um, and I know I've shared it with some of you. I don't know that you two have gotten it, but I can definitely send it out. Uh, just summarizes the activity of the BZA plan commission and all the other boards in the planning department and building department over the course of 2025. um summarizes our most common uh variances and special exceptions uh things like that. So, in in a way, it's interesting to kind of guide where where things are are going as far as the needs and wants of the community, what we're seeing at this board. Um, which is pretty much the same same stuff we've seen in the past, um, relating to variances and special exception uses. Um, so I will send that out to you and it will be posted on the website. It is going to the board of commissioners on March 31st as well. So, And then u update to alternate BZA members. We have one and that is Mike's. Uh Dean Fout has volunteered from the plan commission to be Mike's alternate and I know that uh the town of Shirley also had a resident who was interested, but I need to confirm with them that he is really on board to be Jason's alternate. Um clearly it would be very convenient for a couple of our members to have alternates. Um, and yeah, if Spring Lake has anybody in mind that would be a good alternate member for you, Sandy. Um,

I think they were talking to somebody. I didn't make it to the last meeting to find out.

Excellent. And then your appointing body is supposed to find a a replacement or a alternate member. And the idea is So, Scott, I think that would just be the board of commissioners for you. Um so if you know of anybody who tends to be available when you might not be or um could probably not having um if you have to recuse yourself from matters somebody that else that probably would not and you know could attend those meetings even um that might be a person we're looking for. So it's trickier trickier than you'd think but that's what we're looking for. Um, all right. And then Dennis, do you have any violation notices or anything you want to talk about?

I'll let you have it. Probably agreed to you because you never

about it sometimes. Um, so there are three cases I would like to um inform you about. The first one is on US West US 40. It was a case that it's a case that has been ongoing since 2024. Um um the ex the violations were an expansion of non-conforming use as well as several other violations. Um when I when I took over, I reviewed the case and I realized that um the owner of the property was trying to sell. So I reached out to her because I saw that she had indicated that she was going to give us a timeline of when the sale was going to go through. And then subsequently she um someone came in to file a for a pre-iling BCA uh pre-filing meeting. Um he's the new owner of the property and he wants to basically remedy the past violations. So uh filing deadline is tomorrow. So fingers crossed we'll see. And then the second case is on uh West 900 North. Um it's in Fortville. Sometime in December last year, we received two we actually received two complaints for this one and case three and

pretty similar violation violations. um outdoor dumping and possible commercial activity without permits. So I did the inspections and I cited uh the property owner and then he responded um scheduling a meeting with the planning department to remedy the violations as well. Uh he will be hopefully filing tomorrow as well. seeking a home occupation um permits. Then the last one is also uh pretty similar, North Fortville Pike. He is also going to be meeting with us sometime in March to see how he can remedy the violations.

Making good headway. Yeah, it was a good month for enforcement.

Yeah, getting things are moving moving on some of these finally. All right, any questions for Dennis? Appreciate that work. Very good. Thank you. Well, what do you guys want to talk about for the next hour and 39 minutes? Nothing. We could adjourn. Move to adjurnn. Thank you. Second. All right. Moved a second to adjurnn. All those in favor signify by saying I. Oppos. Same sign. Thank you.