By David Slone
Times-Union

WARSAW – A petition for a variance tabled from September’s meeting for a parking lot at 2321 E. Market St. was denied by the Warsaw Board of Zoning Appeals on Monday by a vote of 4-0.

The parcel, in a Residential-2 zoning district, is on the corner of East Market and South Roosevelt streets, and is bordered by commercial districts to the north and east, and R-2 zoning districts to the south and west. 

Petitioner Tim Polk indicated at the September meeting that the parking lot would be for Oak and Alley, which he bought in early September.

The petition was tabled from the September meeting because city attorney Scott Reust was not present and Board Vice President Rick Keeven did not see any practical difficulty in the use of the property, which is one of the three “findings of fact” the zoning board has to consider to approve a variance, and he requested the Board table it for further study.

Attorney Steve Snyder represented Polk at Monday’s hearing. 

“The property in question is unique for a couple of reasons,” Snyder said. One, it’s only occupied to the south one-half by the existing residence. “But what is most significant is that … the zoning to the north is C-3 commercial, the zoning to the east is C-2 commercial. That has a significant effect on this corner lot in that using the entire parcel for the expansion of residential use is probably not going to happen. What you have to the north is a business with a parking lot. What you have to the east is a business with a parking lot, and the Walgreens’ parking lot is significant. The Oak and Alley parking lot is significant, but not significant enough to meet the needed capacity, hence the request for additional parking on the approximate north one-half of the property at 2321 E. Market St.”

The parking area was proposed to be 63 feet by 60, Snyder said. He said the parking lot would have no effect on the properties to the north and east. The property to the south is owned by Polk, and the property to the west is a residential property in an R-2 zoned. 

Snyder said part of the proposal is to put a screen fence – 6 feet high, solid vinyl maintenance-free fence – along the entire west side of the parking area. It screens the parking lot from the neighbor to the west and screens the Walgreen’s parking lot from the resident to the west.

“The neighbor to the west, (it) has minimal effect on their property and may have a beneficial effect to their property from the standpoint that the activities from the Walgreen’s parking lot, which are significant, will be shielded as well,” Snyder said.

Lighting was proposed to be on the west side of the parking lot and aimed to the east, which would blend in with the Walgreens’ lighting. Snyder said the city engineer has taken a look at the drainage plan and he didn’t see any issues with it. The entrance to the parking lot would be from the alley.

Touching on the three findings of fact the BZA has to consider, Snyder said the parking lot would be compatible with Walgreen’s and Oak and Alley’s parking lots. As far as any effect on property values, Snyder said the effect on the residential property at 2397 E. Market St. is minimized if not completely eliminated by the solid vinyl fence. 

Speaking on the “hardship this property (2321 E. Market) suffers from,” Snyder said, was that it has commercial on two sides even though it’s zoned R-2 so it has no potential for future growth as a residential property. 

Board President Tom Allen asked if the southwest side was going to have fencing. Snyder said the south side next to the existing residence at 2321 would not have fencing. Allen asked what would become of the current residence at 2321 and Snyder said it would remain a rental property. 

Rick Keeven, Board vice president, asked Snyder if he had authority besides himself that the property value of the residence to the west would not be affected by the parking lot. Snyder said no but it was apparent from the screening that would be provided.

Keeven then asked about Snyder’s comments regarding a practical difficulty. “As I understand your argument, it’s not in the house itself that’s got practical difficulties, it’s the ability to further residential expansion would be diminished because of its location, is that the argument?” he asked.

Snyder said that was “precisely” correct.

Zach and Amy Evans, who own the residence to the west at and use it as an AirBnB, had questions about the petition at the September meeting, but were at Monday’s meeting to oppose the variance now that they’ve had more information.

“At this point, now that we’ve heard more discussion from the Board, after my comments, we realized lighting, drainage, noise, night time disturbances for the guests in our house, we have definitely changed that to being strongly opposed to it,” Zach said. 

They have done research on what they believe the value loss and impacts to them will be if a parking lot goes in there. 

The Evans also sent a nine-page letter to the Board explaining the impact of the parking lot to their property.

Amy said, “So my opinion on the effects of the parking lot on our neighboring property value have changed since the prior meeting due to adequate time to conduct a full market analysis.”

She said since the September meeting, she’s conducted a comparative analysis on the effects of residential neighborhood home values within close proximity to three businesses, two of which are restaurants with a license to serve alcohol. Her findings on the difference of home sales prices were on page 3 of the letter, “each revealing a significant difference between the homes located within close proximity of a business activity and those of similar size and amenity but located further from business activity.” 

The decrease in value was between 4.24% and 22.89% “when sold as a single-family residential.” Amy said that is a significant decrease in home value from a residential real estate perspective. 

Being an AirBnB, Amy said their home also is an investment property and if the parking lot goes in, they could lose money if favorable reviews decrease. Assistant City Planner Bekah Schrag later pointed out that an AirBnB is allowed in an R-2 district. 

The final five pages of the Evans’ document include the professional opinions of three real estate agents and all three are unanimous in their opinion that the proposed parking lot would have a negative effect on neighboring property values.

Snyder rebutted the Evans’ comments, including that the Polks would extend the fencing at least a portion of the way across the south side of the parking lot. 

Keeven said regarding the effect on the value of adjacent property to the proposed parking lot, he said Snyder’s professional opinion and the opinion of the professional real estate agents that the Evans provided were in conflict, so Keeven felt he had to fall in favor of the existing situation and the Evans. “You have to assume it is possible the property value will be adversely affected,” he said. 

After some discussion with city attorney on the hardship issue and if that applied to what’s going on right now or if the Board had to look into future possibilities – Reust said it was a bit of both – Keeven eventually made a motion to deny the petition. 

Board member Jeff Johnson provided a second to the motion and said, as the property sits right now, it does not qualify for a variance. The motion to deny was approved.