- public. Well, it's 5 31 and I'd
- like to call the June 4th
- meeting of the Monroe County
- Board of Zoning Appeals to
- order. Would you kindly call the
- roll? Sure. Margaret Clements
- here. Skip Daily. Pamela Davidson
- here. Guy Laughman here. Jeff
- Daly here. It's 5 31 and I'd
- like to call the roll? Sure.
- We may be a few minutes late.
- Okay, great. Would you kindly
- introduce the evidence? Sure.
- And let the record reflect that
- Skip Daily has arrived. Thank
- you, Skip. I'd like to introduce
- the folks. Sorry. Did you make a
- motion? She's going to introduce
- it. Okay. I'd like to introduce
- the following items into the
- evidence. Monroe County
- County Board of Zoning and
- Appeals rules of procedure as
- adopted and amended in the cases
- that were legally advertised and
- scheduled for a hearing on
- tonight's agenda. I move to
- approve the evidence you've just
- introduced for tonight's meeting.
- Second. Moved and seconded to
- approve tonight's introduction
- of evidence. A vote yes is a
- vote to approve. Skip Daly? Yes.
- Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Guy
- Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes.
- Just as a reminder, Jeff, sorry
- if you are doing this, but okay,
- I do see your picture. Thank
- you. Margaret Clements? Yes.
- All right. Motion. It carries
- five to zero. Approve the
- agenda. I move to approve
- tonight's agenda. Second. It's
- been moved and seconded to
- approve the agenda as presented,
- which includes some continuances,
- which we will introduce next. A
- vote yes is a vote to approve
- tonight's agenda. Pamela Davidson?
- Yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff
- Morris? Yes. Margaret Clements?
- Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Motion is
- approved, five to zero. Okay,
- now there were minutes that were
- given to us from April 23rd. Are
- there any objections or a motion
- to approve? I move to approve the
- minutes of April 23rd, 2025.
- Second. All right, it's been
- moved and seconded to approve the
- minutes from April 23rd, 2025. A
- vote yes is a vote to approve.
- Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris?
- Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip
- Lee? Present. Pamela Davidson?
- Yes. Okay, motion carries, four
- to zero. Okay. With regard to
- the first item on the agenda,
- which is old business, that's
- items number one, two, three,
- and four. That has been
- continued. So if there's anyone
- here for the BIDL requests, we
- will not be hearing that tonight.
- Under new business, we have
- several variances, six of them
- that are listed on the agenda,
- but we will hear four of them
- tonight. VAR-25-8B, VAR-25-8E,
- VAR-25-8F, and then VAR-25-8G.
- And this all has to do with
- SIMTRA regarding interior
- landscaping variances, general
- sign regulations set back
- requirement, a general sign
- regulation as far as total sign
- allocation, and sidewalk
- requirements will be heard
- tonight. Concerning the
- property on Curry Pike, it's
- formerly known as Baxter. It's
- at 617 South Curry Pike, and I
- believe that Mr. Brown will be
- reviewing that with us.
- >> Thank you. And Anne
- is also presenting the sign
- portion of those variances. So
- the request is for interior
- parking landscaping from chapter
- 830 of the Monroe County zoning
- ordinance, general sign
- regulations from chapter 817 of
- the county development ordinance,
- and sidewalk requirements
- variance from chapter 818 of the
- county development ordinance.
- The purpose is to amend and
- approve landscaping plan in
- regards to VAR 25-8B and VAR
- 25-8G, as well as to establish
- two new signs at a gate on the
- subject property that is in
- regards to VAR 25-8E. As VAR
- 25-8B relates to a site plan
- that was approved before the
- adoption of the county
- development ordinance, that
- particular variance is from the
- zoning ordinance instead. That
- was originally approved back in
- 1997. The other variances,
- however, are from the county
- development ordinance that was
- adopted in December of 2024.
- Also, VAR 25-8A was reviewed and
- approved by the Board of Zoning
- Appeals during their meeting on
- April 23rd, 2025. And for VAR
- 25-8B, the interior landscaping
- requirements, in July of 2024,
- staff approved a site plan for
- the construction of the new
- building on the property, SIT
- 24-5. Said site plan included
- landscaping of the entire site,
- including converting an
- estimated 41 parking spaces into
- landscaping islands. However,
- since then, the petitioner has
- stated that they require those
- 41 parking spaces for their
- staff and are requesting a
- variance from the landscaping
- standards, as shown in Exhibit
- 3 of this packet. Under the
- Monroe County zoning ordinance,
- staff found that the number of
- parking spaces on the lot, even
- with those parking spaces
- converted into landscaping
- islands, would still have met
- the parking requirements of
- Chapter 806 of the zoning
- ordinance, as seen in the image
- in the lower right corner. As of
- this report, the large parking
- lot on the south side of the
- site will feature zero trees,
- 128 shrubs, and 395 grasses and
- perennials for a density value
- total of 2,999. That is a
- deficiency of 5,008 from the
- total as calculated by staff.
- If those 5,008 density values
- were to be converted solely into
- trees, that would mean a
- deficiency of 143 trees. It has
- been calculated by staff,
- however, that there are other
- areas on the site where the
- proposed landscaping has an
- excess of density value to make
- up for this loss. This is
- coming as a site plan
- amendment to that approved
- landscaping. And overall, staff
- has calculated so far that the
- entire site is providing an
- excess density value of 23,904.
- If converted solely into trees,
- this would be an excess of 683
- trees. It is also worth noting
- that the above calculation of
- 23,904 does not account for
- preserved existing landscaping,
- which the petitioner's engineer
- is going to provide to staff. As
- such, the excess density value
- for the entire site is likely
- much higher. However, a variance
- is still required due to the
- deficiency for the parking island
- landscaping, as this proposed
- changing will not meet the
- minimum density values for
- parking islands. The petitioner
- did obtain approval for the
- appropriate landscaping islands
- to be installed in a special
- flood hazard area. However,
- staff does acknowledge that it
- can be challenging to install
- any impervious curved surface,
- such as curbing, within the
- SFHA, and therefore staff was
- supportive of relocating some
- landscaping islands to current
- non-landscaped areas. The
- petitioner has proposed said
- landscaping in various locations,
- some of which already have
- landscaping as well, as seen in
- Exhibit 7. The intent of the
- proposed landscaping islands,
- however, is still not being met
- by relocating landscaping
- outside of contiguous parking
- areas. Per section 816-12,
- parking interior landscaping,
- the following landscape
- requirements applied to the
- parking lots are to prevent
- large expanses of unbroken
- paving, to provide shade to
- cooled paved areas during hot
- summer months, and where
- applicable, provide natural
- filtration for stormwater. And
- these are some of the images
- showing both the approved plan
- and the proposed plan as of the
- sent -- as of the publishing of
- the packet for tonight's
- meeting. The approved plan is
- in green. The alternate plan is
- in red. And now we come to the
- general sign regulations, and I
- will hand it over to Ann
- Krasilius.
- >> So the petitioner is
- requesting two sign variances.
- One is applicable tonight, and
- I'll talk about both. So the
- first -- so upon submission of
- ISO 259, a signed permit
- application, as required by the
- CDO, they are proposing two
- signs to be located on a gate at
- their -- what is considered a
- back entrance off of Liberty
- Drive. We have been in contact
- with a representative with them
- for a little while now, as
- they've been having some issues
- with truck deliveries and going
- to the wrong entrances. So the
- entrance of the driveway has an
- expanded right-of-way area, and
- I can -- I have an image of that
- on the next slide. Leaving
- minimal to no room for a
- freestanding sign. So as part of
- regulation 817-7C3, we do have
- a requirement that any sign
- structure is located a minimum
- of 10 feet from right-of-way, and
- so on screen there is an image.
- This is a screenshot taken from
- a survey. It's from their
- administrative subdivision where
- the blue line is the property
- boundary, and the gate I've
- highlighted in red. So it's very
- close to maybe one or two feet
- away. So we are -- it is a --
- we're saying it's just a zero
- foot setback request because the
- gate is very close. If we go to
- the next slide, I have a very --
- we have an image of the proposed
- signage, so we can see the
- existing gate with two signs on
- both sides where the gate comes
- together for, you know, locked
- evening hours. They generally
- stay open. And on the next slide
- there's just an aerial image
- where I've highlighted the
- parcel of county-owned right of
- way. So we have explored some
- options a while back about
- putting signage in right of way.
- It would still require a variance.
- It didn't quite pan out. So staff
- is supportive of this variance
- request from the zero foot setback.
- If you would like to -- I will
- get -- I do have a slide with the
- recommendation in a moment. So we
- are supportive of this variance
- request for the setback. On the
- next slide is the second sign
- variance request that was
- advertised for this. So when they
- submitted that sign permit
- application, we did identify that
- there had been new signs
- installed, some replacement, some
- new complete change when the
- change happened from Baxter to
- CEMTRA. County planning was
- currently in a time where we were
- not taking -- reviewing or issuing
- sign permits. That was legally
- required, but our sign standards
- were still relevant and
- enforceable. So during that time,
- I advised people that called in
- what their standards may be, but
- if they pursued any sign
- installation, that it was at
- their own risk if in the future
- those signs did not comply. So
- from this sign permit
- application, we said we do need
- to permit some after the fact
- signs and that we will encounter
- the situation again in the future,
- I'm sure. So we had a couple
- questions, which was, you know,
- we need to know the total amount
- of signage and we also need more
- information on -- there were
- multiple signs along Curry Pike.
- So there is a part of the general
- sign regulations allocation
- standard that does state one
- ground sign with a maximum
- purded sign surface area of 60
- square feet shall be permitted
- for each street frontage subject
- to the total lot allocation.
- So you could have a sign on
- Curry, you could have a sign on
- Liberty. They have two signs
- along Curry. We did get more
- information. They do not exceed
- their total amount for their
- site. And upon further review,
- we do feel that one of the two
- signs -- we did determine that
- one of the two signs along South
- Curry does not meet the
- definition of a ground sign, so
- therefore they are compliant
- with this standard. So tonight
- we get to say that VA 2425-8F
- is no longer needed. And on
- screen is the staff
- recommendation, which you will
- see again, but we are
- recommending approval for 8E
- from the setback, and we are
- saying that 8F is void.
- >> Perfect. Thank you. That was
- very clear, despite the
- complexity. Thank you. Is there
- anything else, Mr. Brown?
- >> Yes. We move on now to VAR
- 25-8G, which is the variance
- from sidewalk requirements.
- According to Beacon, the
- petition property is located in
- the county development ordinance
- urban area boundary, and
- according to chapter 841-24A,
- site plans and site plan
- amendments located in areas
- that prompt sidewalks per
- chapter 818 must be installed
- before final approval, and in
- turn, chapter 818B states the
- following standards for
- site plans. That sidewalks shall
- be placed in the right-of-way to
- the extent possible when prompted
- by site plan. Under a site plan,
- sidewalks are required to be
- installed if any of the following
- prompts apply to the commercial
- site. One, sidewalk is present
- within 2,000 linear feet of the
- property. Two, the property is
- shown on the transportation
- alternatives plan with a
- greenware corridor or road
- improvement label, or three, the
- property is within the urban
- area boundary as defined. This
- site meets all three criteria
- for requiring a sidewalk.
- According to estimates, a
- sidewalk measuring approximately
- 1,600 feet would need to be
- installed on the side of the
- site with frontage on South
- Curry Pike, and 680 feet of
- sidewalk will need to be
- installed on the frontage of
- South Liberty Drive.
- There are existing sidewalks
- along the same portion of South
- Curry Pike and South Liberty
- Drive as a petition site, but
- they are on opposite sides of
- the street from the petition
- site. Both sidewalks, if
- required, will need to be at
- least five feet in width and is
- speaking with a Monroe County
- Highway Engineer has been a
- priority of the city and the
- county to have sidewalk along
- both sides of South Liberty
- Drive and South Curry Pike.
- And the map to the right
- indicates the Farskarm Greenway
- biking trail and connector in
- blue and the existing sidewalk
- in the area in yellow. The
- petition site itself is
- highlighted in light blue, which
- you might be able to make out
- with my mouse cursor. And on
- South Liberty Drive, there is
- sidewalk on the west side that
- goes all the way to West 3rd
- Street. And that's the usual
- images, location map and site
- conditions map of the property.
- Proposed the CDO zoning map and
- the comprehensive plan map. And
- so we come to staff
- recommendations. Staff
- recommends the following
- motions. We recommend approval
- of VAR-25-8B as parking
- requirements for the site are
- being met and a reduction of
- parking spaces through
- new parking islands may
- otherwise result in more
- impervious cover to meet the
- parking demand. In addition,
- the petitioner has proposed
- landscaping to be relocated in
- other key areas to the site such
- as an area of the floodplain on
- the northeast corner which is
- currently covered with a gravel
- parking lot. We recommend
- approval of VAR-25-8B as the
- need for the sign within the
- required setback is for safety
- considerations of the motoring
- public and because the sign
- will not interfere with site
- distance requirements. And we
- recommend denial of VAR-25-8G
- as the area has been identified
- by both the transportation
- alternatives plan adopted in
- 2018 for an area needing
- improvement. The goal of both
- the City of Bloomington and
- Monroe County is to have
- sidewalks on both sides of South
- Liberty and South Curry Pike
- for as much of this area as
- possible as there are several
- retail establishments for which
- people walk to commonly.
- Sidewalks along this site would
- contribute to a higher level of
- safety for the public as to not
- have to walk along the roadway
- of South Curry Pike and South
- Liberty Drive. Thank you.
- Thank you, Mr. Brown. We'll now
- hear from the petitioner, the
- petitioner's representative, if
- you would kindly come up and
- sign in and then I'll swear you
- in. Thank you.
- Thank you.
- Yes
- It was Brian Sheward. I'm a civil engineer with Kim Lee horned associates
- Our offices are at 500 East 96th Street Suite 300 in Indianapolis, Indiana. Thank you. Mr. Sheward
- and your name ma'am
- Good afternoon everyone. My name is Yuliana Mendez. I'm a the project manager on behalf of central
- At ninety nine to seven South Curry Pike. Thank you
- And if you would both kindly raise your right hand, do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth
- and nothing but the truth?
- Yes, thank you. Well, you'll have 15 minutes to review your variance requests with us and then we'll
- hear from the public
- I guess I'll ask the board first off. We have a presentation
- broken into three
- Asks, I was curious. Do we want to go through all of them like you did?
- Through the staff report or do we want to take them in pieces as we would like them?
- We'd like to hear your whole proposal because we can separate it out and I understand. Okay. Thank
- you
- So starting off the first item and I
- Daniel did a great job. It's heavily convoluted on the parking specifically
- If you can go to the next slide for me Daniel or whoever's doing this
- So when it comes to the parking, this is as you know an existing site. It's been there for decades
- Ordinances change obviously over time and when we came actually you can see in this photo on the
- left-hand side the
- Construction activity area is what we call project green light, which is the the construction
- project that's going on right now
- And it will be continuing I think for some time
- As we went through that project
- staff had identified
- Broadly across the entire site to bring the landscaping to current standards
- Given it was already an existing site that was originally approved under a different ordinance. So
- we evaluated that and this is where we found
- These two particular areas of difficulty for for some try
- so these two areas the north area in the south area as you can see are existing parking lots and
- A major feature of this site is a stream that runs right through the middle of it and it flows from
- north to south
- Through the site if you go to the next slide for me
- So north is to the left and this is that northern parking lot the gray hatch
- Over almost everything in that parking lot is a FEMA special flood hazard area
- So in a hundred-year event that supposedly if a hundred-year storm happens would be inundated with
- water
- So that's a significant challenge on this property. That's an existing condition
- The yellow highlighted areas are proposed
- Carved into the asphalt take away the asphalt and put in a landscape island and that's what we were
- proposing at the time back in the summer of 2024 in order to
- Seek approval for the project and that was one of the requirements to meet the current ordinance
- Or I guess the ordinance in effect at the time
- for interior landscaping and
- So this is highlighting those I'll call them carve-in island additions if you go to the next slide
- And this these were the islands proposed on that southern again north is to the left
- Southern part of the site and you can see some of them fall within the special flood hazard area
- the ones to the right
- Which is east?
- Do not
- If you go to the next slide
- So this is where it gets a little bit complicated, but I'll do my best to explain this and Daniel
- and staff did it did a nice job
- In order to put in those islands to meet the ordinance it results in a loss of 41 parking spaces
- Across the entire campus which has multiple buildings and I'm sure you Leona can tell you about the
- different things going on there as
- A total of accessible standard and motorcycle parking spaces. There's 586 in the pre
- project green light existing conditions
- There I
- Don't know how you describe it that the change in ownership from Baxter health care to Simtrap biopharma
- solutions
- Involved a lot of different discussions about use on the property and that all happened last summer
- in the midst of this project
- so at the time
- we had calculated that there was a need and the ordinance speaks to the required parking is
- The number the max number of employees on the largest shift and it is a three shift campus
- So they run 24/7 all the time with the operations they do we had calculated
- 550 total employees on the largest shift so our math
- Showed us that we could lose 41 parking spaces from the 586 down to the 555
- And that's why we agreed from the beginning to to go along with this and not seek a variance last
- summer
- so in the time frame from then till now
- More things are going on on campus. They're looking at different uses more business
- Folks are looking at different things and it's been recalculated that they do need the 586 parking
- spaces that they had originally
- so what we're coming here asking for from a
- parking is the biggest issue is
- Those 41 spaces are very valuable. It's an existing parking field
- And we recognize a need to increase landscaping to bring it up to current standards
- We're just asking can we take that landscaping and put it in other places on site so that we don't
- lose those 41 parking spaces
- so as you guys know, we changed ownership from Baxter to some sure so our our
- Company is looking to restructure and you know become the best CD MO
- Our field so that requires additional headcount to make sure that we're properly supporting our
- business and that was as
- Brian alluded to a change in in the philosophy of how we want to cater our business
- And that was something that happened in the middle of this project post the approval of the site
- plan
- so just wanted to provide a little bit more context of of
- How the business organization has shifted since we first started. Thank you
- I'll note as well the number of parking spaces if the 41 came back on it's 596
- We're stating that the largest number of employees at largest shift time is 586. There's a 10 space
- Delta there
- We we treat that as staff changeover oftentimes any type of shift changer. There's a need for some
- Visitors at certain times. It's effectively the same amount that it is
- If you go to the next slide
- This is just highlighting in certain areas around the site that we're committed to taking that
- material that would otherwise be located in islands and trying
- to move them and as
- Daniel alluded to we're far exceeding the D value calculation, which is just a certain point value
- provided for different
- Landscape materials and what we had also done last fall was inventory existing material around the
- site
- And so we're working actually actively right now and have been for the last few weeks getting those
- ordinance charts
- Updated and I want to make it clear. We're not trying to slide right in with the requirement. We're
- far exceeding what the requirement is
- Next slide
- Just quick summary
- the current approved
- Plan is is to cut in islands lose 41 parking spaces
- We view that as it it's what we're approved to do, but it would create a hardship on us
- Self-imposed admittedly, but it would create a very difficult situation because they'd be deficient
- on parking
- We're asking to defer those in exchange for allowing us to plant elsewhere around the site
- I think it's a good reminder not suggesting you should grandfather us, but it is this condition
- where the the site was an existing
- Development for decades before at the current point and staff I think as we've worked with staff
- very closely over the last month
- Recognize the same thing and is recommending approval
- Next slide
- Certainly happy to answer any questions if you have once once we get through this
- Second and did a nice job. This is pretty straightforward. I think to the next slide again. It's an
- existing condition
- We're talking about the east side of the site circled in yellow off Liberty just north of the blue
- roof neighbor that we have
- next slide
- She did a nice job of speaking to this but this just highlights this is an existing condition
- next slide
- Again pointing out both on the left and the right are the proposed signs those aren't out there
- today
- But this would be a wayfinding mechanism to help with some of the issues that are having it would
- not block any sight lines
- We feel like it's a common-sense solution to a challenge that we have
- next slide
- So all speaks for itself if there's any questions on this we'd be happy to ask and again staff
- recommends approval on this one as well
- next slide
- So on to the sidewalk, so if you go to the next slide staff did a nice job on this as well
- I wanted to highlight the stretches that we're talking about so along
- Curry Pike it's the entire west side and then on Liberty it would be from that entrance
- We were just talking about a sign up to the northeast corner
- next slide
- We took a series of photos and maybe difficult to see it in essence. I would say there's two entrances
- on Curry Pike
- There's a south and a north today
- from the south entrance north
- Adding a sidewalk is feasible, but it would require some utility relocations fiber telecom boxes
- other things that are out there
- The sidewalk would dodge around I think and it could
- But as you go to the north part of the site
- There is no connection sidewalk to go to I know that's not the best argument to make but I wanted
- to point it out
- You'd have to go up to I think it's
- 47 or 48. Let's forget the number up further north of the site
- I
- Wait 48 48. Thank you. There's yes and
- South of that I guess just north of the southern entrance
- There are mature trees that are only a few feet off the right-of-way
- There may be enough space to sneak in a sidewalk behind of the trees
- It's a bit odd that those trees are in the right-of-way like to be honest, but they're mature
- They're nice and they're due they're kind of right there on that southern picture
- You can see the the trees that exist
- It would be a tight squeeze to and a two-lane Street correct to squeeze that in yeah south of that
- southern entrance
- There's great. So if you go to the next slide
- There are some great challenges actually go to the next one
- This is street view looking south
- there's a bridge for that stream that runs through the property and then the further south you go,
- which is
- forward in this image
- There's a significant amount of grade slope off the road as the road approaches the railroad tracks
- So if you go to the next slide
- This is showing the bridge appears there's sufficient space to put it to slide in a sidewalk
- through there
- But as you go to the south, which if you go to the next slide
- It starts running into sorry, there's too many slides go to the next one appreciate it
- you approach railroad crossing infrastructure and
- There's quite a bit of it. So
- Realistically speaking it would be a massive lift not to say it could never happen. Everything's
- possible
- It would be a massive lift to have a crosswalk in this area or a sidewalk addition up to our
- property
- We've run into very practical challenges to do that
- and if we stop short
- you'd have to someone and the next property owner to the south and would also have a similar
- challenge where it
- Making the point it would be very difficult to have a sidewalk there on
- Liberty on the other side if you go to the next slide
- Sorry one more
- There
- You a fairly straight connection up to that corner you Leona have been taught and I have been
- talking about this
- We recognize that staff recommends denial on this. We want to be very practical on what this is
- We see this as a connection that can make it up to retail
- The connection is at the corner of the property that would be fairly logical and it would provide
- immediate benefit to employees
- I think we can understand the value in this I think we see on the other side with the railroad
- It's a there's a lot of practical engineering challenges to add that if you go to the next slide
- This is just north is to the left. This is highlighting it with the red arrows where the nearest
- sidewalk is
- The one I was just referring to as the upper left arrow that is on Liberty
- It's very close to our site on the northeast corner
- Running that sidewalk south you have to go almost all the way down to the next retail center
- essentially to reach another sidewalk on that
- west side of Liberty on
- The west side of the site curry Pike you can see that you have to go a fairly long distance staff
- calculated it
- It appears to be less than the 2,000 feet that's noted in the ordinance
- It's just there's some practical things there that we want to come back and request so happy to
- talk about it
- But that's the way our position is on that
- next slide
- You have two minutes. Yeah, I'm almost done. Yeah, this just outlines the summary of where we're at
- So I appreciate we very much appreciate your time and happy to answer any questions that you have.
- Thank you. Mr
- Short and Ms. Mendez do members of the Plan Commission have questions for the petitioner? I
- Have a few questions
- First for the staff are the sidewalk area on curry and Liberty
- I drive this all the time and so on the curry pike
- I'm struggling to think what quote retail establishments are there because it's it's a car dealership
- It's the sidewalks on the other side with the Goodwill and the Kroger, correct?
- It's on the other side on Liberty on Liberty that that makes sense to me that that is retail
- But on the other side not so sure. So my question is
- You know
- Are there other sidewalks already existing that they would link up with or they would would they be
- all alone in the wilderness?
- If they put in a sidewalk either curry or Liberty
- So as mentioned in the presentation as well as a staff report both that section of South Curry Pike
- and
- South Liberty Drive have sidewalks on the other and on the other side street
- There are also connections on South Liberty side. There's a sidewalk on the west side that goes all
- the way to West 3rd Street's
- into to interject
- there's the
- DMV in the FSSA
- Located on curry just south of their building
- You're right about that. I didn't think of that as retail, but you're so right
- Those are service audience the image on screen that Daniel has pulled up. The yellow is
- Existing sidewalk the blue is our new karst connector trail and karst farm greenway existing
- So that just gives you an idea just briefly in this area where all the connections are
- Which brings me to my next question
- You've talked about Wow three shifts going full-time for a top shift has
- 585
- 586 employees. Do you promote ride share? Does every person drive their own car?
- Does no one take the bus there because isn't their bus service on that on curry there is and there's
- a
- There's some people that do carpool
- together
- Yeah, it's hard to imagine every single person would drive solo with that many people
- But I'm not saying it's not possible, but do you encourage ride share?
- Right now as a company that has not been formally
- Promoted with incentives right because anytime you say hey carpool usually employees expect some
- some type of incentive
- So none of that has been
- Formally communicated yet, but I believe as we start
- Growing or are bringing up to speed the new building that we're as part of this project
- That would probably be something that the company will be doing
- I would just like to point out that if the shifts run 24 hours
- The bus service does not yes service right and on Sunday. They do not that's a good point
- My last comment is I noticed from the report that no matter what landscaping is there'll be no
- trees
- Added and somebody said shade there. There's no shade from grasses or things like that
- So I'm very worried that there are no trees because there's a lot of
- Pavement on that stretch both Liberty and curry
- Yeah
- And to be clear we are proposing trees just not in the parking area because that would imply losing
- parking spaces
- Which was what so we're very amenable to working through and we have been and staff worked very
- closely
- We can already tell that we're exceeding the standard across the site
- we're going a step further and trying to look at sub areas of the site and
- Comparing requirement to and not just some total so that we don't just clump all of it in one
- corner and claim that we exceed
- We're going through we actually exchanged emails earlier today with staff to make sure that it
- seems balanced as much as possible
- Mr. Matt. Oh, sorry. Mr. Daley has a question and then I have one I do
- First off what when did you guys acquire the property?
- That's a question like are you saying when did Simcha when did Simcha acquire Baxter, correct? I
- October 2024
- Or okay, so it's been eight ten months
- Okay, a little bit over a year. Yes
- Because it's 24 where?
- October 2024
- 23
- The other question is when you were showing slides of
- where the railway is
- Have do you have have you started the process in case you had to in case we don't approve the
- variance?
- and and started working out the right-of-way with the owners of the
- railway, I know that can be a
- Multi-year process so to be quite honest with you. This didn't come up in the original project
- It was approved last summer. It was discovered and I it was discovered that there was a lapse in in
- that requirement
- So we were informed of this
- Two two months ago
- Approximately so no, okay, I'm gonna shift now and ask staff a quick question based on one of your
- answers
- In your report mr. Brown you mentioned that the county is has been interested in
- Sidewalks on both
- sides on both the east and west sides of Liberty and the both the east and west sides of
- Curry, is that is that correct?
- That's my understanding. Yes
- Had
- had
- Central not acquired the property in October of 2023
- What what what is the long-term plan to have accomplished because?
- The predecessor would have been grandfathered in what was what is the count was the county's plan
- up until?
- The purchase of that building resetting that grandfather
- To have accomplished those sidewalks with the limited space. I
- Can answer that so the requirement for sidewalks actually came into play during the county
- development ordinance
- So we require now in the urban area boundary, which matches the Metropolitan planning organizations
- Boundary for which they require certain improvements when you use federal dollars
- So sidewalks are included and required in this area if you use that fund and so we would probably
- do this as an MPO
- Project and that would be my best guess. Okay, and when was that CDO?
- Go passed in December of 2024
- December of 2024 and
- So the acquisition of the property happened before this sidewalk requirement would have happened
- Okay. Yes, I just have a request because you alluded to it, but if you could
- explain a little bit more the practical difficulties involved with installing a
- sidewalk around that railroad track, which is
- Not your property and also you would be concerned
- Presumably about the safety of your employees crossing that track as well as the stream in the
- bridge
- And the constraints of the new recently widened road when I say recently it's about 25 years or
- something like that
- so
- if you could
- Explicate the practical difficulties would be grateful and I
- Mr. Daly skip daily skip mr. Daly
- He alluded to it. Well, everything is possible in engineering. It's a time and it's a cost and it's
- a process and
- Kind of engineering 101 is when you work with the railroad. It's gonna take you a very very long
- time to do that
- I think on the east so there is a sidewalk crossing on the other side of the road. So it's very
- possible on
- The east side of the road and I have a photo. I realize on the screen
- It's difficult to see but there's railroad crossing equipment. There's other things that would
- potentially I'd say almost likely have to be moved
- I
- Can't even it's I would have to guess that's a year plus at least if not further
- I don't want to insinuate that it wouldn't be safe after it was accomplished
- but that would come with a I'm sure an extremely high price tag on how that would be done and
- Sitting here today. I
- I'm hesitant to say it's not possible because I know everything's possible, but it would be very
- impractical
- And I think with a crossing on the other side of the road
- It makes a lot of sense in my opinion to keep it there. I don't know if that answers your question
- I'm trying to get the most for a truthful answer. I can it gives us more information. Yes
- I just want to add a PS to mr. Bailey's comment about different government offices along
- There's I think those are all on the side of the road with the sidewalk already existing
- I can't think of any on the other side of the road, but maybe I'm wrong about that
- Sorry, the railroad crosses curry right so there for right. It's a problem on
- Those government services you talked about people walking to those are all on the side of the road
- the same side with sidewalk
- Already in place. I believe so the same side. I think they are I I could be wrong about the
- government services are on
- the east side of curry
- That's right
- Where goodwill is where the medical office is where Kroger is all those things on that side of the
- liberty side
- Liberty, I'm talking about Liberty. I'm sorry about that. I'm
- Yeah, but the BME I believe the DMV is your neighbor your neighbor
- On the same side. Yeah, so it yeah, I'm sure I think they have sidewalks
- I think they have for a while that was the former oldest elevator
- Yeah, that was converted into this. I just don't see people walking out there
- But there's apartment complexes too on the other side
- That's where the sidewalk side is where the apartment in the senior citizens center arts on the
- right side
- Okay, I think the other thing I just like that and I know Brian kind of mentioned it was there are
- utility
- Infrastructure already that would be challenging on curry side
- Further north on our property outside of the railroad, right? I know the railroad is is a challenge
- area
- but there's also another challenge area with some of the fiber optic and
- electrical
- Well, that helps us a lot. Thank you so much
- We'll hear from the public now and if there's anyone opposed to these variances, you'll have a
- chance to rebut
- Okay, are there members of the public who are in support of this petition?
- If so, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand on the internet. Yes, sir
- please come to the podium and
- Sign in please and then I'll swear you in and then you'll have three minutes
- And
- What is your name sir, my name is Benjamin Veenheisen I work for FA Wilhelm construction
- Oh, okay. Thank you. Would you please raise your right hand you swear to tell the truth all truth
- and nothing but the truth
- Thank you. Mr. Veheisen
- so I
- Came here today to to show my support for these variances
- I am currently the lead contractor for some of these projects
- But also I wanted to come up here to maybe know a little bit about some of the construction
- Challenges with the sidewalk and some of the challenges we see with the parking on site. I know you
- noted that
- You know at the max capacity with three shifts
- they may or may not have the
- parking but at that shift change there's an overlap of
- People coming and going of 30 to 40 percent. It seems that it's a very busy parking lot very busy
- area
- So very much, you know from the perspective of you know, maybe speaking from experience and looking
- at you know
- The employers that employees that work there
- The reduced parking would very much inhibit their ability to find parking and navigate that site
- during that shift change
- Secondly, I mean so on the sidewalk variance
- I
- Want to show my support for that in that the construction challenges with that mainly as Brian and
- Yuli noted are
- Not only from the railroad standpoint
- But most of that construction will have to be done from the right-of-way in Curry Pike
- due to the limited constraints along that bridge the limited constraints along the utility corridor
- there and
- You know, this could be a very difficult project to
- Implement in the regards of having to phase it out piece by piece to not only
- Safely do the work but also limit the overall impact to the Curry Pike corridor
- Thank you. Mr. B. Heisen. Thank you for coming out and showing your support for this project
- Okay, are there any other members of the public who would like to speak in support of this petition?
- If so, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand on the Internet
- Are there members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to these requests for variances?
- If so come to the podium in the Nat Hill room or raise your virtual hand. Okay, there's no one who
- is
- Speaking in opposition. I'd like to bring it back to the plan Commission for further discussion and/or
- emotion
- Right room, wrong night. The Board of Zoning Appeals, not the plan Commission. Sorry. So, um,
- everyone's looking at me
- So first and foremost, I think as far as I'm concerned the only discussion is the sidewalk I I
- think we
- Go ahead and blanket approve
- the other
- variances
- but with that being said I
- Have some mixed thoughts on the sidewalk. I believe it's important
- But I also believe the challenges in construction Mr. Neha
- Discussed but I think we all knew them going in
- I don't I
- Believe that the county has a responsibility in some of this
- Had the building not been acquired
- It would be their challenge it would be their problem as far as I see things and
- It's in a long-term plan, right and it was acquired before this long-term plan was put together
- so therefore
- Who's got the burden? I?
- In in all reality, I would love to
- Say well with these improvements. Yes, there is some financial responsibility on behalf of Cintra
- But I think the planning in the execution of that sidewalk
- Should be accomplished by
- The county I
- Don't know if there's some kind of way of saying
- Yes, we approve this but when this happens
- when this gets on the record on the books for
- The county to take care of when it's when they're moving forward that X amount of percentage of
- financial responsibility falls on Cintra
- I don't I don't know if that's no that's way beyond our pay grade
- It really is. It's not our job to talk about what the county will find or what not to find
- We're talking about this variance. That would be a different body. It's a whole different group
- I'm going to disagree that I think I think we can
- place a variance
- with
- subjectives in there
- And and to say that if and when the county does this
- The if Cintra is the owner of that property of some just still the owner of that property that they
- have X amount of percent of financial
- Responsibility, I don't think that that's I don't think legally and we don't have legal
- representation right here now to we can't found any party
- That's not a party to this. So I I let's deal with the variance on hand and worry about that
- another day
- The county's responsibility. That's what I'm saying that that we cannot lasso in any way not our
- rule
- Not our role
- Could I just mention something about the sidewalks? You know, I used to live over there and I used
- to
- You know when they widened Curry Pike
- From two lanes to four lanes and that would have been the time to put in sidewalks had they had
- been really seriously
- Interested to do so
- There are real strict challenges there with the utilities. That would be a hugely expensive
- Prop program as well as over the railroad. I just see that as an
- an unnecessary burden to an employer who's bringing jobs into our community that's working around
- the clock and then
- Although it didn't come up today, you know, there's also the issue of
- Just intellectual property and security around the perimeters of the place that
- That I don't think the side that's the best place for a sidewalk in general
- For I think I would be voting for a variance on the sidewalk
- You know, and I'm glad there's a sidewalk on this on the side of the road where people are more
- likely to walk
- That's what I would say about that. I'll also say there's an option before you to
- You know, I think Simcha expressed some interest on the Liberty side to connect some portion of the
- sidewalk so you can specify the
- variance approval
- You know or work with the petitioner if they're willing to willingly commit to putting in a
- sidewalk
- There's some ways that we could do that or if you just want to vote as both sides as one
- That sounds good. What about you guys? What about you skip about the Liberty side?
- the additional sidewalk to do the connection on
- Liberty where there are businesses like Menards the car dealerships the Aldi's the Starbucks the
- Steak and shake the Mexican restaurant, etc
- If there are already sidewalks there that are connecting that's a whole different story
- I will comment that I just don't see people walking on that sidewalk and I drive that constantly
- but maybe it'll happen
- There are their houses on the other side of curry where people could walk here and there that makes
- sense to me
- houses that connect neighborhoods and businesses that makes sense, but
- Liberty that's not the side they
- Maybe they maybe they do stroll around at lunch. Maybe that's true. I
- Don't know
- If there are no sidewalks, you don't see people walking
- I mean, it's a bad street to walk along so I don't that's the only argument. I don't find
- convincing
- We may be giving her an opportunity to rebut because I'd like to just go ahead and make a motion to
- to get out the
- The aspects other than the sidewalk and then we can have a discussion about the sidewalks
- But could we hear what she has to say?
- I'll yield to the petition. It's good. So most people usually drive. I personally have not seen
- people walk behind there
- It I think that's a you know
- Not that I have seen but I do appreciate you bringing up the concern for safety as you guys
- Know our business is to you know, bring medicine and some of this medicine
- We have a pretty tight lockdown and you know, I I don't think we necessarily thought about that
- But now that you mentioned that I do want to express that concern
- That from a security purpose, you know, we want to make sure that our site is locked down
- You know our earlier this year. We actually had two criminals come into our property
- The police kind of came into trying to find them
- But yeah, this is adding that sidewalk would increase our site risk
- Thank you, Ms. Mendez
- Yes, and you know, I'll yield to you guys seem to have
- Ideas of where you want to go with us. I think we're ready to make a motion to approve
- variant oh variance 25 - 8
- B the Simtra interior landscaping variance to chapter 830 and I think we're already
- If I can make this motion cumulative to also
- approve variance 25 - 8 C
- I'm sorry 8 E and 8 F
- About the general sign regulations with the setback requirements and the total sign
- Replication we should do those first and then talk about the sidewalk. Well, I ate F is withdrawn.
- I think yes
- Oh, sorry about that. You're absolutely right. So I amend my motion to be
- 8 B and 8 B. I amend my motion. You're absolutely right. Thank you so much. Second
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve
- VAR - 25 - 8 B and VAR - 25 - 8 E which is the interior landscape and then the sign
- Regulations setback requirement about yes is about to approve both of those variances
- Margaret Clements. Yes, skip Daley. Yes, Guy Lofman. Yes, Jeff Morris
- Yes
- Pamela Davidson. Yes. Okay, that motion is approved five to zero
- Would I make a motion about the other I
- Would like to hear my colleagues thoughts on this two folks have not weighed in
- There's this little
- basically, I
- I'm pretty sympathetic to the to the petitioners, but
- There was this little glint of hope about having some sidewalk on your side along landmark
- which
- Excuse me
- Along Liberty, which I understand would be might be some might not have the same level of
- obstacles
- So the two-part question is there are there substantially fewer obstacles or are there really major
- obstacles and are you all willing to
- To to do that
- Yeah, I think in this in this particular instance I did leave a glimmer of hope in there because I'm
- trying to be as
- Straightforward as possible as you look off and I wish I had a good street view picture of it
- But off on the west side of Liberty north of the property. There's a driveway
- I can't think of the business that's immediately north there
- But a carriage walk meaning the sidewalk is connected to the curb
- Starts right there and it runs north up to the state road and all the businesses that are up there
- on the west side of Liberty
- As we looked at that
- It's not a extremely long distance of sidewalk and there's not really any practical challenges to
- get from our entrance where this the assigned variants
- We're talking about is
- Wow, great. I think this might
- North or south facing
- But that would be it's north. I think it's looking south if you spin around and look at earth
- Could have thought for sure there was a sidewalk there I think this is twisted
- Yeah, I
- Yes, I think it's an old image and then boom there's a sidewalk there
- So there is a connection that could be made to answer your question. There would not be a law a
- strong
- Challenge with constructing that on that side and coming into tonight. I thought that could be a
- concession
- Admittedly is that sidewalk seems to provide potential real benefit
- When you go to the curry Pike side
- No connection really on either side and the real real practical challenge of utilities as well as
- the rail crossing
- That would be I think I think speak on behalf of Julie and some try
- I think that would be a good compromise if if that were weighed by the board
- I
- Personally I find that that
- Compromise to be a big step forward
- It seems to me that puts sidewalks where they're most important where where they're the least
- disruptive to install and
- That's that's
- So if somebody wants to run, you know jog down to Kroger they can do it
- so
- Can can I move
- Make sure that mr. Morris has had an opportunity. It's a good point. Mr. Morris. Do you have
- anything that you would like to add?
- Mr. Morris is on
- Yeah, I'm in alignment with where mr. Laughman is going I believe because I think sidewalks are
- important
- they provide an opportunity for people who don't have the luxury of driving to have easier access
- to
- the businesses in the area including centra, but I do see the practical difficulties of the
- Curry Pike side and I think if the sidewalk were to be built it would
- Deadend and force people to cross the street anyway where there's already a sidewalk on the other
- side
- But I do see value on the Liberty Drive side to connect to Kroger and the other businesses to the
- north
- So I think I would be in support of
- Approving the denial of the waiver for the Curry Pike side, but but requiring sidewalks on the
- Liberty Drive side
- And mr. Morris, I would add to that comment. I have never seen anybody cross Curry Pike
- Sideway to side. It's a death trap. You'd be crazy to do it
- There's a light up there by the by the railroad track, but I don't see people
- Doing that either. I've seen people on bikes on the side of the road riding places, but walking
- crossing that road
- I cannot think of one time. I've seen that happen in years
- So you're right about that. The safety of that is pretty treacherous on curry
- Okay, I think we have our motion then right can we this the variant staff
- Does it distinguish between the Liberty and the curry pike? It doesn't does it?
- So we get we would have to make that part of our motion, wouldn't we? Absolutely
- Okay, do you want to fashion that motion mr. Daley or you want me to?
- Do
- This up, all right in regards to variants
- 25-8 golf
- I would like to
- Make a motion to approve
- With the condition
- That cintra
- Provides a
- Sidewalk on the west side of liberty
- on the property in question
- And that they follow all of the permitting
- rules set aside by
- The county code and the planning department
- Second do we have to specifically mention curry pike on this?
- I I wonder if we're saying
- Yeah
- I I kind of think we do we're approving we're approving their variants
- With the condition so the variants would say they don't have to have it occur
- And I would just like to add that practical difficulties have been demonstrated. Thank you
- and as far as curry pike is concerned and that it uh
- This proposed variants is the least injurious way for the public to access
- the sidewalks and that
- There are special conditions peculiar to the property that justify the variances. So but if
- somebody would second
- Everything I agree and we'll add that to my motion
- Director, I know it was daunting but your second's still good
- Yes, okay
- It's been moved and seconded to approve
- VAR - 25 - 8 g which is the sidewalk requirement to chapter 8 18 with the condition
- That cemtra provides sidewalk on the west side of south liberty drive on the subject property
- And apply for and acquire all required permits
- A vote. Yes is a vote to approve the variants with the condition
- Skip daly
- Yes
- Guy lofman. Yes
- Jeff morris
- Yes
- Pamela davidson. Yes
- Margaret clements. Yes. Okay motion is approved five to zero. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you miss
- mendez and mr
- Short I had spent five years on a board of zoning appeals as a member
- So I very much appreciate how much effort you put into this. So thank you. Thank you and thank you
- for doing that
- Thank you
- Okay. Well, we're moving right along now
- To item number seven on the agenda and this is cdu - 25 - 4
- The dewitt child care center conditional or use to chapter 8 11 concerning
- 1.34 plus or minus acre parcel in richland township section 14 at 40
- 4390 north richwood drive and I believe that mr. Myers will be reviewing this with us
- Yes
- All right
- This is cdu - 25 - 4 the conditional use for child care center to chapter 8 11 at 4390 north ridgewood
- drive
- As stated it's in richland township section 14
- And it's a zoned cd
- The petitioner is seeking conditional use approval for a child care center per chapter 8 11 for the
- community development residential zone
- at the previously mentioned address the petitioner does not live at the petition site, but is the
- owner of
- early learners child care care llc, which is the owner of the property
- According to chapter 8 50
- Child care center definitions i'll get to in a second
- But there are differences between child care center and child care home
- child care center is a place where
- There is not a individual that lives there, but does provide child care services
- for the community
- That particular use is listed as conditional in the cd zone
- Thenceforth it is required to be coming to the board of zoning appeals
- To get approval for that particular use and meet all of the conditions as outlined in chapter 8 11
- 5 d
- I
- Will state that the planning department became aware of the operation at this address due to an
- anonymous complaint
- We'll get into more details about that later, but a use determination form was submitted by the
- property owner after
- Communication from the planning department regarding the complaint the use determination
- Detailed that the property does require a conditional use for the particular
- classification of child care center again, that's because there is no individual living at the
- property it is a
- commercial use
- All right some additional information that was provided by the highway department has a little bit
- of background here
- highway department
- Requests that the petitioner submit a right-of-way activity permit to establish commercial use
- driveway the petition site
- Additionally in speaking with the highway department the subject property has not gone to traffic
- commission
- Which is the formal commission that reviews complaints of on-street parking and consideration of no
- parking signs along the roadway
- so this comes up in response to the
- content of the initial complaint regarding
- traffic in the area with respect to the use and the arrival and
- leaving of
- Families and others with related to the particular use at the property
- The property is in the Jax defeat critical watershed as well, which means there are fairly stringent
- impervious cover requirements
- According to the CD zone 50% of the lot size or four thousand five hundred square feet whichever is
- less is the requirement
- The existing impervious cover totals approximately six thousand four hundred square feet
- So in other words any new improved impervious cover would be the subject to the CDO standards
- regarding the maximum previous cover
- so that's just some background information there this
- variance excuse me this conditional use is not
- Tied to additional variances that would be design standards variances
- But if those are determined that are necessary should this conditional use be approved then that
- process will be following this at another BZA hearing
- On the screen now, we have the definition from Child Care Center, which is found in the County
- Development Ordinance
- I will not read it verbatim, but it is included in the staff report as well as in the County
- Development Ordinance
- Okay
- So with every conditional use that's in the ordinance
- It comes with a set of particular conditions that must be met in order for the Board of Zoning Appeals
- to find a favorable
- Approval for the for the property and its use
- So I will state these there's just a few of them here
- Number one centers are permitted if proof of licensing by the state of indiana is provided with
- submission of site plan
- If exempt from state licensing requirements proof of exemption shall be provided
- Operators shall be responsible for compliance with all applicable ordinances and state and federal
- statutes and regulations
- Um, this condition has been met the petitioner connected us with a mr. Ron doyan from the indiana
- health and human services division
- Mr. Doyan monitors child care homes and centers for proper licensure according to mr
- Doyan, the state cannot supply proof of licensing exemption, but they did discuss some details with
- us regarding this particular use at the site
- Um, the child this child care center does not meet the definition under the state code for either
- child care center nor child care home due to the fact that they do not operate for 10 consecutive
- days excluding saturdays and tundays
- Um, this particular use closes on fridays and so in other words they operate monday through thursday
- um and since they don't operate for those 10 consecutive days
- Um, they are not classified as either a child care center or child care home, so they do not have
- to meet um the licensing requirements from the state
- Additionally, according to mr Doyan licensure should be a minimum requirement rather than seeking
- the exemption pathway. However, by being exempt from the definition of license is not required.
- Number two of the conditions site design and supervision characteristics shall ensure that the
- peace and safety of the surrounding area should not be impaired.
- Regarding this particular condition um planning staff has said that this condition has yet to be
- met.
- The petitioner must submit site design and supervision characteristics that ensure the peace and
- safety of the surrounding area will not be impaired under the commercial site plan process.
- One of the general safety considerations is parking and whether people are having to back out onto
- the roadway or being double parked during drop off pickup times as well as parking on grass and
- other unimproved surfaces.
- Continuing on that.
- Parking considerations.
- Um with respect to the child care center conditional use within the ordinance there are parking
- requirements so it's listed as one space per every four clients plus one space for every employee.
- Through the use determination process the property owner indicated to us that they have four
- employees and there can be 30 children as the clients.
- That would total as 12 parking spaces unless there is some qualification for a reduction of parking
- spaces through the county development ordinance.
- This information would be revaluated through the site plan process and a pre design as well, and if
- the requirement cannot be met the petitioner would be required to obtain a variance a design
- standards variance specifically or not be permitted to have the use on the property.
- In addition, the CDO does request that minimum dimensions of a space and an aisle for parking so
- that cars cannot be parked directly behind one another, the standard will not be met on this site
- and to try to meet the standard would add to the impervious cover.
- So there's several other considerations with respect to potential additional design standards variances
- with respect to parking impervious cover and potentially other design standards variances that have
- not been evaluated yet, because we haven't reached that commercial site plan stage yet.
- Here on the screen I have the location map again we're in Litchland Township near Eltsville
- jurisdiction.
- On the screen now we have some aerial imagery of the site.
- And then here on the screen we have some pictures taken recently of the property, you can see there
- the parking in the front of the house on a new gravel area appears as well as the cars in the
- driveway as well, this was taken approximately like I think was 1230 ish in the afternoon.
- Now on the screen we have the letter from the petitioner stating their requests and giving a little
- bit more background on what services that they provide and their hours of operation.
- And then on the right side of the screen is their preliminary
- site plan, if you will, again, if this were to be approved, the petitioner would be directed to
- submit a formal commercial site plan that meets all the requirements of that particular use as well
- as other requirements in the county development ordinance for commercial site plans and ultimately
- seek a land use certificate, which is the final stage of the commercial site plan process which verifies
- that all the requirements of the CDO are valid and the use is officially accepted.
- Okay, we did receive several letters of support. One of those letters of support, the one on the
- left on the screen was included in the staff report and we did receive an additional letter of
- support after the packet was published. So you'll find that in the little pamphlets that are
- provided to you and it's also on the screen.
- I will also go be going through several letters of opposition. We did receive one in time for the
- publishing of the packet. However, I think about five additional ones were received over the last
- few days that are you have hard copies of and I'll have those on the screen here in a moment. So
- for now I will leave
- The screen on the letters of support for just a brief moment.
- No, I don't believe so.
- I did not believe he would be in attendance.
- Okay, so you'll review them.
- Okay, thank you.
- Yes, they're all included in the presentation.
- So if Mr. Morris is still online,
- hoping he's taking this time to review the ones
- that were not included in the packet.
- Okay, thank you.
- Yes, I can see them in the packet.
- Thank you, Drew.
- Thank you.
- All right, so now I'll move on to the letters of opposition.
- Again, at least one of these was included in the packet,
- but there are several more now
- that we received after it's publishing.
- So I will leave on the screen for a moment.
- And then also members of the public,
- if you are interested in reading some of these
- and can't see the screen,
- there's a few hard copies on the white table
- over there in the room.
- I'm going to move on to the next screen, and there's just another slide with a few other
- short letters of opposition for this petition.
- And I'll move to the next slide with a few more letters.
- I'm going to move on to the next slide with a few other short letters of opposition for
- this petition.
- All right, moving on, and if we feel we want to come back to any of these, we can.
- That brings me to staff's overall recommendation with respect to CDO-25-4 and the conditional
- use for the Child Care Center to Chapter 811.
- Staff recommends denial due to the inability to fulfill the requirements of the conditional
- use standards, specifically number two, site design supervision characteristics shall ensure
- the piece that the piece and safety of the surrounding area shall not be impaired.
- The initial way the Planning Department found out about the daycare stemmed from an anonymous
- complaint, as I mentioned before, with respect to traffic created by pickup and drop off
- of the daycare.
- Though this daycare provides an essential service, it does impair the peace and safety
- of the surrounding area by causing a large amount of traffic generated by the number
- of employees and clients coming to this location.
- I will now take any questions.
- We'll hear directly from the petitioner.
- The petitioner's representative, if you're here, please come to the podium and sign in
- and then I'll swear you in.
- Kaitlyn DeWitt, please raise your right hand.
- You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
- Yes.
- Thank you.
- You have 15 minutes to go over.
- Okay.
- Good evening, esteemed members of the Zoning Committee.
- Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
- My name is Kaitlyn DeWitt and I am the owner and operator of Early Learners Child Care,
- a child care center that has proudly served the families of this community from our location
- in the heart of town.
- I'm here today to respectfully plead my case to maintain our current location, which is
- not just a building.
- It's the beating heart of our mission to support working families, nurture young children and
- strengthen the foundation of this community.
- Since I started my business eight years ago, we've become more than just a daycare.
- We are a safe, reliable and trusted resource for dozens of local families.
- Our central location has been key to our success.
- It offers convenient access for working parents, is walkable from nearby neighborhoods and
- is situated near schools and public services that help our families manage their busy lives.
- If we are required to move or shut down operations at this site, it will create a ripple effect
- of disruption, not just for our staff, but for the children who depend on consistency,
- care and a familiar environment.
- Parents would be forced to find alternative care, which is already scarce, costly and
- often located far from their daily routes.
- Some may even have to consider leaving their jobs if reliable child care is no longer available
- nearby.
- I understand that zoning rules exist for important reasons and I deeply respect this process.
- However, I am asking for your compassion and your consideration of the real-life impact
- a decision like this will have on local families and small businesses like mine.
- Our daycare complies with all safety regulations, maintains strong community support and has
- received positive feedback from parents, local educators and inspectors alike.
- We're not just asking to stay, we're asking to continue serving this community in the
- best way we know how.
- Please consider the essential service we provide, the relationships we've built and the stability
- our presence offers.
- I kindly urge you to vote in favor of allowing Early Learners Child Care to remain at its
- current location.
- I would also like to say that we are open to looking at different parking situations,
- going through the highway department and applying for a pull-through driveway, anything that
- can help the traffic situation.
- We did add gravel to the front for our employees to park in, and I feel like that has helped
- a lot here lately.
- We are also open to assigning certain pickup times and drop-offs times to parents.
- We could have six lots of five kids each throughout the day, and that is something that we are
- open to discussing.
- I would just like to thank you guys for your time, and please consider accepting our variants
- because I have put my heart and soul into this business for eight years now.
- We started in my house, and we added on to the back of my house, and then we ended up
- moving over to Ridgewood Drive, and it has just been the perfect location.
- We have a nice outdoor area for our kiddos to play in.
- They love getting messy and painting, and they're just happy there.
- I know that child care nowadays is very hard to find that is trustworthy and also affordable,
- and we do offer an affordable child care option.
- We are only Monday through Thursday, which really cuts down on traffic Friday, Saturday,
- and Sunday.
- The only reason we're ever over there on the weekends is to clean or prepare for the week
- following.
- I don't really know what else to say.
- I love my business.
- I have four children of my own.
- They're six and under, and they keep me on my toes, and this business is a place that
- they are also very happy.
- They get to go and see their friends.
- They get to play.
- It's just a part of me, and I would love if you guys could consider accepting us.
- Thank you so much, Ms. DeWitt.
- We'll hear from the public, and if anyone is opposed, and there already is opposition,
- you'll have a chance to rebut.
- Okay.
- Do you just want me to sit right here?
- Sure.
- Okay.
- Sure.
- If there are members of the public who would like to speak in support of this petition,
- please come to the podium and sign in, and then I'll swear you in.
- I see that, yes, someone has raised their hand, and we'll get to you, Curtis Cummings,
- I'll give you a few seconds to sign in.
- Hello, my name is Jessica Folk.
- Okay.
- Please raise your right hand.
- Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
- Yes.
- Thank you.
- You have three minutes.
- So I'm a proud parent of a child that attends this wonderful daycare.
- When I got pregnant in '22, I was nervous about finding a daycare.
- I got waitlisted at seven different daycares because it is very slim pickings to find daycare
- in Monroe County.
- I do live in Ellisville, so I really didn't want to drive to the east side, the south
- side of town, when I worked centrally in Bloomington, so Ellisville was really where I wanted to
- be.
- And actually, I'm still waitlisted at another daycare in Ellisville since 2022.
- I'm number five on the list.
- So when I heard about this wonderful daycare and they had openings, I knew I didn't have
- to quit my job.
- My husband didn't have to quit his job.
- I wouldn't have to go to night shift and sacrifice that time with my child.
- My child loves these girls to death.
- They love him like their own kid.
- It will be a big setback for my kid to have to try to find a new place to go.
- So thank you.
- Thank you very much.
- Thank you, Ms. Folk.
- I saw that Mr. Curtis Cummings had his hand raised and if you could unmute him and Mr.
- Curtis Cummings, if you would kindly unmute yourself and raise your right hand.
- Would you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- We can't hear you, Mr. Cummings.
- We see you're unmuted, but maybe you have to unmute on your end.
- It looks like he's unmuted, but there's still no audio coming through.
- I'm not sure if it's a mic issue.
- I can try and get him a phone number and put that into the chat and maybe he can either
- leave and try and come back and that might work or take down a number.
- Mr. Cummings, they put a number in the chat.
- Oh, it shows that you're calling now.
- So can you unmute him or answer that?
- Okay.
- He says he's in the waiting room via the telephone.
- Mrs. Can you unmute the phone number with the last four digits of 9312?
- They're unmuted.
- Good evening.
- Can you hear me?
- Yes.
- Would you kindly raise your right hand and do you swear to tell the truth, the whole
- truth and nothing but the truth?
- I do.
- And thank you for the opportunity tonight.
- Thank you.
- And yes, you have three minutes.
- Fabulous.
- So my name is Curtis Cummings.
- I'm here to express my strong support for the conditional use approval for the daycare.
- I understand the staff recommendation references concerns about traffic and its impact on the
- peace and safety of the neighborhood.
- Specifically, it states the daycare causes a large amount of traffic due to the number
- of employees and clients.
- With respect, I believe that that characterization deserves a little more scrutiny.
- The center operates Monday through Thursday only and it's not the typical five-day week.
- And the center has developed a staggered drop-off and pick-up system that can prevent vehicle
- clustering.
- At times, even the peak times, you're looking at perhaps three to four cars on site at once
- comparable to any neighborhood with a few guests or a backyard barbecue.
- I live here in Oldsville, and I'm also a parent.
- And I'm also a professional that works in the field of child safety.
- I investigate child abuse and—sorry, I investigate child abuse and neglect every day.
- And in my role, I witness firsthand what happens when families don't have access to safe,
- consistent
- child care.
- It leads to missed work, unstable supervision, and in too many cases, actual harm to children.
- Harm that we later address at great emotional and public cost.
- The term "peace and safety" is important in Midwest versus Board of Zoning Appeals.
- The court emphasized that a conditional use must not be injurious to public health, safety,
- or general welfare.
- And I believe that this center, with its modest community-based operation, is in fact supporting
- those exact values.
- This is not a high-volume commercial site; it's a small, woman-owned business serving
- local families in our community, providing stability, development, and care at a time
- when our country and our county really face serious child care shortages.
- In both my professional and personal experience, I can tell you that families in our community
- are facing waitlists of up to a year just to access safe, developmentally appropriate
- child care.
- One year, I would respectfully ask each member of this board and those who have actually
- opposed this variance to consider this.
- When was the last time that you had to search for quality, affordable child care?
- When was the last time you had to decide between taking a job or staying home, not because
- you wanted to, but because there just simply wasn't a safe place for your child to go?
- That's the reality for families here in Monroe County, and that's why this center matters.
- I understand that a few letters of opposition have been submitted.
- One concern is that the approval would set a precedent for commercial development.
- This is not commercial development.
- This is not rezoning.
- It's approving a conditional use merely allows a narrow kind of low-impact use that has already
- been listed as potentially allowable in the zoning code if the applicant can demonstrate
- that they can be compliant with conditional use standards.
- Thank you so much.
- With that being said, I hope that you will approve this.
- It would be a loss for everyone and to our community and for the working families that
- are just really struggling to find child care right now.
- Thank you so much, Mr. Cummings.
- Thank you so much.
- Are there other members of the public who would like to speak in support of this petition?
- Please come to the podium or oh, I see a Sue sup has his or her hand raised.
- If you can unmute them.
- I think also Sue sup, you must unmute yourself.
- All right.
- Can you guys hear me okay?
- Yes, and please raise your right hand.
- You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- Yes, I do.
- Thank you.
- Yes, you'll have three minutes.
- Alrighty.
- Apologies for any unprofessionalism here.
- I'm just buying some fertilizer at Lowe's, but I just wanted to make this meeting.
- I am a proud parent of early learners child care here as well, and I just want to briefly
- say that this daycare has been wonderful for my daughter, my family, and I can't express
- enough the gratitude that I have for the three women, the four women that work here.
- This being a small woman-owned business, I really want to echo what the previous member
- spoke about in that I really respectfully disagree, just that there is not much of an
- issue in terms of traffic.
- I'm there when it's busiest, and again, three or four cars max.
- They've done a really good job of ensuring that there's plenty of parking available that's
- not on the road.
- They've even laid down some gravel so that their employees have places to park where
- it wouldn't take up the space of the parents who are dropping off their children.
- I really just can't stress enough, I love my daughter.
- I love her, and when I drop her off every morning, it's kind of sad, but I think it's
- a testament to how much care and love goes into these children, but she will easily go
- to Ms. Kava in her arms, willingly, happy, and sometimes, like this morning, she doesn't
- even say goodbye, so I would just hate for her to lose that connection and all the connections
- with her friends and her teachers that are there.
- I am not currently in education, but I am a former MCCSE teacher as well, and I can
- also just vouch for just the quality of care that my daughter has been receiving, so thank
- you so much for your time to speak, and again, apologies for any unprofessionalism with my
- surrounding here.
- Thank you, Mr. Soop.
- Thanks.
- Are there other members of the public who would like to speak in favor of this petition?
- If so, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand.
- I see Breanna Cha is calling in or has raised her hand if you could unmute her.
- And also, Ms. Cha, yes, thank you.
- Would you please raise your right hand?
- Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- I do.
- Thank you.
- You have three minutes.
- Hi, my name is Breanna Cha, and I'm the parent of a one-year-old who attends the Early Learning
- Center on Ridgewood Drive.
- I just want to say how incredibly grateful my family is for this daycare.
- We're your first-time parents, and it's hard to put into words how important it is to feel
- completely at ease with where your child spends their day.
- The ELC staff are warm, attentive, and clearly love what they do.
- They've created such a calm, loving, and developmentally supportive space for kids.
- Having daycare in a residential area like this has actually been a huge benefit.
- It's quiet, safe, and close to home.
- Losing this daycare would be devastating for so many families, including my own.
- Reliable high-quality care is already hard to come by, and this place is special.
- Please consider how much this center means to the community and support their request
- to continue operating.
- Thank you for your time.
- Thank you so much, Ms. Brianna.
- Okay, we're looking to hear from anyone else who is in support of this petition.
- Please raise your virtual hand or come to the podium.
- We see no one, so if there are members of the public who are in opposition to this petition,
- please come to the podium in the Nathale room and sign in.
- Please raise your right hand, do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the
- truth?
- I do.
- And what is your name?
- Mary Jo Wallin or Lusky, and I live in Westbrook Downs and have for 30 years.
- I have property there and I'm just going to read from this statement.
- I have empathy and I really appreciate what child care centers do.
- I have a background in economic development and I understand affordable housing, daycare,
- looking for workers is really, really important.
- But I have to tell you that having lived in Westbrook Downs for all of these years and
- enjoying the neighborhood for its safety, peacefulness, and the relationships that we
- have known all of these years has been wonderful.
- And having lived there that long, we know the changes that have occurred in the subdivision
- over time when Highway 46 wasn't even Highway 46 going to now 69 and further.
- And so we are really familiar with all the changes that have occurred in the subdivision
- as well, just off of 46.
- And so there has been significant recent changes to driving safety and traffic flow from the
- highway onto Ridgewood Drive.
- Since the early learners child care facility has opened, the safety concerns for both the
- child care facility and the residents has increased dramatically and it doesn't seem
- to be improving.
- And I must admit it has gotten much more congested.
- Ridgewood Drive in its best circumstances is a dangerous road.
- If you've ever been in Westbrook Downs, you know that you have to go up and then Ridgewood
- goes to the left.
- The entrance from the highway upward is a slope that continues past the child care facility
- and an inclement weather under the best circumstances is not navigable.
- It's just not.
- The sight lines that had both north and south on the road are blind in certain areas.
- So you're coming through blind areas and there have been times when residents have been driving
- past the daycare on Ridgewood that there have been almost accidents because of the oncoming
- lights when you're trying to head out of the subdivision and other situations.
- And so it's been kind of dangerous for automobiles to navigate that.
- And it's dangerous for the daycare kids and the parents and the facility that are dropping
- off.
- And I have to say that this is an impairment.
- This is one of the conditions that they're trying to improve upon.
- But yet it is an impairment, you know, and by by approving this application, it would
- set a precedent for further commercial development in a residential area eroding the zoning
- protections
- that have been put in place to preserve neighborhood integrity.
- These are already commercial areas that I mean, there are already commercial areas more
- suitably equipped to accommodate a child care facility without imposing on a residential
- community such as Westbrook Downs.
- You know, we're characterized as a peaceful family oriented atmosphere.
- You know, the introduction of a commercial operation, particularly one with frequent
- comings and goings, early morning operating hours and whatnot, you know, it would it doesn't
- it does disrupt the tranquil environment that the current, you know, the current residents
- go ahead value and expect, I think.
- And so I would like for the bone, the the Board of Zoning to go ahead and consider the
- staff recommendations.
- It really there's a safety issue, there's a peacefulness issue.
- And there's also, I think, that precedent that's going to be set to make this a commercial
- daycare center.
- If it was a home daycare, as they have done in the past, that's wonderful.
- But as you go ahead and move 12 parking spaces, cars backing out, backing in, moving around,
- it really is congestive.
- Was that my time?
- Yes.
- Oh, I'm so sorry.
- She said that's my time.
- Thank you.
- Thank you so much, Ms. Orlowski.
- And thank you guys for all you do for the community.
- Thank you.
- I'm not seeing the clock on this screen.
- Where do you see it?
- It's on the TV.
- It's in red with triple zeros.
- I can help and modify that if it should be one of the people on the screen that you have,
- but it might not be.
- Oh, it's just up there.
- Okay.
- I can see it.
- Thank you.
- Thank you, Ms. Myers.
- On the 10th corner?
- I don't see it.
- Oh, there.
- I see it up there.
- In red, triple zero?
- I see it up there now.
- Yes.
- That's what I was trying to alert you to.
- I see.
- I saw it on my cell phone, and I didn't start it appropriately.
- It's now on the television in front of you.
- Great.
- Okay.
- Are there other members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to this
- petition?
- Please come to the podium and sign in, and then I'll swear you in.
- I saw a hand raised at one point.
- I don't know if that person is still there.
- There is a Kim, I think, Donovan, yes.
- And if you could unmute her, if she could unmute herself, him or herself.
- Text services unmute.
- I don't think we're able to unmute people, so Kim will have to unmute her own audio.
- Yes, so you'll have to unmute yourself on your computer or your screen.
- It's the microphone image with a line through it.
- If you could click on that, it will unmute you.
- You're pretty tech savvy, then.
- This is Kim Donovan.
- It will not unmute.
- So she needs that telephone number as well so she can call in.
- I think it's, is it 812-327-4059?
- No, what is it?
- What is it?
- I will pull it up in just a second.
- Our director will put the telephone number into the chat so you can phone in.
- Also, I'll just say it out loud for those that want to call in or are having audio issues.
- The number is 8-7-2-2-4-2-9-4-3-2.
- And then when you're prompted to enter the phone conference number, the ID is 178-759-774-lb.
- And I'll put that in the chat.
- So if you could dial in by--okay, so it's 8-7--oh, that disappeared again.
- So the code that you press in is 178-759-774-lb once you have called in the telephone number.
- I'll repeat it one more time, 178-759-774-lb in order to talk by telephone.
- Is there anyone else that wishes to speak in the interim?
- Is there anyone in the room here who would like to speak in opposition to this petition
- while we wait for the telephone--the people dialing in by telephone to connect?
- I see no one who is--Kim just sent a message saying that unable to connect by phone.
- So the only hope there, Kim, is to leave the meeting and try to come back in again.
- And then if it's not possible, we will just register--the best we can do is register your
- opposition to the petition and that you showed up trying to speak about that.
- Or they could type three or four sentences in the message.
- That's true.
- We will enter them into the record.
- That's right.
- If you would type in three or four sentences about the reason for your opposition, Ms. Donovan,
- then we will enter them into the record.
- Okay, she is typing her concerns.
- I will read them.
- I appreciate the daycare.
- My concerns?
- You have access to that.
- Would you be able to read that into the record?
- Thank you.
- Sure.
- I think that I'll just summarize here.
- It just says that their concerns are maybe aligned with Ms. Orlowski's prior comment
- about traffic congestion and setting a precedent for commercial use.
- Okay.
- We really appreciate your perseverance, Ms. Donovan, for showing up.
- Thank you.
- We have your comments.
- Are there other members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to this
- petition?
- If so, please raise your virtual hand.
- You see no one, so you'll have an opportunity, Ms. DeWitt, to have a five-minute rebuttal
- now, if you would come back to the podium.
- Concerning the traffic, I would have to disagree with saying that we cause a lot more traffic
- because driving through this neighborhood, there are plenty of cars that park on the
- side of the road.
- There was a house, two houses down from us that had a full-size dumpster parked in the
- road on a curve for over a week.
- The daycare, we do have three to four cars there at a time on top of our employee cars,
- but with our new employee parking, we could fit probably seven to eight more cars on top
- of our employee parking that we currently have.
- I think that we are far back enough from that hill that was mentioned that it is a flat
- shot that you can see if there's a car stopped on the road that you have plenty of time to
- go around that car.
- I am open to setting a rule that absolutely no cars are to stop on the road, and if they
- see that our driveway is full, then they need to make a loop around the neighborhood to
- come back after a parent has left.
- I'm fine with doing the slots for drop-off and pick-up time so that they each get their
- own individual time for drop-off and pick-up.
- I am also open to applying through the highway department to do a pull-through driveway.
- That would be very simple because our current driveway is here, and then we have gravel
- leading across the front of the house.
- All we would have to do is connect it down, but I know that is a two-entry way driveway,
- so we do have to have a permit for that.
- That's why we did not do that, but if we need to, that's okay.
- We are open to anything that needs to be done to be able to stay here.
- We love the area right in the heart of Ellsville.
- We are able to get children from Bloomington, Ellsville, and Spencer and offer them care.
- I think that's all I have.
- Thank you, Ms. DeWitt.
- May I ask a question?
- Yes.
- Have you had any safety incidents with any of the children or parents at your facility
- there?
- We have not.
- You have not?
- No.
- We have never had any incidents.
- Parents have never complained about parking or cars going around them.
- There's never been anything.
- And you've never had a traffic accident that you know of from parents coming or going,
- and you've been in this location eight years?
- So we've actually been here almost two years.
- Two years.
- Yeah.
- We started in my house over on Ratliff Road next to the Edgewood schools.
- Right.
- Yep.
- And then we actually rented a building on Thomas Road, and it just wasn't really what
- I wanted.
- I wanted a home-feeling space for the children.
- I want them to come in and feel like they're at home and be comfortable, not a sterile
- environment like a lot of child care centers are, because I've worked in a few, and that's
- just not what I wanted for my business.
- So we looked for a house, and this popped up, perfect layout.
- There was opportunity for more parking, so this is where we decided to go.
- And I was not aware of any of the zoning issues, or I would have done this at the beginning.
- So I do apologize for that.
- I had no idea, so I'm sorry about that.
- Thank you.
- And we do have a person who raised her hand, but I'm afraid, Ms. Duggar, that the public
- comment period is over on this item, and you won't be able to speak because the petitioner
- has already given her rebuttal, and so we can't reopen that now.
- Thank you.
- I would like to ask staff a question.
- How likely is it that if she were to try to accommodate the, you know, the additional
- parking spaces, that she would pass the building codes?
- Yeah, so beyond this conditional use, we've advised them that they will have to get a
- commercial site plan.
- The site itself, if no one lives in the home, which I understand to be the case, it would
- have to meet the requirements for Class 1 structure, which is going to mean commercial
- building code.
- If it's built as a residence, it's going to be costly and timely to get that up to code,
- but there are variance processes for that as well.
- And the reason for these requirements is not because of just zoning, it's for safety, right?
- There's certain requirements for daycare, such as emergency egress out of each room,
- so that if there is a fire, someone can access and get those children out quickly, especially
- those that can't walk yet.
- So though it does seem like we're putting up a lot of roadblocks, you know, the CDO
- obviously does allow for child care centers now in residential zones, but the requirements
- for parking and the requirements for safety are not able to be waived by the CDO.
- So they will still have to apply after this for approval for site plan requirements.
- If they can't meet the 12 parking spaces and they have to double park to meet those, that's
- going to come back to the BZA, for example, and then if they cannot meet the building
- code, they may have to go to the state for variances.
- But on .34 acres, is there enough space given impervious surface requirements, et cetera,
- to make an additional 12 parking spaces?
- That wouldn't be an additional or additional eight or a total of 12.
- Well, I mean, I don't even know if the gravel spaces that they included are approved or
- we don't know that.
- At this point.
- Yeah.
- So it would be a challenge.
- We haven't fully assessed the amount of parking that they would that we'd be able to count.
- So for instance, they have kind of a rather large driveway existing.
- And if they could fit, let's say, two cars across two cars deep, that's four cars.
- But those cars, the first row of cars can't get out, right?
- So they're double parked.
- So that wouldn't necessarily meet our requirements for aisle width.
- So it may be that they physically can fit cars in there, but they wouldn't meet the
- standards.
- But what's what's disturbing about that, I understand what you're saying about standards.
- Those cars don't stay.
- They come, they drop off, they leave, they come back at the end of the day.
- It's not like a commercial building where employees there for employees that are going
- to park there for the day and they've got a gravel spot there for longer than you might
- realize.
- It's not.
- Well, let's say a half hour a kid gets out time in middle school or it's a half hour
- each.
- Probably little kids trying to choose packing their lunches and well, it depends, but it's
- a turnaround, right?
- Okay.
- We do have a contract in which states that they have to have a quick drop off.
- They do walk them in, they punch in their code on the check-in iPad, they bring them
- to the gate and they're handed the child care provider and then the parents leave.
- So they're never there for about more than five minutes.
- We offer food so they do not have to unpack any lunch boxes or anything like that.
- I'm just curious.
- It seems interesting to me that you only operate Monday through Thursday.
- Is there, you know, what happens to those kids on Friday and why is this the business
- model?
- The state changed a few years ago, the state changed and you can't operate a child center
- for more than ten consecutive business days without having extra licensing and rigmarole
- and it's practically impossible to overcome at this point with the requirements for that.
- So to offer this type of daycare or preschool, whatever you're calling us, they would have
- to close at least one day every ten days that they're open.
- That is not the reason that we are Monday through Thursday though.
- When I decided to go, I was Monday through Friday, I decided to go down to Monday through
- Thursday because with my children, having four small children myself, I was never able
- to take them to the doctor or the dentist or anything like that.
- So that is when I decided to go down to Monday through Thursday.
- That's when it was just me and my house.
- I had a licensing guy, Ron, he came out, he checked out my house, he talked to me about
- my hours and he said since I am Monday through Thursday that I do not have to get licensed.
- My reason behind not getting licensed now is because my own children would count in
- the ratio, which I totally understand and they should, but my husband is a fireman so
- he works 24 hours on, 48 off.
- So they're at home with them a lot, but on my list of children that I have, they would
- have to be on there and that is just not feasible for me.
- I am not able to lose that income for my own four children.
- They are in school now and they are not there besides after school.
- So that was my reasoning.
- I did not even know that that was a licensing rule when I decided to do that.
- That helps me understand the overall situation.
- Yes.
- Well, we return now to the Board of Zoning Appeals for further discussion and/or a motion
- and I'd like to remind my colleagues that the standards for conditional use approval
- are ten in number.
- They're on page five in the packet.
- Before you do that, could I ask Mr. Myers a quick question?
- Yes, of course.
- Mr. Myers, you mentioned having to -- the petitioner having to go to the Traffic Commission.
- Can you further explain that for the benefit of myself and my colleagues?
- Yes, so from a conversation with the Highway Department, the subject property has not gone
- to the Traffic Commission.
- That is the formal commission that reviews complaints of on-street parking in consideration
- of no parking signs along the roadway.
- So they're just stating in that paragraph there that this is essentially the first that
- they're hearing of these complaints, and that there has not been a formal listening of the
- complaints and the situation by the Traffic Commission that would be the authority for
- no parking signs and the review of on-street parking complaints.
- Thank you.
- Items that they have to meet.
- We have to do this.
- This is part of our role, is to evaluate the standards for the conditional use variants.
- They're stipulated in the code, and so we're reviewing those at this moment.
- I need to ask staff a question, too.
- This conditional use, if approved, goes with the property.
- So if the owner ever sold, the next person could put in any commercial property or this
- kind of daycare center.
- So if they receive conditional use approval for a child care center and another center
- goes in that's equal or lesser intensity, let's say they have the same number of clients
- or less, that would be able to go and run with the land.
- But if they intensify the use, such as adding more clients, they go up to 40 children, then
- they would have to come back to the BCA.
- And with my understanding, we can cancel that conditional use if we do ever decide to sell,
- is that correct?
- I don't believe so.
- Okay.
- Yeah.
- Okay.
- Thank you.
- Okay.
- So I'd like to talk to with my colleagues here.
- What are concerns and or inclinations and especially given the standard of review?
- Well I've read all the letters of concern and complaint and it's the number one issue
- is traffic.
- That is by far.
- But we've heard from several parents here say there's three to four cars at one time,
- they come, they go.
- I understand that we, you know, you've got a place for those employees to park so that
- isn't moving back and forth.
- It's hard to see with that size property how you would ever get 12 spots ever ever in that.
- I can't even imagine how that could be designed to ever do this but child care is dreadfully
- in short supply and that wait list story, I can relate to that completely.
- Looking for somewhere, I can understand it.
- I can also understand the neighbor who testified and said it's changed our neighborhood.
- That is true.
- All of us who live west, the amount of traffic, my son lives on Heart Straight, I cannot believe
- the amount of traffic.
- It is pitched up every single year so I can really embrace that it's just part of living
- now on the west side, I think.
- It's definitely kicked up from where it was decades ago, that's for sure.
- It seems like a wonderful business.
- It seems like it provided, as the proposed motion says, it's a critical service but as
- you say, if you'd known, you never would have done it and to me, I don't like to be too
- much in a silo but I can't provide daycare but my duty is to enforce zoning.
- Which allows me to do zoning, to do variances but we do have substantial people who live
- there who are saying this is a problem and people who just drop their kids off don't
- think it's a problem but people who live there do think it's a problem.
- Summarizing some of the testimony we've heard, I would love to vote yes but I'm not going
- to be able to plus there's a multitude of other stuff that you're going to have to do
- and each of those is going to be comparably difficult.
- So I am not going to be prepared to support this and I'm sorry for you and all the families.
- It's absolutely critical and my vote makes it worse but I can't feel right about allowing
- something that has so many compliance problems.
- I also feel I agree with Mr. Lofman and first of all you seem like a beautiful person and
- children would be lucky to have you as their caregiver but if we approve this it's going
- to set you on a path of added expense for variance request after variance request after
- variance request ultimately to receive a denial and because there are problems with the size
- of the property it's just .34 acres and they're going to be building issues, they're going
- to be driveway issues, there's going to be landscaping issues, there will be impervious
- surface issues, there's going to be this is just the beginning and if we say to you now
- I'm sorry it's going to be a blessing that maybe somebody here who's listening or maybe
- some parents who are connected can help you find a better location for what you do so
- well you know so I'm afraid I'm going to be also voting no on this request.
- And may I add I have to respectfully disagree with what you've just said because going on
- with the process that's her choice it's her decision to do that it's not for us to make
- that decision if she wants to go on with the process to try to change that out that's free
- will that's true her endeavor and I don't think it's up to us to say oh too much work
- so we'll just save you the problem no but the 10 10 items I don't think have been met
- for this review I just don't think because it says there the neighbors have to support
- it and we have evidence that they don't well it says that you have to deal with traffic
- issue it does not say the neighbors have to support it well it's not even a decision at
- this point our hands are tied I mean numbers three four six seven nine and ten have clearly
- not been satisfied it's not even it's not a decision I wanted to be I have a staff
- question can we deny this but put a six month or even a year enforcement deadline so that
- this can continue for a period of time you know relocating is a terrible hardship I know
- I want these families to have as much time as they can to to get reoriented and so I
- think are you nodding your head yes we could we could yes I think that we have allowed
- for sunset approvals you can say it's approved for a certain time period I've more we typically
- do that for variances like let's say they want to not pave the parking area they have
- five years to pave the parking area and that could be something that the BCA grants for
- conditional uses you know if tonight it gets denied we do have zoning inspector that works
- with people to get compliant so I would want to communicate and it was my goal to communicate
- that we would not be enforcing the closure of this center immediately we would want to
- work with the owner and of course the parents to see if they can relocate and I understand
- the waiting list is extremely long so I think communicating out loud what you think a reasonable
- timeline would be would help us with some of the demonstrators not that they're going
- to be banging on the door asking us to close tomorrow they will also be understanding but
- it just helps communicate both sides what the timeline is given that we've heard that
- wait lists are years and that it's going to be very difficult for these people to get
- anyplace else I'm going to go as long as I could in good conscience and that would be
- one year.
- I might just call the attorney real quick out in the hallway and make sure that that's
- something that if you deny that you could condition something because typically if you
- deny it you can't add like conditions to something because you just denied it but if there's some
- sort of way we could word it I'll ask great okay.
- We're going to take about a five minute break while she goes out and confers with the attorney
- so if anyone has to you know because we have a long night.
- I would appreciate it well after this I wanted to break but we'll take one during we'll take
- one now because it just naturally occurred yeah so I'm sorry would yes we'll come back
- in about five minutes.
- We convened the meeting and here if our director of planning and has learned anything from
- the lawyer our county lawyer sure so in conferring with the legal counsel it's recommended to
- deny but as a note I think it would be important to state that enforcement action would not
- be taken until June 4th 2026 so that's something that you could note as a part of your comment
- on the denial well in light of that and in light of the testimony I I move that we deny
- CDU 25-4 Dewitt Child Care Center conditional use chapter 811 at 4390 North Ridgewood Drive
- then serious problems especially neighbors concerned about traffic which means it doesn't
- meet the requirements for me before we finalize this motion I believe that Mr. Daly has a
- question of staff is it okay of course okay thank you.
- >> Ms. Lofman.
- I would like for you to continue with your motion, but in lieu of putting a year deadline,
- on the record in this motion, I would request that you just put reasonable transition period
- and allow the planning department to handle that aspect moving forward with the petitioner.
- >> Well, yeah, I think Ms. Joein suggested it would be sort of nice for them to have
- a little guidance, and I think for the neighbors, I'm prone to say certainly I don't mind building
- a little flexibility into a year, but that just seems like a long time if we're going
- to say no to say not yet.
- Is there a problem with putting -- you want it to be maybe longer than a year?
- >> No, that's not where I'm going.
- Protecting the board, protecting the county by setting a date is -- I'm not interested
- in setting a date there.
- I think we just at this point need to recommend a transition period in the prioritization
- with regards to the planning department handling this and trusting that they will work this
- out and work within the correct time period.
- >> Ms. Jelen, do you have a -- what a way in on this -- what works best for you?
- >> I think tonight we've discussed a timeline of one year out.
- When we're doing enforcement on other properties in the county, we do continue to communicate
- with people.
- We can't extend deadlines, so we try to work with them one-on-one to come up with a plan
- for transitioning.
- I think that this case, you know, it could take a while to get a new location to work
- backwards is going to be important, so if you want to provide guidance or some sort of timeline
- that you would support, that may be helpful, but if you would rather just leave it ambiguous,
- we can try to communicate with the owner who would then communicate with the parents and
- other people that will be impacted.
- Okay, then what if we say that a presumption that a year is reasonable and if that is not
- practical and you can determine, the department determines that there's light at the end of
- the tunnel.
- If a practical plan is underway, then you of course have discretion.
- Does that?
- Ms. Laughlin, with all due respect, I cannot support any motion where there is a, you're
- mentioning any time period due to potential precedent and potential protection of the
- county and of the board.
- Well, in either event, I think that the staff is going to be cognizant that we want a reasonable
- time.
- They will be cognizant that some of us think a year is a long time.
- I mean, it's not a long time for the petitioner, but it's a long time for us to recognize that
- there may not be any enforcement.
- I'm recommending we put that trust in the Planning Department.
- So I will say that I move to deny but encourage the Plan Department to exercise sound discretion
- to make this move practical for the petitioner or the closing practical for the families
- there and the neighbors, but realizing that the neighborhood is the concern of the board
- in the Planning Department here, and that should not be lost in the shuffle.
- Yes.
- It's been moved and seconded to recommend denial for CDU-25-4.
- I did want to just make one comment.
- This is a denial of the conditional use for the child care center as proposed tonight.
- If they make modifications or they can meet another standard in our ordinance which we
- will work with them on, we will try to do that first and foremost, but as presented
- tonight and as communicated, this is a recommendation of denial with ability for the Planning
- Department
- to work with the owner to make sound discretion to make the closure move or redesign practical
- for the families and the neighborhood.
- A vote yes is a vote to deny CDU-25-4.
- Jeff Morris?
- Yes.
- Pamela Davidson?
- No.
- Margaret Clements?
- Yes.
- Skip Daly?
- Yes.
- Guy Loftman?
- Yes.
- Okay.
- The motion is approved four to one to deny the conditional use.
- We're really sorry and we're sorry to the families.
- We have done our best to allow for some positive outcome of this decision.
- And also as you can tell, planning staff is really remarkable to work with and the sooner
- that you speak with them, the sooner you might see other avenues.
- So thank you for coming in tonight and thank you for participating in our process.
- We go on now to items eight and nine, variances 25-26A and B, the SMERC maximum impervious
- cover variance to chapter 804 and the buildable area in the Carson Conservancy area concerning
- 123.41 plus or minus acre parcel in Indian Creek Township at 8056 South Victor Pike.
- So Mr. Brown, if you would kindly review this with us, we'd be so grateful.
- Thank you.
- So the purpose of this is to construct a new single family residence with an attached garage
- and a new detached carport.
- It's worth noting that the accessory structure, the carport alone does not require any variances.
- However, the main home requires both the impervious cover and the minimum buildable area variances
- as applies to carst feature setbacks.
- And the driveway extension also contributes to that impervious cover.
- If the variances are granted, the lot would be considered conforming and be able to be
- developed with the structure as shown in this variance filing.
- The total proposed structures include a 4,570 foot square foot single family residence with
- an attached garage, a 807.96 square foot lean to, an estimated 232.25 square foot patio,
- an estimated 616.51 square foot open porch, a 272.58 square foot screened porch, and a
- 1,080 square foot carport.
- This is combined with modifications to an existing driveway where said existing driveway
- has an estimated impervious cover of 13,900 square feet.
- The total structure, the proposed structures and the existing driveway in total, they total
- to 25,188 square feet as indicated by the petition surveyor.
- In the agricultural residential 2.5 zoning district, the maximum impervious cover surface
- is 20% of the lot or 20,000 square feet, whichever is less.
- And with a lot size of 23.41 acres, 20% of the lot size would be 203,947.92 square feet,
- and thus the 20 foot, square foot restriction would apply.
- As such, a maximum impervious cover variance is required since they are requesting and
- allowed maximum impervious cover that is 5,188 square feet over the maximum.
- And here is the definition of maximum impervious cover for the benefit of the board and all
- in attendance.
- And on to VAR-25-26B, there is a karst feature on the property that is close to the building.
- This karst feature was not originally identified when the property was part of a sliding scale
- subdivision back in 2019, but was identified later.
- The stormwater team of the highway department passed a new ordinance in June of 2024 requiring
- a 50 foot karst conservancy area, but the program manager of the stormwater team allowed
- the petitioner to proceed with designing a new home with only the 25 foot karst conservancy
- area.
- But Chapter 826-3 of the county development ordinance states that all karst features must
- have a karst conservancy area that at minimum encompasses the entire karst in all area within
- 50 feet of said karst.
- The petitioner's proposed plan only reflects the 25 foot karst setback and proposed single
- family residence be located approximately 8.3 feet from said setback.
- Hence a variance is required as well.
- And here are the karst feature delineation and development standards.
- In particular, we're looking at number two, which says for all sinkholes and compound
- sinkholes, the karst kca shall at minimum encompass the entire sinkhole in all area
- within 50 feet of the largest adjoining closed contours of the sinkhole utilizing the best
- available data.
- Here is an image of the property as it stands now with the black L-shaped representing the
- proposed structure.
- The circle in red is the location of this karst conservancy area.
- And this reflects as well the driveway as it exists now.
- Here is the location and site conditions map of the property, as well as the zoning map
- and comprehensive map.
- And here is an aerial view of the property as well, as well as images.
- The image on the left shows the driveway entrance and a distance back towards the proposed property.
- And the image on the right shows an existing RV as well as containers that will be removed
- from the site should this variance be approved.
- And here is the petitioner certified plot plan showing the karst area close to the proposed
- existing home and its location overall in relation to the site.
- And so staff recommends approval of VAR-25-26A as a significant portion of the maximum previous
- cover comprises of the existing driveway.
- We also recommend denial of VAR-25-26B as practical difficulties have not been demonstrated
- and a redesign of the proposed location could be done to move the proposed structures away
- from said karst conservancy area.
- >> Thank you.
- Thank you, Mr. Brown.
- We'll hear from the petitioner now, or the petitioner's representative.
- Is Mr. and Ms. Smirk, or thank you for coming, and would you kindly sign in, both of you,
- and then I'll swear you both in?
- I would raise your right hand.
- Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
- >> Yes.
- >> Thank you.
- You have 15 minutes to make your request to us.
- >> Okay.
- Well, good evening, and we would also like to thank you for the opportunity to explain
- our variance requests, and of course, we are hoping that you will approve both of them tonight.
- Some of the details for our journey, I call it, were in the petitioner letter, but I'd
- like to provide some additional details.
- So this is our first time building a home in, well, in Monroe County, but at all, and
- we plan for this to be our forever home, as stated in the letter, sorry, I didn't expect
- to get emotional there.
- I was raised on the property, and I've always dreamed of building at this location.
- So when we started, when my husband and I started to plan for the home, we actually
- reached out to a surveyor and said, you know, is this an issue, because it's a very small
- depression, but it is a depression, and because we were thinking of building in that location,
- we wanted to be cognizant and reasonable.
- So it was at that time that it was identified as a cars feature.
- And he told us that the county required the 25 foot buffer at the time it was when we
- started it was a 25 foot buffer.
- But lots of other factors went into selecting the current site.
- One is taking advantage of the existing driveway and power that is there.
- And that was from a county airport tower that was located on my parents property years ago.
- Secondly is to optimize views of our field.
- There's kind of a hayfield that sits south east of the the site, I hope I have a horse
- and eventually would like to have the horse there on in the field.
- He's there sometimes but anyways, thirdly, we really like the privacy of the location
- it's off the road away from the road and neighbors.
- And then something that's important to my husband and I is to optimize high performance
- homes design standards.
- So we were trying to optimize southern sun southern sun exposure of our primary windows
- in the home, and to minimize Western sun exposure by not having many windows, you know the garages
- on that side, and then with the lean to we're incorporating solar panels in the design.
- And then thirdly, or lastly, we set about a mile as the crow flies from I 69.
- And it is amazing when there's a northern breeze how much road noise that we get at
- our home.
- And so we designed it so that the porch and kind of outdoor area is blocked by the home,
- actually, if that makes sense.
- So that was important to us as well.
- So we've been actively planning the design of this home for over two years, lots of time
- money and stress have been inserted along the way.
- And one thing is newbies that we failed to consider was the fact that county county building
- codes change frequently.
- So last summer, we had gotten to a point where we were able, we had a pretty solid design
- and we were at the point in the process where we requested the stormwater permit.
- And that's Daniel spoke to that that we, I think we applied in August and they changed
- it in June, fortunately, Kelsey and Erica came out and they allowed us to be grandfathered
- into the 25 foot requirement and that's how we proceeded.
- Again as newbies, we didn't realize that there was a CDL requirement that kind of duplicated
- what the stormwater requirement was.
- So we continue to solidify our plans and our builder applied for our building permit in
- February of this year and actually the initial design that we that he applied for that design
- was approved at the current location, but he didn't pick it up or pay for it.
- I'm not sure why, but he didn't.
- And then shortly, you know, after February, he gave us preliminary bids on the house.
- It's insanely expensive to build right now.
- And so we started considering a smaller footprint for the home.
- So we met with our architect on a Tuesday to discuss, you know, that option, same location
- as the approved building permit that we had on file, but just a smaller footprint, slightly
- different attachment of the garage in the house.
- So after our meeting with our architect, I called Scott Purdue with Smith Design Group
- to let him know that we would probably need a new site plan and to kind of say, you know,
- how how backed up are you from a timing standpoint?
- And he said, Hey, I just need to let you know, there's a new CDO requirement about this permeable
- area, and it might be a problem.
- So the following day, I stopped by the Planning Department, and I spoke with Daniel about
- our changes.
- And I said, you know, it's basically the same location driveway, garage size, but just a
- smaller footprint and attachment to the garage.
- Should we be considered?
- Should we be concerned?
- And he said, you know that the current design was fine.
- And so for going smaller, we should be okay.
- So once again, we continued to redesign that new plan.
- We got a new site survey.
- Our builder then resubmitted our permit request.
- And then shortly thereafter, we were a little bit shocked when we found out that we needed
- two variances.
- And frankly, if we would have known that there would have been potential issues, we probably
- wouldn't have made any changes.
- We would have gone with the original design because there was nothing really wrong with
- it.
- It's just expensive.
- So because of that, again, we told them that we had two variances.
- So fortunately, my husband, he several years ago, bought a home designer software program
- that allows us to kind of mock up moving from 25 feet more south and 25 feet more west.
- And it just really makes it very challenging for several reasons.
- It pushes our structures so far to the southwest that it makes the driveway to the garage unfeasible,
- in my opinion.
- It's basically down and pushed into the trees, into the tree line.
- At the current level, the basement would be completely out of the ground.
- And so a huge amount of backfill would be needed and, of course, increase our costs.
- Maybe even require retaining walls, and we don't know exactly.
- The carport would be so close to the tree line that the solar panels would be not practical.
- If we lowered the house, there would be no way to divert water away from the house on
- the northeast side of the house because we can't touch that area in the car's feature.
- And so if you lowered it, you'd have water running into your house.
- And then it potentially would require a new septic location and a new septic permit because
- it would be pushing it in close to our septic field.
- Again, we haven't gone into a lot of those details, but those are just some potential
- issues that it could cause.
- So in our opinion, we feel like that we'd be forced to start from scratch in a new design
- in a new location, which, again, it's just ridiculous how much money we've spent so far.
- And I know money isn't a decision factor probably for you, but it's a lot of stress, a lot of
- time and a lot of money that would be difficult for us to handle.
- The other thing that I wanted to point out was when we met with the stormwater ladies
- or the stormwater manager, she said that we would need to design the guttering system and
- any potential rainwater away from the car's feature.
- So we do have that as part of our site plan, is nothing is going towards the car's feature
- at that 25 foot setback.
- The other thing is we have acquired all other county permits that are required and we're
- basically ready to start with the home if we can get these approvals.
- So I appreciate it and if you have questions for us, we are more than willing to answer.
- I will ask my colleagues here if they have questions for Mr. and Ms. Smirk.
- I have one question for staff.
- When I read this, as we just heard from the petitioner, the change on the car's setback
- was 25 and now it's 50.
- So there's been a change.
- Was it effective January 1?
- It's another one of these changing regulations.
- It was effective December 18th, 2024 for the planning code.
- All right.
- Thank you.
- Yes, Mr. Daly.
- Yes.
- Just out of curiosity, the February that they're referencing that they had an approved site
- plan, was that of 2025?
- That is correct.
- And that was an error.
- Oh, it was an error.
- Okay.
- But nonetheless, filed and approved.
- Okay.
- Do filed approved site plans expire?
- In this case, it's under a building permit.
- So once the permits issued, it has two years.
- But the actual approval is tied to the permit timeline.
- Should they get denied on this, they can go back to their original plan if they wanted
- to because it's and get because that's still filed and approved, correct?
- Yeah, the original plan that was approved in February on an error was never actually
- picked up as a permit.
- So we stopped it and asked that they go ahead and correct it through this process.
- Then that's what she mentioned her builder didn't pay for it.
- So that's that's off the table at this point.
- Okay.
- My other question is, Mr. Brown, when you mentioned that practical difficulties haven't
- been met and that there was another location, did you take in consideration the change of
- septic and the additional challenges to the environment for rerouting the driveway?
- Rerouting the driveway was something that was considered, but the septic was not.
- Thanks.
- Thank you.
- We're going to hear from the public now, and if there's anyone in the public was opposed,
- you'll have a chance to rebut.
- Okay.
- Are there members of the public who would like to support this petition?
- If so, come to the podium or raise your virtual hand to be recognized.
- Are there members of the public who are against this petition?
- If so, please come to the podium here in the Nat Hill courtroom or raise your virtual hand
- to be recognized.
- We see no one, so I come back to us for further discussion and/or a motion.
- Well I'm not going to make a motion quite yet, but we've been facing a lot of comparable
- issues where it was okay when you started serious planning and went through lots of
- hoops and paid lots of money and saw materials prices go up and up and I'm very sympathetic
- to granting this motion, but I'm certainly interested in hearing what my colleagues have
- to say.
- As a matter of fact, I find practical difficulties have been established and I am prepared to
- motion that variants 25-26A and B be approved due to fitting the conditions in our code.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-26A which is the impervious cover and then VAR-25-26B
- which is the buildable area CARS conservancy area, a vote yes is a vote to approve both
- variances.
- Guy Lofman?
- Yes.
- Jeff Morse?
- Yes.
- Pamela Davidson?
- Yes.
- Margaret Clements?
- Yes.
- Skip Daly?
- Yes.
- Motion is approved 5-0.
- Thank you so much.
- Thank you for coming.
- Thank you.
- Is this on?
- Thank you.
- I'm sure this is totally inappropriate, but I'm just trying to lighten the mood.
- My wife did not want me to do this, but you just saved me from being on a Dateline special.
- Thank you.
- Have a good night.
- Thanks.
- Gentlemen, I need to adjoin myself.
- Thank you so much.
- Thanks for coming tonight and for all of your good thoughts.
- We're moving on to item number 10, which is VAR-25-27A.
- This is the Whaley Maximum Impervious Cover Variance to Chapter 804 concerning one 3.76
- plus or minus acre parcel in Bloomington Township Section 25 at 4791 East State Road 45.
- And Ms. Chriselius, would you kindly review this with us?
- Yes.
- Thank you.
- So the petition site, there's a location map on screen.
- As you stated, this is a 4.42 acre site.
- It's currently zoned Conservation Residential 2.5.
- The petitioner is requesting a design standard variance from the Maximum Impervious Cover
- requirement.
- Their limit based on lot acreage and the requirement would be 15,000 square feet.
- The property has an existing impervious cover of 13,650 square feet, and they are proposing
- an additional 12,348 square feet.
- On screen I do have that definition of impervious cover, but I know we are familiar with that.
- So, on screen is the plot plan that has been applied for.
- Correction from the staff report, I had stated that a residential building permit had not
- been applied for.
- It has.
- So, this would be the final configuration if it was approved tonight.
- We would go and release the building permit.
- So, this plot plan has been engineered by Chelsea Moss, who is present this evening.
- The property is developed with a single-family residential home, accessory structures, a
- drive, a patio, a pond, a pool, and a pool house.
- So, these things are on screen, a little difficult to see.
- On the right, we do have the provided square footages of the building footprints and impervious
- cover.
- So, just a little overview, there's an aerial image on screen.
- So, the existing dwelling and existing pool house would then add in the structure, so
- they have a total structure amount, and then they have a total number for pavement, drive,
- patio, pool, sidewalks for that total of 13,650.
- So, again, on screen is the same plot plan to the bottom right of the plot plan is the
- proposed accessory structure, and then the gray area on three sides of the structure
- is all more impervious cover.
- So, they're proposing to add an accessory structure, which would be generally used for
- residential private storage.
- They are stating that it would be a pull-through style building and that it would require gravel
- parking on both sides.
- As a side note, the property would not be adjacent to the existing home.
- It would come, it would be a new drive that would access the accessory structure coming
- off the existing drive, just slightly off of East Aero 45, partially located in right
- of way, and they are working on their driveway and dot permit for that.
- So the new drive would then turn to the left and go to the new accessory structure.
- So staff recommends denial of this variance request as the petitioner has been unable
- to satisfy the standards for approval, they could relocate the proposed structure to eliminate
- the second drive to access through relocating the structure near the existing residence
- would encourage compact design and would reduce the amount of impervious cover, which is one
- of the points of intent for impervious cover standards.
- And generally, the petitioner has been unable to prove practical difficulties, specifically
- see of the definition that states a significant development limitation that cannot be reasonably
- addressed through the redesign or relocation development of the development building structure
- existing or proposed.
- Does anybody have any questions for me with questions after the petitioner has presented
- Ms. Moss, it's good to see you if you'd kindly sign in.
- Would you kindly raise your right hand, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and
- nothing but the truth?
- Yes, I do.
- Thank you.
- You have 15 minutes.
- Okay.
- Thank you.
- My name is Chelsea Moss.
- I'm with Abram Moss Design Group and we're the site engineer on this project.
- This project, I was brought in on this project the end of last summer and one of the first
- things we noted when we were pulling up survey looking at property lines is the existing structure
- encroached on the property lines that actually have the pool house crossed.
- We went through the lot line adjustment process with Deckard land surveying.
- I advised my client that basically submitting a site plan with that encroachment wasn't
- going to get anywhere.
- We needed to address that issue first, so getting through that process then ended up
- taking us past the approval of the new CDO.
- For the most part, that wasn't an issue for what my client was planning, but the impervious
- area is kind of our sticking point.
- The idea of moving it to another location, I'll go through kind of the thought process
- of why it's located where we are showing.
- Because of the proximity to the north property line, if we were to try to move it along the
- existing line or the existing driveway on the north, we would be encroaching on the
- setback along the north or the septic system, neither of which we want to mess with.
- My client preferred to have it on the south to avoid any visual obstruction for his neighbors
- on the west.
- He's got neighbors that are in this area relatively close to the property line, and so putting
- a big new structure right in their backyard, he didn't want to be that kind of neighbor.
- And so by placing it on the south of the property, that puts it adjacent to what's essentially
- a Carter's Conservancy area that encumbers most of the property south of him, and that
- property south of him is currently used for a business as opposed to a residence.
- So that's why he wanted it kind of on that end.
- He does have a depression to a walkout basement, so we had to keep it closer to that south
- property line as opposed to putting it closer to the house.
- With that location, we basically took that drive up and tied it in.
- It just so happens that he has a lot of the nice existing landscaping along the drive,
- so we tried to tie in just south of that landscaping as opposed to tearing it all up in this
- process.
- In doing so, the connection into the existing drive occurs within the state right-of-way,
- which is why we have to go for that state permit.
- We've kind of started that process, but we're waiting to see about getting this variance
- before we go too far down the road of paying all those permit fees and finalizing that process.
- But since we're not adding any additional turnout onto the highway, I don't see an issue with
- getting the NDOT permit in this case.
- I know there was some comment about the amount of pavement we're talking about around this.
- It is a drive-through building, and he wanted the ability to drive a vehicle with a trailer
- through.
- By the time you put the turning radius on a vehicle with a trailer going through a building,
- that's about what you get.
- Altogether though, this total impervious area falls below the percentage that the ordinance
- allows.
- It just doesn't fall below that or maximum.
- We are under that percentage, which in my opinion is the essence of what the code was
- going after.
- This is a larger lot.
- You can see most of the area is still grass and vegetation.
- We have maintained distances from the Carson Conservancy area in the southwest corner and
- basically overall trying to put this in what we feel is the best location for the site.
- Can you tell us what the percentage of the impervious surface is because the cover you
- refer to that as under the-
- I believe the allowable is 25, is that correct?
- If you take off that or maximum.
- It is 15%.
- 15%.
- Okay.
- We're about at 14%, so we're just under it, but it is under.
- It was about 1% under, I believe.
- Okay.
- That helps.
- That does help.
- I don't really have any questions at this time.
- I understand the request and the rationale behind the request, so thank you.
- We'll hear from the public, and if anyone is opposed, you'll have an opportunity to come
- back.
- Thank you.
- Are there members of the public who would like to speak in favor of this petition?
- If so, please raise your virtual hand, come to the podium in the Nat Hill room.
- We don't see anyone.
- Are there members of the public who are in opposition to this petition?
- If so, please come to the podium in the Nat Hill room or raise your virtual hand.
- We don't see anyone, so I turn to my colleagues now for further discussion and/or motion.
- I just want to make an observation that, of course, we're in the middle of transitioning
- from the last CDO and the new CDO, and from my perspective, I'm seeing where there could
- be some problems that we have to review between ourselves and the public when we go over the
- ordinance and what's working and what's not.
- I certainly -- this neighborhood abuts another neighborhood, and I would imagine that no
- one would want to look out their window on their large property and see a huge carport.
- And so I think that there have been practical difficulties given the kind of a carce feature
- nearby, the neighbors close by, the positioning of the spot on the property, and the need
- for the turnaround because of a truck with a trailer.
- So I myself would be in support of this variance.
- I don't know how others feel, but that's where I stand.
- I'm going to move we accept variance 25-27A, the Whaley Maximum Impervious Cover Variance
- to Chapter 804 for practical difficulties, as you said, and thanks for noting that our
- regulations is 15% and you're at 14%.
- So thank you for that information, too.
- Is there a second?
- Second.
- Okay.
- And I'll note just for the record, they're very close to the 15%, it might not be exactly
- 14%.
- But there is an approval on the table and a second.
- So VAR-25-26A, which is a maximum, oh sorry, that is the prior case, it has already been
- a long night, VAR-25-27A, Whaley Maximum Impervious Cover, a vote yes is a vote to approve the
- variance.
- Guy Lofman?
- Yes.
- Jeff Morris?
- Yes.
- Pamela Davidson?
- Yes.
- Margaret Clements?
- Yes.
- Okay.
- Motion is approved four to zero.
- Thank you, Ms. Moss.
- It's always good to see you.
- Thanks.
- We're moving on to item number 11 in the agenda, which is VAR-25-28.
- This is the worst key eco area two concerning a one acre contiguous buildable area on one
- five plus or minus acre parcel in Salt Creek Township section 18 at 3200 South State Road
- 446.
- And Mr. Smith, if you'd review this with us, we'd be grateful.
- Yeah.
- So this is a variance request from the eco area two standards, which is the one acre
- contiguous buildable area from chapter 823.
- And the purpose is to construct an approximate 1200 square foot detached garage on the property.
- According to chapter 823-5B4, each dwelling unit shall have at least one acre of total
- contiguous buildable area land.
- So despite the petition site itself containing approximately five acres, the proposed building
- location only exhibits approximately 0.7 acres or less of contiguous buildable area.
- So the buildable area in this case would refer to areas within the 15% slope or less.
- And that is because there are no other known environmental concerns present at the build
- location.
- And the project would otherwise be expected to meet all other design standards of the
- CDO.
- And R-25-293 is the building permit number associated with this project.
- Here are just the standard site conditions map and location map.
- As far as the site condition map is concerned, the area in which this proposal is going through
- is up here in this upper left-hand corner of the property.
- So it's closer to State Road 446, but is still going to meet that setback, that front setback.
- So no concerns there.
- This is just a map of the environmental constraints overlay area, specifically area two, which
- is represented by that red color.
- So this property as well as the entire area is located within the Lake Monroe watershed
- area two.
- So everyone in this region is subject to the same standard.
- These are some site photos of the proposed build location.
- And again, no real apparent concerns here.
- It looks like they would connect off of their existing driveway here.
- The petitioner did obtain a certified plot plan from Deckard Land Surveying, and this
- is just a snippet of that certified plot plan, specifically focusing on the proposed garage.
- They have the contour lines present, they've got the square footage, and they also have
- the setbacks.
- And they do show that they are meeting the setbacks, even in the front where they're
- just barely making that 35-foot setback.
- But according to this survey, they will meet that setback.
- So staff's recommendation is approval of the Eco Area 2 variance based on the fact that
- practical difficulties have been demonstrated, as the property simply cannot meet the one
- acre of contiguous buildable area requirements.
- And this would be the minimum variance necessary in order for any new development to occur
- on the site.
- Thank you, Mr. Smith.
- Are the Worskies here?
- I believe they might be online.
- Oh, okay.
- They could be unmuted or elevated.
- Ms. Worski, can you hear us?
- You need to.
- Yes.
- Good evening.
- Please raise your right hand.
- And do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- Yes, I do.
- Thank you, Ms. Worski.
- Please review with us your proposal, your request.
- Good evening.
- I feel as though everything was described accurately regarding my variance request.
- I would just like to reiterate that I am in urgent need of a garage to store my vehicles
- due to increased weather events and destruction of personal property due to rodent damage.
- I've experienced several instances of both within the last year.
- And I thank you all for your time and consideration this evening.
- Thank you, Ms. Worski.
- We're going to hear from the public.
- If anybody opposes your request, then you'll have a chance to speak again.
- Are there members of the public who would like to speak in favor of this petition?
- If so, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand.
- Are there members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to this petition?
- Oh, okay.
- That's your hand, Ms. Worski.
- Sorry.
- Are there members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to this petition?
- Please raise your hand or come to the podium.
- We don't see anyone, so I bring it back to us for further discussion and/or a motion.
- I'm going to move that we approve variance 25-28, the Worski Eco Area 2, one acre contiguous
- buildable area to chapter 823 because practical difficulties have been met.
- Second.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-28, a vote yes as a vote to approve the Worski
- Eco Area 2, one acre contiguous requirement.
- Pamela Davidson?
- Yes.
- Margaret Clements?
- Yes.
- Guy Lofman?
- Yes.
- Jeff Morris?
- Yes.
- And I also want to let the group know that I need to drop out for this call.
- So have a good evening, everyone.
- Okay.
- Motion is approved 4-0.
- Thank you.
- And we still have an in-person quorum, so we can proceed.
- Okay.
- Thank you.
- Okay.
- We're moving on to item number 12, which is VAR-25-29, thrasher residential storage
- structure variance to chapter 811 concerning 1.47 plus or minus acre parcel in Bloomington
- Township Section 31 at South Johnson Avenue.
- Ms. Creselius?
- Yes.
- Thank you.
- So the petitioner is requesting one design standard variance from the residential storage
- structure requirement.
- It's from chapter 811.
- So the petition site is 0.47 acres.
- It is a platted remainder, a lot of maple groves, baby farms.
- It's part of lot two.
- So the property is currently undeveloped.
- The petitioner lives on a directly adjacent property.
- They are requesting the variance in order to construct a 1,568 square foot residential
- storage structure on the site, or 49 by 32.
- The petitioner states in the letter to the BZA that they live adjacent to their lot.
- It would like to maintain the ability to build a single family residential structure on the
- property in the future.
- So on screen is a plot plan of the property, and yellow is the petition site.
- The green square would be the proposed residential storage structure, and the adjacent property
- that the petitioner lives on is shown in a pink-purple color.
- So Chapter 811 states that structures shall not exceed 875 square feet in all other permitted
- zoning districts.
- So the property is zoned Residential 1, and so it would be subject to 875 square feet
- when there is not a primary use on the property.
- So I shortened that first sentence, the whole standard states that structures shall not
- exceed 1,750 for properties that are in the AGR, forest, or conservation residential zoning
- districts, and then goes on to say 875 square feet for all other.
- So a residential storage structure is a structure to be used for private non-commercial storage
- by a property owner.
- It says it does not require the presence of a primary use.
- If there is not a primary use, it is subject to the standard of the size limitation.
- So the lot is currently undeveloped.
- It has another small accessory structure on it, a shed.
- So it is subject to the 875 square feet.
- If there was a, so this would, it would be a by-right use to have a structure that was
- under 875 square feet.
- If they built home, they would be able to build whatever size accessory structure would
- not be subject to this.
- So the site environmentally is pretty well flat and has plenty of buildable area outside
- of the setbacks.
- There are no unique features.
- It is zoned residential one, which does have a minimum lot size of one acre and the property
- is 0.47 acres.
- So development in the future would be, could be constrained.
- So because the proposed structure exceeds the size restriction by 693 square feet, alternatively
- the petitioner could combine the property with the adjacent property at 118 South Johnson
- Avenue where they reside and it would not be held to a size limitation.
- Combining the properties would mean that the petitioner would lose a legal lot of record.
- The petitioner would be unable to construct the same size structure on the adjacent developed
- lot due to its size.
- So the lot that they reside on is 0.2 acres.
- If the petition site was combined with the adjacent lot that they own, it would bring
- the legal acreage to 0.67 acres total, which would be closer to conformity with the residential
- one district.
- Just as a side note that when the petitioner first came to the planning department, their
- property was zoned high development residential, which had a minimum lot size of 0.14 acres.
- And recently the board of commissioners did approve a rezone for this neighborhood from
- high development residential to residential one.
- And that did increase the minimum lot size.
- So many of the lots included in that rezone petition did not meet the one acre lot size.
- So this would not be an unusual situation for this neighborhood.
- The residential zoning district allows landowners to further develop properties with less than
- one acre of land if they can meet all other development standards.
- So like I said, they may face constraints in the future if they do develop it as with
- any other property.
- But it would they would not be subject to a minimum lot size variance if they could
- meet say setbacks.
- The petitioners home on 118 South Johnson does contain enough space for what appears
- to be a driveway to go through the south side of the property, which we would assume would
- happen to access the residential storage structure, although we don't have that in writing.
- We are unsure if the driveway going on the south side of the property would be possible
- without interfering with the septic location or the home location to acts a future home
- location to access the property and the petitioner site plan does not currently show driveway
- access to the proposed accessory structure, but we assume a driveway would be necessary.
- So on screen is the petitioner's letter to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
- So staff recommends denying the residential storage structure variance due to that practical
- difficulties have not been demonstrated that the petitioner could combine the lots for
- planning and zoning purposes or redesign the proposed structure to meet the 875 square
- feet limitation and then as a note, as we like to include, if the design standards variance
- is approved, the petitioner would be able to proceed with a residential accessory structure
- permit application and they would have to comply with all building and zoning requirements.
- If the design standards variance is denied, they would be able to construct that storage
- structure at 875 square feet or they could propose a principal use on the lot concurrently
- and it would remove that square footage limitation of the building.
- Thank you.
- Is Mr. Thrasher here if you would kindly come up and sign in and then I'll swear you in.
- Please raise your right hand.
- Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- I do.
- Thank you.
- So just go over with us your request.
- Okay.
- What I want to do is build me a building in the back to store my boat.
- I have a fishing boat, a little tractor and I tinker with lawn mowers, old cars and things
- like that and I just wanted a place where I could do all that in the back section and
- it would be able to be secured because everything I have right now is just in a like temporary
- storage container or temporary shelters and I wanted to make it look like I have a place
- to just to mess around in my retirement and do those kind of things so that's my intention
- there.
- Thank you.
- I have a question.
- The requirements are 875 square feet right?
- Without a primary use.
- If there's not a house, if there's not a house.
- How did you come up with the size of the structure you want to build?
- Well given the amount of things that I have that I want to use to store in there and have
- an area to work on things like cars and such, it takes up a little room and I'm used to
- working in shops and things so I just come up with that number just due to the fact of
- what I wanted to do and what I had to store and right now I have a shipping container
- back there, a small one that I'm keeping my tools and things.
- I want to incorporate that into the building and make a barn style, something to be more
- eye appealing and still do what I want to do.
- So you're going to keep that container and build?
- It will actually be inside the building.
- Inside the building?
- And when the staff talked to you about possibly combining the lots, what was your thought
- about that?
- Was that a plus or a minus?
- I don't have any reason to build another house, but I don't want to take that ability away
- from my heirs or whoever is going to do what I need to do without changing things.
- Thank you.
- Thank you, Mr. Thrasher.
- We're going to hear from the public.
- Is there a member of the public who would like to speak in favor of this petition?
- Please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand.
- Okay.
- Is there a member of the public who would like to speak in opposition to this petition?
- If so, please raise your virtual hand or come to the podium.
- Okay.
- I will come back now to us three.
- Now I'm kind of sympathetic to the idea that he wants to keep that lot for his progeny
- to perhaps build a house on while he tinkers in his retirement.
- I'm sympathetic to that.
- Staff question.
- I think at some point you said if he combined them he would meet the standard for the building
- he wants.
- Yes.
- Closer.
- It would be one lot, technically, and then it would have primary use because it would
- be on the same lot as his home.
- But would he then be able to build what he wants?
- He could build a residential storage structure of any size within reason.
- Okay.
- Yeah.
- So if he combines the properties, he loses future options but can do what he wants to
- do right now.
- Is that right?
- Correct.
- Okay.
- It seems to me that we often find people wish they had two things that you can't have both
- of, and this to me seems like one of those two things you can't have both of.
- I mean, I don't see any reason not to say if he wants to do this, he can combine the
- properties.
- Then he doesn't even need to come and ask us for anything.
- And it seems to me that meets the spirit and the letter of the zoning ordinance, and that's
- how I'm prone to look at it.
- In that neighborhood, there are a lot of people who bought two lots, and they keep them separate
- because they have children, like saving it for a child who might want to build a home
- later on.
- That's that neighborhood back there behind Culbers and the Greek Table restaurant, so
- people have this and he's openly stated he wanted to keep the lot a separate lot in case
- one of his kids wants to.
- I understand that it's very convenient if you don't meet zoning.
- But it's always very convenient to not meet zoning.
- Was it this case or the ... I'm sorry, I'm being confused.
- Was it this case where under the old requirements, this would not have been ... No, in that
- neighborhood,
- there are many homes that don't meet the size requirements.
- Was that this case you said that about or-
- And this had been zoned a different zone.
- But many houses in that neighborhood are unable to meet the current zoning requirements, correct?
- The minimum lot size.
- There is a small trade-off in the sense of that the residential one zoning district has
- the notation with it that if you can meet all other standards, a minimum lot size variance
- wouldn't be required in the future.
- So that does help.
- But under the CDO, they were rezoned to high-development residential with a lot size of 0.14 acres.
- Both lots would have met that size.
- So are you saying that before this rezone, this might have been possible, but since the
- rezone, it's not?
- If you were only considering minimum lot size, yes.
- Under the former zoning district, the use would not have been permitted.
- At all?
- At all.
- We're not unanimous then what happens?
- It automatically goes to the next meeting.
- OK, let me-- I don't know that I approve of this logic, but I think if we had more people,
- this would probably pass.
- And while it doesn't meet my standards, I also don't want to have Mr. Thrasher had to
- come back, go through the same thing, get back on the agenda.
- So I will bow to the wisdom of my colleagues and if somebody makes a motion, I will support
- it.
- Then I will move to approve variance 25-29, the Thrasher residential storage structure
- variance to chapter 811, page 112.
- Impair practical difficulties and all three.
- The approval, because it would not impair the stability of a natural or scenic area,
- it would not interfere, make more dangerous, difficult or costly the use, installation
- or maintenance of existing or planned transportation and utility facilities.
- And the character of the property included in the variance does not depart from what
- is characteristic in the neighborhood and doesn't seem to affect the use and value of
- adjacent properties and variance needed to eliminate practical difficulties.
- So the motion has been made and seconded, and now we'll just call the vote seconded.
- So it's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-29, Thrasher residential storage structure
- a vote yes as a vote to approve the storage structure size to the maximum as indicated in the staff
- packet tonight.
- Margaret Clements? Yes. Guy Lofman? Aye. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Okay, motion is approved three to
- zero. Thank you Mr. Thrasher.
- Thank you. Enjoy your retirement. Yes, thanks. Okay, so this is item number 13, which is VAR-25-30,
- the Allen Accessory Dwelling Unit, 800 square foot size limitation, variance to Chapter 811,
- concerning 1.5.23 plus or minus acre parcel in Richland Township, and 1780 North Pioneer Lane.
- And if you could review that with us, Mr. Myers, we'd be grateful. Thank you.
- All right, this is VAR-25-30. The petitioner is requesting one design standards variance to the
- Accessory Dwelling Unit standards of Chapter 811 of the County Development Ordinance. In 2023, the
- property owners submitted a residential accessory structure permit application to construct a new
- 1200 square foot detached garage on the property at the petition site. Upon review of the Planning
- Department, it was determined that the existing 2000, approximately 2800 square foot detached
- garage was constructed in the county of Richland Township.
- It was constructed without permits in around 2017 by the prior property owners. Upon further review
- of the unpermitted structure, it was determined that its interior meets the definition of a
- dwelling unit and would have required a residential building permit.
- In October of 2023 the property owner was directed by staff to submit an after the fact residential
- building permit application for the unpermitted structure and pursue a rezone or use variance under
- the former 1997 zoning ordinance to convert one of the two existing dwelling units on the property
- into a detached accessory dwelling unit.
- Only after following this process could the planning department issue an improvement location
- permit for the new 1200 square foot detached garage with the adopt. Sorry, excuse me.
- Now with the adoption of the kind of development ordinance. In December of 2024, the property was
- rezoned from a state residential to residential one, which made the property eligible for the dad
- do instead of having to pursue a rezone petition itself.
- But the dad do land use is still subject to the conditions of chapter 811 dash for see.
- So I will go over the definitions here in a moment but before I proceed, I'll touch on what happens
- if this variance is approved and if it's what if it's denied.
- So if the variance is approved. The petitioner will need to submit an after the fact residential
- building permit application for the 2800 square foot structure that was built without permits by
- the prior owners and submit an improvement location permit application to convert the
- existing manufactured home into the detached accessory dwelling unit.
- And that's the process to permit to separate dwelling units on one lot of record.
- The petitioner may then resume the permitting process for their original plans of constructing a
- 1200 square foot detached garage on the property that they initially started in 2023.
- If this is denied, the petitioner must do either of the following a decommissioned the 2800 square
- foot structure as a dwelling unit, and then operate the manufactured home as the sole residential
- dwelling on the property, or be decommissioned the manufactured
- home as dwelling unit and get a building permit after the fact building permit for the 2800 square
- foot structure to be the sole residential unit on the property, or see remove the manufactured home
- and build a new detached accessory dwelling unit that meets the
- 2800 square foot residential living space requirement. And if B or C are chosen in that process,
- the planning department will seek an after the fact residential building permit application to
- verify that the 2800 square foot structure can meet residential
- building code and get that after the fact permit.
- So on the screen here is some definitions from chapter 850 with respect to accessory dwelling units
- dwelling dwelling unit and livable residential space.
- So overall the property owners hoping to transform or convert the existing manufactured home into
- the data, and look to get the appropriate permits for that 2800 square foot garage structure that
- was originally built in by the prior owners
- that has in the interior it's basically a dwelling, and you'll see the pictures here in a moment.
- With the dad do conversation we do have a list of conditions that must be met for a that used to be
- permitted. So on the screen we have items, one through 13. I will just point to the items that have
- the red text which means that they are not met or that there's some discussion
- regarding them. So if you look to number two. It states that in the, see in the residential zone.
- You must have at least 5.5 acres, connected to sewer and 1.25 acres for lots with septic.
- It has more than 1.25 acres. Therefore its size is limited to 800 square feet, and that is the sole
- condition. Why we are here this evening for this variance.
- If you look to number four. It states that the petitioner may can make convert an existing resident
- or accessory structure on a site into a accessory dwelling unit. If the petitioner applies to
- convert an accessory existing accessory structure into a accessory dwelling unit, the petitioner
- must meet all building department requirements, conversion or construction of an accessory dwelling
- requires an improvement location permit.
- So, the current manufactured home doesn't need a conversion permit doesn't need a new residential
- building permit it's already been existing on the property.
- It was it's been there since 1993. However, if the property owner were to choose the 2800 square
- foot structure as their daddy, they would need to get that that building permit. After the fact
- building permit.
- I think I might have misspoke the, the manufactured home does require a conversion permit, which is
- also known as an improvement location permit. So, that condition can be met, it's just a permitting
- step, depending on which structure they ultimately choose to operate as the accessory dwelling unit.
- So all the information in this packet is indicating that they are wanting to convert the
- manufactured home into the accessory dwelling unit, but I'm just providing all that information up
- front in case there is some discussion about choosing the other structure.
- If they want to go that path.
- So sorry if this is kind of confusing.
- And I will direct you to number 10, which I have listed there. It states must have a permanent
- connection to either an onsite sewage system or a sanitary sewage system.
- The petitioners representative provided evidence of permits for both of the existing structures on
- the site. So therefore I went ahead and struck out that requirement because that standard is now
- met.
- They have evidence of the former or the older septic system that services the manufactured home,
- and they also have a septic permit from 2020. That is for the 2800 square foot structure that was
- built without permits.
- How does that home get built without permits.
- No, I don't know.
- So here on the location map and the site conditions map.
- The structure that was built without permits is the southern structure here, and the manufactured
- home is up here. That's been there since 1993.
- So here's some aerial imagery from 2024 I believe, showing all the structures on the property.
- And the manufactured home in the north section here my cursor is that's the structure that they are
- intending to convert to a detached accessory dwelling unit.
- It is, of course, over that 800 square foot limitation.
- So that's why we're here for the variance.
- This larger 2800 square foot structure here on the south side, that's the one that was built in
- 2017 without permits and does require an after the fact permit through the building department.
- A few more photographs here.
- And then this on screen are some photographs that were provided by the petitioner and the original
- permitting conversations regarding their
- goal to have a new 1200 square foot detached garage. And when planning started asking questions
- about this unpermitted structure, they were provided they provided this information to us.
- So as you can see, the structure does exhibit dwelling like characteristics including a bathroom, a
- kitchen, and a space for sleeping.
- So, those are the definitions for a dwelling unit, and that's why it would be classified as a
- residence.
- Okay. Now on the screen we have the letter to the Board of Zoning Appeals from the petitioners
- representatives, giving some background to the property, the petitioners purchasing it, as well as
- hoping to establish the manufactured
- home as a new accessory dwelling unit that would formally permit or legally permit that dwelling
- unit to remain, stating the use of that structure for family as well.
- And we can come back to this. If necessary, it's also included in the packet.
- On the screen, this is something that the petitioners representative provided, indicating their
- layout of the property and identification of the structures for this petition.
- And also included this in the packet as well is the boundary survey from 2023 that shows those
- structures as identified on the property as well as its boundaries.
- And I just did a zoom in here and you can kind of see even from the survey, they referenced that 2,800
- square foot structure as a dwelling also on the survey. So in order to permit two dwellings on one
- lot, one of them has to be an accessory dwelling unit and this variance is an attempt to convert
- the manufactured home into such.
- Okay, so that brings me to staffs recommendation for the Alan accessory dwelling unit size
- limitation variance chapter 811 staff recommends denial of the design standards variance stating
- practical difficulties have not been met, and that the petitioner could replace the
- existing 1300 square foot manufactured home with a dwelling that meets the 800 square foot size
- limitation for accessory dwelling units in the residential one zone and work to acquire the
- appropriate permit for the existing 2800 square foot structure that was built as a
- residence without permits. I will take any questions. Well, I think we better hear from the
- petitioner the Mr Alan I assume you're going to be talking with us and just for Barb, our lady in
- the planning department who helps keep us straight would you kindly sign in.
- We know we, you don't have to swear in but it'll help our about
- Thank you very much.
- Already noted. My name is Larry Allen I'm representing David and Teresa Jones who are the petitioners
- here. They're actually in the room here tonight with us. Teresa despite having oral surgery is
- toughing it out tonight with us and as long as well as their
- daughter Lacey who lives in what's proposed as the accessory dwelling unit and her young son and
- David, David and Teresa's grandson.
- As we already noted, so this property was owned by a relative previously, and as was noted by staff,
- the larger structure had been constructed already at the time that David and Teresa had purchases
- they purchased this in 2018.
- It served as kind of the ideal type of property for what their intended use was and they were
- unaware of lack of permits or that it was in any way non conforming at the time.
- I will say just just for full transparency, I believe that the the larger structure here was
- already it was already in the process of being finished out there was some finishing work that took
- place afterward that they continue to finish out on that property.
- But as I said they weren't aware that there were lack of permits or anything like that.
- There are two structures here in terms of trying to sort out this not essentially I think the
- narrative is exactly correct whenever they went to attempt to build a garage on the site they were
- informed by staff that this was not conforming and that there were steps that they would need to
- take.
- That's exactly what they want to do is they want to try to in the most economical way possible in
- the most practical way possible is kind of untie this not get the proper permits so understanding
- that this is one of the processes the variance for the data it makes sense to make
- sure that the existing smaller structure is close enough to what the daddy requirements are for
- residential that 800 square feet I understand it's 1300 square feet but it's the closest.
- To me to that and then pursue the building the after the fact building permit for the one story
- larger residents, and that's what they intend to do.
- As I noted, and as you can see on the screen here, these, these dwellings are extraordinarily close
- and so sometimes what we see with these types of daddy's is they want to use it to rent out or do
- something else, this is really a family type dwelling
- they're so close in proximity, that the Joneses really have their only intended uses to this kind
- of dual family support system, and that's what it has been useful for David and Teresa.
- They've used this proximity it's been ideal for them to help take care of their grandson which they
- do fairly regularly. And for Lacey it's ideal for her to help take care of potentially her aging
- parents.
- So that is really the primary intended use here this is not to be split off or any other future
- development or to be used as a money making thing this really is meant to just be a true accessory
- dwelling unit with the family, so that they can support each other.
- I already mentioned that, that they had once they were told of the requirements you know they've
- they've started down this process it's taken some time to get to this point but I think we're at a
- good place of momentum.
- Just to address some of the variant standards you know both first in Indiana code and then just to
- address very specifically the practical difficulties in terms of whether this approval would be
- interest to public health or safety morals general welfare.
- There's no change to the character of this property there's no increase in the usage there's, in
- fact, this is a five acre five plus acre lot.
- If it was spread out differently you could have two different dwelling units on it of course.
- And this has already been existing and so there's no traffic there's nothing that would hinder the
- character of the neighborhood or change it in any significant way in fact it honestly probably
- again because of that family use it probably goes to support the
- general morals and welfare of our community as opposed to degrade it.
- The second just principle behind proving a variance is that the use and value of the area Jason to
- the property will not be affected substantially adverse manner, as I mentioned, there's no change
- so as you as you can kind of see here on the the aerial that's depicted on the
- property. This property significantly set back from the end of the drive it's almost completely
- covered in woods there's significant differences between the neighbors in terms of you can barely
- see any houses, and on the western side of this is actually an industrial use on the other
- side of those woods so we're not talking about any damage to the character of that particular area
- here, or anything that's interest in terms of practical difficulties.
- This property was designed under the county zoning ordinance, you know, the denial of this variance
- a result in significant practical difficulties to the family.
- First of all, it's going to displace one of the families if it's denied I mean the denial and how
- this would go.
- Either the Joneses themselves have to move out of their daughter and their grandson would have to
- find a new place to live potentially.
- So it's not reasonable or practical to redesign or relocate the properties. One, because as we've
- already noted they both already have installed and approved separate septic systems.
- So that's going to be a major undertaking already. If you try to relocate or reconfigure this site
- in terms of costs, the practicalities go away.
- I think a staff noted in its report as well. There is a karst conservancy area immediately behind
- this and so you also risk bumping into that there's a creek.
- To the north and the east, which also create some difficulty there and just terms of spreading out
- how you would use the land, and you would need a different type of drive structure to do that so
- you potentially be increasing the use of the land.
- To separate this out any other way, whereas in the compact format that it currently is in with the
- sewer as it's currently installed is the most efficient.
- In terms of the unique circumstances behind this particular one I think the fact that this existed
- at the time that they purchased it and that it was in progress of being finished out presents those
- unique circumstances here this is obviously very unusual.
- We're trying to work with staff, we want to get through this process, get a building permit get
- this all all approved before any other, you know, any other.
- approvals and permits get get sought so for any garage or a deck or anything like that they want to
- go through this.
- And then, as as kind of noted in the staff report in terms of another practical difficulty there's
- actually no way of getting around a subsequent approval here, I think, is what we've heard.
- Either they're going to go ahead and go ahead and try to get this this approved via the variance
- which seems minimal, and then the building permit.
- But either way, if this was denied for some reason they still have to go to the building department
- and potentially get a new permit they still have to work with staff to get those permits and so
- that also creates.
- An additional hardship and particularly because they're getting a permit at that point if this is
- denied to choose which home they're going to get rid of, which is a very difficult choice for them
- to make.
- I think just in general, again, there are practical difficulties the cost is it would be enormous
- to the family of you're essentially giving up a house in the dwelling and you're moving away, part
- of your family from the site which is which is
- extraordinary and unusual in these circumstances this is not a developer who was trying to thwart
- the intention of the zoning code this is really just a family who's now trying to do the right
- thing and get the proper approvals.
- I also know, I noted the families here so if you have any questions for them they're happy to
- answer.
- Thank you, Mr Alan, we're going to hear from the public as we do. And if there's any member of the
- public who would like to speak in support or in opposition to this petition.
- Please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand. And that's either for or against.
- Do we see no one. Okay, so let's discuss it.
- I have a question for staff. So, the larger home the 2800 was built without a permit.
- And so there's something called after the fact permit which the how intriguing is that they want to
- build a 1200 or 1300 1200 accessory dwelling unit somewhere in that 1200.
- So, a garage garage garage. So it's not a residential but but isn't the daughter and son going to
- live residential dwelling.
- Let me clarify. Yes. So, on the property existing currently is a approximately 1300 square foot
- manufactured home that's been there since 1993.
- Yes. And then as well as its own detached garage.
- Then sometime in 2017, the 2800 square foot structure was built without permits, and that structure
- as evidence from the imagery and the photos we have was built with an interior that's like a
- dwelling unit.
- All of this started though, when the petitioner came to the building or to the planning department,
- wanting to build a brand new detached garage that detached garage has not been built yet that
- process was stopped because we recognize that there was an
- limited structure on the property, as well as two dwelling units that needed to go through the
- proper channels to get approval. So the manufactured home right now is where family members are
- living.
- And that's not going to be changed. It's the detached garage we're really wrestling with because
- the after the fact permit on the main dwelling unit you gave us forward options which were, oh my,
- you know, going to be.
- There's no complication with the process moving forward, especially if it's denied.
- They are selecting the manufacturer the existing manufactured home to be converted as the detached
- accessory dwelling unit, the proposed 1200 square foot detached garage that isn't really shown on
- any of the maps because it's still in the development stages that would serve
- purely as a detached garage it would not be any sort of dwelling.
- So they're committing to keeping the 2800 square foot structure as the main residence, and we'll
- get the proper after the fact permit through the building department for that.
- And they're seeking the accessory dwelling unit use classification on the manufactured home.
- Thanks.
- This is, this is not, this is a statement, not a question, but it's, but it's, this comes up.
- Some time ago, a little while ago.
- An attorney who is no longer frequently practicing in front of us I think my Carmen, as I
- understand his basically retired from this.
- This, this portion of his practice and gone on to a completely different area of practice, but he
- was always a respected and appreciated member of the bar here.
- I said, Mike can does if I get if I buy land and I get my title policy, does it tell me anything
- about the dwelling. I'm actually with the with the zoning.
- And the answer was no. And I said well can you get a cheap rider that somebody will check it and
- the answer was no you can get an expensive one, but it's not part of routine.
- I understand conveyancing and many times we've come up with somebody who who buys real estate, not
- knowing that it's non conforming.
- And I don't think they're not doing their due diligence, there's no deal. There's no diligence you
- can do that is due, or that is routinely routinely provided in a situation like this it makes me
- particularly sympathetic
- regretting the after the fact because otherwise the person's, you know, maybe been defrauded but
- that's the, you know, that's not really the point the point is they bought this it's got useful
- things and I'm not prepared to see it.
- They'd be torn down or waste these resources housing is very scarce. And, and in these
- circumstances, I'm going to be prepared to support this but I'd be glad to listen to my colleagues.
- We are talking about the garage not about the residential because those two are taken care of by
- other people by other entities the after the fact permits not granted by us. And no is the, the
- manufacturer home isn't granted by us either we're talking about the standalone
- detached garage that's of a different size than the regulations Am I right about that. So this
- right this variance is for the size limitation of an accessory dwelling unit, not not a new storage
- structure.
- Manufactured home sits with 1300 square feet, and the limitation is 800 square feet so in order to
- formally convert the manufactured home into a accessory dwelling unit, they need this variance to
- do so, is this also include the garage, or that's
- not before us yet garage is not before us because there has not there is a permit that's been
- submitted, but it's been on hold to clarify.
- So, yeah, just to just to put a fine point on that the garage is not under consideration right now
- this is about the two dwelling units and whether you can use one of them as an accessory one on
- time and not, you know, I mean, many moving parts in this one.
- And from my perspective, you know I the family is living a dream, you know they're located closely
- together they're able to look out for each other they get multiple generations, they just got to
- fix this bureaucracy.
- They can first of all, live without hassle and secondly think about building a garage and I'm in
- favor of not displacing one of the families and granting this variance request I believe Mr Allen's
- arguments for the justification for doing so we're compelling and I'd like to untie this not
- I would only have a one one nit to pick. And that is, I don't think the bureaucracy is has tripped
- them up I think somebody who built and violated our ordinances has tripped them up and and the fact
- that this is not revealed when you try to buy land like it would if
- there was an encroachment. I don't think the problem is the bureaucracy I think the problem is
- people who disobeyed our requirements. And, and, but I'm not going to punish the new owners for,
- for, for, for buying something not knowing that it was nonconforming.
- Yes, I agree. We had this situation before within many months ago with an unpermitted build. And I
- know we asked you, is there any recourse for that builder, I think you said that there was a
- reporting system or something about that.
- In our CDO, we do have enforcement processes and things that we can do we can we can contact the
- owner we can contact the builder we can contact, you know, a variety of people as part of our
- enforcement but I think that the onus is always on the owner at the time
- that we engage so it's the owner first. Well, not put any more burden on this family. These
- families, you know, I just wonder, the, the unpermitted build is that per developer builder going
- out doing that all over the county.
- I mean, that's, that's a fine question.
- I don't know who the builder wasn't in this case, so I'm not sure. Well, I'm going to move that we
- approve variance 25 dash 30 the Allen accessory dwelling unit.
- Mr Allen. Oh, I'm sorry kind you all were actually in the middle I just want to make sure just in
- terms of procedural you're all in the middle of taking public comment which has not been completed
- yet.
- Yes, it was. So you may want to complete that before you make a motion to approve or deny public
- comment is finished. They did not nobody spoke right.
- Nobody raised their rebuttal maybe I don't there's no rebuttal because there was nobody to speak in
- opposition. We asked for public comment, but we didn't get it.
- I am confused here that the title is Alan accessory dwelling unit, it really should be Jones
- accessory dwelling unit is that right.
- That's right. Yes, I. Yes, the Mr. Allen was the petitioner is the applicant as their
- representative so I see just gave it that name.
- But, but the yeah it's Jones with a party in interest. They are the owners of the property and
- applicant was Mr. Allen on behalf of the Joneses.
- Okay, so I'm going to move that we approve the Allen slash Jones accessory dwelling unit 800 square
- foot size limitation variance to Chapter 811.
- Okay. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to prove bar dash 25 dash 30, which is the Allen slash
- Jones accessory dwelling unit 800 square foot size limitation to Chapter 811 a vote yes is a vote
- to approve the variance, Margaret Clements.
- Yes, Guy Laughman. Yes, Pamela Davidson. Yes, motion is approved three to zero. Yes, and thank you.
- Thank you for untying that not and also for suffering through this long time with your recent oral
- surgery and yeah I've continued to have a beautiful family location.
- And congratulations to your grandson for managing this whole thing so well.
- Well done, sir.
- Thank you.
- Now to the board I have to ask, you know we have.
- To continue. We, I'm required to ask you if you'd like to continue through hearing all the cases,
- or if you'd like to break with there is what the next case is three cases all in one. And then, so
- that'd be 1234 more cases.
- How are you holding up my friends. Yeah, I've got those on there.
- Yeah, I think we should carry on carry on. I've already missed the play I was gonna go to at nine o'clock
- so I'm so sorry.
- Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so the public should be relieved we're gonna stick it out and get through this
- tonight we're going to power through it so the next I variances are items number 1415 and 16
- concerning variance 25 dash 31 a, b, and c.
- And this is the price accessory accessory dwelling units, the price accessory Oh on 1000 square
- foot size limitation price accessory dwelling unit five acre lot size requirement variance and the
- price accessory dwelling units, having a shared driveway
- requirement concerning a 2.506 plus or minus acre parcel and clear Creek township at 7555 South as
- Ike's road and Mr Brown if you could lead us through this.
- We need you. Thank you. So the purpose of this is to establish a new detached accessory dwelling
- unit, along with an accompanying driveway on the property. There is an existing home on the
- property which is described by petitioner as
- an existing of two mobile homes combined under a pole barn structure. However, the mobile homes
- have been combined and modified to accommodate a single family as seen in second exhibit five.
- And therefore it's considered a single family residents.
- There is no building permit associated with this variance at this time, and as such, there may also
- be additional variances required. Once the building permit application is reviewed.
- They are requested the variance process go first, so that they don't have to spend the money on
- getting a certified plot plan for for detached accessory dwelling units.
- The county development ordinance, a detached accessory dwelling unit is permitted in the
- agricultural residential 2.5 zoning district with standards. One such standard is that the data is
- required to be on a lot that is at least five acres in area of this lot is only 2.506 acres.
- In addition, the county development ordinance states that detached accessory dwelling unit can have
- a maximum of 1000 square feet of livable residential space as defined in Chapter 850.
- The petitioner, however, is proposing a detached accessory dwelling unit with a livable residential
- space of 1398 square feet and an attached non heated garage that is measuring 545 square feet.
- As this garage is non heated its square footage does not count towards the overall 1000 square foot
- limitation.
- Finally, a detached accessory dwelling unit is required under the county development ordinance to
- share the same driveway entrance as the existing home.
- However, the petitioner is proposing that the detached accessory dwelling unit instead connect to
- an already existing driveway north of the existing home.
- Here are the definitions of accessory dwelling units as well as livable residential space.
- The key components for what qualifies as livable residential space seems to be in parts, whether or
- not an area of a structure is heated or cooled.
- And here is the location map and site conditions map of the property, as well as the zoning and
- comprehensive plan maps.
- And here is a view of the property in question, the proposed location of the detached accessory
- dwelling unit is here where my mouse cursor is.
- And here are some side photos, the one on the left shows the existing single family residence on
- the property, and the one on the right shows the proposed location of the detached accessory
- dwelling unit.
- And here is the petitioner site plan for the location of the proposed detached accessory dwelling
- unit is worth noting that this is a subdivision and that the owner owns three of the lots.
- Lot number two is a location of the proposed dwelling unit, the owner is currently renting that out
- long term to a family.
- The same is true of lot number four lot number three is vacant, with the petitioner saying that
- they plan to build a home there as well.
- And the image on the left shows the floor plan that was submitted to staff of the proposed details
- accessory dwelling units, and the image on the right is, once again, a plot showing the price minor
- subdivision.
- And so staff has the following recommendations, we recommend denial of VAR-23-31A as a redesign of
- the proposed dad who could bring it into the 1000 square foot limit of livable residential space.
- We recommend denial of VAR-25-31B as practical difficulties have not been demonstrated. The
- petitioner owns a vacant lot to the north where the proposed home could be located.
- But we do recommend approval of VAR-25-31C, as while the proposed detached accessory dwelling unit
- will not be using the same driveway as the existing residence, it is proposed to branch off an
- existing driveway that is an ingress/egress easement and therefore would not result in any further
- driveway entrances to a county roadway.
- In addition, if the proposed driveway were to share the existing driveway entrance, it would
- increase the impervious surface, impervious cover of the lot, and the driveway would need to
- navigate around two sinkholes and preserve trees to reach the Dattoos proposed location as seen in
- Exhibit 6.
- Any questions?
- Well, we'll save them till after we hear from the petitioner. Okay, if the petitioner is here, if
- you would kindly come up and sign in, Mr. and Mrs. Price, if you'd sign in, then I'll swear you in.
- Thanks for hanging in there with us today.
- Would you kindly raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
- but the truth?
- Yes, I do.
- Yes.
- Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Price. So, we just want to hear from you, you know, your requests for these
- three variances and what, you know, what your rationale is and why you think we should grant it.
- Well, lot number two.
- I was going to, I would like to give to her.
- I see.
- Just a home on there.
- It's basically it was there when I bought the property in 1990, or I'm sorry, 2004.
- It was there.
- Basically what it is is two mobile homes that they put a pole barn over the top and cut one of the
- walls and the inside of it made basically a double wide out of two trailers.
- It's getting in pretty bad shape, but right now it's currently occupied by a single mother with a
- couple of kids through the Bloomington Housing Authority.
- And they've been there, I think, approximately six years, so exactly how long how much longer they're
- going to be there.
- I, I don't know. I know sooner or later the kids, probably the next two or three years are going to
- become of age and I don't know if they're going to qualify for that three bedroom home anymore but
- that's something that I plan on removing.
- And replacing you with the great or the mother law home.
- For me, and my wife.
- The, the, the proposed home that I'm proposing to build, or have built would become the primary
- residence and the existing mobile homes would be removed and replaced with a thousand foot mother
- all house.
- The lot to the north.
- Just a buffer. You know, I mean, it's, it's, if you look at Zikes road.
- And a lot to the north.
- There's a lot of residences on that corner there.
- And it's a, they're seen to be growing a lot of lots of there, and it's just been a buffer.
- If I wanted to develop it, we could have done it sometime in the last 20 years, but that was never
- our intentions was to develop that law.
- The only reason that block one was sold off is because a few years back we got money got a little
- tight and we had to sell it.
- We worked out a deal with a couple friends of ours, young couple, but their marriage kind of went
- that way so they weren't there very long but the couple that lives there now are extremely nice.
- One's a nurse practitioner and the other's a maintenance man at IU so we get along real well. We
- help mow each other's yard.
- When one gets behind we'll help each other out.
- I just want to gift lot number two to my daughter.
- Lot number three open. Basically, as a buffer.
- Once I'm gone. What she does with it was she sells or borrow money against it to bury me or
- whatever she wants to do with it.
- You know she's going eventually here at all.
- Hopefully that'll be a few years down the road.
- My wife is not in the best shape right now. She's got COPD, but that doesn't really concern this
- proceeding.
- But sooner or later, it's will inherit one where they're her sister. So a good chance that it might
- be developed a lot number three might be developed.
- Five 10 yards down the channel five or five or 10 years down the road. I, I can't guarantee that it
- won't be that I won't do it.
- If I do, it'll be my house, you know, but it's just me and my wife now and I really don't see.
- And for me to give her a lot number three if you look at the topography of it.
- It's, it would just about about had to require a walk out basement.
- Cost to, you know, the cost of the house. And in 2004 when we bought the property.
- It was only was two and a half acres.
- Primary resident, the way it was explained to me when I paid to have the property subdivide in 2005
- was that it was two and a half acres lots, which that's what they are minimum lot size was two and
- a half acres.
- And told me that one primary residents per two and a half acres. And you could have a grandmother,
- I'm sorry, a mother in law house is what they call it.
- And I don't remember ever anybody ever tell me it was 1000 square foot but they may have I'm not
- saying didn't happen. I've looked back and I can't find the, the regulations or the ordinances
- passed any farther back than maybe
- 2018 2015. But, you know, there's no reason for me to look it up till just now. You know, that. So,
- I can't swear.
- One way or the other, whether there was a 1000 foot restriction on a mother in law house or not,
- because I can't today I still can't find it.
- I want to do is give her a lot number two, let her build her house on there.
- I'm trying to get her through the legal aspects of it, trying to get the permits in order and
- things like that.
- So that she can move on and I can.
- You know, you're about to see what you're getting into here. Yeah, but I'd much rather see her do
- that and
- build her house and make a mortgage payment and pay 1800 or $2,000 a month rent somewhere.
- It could be a lot better off for everybody involved if she had a mortgage instead of a rental
- contract, you know, so
- because the prices in this town are getting really high for rentals.
- I hope that you'll let me, I can go over quick claim it.
- That lot is paid for just a matter of signing it away.
- So that would be her down payment on her construction loan.
- I already have approval and everything. It's just.
- See.
- Okay, so we're talking about building a new structure, and it's about 1400 square feet and our
- problem is that 1400, but some just under right.
- And our problem is that our regulations say 1000 which is small because as I looked at the plan of
- yours, it's three bedrooms 1400 isn't that large, it really is nice.
- It's going to be cozy. Well, she had one picked out there was a little bigger but we were trying to
- get down closer to right.
- That's right.
- The bigger, the larger draw a plan that she had there just no way.
- You know I mean I could drop a bedroom and, you know, this that there's no way we could get down
- any so she picked out a very house is very similar.
- I don't know if you got a picture of it. Oh, we saw the scheme of it right there we have it on this
- screen it's up there, it's there.
- There it is. Well, I'm talking about the, the old one.
- No, yeah.
- Okay, can I come up there.
- That's beautiful.
- Exactly what you showed us right here.
- Right. And this too. So the one they wanted was 1398 close to 1400 square feet. Right. Is this the
- one you're building. Yeah, that's
- Yes, it's beautiful. Yes, beautiful. Right here they are. Okay, we could take a copy of one of
- those for the record if that's all right, just the one that we don't have, and then we can always
- give it back.
- We just have to take a copy of it for the record, and she can give it back to you after she makes a
- copy.
- So, um, well, I think we've heard enough from you. Do you have questions of the petitioners are
- will open it up to public will open.
- You know you we've heard your presentation, and now we'll hear from the public if anybody is
- opposed to your request, then you'll have a chance to talk again.
- Okay. Are there members of the public who would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to
- this petition.
- Do we see none.
- None. Okay, so the public comment is closed and there's no need for rebuttal and we just discuss it
- among ourselves.
- the one thing we didn't talk about is the shared driveway requirement, you know, because that staff
- recommended approval approval of that. Okay, fine. And Andy. Okay. All right. Yeah, you're
- absolutely right. All right. Any comments, guy.
- We're okay now.
- We're we're we're we're the ones talking now.
- Okay, it's okay.
- You're doing fine. Thank you. Oh, thank you.
- You know, I think part of the problem is that the the the 800 foot in the one situation 1000 foot
- in the other is just hard to to turn to make a dwelling unit fit that and and we think we're going
- to be dealing with that.
- We think we're going to be dealing with it. But that's not what we can deal with tonight. But we
- can do is deal with people who are doing the best they can get as close as they can. And I think
- that's what these people are doing. So I'm comfortable with it.
- Me too. So I'm going to make we're seeing a lot more family reunifications and work. It's the trend
- and good for you. So I think we'll make a motion to I I want to make a motion to approve variance
- 25 dash 31 a the price accessory accessory dwelling units 1000 square foot limitation variance from
- Chapter 811 and also variance.
- 25 dash 31 be the price accessory dwelling units the five acre lot size requirement variance from 811
- I that as well and also number three variance 25 dash 31 see the price accessory dwelling units
- shared require driveway requirement variance from Chapter 811 all three of them.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve all three variances bar dash 25 dash 31 a B and C
- regarding accessory dwelling units about yes is about to approve all three variances as stated by BGA
- member Pamela Davidson about yes is about to approve guy
- Lofman yes Pamela Davidson yes Margaret Clements yes motion is approved three to zero
- congratulations it's going to be a really beautiful place for your family thank you great thank you
- guys to live close to the folks yes.
- Oh yeah thank you for putting up with us tonight.
- Thank you. Good luck. Looks good. It's going to be beautiful.
- Okay.
- Oh that's sweet.
- Yeah.
- Well we only have three more to go.
- Oh Sean said it's going to be quick. Okay, let's get started. VAR dash 25 dash 32.
- She has to make it.
- Yeah, the Dick minimum lots with variance to Chapter 804 concerning one 3.25 plus or minus acre
- parcel and Clear Creek Township section eight at 7505 South Old State Road 37.
- Take it away.
- So, minimum lot with variance to Chapter 804 the purpose is to construct a roughly 800 square foot
- new single family residents on the property. According to Chapter 804, the agricultural residential
- 2.5 zone requires a lot to be 200 feet in width.
- Whereas the law in question is only about 118 feet in width. There did exist a residence previously
- on the property but that has since been demolished.
- There is a large compound sinkhole in the area that staff did identify using the county GIS, and
- that overlaps the northern property line.
- But planning staff believes that the proposed location of the new residence has sufficient distance
- between the structure and the outermost contour line of the sinkhole, and I will have an exhibit
- that illustrates that.
- Here are the location map and site conditions maps. I've got those on the screen and then I do have
- a follow up for the site conditions map which kind of illustrates that outermost contour line of a
- very large cars feature, most likely a sinkhole.
- On the left hand side I have on the image, a red line. And when I measured it, it came out to
- approximately 96 feet which is more than enough distance away from the outermost contour line of
- that sinkhole.
- Great.
- That's good.
- These are some site photos so you can see in some of the photos where the home, where the previous
- home used to reside and they are going to utilize at least part of that location for the new
- residents.
- The petitioner does have a certified plot plan from Deckard land surveying and this is just a snippet
- of where that new residents will go.
- They have noted all of, you know, the necessary requirements like setbacks, the septic system, the
- driveway, everything, you know, checks out as far as all other design standards. It's just a lot
- with that is, unfortunately, kind of the problem here.
- However, staff does recommend approval of the minimum lot with variance based on the fact that
- practical difficulties have been demonstrated. So the property alone cannot meet the 200 foot
- minimum lot with requirement without doing a lot line shift through a type E administrative subdivision
- with an adjacent neighbor, which the neighbor would have to agree to, or rezoning to a property
- with a smaller lot size, but I mean lot with when I'm referring to that.
- So this variance would be the minimum variance necessary for any new development of the subject
- property.
- Is Mr. Dick here. Is that you, sir.
- No, I think he I think Tobias is online bias if you'd like to speak with us.
- You're welcome to.
- If you see him.
- Not necessarily required.
- I do, I do see him to Tobias you can speak if, if you'd like.
- Just have to unmute.
- Have to unmute yourself.
- I love those long properties off of State Road 37, and I love the ranch homes out there that are
- there I know I just love that area.
- So, yeah, Mr Tobias or Tobias if you're there, if you could unmute yourself.
- Looks like an indicated they wish to speak so pardon me, they have not indicated they wish to be
- okay so he said he only had a phone for a microphone.
- So if you could just type in, in the text message. Anything that you want to say that Mr Smith did
- not cover, then we might be able to consider anything in additional that you would like us to
- consider before we hear from the public.
- Sorry, I don't think that they wish to speak. Okay. Okay, so if, if there are members. Oh, he said
- he did an excellent job of presenting thank you Tobias. So if there are members of the public who
- would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this petition, please let us know by either coming
- to the microphone in this room, or raising your virtual hand.
- If there's no one I move it back to us for a motion or discussion.
- I'm going to make a motion to approve variance 25 dash 32 the dick minimum lot with variance to
- chapter 804 for practical difficulties, I mean 200 feet minimum lot with requirement and they have
- 118 feet. Why do the math.
- All right, it's been moved and seconded to approve vr dash 25 dash 32 about yes is about to approve
- Margaret Clements. Yes, Guy Laughman. Yes, Pamela Davidson. Yes, motion is approved three to zero.
- Okay, well happy rebuilding there. Yes. Thank you. Okay, we have two more items left on the agenda.
- Item number 18 is vr dash 25 dash 33. This is the Mulvaney maximum impervious cover variance to
- chapter 805, concerning 1.77 plus or minus acre parcel and very township
- property seven hundred south may court and Mr Smith, if you would kindly review that with us.
- So the request before you is a maximum impervious cover variance to chapter 805, with the purpose
- of constructing an approximate 600 square foot addition to the existing primary residence on the
- property and that permit is our dash to five dash 344.
- And that is upon staff review that's where the issue of the maximum impervious cover was discovered.
- So, the site itself is located within the clear creek critical watershed area. So, for chapter 805
- was specifically for this zone. If the property is within a critical watershed that means the impervious
- cover is limited to 4500 square feet, or 10% of the lot size, whichever is less.
- 10% of point seven seven acres would be 3354 square feet whereas the site contains roughly 5500
- square feet of impervious surface when accounting for the residents, the shed, and the proposed
- improvements.
- So based on the petitioners plot plan the structure would otherwise meet all other design standards.
- So this is just the location and site conditions map.
- Pretty standard.
- No, you know, blatant environmental concerns or anything like that, showing up in this review.
- These are just site photos so the petitioner, Mike was kind enough to mark out, it might be a
- little difficult to see on the screen but he did mark out the extent to which the proposed addition
- will occur.
- He's got it marked by a line in the grass there.
- This is the petitioners plot plan so he's showing where the new structure will go.
- He's got the location of the septic system on there so no real concern there.
- He's just got some descriptions here indicating, you know, what the project looks like.
- And he also provided further documentation here.
- He's showing the extent of the addition and then he's got an image of his home and then it looks
- like he added what, you know, it would presumably look like the structure in the end.
- I also included the petitioners construction plans, since he did go the extra mile to provide all
- of this additional information.
- So I included it in the presentation but it's also in the packet and we can come back to it if you'd
- like.
- He's got a proposed excavation plan. Also here illustrating all the plans that he intends to follow
- pretty standard.
- This is the Fox Chase subdivision. So I have highlighted in yellow lot number 12. So that is the
- location of this specific property.
- It looks like it will meet setback. So, you know, no real concern there.
- However, staff does recommend denial of the maximum impervious cover to Chapter 805, citing
- practical difficulties, you know, Chapter 841-4F3, in addition 841-4F2B.
- The increase in impervious cover on the property could promote conditions on-site or off-site
- detrimental to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the area, and the ordinance gives the
- ponding of water as an example.
- However, that is not occurring here, but essentially when it comes to impervious cover,
- unfortunately, in this case, the ordinance does not offer any sort of exception to this type of
- project, so that is why they are here requesting a variance.
- Mr. Mulvaney, is that you? No. He's online. Okay, you're the last, but not least.
- Okay, Mr. Mulvaney, if you would like to review your request with us, we're ready to listen. If you
- could unmute your microphone.
- I did see him on here and now I don't so I don't know if he's rejoining.
- So, he is actually in California, he's in the Marines Reserve so he had to be stationed there. So I
- don't know if that was a factor.
- He was just on here a moment ago. I see. Well, is it required that he be here.
- He has been on the whole time so I don't know if there was a technical difficulty. I saw him when
- we were just doing the prior case. Oh my word.
- If I've got that right. Is that correct. I'll double check the rules of procedure.
- I will note that he did intend on attending. I would say that if we discuss it and we think we're
- going to approve it, he'd be fine with it. But if it's a denial, we should continue it. Yeah, that's
- what I think.
- That's right. Okay, so let's start discussing it. There's nobody else for public comment. Oh, are
- there members of the public who are opposed or in favor of this petition, please come to the podium,
- or raise your virtual hand.
- See no one so let's discuss it.
- One thing I noticed on the documents. This is a 660 square foot addition.
- And I looked at the plans I understand they have teenagers they want a teenage space that makes all
- the sense.
- He did say in his material, because it's impervious cover that they're going to do a rain garden
- landscaping I think we ought to note that because that's a pretty cool thing.
- He, they also noted in the materials that on the impervious cover. It's a change from 11.3% to 13.9%.
- So it's not done to the 15% that we've talked about several times tonight.
- So I just think we ought to note those three facts.
- Given those three facts are you prone to support this, I'm ready to make a motion to approve
- variance 25 dash 33 the Mulvaney maximum impervious cover variance to chapter 805 page 159.
- For those really for the justification. Yes, what I just talked about. Yes.
- Second. Okay. Right. Okay. Mr Mulvaney just rejoined. Yes, we should already.
- But we should listen to him for because rules and procedures say that he can present findings of
- facts. So if you want to speak for just a consolidated note and say, Mr Mulvaney there's a motion
- on the table to approve your variances, or to approve your variance, and maybe if he has one thing.
- Mr Mulvaney and if so I need to swear you in if you would kindly raise your right hand. And do you
- swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
- You have to unmute yourself.
- We appreciate your patience this evening in California and your service to our nation.
- It's only seven o'clock for him. That's true.
- But is he able to unmute.
- I don't know if he's able to unmute, but emotion has been made to approve this and Jackie was just
- going to call the vote.
- So, it is not letting me unmute the button is frozen. Is there anything that you would like us to
- consider Mr Mulvaney if so put it in the chat box.
- I'm sorry that the system is not allowing you to speak in text he was just putting in in text just
- just enter anything in text and we'll be able to see it and read it into the record.
- Before we take a vote on the recommendation for approval.
- Okay, he says he has no comments.
- So I'll go ahead and call the race. So this is to approve VR dash 25 dash 33. A vote yes is a vote
- to approve.
- Pamela Davidson. Yes.
- Margaret Clements. Yes, Guy Laughman. Yes. Motion is approved three to zero. Thank you Mr Mulvaney
- and thank you for putting up with us so long and with the, especially with the technical
- difficulties.
- Thank you. It seems to me that nobody could get on all night. Well no several people have but it's
- been.
- Yeah, that's right. They say that the button doesn't work. Right. He said the button doesn't work.
- I don't know it just concerns me that that that there's, there's maybe something going on but we
- can't do anything about that tonight, and maybe
- technical people can don't have this team's system. Well, we're at the last item on the agenda, and
- it's on Gifford where I used to live on Gifford road.
- So, let's see this is the right maximum impervious cover variance to chapter 805 concerning a point
- 56 plus or minus acre parcel and Van Buren township at 50401 West Gifford road.
- So, Mr Myers, please talk to us about this. Thank you. This is variance, the AR dash 25 dash 34
- right maximum impervious cover variance chapter 805.
- The petitioners requesting design standards variance to the maximum impervious cover requirement
- and chapter 805 of the kind of element ordinance at the mentioned address.
- It is located on point 56 acres, and so residential one or RDS for short.
- It is located in a critical watershed of the sinking creek and partially of the bunker branch
- watersheds.
- Therefore it has a more restrictive impervious cover requirement.
- The petitioner intends to construct a new 768 square foot detached garage and a driveway expansion.
- According to staff's calculations.
- The existing impervious cover is approximately 3713.4 square feet.
- And the additional impervious cover that the is proposed by the garage and driveway expansion is 2665
- square feet.
- That will total approximately 6378 square feet, which is about 26% of the lot's coverage.
- With respect to the residential zones requirements for impervious cover, that requirement is 10% of
- the lot or 4500 square feet, whichever is less.
- So 10% of, let's see, 0.56 acres equals only 2439.36 square feet.
- So the existing impervious cover is over what is currently allowed per the ordinance, and of course
- going over the requirement with the additions triggers the need for the variance tonight.
- So on the screen I included the definition for impervious cover.
- I also included Table 2-805 for the design standard that's being referenced here. It's highlighted
- in yellow.
- On the screen now are two images, aerial imagery of the property. On the left is the existing
- square footage for the impervious cover.
- And then on the right side of the screen is the additional square footage of impervious cover that
- will be installed, should this be approved, with the detached garage and additional driveway area.
- On the screen now is the location maps in Van Buren Township off of West Gifford Road.
- On the right side of the screen we have the site conditions map.
- There are no other environmental issues on the property. It's not in the FEMA floodplain or DNR
- floodplain. It's not in the environmental constraints overlay and there are no car seizures on the
- property.
- Here on the screen is the map of the critical watersheds. In the red you see the sinking creek and
- in the yellow you see Bunker Branch and the petition sites in that highlighted light blue rectangle
- that's in a little bit of both of those watersheds.
- Some aerial imagery of the petition site.
- And then we have the letter from the property owners indicating their request for variance, as well
- as the site plan that was provided by staff. And then on the next screen, not the next screen, in
- the packet you also see that the petitioner had also added an additional detail of the location of
- the septic system so we can verify that the new garage and driveway area is a ways away from that
- existing system.
- Okay, that brings me to staff's recommendation staff recommends denial of the maximum previous
- cover variance chapter 805 citing chapter 841 dash for F to be the increase in impervious cover on
- the property could promote conditions on site or off site detrimental to the use and enjoyment of
- other properties in the area.
- EG the ponding of water in chapter 841 dash for F three practical difficulties are not demonstrated,
- and these are, as you noted tonight, common findings with respect to maximum impervious cover variances
- when I'll take any questions.
- We're going to first hear from the petitioner.
- And, uh, yes, Mr. Right, very patient, you've earned your time in the sun, come sign in and we'll
- swear you in.
- That's a nice area of our county isn't it. Yes, it is. And some nice lots and nice farmland, you
- said you live.
- Yeah, I lived on gift. Airport.
- By cars farm park.
- Sir, would you kindly raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth and the whole truth and
- nothing but the truth. Well, thank you, Mr. Right. So just go over your request for us.
- Yes, when my wife and I bought that property in 1997 I believe. So there's a lot of changes that
- have taken place ordinance wise that weren't in effect whenever we purchased that property.
- There was a copy of my initial reference letter. I uploaded an updated version and I also have
- letters that I uploaded from my neighbors.
- Well, they're they're more notes actually not then not a letter but mine's actually a letter with
- their approval of my project, and what I want to do, which I would like to present those things to
- you all, apparently since they didn't get added to the packet, like, like was expected.
- The first here is from the England's.
- And then I have
- all neighbor England are fine with the garage being built from Seth Cooper neighbor to the east, I
- have no problem with this project to proceed and think it will improve the area, Seth Cooper.
- See here, that's my letter to the board I'll get to that in a moment.
- Scott and Stephanie Carnegie at 355344 West Gifford Road are okay with the proposed garage, signed
- by them.
- They were to the north of the property, and then I don't have any problems or objections with
- Vincent's project Farrell Duckworth, who is my neighbor to the west.
- That's like North, South, East and West, right? Yes, I'm covered all the way around. They may need
- copies of those. Yeah, we have them.
- Yeah, we have them. I apologize for that. I did not see that they were uploaded, but I can pull
- them on the screen as well. We do have all of those that he just referenced in my updated letter
- here.
- I'm planning on extending my driveway and the parking area and building a garage. I need the
- variance because the impervious cover maximum of my plan is exceeded.
- One of the things is in the redoing of this is the end of the driveway.
- Where I'm at there on Gifford Road, I'm just to the east of the crest of the hill, and it was
- talked about earlier tonight about people backing out of their driveway onto the road.
- That's a, I have lost count over the years of how many people, I would look.
- Good and then back out and then I would look again and there's the front end of a car dipping down
- where they are, I will say, possibly exceeding the speed limit headed.
- They topped the hill, and it's like, oh my goodness, and then was me. Well, it's like, I always, I
- caution people, visitors, delivery drivers or whatever to do their best to turn around in the area
- that I have now.
- And even get onto my grass, so as to not to back out or do any maneuvering on the road, other than
- going, because it's it's dangerous.
- In that area, in my opinion, and then I hadn't really thought about it but earlier tonight, one of
- the other people mentioned that they were building a garage because of rodents. I'm like, I've had
- a rodent damage my wiring in my vehicle so putting it in the garage, I'm like, that's another
- reason to build a garage.
- The project will move my existing vehicles into the new garage space and create more room to get
- turned around in for visitors and Amazon, Amazon.
- Plus, I've always wanted to garage, like say when my wife and I purchased that property in, I
- believe it was 9998 97 somewhere in there.
- It was always the idea in the back of at least in the back of my head to
- extend the driveway to the back and build a garage back there and have as the gentleman earlier was
- talking about a place to tinker to keep the vehicles.
- To be safe from what weather events it was talked about earlier and and rodents as well. And, well,
- time just sort of got away from us.
- Sorry.
- My wife she passed away.
- It was last July. And to be honest, that's where a little bit of this money is coming from life
- insurance and stuff and
- anyway.
- Yeah, time just got away from us, and I guess we're gotten caught up in
- how do I want to word this the new different ways of thinking about land use and and impervious
- cover who in, you know, 20 years ago when heard of impervious cover, or even thought about.
- Okay, well, so the water is going to go. It's going to move this fast instead of this fast over a
- section of ground.
- Which
- I don't have, you know, the
- a lot. There's not a lot of it's it's a point five six acre so there's not not a lot of room to reorient
- things or to change things
- the ordinance of the way that it is now I apparently if I'm understanding this correctly I'm
- already in excess of the 10% and I can't apparently do anything with my property if I'm
- understanding this correct.
- Nothing. No, no additional impervious cover would be permitted without this variance, the way that
- ordinance is currently written. Yes.
- So, I mean,
- reduce the size of my parking area that's already dangerous.
- But then, to be able to get into the to the to the backyard I'm still going to be fighting this
- this restriction that's well in my opinion it's sort of overly burdensome 10% of a lot size
- is in my mind overly burdensome the if I remember correctly reading some of the other other
- literature and if it wasn't in a critical watershed. Isn't it 50% of the lot size.
- It's just above the area that you had marked in yellow there. Yeah, that line, but maximum pervious
- cover 50% of lot size or 7000 square feet whichever is less.
- So,
- it's just dealing with that critical watershed area and if you look at the the elevation or not
- elevation the top topography in the backyard where
- the water flows as as you go into the backyard those those gradient lines get farther and farther
- apart so it's flatter and flatter and flatter the further it goes back so the water will be
- naturally slowed by the
- lack of elevation change as compared to like the front of the house or the next lot over where
- those topography lines are so much closer together than they are in the backyard.
- Coming to the to the meeting and then wanting to have something built in Monroe County and it's
- just been
- a very wild learning experience to say the least appreciate your working so well with staff for
- going through the procedures and the regulations and for going about it the right way.
- We're in on a learning curve to because our ordinance just changed. That's what we're hitting what,
- in theory, may not work out in practice and we're discovering that as we go and pervious surface
- seems to be one of the things and we're sorry you got caught up in that, but we're paying attention
- to what it is we thought about and how it's working out, you know, so
- I deal with that that works on my work down at crane and we develop testing procedures and there's
- the the tabletop proofing or someone will write out their procedure and you'll sit down and around
- the table and you'll read to Oh, this is the most wonderful thing ever.
- And then an actual physical proofing where you go and actually apply what was written down. And
- then you find out, oh my goodness, we forgot to write to open the cabinet to access this piece of
- material that we needed.
- And it's like, you're in the room, or you're in one room and then it tells you to do something else
- but you need to be in another room to do that second thing and it doesn't allow for you to move
- from one room to the other.
- Exactly where we are and you know the code hadn't been updated for decades so we just finally got
- it done. And now we're going to have a reassessment but we really appreciate your graciousness as
- you worked with staff to go through this, you know, and thank you for that and impervious cover.
- We have all seen flood effects throughout the kind of world, and because rain is harder quicker
- more intense that that is where we're headed in terms of this restriction and it just has to be
- because all the world over, we are witnessing that those events
- and in Monroe County in particular that's right and having you know the hundred year flood comes
- every few years now.
- We're trying to protect you with this so that you don't lose everything you know.
- Well, in that area, I think I'm like at 950 feet in elevation if it actually floods there. I'm not
- really concerned about me because the world has a lot more problems than then water coming up to 950
- feet above sea level, not not to, you know, I'm pretty well up to but it, but I got a creek right
- below me.
- And that's what floods and the faster the water gets there the faster it floods and that's that's
- why why we're so concerned about that I believe you all mentioned that I am not in any floodplains
- or anything like that.
- Correct. Yeah, so I think we're ready to get to go ahead with with decision making for you. I have
- to hear from the public. Yes, I so are there members of the public who would like to speak in favor
- or opposition to this petition.
- If so, raise your virtual hand because you sure ain't in the room.
- I will know from my reading that if this is approved and he builds it, it'll be 26% of his property,
- which is a big number. It is that is a big number I do agree with that that is that's.
- Well, there again that that's 2526% which is just a little bit more than than a quarter of the
- property which the the non critical watershed is 50%.
- So, a critical, you know, I would think if it was a critical area, half of what a non critical area
- would be more than reasonable, so I would be here and we would be quibbling about if changes this
- that and the other we would be quibbling about one and a half percent of me being over.
- If it was a more realistic number like your input.
- You know, so with that is there a motion. All right. What do you say.
- Please vote on this before we leave.
- No, let's just stay for a while.
- We have such a good time. I moved to approve various 25 dash 34 right maximum previous cover
- variants chapter 805 at 5401 West Grifford West Gifford Road on the grounds that practical
- difficulties have been demonstrated and it will contribute to
- public safety. It's not just you backing out as those speeders coming over the hill. We don't
- really particularly considering who it is.
- I'll second that. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve vr dash 25 dash 34 right impervious
- cover about yes is about to approve Margaret Clements. Yes. Guy Loftman. Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes.
- Motion is approved. Thank you so much, Mr. Wright, especially you and thanks staff for the hard
- work and everything and
- Oh, I even I do have a building permit in process that was holding on this that great is now should
- Yes, I'll be in contact with you. We'll move through that. Those last few steps. Now I need to go
- pay for the building.
- We'll be in touch tomorrow. Yeah, thank you so much for your service at crane and so sorry about
- your wife. So sorry. I didn't mean to throw that out there for always theory, but it's it's just
- heartbreaking.
- It's yeah.
- Life wasn't supposed to be like this right now.
- You know, is anybody wanting to say I think we moved to adjourn. All right, thank you to adjourn.
- Yes.
- Thank you so much. Yes. Thanks, Sean. Thank you for sticking it out.
- Thank you for your service.
- Thank you so much for your service.
- Thank you.
- Thank you so much for your service.
- Thank you.
- Thank you so much for your service.