Attorney Steve Snyder, standing, makes his case before the Warsaw Board of Zoning Appeals on Wednesday regarding the petitions for 4 Yarnelle Point, owned by Toby and Annelise Galloway, sitting. Photo by David Slone, Times-Union.

By David Slone
Times-Union

WARSAW — Three petitions before the Warsaw Board of Zoning Appeals on Wednesday, Dec. 27, all had to do with the property at 4 Yarnelle Point.

Nine of the property’s neighbors signed a letter remonstrating against all three petitions.

By the end of the hearing for the first petition, all three petitions were tabled to the Jan. 22 board meeting for attorney Steve Snyder, representing petitioners Toby and Annelise Galloway, to add language to the covenant proposed for the property.
The first petition was for a use variance to allow a secondary residential structure at 4 Yarnelle Point.

City Planner Justin Taylor told the board the owners are planning on rebuilding the current accessory structure with a second story. They are also planning on removing and rebuilding the primary residence “at some point in the future.” While rebuilding the primary residence, the owners plan to live in the newly renovated accessory structure. Once the primary structure is finished, the accessory structure will be used as a guesthouse or living quarters for family and friends. There is no plan to rent this space in the future as multi-family uses are not allowed in R-1 zoning districts, he said.

“There does not appear to be any unnecessary hardship that makes this property unique enough to merit a deviation from zoning regulation. So based on that, it is the opinion of the Planning Department that this use variance should be denied,” Taylor stated.
Board President Tammy Dalton pointed out the letter from the neighbors remonstrating against all three of the petitions. It was signed by Yarnelle Point residents Jeffrey Baenen, Caryle Baenen, Gary Faudree, Phyllis Faudree, Pamela Nichols, Christopher Rankin, Julie Rankin, Brian Rhoades and Marcia Rhoades.

They said they do not want two residential structures on one lot. They also wrote, “During the last six years since the house fire at the property, Toby Galloway has told many of us on numerous occasions that something was going to happen with the house in two to three months. Nothing has happened yet other than them allowing the property to become dilapidated to the point that it is an eyesore. The hole that the firemen made in the roof remained until recently. It is the only house in the whole Country Club neighborhood that has been unoccupied for this long.”

The letter talks about the lack of mowing of the lawn, no gas or electricity going into the main house for years, mold all over the siding, the crawl space is not completely covered over and other issues.

They also wrote, “Our concern with allowing an 18’6” setback for a structure to be built on the property is that it will open the door for many of our other lake neighbors to then be allowed to build other structures on their properties.”

They state there are no other properties in the neighborhood that have two residential structures on one lot, and they don’t want two residential structures on one lot.

Snyder told the board the Galloways purchased the property roughly six years ago with the intent of living there, remodeling it, leaving the structures as they originally were. There are three structures on the property, but there was a fire in the main residence which made it not available for living space.

“Then there was, and still is going on, disputes with the insurance company as to what the coverage is, what they will pay, which, of course, usually, when you’re a homeowner, if you’re paying on a mortgage on a house and then it burns down or is severely damaged by a fire, you’ve got to keep paying the mortgage payment, and if the insurance company doesn’t come forward with sufficient funds to rebuild the structure, it puts you in a hard spot. That’s where they’re at,” Snyder said.

The house and the two outbuildings have been on the property since 1954, and it’s been 18 feet, 6 inches from the water as well as 3.4 feet from the sideline, he said. “The proposal is to remove it and reconstruct it as a two-story auxiliary residence. That, by itself, is not a problem if they were not also planning on constructing their main residence in the future once they get insurance issues resolved and can move forward,” Snyder said.

As far as the hardship is concerned, he said it’s an existing structure. “We can either tear it down and rebuild it and enhance the neighborhood values by bringing the structure up to current standards, or leave it as it is – there’s nothing to prevent it from staying as it is, even in its condition, even though that’s certainly not desirable. The intent is to utilize the structure, elevate it out of the flood plain – because as a boathouse it is in the flood plain – and bring it up to current code standards, leave it on the same footprint as it is and then use it for auxiliary residential use after the main house is reconstructed,” Snyder said.

While it’s hard to say how long negotiations with the insurance company will take, he said the idea is to begin construction of the auxiliary residence in the coming spring and finished in 2024.

He also said the fire to the main residence created the hardship. It can’t be reconstructed until the insurance company dispute is resolved.

Snyder also presented the board with copies of a proposed covenant on the real estate. The intent of the covenant is to prevent the auxiliary building from being rented separately from the main residence. It can be occupied by the current owners, their guests or extended family, but it can’t be rented out. “It is considered one residential use, and it’s to be by this owner and extended family and guests only,” he said.

Board members were concerned about the auxiliary building becoming a moneymaker for the property owners, such as a rental property or bed and breakfast.

After a lengthy discussion, the board wanted to see three things added to the covenant. Those include that no income can be generated from the structure; a 10-day limit on guests (but not family); the covenant is enforceable by the BZA and property owners within 200 feet of the Galloways’ property or on Yarnelle Point; and there needs to be one address for the whole property.
Board President Tammy Dalton wanted to see the new language before anything was approved. Snyder said he’d work on it and then get it to Taylor and city attorney Scott Reust. The board then tabled the use variance unanimously.

Snyder said if they were going to table that petition, they might as well table the other two petitions to the Jan. 22 meeting, so the board did.

The second petition was for a variance from development standards to allow an accessory structure in a Residential-1 zoning district with 18 feet, 6 inch lake setback at 4 Yarnelle Point.

The third petition was for a variance from development standards to allow an accessory structure to be 21 feet, 6 inches in height at 4 Yarnelle Point.