Zionsville board denies use variances for Oak Street landscape business after neighbor complaints

The Town of Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals on Nov. 6 denied two use-variance petitions that would have allowed a landscape contractor and contractor storage at 8802 West Oak Street, a rural single- and two-family residential (R2) lot, after extensive testimony from neighbors and staff.

Staff planner Jonathan told the board the petitions failed to meet multiple findings of fact required for a use variance, including that the requested uses would not adversely affect neighboring residential property values and that the need for the variance did not arise from conditions peculiar to the property. "This is a residentially zoned piece of property developed with a single-family residence and accessory structure," Jonathan said in his presentation, and staff concluded the requests were inconsistent with the comprehensive plan’s recommendation for medium-density residential uses.

Attorney Chris Hammerly, representing petitioners Thomas and Ali Gottschalk, said the operation is a small, family-run landscape business that would use an existing barn primarily for equipment storage and staging. Hammerly emphasized voluntary commitments his clients offered, including no on-site sales, no burning of off-site materials, limiting employee visits to three vehicles at a time, weekday-only operations, additional buffering and lighting compliance, and a proposed two-year sunset review if the board preferred. "They are committed to paying, even though it's at their cost, to dump these items properly," Hammerly told the board.

Dozens of neighbors weighed in during public comment. Several nearby residents said they had filed multiple complaints and cited past burning, chainsaw noise and heavy equipment on weekends, and expressed skepticism that voluntary conditions could be enforced. "Based on their history of not complying with the zoning as it stands, we have very little confidence that they will comply with the conditions they've put forth," resident David Reavis said. Other neighbors said the property improvements are attractive and that they had no complaints; supporters included customers and a supplier who said materials are drop-shipped to job sites.

After questions from board members about prior enforcement and the effect of a draft comprehensive plan, the board moved to deny docket 202531 (landscape contractor) and docket 202532 (contractor storage). The motions were made from the dais and carried on roll call votes (ayes recorded for Jim Hurst, Josh Martin, Amanda Miller and Josh Fedor). The denials will revert the matter to the town's code-enforcement process if the petitioners do not pursue alternate approvals.

Discussion points the board cited in the meeting record included the difficulty of enforcing conditions limiting employee visits or future expansion on a residential lot, the nature of the property as residential since the petitioners moved there with the lot already zoned R2, and staff’s judgment that granting the variances would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the corridor.