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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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 so much for your service.
 Thank you so much for your service.
 Thank you so much for your service.
 Thank you.
 Thank you.
 Thank you so much for your service.
 Thank you so much for your service.
 Thank you so much for your service.
 Thank you so much for your service.
 Thank you so much for your service.
 Thank you so much for your service.
 Thank you so much for your service.
 Thank you so much for your service.