Okay, so hello, welcome to the Board of Zoning Appeals and this is Monroe County's meeting for the Board of Zoning Appeals and we welcome you here. To begin with, before we call the meeting to order, Ms. Nestor Jelen, would you please make that announcement concerning the item on the agenda?
 Sure. So it's been brought to our attention that item number nine, which is VAR-25-38, which is the MECA MHP2 LLC general sign regulations to Chapter 817 at 400 West Terrace Drive was
 potentially there was some information shared that was not accurate. So this variance request is simply for the placement of a permanent sign advertising or identifying the name of the mobile home park. It does not change the zoning. It does not change the actual land use on the property.
 Apparently, there were members of the public who were given different information, and this is simply about the sign. So if you're here for that, that isn't an issue that we'll be discussing as far as anything other than the sign. So I just wanted to let everybody know that. In the meantime, then, and thank you, Ms. Nestor-Gellin, would you kindly call the meeting to order? Sure. I'll go ahead and call the roll. Margaret Clemens here.
 skip daily. Pamela Davidson here. Guy Lofman here. Jeff Morris here. We have four members in attendance in a quorum. Okay, would you kindly introduce the evidence?
 Sure. I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals Rules of Procedure as adopted and amended. The cases that were legally advertised and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's agenda. I move that we introduce the evidence as you just outlined for tonight's meeting. Second. Been moved and seconded to
 Approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Guy Loftman. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Motion is approved four to zero.
 Now, with regard to the agenda, we'd like to make one change to the agenda, and that's item number 10, variance 25-42, the Pearson permitted use standards variance to Chapter 811. If that could be switched to the first item under new business, I think that would be helpful to the community.
 So I'd like to move that we adopt tonight's agenda as amended by Ms. Clements as to moving up item 10 to now be number one on new business. Second.
 Okay, it's been moved and seconded to amend tonight's BZA agenda to move item number 10 under new business to be ahead of what is now listed as item number one under new business. A vote yes is a vote to approve the agenda otherwise as amended. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Oh, yes. Okay, motion is approved four to zero.
 Is there a motion to approve the minutes from May 7th? I would like to move we approve the minutes of May 7th, 2025. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes from May 7th, 2025. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Cummins? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Guy Loughman? Yes. Motion is approved four to zero.
 There's no staff-generated administrative business. Is there any administrative business among ourselves? I don't think so. So let's move to old business. And we have a package of three variances because two are no longer required. And the first variance is variance 25-23B, which is the Biddle Eco Area 1 concerning residential density maximum.
 Then there is variance 25-23C, which is Biddle-Eacle area, one acre contiguous buildable area of variance. And then there is a variance 25-23E, which is the Biddle Lake yard setback.
 on Lake Monroe variance from chapter 805. And this all concerns a 1.4 plus or minus acre parcel in Clear Creek Township section 24 at 8051 West Hardin Road. Now, Mr. Brown, would you kindly review that with us? Thank you. So the petitioner is proposing a new design that includes an expansion to an existing home by an estimated 900 square feet.
 as well as an accessory structure by an estimated 1,650 square feet. This project was started after the adoption of the county development ordinance. Originally, the petitioner intended to establish a new separate residential accessory structure on the property, and this initially required a maximum impervious cover variance.
 as the proposed pole bar design included a total impervious cover of 20,661 square feet. This was continued by the Board of Zoning Appeals when it was first heard, I believe in May. The petitioner has since submitted a redesign to staff for set of establishing a new building. The existing home and garage on the lot will be expanded. The petitioner is also for good measure proposing to remove an estimated 500 square feet of existing driveway to a
 to compensate for any additional impervious cover these additions would create. The property, however, does not meet three of the five requirements for properties listed in area one of the environmental constraints overlay. First, so going down the list of those requirements, number one is the maximum land slope on which any land disturbance involved in the construction of buildings, driveways, roads, parking lots, and utilities can occur shall be 12%.
 The percent slope shall be measured as a 7.5 foot fall and any 50 foot difference. The design shall be suited to the lot to minimize the amount of cut and fill. This variance was initially required as a driveway going to the proposed accessory structure would have crossed an area of 12% slope. However, as of the redesign, there is no disturbance in area of 12% slope, so this variance is no longer required. Let the record reflect that Mr. Daley has arrived. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Daley.
 At number two, there shall be no disturbance of natural vegetation beyond 12% slope line. This item was not required when the variance was first presented and it is no longer required now. Three, the maximum residential density that shall be allowed shall be one unit per five acres. The legal acreage of this lot is 1.4 acres. The acreage of the petition site as measured by the surveyor is 1.43 acres.
 The proposal does not change the residential density of the lot as it's not adding any additional residential units. The lot still requires a variance from this provision prior to any further development, even with the redesign. Number four, lots fronting on the lake require a minimum of 300 feet of total lake frontage. The petition site, as measured, exhibits about 243 feet of frontage and thus requires a variance of the standard.
 And number five, each dwelling unit shall have at least one acre of total continuous buildable area. The petition site has no locations that meets this standard when all relevant standards of Chapter 813 are applied. Therefore, any further development proposed on this lot requires this variance. In regards to the lake setback variance,
 For properties on or near Lakeman Road, there's a required setback of 200 feet from the lake's normal pool elevation, which is 538 feet above sea level. However, the existing home and detached garage that are proposed to be expanded are already within this setback and are respectively located an estimated 144 feet and 190 feet from the normal pool elevation.
 While the proposed expansions do not encroach onto Lake Setback any further, in other words, these buildings are pre-existing, non-conforming, and are going to be expanded, variance from the Lakeyard Setback is required. And here's an aerial view of the property, as well as the sites of the three buildings. The house and the garage that are being indicated by my mouse cursor, those are the buildings that are proposed to be expanded.
 And here is the old site plan showing a gravel driveway crossing an area of 12% slope, leading to a proposed accessory dwelling unit and a concrete pad. And here is the new site plan. The red outlines as shown here are the proposed expansions of the existing buildings. The red polygon here is proposed driveway that's proposed to be removed. And as you can tell by the red X,
 the proposed accessory structure is no longer being applied for. And here's just a zoom in of the subject lot. So staff recommends approval of VAR-25-23B as practical difficulties have been demonstrated, as the lot cannot be enlarged to meet the standards of Chapter 823.
 without both significant grading and expanding the existing lot by an administrative subdivision. We also recommend approval of VAR-25-23C as practical difficulties have been demonstrated for the same reasons. And we do recommend denial of VAR-25-23E as practical difficulties have not been demonstrated and a redesigned or relocation of the proposed expansions could avoid having this variance.
 Okay, thank you, Mr. Brown. We'll hear now from the petitioner. And if the petitioner would please kindly come up to the podium and sign in. Mr. and Mrs. Biddle. Hi.
 Raise your right hands and do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Well, you'll have 15 minutes to. And could they state their names? Yes. Would you kindly state your names into the record? I'm William Biddle.
 So you'll have 15 minutes to review your case with us. And staff has recommended approval of the first two. So the last one with the setback is the one you might want to concentrate on. So when we first proposed in May, we were going to build a separate building far away from the lake. And because of the impervious cover, that wasn't a possibility. Since then, the impervious cover has been increased to at least allow what we already have.
 So what we thought is we would expand our garage away from the lake, and also south, and then expand the house east. So everything is built away from the lake and into the L shape that our home already
 Okay, so then the, oh, I'm sorry. I interrupted you. I'm sorry. Oh, no, no, that's okay. So I know that the house is only 140 from normal pool. But we'd be going down. Correct. So if we have to be 200, I guess we could make a courtyard and build another, you know, if we had to. As far as the garage goes, it's 190. If we had to, we could knock down that wall back up 10 feet.
 and then expand and build what we would like to build. And do you want to just go over the other two requests that you have just so we have it into the record? I don't want to discourage you from your presentation. And, you know, as far as what we wanted originally, it's the residential density maximum and the one acre continuous buildable area.
 And then we don't need the other variances because the rules have changed, but the Lake yard setback you just described. That was, yes, because that was the denial. Yes. The rest were approved. So, yeah, it's just our home that we will, when we retire, live there full time. So we just wanted and needed more room. Right now we don't even have a building to put anything in, like a car even. That garage is so small.
 And I'm only alternative is shipping containers down the driveway. And I don't think the neighbors are going to like that. They might be listening. Yeah. Well, I'm going to, are you finished with your present hat? I'm going to ask my colleagues, do they have questions for the Biddles? Mr. Bailey? I don't necessarily have a question, but I do have a point of reference, point of order, I guess it would be technically. You said that,
 the other two have been approved. I just want to clarify. Staff recommended approval. It weighs heavily, but I just wanted to make that clarification. Yes, I understand. Thank you. Sorry. And may I clarify that both the addition to the house and the garage addition are away from the lake. You're moving the opposite direction from that pool
 elevation, is that what it was called, pool elevation? Because of how the ground slopes in front of the house, it would actually be better to have a structure there because we get runoff towards the house right now, and it's not good. Erosion is an issue all over this county. Right. Yes, it is. Well, I just want to comment that since
 This first came before us that a great deal of progress has been made. And also we appreciate your working so well with our staff. But we'll hear now from the public unless any of my colleagues have further questions. And I want to say I appreciate that you're taking out part of that hard surface driveway to try to have more vegetation and rain catchment. Thank you for that too.
 and if there's anybody who is opposed to your proposed variances, then you'll have an opportunity to return, okay? So I'll ask, are there members of the public who are in favor of this petition? If so, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand online so we can see you. Are there members of the public who are in opposition to this petition? If so, please come to the podium in the Nathale room
 or raise your virtual hand online to speak in opposition. So there is no opposition. So I returned to the colleagues here to see if there's further discussion and or a motion. I think this seems like a reasonable request for variance. And so I move that
 old business agenda item five variants 25-23e, Biddle Lake yard setback 8051 West Hardin Ridge Road be granted on the basis that under these circumstances it reduces the, it's the least
 harm that could be created and still allow them an appropriate use of their land. So substantial hardship has been demonstrated. Do you want to expand that to talk about B and C too? Excellent point. I also recommend that we grant variants 25, 23,
 and variance 2523C for the reasons set forth in the report that practical difficulties have been met. I'll second that motion. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve the following three variances, VAR-25-23B, which is the Eco Area 1 residential density maximum requirement.
 VAR-25-23C, which is the one acre contiguous buildable area requirement to chapter 823, and VAR-25-23E, which is the lake yard setback variance to chapter 805 from Lake Monroe. A vote yes is a vote to approve all three variances. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daley? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes.
 Pamela Davidson? Yes. Motion is approved five to zero. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Biddle. Thank you. Okay, now skip.
 We, under the agenda discussion, we moved to item number 10 under new business up to the front. And so we will be hearing item number 10, VAR-25-42, Pearson permitted use standards, number of accessory livestock variants to chapter 811. And this concerns about a quarter of an acre
 parcel in Van Buren Township, section 13 at 3500 West Indian Creek Drive. And Ms. Chriselius, if you would kindly read this. Madam Chair, I just want to say, I had suggested we might want to have an experimental approval. I withdrew that when I heard you might have opposition. This was made because this petitioner is a
 Well, I'm not going to say elderly lady on a walker, but it might be considerate for her. That's fine. And opposition is a strong word. It's more of a discussion for clarification. And if that matters to us,
 Tech, I have a quick question for you. If it's a matter of flipping a switch, great. If not, no big problem. Is it possible to add the closed caption to the front screen? And again, if it's something more than flipping a switch, then please don't worry about it. Thanks.
 Isn't that amazing? Okay. So with that being said, Ms. Chriselius, would you please review the case with us? Yes, absolutely. Okay. So we are looking at a 0.24 acre property. It is platted within the Van Buren Park third edition. It is lot 162. So a location map and a zoning map is on screen. The property is zoned community developmental, community development.
 On screen is a site conditions map showing the property as of aerial from 2024. We can see it's a mainly flat property. There is some slope across the entirety of the subdivision. So we are looking at stormwater that is going to be hitting the ground. It will be draining to the southeast of the property.
 So just another picture of the neighborhood that we are looking at today. Of course, it's a large platted neighborhood. So in April of 2025 this year, we were contacted in addition to the health department and the Monroe County Highway Department stormwater program with a property complaint regarding stormwater and runoff of feces.
 Zoning inspector looked into the property and was able to identify that there was accessory livestock on the property. So we did reach out with an enforcement letter. The health department and the stormwater program have did reach out as well. And those letters will be on screen. So we are looking at
 a use of accessory livestock. So in the community development residential zone or the CD zone, it is a permitted use with standards. So if you meet those standards, the use is permitted. And the use, I will go into those standards a little bit more shortly. But in order to have a medium size or large animal, you have to have a certain size for each animal.
 So the first enforcement letter states that in your zone, with your lot size, you are allowed four small animals, which would include fowl, rabbits, et cetera, per 0.125 acres for a total of eight small animals allowed. It goes on to say, in your zone and with your lot size, medium or large animals, goats, sheep, swine, miniature horses, cattle, horses, llamas, ponies are not allowed.
 It then states that all livestock containment must be a minimum of 10 feet from property lines and that waste structures must be a minimum of 50 feet from property lines. On site there was present chicken, rabbits, and goats.
 So the Monroe County Health Department did send a health officer order stating that there was a sample taken from an adjacent property that did have an excess of animal feces and they put in place, so it did state that it was in violation of Indiana code IC 164121.
 stating that the amount of the sample that was collected of E. coli was too numerous to count and created an unfit for human habitation.
 It states, so Indiana code states, a dwelling is unfit for human habitation when the dwelling is dangerous or detrimental to life or health because of any of the following. Number four, the existence on the premise of an unsanitary condition that is likely to cause sickness among occupants of the dwelling. So this sample on screen was taken on the adjacent property owner. Like I mentioned earlier, the storm water is going to hit the petition site and it's gonna run southeast. So this was on an adjacent property owner.
 where the sample was collected. Stormwater Osho issued a letter, they mailed it on June 5th, stating that the property was in violation of the Stormwater Management Ordinance Chapter 761, specifically the illicit discharge regulation, and that's regarding illicit discharges to stormwater infrastructure.
 They do state that some of the actions provided within the health officer order would be partially satisfactory and then they provide more information on actions that can be taken to become compliant with the stormwater ordinance. They gave a deadline the same as the health department which was June 30th. I do have an update and we also do have present the
 health department and also stormwater program. So they will be here and available to answer any questions. So the petitioner is requesting to keep
 They include two requests within their petitioner letter, letter to the BZA. They state that the maximum that they would like to request is to maintain eight goats on the property, and then they state that the minimum requested would be six goats. They describe this as a certain amount of adult goats, which would result in breeding pairs so that for the total when bred,
 with having juvenile on property would be a total of six or a total of eight. With their request, they've also proposed a site plan, which is on the right side of the screen, where they are showing that they're proposing to move for the containment and also the compost of manure. I will get into this a little bit more.
 standards that we are looking at are from chapter 811-4. So when you see that permitted or PS, permitted with standards with an asterisk, it means if you meet those conditions, then the use is permitted. So accessory livestock shall be allowed in both the pasturage context and as it relates to lot size with the following use specific standards. Point number two is a minimum lot size. And on screen in red is the text that can't be met. So it goes on to say that A, medium sized livestock, such as goats,
 Four animals per the first acre would be allowed, and then two animals per acre thereafter. Because the site contains 0.24 acres, it would not permit any medium livestock, including goats. The next standard is number three.
 And it states that accessory livestock more than the above densities require the approval of a variance unless allowed under traditional agriculture. And it says, setbacks for all livestock containment and waste structures shall be a minimum of 50 feet unless there is an exception listed in the requirement above. So the petitioner site plan, they are proposing a setback of 47 feet for the compost, so the manure, from the east side.
 and 25 and a half feet from the west side. They are proposing a 9.7 foot setback for the goat shed. Now, the entirety of the yard is fenced and is essentially pasture. So there's really no setback for fencing, which that is how fences work in general. They are allowed to be put on a property boundary.
 The zoning ordinance does not stipulate a minimum size necessary for waste structures, nor for livestock containment structures, but the code does provide regulations for proper spacing of those structures. At the current modest size for the number of goats, it does not meet the requirement. Then just on screen, it goes on to say that we have those letters from the Health Department of Stormwater.
 screen is a letter of support that we did receive after the packet was published. I received this today so I will this has not been seen before so I will leave it on screen for just a moment.
 Do you want me to read it into the record? I can, if you'd like. She has found another way. But I cannot see who signed this letter. OK. This is from a Jeremy Chasteen. I received it by email that states that they are in support of the request and support of the animal assisted therapy that the petitioner speaks about in their letter.
 Okay, so is Jeremy Chastain a therapist of some kind or? We'll find out. Okay, I'm gonna move forward. Okay. So an update, I do have an update from Stormwater. So the health order had a deadline for 630 for removing the excessive amounts of E. coli. They did state that essentially the number was too numerous to count and that it necessitated a health order stating that the excessive amounts violate the code that we talked about,
 So Shiana Cox, who is an environmental specialist with the health department, is here and can provide us a little bit more information. Under stormwater, the illicit discharge letter, that deadline has been extended to July 15th, and they have been in communication with a containment system for manure, essentially to address the attempt to address the short-term issue of the E. coli.
 Obviously, in planning, we often think through many different scenarios. Something we would like to bring up is we have spoken with the Health Department and Stormwater about alternative options that potentially may be considered here tonight. Is there still a health concern if there is one goat versus six goats versus eight goats? From Cheyenne at the Health Department, we do have a note.
 I will go on to read it that it states that their biggest concern is also that with livestock on the property, that it may become a continuous monitoring situation due to regular complaints depending on the severity of the issue. The first sample that was taken had a too numerous to count rating and capped out over 24,000 MPN over 100 milliliters, which definitely constitutes a health hazard.
 When we spoke with the stormwater department, I have the following info, which states, we believe there will be difficulty getting the samples to an acceptable E. coli level. There is a buildup of waste in the yard and no method of treatment, such as rain garden treatment trains, has been in place to remove excessive nutrients and E. coli.
 it would likely require a full excavation of the existing yard to remove the buildup and installation of some sort of on-site treatment train in addition to the waterproof storage that has already been suggested. So based on these conversations, planning staff recommends against the allowance of any number of goats on the property.
 By allowing even one goat on the property, it will require additional county staff time across multiple departments and costs related to potential enforcement and follow-up regarding checking sampling and other measures. Staff recommends that the petitioner seek a property within the county or elsewhere that it would be appropriate in size and acreage for medium-sized livestock.
 So for a final recommendation for the permitted use standards from the number of animals and also from the setback for containment and animal containment, staff recommends denying both variances because the petitioner is unable to satisfy the standards of approval under 841-4F. Okay, thank you very much. We will now hear from the petitioner. Ms. Pearson, if you would kindly come to the podium or your representative and sign in.
 and you'll have 15 minutes to review the case with us and the request.
 Could you lower the volume? Thank you. And what is your name? My name is Rachel Pearson. Yes? Yeah. Would you raise your right-handed? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help me God, yes. Thank you, Rachel. So yes, you'll have 15 minutes to review the request with us. I really have nothing to add to the request. Would you like me to read it into the record? Well, we have the letter in the record
 but is there something else that you'd like to add? I presented my entire request in that letter. The goats have been, I did not realize all of the things that I've learned through this process and I'm grateful to everyone's kindness as I've gone through this process and for learning what I've learned. If it can work out,
 the goats have been extremely beneficial to Margaret and her life and tendency to isolation and inactivity. So my hope is that we can do it. But obviously, if we can't, I will humbly accept your decision.
 I wonder if any of the smaller animals had any of the same beneficial effects? Okay, that's an extremely good question. I'm actually glad you asked it. I did start with chickens, which are allowed, but there's extremely limited interaction. Children do not like to interact with chickens very much.
 And so the attraction to bring people, visitors, children especially, to see Margaret was also limited. She has enjoyed monitoring how many eggs they lay, and how are they doing, and when one of them raised chicks, there was that.
 Then I got rabbits. And rabbits are cuddly and cute and abundant in their production. And we have enjoyed many, many rabbit dishes and sharing them with friends. They're cute, but they are
 the food of the world. They really are. The reason that they make so many more of themselves is to feed the creation. And sharing that with people has been extremely beneficial. If we could only keep rabbits, we would certainly be grateful for that, because children do come.
 bunnies in to Margaret to hold and to share. And so that is a possibility, and we'd be grateful for that. So goats. Goats are funny. They're fun to watch. They're extremely friendly.
 Whereas rabbits, I need to get the rabbits to Margaret or Margaret to the rabbits, goats approach. They reach out for attention and they are just much more therapeutic in that way. And extremely interesting to learn about
 parasites, their feed needs, their breeding, all of those things about goats. I mean, I have never had any health issues with rabbits, but goats keep you on your toes. And Margaret is involved in all of that research and learning
 Everything. And milking. And this year, she wanted to see a goat birth. So we made a kidding song. And she woke me up in the middle of the night, said, I think you've got a goat that is kidding. And she was able to see that birth. And so it has been a blessing.
 And that it has caused anyone anguish makes me sad. And I am terribly sorry. If it can happen, I would love that and be very grateful. And obviously, if it can't with the size lot we have and
 The rain, I thought that the chickens were the major problem. But if goats are and it cannot be managed, then obviously I'll accept your answer. Thank you so much. Do you do colleagues on the board have any questions for Ms. Pearson? I just want to say you sound like a wonderful caregiver. I think Margaret's pretty darn lucky.
 I'm pretty darn lucky. She keeps me on my toes. So we'll hear from the public now. And if anybody speaks in opposition to this, you'll have an opportunity to return to the podium and rebut what they say. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. OK, are there members of the public who are here to support this petition, either in person or online?
 please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand. If you would please sign in and then I'll swear you in.
 What is your name? Carol Canfield. Carol, if you would raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help me God, yes. Thank you. Well, you'll have three minutes. Thank you. Margaret lived with me for several months when Rachel and Margaret had a pipe break in their house and flooded their entire house. It was a joy to have her with me.
 But since she's returned home and back to her animals, it's just night and day difference. She was pretty quiet when she was with me. All I had to offer was some birds at a feeder and a few squirrels that liked to sabotage them. So that was fun to watch. But seeing Margaret back home again and with Rachel, who is a marvelous caregiver. She cared for my mother-in-law.
 And I told her when it's my turn, I want her to care for me. Could be a challenge. We're only a few years apart. But anyway, it's delightful to watch Margaret with the animals. I have a picture on my phone of I think about seven goats.
 clamoring around her and she's holding a baby that had just been born. It's just wonderful to see and watch the children come over and interact with her and interact with the animals and they have chores they help with and they bring the animals to Margaret and she holds them. It's just, it's therapeutic beyond measure and I, like Rachel, will accept whatever
 comes down on this, but I would hope there would be some leniency and thought about this. There's nothing like it. Thank you so much. Thank you. Are there 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. So seeing none, are there? Chair, excuse me.
 just that we'd like the record reflect that the petitioner is here in person. I think she's not coming up because of her, perhaps her limitations, but is Ms. Pearson here? She is, but her daughter? Okay, Margaret is, yes. Okay, excuse me for getting that confused. She is the petitioner's representative. Right, and that the,
 woman who is dependent on the assistance of the goats is here in person. That's what I'm trying to get across. Thank you for helping with names. Thank you. But her, just to be clear, her representative spoke for her and that's fine. Okay, so I will ask if there are members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to this petition. If so, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand.
 What is your name, sir? My name is Roger Croy. We live east of Rachel. OK. And would you raise your right hand? And do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Croy. You have three minutes. OK. So what we've experienced in the last several years that we do not use our backyard or patio because of the smell and then we found out the coli.
 You know, the environmental health impact, the health concerns, I was recovering cancer. So with the extra bacteria on the land, it should be cleaned up. Property values, the quality of life, and of course, the zoning regulations. So I'll have to start out with I pretty much oppose
 of this variance, I farmed about a third of my life. And I know that that land just can't support those many animals. And then we get the runoff and then we get the results back. Pretty devastating. They'll close the swimming pool down at 230 CFUs and we're sitting at 24,000. So with the bacteria growth on our fence, we also have a carport where she had
 the buildings on the property line, which was roughly 15 feet from our patio. So there again, we haven't used our patio. So the Sunday mornings, a cup of coffee, cookouts, family gatherings just don't happen due to the smell. And then it worries me that how many times we've walked through the side yard and the backyard and how much we've actually tracked into our home.
 So yeah, there's a lot of health issues here. I had a good friend pass away of hepatitis. He dealt with a lot of animal waste. So not only for our health, but Rachel and Marcus. Of course, Ann and Cheyenne have given you all the reports.
 possible to cut it there. Thank you, Mr. Croy. Thank you for coming out. I have one question. Yes, Mr. Croy. Would you come back? Yes, Mr. Lockman. I do have one question. Do you feel that the presence of the goats has diminished your property value? Yes. And the property value of the neighborhood of the other neighbors? It goes east of me.
 So I can't answer for the people that's east of me, but there is, there is a visual damage, but I'm not sure if the health department went that far down or not, or if the water wasted. But we also had it in the storm system, which goes into our drinking water and yeah, but that's, that's their expertise, not mine. Thank you.
 Thank you. Are there other members of the public who are in opposition to this request? If there's any in the line, please raise your virtual hand. No, okay. And I wonder, Ms. Pearson, do you wish to return to the podium? Okay, thank you. We return now to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Yes, Mr. Daley. I have a quick question for Ms. Cressillas.
 It says on the slide that is visible to us now, 841-4, letter F. It mentions all three criterion, and that's followed up by A, B, and C. In the packet, are those listed as one, two, and three, just so I'm aware? I'm looking on page five in the packet, 841-4,
 Fox shot, and then there's a one, two, and a three. Is that what the A, B, and the C are referencing? It's under eight, five. Yeah. So under F, then there's a subsection of one, two, and three standards. OK. OK. So the A, B, and the C written on that slide are really meaning one, two, and three. OK. Thank you. Since this is brought up, I think
 Am I wrong? No, that's a design standard variance, but it's a use standard variance under the detail. So is it I think it's a use standards variance, isn't it? It's a design. It's a design standards. And under the ordinance, I'm looking at it directly. It is F one, two and three. So that might be maybe a carryover spelling around. I just want to make sure the standards I'm looking at are the ones that are applicable.
 Yes. Margaret, just to piggyback on that question, in the use table, accessory livestock is permitted with standards. If there was nothing in the box, it would be a use variance. OK, thank you. You guys are so good at that. Thank you. OK, are there other questions? I have a staff question. Yes. If we granted these variances, would the variances run with the land, or would they be confined to the current
 users, owners. They would run with the land. So somebody else who didn't have the very sympathetic situation here could then just come in and use the land because they wanted to have a little goat farm, if we granted these. That is correct. Thank you. Questions? Yes, Mr. Morris. Yeah, I have one too. Ms. Cresselius, the petitioner was talking about rabbits and chickens. Those are permitted, correct?
 Those are considered small livestock and they do have an acreage. I believe it was in a maximum of eight per that that size lot that they could have. Yes. Thank you. It's unusual, but please ask and come to the microphone. We always err on the side of trying to hear from people. Thank you so much for making an exception.
 So when I read my first letter from zoning, it said that the limit on my size property of chickens or rabbits would be eight. And I thought, if you have two rabbits and they have a litter, then you're suddenly over the limit. And so I thought, well, there's no point in even thinking about that. But then when I got the,
 the use determination, it said that animals that are under six months of age, maybe, are counted as a half an animal. Did I read that correctly, that ordinance? Interesting. Just one moment, I will look. That might take a moment
 Absolutely, I can sit down if that's that's my really one and only question and that would apply to goats as well. Thank you. Yeah. Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Yes, Mr. No, I just want to show we can while they're looking up the answer to that, should we continue our deliberation? We could. From my perspective, I have to say I
 understand everything you've said about the therapeutic value, the liveliness, the interaction, the joy. As an animal lover, I understand all of that all day long, every day. But the health concerns and washing in the storm water, it will never get better. In fact, I'm very worried about the state of your yard right now because of the accumulation which,
 Again, as pet owners, oh yes, we know about that too. So as much as I absolutely empathize and embrace your story, I'm going to move, we deny variance 25-42 to 811, and it has everything to do with the zoning rules.
 The density of the area, the health concerns, E. coli has already been shown to be there. We have flood water, wastewater run off all the time. It collects in basements. I can absolutely understand the neighbor's concern about the usability of his backyard. All of that is true. So I'm going to move to deny that variance. And two variances. The two variances, are there two?
 Yes, 42. I'm sorry, A and B. 25-42 A and B. Thank you. Thank you back on that. I'm going to have to second your motion purely based on our hands are tied with these standards and I don't see any wiggle room based on what was presented to us.
 So I'm going to second that motion for denial. And if this gets denied, I hope you're able to find a solution. But like I said, our hands are virtually tied with this. Guinea pigs.
 It's been moved and seconded to deny both VAR-25-42A, which is the number of accessory livestock, and VAR-25-42B, which is the setback for the livestock. A vote yes is a vote to deny the proposal as requested in the packet. Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Lofman?
 Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Okay. The motion is denied five to zero. We thank you for going through our process so considerably and also for your consideration of your neighbors and the public good. And thank you for everyone who came out to support this family and this request.
 Thank you. In a quick point of order, I hope we can, did we find the answer to the question regarding the animals or could we commit to getting her that answer? I mean, the baby animals. So the animals less than one year of age that only applies to large livestock. So it does not apply for small. So it's just a total. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
 Okay, we are on to VAR-25-8C and D. This is the SIMTRA buildable area special flood hazard area and the SIMTRA maximum impervious cover variance to chapter 808 concerning one 29.85 plus or minus acre parcel in section one of Van Buren Township at 617 South Curry Pike.
 And Mr. Brown, if you would kindly review the case with us. Thank you. So this permit is to allow a gravel laydown slash parking area to remain on site. While this variance was started after the CDO was adopted, the related floodplain permits was started before the CDO's adoption. So an approximate 1.26 acre gravel laydown or parking area was added to the petition site that is located in the special flood hazard area.
 The petitioner would like for this to remain on site for the duration of ongoing construction projects to allow parking for the workers associated with said construction. And for a bit of history, VAR-25-8A was reviewed and approved by the BZA during their meeting on April 23, 2005.
 VAR-258B, VAR-258E, and VAR-258G were approved with one condition, June 4th, 2025. And VAR-25-8F was determined to no longer be required by staff. And if I might, I think you misspoke and said 2005, you mean 2025, just so the record is correct. Yes, thank you, 2025. That is my fault.
 So in 2020, a site plan amendment by Baxter, who were the owners at the time, was approved to allow a new building to be constructed on the petitioner's commercial property with a condition that a large paved parking area be converted into green space. The watershed in this area is considered a critical watershed by the stormwater program. It is basically a large terminal sinkhole with unique flooding concerns.
 It is also mapped as a FEMA zone AE floodway and must comply with local flood hazard prevention standards, which include confirmation of a FEMA required no-rise certification for any development in the floodplain. The site is not subject to the DNR Division of Water permitting requirements since the area at the central location is less than a square mile of watershed.
 There have been historical flooding events such as the event in June 2021 that caused the evacuation of Garden Villa, a senior housing facility that is located across the street and slightly downstream of the central site. Staff issued on April 9th, 2024,
 a floodplain development permit, FP 24-6, to allow temporary construction trailers within the MAPS special flood hazard area, but outside the MAPS-based flood elevation, as seen in Exhibits 6 and 7. The plan submitted, however, did not fully describe the gravel that would be associated with these construction trailers. During a site visit in March 2025, staff found a gravel laydown slash parking area estimated to be
 54,885 square feet or 1.26 acres in the special flood hazard area and at a critical watershed. This lay down area was brought to the drainage board in June and the following was decided and here are the comments from the director of storm water. The use was the drainage board made a favorable recommendation for the temporary construction lay down area with the following conditions.
 One, use of deep rooted vegetation and or trees upon restoration of the area. Two, waiver of the detention granted for the lay down area. Three, use of a two and a half inch orifice on underground detention outlet control structure during the construction with weekly inspections to be replaced with a four inch orifice upon project green light completion. And four, cleaning out the underground
 prior to Project Greenlight's completion. And to give a little bit of background, Project Greenlight is the internal name used by the petitioner for the construction of a new building on the property that was approved via site plan in 2024. In addition, according to Table 4-808, the maximum impervious cover for a property in the heavy industrial zoning district and a critical watershed is 50% of lot size.
 which is estimated, based on the petition site, to be around 650,133 square feet. During a site plan review, the petitioner calculated an existing total impervious cover as approximately 69% of the total site, thereby estimated to be 897,184 square feet.
 which did comply with the previous ordinance. Under the previous ordinance, this property was zoned general industrial, which had a maximum building coverage of 70% of the lot size. Adding the total additional square footage of the newly installed gravel lay down slash parking area brings the total impervious cover to approximately 952,069 square feet, which is approximately 73.22% of the lot.
 And this puts the property over the maximum impervious cover allowance by approximately 301,936 square feet. And here are just some images of the gravel parking lot in question, as well as the trailers that were approved with the floodplain permit. And more views of the same.
 So staff recommends the approval of both variances VAR-25-8C and VAR-25-8D with conditions. Reason being that staff believes that if the proposed gravel lot slash lay down yard improvements are temporary, are removed following building construction, and are replaced by vegetated open space, and the recommended conditions are satisfied, the development standards variance criteria will be met.
 Specifically, the plan would not be injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community because it would bring the gravel lot slash lay down yard into compliance with development ordinance flood damage prevention standards and would satisfy the purposes of the impervious surface requirements by restoring vegetative open space and utilizing on-site detention of stormwater.
 would not adversely affect the use and value of area properties because it will utilize on-site detention with a modified outlet aperture designed to reduce flooding impacts on neighboring properties and would eliminate practical difficulties resulting from the existence of a stream on the property that reduces redesign and relocation opportunities from a past decision to remove a paved parking area such as are enjoyed by neighboring property owners
 and from the excessive compliance costs associated with contractor parking and logistics, an estimated $35 million of temporarily complying with the county development ordinance during building construction. And the conditions of approval are as follows. One, conditioned with stormwater grading permits, number SW-25-54. Two, compliance with the drainage board conditions set forth on June 10th, 2025.
 Three, compliance with concessions as updated by any conditions. To address county concerns, set forth an Exhibit 4 letter from Kinley Horn and Associates Inc. Number four, update the Floods Development Permit FP-24-6 with an as-built elevation map and a no-ride certification for the temporary gravel lay-down slash parking area once reinstalled.
 Five, updates the floodplain development permit FP-24-6 with an as-built elevation map and no rise certification once all gravel is removed, site is stabilized, and area is revegetated. Six, within six months of compliance with condition number five and staff has confirmed stabilization, revegetation, and elevations, the petitioner is to submit a letter of map revision application. And seven,
 Submit a written commitment within 30 days of BZA approval that complies with the county development ordinance section 840-4 template that sets forth a schedule for complying with conditions one through six above. The schedule must identify completion dates for the completion of temporary gravel lay down slash parking area and removal of gravel lay down slash parking area, which can then
 which can be tied to the final land use certificate associated with the Project Greenlight Site Plan Amendment, SIT-25-6. County legal and planning staff are to review the written commitment prior to recording. Okay, that was an excellent presentation, Mr. Brown. There's a lot of details in there. You've done a lot of really interesting work. So we'll turn now to the petitioner or the petitioner's representative, please.
 Come and sign in. It's good to see you again. You've been working hard, I can see. Hi, good evening.
 Would you state your name again for the record? Yes. My name is Brian Shurd. I'm with Kimley Horn and Associates. Our offices are 500 East 96th Street, Suite 300, Indianapolis, Indiana. With me to... Oh, will they be testifying as well? They may. Okay, but that would be later. Yeah. But I do need to swear you in because this is quasi-judicial. Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. So please proceed.
 As typical, Daniel did a really nice job outlining this. And if you recall, I think it was last month, I was here talking about a slew of other items that were related to, well, we don't have to go into that. I think that the change in zoning on the property and the new ordinances and its existing develop site had a lot to do with that. With me tonight, I have representatives from the general contractor and also Cimtra Biopharma Solutions, my client. I put together a few slides, I think,
 Dan, if you wouldn't mind to go into the second slide. There's two variances the way this has been framed, but it's really one item. And I'm going to try to simplify this in the way that I see it. As you see on this map, this is prior to the Project Greenlight project. On the left-hand side, along Curry Pike, you see the yellow box. That's where, if you drive out past the site today, there's an unfinished building that sits there.
 to about four acres, a little over four acres of area there on the west side. And then on the northeast corner, there's another area, which in this graphic is shown as grass. And that's the pre-project green light, what I'm calling existing conditions. And then running through the middle of the site from north to south is Sinking Creek. And that does have a special flood hazard area associated with it, as Daniel mentioned. The purpose of this graphic is
 technical. We took this to the drainage board because we're really kind of talking about some engineering details here. But maybe a bit of back history. This is honestly an honest mistake. I think a misunderstanding because we had permitted the use of that area for trailers. And during the pre-construction meeting, it was discussed as using that as a temporary area. But there was some misunderstanding on if stone could be put down in a temporary fashion for practical parking of vehicles and such.
 And F.A. Wilhelm, the contractor, proceeded. They didn't. They were trying to slide this by anybody. But when the county highway department had come out and saw that it was a stone parking area, they called and they said this is a violation. Surprised everyone on our side. We started talking about it. And there's really two practical concerns. One, it is a special flood hazard area. So if stone was placed and it was placed above what it was before,
 then that's technically an improper fill, unpermitted fill in the floodway, which could affect surrounding property owners. So that was the first concern. The second concern was anytime it rains, water is going to run off a surface. If you change it from grass to gravel to pavement to rooftop, it's going to increase accordingly. And in all practical considerations, gravel is treated the same as concrete because gravel gets compacted
 over years, it can turn pretty much impervious at that point. So given that this is a critical watershed, there was a concern that an increase in runoff could cause harm to downstream prop, even in a temporary condition. So we got together as a team and tried to come up with some practical solutions to this from a, are we creating fill in the floodway? The only way to really figure that out is to survey it and then
 compare that survey with what it was before the stone was placed, do a comparison. And we found that in some areas of that gravel, it is a fill, anywhere from a few inches to a foot or so. They scraped off the topsoil. They intended to scrape it off and place the stone, but they didn't do it with a fine-tooth comb. There were some areas that had some fill, unbeknownst to them.
 Once we got that, we identified, well, that's not OK. And we agree as engineers, we can't do that even in a temporary condition. So right off the bat, Cimtra said, assuming we can get through drainage board in this meeting, immediately they'll go out, remove the stone, even during construction, scrape out the dirt,
 replace the stone, resurvey it to make sure that, and then validate that we're not actually filling in the floodway. The only reason we haven't done that yet is because we didn't want to get ahead of ourselves. We wanted to see if this would be approved and we could work through that, but it's intended to happen this summer. Then secondly, we worked with the Drainage Board because we also don't want to expose SEMTRA at any risk here. If there's a flood event, we wanted to be in sound
 feel like they were in sound position that it wouldn't be their fault if there was an issue downstream. So here in the last three weeks, I think, the underground detention system that was put in with Project Greenlight is now online and it's active. So if you go to the next slide, Daniel, you'll see it looks like a gravel area where the green light on the left, the Western box,
 That's a snapshot from earlier. But if we took a picture today, you'd see a rooftop. You'd see a pavement area to the north. That box, any drainage that falls or rain that falls out of the sky now routes through an underground detention system, which significantly reduces the amount of runoff that comes from that four-acre area. And then you can see in the upper right, oh, pointed at it, went away. It's still on our screen. OK, I'll keep talking.
 In the upper right, you'll see that that's the gravel. You can see the kind of the delta between the two. What we did from an engineering perspective, and I'm happy to go into great detail, but I'll keep it simple. In the existing condition, this box to the left had a direct release. It didn't route through any detention. It wasn't pavement or partially pavement, but the release coming off of that was, and I have some numbers on here. It was quite a bit.
 Similar to the northeast side, that also was direct release straight into the creek. There was no detention. When you combine those two, and then you put that number off to the side, and then you look at this in the proposed condition, the 100-year peak runoff coming off that four-acre piece on the west is dramatically decreased because it has to meet the ordinance that we have to follow. That's the whole point of putting in the detention system. Admittedly, the temporary addition of the trailer gravel lay down area
 does increase, but when you add them together again, it's still significantly less than what it was before this project. So we can stand in confidence and say, even though we've increased runoff on that northeast side temporarily, the net impact at the downstream end of our property is less now, and it'll become even less in the future when that stone is removed after the project. So we explained this logic to the drainage board
 they had some really good questions. We talked it through. Their main concern was that when we removed that parking area in the Northeast, that we replace it with soil that could sustain grass, that it's not just compacted clay, that there's topsoil put back and that there's landscaping put in, which we've been working with Daniel and staff and Jackie on bringing the entire campus up as we talked about last month. So we had already recommended trees in that area before, so that was easy. And then there's a,
 I'll call it icing on the top. The drainage ordinance says that size your detention for whatever it needs to be, assuming whatever theoretically small orifice you need to have the hole in the structure to let the water through. But in reality, when you go install it, don't make that orifice any less than four inches in diameter. Because if you make it smaller than four inches, it'll clog like it just will. It's a maintenance issue. So we designed it to be a two and a half inch orifice per ordinance.
 But what they were going to install was a four inch. What the drainage board asked us was, hey, would you mind putting a steel plate on that just during construction and make it a two and a half inch orifice and go and inspect it on a regular basis to make sure that it's not clogged. It'll just reduce that release by ever a little bit more. And we said, that's really no problem at all. We'll agree to it. So from our position, we frankly volunteered all these commitments.
 The county had a few addition that we don't take issue with. So they're recommending approval, drainage board recommended approval. We're happy to comply with the commitments here. So happy to answer any questions you have. Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals have questions. This might have been a better question for staff, but it refers, I think, to a lay down parking area, lay down. What is lay down?
 And I'd be happy to, if Ben or anybody has any specifics on it, I think primarily it's parking, but it's kind of a universal area for during construction temporarily for use. But I think predominantly it's used for construction worker parking. No, if you've got materials that you need to store temporarily during construction, lumber or roughing or whatever, you can put it there.
 Is that the intent? I mean, do you? Yeah. Yeah. It's a, every day is a different day on a construction site, but yeah, that's, I think that's, that's used. Thank you.
 And I have a question on both on our reports on both page 16 and 25. It refers to a cost that would be incurred that it had too many zeros. Was it thirty five thousand because it had an extra zero at the end. It's significant. And I think that that's a that was calculated by Julie Mendez and the center team. And I think that that function and I'm going to
 is not just the cost of having to park people off site, but it's storing material off site. And it's also the impact of the construction schedule that could elongate. So the project is intended to be completed by the end of next year. Practically speaking, the logistics of having that could really elongate the schedule if they're not able to use this area. Daniel said it was $35 million. $35 million? Is that the number? Wow.
 Well, please come up and then we'll have you sign it. Could you first, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And what is your name, sir? Ben Veenhuysen. I represent F.A. Wilhelm Construction. We're the general contractor on the job. So the number is 35 million. Whoa.
 So, when we looked at that initially even before we started the project we looked at the surrounding area for temporary parking lots that we could either rent or utilize within the existing area.
 We talked with, you know, at one time was an undeveloped lot across Liberty, which is now the Kia dealership. And at that time it was not a permissible use or for us to use that lot for temporary staging. And then SEMTRA has another property that's further on Curry Pike that we looked at. And as we did that calculation, we have at maximum 150 to 200 on-site workers every day.
 So given some of the things we discussed last month with needing the parking variance for just the staff that Simtra employees with all three shifts, we were then having to look at busing in all of our employees back and forth all day long. And as we looked at not only the busing costs, but the productivity costs as they travel back and forth three to four times a day. And then by looking at that,
 they projected that we would increase the length of the project by six to eight months due to the productivity loss, which comes at an extreme impact to Syntra, which then also would diminish the amount of capital expenditure they have to actually dedicate to the project. So, and then it also looked at a little bit in terms of very minimally what they lose in overall productivity and
 ability to turn product around once the building's actually open. Thanks. It was very much. Before you leave the podium, would you kindly sign in? And if you're finished, we'll turn to the public. If the public has anything else they would like to say in support of this petition. I already did. Would you please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand if you would like to speak in favor of this petition?
 Or if you would like to speak in opposition to this petition, please come to the podium in the Nat Hill room or raise your virtual hand. And if you could let me know if you see anyone. Okay, then we come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals for further discussion and or motion. Sure, I believe all the standards are met and I would like to
 motion that we accept these two variances and which are variance 25.8 Charlie and 25.8 Delta with the noted seven conditions of approval that are in the packet.
 I will second that and I just want to add thank you for such due diligence with environmental concerns because I know that property. So thank you for that. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-8C which is SIMTRA buildable area to the special flood hazard area of chapter 813 and VAR-25-8C.
 which is the maximum impervious cover to chapter 808, subject to the seven conditions as published in the staff report, and which I believe I do have to read out loud.
 Number one, compliance with stormwater grading permit number SW-25-54. Number two, compliance with drainage board conditions set forth on June 10th, 2025. Number three, compliance with concessions as updated by any conditions to address county concerns set forth in the exhibit four letter from Kimley Horn and Associates Inc. Number four,
 Update the floodplain development permit FP-24-6 with an as-built elevation map and a no-rise certification for the temporary gravel laydown slash parking area once reinstalled. Number five, update the floodplain development permit FP-24-6 with an as-built elevation map and no-rise certification once all gravel is removed, site has been stabilized, and area is revegetated.
 Number six within six months of compliance with condition number five and staff has confirmed stabilization re vegetation and elevations. The petitioner is to submit a letter of map revision application.
 Number seven, submit a written commitment within 30 days of BZA approval that complies with the county development ordinance section 840-4 template, and that sets forth a schedule for complying with conditions one through six above. The schedule must identify completion dates for completion of temporary gravel lay down parking area and removal of gravel lay down parking area, which can be tied to the final land use certificate associated with project green light site plan amendment SIT-24.
 25-6. County legal and planning staff are to review the written commitment prior to recording. A vote yes is a vote to approve with those conditions as listed. Guy Lothman? I'm going to note that we, I think the proposal
 It reduces current runoff, which is great, and it's not often that we can save any business $35 million. So particularly in light of that, I vote yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Motion is approved, five to zero. We thank you for collaborating so well with our entire county staff.
 And we look forward to your partnership in our community. We thank you for being here. Thank you. Thank you.
 Okay, we move on to items three, four, five, and six, variances 25-24A, B, C, and D concerning the Roman front yard setback variance, a Roman side yard setback variance, a Roman riparian area setback variance, and a Roman buildable area, special flood hazard area concerning 1.38 plus or minus acre parcel in section 33 of Benton
 at 77 North John Young Road. And Mr. Brown. Thank you. It's 7700. What did I say? Well, 77. Oh, I meant 7700. That's what it says, and that's what I heard. Well, that's what I want. Thank you. So the purpose of this petition is to add two porches to an already existing
 single-family detached dwelling. This project was started after the adoption of the county development ordinance. The petitioner has applied for a building permit R-25-85 to add two porches on the existing single-family residence. One will be a roughly 36 square foot covered porch attached to the existing front door, and the other will be an estimated 185 square foot covered porch attached to the eastern side of the existing home.
 This petitioner's home was previously included a covered porch, but a permit in 2024 was utilized to enclose those porches into livable space and remodel the home substantially. Now they are seeking to add new porches to the remodeled home. So in brief, in the
 Residential 1 zoning district, the following standards apply. The front yard setback off of a local road is 25 feet, the side yard setback is 10 feet, and the setback from the normal pool elevation of Lake Lemmon, which is 630 feet above sea level, is 50 feet, while the required setback from the centerline of a riparian area is also 50 feet.
 The proposed porch, however, will encroach into the required front setback by 8.5 feet. The porch proposes to encroach around 5 feet while the existing home already encroaches about 4.5 feet. It will also encroach into the side yard setback by 1.5 feet and be only an estimated 32 feet from the Lake Lemon normal pool elevation.
 So the existing location of the existing home and the proposed porch is below elevation contour 635.1 feet. And per chapter 825, the flood damage prevention, this is in the special flood hazard area, even though the DNR best available floodplain map is incorrect and does not overlap with the parcel.
 The petitioner has demonstrated compliance with both the interior remodel of the existing residence and the proposed porch with regards to Chapter 825, but despite this compliance, Chapter 813 buildable area standards to the special flood hazard area will still require a variance to allow the porch permit to be released. And here are pictures of the property in question. The image on the left is the property as it stands right now, and the image on the right is the
 home that existed before the remodel that was mentioned. And here are some images of the site of the property where part of the porch is proposed to be placed. And here is the site map. The blue squares and the blue L-shaped are the locations of the proposed porch, as you can see. And here are some site plans that were submitted by the petitioner
 showing the dimensions of the porch as well as the overall construction of the building. And so staff recommends denial of VAR-25-24A as practical difficulties have not been demonstrated. More specifically, the petitioner could simply keep their property as is without encroaching further into the front yard setback. Denial of VAR-25-24B
 as practical difficulties have not been demonstrated. More specifically, the petitioner could simply keep their property as is without encroaching into the, that should be side yard setback, my apologies. Three is approval of VAR-25-24C as, approval of VAR-25-24C as practical difficulties have been demonstrated and that compliance with the required riparian area setback
 would necessitate the petitioner to relocate the existing home potentially into a non-buildable area. And we recommend approval of VR-25-24D. As the petitioner has demonstrated, their plans will meet Chapter 825 Flood Damage Prevention Standards. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Are the Rollmans here?
 Yes, I see that Jessica Roman is online and if we could unmute her or if she could unmute herself. I don't know, Jessica, if you're able to unmute yourself or if staff has to do it. Jessica, you'll have to.
 unmute yourself if possible. And if the mute button is grayed out, then you may need to exit the call and rejoin the link. So the mute hall button is on, it seems. It shows as still being muted.
 But her camera is on, but I don't know if she has the ability to unmute. There should be a mic option and a volume option if you're on a laptop. Jessica, if you're not able to unmute yourself, you may need to leave the meeting and reenter the meeting, reconnect the meeting because of technological issues.
 those instructions be typed in a message? I can put it in the chat.
 She's also trying to call in. Are we able to have her connect by her phone? She can. Yes. So we're trying to connect then to your phone, Jessica, but we can see you. So that's good.
 I've added the information to the chat, Jessica. So if you're able to take down the link before you leave the meeting and try. OK, looks like she's trying to join via her phone. So I'm going to let her.
 Can you speak? Oh, she's waiting in the lobby, it says. Yes, there's a 317 number that's just been admitted. Jessica, can you speak? We don't hear you yet. Okay. All right, Jessica, it says that you left the meeting with your phone. If you could call back again.
 have to call back again, Jessica. There's another Jessica Roman on verified.
 Do we check that green checkbox? Is the 317 number there? Could you allow the 317 number to speak? Okay.
 Hello. Hello. Oh, hi, Jessica. Thank you for staying with us. So would you please state your name? Yes. Hi. My name is Jessica Roman. And thank you. I do not know what was going on. I'm unable to unmute me online. OK. Well, would you 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. You have 15 minutes to go over your request with us.
 Okay. Hi. Thank you. I have built a, well, I have an existing structure that I did not extend past the roof line. I stayed within the existing structure outline. And, but now I had finished a part of it that was a covered court. So now that it's just one level, I have a front door and a side door.
 And it kind of just, as you can see, it doesn't have anything in front of it, because I have a covered porch and a porch. It's my understanding that a porch would not require all of this, but it is a part that I'm covering it with a roof structure. It's just a metal roof. And it will go five and a half feet forward and then off the side, just to sit and watch the water.
 I am tucked on a private road. That road is actually private where I am at and there's only a few cars that use that. I am tucked in that area basically by myself. I'm the only one in that little co. So it's just, it's for leisure. It's also for curb appeal. It makes sense to have a front porch and the side porch off the doors. I don't know what I would do otherwise.
 So that's all I have. I have an engineer that drew up the drawings. Everything will be used with flood approved materials. I'm not in a floodplain. I'm called DNR with the Monroe County Water Division. I'm called FEMA. I'm not in any floodplain. I do not require flood insurance, although I have it. And that's where we're at. I'm just trying to get this home and help build my
 the value of the properties of myself and those around me. Okay, thank you, Jessica. I'm going to ask my colleagues on the board if they have any questions for you. Do members of the BZA have questions for Ms. Rohlman? My only question is, there's a concern that the porches extend the issues for which you seek a variance. Are the porches
 as modestly sized as they can be in terms of your usage and the restrictions that you have on this land? Yeah, I actually was hoping to be about eight feet in the front because the rest is on the side where it wouldn't be. It's not even an issue. It would just be the front. So I took it down to five and a half feet. So it's just enough for a chair to be in the front and then a couple of feet.
 Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. We'll turn to the public now to see if any members of the public are in support of this petition. And if there are members who are opposed, you'll have a chance to speak again, Jessica. So are there members of the public who are in support of this petition? Please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand. Are there members of the public who are opposed to this petition? If so, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand.
 No. So I would turn now to the Board of Zoning Appeals for further discussion and or a motion. Yes, Mr. Morris. I have a clarifying question for Mr. Brown. Could you go back to the photo of the house with the dumpster and the gravel pile in front of it? Yeah, that one. Is that John Young Road that the dumpster is sitting adjacent to or is that a private driveway?
 It is North John Young Road, but that is not publicly maintained. It's a private roadway through there. That's a road that other people drive on to get to their properties? That's it. That's true. OK, thanks. You know how many homes are beyond that?
 Daniel, if you will pull up just like an aerial, like maybe a location map, it kind of goes in a circle, even just like one of your maps that you have in here will be sufficient. That's right. You're right. One moment, I will pop a location map.
 I didn't mute Jessica because I was getting some feedback back and forth. But this is the property in relation to John Young Road. So we did do a quick analysis and it turns into East Rust Road automatically. But there's a portion of East Rust Road that's public. There's North Shiloh that's public and then a portion of North John Young Road is public.
 but then as you kind of come around closer to the lake, this is all private. So there are, you know, a number of homes that do get accessed back here either coming from either direction, but this section here is private. Well, I have reservations about this myself. We can see. But to me, this is
 I don't see any real basis for saying that, of course, almost anybody who wants to variance is going to make their property so they like it better. But that's the only reason I see this. And I think it's, for me, the ordinance doesn't. The ordinance is appropriate.
 and the enforcement of the ordinance is appropriate. So I'm not going to make a motion yet, but that's where I'm leaning. For staff, if I may, Chairwoman? Yes, yes. I'm trying to figure out 25-24 Bravo, the side yard setback. Do you have a photo that shows the plan for the side yard? Yes, this is the site plan.
 And as you can see, this measurement from the proposed corner of the porch to the side yard setback is approximately 8.5 feet. At the side yard. Corner of the porch to the side yard setback. I guess where my mouse cursor is. So how far in violation would the proposed side porch be? One and a half feet. OK.
 So the side yard setback is just in violation of one and a half feet. The front one looks awful close to the front road there, but. Yeah, what is the setback from the proposed porch to the road? Approximately 15.5 feet. 15.5 feet.
 To the road, yeah. The park. There's no dedicated right of way in this area, so it's to edge of pavement is the measurement. Right. And the house is already encroaching into the front setback. And they were given permission for that for 2024? It was a remodel, so it was pre-existing. Pre-existing, okay, fair enough.
 five feet to what was pre-existing, five and a half feet to what was pre-existing. And again, on that side yard, is there an environmental concern on there or is it just because it's a 10 foot setback and it violates it by one and a half feet? There's not an environmental concern other than the flood
 protection grade that we talked about, which the structure, she's stating that the deck materials would meet flood protection requirements. There is the septic tank in the front yard as well. So we just like to make sure there's separation from any structures to that. So there's kind of a lot going on. Thank you.
 I'm sympathetic to wanting to have, you know, it's a private road. There can't be a whole lot of traffic up and down. Your question, Mr. Daley, about are there environmental concerns and so on. A foot and a half difference, the House already violates the standards just from being where it is. But I can absolutely understand
 the desirability of wanting to have an outdoor porch. And if it's going to be built in accordance with floodplain protections too, which I assume water can flow underneath it, I assume that's what that means, I would guess. Kind of sympathetic to this. If I may add, that would mean that you would likely want to separate
 as opposed to bundling these these four. Yes. Yes. I'll just mention, though, that we had to make these recommendations as proposed. But if, for instance, someone wanted to approve the side yard but deny the front yard, they would still need technically a variance for just the way the house is currently and the expansion into the
 of that residence. So even though the setback from the front, if they cut off the porch expansion or meet the 25 at that section, the house on the southwest corner is already too close to the road. So I just bring that to your attention. To say I'm a sympathetic to, you know, I'm sympathetic to because number one,
 The house was there and built before the rules came in. And so now it finds itself out of compliance. It was out of compliance because the rules were initiated. Now she took the old porch and turned it into house and now is in need of a porch. I mean, that's basically what it boils down to.
 And she minimized the depth of the porch from her desire is eight and a half feet. She minimized it down to five and a half feet. And it's a private road. And that is, I see someone whose hand is raised. Oh, is that Jessica again? Yeah, yeah.
 I'm sorry. Your time to speak has finished unless we have a specific question for you, Miss Roman. So I don't know exactly. That's where I'm sitting. I don't know. Mr. Daley, do you want to make a motion? Because you suggested separating those. So what do you think? I don't see.
 I don't see the practical difficulty set in the code being met for variance 25-24 alpha. That's all I'm saying.
 Why don't I make a motion to approve variance 25-24B, the Roleman side yard setback variance from chapter 805, and also variance 25-24C, the Roleman riparian area setback variance from chapter 805, and also variance 25-24D, the Roleman buildable area special flood plain area from chapter 813,
 And are there any conditions on that? Because you talked about the accordance with flood plain. Did that turn into a condition? They actually already have a permit. So they're all right. Okay. So I'll make a motion to approve those three variances.
 And leave the 24A to be determined separately. How does that sound? You were talking about some added challenges just a moment ago with that. Could you reiterate that or would that play a role in what the motion on the table is? I think we could still separate them and vote on this and then I can get into it a bit.
 Was there a second? I'll second that
 Okay, there's been a motion and a second to approve VAR-25-24B, which is Roman's side yard setback, VAR-25-24C, which is the riparian area setback, and VAR-25-24D, which is the buildable area to special flood hazard area variance. A vote yes is a vote to approve these three variances.
 Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Well, I'm going to say I would support. C and D, but I don't support B and the way the motions made. I just had to vote. No. Jeff Morris. Yes.
 Okay, so the motion to approve B, C, and D does pass by a vote of four to one. Okay, so we are still at the discussion of 25-24A. And Ms. Nestor-Gellin, would you kindly review with us again this kind of nuance that no matter what, the House is still not in compliance, but by approving 25-24A,
 if we might find it in compliance or secure its compliance is that it. So as proposed they're asking for a front porch that will encroach total by nine and a half feet. So if you were to say wish that they are able to do the side yard.
 deck or patio, but not the front yard, you could amend, I believe you could amend a in your motion to say that you approve a front yard setback encroachment for the existing home, which is four and a half feet. And then that would be so basically their new setback for the home would be four would be
 19 and a half feet. That could lead to just the home's not exactly parallel to the road. So it could lead to some expansion of the deck that altogether would have to meet 19 and a half feet from the edge of pavement throughout. And for clarification, that's approving what was already built. That's right. Approving what's already built.
 Right, but not approving additional for a front porch. Other than what you just described in that potential. Parallel situation, it would not approve the design as presented before you, but there could be a little bit of wiggle room on the very east side front portion to come into the front a bit based on the still 19 and a half feet from the edge of payment.
 But how do we make that emotion? How do we, how do we reword that? My friend. Yes.
 So what we're leaning to is not approving the design as submitted, but the wiggle room modification, come back and show us something else. Is that a good? They wouldn't have to show us. They wouldn't have to show us. But at this point, should we hear from the petitioner, since this is something they did not request? Well, I mean, technically, we don't have to. I always like to err on the side of it. Well, that's fine. But if we don't approve,
 that amount of the amount in question, there'll have to be a teardown of what's been built? Or they could come back with a new proposal, but they wouldn't be able to build the side porch until they get a new variance. Oh, OK. Because it was a remodel now. If they're adding this, this is an addition, and then that kicks in. OK. Let me make sure, because this is a little confusing for me.
 If we vote yes on A, if I vote yes on A, that says the house as built, which is not in compliance, is in compliance, but it doesn't say anything about adding any other porch. Is that right? If you approve A as presented in the packet, it would actually be approving the 9.5 foot encroachment with the porch. So you'll have to put a caveat on A to say you will approve
 VAR 25-24A for a four and a half foot maximum front yard encroachment for a new setback requirement of 19.5 feet. I would say that if I could figure out exactly how to. I think that it's a good idea to say that the existing house is permitted. And that's what I'm trying to do.
 you already offered that you are not in support of part b as in bravo my suggestion is you will probably well my thought is is that you would want to not approve anything for a because we are suggesting or i am suggesting that if a side porch is acceptable then in order for
 the petitioner to build a side porch, they have to have limited approval of 24 alpha. And that it was phrased the way that our director just phrased it. They can keep the house as is and not build a side porch and not build a front porch or with denial or with approval
 of A, they can build a side or a front porch, or with approval of B and limited approval of A, they could approve a side yard. Does that clear it up like mud? You've made it clear to me. I'm going to vote no. That is where you should consider in your previous comment. That is, yeah.
 And so to be a little bit more clear approval of a four and a half foot encroachment only approves the house as is with the side yard that we had previously approved approving a 19 and a half foot front yard set book back allows the owner to wrap around from the side and come a little bit in front. That's what I understand.
 So that's the difference between four and a half foot encroachment versus a 19 and a half foot. If you want the petitioner to be able to build a new side porch, but not a front porch, then a motion needs to be brought forth that says, we approve the four and a half foot encroachment variance.
 And so we would have to amend the current variance. If you want the petitioner to be able to do whatever the petitioner had originally stated, then you can't send someone can make a motion to approve it as written. Yes. And then there's a third option, which is denial, denial altogether. Well, then the fourth option, which is a 19 and a half foot
 front yard setback that allows the side porch to come around just a little on the front. It was just speaking with Mr Schelling. If you wanted assurance that no more front development were to occur, and let's say the house is not exactly parallel to the road, what you could say is we could give you the measurement for the western side of the home and sort of
 where the middle is, and we could really stipulate that they cannot do any further development on the front of the home if you don't want them to have anything at all related to the front. So those are the options. What's it going to look like?
 trying to make a motion here. So for VAR-25-24A, I move approval of the encroachment for the existing home for a four and a half foot maximum encroachment for a total setback of 19 and a half feet. I think I wrote down exactly what you had said a minute ago, Jackie. Does that contradict a little bit?
 It doesn't bring the property any closer.
 We're just double checking the math to make sure we're absolutely accurate. All right, that sounds good before we second it.
 Just to correct the motion because we're
 trying to do math here. So approval of the existing home for an existing encroachment of four and a half feet, which if you subtract that 25 minus four and a half feet, that's 20 and a half feet, not 19 and a half, sorry. Okay, so I will edit my motion to align with the math you just presented, Jackie. If you need me to repeat it, I can. Okay, so it's approval of the- Oh, did you want to second? Oh, sure.
 Okay, so it's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-24A, which is the Roman front yard setback, but as amended, which is approval for the existing home to encroach four and a half feet and the remaining setback for the home shall be at least 20 and a half feet for the remainder.
 Yes as a vote to approve. If Morris. Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Skip daily. Yes. Guy Lofman. No. OK, motion is approved four to one. OK, thank you, Jessica, for working with us and for going through those technological problems.
 And our petitioner will probably also have to work with planning staff at this point to figure out what all this means. Yes, exactly. OK, are we ready to continue, everyone? OK, we're moving to item number seven, VAR-25-35. And this is the Demsar Eco Area 1, maximum residential density, one acre buildable area, variance to chapter 823.
 concerning a 1.37 plus or minus acre property in Perry Township, section 25 at 5026 East Moores Creek Road. Mr. Myers. Thank you. One moment. All right. So this is VAR-25-35.
 The Demsar Eco Area 1 variance, it's a maximum residential density as well as an one acre buildable area variance, Chapter 823. The purpose is to construct a 576 square foot two car garage on the property. According to Chapter 823-5A3, the maximum residential density that shall be allowed is one unit per five acres in this area of the environmental constraints overlay. According to that same chapter, but item number four,
 Each dwelling unit shall have at least one acre of total contiguous buildable area land. This petition site exhibits only 1.37 acres in total and only 0.45 acres of contiguous buildable area. This project was started after the CDO's adoption so it is subject to the County Development Ordinance's current standards and requirements. Here we have the location map and the site conditions map. You'll note that East Moores Creek Road bisects the property and that does
 result in the limited amount of contiguous buildable area that is present on the property. Here are some photographs of the property itself, the driveway cut onto the public roadway there. And as you come in to the property from that driveway, the picture on the left side of the screen is more or less the proposed location for the structure. And then you can see on the bottom right photograph, the existing residence.
 Here on the photograph to the left is turning around, facing back towards the road from the driveway. And then on the right, you see an aerial imagery of the petition site. You will see that the house kind of sits in this western corner here. The house is not abiding by setbacks, it appears, but it is not being altered. So it is not subject to a variance at this time. Here's a letter from the petitioner to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
 proposing their construction of a two-car storage pole barn. And then here we have a survey provided by the petitioner as well as their site plan that indicates the location of the proposed structure and a general schematic of its distance from nearby structures as well as the roadway. Also, if you look in the packet, there are additional surveys that staff was able to locate through
 the recording system that we have for recorded surveys. That brings me to staff's recommendation. Staff recommends approval of both eco area one variances, which is the maximum residential density, as well as the one acre contiguous buildable area, citing that practical difficulties have been demonstrated as the property can not meet the one acre of a contiguous buildable area requirement, nor the maximum residential density of five,
 units of five acres per unit in any scenario because the property contains 1.37 acres fragmented by East Moores Creek Road. This variance would be needed for any new development on the subject property. And I'll take any questions. We'll just go straight to the petitioner. If the petitioner is here and would like to speak, please come to the podium and sign in and then I'll swear you in. Or if you're online, please unmute yourself.
 I will state that the petitioner was in the audience, but had to leave, but did state that he would try and sign in virtually. So I will see if he's available. OK. I'd like to also ask if there are members of the public who are in favor of this petition or opposed to this petition to please raise your hand.
 or to come to the podium in the Nat Hill Room. Since there's no one, we can return now to the Board of Zoning Appeals for further discussion and or a motion. I found Mr. Myers presentation quite compelling. And I would like to make a motion to approve variance
 25-35 based on the criterion and the standards of the code being met. I'll second that because practical difficulties have been met. The land cannot be five acres, never will be.
 Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-35, which is the Demsher Eco Area 1 maximum residential density requirement for one acre of buildable area. There's not a five acre. Oh. It's maximum residential density and the one acre contiguous. Thank you. And five acre minimum requirement. A vote yes is a vote to approve the variance
 as proposed. Guy Laughman? Yes. Jeff Morse? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daley? Yes. Motion is approved, five to zero.
 Okay, so we're moving on to item number eight on the agenda, which is VAR-25-36. This is the EADS residential storage structure size variance to chapter 811 concerning 10.7 plus or minus acre parcel and bulk township at 5368 East Stewart Road. And Mr. Myers, if you would review that with us, we'd be grateful.
 So this is a request for residential storage structure size variance from Chapter 811. Its purpose is to allow the construction of a 2,560 square foot residential storage structure on the property without a existing primary residence. The petitioner did demolish a pre-existing manufacturer tone on the property within the last year. According to the county development ordinance, Chapter 850-1, residential storage structure is defined as a structure to be used for private non-commercial storage by the property owner.
 does not require the presence of a primary use on the same lot. If there is presence of a primary use on the same lot, the structure can instead be considered an accessory structure. According to Chapter 811-3M1, the structure shall not exceed 1,750 square feet in the AGR, FOR, or CVR zoning districts, and 875 square feet in all other permitted zoning districts. Being that this property is zoned Forest Residential 5, or FOR for short, it is subject to that
 1750 square foot size limitation when there is not a primary residence on the property. So as such, the proposed structure exceeds the above maximum by 810 square feet. However, the petitioner does intend to construct a single family residence in the near future. As mentioned in their letter, they are wanting to construct the detached structure first because they want to save up for the construction of the residence.
 This project was started after the CDO's adoption, so it is subject to the county development ordinance and all of its requirements. Here we have the location map and the site conditions map. The site conditions map is just zoomed in into the subject area. The property, as you'll see in the location map, does extend westward towards Lake Monroe. But that area mostly is steep slopes. Here we have some pictures of the property.
 East Stewart Road that you're seeing here with the driveway coming off of East Stewart Road and then onto the subject property. You can see the existing small storage shed that still exists on the property. The driveway extends into the property where approximately the manufactured home used to sit but was demolished, as I stated earlier, by the petitioner. So here on the screen, more photographs. That top left photograph a little bit farther into the background would be the proposed structure.
 And then here on the screen now, we have the letter that the petitioner submitted as part of their application. And then on the right side of the screen, we have an aerial imagery that shows the previously existing manufacturer tone that was demolished with the red X. And the yellow rectangle is a very approximate location based on measurements that were provided in the petitioner's site plan, but just to give you an aerial idea of where that structure will be located.
 The petitioner does have a certified plot plan from a licensed land surveyor as part of their application for the construction of the structure. So that is on the screen now. And then on this screen is a little bit more zoomed in to see more of the detail there showing the proposed structure, its distance from the property lines, as well as the driveway's extension and a little bit of a driveway expansion to compensate for the new storage structure.
 The structure will meet all other design standards. It's not located in steep slopes. There are no other variances needed for its construction other than the residential storage structure size variance because it is larger than the 1,750 square feet. Okay, so that brings me to staff's recommendation. According to the ordinance and staff, we recommend denial of the residential storage structure variance.
 stating that practical difficulties have not been demonstrated. The petitioner could redesign the proposed structure to meet the 1,750 square foot limitation or wait and construct a primary residence first, thereby not being a subject to the limitation as stated. I will not take any questions. Can I ask if the manufactured home were still on the property, would they need to be coming before us? They would not.
 be a primary residence on the property, and they would not be subject to the square footage requirements. So the fact that they removed the manufactured home before applying for a permit for this kind of counts against them. I see. And under the old CDO, would they need to come before us? Yes. This standard was carried over from the prior ordinance. OK. Well, with that in mind, if the Eads are here and would like to come and speak to us, please come and sign in.
 and I'll swear you in. I presume you're Jacob. Yeah, thank you. Thanks for coming tonight and being patient with us.
 that would you kindly raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you mr. Eads please tell us what you want so I'm just wanting to build a 40 by 60 garage to use as a garage for a future house and I have my first truck that I'm going to put in it and I also do the maintenance on my
 own stuff. And I would just like to have a nice garage and be able to have a nice garage for a house someday. That's all I want. Thank you, Mr. Eads. I'll ask a question. My question is, your request is 2,560 square feet.
 Oddly enough, the limitation without the primary residence is 1,750 square feet. Is that adequate for your needs, 1,750? It could be, but I would like to have the 40 by 60. OK, are there other questions? My question for you is, sir, what is the reason why you need
 the garage there before you build the home? Because I don't have $150,000 to drop on a house right now, but I have the money to build the garage right now. All right. So your difficulty would be the fact that you want to jump on building the garage, which you desire for your lifestyle, because
 You want to jump on that now while the economy is allowing you to do that. And then you will be building the home. What is your approximation of time when you feel that you could get that house built? I don't know. I would hope within the next five years. I still live at home with my parents right now. And I'm just trying to get my life started.
 I ask if the pole barn is it really you know the need for the structure especially that large is it related to your work no no and okay okay well are there any other questions. I think it was the same question do you live currently live very close to this location I do I live about probably about five minutes from this place it was actually my great aunt and uncle's place and I bought it from a.
 distant cousin and I got for a pretty good deal and I'd just like to you know be able to have a house there someday with the garage on it and be able to My problem is that I agree. I think that's I think it's a great for you to have a house there, but
 Starting the building the garage first. It's gonna slow down when you finally get to build the house because yes, but I'm gonna do a lot of work a lot of the work myself and that will give me a place to put all the building materials for the house and Yeah, okay, well the fact that you you you got
 Catch-22, because you moved the mobile home first, I found pretty compelling, especially because you want to build and you need a place for the materials. My guess is you may be building it first one part, then another part, because you'll be doing a lot of work yourself. Is that right? Okay, very good.
 And the acreage is 10.7 acres, is that right? It's probably about a five-ish acre field, and then the rest of it is just hills and haulers. Hills and haulers, described well. Nice that you have that land, that's a nice piece of land. Close to the folks. Yeah, close to the folks. So are there other questions for Mr. Eads? No, I would like to
 I would like to move forward. We don't know. We'll hear from the public and if anybody is opposed, you can return. Okay. Are there members of the public who would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to this petition? Yes, sir, please. And yes, come to the podium and sign in. I don't see anyone online, Margaret. Okay, great.
 So if you both sign in and then I'll swear you in. There's one person online. Oh, that's, oh, how nice. You've raised a beautiful, wonderful family. Yeah. 11 acres at your age. And then you're going to build your house. That's pretty great. Close to the folks. Yeah, close to the folks. That's right. We all need that, you know.
 Oh, yes. If you both do you also want to speak? No. OK. What is your name, Mr. Eads? My name is Levi Mikulich. Levi, if you would kindly raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, ma'am. OK, please proceed. So I live on the same road as Jacob does. And since he has moved on to that property, it has improved tremendously.
 The guy who lived there before, weeds four or five feet tall, house was just kind of buried in the weeds, not really taken care of and the property did not look nice. Since he has came in, it has not only helped with my property value by making our road look better, but it just looks better all around and I'm happier to look up there when I'm standing on my porch looking at that piece of land.
 With that being said, I've watched him probably once a week, every couple of weeks, bringing tractors in on trailers, bush hogs, trying to clean up the land, keep it nice, keep it maintained, and make it nice for me to look at and nice for the rest of the community. Therefore, I feel like if he had a 40 by 60 pole barn, he would have somewhere on site to where he could keep that tractor, maintain that tractor,
 keep his trucks parked inside. They'd be nice. And as he said, he plans on building in the future. He would also have room to keep his materials and everything like that there. So I would be really happy if he could get this put in and keep that property maintained for my sake and the other neighbor's sake. That's very eloquently stated. Thank you. Welcome. And would you like to speak, ma'am, if you would kindly sign in?
 Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, ma'am. And what is your name? I'm Stacey. He's my mom. Oh, OK, Stacey. Yes, please proceed. You have three minutes. OK. So this is my son. He's a very fine young man. I may be a little biased, but I don't think much. He's a very hard worker. He's always been a good kid. He is trying to build his life. He will be 23 years old this coming Friday, the 4th of July. And he has bought a new truck.
 He actually bought two new trucks and has paid them both off. He traded the person for the one he has now, but he's a hard worker. He is wanting to start his life and he's wanting to get this barn to begin his life on this land, to build it big enough for the future he can have it as big as, if he wants to buy a tractor or something, he could put a tractor in it.
 or whatever he wants the barn for, it would be big enough as he builds it to have in the future. And he's not wanting to go into a lot of debt, he's one that is very responsible, and he pays off what he gets at a time. So he's got this land, he just got it, so he's paying on that, and hopefully with this barn, he'll have it paid by the time the good Lord is timing for him to get a house someday for him to get it and pay on it.
 So yeah. Sounds like a well thought out plan in progression of events. And I thank you for coming to support your son's effort there. It sounds to me like a good idea. But I'm going to refer now to my colleagues to see. Oh, there's someone. Oh, Mr. Dave Bernworth. I didn't see. He has his hand raised if you could unmute him. And then if he speaks in opposition, you'll have an opportunity to respond.
 Yes. Okay, Mr. Bernworth, would you kindly raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please, will you have three minutes to address us? I won't need the whole three minutes, but I think it's very admirable what this young man is trying to achieve. And I think the parcel of land
 is more than adequate to allow him to do that. So I would encourage you to please grant the request as submitted. Thank you very much, Mr. Burnworth. Thank you. Are there other members of the public who would like to speak? If there are none, we can move to further discussion and
 a motion. I'm going to move that we approve variance 25-36, the EADS residential storage structure size variance to chapter 811. The land just seems very adequate for that, and I absolutely understand the timeline. So I'm going to move to approve that. Do you find practical difficulties have been met? They are in terms of, yeah, that
 the mobile home being torn down, the financial situation. I can understand exactly the choosy choices he's making. So practical difficulties in terms of economic realities as much as anything else. I would just like to.
 Make a friendly amendment. This is a little bit of a catch 22 because of the, because in the effort of cleaning up and making the land amenable to what he intended to do. He took down an unsightly thing.
 that would have permitted him to do this automatically. So I would just like to, that was a catch 22. And I think that he has, I'm proud to have you in our community and the way you're going about setting up your life. So I think I'm in favor of this. Sorry. I will second the motion for approval based on
 My belief that practical difficulties, as the county defines it, have also been met. I believe that the challenge of the building materials being stored while he's building the primary residence works for me in that capacity. So I will second. I like that. I don't know how it'll look in your notes, but yeah.
 It's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-36, which is the EADS residential storage structure size to Chapter 811. A vote yes is a vote to approve the structure size as submitted in the packet and before each night. Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Loughman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes.
 Margaret Clements. Yes. Motion is approved five to zero. Thank you. Good luck and thank you for your patience tonight and happy birthday. Happy birthday. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we're moving on to the last case of the evening if Pam survives. I will. Getting all choked up here.
 It's okay. So it's a VAR-25-38 and this is the Mecca MHP2 LLC general sign regulations concerning a setback requirement concerning one 5.5 plus or minus acre parcel in Perry Township at 400 West Terrace Drive. And Ms. Chriselius, if you would go over that with us. Yes, absolutely.
 But as you stated, it's a 5.5 acre parcel. It is currently a manufactured home. Park, I think, would be the correct term. So on-site is a site conditions map, just to make you familiar with what we're looking at. So it is platted. And it's won a lot of record.
 it is accessed off of West Terrace Drive, which is a local road with dedicated right-of-way. So the petitioners are requesting this variance from the sign setback requirement of 10 feet in order to add a new sign that would be zero feet from the dedicated right-of-way. So there is 50 feet of right-of-way, 25 feet from the center of Terrace Drive north onto the property. There's a mailbox
 That is used by all the occupants of the petition site. You'll see a photo of that in a second. So it would be the proposed sign would state the name of the property it is called Country Club Terrace.
 It is, the property is zoned high development residential. It does allow a total of 32 square feet and they are currently proposing 16 square feet. So they are proposing, although they have not submitted a sign permit application, what they've shown me so far to date would be compliant except for the location. So on screen is a proposed sign location that I plan that I created showing the proposed location on the right is their petitioner's letter.
 So this is the information that they did supply. So you can see the shared mailboxes off the side of the road, and then they're showing an approximate measurement to the sign, the 25 feet of right of way, and then it would be located right on the edge. So staff does recommend approving the zero foot setback variance request due to practical difficulties and based on Highway Engineer and Stormwater Program Manager reports with one condition.
 That condition is that the petitioner hire a surveyor to stake the property boundary for proper sign placement on their private property, or if available, for the petitioner to locate a survey marker from the subdivision monuments placed during the Inez-Duncan Type E subdivision in 2017 to ensure proper sign placement. And so that is because we want them to make sure they know where it's located,
 That subdivision was somewhat recent, so it would be realistic that they might be able to find a property marker. And that is because signs that are placed accidentally within a right-of-way may be removed or damaged during utility or road maintenance and that the burden of cost would be on the petitioner should they accidentally partially locate the sign within right-of-way. Does anybody have questions? Thank you, Ms. Cresilia. So I think we're going to move now to the petitioner there in attendance and hear from them.
 I believe they are online. Kim Shores. Oh, Kim Shores. So if she she or he could be, is that a male or females? Kim is a woman, I believe. So if you could unmute yourself, Kim. Thank you. And would you kindly raise your right hand? Oh, you got muted again somehow.
 So if you could, okay, if you would raise your hand, okay, thank you. If you would raise your right hand, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you, Kim. If you would just review this request with us. I'm trying to get my camera to work. I'm sorry. That's okay.
 I have 15 minutes to tell us. There we go. Okay. Sorry. So really the purpose of this request is it's under new ownership. We purchased this property. Well, our investors purchased this property in September and we wanted to put a sign up to identify, you know, the community. So they knew that they were kind of identified.
 And when we went to do that, we found there were certain setbacks, you know, of course. And so in terms of the setbacks, if we would go by that, it would put the sign back, you know, behind homes, which is not, you know, not visible or realistic, really. So our request is to have this gross setback so we can put the sign closer to the mailboxes.
 and make it more visible for people in the community. Miss Davidson, do you have a question? Yes, I do. Are you aware of the conditions that we just heard outlined about the surveying those two conditions? Are those acceptable to you? And are you aware of both of those?
 You know, I'm not we're fairly new to the property. So unfortunately, when it was sold, the the previous owner didn't really provide us with a lot of information. So I'm not able to speak to that, quite frankly. But again, you know, we just really want to just put a sign up for the people in the community. Sorry, my camera went out of whack for the people in the community, you know, to be able to identify themselves.
 Right my question really was the our staff has said there are two condition a condition That she just read to us. Would you read those again? The petitioner hire a surveyor to stake the property boundary for proper sign placement on their private property or if available for the petitioner to locate a survey marker from the subdivision monuments placed during the
 Inez Duncan Type E Subdivision in 2017 to ensure proper sign placement.
 And there's also an aviso that says, signs placed accidentally within the right-of-way may be removed or damaged during utility or road maintenance, and the burden of cost would be on the petitioner should you accidentally partially locate the sign within the right-of-way. So that's just an aviso to you, advice to you that you should make sure to protect your investment in the sign by locating the survey
 any survey pin or monument or getting it formally surveyed if needed. Yeah, of course, of course, of course. Yeah, I understand that. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So those conditions are acceptable to you. Those two choices, either the survey or find the stake. Okay. Terrific. Glad to know.
 Okay, and then I'm going to turn now Kim to the public. If the public would like to speak on this and if anybody is opposed, we'll ask you to return. So is there any member of the public who is interested to support or be in opposition to this petition? If so, please raise your hand, make yourself known.
 Do we see no one? Okay, so we will turn now to ourselves for further discussion and or a motion. Thank you. I'm going to move. We accept variance. Is that 25-38th? The M-E-C-A-M-H-P, I shouldn't have put my glasses away. LLC.
 general signed regulations to those setback rules to chapter 817. I'm glad, I'm sorry, I did that social, haltingly, but to approve that variance. And with the conditions. With the conditions. Yes. Thank you. I'll second.
 It's been moved and seconded to approve the variance bar dash 25 dash 38, which is the MECA MHP to LLC sign regulation for a.
 Setback variance. A vote yes is a vote to approve with the condition as stated in the staff report, which I'll go ahead and read. One, the petitioner hire a surveyor to stake the property boundary for proper sign placement on their private property, or if available, for the petitioner to locate a survey marker from the subdivision monuments placed during the Inez Duncan Type B subdivision in 2017 to ensure proper sign placement. A vote yes is a vote to approve with the condition as stated.
 Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Motion is approved, five to zero. OK. Before we adjourn, you know, it's so hard to talk, and it's not even 830. And I liked my idea, surprisingly.
 that we streamline this by doing the approved thing. And but we never get a chance to talk over things like that. And I know Mr. I wonder if we could just take a few minutes and see if we can reach some consensus. All right.
 My thoughts, and perhaps I don't understand all of your proposal, I do understand the intent to make our meetings more time efficient and more effective for both, for all three parties involved, the audience, the staff, and the board as well. And if anyone can appreciate that,
 I can. There's no two ways about that. The methodology which you're implementing with the proposal that you had sent to the executive team leads me to believe that we would be picking and choosing an agenda order
 based on a criterion for which would not be fair, meaning whether or not the staff recommends either a denial or an approval should not be weighing in on our decision
 before we hear the presentation and the presentation by the staff and the testimony by the petitioner. And it seems to me if we were to create a policy, then we would be making a statement
 to the general public that the staff recommendations are more important while they do carry some weight as to whether or not some of the technicalities that they deal with on a day in and day out basis are being met in their eyes.
 I think it would cloud the responsibility that we have as a board listening to petitioning for a variance for them to explain why. We've already come out and stated to them, well,
 because staff didn't like it, we're biased against you. And we're going to put you to the bottom of the list. I don't think that's a fair way to assess and a fair way to judge. So that is my potential concern. Does that make sense? I certainly understand what you're saying. From my perspective, the
 Everybody who has any denials gets the order. People who have relatively simple things can get in and out that we don't spend unnecessary time listening to things. It starts off by saying, if there's anybody who wants to speak against this, then we don't do it.
 then we just put it back on the regular agenda. If nobody's against it, we know the petitioners for it. We have a chance to listen. We still listen to the staff report and ask any questions we have of them or say, I'm just not sold on this. And we can still defeat the thing, the proposal. And I'm suggesting this as an experiment. I think we have the authority.
 to vary the order of our agenda. I think when we approve the agenda, the point is we have the authority to vary it. And I think we would find out if there were problems, it would be pretty clear. And if a problem arose, we could deal with it. But I think this might be a way to get the public
 some of the people, process them more quickly. And by doing it this way, we wouldn't listen, there might be like tonight, we had several people speaking in favor of a petition who had to wait here to the very end with the Eads. And my suggestion would have gotten this, gotten everybody out of here,
 all of those people out of here much more quickly. It seems to me every, there's no risk free lunches. There's no changes we can make that won't have some disadvantages potentially. But it seems to me there's not a lot of potential disadvantage to this and it might get us out of here early, which I know all of us value.
 But I don't, I really wouldn't want to do this as a rule until we'd experimented with it and I wouldn't want to do it as an experiment if anybody thought it was a bad idea. So, you know, because, or if I reach the point that I'm confident I want to do it even though then we vote on a rule amendment, trying an experiment before we go through the amendment process
 seems to be low cost and if it works, substantial benefit. I have concerns about the skip. I have some concerns about it because like tonight we had some with one with four different various requests to recommended approval to recommended denial.
 on those, so we'd be right back to where we were in the first spot. I kind of, the staff approval is one thing. We're the ultimate board, so I'm not sure that, I agree with you, we could streamline and maybe be more efficient. I don't disagree with that, but I don't think that that should be the segue, that that's the first wave.
 The proposal is only if everything is approved by staff. If it's a mixed response by the staff, then it doesn't fall in this category. May I interrupt and ask a question of our director? I don't want to know the methodology, but is there a methodology as to how you create the agenda?
 other than first in, first on? OK, so the methodology is first in, first on. That's right. Criminological. Currently. It's in the rules of procedure. It's chronological. Correct. And is there a limit as to how many you place in a month's agenda for a first Wednesday meeting? I don't think so.
 There's not. You can plead the fifth if you'd like. There's not a limit. All right. I don't think so. So I kind of feel as if there's perhaps a solution which accomplishes your goal without setting some kind of
 rule, phrased with anything to do with approval by staff, I kind of feel as if there are, if we were to change the rule as to first in, first on, as to allow the staff discretion to
 set the agenda, and they might find efficient ways within their own means, i.e. they feel this might be less of a controversial matter, but without setting some kind of a rule that says we are giving favor to those petitions
 that already have staff approval? Didn't you just tell us the rules of procedure say chronological? Can you just tell us that? Right, but I... So they don't mix the agenda, they set a quota. That's the rule. Right, right. But I had said perhaps we could amend that rule. We could propose an amendment to that rule to allow staff discretion.
 But but other than saying staff discretion, I don't think that I would be in favor. Of course, I'm only one of I'm 20 percent of the of the board. So, you know, you don't necessarily need my support, but I don't think I would support something that dictates. The agenda placement based on whether or not the staff approves
 the petition. Well, I'm just reflecting in my mind about the years I've been on this commission and about I think it's going on seven years, something like that. And thinking about the times you think that
 a petition before you will be simple and it winds up being complex or when the staff recommends approval and suddenly we find ourselves in denial or the opposite is true. And then I think about, well, one time we had tried to do this before, you know, and then Mr. a lawyer brought up, you know, this could create
 legal problems for us because it's not a system of fairness, whereas first in, first out is objective fairness. And when I really felt bad one time because Mr. Rickert, he was here with a school teacher, a school principal. And I mean, the meeting went on till 10 o'clock and she had to be up by six in the morning. And she's a public person.
 And I felt so bad that they had to wait through everything to make their case to us. But then at the end, I apologized for that and they said, no, we learned a lot by being here. You know, we learned a lot by being here. And then come to find out subsequently that normally, you know, Mr. Rigert puts it in toward the later part of the deadline. And so his applications tend to be toward
 toward the end of the packet. So I feel like having observed that, maybe the petitioner feels it, that there's a system, I don't think it's being gamed, where if you've got a really complex case, you wait to come at the end and then we'll pray for you and give you an approval. I don't think it's being gamed like that. And I think like these denials,
 recommended denials by staff, we actually approved. So I'm kind of lost in my head about it. I'm just thinking that if in doubt, just go the fair way. And just, I would like to streamline it, but having been here this long, each case is individual and this is a civic function.
 and the people who come here, it may be the only time in their life that they interact with us as community leaders and with our wonderful staff. And we leave them with an impression about how much we value them as community members. And I would hate to give someone who is not only going to get a denial,
 but also get moved to the end of the line. You know, I'd like, I'd hate to feel that his request or her request, especially given, you know, the kick in the pants is less valuable. So, I mean, it's a very complicated thing that goes through my mind. And I, I feel that, you know, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. I would like to see us be more efficient through meetings, but I think that could happen with us.
 you know, with us. And staff has done a great job making their presentations more streamlined and informative. And this move where we have stopped asking staff questions until after the petitioner has presented, I think that saved us a bunch of time. And I'd like to continue that, but we should never, any one of us ever hesitate
 to ask a question when we have it because these are people's lives and their treasure. It's their treasure, their lives, their family, and that's a very serious function. Their property, their family, their memories. What do you think, Jeff? I think that we've got
 two topics that are kind of blending into one. And I think one of the topics is reordering the agenda. And, you know, I think everyone seems to have a little more feelings about that. I was rereading Mr. Lofman's email from a few days ago and I really liked what you proposed about modifying our rules and procedure if staff recommends approval. And then we asked the public if anybody is opposed and nobody is opposed.
 that's an area where we can save some time. If there doesn't seem to be any opposition, then not asking for the public to speak in support if there's no opposition for many parts. I think that could potentially save us a lot of time. We've seen, even tonight, one of the cases where we had three people come up and speak in favor that nobody was opposing. Yeah. May I?
 I love what you said, but tonight we had a case where nobody spoke in opposition. And in my mind, I'm thinking, yeah, that would be a really good thing. But something that one of the people that spoke in favor of put me over the edge to believe that
 the code's practical difficulty had been met. So there's that. I mean, it's a challenge either, you know, you're darned if you do, you're darned if you don't. I love that Ms. Loppen worked so diligently and continues to work so diligently to better our product and to better the board.
 and I don't want to discourage any of that. Let me see. It seems to me that changing the order of agenda has got a lot of drawbacks that people are very concerned with. On the other hand, if something is approved and we recognize that the staff makes its recommendations, we ask any questions, we express any reservations we've got, if nobody's expressing
 hesitancy, none of us are expressing opposition or concern, then and of course that nobody in the public wants to speak against it. So those are the criteria. Then we can streamline the process by
 by just moving straight to a vote. We've heard the presentation. Remember, we've all studied our package, at least to varying extents, depending on what it is. So that might be something that doesn't mess with the order, but still allows a little bit streamlined procedure when we get to something. If none of us say, I want to hear the whole,
 I want to hear the public. So if the petitioner is not jumping jack to speak for 15 minutes, then we could potentially say, hey, look, we don't have any concerns, and we feel it meets the criteria. With the consent of the petitioner. I would love to see that. I will try to write something up to that effect. I know you will.
 And we'll see. If it doesn't fly, we'll try again. Do Mr. Myers or our director have any thoughts on some of this, you know, that you're willing to put on TV? Yeah, I think that the reordering of the agenda is a good step when it has a certain situation like it did tonight.
 I think that rationale was fine, and I think the public can appreciate that rationale. Also, when there's a situation where there's a lot of members of the public and you want to take a moment and ask how many of those people are here for which petition and then move that one to the front for the most number of people, I think that most of those members of the public would also appreciate that motion to adjust the agenda as well. But otherwise, I think sticking with the regular
 first in, first up is the way to go personally. What about if staff approves having a streamline? I'm not asking for a streamline presentation, but I am asking for a streamline process after the presentation. Does that seem comfortable to me? Secret ballot and if it gets all
 gets all thumbs up, then we don't need to move forward. We can just motion. No, we say, does anybody have any concerns? And if any of the board members have concerns, then we go through the whole thing. I think you could order the conduct of hearings. We did this similar with the plan commission where you could insert sort of everyone's one line comment and say, before we hear from the petitioner, we'll just all make one comment.
 I'm moving, you know, I'm leaning towards approval. I'm leaning towards approval. I'm leaning towards approval. And if they see everyone's leaning towards approval and Margaret says what she does tonight, which is you don't necessarily have to say anything to the board, but if you want to add anything, let us know. But then they know, OK, I don't need to really tell you everything. I can just one of the rules that I learned very early in arguing before the court is that the judge says you win shot up. That's right.
 Because you might talk him out of it. I did that at least once. You laugh. That's happened in my tenure. Yeah. So each of us, each of us moving forward, we will, I believe this is what you're going to write up. We will each have, we will each have a green and a red candy. And we will put the green one out. Let me just vet that for just one second.
 If before hearing from the public, is there anyone opposed to this? And we're indicating that we're in favor. That's not good. No, no, no. I first say the public. And if the public, if anybody in the public wants to speak against it, then absolutely, we go through the whole nine yards. You would do public comment, then petitioner?
 I would not do public comment. I would ask if anybody in the public wishes to oppose it. They wouldn't speak then. A show of hands of how many people oppose. Yes. Okay. I think take a couple days right now. I'm leaving on vacation on Saturday morning, so it's not going to be a couple days. It'll be a couple weeks. Have a great time. We'll still be here.
 OK, great. Thank you. I really appreciate it. And it's nice to actually get to sit down and talk. And with that being said, sorry, guys. It's all good. Thank you, everyone. It was a good meeting. Thank you. Thanks, Josh. Thank you, guys.