Shelby County Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes
March 7, 2006
Members Present:
Carolyn Blackford
Kevin Carson
Randy Miller
Ann Sipes
Richard Whelen
Staff Present:
Amy Butcher
Mark McNeely
Call to Order and Roll Call:
President Randy Miller called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in room 208A at the Court House Annex.
Approval of Minutes
Ann Sipes moved to approve the minutes of the February 7, 2006 meeting, and Richard Whelen seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-1 with Kevin Carson abstaining. The minutes were signed.
Public Hearings
President Randy Miller began the public hearing portion of the meeting by explaining the proceedings for the petitions. He asked if any petitioners would like to continue their cases because there was not a five-member Board present at the beginning of the proceedings.
BZA 2006-01: L& W Outdoor Advertising Sign Variance: c/o Gregg Graham, 33 West Washington Street Shelbyville, Indiana. A petition requesting approval of a variance to place an off-site advertising sign that does not meet the minimum separation requirements between two advertising signs and that does not comply with the maximum height standards for such signs on property located at 8264 South 900 West Edinburgh, Indiana. The current use of the overall subject property is single-family residential and farm field, and the property is zoned B3. The subject property is located at 8264 South 900 West Edinburgh, Indiana (Jackson Township, Section 14).
Amy Butcher indicated that she had read the petition into the record at the January 3, 2006 and February 7, 2006 meetings. She noted that she had proof of publication of the legal notice in the Shelbyville News and proof of notification to interested parties. She noted that the Board continued the matter to this meeting because there was originally a tie vote at the last meeting regarding the motion to vote on the requested variance. She indicated that the petitioner is requesting a variance to allow the minimum distance between two off-site advertising signs to be reduced, and she noted that the petitioner is also requesting approval of a variance to allow the sign height to exceed the maximum 25 feet height permitted by ordinance. She explained that approval of this variance would allow for three off-site advertising signs to be constructed on this property. Butcher noted that the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance for one off-site advertising sign in 2004, and she indicated that the petitioner appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals in the summer of 2005. She noted that at the 2005 meeting the petitioner had requested to be allowed to place two new advertising signs on the property. She highlighted that the Board approved a variance to allow one of the requested signs to be placed on the property during the hearing in the summer of 2005. She stated that the petitioner is appearing before the Board at this time to request approval for a third advertising sign to be permitted on the subject property.
Gregg Graham presented the petition and the case to the Board of Zoning Appeals. He began his presentation by noting that his client is requesting two variances, one for separation between signs and one for height. He highlighted that there are already two off-site advertising signs located on the subject property. He indicated the separation between the signs along this portion of I-65. He re-submitted the Indiana Department of Transportations guidelines for billboards, and he noted that the proposed sign meets the minimum requirements set forth by the State. He stated that the request for a height variance is based on the topography and the need for visibility of the sign. He presented the Board with a copy of the sign permit issued by the Indiana Department of Transportation. He noted that this is a predominantly rural area, and he highlighted the distance of the signs to the nearby homes. He noted that the closest home is 2650 feet away. He noted that the Taskey home does lie closer than the 2650 feet indicated. He questioned what minimum distance is acceptable to the Board. He provided the Board with an aerial photograph with various sign locations along this portion of I65 and the separation between all of these signs. He noted that there are eleven signs located between State Road 252 and the area of the subject sign. He presented the Board with copies of petitions for separation between billboards that the Board has approved in the past. He asked the Board to consider the cases approved in the past. He presented the Board with a photograph of off-site advertising signs in the area and the message that they convey. He noted that the granting of the variance would not have an adverse impact on the general area because there are already numerous signs in the area. He noted that his client does not feel that any additional signs would be appropriate on that side of the highway. He emphasized that there are numerous signs located along this portion of the highway, and he explained that the requested sign would be easily readable. He emphasized that at some point the Board will need to establish a minimum separation between signs. He explained that 519 feet of separation between advertising signs has been acceptable in the past; therefore his client is requesting that 580 feet of separation be acceptable as well.
No one in the audience spoke in favor of the petition.
One individual spoke in opposition of the petition. Omer Taskey of 8048 South 900 West stated that his home would be located approximately 350 feet from the proposed sign and the billboard lights shine at least 500 feet outward. He noted that he does not want the sign to be placed right next to his property line and that he does not want the petitioner to cut his trees for increased visibility of the signs. He concluded by stating that he does not support the approval of the subject sign because the petitioner already has two signs on the subject property.
Gregg Graham offered a rebuttal to the comments made by the remonstrator. He presented the Board with photographs of the sign located on the north end of Mr. Taskey’s property. He noted that Mr. Taskey cleared trees from his property in order to establish the advertising sign on his property. He noted that Mr. Taskey had established the sign on his property in order to earn income from the signs. He indicated the proposed sign would not be visible from Taskey’s property in the summertime. He noted that the petitioner would not need to cut any trees on the adjoining property to obtain proper sign visibility. He presented the Board with a photograph looking from County Road 800 West to I-65, and he explained how it illustrated how the subject sign would not be any more distracting than the sign placed on the Taskey property. He reminded the Plan Commission that the petitioner is willing to remove two advertising signs along I-74 if the requested variance is approved.
After questions and discussion from the Board of Zoning Appeals, Ann Sipes made a motion to vote on the petition. Kevin Carson seconded the motion. The motion was defeated by a vote of 3 to 2 with Ann Sipes, Richard Whelen and Kevin Carson casting the dissenting votes. Mark McNeely presented the Findings of Fact to the Board for their review, and they affirmed that these were the basis for their decision.
BZA 2006-06: Cingular Wireless Telecommunications Tower Height Variance: c/o Stephen Carr, 6402 Corporate Drive Indianapolis, Indiana. A petition requesting approval of a development standards variance to allow the construction of a cell tower that exceeds the 200 feet height allowance. The current use of the property is agricultural, and the property is zoned A. The subject property is located at 8928 South Division Road Flat Rock, Indiana (Washington Township, Section 17).
Amy Butcher read the petition into the record. She had proof of publication of the legal notice in the Shelbyville News, but she did not receive proof of notification to interested parties.
No one was in attendance to represent the petitioner.
Because no one was in attendance to represent the petitioner, Kevin Carson moved to require the petitioner to re-apply for the requested variance. Randy Miller seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.
BZA 2006-07: Dyan Current Livestock Use Variance: c/o Dyan Current, 5565 South Wilson Meadows Drive Shelbyville, Indiana. A petition requesting approval of a use variance to allow two goats to be kept on the same property as an existing home. The current use of the property is single-family residential, and the property is zoned R1. The subject property is located at 5565 South Wilson Meadows Drive, Indiana (Shelby Township, Section 33).
Amy Butcher read the petition into the record. She had proof of publication of the legal notice in the Shelbyville News and proof of notification to interested parties. She explained that she had received a complaint regarding two pygmy goats being kept on the property. She noted that she investigated the matter, contacted the petitioner, and immediately the petitioner began taking steps to resolve the zoning violation. She noted that she explained to the petitioners that they could either remove the goats or request a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. She explained that the petitioners desire to keep the two pygmy goats because they are their sons’ pets; therefore they have applied for the subject variance. She concluded by noting that the petitioner owns approximately one acre in the Wilson Meadows subdivision.
Dyan Current presented the petition and her case to the Board of Zoning Appeals. She indicated that the two goats are pygmy goats that achieve a full-size of twenty-five to thirty pounds in size. She indicated that they are smaller than the average dog. She noted that they are kept in a small shed that is surrounded by a fence that sits adjacent to their home.
Carl and Beverly Mohr of 5547 South State Road 9 spoke in favor of the petition. They indicated that they had a variety of animals in their home when their children were growing up. They noted that they believe that children should have pets. They indicated that pets teach children responsibility. They concluded by noting that they do not have a problem with the petitioners having goats on their property.
Tom Hebbe represented Steve and Betty Meek of 5577 South Wilson Meadows Drive spoke in opposition of the petition. He stated that his in-laws wanted to emphasize that Wilson Meadows is a residential neighborhood. His in-laws noted that they do not appreciate the smell or noise made by the goats. His father-in-law stated that the property is not zoned agricultural; therefore, he does not feel that livestock should be permitted. He requested that if the variance is granted that the Board stipulate that a privacy fence be constructed along the side of the goat pen that faces his father in-laws property. Amy Butcher noted that she had received a letter opposing the petition from Mike and Peggy Elliott of 5555 South Wilson Meadows Drive.
Dyan Current offered a rebuttal to the claims made by the remonstrators. She noted that there is one complete lot that separates her property from the property to the east (the Meek property). She indicated that the only time that her family is aware of the goats making noise is when they are outside and the goats want their attention. She noted that the goats are much quieter than any of the dogs in the neighborhood.
After questions and discussion from the Board of Zoning Appeals, Carolyn Blackford made a motion to approve the petition with the following stipulation:
1.) There shall be no more than two pygmy goats kept on the property.
2.) The petitioners shall not replace the goats in the future.
3.) There shall be no expansion of the goat pen and the goat shed shall not be moved to another location on the property.
Ann Sipes seconded the motion. The motion was defeated by a vote of 3-2 with Randy Miller, Kevin Carson and Ann Sipes casting the dissenting votes. Mark McNeely presented the Findings of Fact to the Board for their review, and they affirmed that these were the basis for their decision.
BZA 2006-08: Darrell and Karen Mitchell In-laws Quarters Use Variance: c/o Darrell and Karen Mitchell, 2792 West 200 North Shelbyville, Indiana. A petition requesting approval of a use variance to allow the placement of a second home (in-laws residence) on the same property as an existing home (to place two principal structures on one lot). The current use of the property is single-family residential, and the property is zoned A. The subject property is located at 2792 West 200 North Shelbyville, Indiana (Brandywine Township, Section 23).
Amy Butcher read the petition into the record. She had proof of publication of the legal notice in the Shelbyville News and proof of notification to interested parties. She indicated that the petitioners desire to place a second home on the same property as their single-family home that lies on approximately five acres. She noted that the petitioners have indicated in their application that they plan to place a manufactured home on the property. She concluded by noting that the petitioners are requesting a use variance to allow the placement of a second home on the subject property.
Darrell and Karen Mitchell presented the petition and their case to the Board of Zoning Appeals. They noted that there is ample room on their property to support the additional home without adversely impacting the neighbors’ properties. They indicated that the nearest neighbor’s home lies approximately 700 feet away. They noted that fields surround their home. They stated that the proposed home would be a temporary residence and that the home would be removed when the relative leaves.