We'll call to order the meeting of the Ellsville Board of Zoning Appeals for November 12th, 2025. Travis,
would you list in the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
Thank you. We're in a roll call, please. Here. Here. Pat was the law scheme here. Caleb plumber here.
Okay, first time on our agenda is the approval of the minutes for our meeting on August 13th, 2025.
Second. We have a motion to second all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Motion carries.
Does anyone have a conflict of interest statement they need to make on the items on our agenda for tonight?
We have approval of the meeting dates for 2026. You have a list of our meeting dates for 2026 on here. Correct.
So you'll find a few of them are out of sequence, and that's because sometimes we had to change plan
commission date, and I didn't want the BZA and plan commission the same week. Okay. So I want to make
a motion to approve these. I make a motion to approve the 2026 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting dates.
I'll second that. We have a motion and second. All those in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We have no old business. The first item on our new business agenda is
a petition for a variance from development standards to reduce the east side yard setback to six feet
for 4567 West Johanna Drive lot six in the Arvin subdivision. The petitioner is Todd Sextator, case
number BZA 25-10.
Good evening. First on the agenda this evening is petitioner Todd Sackstetter is requesting a variance
from development standards to reduce the east side setback of 4567 West Johanna Drive from 10 feet to
six feet. Petitioner's request for development standard variance is the only item to be considered by
the board of zoning appeals. The property is zoned R1, single family residential.
Property owner 5475 East Union Valley Road to the east does not object to the reduction of the side
yard setback. Petitioner's Engineer Smith Design Group Incorporated has provided a plot plan which shows
the layout of the house on the parcel and is attached to the staff report. In taking action on all variances
of board zoning appeals shall be used the following decision criteria
consistent with the requirements of Indiana code. The approval of the variances from development standards
will not be interest to the public health safety morals and general welfare of the community. The approval
would not cause any significant problems in relation to public health and safety. The use or value of
the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
The development standard variance will not affect adjacent properties in a substantially adverse manner.
The adjacent neighbor agrees with the development standard variance. The strict application of the terms
of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. Approval of
variance from development standards will permit a homeowner to set the house independent from the standards
required by the developer. Compliance with comprehensive plan
The variance request is substantially in compliance with the existing comprehensive plan. The variance
from development standards is in compliance with residential land use and the comprehensive plan. The
need for the variance does not arise from some condition peculiar to the property involved, while the
current status of the development does not result in a financial hardship for the petitioner
It will do so if the variance is not approved as it will limit how the house can be constructed on the
lot. The variance request is substantially in compliance with other town codes. The property is currently
in compliance with all other town codes. The purpose of the variance is to provide relief in situations
where the land or other condition officer offers resistance to meeting a particular zoning regulation
through no fault of the occupant of the land.
Therefore, based on the above analysis, it is staff opinion that the variances meet all requirements
and therefore recommends approval of the variance request. The board may approve the variance if after
testimony and discussion, it finds that the request meets all six of the stated requirements. If the
board denies the variance, it shall state which requirement has not been met and petitioners present
if you have any questions.
So basically from what I see here is just the right rear corner of the house is going to encroach into
the setback a little bit due to the fact that the lot is shaped at an angle, but the house has to be
parallel to the road. That's correct. When developer value built construction laid out the lots, it
was just to be a straightforward house.
I think it's suit that lot better to have a little angle to it. And the property owners to the right
I see have a letter in here saying that they don't oppose this. Correct. Anybody have any questions
for Denise? Not me. No, I do not. Okay. Would the petitioner like to say something? If you have any
questions, just I've got my
people that I'm looking to build the house for, Hannah and John, contacts that are, and the reason being
for it is we went through, talked to the neighbors, the door hangs, and they're excited about it because
they want somebody, obviously they want somebody that they want as their neighbor. These people live
in the neighborhood now, they want a bigger house, they have family in the neighborhood. These lots
came available and I have access to them and they came to me and approached me about building
I've got a couple of the lots that I'm going to build in there. And so I said, yeah, let's try to do
this. It makes sense because they have a grown family. They want a little bigger house. And it's not
a real wide house. And it's just what can really fit on there. And in order to tweak it just a little
bit to get them square to the road, they're coming to their house every day. This is their house they
want to live in for potentially ever. They want to be in this neighborhood.
I think it fits all the protocol or the requirements and especially you've got people from Ellitsville
and stay in Ellitsville and even in that neighborhood. Does anybody have any questions from the petitioner?
No. Is there anybody from the public that wants to comment on this? I mean for me, I mean it's a pretty simple
Pretty simple thing, it's not complicated, it's not gonna bother anybody. I will make a motion that
we approve case number BZA 25-10. I'll second. Motion and a second, roll call please. David Dre. Yes.
Travis Conyer. Yes. Pat Wesolowski. Yes. Caleb Plummer. Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much.
Excuse me for a minute, I'm trying to see, once I add somebody to the Zoom, it cut me out from sharing,
so I'm trying to see if I can change that.
I don't know what else to do, so. We have some security settings now. Okay. I'll try. Yeah, it worked.
All right, we're back in business. The next item on our agenda is petition for a special exception to
allow storage units and an industrial one zoning district and two variances from development standards
to reduce the minimum buffer yard width to 15 feet for the south and west property lines and to remove
the buffer yard requirements for the east property line at 8631 West Flatwoods Road. The petitioner
is Steve Grow.
This is case number BZA 25-12. Thank you. Second on the agenda, Petitioner Steve Grove is requesting
special exception to allow storage units at 8631 West Flatwoods Road, Gosport, and is zoned Industrial
1. He's also requesting two variances to reduce the required buffer yard width to a minimum of 15 feet
along the south and west property lines and to remove the buffer yard requirement
along the east property line. Subject parcels currently zone commercial two. The plan commission at
its November 6, 2025 meeting voted unanimously to forward a favorable recommendation to town council
to rezone the property to industrial one. Town council will vote on the zoning map amendment at its
November 24th meeting. On November 11th, petitioner's representatives submitted an updated project narrative
which also includes findings
I want to note they are the engineer's draft of findings, not the findings for the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Petitioner also submitted project narrative on October 20th and it was included in your packet sent
to you on November 7th. Petitioner provided a proposed plan for the cell storage which was submitted
today at 312 p.m. I've only had time to glance at it, so it's up to you if you want to consider it in
your decision.
For the special exception, under the unified development ordinance, storage units are permitted by special
exception with additional standards in industrial one and industrial two zoning districts. Staff would
note that the petitioners started this self-storage project prior to the moratorium on self-storage
buildings being issued. The moratorium was in effect until the UDO was approved. The UDO changed the
zoning districts
for self-storage units to I-1 and I-2 with special exception prior to the approval of the UDO. The adjacent
property to the west of subject parcel is zoned commercial to and has storage units on it. The petitioner
owns the property to the east and the property to the south was approved for storage units some time
ago. The Ellsville comprehensive plan designates land to be general business with primary uses that
include large-scale businesses.
such as light industries, warehousing, and distribution centers, which incorporate an array of modern,
low-impact industrial uses that include warehousing, distribution, and wholesale facilities. Variance
from development standards, request number one. Petitioners seeking a variance from development standards
to reduce the minimum buffer yard width to 15 feet along the south and west property lines. Adjacent
properties are zoned commercial two.
The UDO Table 4.5 requires a minimum buffer yard width of 60 feet between zoning districts. The adjacent
property to west has storage units and the parcel to the south is approved for storage units some time
ago as I stated earlier. Variance from development standards request number two. Petitioners requesting
a variance from development standards to remove the 60 foot
Buffer between the I-1 and C-2 zoning districts along the east property line. The property at 8325 West
State Road 46 is owned by the petitioner. The Town of Ellitsville and stormwater standards and specifications
manual requires a retention pond to capture the runoff from 8325 West State Road 46
onto the subject parcel requiring a 60-foot buffer would prevent the construction of the retention pond.
In addition, the development plan for the storage units will also result in improvements for 8325 West
State Road 46 at the request of the Planning Department. In taking action on all variance requests,
the Board of Zoning and Appeals shall use the following decision criteria consistent with the requirements
of Indiana Code.
The approval of the variances from development standards will not be injurious to the public health
safety morals and general welfare of the community. Approval would not cause any significant problems
in relation to public health and safety. The use or value of the area adjacent to the property included
in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The development standard variances
will not affect adjacent properties in a substantially adverse manner.
The variances will allow a use that agrees with adjacent properties and the petitioner owns the property
to the east. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in a practical
difficulties in the use of the property. The strict application of UDO 4.5 required buffer yard width
and buffer yard plantings would place restrictions on a parcel that would make it prohibitive.
to construct a project that so clearly aligns with the comprehensive plan and adjacent properties. The
variance request is substantially in compliance with the existing comprehensive plan. The proposed use
of storage units is no longer allowed in commercial zoning districts. However, self-storage units line
with the Ellsville comprehensive plan, the area west Ellsville,
It is designated as general business with primary uses that include large-scale businesses such as light
industries, warehousing, and distribution centers which incorporate an array of modern low-impact industrial
uses that include warehousing, distribution, and wholesale facilities as stated earlier. The need for
the variance
does arise from some condition peculiar to the property involved. The current requirements of the UDO
would reduce the buildable footprint, making it economically infeasible to construct. The variance request
is substantially in compliance with other town codes. The property is currently in compliance with all
other town codes. The Board of Zoning Appeals action shall be in a form of approval, approval
with conditions, denial, or continuance.
The Board of Zoning Appeals takes final actions on all variance petitions. The purpose of a variance
is to provide relief in situations where land or other condition offers resistance to meeting a particular
zoning regulations through no fault of the occupant of the land. Therefore, based on the above analysis,
it is of staff opinion that the special exception to allow storage units be approved and the condition
with the condition that the rezoning of the parcel to industrial one is approved by town council. It
is also staff opinion that the variances meet all requirements and therefore recommends approval of
the variance request. The board may approve the variances if after testimony and discussion, it finds
that the request meet all six requirements stated above and if the board denies the variance, it shall
state which requirement has not been
Um, proven and petitioners representative is here if you have any questions. And updated to your packet
has mentioned is the new narrative and then the plan showing the storage units. But I don't have those
on overhead. So have we heard anything from the property owners to the West or the South about this?
No. And I don't.
Are there, I kinda got lost here. They're wanting a variance to the west as well as to the south? No,
well the variance affects the property lines for the buffer yard. The buffer yard's what I meant, yeah.
So, well, we haven't heard anything from.
Either one of those. So on the south and west, he wants to reduce it to 15 feet and that's so they can
still get some plantings in. And then to the east, they want to remove that 60 foot requirement between
zoning districts and he owns the property to the east. I'm concerned about to the east. I was just trying
to figure out
if there would be any issues with the properties to the south or the west. I mean, it's all basically
commercial, so. Correct. It's not like it's somebody's backyard. Did they talk to him about reducing
one of the buildings? Would that help him out? Well, we aren't here to discuss that. That's just a proposal,
a glance at it, but he will have to come back to plan commission for development plan approval.
The UDO now requires meetings before applications are filed, so I'm sure it will be a discussion. But
as you noted, when this started, we didn't require, when this project was first considered, we didn't
require some of those setbacks. Correct. So it wouldn't have had to come to the BCA if
it had actually started sooner. Correct. And then we placed a moratorium until the UDO was approved.
OK. Does anybody have any more questions for Denise? I do not. OK. Would the petitioner like to say
anything? You really get around, don't you? I do.
My name is A.J. Willis, Fine and Fanion Associates. So I've been working with the petitioner on this
project since 2023. The property was originally zoned C3, and the adjacent properties to the southeast
and west were also C3. When the new UDO came out, all C3 zoning got switched to C2.
As Denise mentioned, the self-storage is no longer allowed in the C2 zoning district. So I've been working
with Denise to kind of get everything finalized and one of the things we had to do was rezone the parcel
to light industrial to allow the self-storage with the special exception. And the reason we are going
for the buffer yard variances and it's actually
we only want to request a 20 foot minimum instead of 15. We just want it to be to kind of match the
C2 zoning. So in the UDO between the C2 zoning districts, you are only required to 20 foot buffery yard
instead of a 60 foot between light industrial and C2. So since all the adjacent properties are similar
uses, we feel that the 60 foot buffer yard
Is a little excessive since you know each each property is the same intensity of use and the buffer
yards really supposed to buffer the higher intensity uses compared to low intensity uses The adjacent
property to the west is self storage South they have some outdoor storage and then to the east is waste
transfer facility and the properties to the east and west are really only allowed in the
industrial zoning district, but they're existing businesses, so we can't rezone those properties. Let
me see here. Yeah, so we just wanna request the buffery yard variance to reduce it down to what would
be if it was between a C2 and a C2 zoning district since the adjacent and the subject property are similar uses.
And do you have any questions for me? And then also that preliminary drawing is still just a preliminary
plan. It's subject to change. A lot of that depends on the new bioretention requirements. We've had
to increase our pond size on the west property line. It's about three times larger now, so we've shifted
everything. So that layout is subject to change.
So have you had any contact with the property owners to the west or the south? I have not. I believe
the petitioner has talked to the property owner to the south and then the property owner to the west.
We were recently trying to get in contact with them, but I believe the ownership changed maybe a month
or two ago and we don't know who to contact for that.
But basically, you have to come to the BZA because the town kind of changed the rules mid process. And
also the stormwater, we have a new stormwater manual that was updated and approved earlier this year.
And when he started, it was based on the old stormwater code. Does anybody have any questions for the
petitioner? Well, would this show where the retention fund will be at? It's not shown on there,
but it's long.
the west property line. So right at the end of the buildings on the west side, there's a drive aisle
on the west side of the buildings, and then the bioretention will be immediately adjacent to that. There
will also be a small bioretention pond in between the existing parking of Ava's parking lot and the
new development. So it's kind of a two tiered system. Well, the existing parking lot's right there on
46. The way I look at it now, for Ava,
They look at the vehicle that the employees vehicles or his vehicles. It's a vehicle storage for the
trucks behind the building. And that's what they are modifying when they bring the development plan
for the storage units. I asked that they change their parking so they have more parking. I don't want
to put the
cart in front of the horse, that's my concern. But maybe other people's concerns are different. Well,
the development plan will come before the planning commission and it has to go through tech review as
well. Okay, any more questions for the petitioner? Seeing none, thank you. Is there anyone from the
public that wants to speak on this?
Seeing none, I will make a motion that we approve the special exception and the two development standard
variances for case number BZA 25-12. I'll second. Okay, roll call please. Yes.
Yeah. Yes. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. Motion carries. Okay. The next item on our agenda is a petition for
a use variance to allow an electronic variable message sign in the downtown district.
and a variance from development standards to allow an electronic variable message sign less than the
required 150 feet from a signalized intersection. This is located at 109 North Sale Street. The petitioner
is Joel Deutsch. Deutsch? Case number BZA 25-11. Thank you.
This petition is a request by Joel Deutsch for consideration of a use variance to allow a variable message
sign in downtown district and a variance from development standards to allow a variable message sign
135 feet from an intersection. Subject partial is located at 109 North Sale Street. The unified development
ordinance does not allow electronic variable message signs in a downtown district.
Electronic variable message signs are only permitted in commercial two, industrial one, and industrial
two zoning districts. The intent of a downtown district is to enhance and protect the character of the
existing downtown area and to guide new development and redevelopment activities that are compatible
with existing character.
The intent of the UDO sign standards 4.9A is to encourage signs to be compatible with the surrounding
area, to maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment of the community, and most importantly, to eliminate
potential hazards to motorists and pedestrians resulting from sign clutter and to promote the health,
safety, and welfare of the citizens.
The use variance request is contrary to the Ellsville comprehensive plan, which designates downtown,
and the surrounding resident core has central Ellsville. This is an area that is oldest and the most
identifiable area in Ellsville. The area is home to many historic commercial and residential structures
that add to the character of central Ellsville. Staff does not support the petitioner's request for
a use variance for the following reasons.
Safety concerns, changing messages, animations, or shifts in brightness can distract drivers and pedestrians,
especially when the sun goes down. At a recent supervisors meeting, the administrator asked the supervisors,
police, fire, DPW, and planning and the town manager for their opinion of the proposed electronic variable
message sign.
All at the meeting agreed that the electronic variable message sign was not only a safety issue because
of the distraction for drivers, but it would take away from the charm of the downtown district in central
Evansville. More specifically, the supervisors and town manager asked the administrator to convey their
concerns and requests to the Board of Zoning Appeals and ask that this petition not be granted. Digital
signs conflict
With historic aesthetics, several properties in the downtown district have national places of historic
places designation. Light pollution and electronic signs emit continuous or flashing light that disrupts
the traditional nighttime character of downtown. In addition, light spill can negatively affect residents,
pedestrians, and nearby businesses creating glare and discomfort. In addition, the rendering under the
electronic
variable message sign exceeding the maximum size for a wall sign which is 50 square feet pursuant to
the UDO Table 4.13. It measures approximately 216 square feet. Variance from development standards.
Petitioners seeking a variance from development standards to reduce the minimum distance for having
electronic variable message sign at the intersection
to 135 feet, UDO section 4.9 F2, electronic variable message sign requires no sign containing an EVMS,
which is electronic variable message signs, has a component, shall be located within 150 feet of any
signalized intersection and 500 feet from any property line of a parcel with residential use, residential
structure or residential zoning district.
Staff does not support the petitioner's request for a variance from development standards for basically
the same reasons listed under request for use variance. In taking action, all variance requests the
board's own appeal shall use the following design decision criteria consistent with the requirements
of the Indiana code. General welfare, the approval of variance from development standards will be injurious
to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community.
Approval would result in light pollution, driver distraction, and conflict with historic aesthetics
of the downtown district. The use or value of the area adjacent to property included in the variance
will be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The development standard variance will affect adjacent
properties in a substantially adverse manner with the light moving message from the sign. The strict
application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will not result in practical difficulties in the use
of the property.
petitioners seeking a use variance for an electronic variable message sign that is not permitted in
the downtown district. Therefore, the terms of the zoning ordinance are clear and that is not permitted
and therefore does not result in a practical difficulty. The variance request is not substantially in
compliance with the existing comprehensive plan.
The request for the variance from development standards is contrary to the Ellsville Comprehensive Plan,
which designates downtown and the surrounding residential core of central Ellsville. As stated before,
this is an area that is the oldest and most identifiable area of Ellsville. The area is home to many
historic commercial and residential structures that add character to central Ellsville. The need for
a variance does not arise from some condition peculiar to the property involved.
The property does not have a peculiar condition. It requires development standards variance for electronical
variable message sign. The variance request is substantially in compliance with other town codes. The
property is currently in compliance with all other town codes. I will note today before our 11 a.m.
cutoff, I received calls from two community organizations who wish to remain anonymous.
asking me to convey their disagreement with the proposed signage and intrusion the sign will bring to
the downtown district to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals action shall be in
a form of approval, approval with conditions, denial or continuance. The Board of Zoning Appeals takes
final action on all variance petitions.
The purpose of a variance is to provide relief in situations where land or other condition offers resistance
to meeting a particular zoning regulation through no fault of the occupant of the land, and this is
not the case with this petition. Therefore, based on the above analysis and criteria, it is a staff
opinion that the request
for the UCL ordinance to allow electronic variable message sign in the downtown district should be denied.
Staff also request the rendering below the electronic variable message sign be denied as it exceeds
the maximum allowable square footage for wall signs. It is also a staff opinion that the variance from
development standards to allow
An electronic variable message signed 135 feet from an intersection should be denied. The board may
approve the variances if after testimony and discussion, it finds that the requests of all six criteria
have been met. If the board denies a variance, it shall state which requirements have not been met.
And I believe I answered those. So petitioners present, if you have any questions.
And I'll scan through. So this is a photo of the proposed sign at the top and painting or I don't know
if that's painting or sign at the bottom and took some pictures of the intersection in case you didn't
know where the building was and the parking lot in front the library parking lot to give you an idea
of where it's located.
And that's just looking across temperance at the building. And that's at temperance. That's just another
direction of the intersection with the building to the right. And that's the aerial of where the building's
located. I have one problem. When people call in right and they say they're anonymous,
You know, I can't take that. If I got something to say, I'm going to say it to them. Why would you write
and didn't want something to go on? Why don't you say who you are? Well, you'd be surprised in code
enforcement how many anonymous complaints we receive. And I don't know if they fear retaliation or what.
Yeah, I just don't.
I can't accept that. I mean, I'm sorry. I mean, I just pushed that to the side. Now, the question I
have is, is that there's been a form sent out to the surrounding businesses, am I correct, or surrounding
people? Yeah, so we go two parcels past all the way around. OK, did anybody reject on that?
I got a call from somebody downtown not wanting it, and they were going to try to come to the meeting.
But to be honest, I don't remember the name. That's been two weeks ago. OK, does anybody else have any
questions for Denise from the board? What's the sign supposed to be used for?
Petitioner told me it's going to be conveying messages. And I think people can either subscribe or pay
him to put their message board up there, put their message up there. So it'll be a lighted scrolling
message. Or maybe it'll put a message up and stay. I don't know. When these signs are developed, do
they come with specific luminosity?
standards or? The town has requirements for the standards it wants so it would have to be designed in
accordance with our standards. Yeah and then in terms of changing since it's electronic and then it's
just going to be shifting all the time because it does seem like it would be a distraction so that safety
concern there with the luminosity. Yeah and it's down a
across the parking lot, so people would have to turn their heads to look at it. It's not like it would
be ahead, you know, straight ahead. Right. Okay, any more questions from the minutes? This side would
be towards the 46th, would it be? It's on, it would face 46th. It would face 46th. Mm-hmm, Temperance Street.
So it's the end of the building, the library parking lot, and then 46. Okay, let's hear from the petitioner.
Come on up and tell us your name again and sign in.
First thing I want to clear up is it's only 50 square foot, which is what I was told that was the size
that the actual screen of the electronic part can be. Well, I was talking about the lower part. I don't
know if this is a sign or a mural, but it exceeds the 50. It was going to be a mural, obviously, trying
to add more art to, in fact, Sale Street, which I've already been doing. I also own the building next
door of Oddfellows, which I've restored into a beautiful
for Sale Street. One of the objectives for the sign is to help actually bring business to Sale Street,
which is my main motive, is I'm really trying to develop and make Sale Street into a place that people
are going to be coming into. With that, the caffeinated, the in-store, all of that would be places that
I would like to help bring more people to and have Sale Street be more of a shopping area that people
want to stop at.
I wrote a little thing. Good evening. I'm Joel Deutsch, owner of Roseview Terrace at 109 North Sale
Street. Thank you for the opportunity to share my proposal for a small, well-managed digital sign designed
to help bring attention, business, and communication to downtown Ellersville. The goal is to energize
Sale Street and support local businesses, events, and community identity. The display would highlight
local promotions, town activities, and community messages in a modern and visually engaging way.
It's about strengthening visibility and helping people know what's happening in Ellisville. Community
benefit is a tool to stimulate foot traffic, support local comrades, can display seasonal messages,
nonprofit activities, and civic information, adds a contemporary element that aligns with broader
revitalization efforts, professionally installed designed to complement the building facade and surrounding
properties,
operated with appropriate brightness and timing consistent with downtown character, managed responsibly
with content focused on local relevance and community spirit. The project is about helping Ellitsville
thrive by giving Sale Street an attractive, modern, and useful communication tool that supports local
businesses and community connection. That's my intention of why I wanted to bring this. I own the apartment
building as well.
and just trying to help bring more activity onto Sale Street, which I thought that's what the revitalization
of Sale Street was all about. Okay, does anybody have any questions for the petitioner? As you talked
in, you commit to revitalization, have you talked to that committee at all?
I'm not sure what committee that you referred to. I didn't realize I was going to have so much objectiveness
to this process. Are you talking about the redevelopment commission? Yeah. No, he hasn't. No, no. I
was going to say, it would probably be advisable to talk to them. No, but I have spoken to caffeinated
cook as well as in-store. They were very excited. My newest tenant, which is Romance Knitting or Knitting
Romance, as well as the next door, which I'm putting in the same building, are all very excited to be
able to have
an added venue and being able to get people to sale street. You own the building that were rich and
big philosophies, RBB used to be? Yes. Yes, correct. Putting that- Which has been a major revitalization.
Putting that- Debt. Steps and everything on it. Yes, sir. Oh, yeah. I mean, if you saw the befores and
afters of that building, it's been quite a project. Not bad.
And a beautiful project, I'm very proud of it. Very proud to be able to offer that to the town
of Ellitsville. Okay, anybody else have any questions? No, I do not. Further petitions? Questions right
now. Okay, I think we'll hear from the public now. Okay, thank you. All two of them.
Does anyone out there want to address us on this issue? Okay, seeing none. Okay, now how about comments?
I'd like to, I mean, I'd like to, if anybody else would like to comment first, I'd like to go after
them. Can I add one other thing? Okay, real quick. Just that there was a lot of other digital signs on 46.
Two of them in particular, People's Bank is within an intersection that's a lot less than 145 feet that
we're speaking of. Domino's also is very close to an intersection. All have digital signs. And there's
a few other digital signs on Sale Street that are also familiar to other businesses. And those were
probably all grandfathered before the... That's correct. So, I wanted to say something, but I have to
wait on you to finish, or if I say something, go ahead.
I just want to remind you the character of downtown. And I also wanted to state the town is currently
going through a branding phase that will address signage in the different areas of town. So that's all
I wanted to say. You know, I understand what you're saying, but that sign is not going to be downtown.
It's in the downtown district. I understand that, but it's not
facing the main street in downtown. It has the lighting, the visual aspect of it's gonna come off of
46, not come off of coming out of the cafe and looking up. I know that we're concerned about driver
distraction on 46 and the safety features and
the fire chief and police chief or among the group to specifically ask you not to approve it? I'm not
that concerned, to be honest with you, because you go to any town and you see them. And I don't see
any major deterrence because of accidents. I haven't heard of any. That doesn't mean they don't happen.
And it doesn't mean it does happen. But I'm looking at it is that
That sign is not, I know it's in a downtown district, but it's not downtown. It's facing, it's facing
Big Bees Coffee and the new pink building, okay? They're facing the library per se, but it's not facing
any apartments downtown. It's not facing any businesses downtown.
I'm not saying that it's, I don't want to say it, to say, yeah, well, let's okay it or not. I'm just
giving my thoughts on it. If he was in the front of the building, then I'd say it's downtown,
but it's not. I just have to disagree on that. You'd go down the other end and look at a store that's
got a lot of sign in it.
I saw it just after this evening when I came in. Now that one's in, right in town. That's my thoughts.
You know, I mean, it's, the historic part of it, you know, it kind of, I see both sides of it.
on everything, it's hard for me. The positioning and stuff, he makes a valid point, but just the historic
stuff and then the signage and everything. I mean, I would say there would definitely have to be stipulations
if so, but there is a lot of,
walking traffic that goes through there, too, that we have to take into consideration,
you know, distractions. I mean, it's all valid, valid points. So I would like to hear from more people
before I can make up my decision. Well, I guess I would say again that the I know for a long time we
didn't allow electronic signs at all.
and then we kind of got some, but they're all grandfathered in. I don't know that it's a trend that
we especially want to start right there in that particular area. We do appreciate all of the remodeling
and interest that you've shown in Ellitsville, but with all of this opposition,
I just don't think it's a good time for us to ignore the recommendation of our planning department and
our other department heads and start this trend right now, maybe after some other groups have had time
to think about it and weigh in on it.
I might have a different opinion, but I think that right now is not the time to overrule the planning
department based on all of the findings that were made by the planning department for the criteria.
I thought we had one person on there, but I guess they left. I was looking to see
if there was anything in chat before you made your decisions. It looks like they left. It's not that
we can't overrule the planning department's recommendations, but I need a good reason to do that. And
I'm not able to come up with one right at the moment. Yeah, I think personally with
I'm not sure exactly what the full picture is on the development plan for the future. I personally like
more of. More of an I don't want to say old fashioned, but I guess I I don't really personally go for
contemporary things, especially if it seems to me like it's more of a safety. Issue there with
the distractions and so.
That's kind of where I'm at with it. Okay, would someone like to make a motion? We'll make a motion
that we deny the request. Based on the criteria provided by the planning department. So one through
five. You'll need two motions.
for the use variance and the variances from development standards. Okay, was that a motion for the use
variance? That's your downtown district. Okay, I'll second it. Roll call please. David Drake. Yes, is a.
No, for the development, is that correct? Yes or no? Correct, his motion was to deny it. So your yes
is to agree with his motion. Travis Conyer? Yes. Pat Wesolowski? No. Caleb Plummer? Yes. Thank you,
and then the variants from development.
Are you making a motion to not approve the variance from the development standards? Yes. And I'll second
that one. Roll call, please. David Drake? Yes. Travis Conyer? Yes. Pat Wesolowski? No. Caleb Plummer?
Yes. Thank you.
Maybe keep working on it. You have to appeal to the trial court. And I think that's 30 days from their
decision. Next meeting is December.
and I believe I'll have new business. Anybody want to say anything? Not an agenda item? Good evening,
I didn't know the process of making an appeal, but I was told you guys were the ones that I needed to
come see about
some fines that I received into it. Excuse me. Yeah. So you go ahead. Yeah, I'd like to state from the
record that Mr. Barrett did contact me this morning concerning his protocol for the appeals process
and to which I responded that I was not sure. So as I understood that would be an agenda item that you
would need to get on the agenda, this is just like general
comments about anything in general, but an appeal would be an agenda item you would need to get so that
we can notify other people and do the process the way it has to be done. And I will say his time has
passed to appeal to the BZA. My decision to find him was issued on May 2nd of this year. So his 30 days
have passed.
I don't know what this is about, but. Well, I'd be glad to explain it. Sometimes there's somebody that
wants to listen because that's what this is all about is communication and understanding and lack of
communication. But I don't know who to take it to. This is what I was told to do. I'm just a business
owner downtown and trying to run a business, grow downtown and just an obstacle of finding a business that's
small business and what was told to me is I needed to take it here. There wasn't a timeline given. I'm
sure there's something in writing somewhere that I was supposed to uncover myself, but. So if you missed
the deadline, would the next step be small claims court? Trial court. Trial court. You would have, since
you missed the deadline. Well, this is what will happen is I won't pay the fine and I'll just go without building.
the building that I was going to, and then we'll keep this exasperated process of small businesses not
being able to grow because of bureaucracy. So I've come, this is what I was told to do by Mike, by Denise,
everybody I've communicated with Mike after this 30 days, he said this is the process, I'm here, I apologize
for not following it. Is my ignorance, then that's okay, I'll take it, but it's one more step and the
challenge is to add a building onto my building
It's not even what this is about, it was about remodeling my building, but I will look into the process
of taking this to court, I guess. Okay, all right, thank you. Planning Commission comments, BZA comments.
Oh, I cut and pasted the agenda format. Then an adjourn.