Gravel parking areas are not allowed within the city limits per the municipal code, though existing gravel parking areas can be maintained.
One of the things the Warsaw Board of Zoning Appeals has to consider when reviewing petitions for variances is if the strict applications for the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship in the use of a property.
Not seeing an unnecessary hardship Monday, the board unanimously denied Michael Ryman’s petition for a variance from development standards to allow gravel to be used as a paving and parking surface on a portion of the driveway between houses on five parcels along McClellan Street, which are in a Residential-2 district.
He owns the parcels at 601, 605, 609, 701 and 705 McClellan St. and wants to construct single-family homes on each parcel, City Planner Justin Taylor told the BZA.
If installed per Ryman’s plan, the proposed gravel area will exceed the impervious lot coverage for these parcels, Taylor said. Allowing these parcels to exceed the impervious lot coverage is not likely to create any additional drainage or flooding issues in this area.
“However, I did want to make sure the board was aware that was part of the consideration if approved as presented,” Taylor said.
While existing gravel parking areas can be maintained, new gravel parking areas are not permitted within the city limits per the municipal code, he stated. The decision to prohibit gravel parking areas is largely centered on gravel transferring to the road, however, this is not a major concern at this location because of the distance between the gravel area and the road, Taylor said.
“When making a decision to grant this variance or deny this variance, the board must consider if it is injurious to public health, safety or morals; if it will negatively impact the value of adjacent property; but the board also must consider whether or not there’s something particular about the property that makes the variance necessary or if strict application of the zoning code constitutes an unnecessary hardship,” Taylor said. “The petitioner will need to make a case for the hardship faced by maintaining the current code. As a reminder, unnecessary hardship should relate to something particular about the property, not just a mere inconvenience or economic hardship.”
Taylor recommended the BZA deny the request unless the petitioner can describe the hardship that makes this variance necessary. If the board decides to grant approval, Taylor recommended limiting the gravel areas to 30 feet by 20 feet so that it can accommodate two cars but does not span the entire length between houses.
Ryman said the property had specific drainage problems from the beginning. From the back of the lot to the front of the lot is about a 7.5-foot drop. He cut in about 4 feet deep to put a house in.
“Part of the reason I’m wanting a gravel driveway is for drainage control. If I have a grass surface, I can’t drain back toward the street over the concrete. If I put a hard surface between the houses as a driveway, I may have issues with utilities later. If I need to make any amendments due to utilities I may possibly be on the foundation itself being that they’re a 20-foot distance from one house to the next and the hard surface in the entirety between there,” Ryman explained.
He said there’s also talk about potentially putting sidewalks in later and he’d like the ability to put street lights out along the street, but the hard surface may make that prohibitive.
In information provided by Ryman to the city’s building and planning department for the variance reasoning, he states that he is a builder and real estate investor primarily in the Warsaw area.
He states that the McClellan lots already meet city requirements for hard surface parking with the concrete part of the driveway and he is wanting to extend the driveway between the houses for multiple reasons.
Those reasons are to offer a longer driveway for tenant parking; as a defense system for the foundations to direct water away on a surface that won’t erode; to keep mowers away from sensitive areas; to keep mower noise away from bedroom windows; to reduce lawn cost; and between the houses is the flattest/safest spot to park and helps shield vehicles from plows and inclement weather.
He states that the problem with a hard surface driveway beyond the front door is cost. Each drive would cost a minimum of $10,000, so an additional $50,000 for all five drives. He can’t afford that additional cost and is not willing to compromise the quality of the structure to do so, leaving the only alternative as grass.
He listed seven reasons why not allowing a gravel drive creates a hardship, which were grass between houses means an erodible surface, hard surface drives means cutting off expandability of electrical options that may be installed later, greater difficulty in controlling water flow and drainage on the property, mowers will be needed, noise from mowers, putting a hard surface between the houses will result in potential risk to the foundation later on if repairs are needed to be made and cars would not be able to park on the flattest surface.
Board member Dan Smith asked if the back of the lot was higher than the front, and Ryman said it was.
Rick Keeven, BZA vice president, asked Ryman what made his case any different than anyone else’s construction project. He said everyone has to deal with utilities, drainage and inclines. Keeven said economics wasn’t supposed to be a consideration.
Ryman talked about protecting the foundation, but Keeven said he didn’t see that as being any different than for anyone else.
Attorney Steve Snyder, representing adjacent property owner Dave Holsclaw, said Holsclaw didn’t have an issue with Ryman’s request for gravel, but he just wanted to make sure there was no connection road or alley installed across the rear, but he didn’t sound like there would be.
Michael Matero, who lives across the street at 702 McClellan St., was concerned about more silt running off onto his property. He was glad, however, that Ryman was “doing what he’s doing.”
BZA President Tammy Dalton said once more concrete is put in place and there are some yards with grass, it will alleviate Matero’s issues.
Taylor pointed out that Ryman did work with the city on the distance between the start of his driveway and how it approached so the approach is at a slightly steeper angle per the city’s request as the city wants to put a sidewalk in there eventually.
Not seeing a hardship, Keeven made a motion to deny the petition, with Smith seconding it. The motion passed 5-0.