and I'd like to call this Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to order. Would you kindly call the roll? Here. Margaret Clements. Here. Skip Daly. Pamela Davidson. Here. Kyle Hoffman. Here. Jeff Morris. Here. We have four members in person in a quorum. Kindly introduce the evidence.
 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 and the cases that were legally advertised and scheduled for hearing on tonight's agenda. I move that we adopt the evidence as you've just outlined to us.
 It's been moved and seconded to approve the evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Guy Laughman. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Margaret Clements.
 Motion is approved four to zero. With regard to the agenda, I have a recommendation and a request of my colleagues. Item number 12, VAR-25-49, the Blackwell on South Old State Road 37 general contractor use variance to chapter 811. The petitioner has asked for a variance, but because they requested the variance within the last seven days, we need to approve that request. Continuance.
 a continuous yeah yeah continuous my brain is still in canada so um so uh if you there are no objections we'll move that item to number one under new business so we can dispense with it quickly um and other than that is there a motion to approve the agenda i move we approve tonight's agenda as amended as amended second
 Been moved and seconded to approve tonight's agenda as amended. I vote yes is a vote to approve it with the amendment. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Motion is approved four to zero. Okay and there are two sets of minutes that were provided to us and is there a motion to approve them collectively or singularly?
 I move to approve the minutes of June 4th, 2025 and also the minutes of July 2nd, 2025. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve both sets of meeting minutes, June 4th and July 2nd. A vote yes is a vote to approve both sets of meeting minutes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Guy Laughman? Yes. Motion is approved four to zero.
 there's no administrative business on the agenda and there's no old business so we're moving straight to new business and the new first item on the agenda is uh variance 25-49 blackwell on south old state road 37 general contractor use variance to chapter 8 11 and the petitioner we understand has asked for a continuance and this um it's again at 48
 south old state road 37 so um is there any information miss nester jellon that sure i'd like to just read a section of the rules of procedure and then also talk to you about dates and timelines so it says in the rules of procedure page five a request for continuance of a petition must be made by the petitioner seven business days prior to the scheduled
 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Any request for continuance after that seven-day period of time must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals at that stated meeting. The criteria for continuance would be that the Board of Zoning Appeals finds just and good cause for the continuance. We did receive requests for continuance, I believe it was today,
 And we have not received a response and we let them know that it still needed to go tonight to tonight's meeting. We emailed them for two reasons one to notify them that it will still need to be heard and they would need to provide just and good cause for the continuance and to to ask them about
 agendas. As we're still on the filing deadline of today we have over 12 to 15 variance cases on August 25th which is the next regularly scheduled meeting. We've created a special meeting and then we have October 1. So we're not sure if the Board of Zoning Appeals would like to continue them to a date further out. We did not hear from them. I will just
 briefly mentioned that this was a property that sustained significant damage due to the tornado we were able to issue a permit in relation to this property so they're not dependent on the rebuild for this variance request it's dependent on the use of those buildings for that variance request so without knowing their timeline we could
 automatically continue it to the next hearing, which is August 25th, or you could extend that out to possibly October 1. Okay. And is the petitioner here of that particular petition? No, I don't believe so. Okay. So I turned to my colleagues. Did they offer any explanation for the request for continuance or does that matter or not?
 It states in the email that on behalf of 4810 South Walnut LLC, after further internal discussions, we would like to request a continuance to the September hearing for this application. So it does look like they maybe were unsure that we had an August hearing instead of a September hearing, but did not give a direct reasoning as to their request.
 Will, as I recall the petition, they are now, they can't proceed with their rebuilding unless they get this. They can rebuild the structure, but the use is still of issue. So it's zoned residential and their use has been commercial.
 So if I want to go ahead and rebuild, they can go ahead and rebuild and hope that we pass it eventually. I'm prone to, well, I move to continue the Blackwell variance 25-49 to second date in September. Number eight is what he's saying. Yes, yeah, to the September eighth meeting. Oh, I second that. Okay.
 We want them to be prepared for what they have to say. And it serves none of us well if they're not. And also the agenda for August is already full. And maybe the one in September is as well. So, okay. Okay, that sounds good. And then do you want to mention the just and good cause for continuance as part of the motion? That the
 that the petitioner has demonstrated that that they're not ready to explain to us what we would need to have to justify the decision. So they want more time to do that so they can get their act together. Okay, I will go ahead and call the role to continue this to the September 8th 2025. Board of Zoning Appeals special meeting about yes is about to
 Oh, sorry. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Motion is approved, four to zero. Okay. So now we return to the original first item on the agenda, and we thank you for your indulgence as we discuss that extraordinary request. And the new
 business CDU-25-5 SNW deer processing home-based business conditional use to chapter 811 concerning one five plus or minus acre parcel in Clear Creek Township section five at 6911 South Ketchum Road. And I believe Ms. Webb and Mr. Graves are here. And Mr. Myers, will you kindly review the petition with us? Thank you.
 The petitioner is seeking conditional use approval for a home based business per chapter 811 for the agricultural residential 2.5 zone at 6911 South Ketchum Road. The petitioner lives on the property and operates S&W deer processing LLC and an accessory structure on the property.
 According to Chapter 850, home-based business is defined as an accessory occupational use conducted in a residential dwelling or one accessory structure operated by the inhabitants that is clearly incidental to the use of the structure for residential purposes and does not change the residential character of the site.
 According to Chapter 811-4F, there are conditions that must be met in order for the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve the conditional use for home-based business. And there are also those regular standards for all conditional use petitions that are found in Chapter 841-3E, and we will go over those in a moment when we get to it. So a bit of background, in October,
 of 2024, the planning department received an anonymous complaint regarding the petition site operating a business in a newly constructed building that did not receive a building permit. The planning department confirmed there was business activity occurring on the petition site known as S&W deer processing and opened an enforcement case to contact the property owner. In addition, the applicant reached out to the building department to apply for an after the fact permit.
 The Monroe County Building Department has stated to us and the petitioner minimally that a structural engineer will be needed to be involved in order to evaluate the existing structure, whether to receive a residential permit or a commercial permit as an after the fact process. The petitioner has applied for an after the fact residential accessory building permit. However, the building permit has placed that on hold for the moment in response to this petition to see which direction it goes.
 If the conditional use is granted, the applicant wishes to proceed with this business after the fact permitting is required before the use may continue. The building department has stated that if the structure is utilized for commercial business and allows any member of the public to enter the structure, and if it exceeds 500 square feet in size, then the structure must meet commercial building code requirements. That is, according to state building code, a home-based business cannot exceed 500 square feet in size of the activity.
 I will state a plain staff communicated with the petitioner yesterday and they indicated to us that members of the public are not allowed in the accessory structure. So that is good information to know with respect to the building department's concerns. And they have also stated that they are amenable to changing the amount of square footage that is utilized in the structure for the home based business. But I will let them touch on that when that time comes for their their public comment.
 Um, more of the background planning staff requested that they, uh, the petitioner submitted a use determination so that we could evaluate the scope of the activity on the site. Um, and through that process, we were able to determine that the deer processing activities would be classified as a home-based business. Uh, and that is, like I said, a conditional use in this zoning district.
 The petitioner has confirmed with staff that deer meat and other wild game meats are not sold from the property. And the state of Indiana is actually prohibited to sell deer meat. So they do have a DNR permit for deer processing. And they intend to reapply for that permit when the time comes for the next season.
 Their activities are seasonal. I believe September through January is what they stated in their use determination form and I believe that they can speak more to that as well during their time. Through the use determination process we got some good information from them. They stated that customer base is very sporadic. Some days they have zero customers and some days they could have up to five customers arriving on the property and again they stated that
 those members of the public do not go inside the building where the processing occurs. On the screen here we do have some numbering of structures on the property. We provided the petitioner with this imagery to understand which structures the business was operating in. The structure number
 Number three on the left photograph has been removed and was replaced with three Connex shipping container style structures that also have a connecting roof line over them. And that is where the activities occur for the deer processing. And you can see that structure as it sits today on the right side of the screen, as you can see the shipping containers with the additional structure around it, built around it.
 Now we have the county maps here on the screen. This is the location map and the site conditions map. Here are some site photos here. There is an existing sign out front and a bit more on that in a minute. And then on the right side of the screen is the existing home that you can see from the driveway. And then here's more photographs of the accessory structure that
 operates the deer processing, as well as provides some residential storage of materials for their home and things like that. And then the other pictures are just looking around the property. You can kind of see South Ketchum run around in the background there in both of these pictures. So the property is about 10 acres in total. And it does have a lot of growth vegetation. So there's not too much of a concern
 visual aspects. There is no outdoor storage part of this activity. It's all done inside the residential storage structure. Here we have the petitioner's letter to the Board of Zoning Appeals. That's also included in the packet. Here we have the petitioner's site plan that was submitted as part of the use determination process and the conditional use procedure.
 So on the right side of the screen, you'll see the zoomed in version of the structure that's utilized for the deer processing. The red text is staff's assessment of that site plan, kind of getting an idea of how large the structure is based on the information that was provided by the petitioner, indicating that by our measurements, 40 by 35 feet under roof, which is about 1,400 square feet.
 You'll note on the site plan that the petitioner does indicate that portions of the connect shipping containers that are incorporated into this larger combined structure are not utilized for the business use. They're used for personal use. And I'll let them speak more on to that when that time comes. Here is the active DNR license for the petition site.
 This is a deed covenant that was discovered through planning department's review process for all conditional uses and variance procedures. This is an older deed and their most recent deed has language on it that says subject to all recorded deeds and restrictions, covenants, et cetera. But when we went back one deed, we found this
 Covenant and restriction that stated said real estate shall be used for residential purposes only and no commercial or business use upon said real estate shall be permitted. Now this is a private deed covenant and restriction. These are not regularly enforced by the planning department. We have a subsection in the county development ordinance that precludes us from having to enforce these aspects.
 However, they are enforceable from either like an HOA if one is present or other members of a subdivision per se, or other adjacent property owners that might also share the same covenant and restriction. So while it's here on the deed, the Planning Department does not recognize it as something that we can enforce. And therefore, you'll note that that does not come up in our final recommendation and the acknowledgement of this. But it is part of the record. It is information to be shared.
 All right. So chapter 811-4F, these are some of the conditions of approval for the home-based business as a conditional use. So I'm not going to read each of these. These are also included in the packet. It numbers 1 through 4 here on this screen, and then 5 through 8 on this screen. In the red text are several conditions that are not met currently with this petition.
 So number five states not more than 50% of the total interior floor area of the primary residence or accessory structure, whichever is used for the home based business may be used in connection with the home based business. So staff evaluated that condition based on the information that was provided to us a 1400 square foot structure.
 And based on the information that was provided indicating what portions of that structure were used for the business and what were not, we determined that it was over the 50% total interior floor area. The petitioner is aware of this analysis and may have some more information to share. They indicated that they might be able to adjust the amount of floor space that is utilized for the business in that structure.
 Number six, there shall be no advertising, signs, display, or other indications of a home-based business in the yard on the exterior of the dwelling or visible from anywhere outside the dwelling unit except for one sign attached to the wall of the building of a maximum size of two square feet. Online advertising is permitted, granted the online content complies with the rules herein. If you note from some of the
 site photographs that I showed a little bit ago. There is an existing sign that indicates that SMW deer processing does occur on the property. So that is a direct violation of this condition number, number six. So if the petitioner wanted to keep that sign, they would have to come back and submit an additional design standards variance to the Board of Zoning Appeals, as well as apply for a sign permit through the Planning Department. The petitioner is also aware of this condition. They stated that they are able to
 remove the sign temporarily, and then come back when they are ready to get the sign reapproved through the proper channels. So they might have more to say on that. This was based on a conversation held with the property owner yesterday. So number 7 and number 8 are not in red text, so those can be met by this petition. All right, now for chapter 841-3E. So these numbers, 1 through 10, are applied to all conditional use procedures.
 Again, the red text is the only item that is not met through this petition. And number eight reads, the conditional use shall provide a total visual impression and environment which is consistent with the environment of its surrounding neighborhood. So the planning department staff evaluated this one given the structure is several different shipping containers.
 fashioned together with an extending roof line that doesn't quite match the visual impression and environment of the property area. So that is part of the rationale for the recommendation from planning staff. So in summary, planning staff recommends denial of the conditional use, citing that the request does not meet the conditions of Chapter 841-3E, specifically 841-3E, which states
 Conditional use shall satisfy use-specific regulations set forth in chapter 811. So that calls back to the two, number five and number six, related to 50% of the total floor area, as well as the no advertising signs, display, et cetera. And also chapter 841-3E, number eight, the conditional use shall produce a total visual impression and environment which is consistent with the environment of its surrounding neighborhood. I will now take any questions.
 I think we'll hear from the petitioner first and then we'll have our discussion and questions for staff after that. So Ms. Webb and Mr. Graves, do you both wish to speak? I think together you'll have 15 minutes. If you'll kindly come up to the lectern and sign in, then I'll swear you in.
 you speak we'll hear from the public and if there are any members of the public opposed to your request you'll have a chance to return to speak for another five minutes okay would you kindly both raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you so you've
 figure out how you'd want to speak. Will you have 15 minutes? I'm actually just gonna go first and kind of address some of the other issues. I think there were three bullet points in red. I'm gonna start with the easiest one, which the condition we don't meet is the sign. Obviously we're more than willing to take that out in the meantime until we apply for a permit or get ready to do that. So I believe we would be able to meet that
 standard once that sign is removed. The other one regarding the appearance of the building, it is actually a part of our grander plan. We just moved in about a year and a half ago to paint all of the buildings on the property to be color coordinating matching. So the appearance of the whole property just looks better. Unfortunately, we've had other issues with just moving in to address repairs and stuff to make to the house. So painting has not happened yet, but it is, I promise, part of our grander plan to make all of the buildings a nice,
 matching color, so throughout the property, it'll just be aesthetically pleasing from certainly more for mine. And then the other condition that we do not need as far as the square footage, I believe there are some errors in the calculations of the square footage. Our roof total size is actually 1,160 square feet, not 1,400. If you look at the size, we have a 20 foot conics that goes
 up and down here and the 40 foot conics around the back so if you're it's nine foot wide by 20 so it's actually 29 feet so it's a it's a 40 by 29 foot not 40 by 35 um that's under the one single roof so i think there was just maybe a little bit of miscalculation there which actually brings our entire square footage to 1160 square foot
 And I may have some questions or may have a little bit of confusion about the total square footage that's allowed for the business, because at one point I heard 500, other places I've read 848 in the report here, I can't remember exactly which page. So I'm a little confused about which space we have, but I do believe looking at our
 calculations that we would be able to reduce the amount of space that we use for business purposes. Those two outer 20-foot connexes can be completely personal use.
 The two outer ones I believe on the thing it says more than two thirds, but the only part that as actually used for business is like a small desk that I do business at so I'm counting that as business space but it can certainly be moved. If that's what counts as business space.
 I do believe that we would be able to, I'm sorry, can you hear me? That we would be able to reduce the size of the space that we're utilizing for business. We essentially really just need that 40 foot context to store people's harvest that they bring in, because obviously we want to keep the meat cold and almost frozen so nothing goes bad. So they're getting a good, you know, we're not giving them something that they can't use and utilize. We don't want a want waste situation. Yeah, so.
 And then so that back the back contacts there the 40 footers actually a walk-in cooler Okay, and then there's a front structure right here Are those for business The amount of square footage based in in between the area that's actually called a lean-to So it's not nothing's attached to the ground in any way shape or form It's called a connex building
 so that we could make our customers happy as quickly as possible. We came from a different county. Our business is federally and state regulated, so we were under the impression we were doing absolutely nothing wrong. The sign and everything else has kind of threw us for a loop. Otherwise, we would have done so and taken care of it the right way. So I just don't want you to think we're trying to get one over on you guys or anything.
 I'm not sure. Does anybody have any questions? I have a few questions. Thank you for giving us a lot of factual information. The paintings, so it all looks consistent, do you think you can do that within maybe a year? Do you think there's a reasonable timetable that we could suggest to you? Absolutely, yes.
 We bought a paint sprayer. But our house was, we bought it under in a state sale. There was an older couple that had passed away and the house was in very bad shape. And some of that took our attention off of things like that and making things right. But yeah, we had, we bought a paint sprayer. It's, it's come down to,
 you know, different priorities getting there, but we are getting in there. Love it. My second question is, I cannot tell from this picture that gray block in the middle of the three, are they all open to each other? It's just open floor, that gray
 patch in the center. Yeah, that gray block right there is actually just the map that I had taken because that's where the old barn used to sit. So we did get a demolition permit that we demolished because that was just completely termite-ridden and was not a safe structure to even stand under for any amount of time. So that square that you see on the picture is really just kind of where the barn used to sit. We've kind of positioned all the connexes around where that would have been, you know, to not try to expand. I didn't want to
 take up any more of our land that we that we, you know, didn't necessarily need to. So, kind of what's open in the center is what we, you know, primarily do our best like where we actually do the processing. And we do have a sign
 every entrance has a door on it. And we do have a sign that says no public allowed. So we do tell people that they're not allowed to come in the building. We have it roped off now. I think people try to kind of like, you know, look around the corner if they can, but we try to keep everything. And actually our one door is their cover. Like if we don't have an actual solid door, we have them covered with plastic. So anybody driving by or coming up to drop off a harvest or pick up a harvest, it's never gonna see inside of our shop. And I did that intentionally because I don't want people in there. It's a safety hazard and we have knives
 we're you know you know processing meat so we do try to keep things you know
 as best we can visually. I will say it doesn't look the greatest right now, right? But we do have plans to paint. Actually, all three buildings are going to be black with a cedar colored trim. So it will just have one nice visual appearance across the board. I stopped weeding because I wasn't sure how this was going to show up. Good plan. And my last question is, you said you're the only deer processing facility in Monroe County. Did I read that in the notes? You did. We are, according to the DNR's site,
 We are the only ones listed on the DNR site. Now I know, I do know KW exists and I think a couple other people, I don't know their names, like do it, you know, just personally. They don't have a business out of it. I'm not sure if KW is going to be in business. We've heard through the rumor mill that they have medical issues. I'm not sure we've not talked to them yet. However, when you pull up the DNR listing site, we are the only ones listed in Monroe County.
 So every one of us who has hit a deer with our car, all hands go up. That seems to be a valuable service. And I would think some people actually even donate to me. Maybe I could be wrong, but I'm going to guess that. They do. A lot of that work from the DNR and the police, if they write permits.
 A lot of out-of-state commerce, the out-of-state hunters come in. They have to have a place. They cannot take their deer carcass out of state. It's against the law right now as it stands. So to not have it in this county is actually kind of a little, I guess, detrimental to. Thank you. Those are my stack of questions. Do other members of the Board of Zoning Appeals have questions for Mr. Graves or Ms. Webb or the staff?
 Yes, Mr. Morris. Can you talk a little bit about the process for what you do with the waste that's generated on the property? Yes. So generally, we have, you ever heard of the Wildcat Sanctuary? We do donate, we donate to them. We also pay through the landfills. It costs quite a bit. They properly dispose of it. What they do is they, the DNR wants you to dig a hole
 Well, if we were to try to do that, we'd have a hole every year and that's just not going to work. So we call the landfill, they dig a hole. I call them four hours prior. I bring a truckload in and they dispose of it that way. So it's all done properly.
 And we do I will, I will follow that up saying that we do have a in our plan every like at least once a week we take a day or morning off because we obviously live a little further away it's a little bit more of a drive to the sanctuary and or the fill that we go to. So you take time out of our schedule we build that into our processing schedule to allow us to go dump on a regular basis so things aren't just kind of sitting there.
 in the yard, on a trailer, you know, causing a nuisance. We've used 55-gallon steel drums to seal things off before and then have the guys load that up in the truck. I used to help the Martinsville football team. They used to, in Monroe football team, they used to come and help me load the barrels and we'd just have a nice day of it. Go feed the cats and
 Take a trip to the landfill. That's really a nice use for that waste. I wouldn't have ever thought of that. That's a great idea. Reduce, reuse, recycle. And also feed. Feed. There are some communities where it's possible to donate for the deer meat processing so that it can feed the homeless. We do actually do that quite often. Any deer that's donated,
 That's the first thing that we do. Once it's donated, we get a hold of it. They came to us and picked it up themselves. We haven't even had to take it to them, so. And they get very little fresh meat, so that's a boon in every way.
 They love it absolutely. I bet they do. They absolutely love it. Feeding people. I just have one question of staff, and it has to do with the warranty deed and their covenants and restrictions. Now, in our code, a home-based business with this low volume sometimes doesn't even need a permit, but probably because of the type of thing they're doing it does.
 What would be the challenge that they would expect to face with regard to the covenant and restriction on the warranty deed? Yeah, I cannot imagine who would be able to enforce that anyway. It's not clear from the document that there's anybody that's going to be in a position to enforce that. But as far as the Board of Zoning and Appeals is concerned,
 That's a private contractual matter, and it's not something that the board considers. Okay. And I would add that second deed that says it's subject to all restrictions and easements of records. That is just standard documentation. It applied to racial covenants for a long time, for heaven's sake. So that was just standard, not exceptional.
 But the first one, was it in 83, the first deed? It was early on. I know that. I would like to, and I'm not sure what his question is going to be, but that is something I plan on looking into because when I purchased the home, I was
 not made aware of any deed restrictions whatsoever. They knew we were going for a business because we've mentioned it several times. Aside from that, there were other matters that we weren't made aware of when we signed the papers, such as the 30-foot easement that goes through my property that was a major gas line that was not
 It's not noted in any of our paperwork. So I do have other issues. So that'll be something that I personally look into. I mean, going forward for me or anybody else that ever lives in this property, this was intended to be our forever home and we're gonna be here for the rest of our lives. But going forward outside of that, leaving it to my children, I wanna make sure that that's taken care of and stuff like that privately. So, yeah. And to extend on that, when I was in the military,
 I did route clearance, so I've been blown up and stuff. So the gas line would have been a no go for me. It would have been real nice to know. But on that, bins are our property right now is considered agricultural. Our business through speaking with the DNR office, all of them, they're confused about that to themselves.
 with it being an agricultural business. Yes. So, okay. Well, what we're going to do now is hear from the public. And if anyone's opposes your petition, you'll have an opportunity to return. Okay. So I'd like to call on the public. If there are members of the public who would like to speak in favor of this petition, please come to the podium in this courtroom or raise your virtual hand on the internet.
 Okay. If there's anyone opposed to this petition, please come to the podium in the courtroom or raise your virtual hand on the internet so you can be recognized. So I'd like to return to the Board of Zoning Appeals for further discussion and or a motion. I do have one thing to add from staff. The petitioner did ask about a
 discrepancy between the amount of square footage that's required. So the conditional use requires that not more than 50% of the total interior floor area is used for a conditional use for the home-based business. So depending on their total square footage, we would count backwards 50% to find that number. And that is where the 848 comes in the report. That comes from that initial analysis of their square footage.
 and half of that would be 848 from that initial calculation. However, the 500 square feet requirement, that's a state building code thing. So there's kinds of two different aspects coming together there. So it sounds like we would be more, the more restrictive would be the 500 square feet from the building department and the state building code, then it would be the 50% of the total floor area that's coming from
 these conditions of the home-based business permit. So just to add that. If you were to remove the two units that they say are for personal use rather than for the business use, how many square feet are they dedicating to the business operation? And can it be measured like that? That's a good question. Let me see if I can. Yeah, because it shares a common roof, but there's only one module
 Basically, Konex. Is that what you called it? Shipping containers. There's only one devoted to the business. And you need a big sterile space. You have to hose down. You have to have drains. You have to have so many things for deer processing. And the season is rather short. September to January. I've learned a lot about this. Yeah.
 You have to come to the microphone so your comment could be recorded. You know? And actually remove the two 20 foot connexes which are 180 square foot each. So together they equal 360. So what I'm averaging here, based on just like a quick take of what I know we can take away immediately, that leaves us with an 800 square foot
 for business use, which is, again, I'm not sure if we're under the 848 or under the 500 square foot, but we fall within that 848 if we take away those two conics on the side that are now really the only thing we use for business is walk through, right? We walk through the space. We don't actually store anything in there. None of the processing is done in there. So, Drew? It's over the 500 that you alluded to from the state.
 So I would recommend, just for the CDO's purposes and this board's purposes, focus on the 848. And if they need to make modifications to get a building permit after the fact, which is a requirement, they would work with the building department to meet their requirements. Could I just make a comment? You know, we've just been through a large CDO
 And I think that's a really good question. And I think that's a really good question.
 their investment in agricultural land could be purposed for, that it seems so restrictive, especially since this is one very valid form of an agricultural activity, and certainly we need it around here because we have an abundance of deer, that it seems like it's a little restrictive, and to make it relative to the house,
 rather than to the land is Is a little bit biased in my opinion So I just want to make that note so that we can talk about it future as a plan commission But they've got ten acres and this is a very small amount of the land being used for their agricultural purpose so if that being said if anybody would like to
 Make a motion. I still have a staff question. Yes They If a condition is established that which I think they've tentatively agreed to that the house Or the before the season begins by November that's a
 pretty easy to, well, and the sign's too big, I think, by my look at it. If they, if we, they agree to conditions, we put conditions on it, we pass it with conditions, and then they don't meet the conditions, what is the consequence of that? How's that? So when you're approving a conditional use, you're stating that they will,
 will be meeting those conditions. This one's a little bit interesting in that we have the perspective of them operating because they weren't aware that they needed the conditional use first. So if you're stating that you approve the conditional use, assuming they can meet the conditions and they continue their operation and they do not meet maybe the timelines
 for those conditions to be met. We wouldn't issue what's called a land use certificate, which will be a requirement after we issue the permit to say, you may go forward and do this home-based business. And that leaves them kind of in a situation where if we get a complaint or we go out to do the land use certificate check and they don't meet those conditions, we can revoke that based on the CDO. There's some standards for how to revoke a permit essentially.
 Then does that depend on third parties complaining? Well, the land use certificate will be a requirement regardless. So if
 You know, Pamela Davidson said, would you be able to paint the exterior in one year? So, I mean, we could say if they're able to commit to a timeline, maybe six months or a year, that we would do a land use certificate check in that timeline. If we do receive a valid complaint, even after the land use certificate that they're retracted or they didn't, you know, that they don't meet one of those conditions again, I think we would still have the ability to revoke it.
 But I think it's easier to revoke a permit than it is to revoke a land use certificate. So until they have that land use certificate, we can revoke the permit for the business more easily. They have DNR approval.
 I'm gonna make two assertions from my point of view, okay? First of all, since they're getting ready to go into their busy season, I would argue for one year for painting the structures to make them more palatable to the neighboring community because September begins deer hunting season. And then we're heading into, it will be winter by the time they're done. So I would argue for one year for them to be able to
 paint. Now, it seems to me that, well, I'm frankly in favor of this. I mean, I think it's a needed service.
 in our community and they have experience doing it. They didn't realize when they moved from Monrovia to Monroe County that they wouldn't be able to continue. They went about getting the permits as they thought they needed and they have them, they retain them. They just didn't know that they wouldn't be able to do it on 10 acres of agricultural land. And so I'm in favor of this. I don't know where my colleagues
 lie on this but um i'm gonna move that we approve cdu-25-
 five, the S&W deer processing home-based business conditional use to chapter 811 for many of the reasons we've talked about. With some conditions, the year to paint and make everything look consistent, the sign, you're going to work on the sign right away. There doesn't seem to be any other glaring issues except for them. I'm compelled, Margaret, by what you said about 10 acres, and this is a tiny amount of it. Oh, and I don't
 know if it's a condition if we want to make it a condition but they said oh we only need one of these that three which helps us with our footage issue which makes us at least closer section 848 square feet if they could meet that dedicate no more than that to their business operation I'm gonna make that motion
 Could I offer a friendly amendment to change the square footage to 50% of the square footage of the building to align with the CDO language? How big do you think that connex that you use the processing for is? How big do you think that is? Because the 500 feet, is that what you're worried about, Jeff? Mr. Morris?
 Jackie, if you could clarify, I think you suggested we go with the CDO language and then when they apply for the after the fact bullying permit, work out the state. If they expand the home, they could technically have more square footage to the business. So if they do an addition to the house, that could then factor into that. A reason to have a family room.
 I won't be renovating the house. Where my concern was, was the fact that this 848 square feet was coming from what now appears to be a miscalculation for footage. Right, with the corrected number, you mean, Jeff? Yeah, 50% of the corrected number. Yeah, I am totally good with that friendly amendment. And could we say that at the end of a year,
 Staff will make sure that they have complied with these. End of what year? Within by August 6th, 2026. I don't mean this 20 calendar year. Within a year. Okay. Just say August 6th, 2026. Yeah, you'll have downtime. You'll be able to paint it in the spring. Does anyone want to second my amendment? I'll second. With the friendly amendment? With the friendly amendment.
 Correct. That was a good one. Okay. I might, I made some modifications to these conditions, but let me read them out loud and see if I got them. Yeah.
 Okay, so there's a move and a second to approve CDU-25-5, which is the SMW deer processing home based business conditional use. There were conditions placed and I'll list them out as three that I heard. One, allow the petitioner to have until August 6th, 2026 to paint the building associated with the business. Number two.
 modify the site plan to not exceed 50 percent of the residents square footage number three the the planning department or the petitioner must obtain a land use certificate by august 6 2026 which would require that final inspection let me just ask you this uh what's the square footage of the house so what does that 50 percent mean so if the
 The main residents, the primary residents, 50% of that. Right. Do we know what the square footage of the primary? So we know what that number is? 1600. 1600, so it's 800, basically. So could I ask you how those other two units, how do they classify them as part of their residents rather than the workshop?
 So I'll go ahead and pull up with the, do you have the 50? Not more than 50% of the total interior floor area of the primary residence or accessory structure, whichever is used for the home-based business, may be used in connection with the home-based business. That's clear. So he has clothes in one and. Honey, here. Yeah.
 But with 10 acres, I'd like us to revisit this with the CDO, you know, because they've got an agriculture. First of all, welcome to Monroe County. Thank you for coming here to do business here. And we appreciate you helping us with, you know, process deer and we need you. So, but, and thank you for going through our process, you know,
 Can I mention something? I sent this to Drew. I'm not sure if you had time to get it or not. So we did get a letter of support from nearly all of our surrounding neighbors who showed up within minutes to sign it for us. So I'm not sure if I can hand this to the board or hand it to Drew. I know I sent it, but I sent it this morning.
 I was like, I'm not sure if you have a copy of it. I do have a copy for myself. Yeah, I wanted to make sure that was kind of put in the record. Just kind of letting everybody know that it's very, it's very supportive among our neighbors. We've obviously talked to our neighbors, we, we let them know what we do. They all know what we do. And we, and we try to be very, you know,
 neighborly I guess like we tried to keep the noise in the in the nuisance and stuff down because I don't want to live next that you know I want to treat my neighbors the way that I would like to be treated so yeah that's great thank you that's great answering working on answering that last question about the other let's wait till staffs ready before we call the question
 really interesting that catch them area sorry we have some revisions to the conditions if that's okay so did we move to remove the sign altogether or do you want them and come back to the bza is that immediate or is there a timeline on that I'd like it to could we just say a year oh it's less time than that
 because you want to take care of that. We can have the sign removed by next week. The sign isn't an issue. We can have it ripped out by next week, no problem. So the sign isn't really any big issue for us to take out. Is that part of the motion then to remove the sign so that they meet all the conditions? I'm just trying to make sure. Remove the sign and replace it by something that's acceptable under code regulations because you said there was a permitting process for what the sign looked like.
 If the condition you got to have a sign, you're at the middle of Booney land. You have to have a sign. If the condition is to just remove, simply remove the sign and they're amenable to that. Um, then whenever they want to add a sign at a later date, um, they can do that at their own time and their own speed. It would just come back to this department, this board, uh, for a, um, um, a variance design standards, variance to that conditional use, and then followed by a sign permit. If that.
 if that variance is approved. The reason for the sign are we allowed to put in a small sign due to the reason why we put the sign up is because people get real confused in the Ketchum area with the bypass there and then several roads and all of our neighbors' driveways kind of look like roads, including ours. I suggest we just put the sign in the August 6, 2026
 That way this season people have a chance and then they can figure out a good approach, get any permits they need to. People will come to know you and where you are. I'm okay with that amendment too. Okay, so I'm going to reread the conditions because they've changed. So it's been moved and seconded to approve CDU-25-5 and the conditions are as follow. Number one, allow the petitioner to have until August 6, 2026
 to paint the exterior of the building to meet general condition under 841-3. Number two, modify the site plan to meet condition number five of the CDO for home-based business. Condition number three, petitioner obtain a land use certificate by August 6, 2026. Condition four, remove the sign by August 6, 2026.
 so you you know this will give you your first season where people can find you and then you can figure out with staff what's permitted and See if you have to go through another process Okay, and is all of that acceptable to you all Yeah, okay, so we've had a motion in a second and Jackie has just reiterated it to us Well done and so that we can vote on it
 Okay all right a vote yes is a vote to approve the conditional use with the conditions as stated. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you so much. Thanks for working with us. Keep up the good work.
 Thanks. Okay, we're moving on to item number two under new business, CDU-25-7. This is the Earth Heart Home-Based Business Conditional Use to Chapter 811, concerning one 2.57 plus or minus acre parcel in Van Buren Township, Section 24 at 4307 South Leonard Springs Road. And I believe Ms. Creselius will review this with us. Yes, thank you.
 Okay, as you stated, we are in Van Buren Township, two and a half acre parcel. So the, sorry, just one moment. Here we go. Okay, so on screen is the location map. We are off of South Leonard Springs Road and adjacent to two local roads, South Horn to Owl and South Whooping Crane Lane.
 So the property is zoned Agricultural Residential 2.5 with mostly rural zones and Residential 1 adjacent. So for clarity, moving forward, a little note. We are looking at the petitioners own quite a bit of property in the area. So the petition site specifically that this conditional use for is shown in yellow on the map. It's 4307.
 They own the adjacent property directly to the east, which is 4301. And then they also own property to the south which is adjacent to Leonard Springs Nature Preserve it's about 160 acres. Oh, so
 This was triggered by an open zoning enforcement case. Enforcement began in April of 2025 after an anonymous complaint came in concerned about possibly commercial use on the 160 acres. And then after digging into it, staff identified that there was an unpermitted commercial use on the petition site, not the 160 acres.
 So this is a request, like you just heard, it's conditional use for home-based business. The petitioners state that they do live on site and provide psychotherapy and coaching services. And as you already know, the definition of the home-based business, it's an accessory occupational use to primary use of residence. So it is supposed to be clearly incidental to the use of the structure for residential purposes and does not change the residential character of the site.
 So on screen is there's a letter to the Board of Zoning Appeals and also their site petition where they show the northern half of the petition site with their main dwelling, client parking, and then kind of a garden with a client entrance area. So this is the petition site on screen. This is just pictometry from 2024. So it's kind of long and skinny.
 dwelling towards the north and then lots of landscaping with a pond and decorative landscaping to the south. So I'm gonna run through some of the site photos before we jump into the standards of the conditional use. So this is the dwelling on site and looking at the entrance also off of South Leonard Springs, that is the client parking area towards the front. This is looking at their adjacent owned property, 4301.
 So this is on the adjacent property 4301. They have stated in communication, so when enforcement started, we reach out with an enforcement letter, because lots of times we don't have any contact information other than mailing address. So through the letter, we requested that they submit a use, contact a planner, and then submit a use determination. So the use determination went back and forth asking questions about the business after they described it. One of the questions was, you know,
 where is the use of the therapy regarding across all three properties. So this is the adjacent property to the east. They state that this property is a long-term rental and not associated with the therapy counseling business on the petition site 4307. And I'll come back to this photo in just a moment. So this is the dwelling on the adjacent property. And then to hit some of the standards for the conditional use,
 I am gonna run through the majority of these standards. So the first one, they absolutely meet. They can obtain a home-based business permit if this conditional use is approved. We have two areas that we will discuss in depth, and that's number two and four. So number two has multiple slides, and that is that the operator of the home-based business must reside in the dwelling unit.
 Only two employees who do not reside in the dwelling unit may be permitted, regardless of the number of home-based businesses in the dwelling unit. So they state that they live in the home. They state that they meet this criteria, but during the staff site visit, staff did notice that there were five vehicles parked on that adjacent property, which is the photo that we just saw, 4301, and that there was a recently constructed pathway from that parking area over to the other site. It doesn't show up
 really on 2024 aerial imagery, but in the SAF photo, there is like a stone paver walkway between the two areas. So staff did request some clarification from the petitioner, but didn't hear back from them. And the packet was published, and then I did get the opportunity to speak with the petitioner after the packet was published already. And they kind of stated that there was some overlap
 with parking and we're gonna, because we don't really have any of that writing, we're gonna request that they talk about that a little bit when we get to the ending. So same standard number two. The next point that we don't talk about is that their business website, so Psychotherapy and Counseling Services, the business is called the Center for Thriving Relationships.
 And their website lists 23 staff total with 16 of those staff members listed as being available for in-person appointments. They do state in their petitioner letter that they have three rented suites at a location in downtown on College Avenue. They also state that the petitioner
 In addition, they state that they have one or two of their practitioners who live close to Leonard Springs Road and then rather than downtown and may use their residence when needed. So it says that if the maximum number of employees coming to the property is two, then they would be compliant with the standard. But that leaves some area that needs to be cleared up as the number of vehicles that were
 Kind of shown on site was there was one on site at the time of staff visit and then there were five on the adjacent property granted there are people that dwell in that long term rental, but some clarification is going to be needed there to continue on under the same point.
 The finding is that the petitioner cannot have clients parking at a neighboring property and that all business activity must be located on the petition site and subject to the conditional use of this application. So like what you heard with the prior petition, if at any point if anything changes and they don't have an LUC, that's where there may be a discussion in the office. So since the petitioner does not reside in the neighboring property and we are told that it is a long-term single-family rental, it cannot be associated with the business use.
 was associated, it would not be a home-based business use and we would need to reassess how to pursue what they're doing. So a summary finding is that we do not have enough evidence for determining compliance with this criteria number two and we're asking, we have specific questions that we're gonna ask the petitioner to provide as part of their testimony.
 Point number three is that the use must be conducted within the primary residence. They do state that they meet this criteria and have provided some information. So point number four, this is about a couple of points here relating to the last that we were just talking about. It says direct sales and or rental of goods is prohibited from the home.
 the middle sentence if services are provided no more than eight customers are permitted in the residence per day and no more than one customer and their dependents or caregivers at the property at any given time so the petitioner states that they are able to meet this criteria but they have provided no evidence of how many appointments they may take from home no evidence on like how many they they they mentioned a number
 per week, but really this is by, the standard is by day. So we're also gonna request more information on this at the end of the presentation. Again, same point number four. We do not have enough evidence to determine compliance with this. Okay, that's repetitive, I've already said that. Moving on, so point number five.
 They will be compliant with this. This is regarding the 50% of the total interior floor area. And they provided a specific area and amount of their home that they can meet this condition. Number six, they have no advertising. So number six says there shall be no advertising signs or display. They do meet this. There were no sign structures or advertising on site. Number seven,
 You can't have more than one home-based business, but they are saying that they are meeting this criteria, they have one home-based business as they've described it, so they are compliant. And then number eight, they are compliant with this, but it's a good note is that, so number eight states that a change or intensification of the home-based business shall constitute a need for a new conditional use approval. So you outgrow your home-based business standards
 then you need to seek new approval. So based on the testimony in the letter, the petitioner is self-limiting the business to what is stated publicly here in the report and part of the board record. So the petitioner will be responsible to self-report to planning if there's an intensification of the home-based business. And then just noting that the petitioner owns adjacent property to the east-south and is separated from the adjacent property to the west by a roadway.
 So any usage of the neighboring properties in association with the business use does require further approvals and could result in future enforcement action. Since we've published the packet, I have received multiple letters of support and a letter of remonstrance. So on screen I'm going, they're all pretty simple. I'll leave these up for just a few moments. So this is an adjacent property owner
 stating that they are supporting the counseling practice in home-based business. I will flip to the next one. This is an adjacent property owner, but also appears to be employed by the business in question. So just as a note, they live a little farther down the road.
 The next two will be quick notes from property owners off of South Whooping Crane Lane who are supportive. There is now a fourth one on screen and we are nearing the end
 The last one is not a letter. It was somebody who had been in contact with me and really wanted to stay anonymous. They do live not directly adjacent to the property, but they live along South Whooping Crane Lane, which is a dead end with access adjacent to the petitioner's property. They did want to make it really clear. And I read everything that I've written here back to them. And they approved this message is that they are opposed to the commercial business on site.
 and then they stated that they hold events with cars being parked along South Horndale Road and South Whooping Crane Road, and they stated they were against that. So staff recommendation is denial of the conditional use for home-based business. So we recommend denial due to the inability to fill the requirements of the conditional use under chapter 811, specifically standards two and four. Since this is an after the fact,
 conditional use request. We are asking for the petitioner to provide this information as part of the testimony as to whether they currently meet this criteria or if they will need to make modifications to their current practice to meet them. So we're requesting that they provide testimony answering the following questions. So one, the property at 4301
 adjacent, directly adjacent, South Leonard Springs is not utilized in any connection with the business, i.e. no clients nor practitioners park at this location for usage of the home-based business at 4307 South Leonard Springs Road. Number two, that the maximum number of offsite employees coming to the property is no more than two on any given day, which is the standard. And number three, that the number of customers that they have at the home at 4307 South Leonard Springs Road per day
 and that they comply with no more than one customer to the home at any given time. Do you have questions for me? Or couples. Hm? Or couples, Mark Rich has said. One or, gotta be a couple. I don't, the standard is just one person at a time, and if you're treating couples, so there would,
 Conceivably be two persons at a time. Let me look at it. Dependent or caregiver. Yeah. So it says- Not spouse, not partner, not child. Dependent could be a child. I think a customer could be a couple. Could it? One customer could be one couple.
 If services are provided, no more than eight customers are permitted to the residence per day and no more than one customer and their dependents or caregivers at the property at any given time. So if a couple is a customer paying once, I would consider that a customer. So one customer could be a couple. They're there for couples counseling. Yes. Okay. So, okay. So that's good to clarify. So with that being said,
 Could you leave the questions that you would like to have resolved up on the screen? And if Christine and Brett Earthheart, are you here in the room? No? Yes. They're online. They're online. Okay. Is this Brett Earthheart? Yes, it is. Yes. Are you both there? No, it's just me.
 Okay, would you kindly raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay, thank you. So you have 15 minutes to review this request for variance as well as some of the questions that staff had for you. We'd like to hear from you. All right.
 Well, first of all, I want to thank you all for what you do. This is the first meeting of this that I've ever been to. And it just hurts my brain to hear all the protocols that you're astute in. And I'm just so grateful for everything that you do for our county. I'm really, really in awe of that. So yeah, let me just address a few things.
 And yeah, thanks, Ann, for all your diligence in this matter. And so one thing I did not understand of those questions was that there can only be one client in the home at a time. And so that would be a problem
 for how we're operating currently. And so that would be something I would wanna know like, is that something that we could work with or what would we need to do to be able to do that? Because with our work and sometimes we're working with individuals where most of the time we're working with couples and sometimes with families.
 So just to acknowledge the diversity there in our clientele. And evenings is a really important time because the vast majority of our clients are working people who really need our services and can't take off work.
 to get the kind of marriage counseling or coaching that they need. And so evenings tends to be a really critically important time where we might need to kind of provide services for a couple of couples at a time. So that would be one thing. And my apologies if Anne, you asked me that question and I didn't answer it correctly or understand it correctly or something.
 to address the property next door. So the pathway that was built there, that's a very joyful pathway for us because next door at that property, it is one of our absolute best friends in the world and her two sons. And so they're really like family to us. And then two,
 houses down, my brother-in-law, sister-in-law, and my two nephews live. And so that pathway is like a very joyful pathway for a family to use, for us to all use to visit each other. And that's why we built it, just to kind of acknowledge that. And we don't...
 use that site other property for business. Yeah, clients would never park there. As far as practitioners, because of our team, just like the close friendships they all have, some of our practitioners may park there. I don't know, because they're all on friendly terms
 person who lives on that property, who is also part of our team, actually. And to address the number of practitioners that we have, and I'm probably, there's so many gaps in the questions, so please ask me any questions as we go along.
 I mean, we have a very large team that work with people all over the world. So we have over 20 practitioners. And half of them are in Bloomington. Half of them are in other parts of Indiana and other states and other countries.
 A majority of our clientele is online, is virtual. So it's like a small percent of our clients that we actually are seeing in person. And a vast majority of those are seen at our downtown offices. And we actually have six offices downtown in Bloomington, five in one city center and then one on the square. And so
 We do have, so my wife and I see clients at our home. So I guess our story is a success story. I started off with a home-based business and it just kept building and building and building and growing and growing and growing. But most of our clientele is virtual, just to make sure that you all understand that.
 And so at our home, my wife and I see clients, and then we have a few coaches.
 that also see them and And I'll just say I mentioned my sister-in-law lives two houses down and she is a virtual employee She actually does not see any and she's not a coach She is our client intake person and all of her work is virtual. I don't know if that's relevant but What else So
 Could I ask, I mean, are you kind of finished with what you want to say to us and maybe have us ask you some questions or what, how would you like to proceed from here? That's great. Yeah. Yeah. Cause I, yeah, I want to, you know, can I make sure I answer your question?
 So I'm glad, thank you, it sounds like an amazing enterprise. I'm interested, that parking situation, you're saying that tenant actually is an employee, very good friends, and those cars that were parked there in that picture we saw, could have been your family members, your brother and sister-in-law, maybe clients, you weren't sure if clients used that at all, the pathway was really for family purposes more than clientele purposes, correct?
 Yes, definitely not clientele. Yeah, absolutely not clientele. So, yeah, it would just be, yeah, kind of, yeah, friends and family. And in our friend next door, who's also one of our coaches, she has two teenage boys who are driving age, and they have girlfriends and friends and that house is their hangout house. So, I mean, there's usually
 a bunch of cars there. And it's a very safe, nurturing place for teenagers to hang out. So we really support that. And my second question, I read it in the materials, the sessions are in the basement of your home. So it isn't in your residential property. So people come in and out through that singular floor in your home. Is that correct?
 Yes, yeah, there's a separate client entrance that's on the backside of the home. It's a walkout basement. And I hope you get the chance to come visit sometime, because it's a really kind of beautiful setting. And one of the things that, again, this kind of early stage of our business, we really tried to create a very
 kind of beautiful, serene environment so that when people come to get our services, like when they even just step into our space, the therapeutic effect is already happening. And I find that it's really important to provide this non-clinical settings for clients to go to.
 Long ago, we could have just moved everything to an office building. What we found is that in our industry, we're all trying to be sensitive to clients and create what's called a trauma-informed practice. What we found is that having a home-based business,
 is in itself kind of very therapeutic to people. Like we constantly hear from clients that they really appreciate that home-based environment because in other settings, more like kind of corporate office or clinical settings, there's something about it that puts them on edge. Maybe they've had
 negative experiences in clinical settings. And so their nervous systems are really appreciating this home-based environment to get services from, which is one of the reasons why we've chosen to maintain a home-based business.
 I just have to get to some numbers here. You know, it seems to me that from the type of services that you provide that it's possible that once or twice or maybe a few times a year you have an event at your house or at your adjacent property. Could you explain that a little bit to us?
 Yeah, thank you. And I feel really bad about this, that it is our definite intention to not have group activities at our home. And it just so happens that two weekends ago, we had an event.
 And we usually do all of our events at the Tibetan Mongolian Buddhist Cultural Center on Snoddy Road. And we love that space. We've been doing events there for 15 years. We've done, you know, probably over 100 events there. It's our go-to place. And it just so happens that two weekends ago, it was not available because they were doing a summer camp for children.
 And so we just kind of decided to, you know, I was like, there's no other space that kind of really works well that we know of currently. And so we headed our house and that's why, you know, so it was an event on Saturday and Sunday two weekends ago. And again, our intention is to never do that, but it just happened that, you know, because the,
 Tibetan Cultural Center was being utilized, we did. And so then we had several cars parked on that horned owl road, which obviously upset one of our neighbors. And we feel bad about that. And I tried to go around and talk to all our neighbors on those kind of extremely rare occasions that would have an event at our house.
 And yeah, and obviously there were a couple of doors I knocked on where nobody was home and that was probably one of them. Whereas just going to try to be sensitive to their needs. And so- May I ask, are those events part of your counseling services or those independent kinds of things you do that aren't part of the direct counseling services?
 Yeah, it's it's independent. So yeah, it's okay. Yeah, so that that's good. That's what I needed to know. Thank you. Okay, and then I have a question for staff while we're talking because a couple of issues came up during his testimony and answering the questions you had and we had that ambiguity between
 a couple counting as one unit does a family or a family or a family so that's what I wanted to clarify with staff does a family also qualify as one customer so that if a family of four or six come is that does that count as one because it's a unit of one customer for family therapy the logic would follow that it does
 But I just want him to be clear and us to be clear so that the record is clear. I don't think we have a definition of customer, but I would assume customer relating to payment of services. So if one family is paying one fee
 I would think that that would be treated like one customer. I think the purpose or the intent of this is that we don't have a lot of traffic to a residential site. So it could be that more people coming might be coming in separate vehicles, but he does have parking in the front. I think that we could clarify that. I would request that it be clarified that the unit is less related to
 is mostly related to the pay or the services, whether it be a family or a couple. Okay. And then, I mean, when I think about this, Jeff, do you have any questions or? Just a comment that has already been addressed and that's related to the events. I think that is the biggest concern I have about this in general. And if I could then follow up on that,
 question, even though it is not part of the home-based business, approximately how many people attend such an event? Yeah, and so I would, in the neighborhood of 20, we'll say up to 25, is kind of what historically, you know, kind of, and again, it's, it would usually be once a year, once every other year, you know, so this is very infrequent.
 Okay, and I just am for reference going to restate something I heard, which is that they own two properties of approximately 2.5 plus acres and also 130 acres. That's what I've heard. Is that correct? Yes, about 160. Okay.
 Okay, so those are the facts that I'm calculating in my mind as well as this delineation of what counts as a customer unit. And the letters of support and then the letter of remonstrance seem to be connected to one event that wasn't necessarily related to the business.
 So I'll say also, this is a conditional use for a home based business. So if they use any other property, not in connection with this, which is just the four three zero seven south on our Springs, something that Ann brought up in the presentation was that would need to come back. So if we, you know, if it turns out or they want to expand to forty three oh one, which is adjacent to the east or they want to use the south horned owl property, that's not part of tonight's approval. So those two properties are really off limits as it relates to the extension of this
 business permit. Do you understand that, Mr. Earthheart? Yes, absolutely. Yeah. And in the future, I suspect, and probably no time soon, but in like a few years from now, I suspect, yeah, we'll be talking again because we do have some dreams of doing some really
 service work projects on that land that adjoins Linda Springs Park. Sounds like you have quite a, you're providing quite a service. Yes, Pamela. No, we haven't heard from the petitioner. Okay. Do members of the board of zoning appeals have any further questions for Mr. Earthheart?
 Not at this time. Okay, now we will hear from the public. And if there is opposition to your request, you'll have an opportunity to rebut that for five minutes after they're finished. But I'm going to turn to members of the public who are in favor of this petition, please come to the podium in this courtroom or raise your virtual hand. I see one person has his or her hand raised.
 Yes, Tim Ballard. Tim Ballard, if you would kindly unmute yourself and if you would raise your right hand. And do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You have three minutes, Mr. Ballard, to talk with us. Thank you so much. I really appreciate everything you guys do for the community.
 I'm actually a member of the planning commission for the city and on the Bloomington zoning appeals. So I completely understand, you know, kind of the situations where you find yourselves in. And again, I applaud you for the work you do. I really want to speak so, so incredibly highly of the earth hearts and what they do in this world. You know, for a very small group of people, they are global because they have a very large online presence.
 I can tell you, I can attest to what everything Brett is saying in terms of, I've been to several of their events at the Tibetan Mongolian Buddhist Center, which has been wonderful and have been life-changing. There is such an incredible need for mental health services in this community, in this state, in the country, in the world that Brett and Christine are able to meet in an amazing way. The lives they've changed, the lives they've saved,
 If you started a list, it would be unending. I can tell you that because they're very well known in the community for this kind of work that they do. So I know exactly what Brett is saying in terms of being in compliance with everything. I am one of very few people who go out to the Leonard Springs house. And I can tell you, I've never seen more than like one other person and it's always coming and going.
 kind of in between appointments. So I very much believe them in being in compliance with the services and what they have to do in terms of employees and whatnot. But again, I just really, really, really hope you could take into account the impact of these services, the impact that Brett and Christine are making and their small team is making. We need more of them. I wish no restrictions
 were there for a business like this. I understand why, I understand the compliance, but in terms of being able to reach people and change lives and save lives, they're doing it in such a wonderful, wonderful way. So my hope is that all of this can come together and you guys will allow them to continue to do the amazing work that they do. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ballard. Are there other members of the public who would like to speak in favor of this petition?
 Are there members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to this petition? If so, please raise your virtual hand or come to the podium in this courtroom. We see no one. So there won't be a need for a rebuttal, Mr. Earthhardt. So we are going to discuss it among ourselves and maybe ask questions of staff and consider a motion.
 So does anybody have anything further that they would like to add? I think it might be his concerns centers around the events. And I think he's done a good job of explaining that it's maybe once a year. And I think a neighbor could have family over once a year that could have 20 cars too. So I think I'm less concerned about that knowing that it's only once a year. And it's not associated with the business.
 That's right. Anybody can have a party and block traffic, and nobody likes it if they're trying to get in and out, but it's not part of my consideration here because it's not part of the business. I'm going to move that we approve CDU-25-7, the Earthert home-based business conditional use to Chapter 811, because it seems like the criterion has been met in terms of
 not much traffic, need, Leonard Springs Road, that's gotta be 20, 25 minutes from downtown to one of those offices. And my goodness, if you're in therapy, going downtown to find a place to park alone can be highly stressful, I can understand that. So I'm gonna make a motion to approve that. Second. Are there any conditions that staff has,
 Did you have all of your questions answered? I think for the most part, yes. If there's an issue or they don't meet those conditions and we get a substantiated complaint, we can always come back to say this is the standard and they need to. Okay. Okay. So there has been a motion and it has been seconded.
 And I also would just like to make a friendly comment that it's nice to see people working both with their neighbors and with our planning department to make sure that we help keep the peace, so to speak. So please call the roll. Sure. So this is for CDU-25-7, the Earthheart Home-Based Business Conditional Use. A vote yes is a vote to approve the conditional use. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes.
 mary clements yes guy lofman yes motion is approved four to zero thank you mr earthheart and thank you for um everything you do for the community yes and we're going to take a five minute break just uh we'll return here in five minutes
 little bit better and look yes we have a yes requests for conditional uses and variances for uh veterinary um service isn't that great we need that don't town and country yeah
 okay so the first one is we're going to move on now to item number three on the agenda which is cdu-25-6 this is the casey shake veterinary service a small animal conditional use which is an exception to chapter 8 11 concerning one
 I believe Mr Brown is going to cover this with us. You've done a lot of work on this. Thank you. Yeah. So the purpose of this is that the petitioner is proposing to construct an expansion of the existing veterinary service here.
 The property is already being used for the proposed conditional use, but is considered to be pre-existing non-conforming with the current county development ordinance as an approved conditional use for veterinary business is not on file. Under the zoning ordinance that was in effect from 1997 to December 18th to 2024, the use of veterinary service indoor was permitted use under the limited business zone.
 However, the CDO made this use a conditional use and the petitioner did not have a previously approved site plan on file with the planned expansions. So a conditional use is required for the planned expansion to occur. Chapter 850 defines veterinary service small animal as follows. Any establishment maintained and operated by a licensed veterinarian for surgery, diagnosis,
 and treatment of diseases or injuries of small animals, including household pets, including dogs, cats, and birds that are admitted for an examination and medical treatment. The use does not include medical care for large animals or livestock. There are Chapter 811,
 dash six K list the standard for veterinary service small animal, which is that all outdoor kennel areas shall not be visible from all right of ways or neighboring properties by use of buffer yard landscaping or fencing designated areas for an outdoor kennel shall be on
 the site plan and landscaping shall be protected accordingly. Per the petitioner's letter, the expansion will eliminate the outdoor kennel area and leave only an area for animals to be accompanied by caregivers to relieve themselves.
 and per petitioner, no dogs will be left outside in this area for an extended period of time, which means the condition is being met. The next few slides go through the conditional use standards, which are also available in the packet as facts of finding, as findings of fact. Would the board like me to read through them? No, we don't need you to read through them. Thank you. Thank you though. That was a nice offer.
 So here is the view of the site itself. The image on the left shows the existing building as it is right now. The image on the right shows the back of that building facing south and shows off the area of the plant expansion beyond that fence there. And the next two slides are parts of a site plan that staff only received just yesterday from a licensed surveyor.
 sort of a starting point for the commercial site plan that may be applied for after this. And here it is showing the planned expansion. And so staff recommends approval for CDU-25-6 due to the ability to fulfill the requirements of the use specific standards as shown in Chapter 811 and the general
 conditional use standards of approval under Chapter 841. Mr. Brown, we will hear now from Mr. Casey Shake, if you would kindly come to the podium and sign in, and then I will swear you in. Welcome to this Nat Hill room. I think you've been here before. Yes. Yeah, I remember you.
 That business looks good. Thank you. And 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. You have 15 minutes to review this with us. You're not required to use all the 15 minutes. OK.
 First of all, thanks for taking the time to hear me this evening. I appreciate your time. I'm Casey Shake, owner and veterinarian at Town and Country Veterinary Clinic. I recently had a part-time associate. Now, thankfully, I have a full-time associate because I don't know if you're aware, it's hard to find veterinarians these days. If you have animals, it's probably a challenge getting your animals in for appointments. And that's what we're running into. So that's reason for expansion.
 Yeah, I provide veterinary care to small animals. I started Town and Country in 2009, had the opportunity to purchase it in December 2012 and been the owner of it since. So one of the things that we do at Town and Country is we give back thousands of dollars to the community to help them. They help us, we help them. So in recent years, the business is growing tremendously. I've been blessed that
 I'm fortunate to have a lot of business, more business than I can actually keep up with. Unfortunately, we have day-to-day waiting list of clients that want to get in, and part of the reason why for this expansion is to make us more efficient, add more exam rooms. That way, while one client's in the exam room, we can be loading another exam room. If we need to do blood tests, x-rays, we can get that running because that all takes time. Currently, we have two exam rooms, two surgery areas. There are surgery and dental areas,
 With two doctors, we have to utilize one of those surgery or dental areas for a treatment area. So that limits the number of surgeries. Currently, we are booked out for surgeries for a month. Appointments were booked out about a month as well. We do keep some
 blocked out time slots to try to work in emergencies, but it seems like more emergencies come in than what we can handle. And unfortunately, we have to refer some to Indy, unfortunately. In the recent months, the closure of Ellisville has really ramped up the need for veterinary services. Not only did Ellisville close, we've had Banfield and PetSmart, it's closed in recent years.
 the unforeseen circumstances surrounding Dr. Borders. His operation closed down, blue skies closed down, and there hasn't been really any veterinarians that come in to open up general practices to compensate or fill that void or the need. So the expansion of the facilities is much needed. So I'm here to request conditional approval to continue to grow and expand the business.
 Like Daniel mentioned, the outdoor kennels, they're going to be removed. We utilize those for boarding back, which we stopped boarding in 2020. I don't want to go back to boarding, just focus on the veterinary medicine at this point. So there's no intentions of ever going back to boarding services. The fenced in area, like Daniel said, we use that to walk dogs for elimination purposes. Dogs aren't left out there unattended for extended periods of time.
 So with that, I would just ask for you to consider my request for conditional approval. Thank you, Mr. Sheik. I'm going to ask my colleagues if they have any questions for you. And then I'm going to turn to the public to see if they have questions. And if anybody is opposed to your request, you'll have a chance to speak again. So are there members of the public who would like to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand.
 There's no one. Are there members of the public who are opposed to this request? If so, please raise your virtual hand. There's no one, so I return to my colleagues for... I have a question for the staff. This first CDU 25-6 is for a small animal conditional use. This business has operated since 1973.
 Yes, at that location. At that location, yes. And you've owned it since 2012, started working there in 2009. Is it a conditional use because it's an expansion of the existing business? That is correct. Under the CDO, it's considered a conditional use now. So this does mean that the property is now considered pre-existing nonconforming. Well, with that,
 Do we have any comments? I just think this is a service. I'm going to move that we approve CDU-25-6, the Casey Shake Veterinary Services Small Animal Conditional Use to Chapter 811. And that's because they are able to fulfill all the requirements of the use specific standards in Chapter 811 and general conditional use of standards of approval under Chapter 841. Thank you so much.
 needs to second it. I'll second. Okay. Okay it's been moved and seconded to approve CDU-25-6 which is the conditional use for the veterinary service small animal. A vote yes is a vote to approve the conditional use. Margaret Cummins? Yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Motion is approved four to zero.
 Okay, so that's that we have 123456 other you may just want to hang out up here and you'll be back up at the podium soon. Okay, now we have VAR-25-43A, B, C, D, E and F and this
 pertains to maximum impervious surface cover from chapter 807, interior parking landscaping from chapter 816, buffer yard landscaping from chapter 816, streetscape landscaping from chapter 816, and perimeter landscaping from chapter 816, and sidewalk requirement variance to chapter 818, and this still concerns the property at 3140 North Smith Pike. And Mr. Brown, you wanna go over
 those with us. Thank you. So this again is related to the expansion of the existing of the existing the existing veterinary service here. Dishner is proposing a new design that includes the expansion of the primary structure. That number actually on that slide is incorrect. I apologize. I thought I'd added that.
 Amount being requested is 3,186.5 square feet. The number of 2,508 square feet is coming from that site plan that I mentioned we got earlier today, earlier we got yesterday. A full review of that has not been done yet, so it's possible that it's just an error. As this property is existing nonconforming, several variances are required.
 One moment, let me try something. Your summary says 3,186.5, Daniel. I think you nailed it. All right, there we go. So I had made the changes and evidently it hadn't uploaded on the screen. So in regards to the maximum impervious cover variance, the property is in the Jax Defeat Creek Critical Watershed.
 This property is owned limited business, which means that there is a limit of 50% of the lot size for maximum impervious cover. According to a certified plot plan that staff received on August 5th of 2025, the current existing impervious cover is measured as approximately 7,685 square feet, which is almost exactly 50% of the lot size.
 According to said plot plan, proposed expansion will include an additional 3,186.5 square feet for a total of 20,871.5 square feet, which is an estimated 59% of the lot. The petitioner also owns agricultural property that surrounds it to the north and west,
 which could be included in the site plan via a lot line shift or lot combination. If the size of the veterinary clinic were to increase, it could potentially meet the impervious maximum by incorporating more green space. In regards to interior parking landscaping, there are currently two parking lots on the property
 One is an asphalt parking lot on the west side of the property in front of the principal use structure, while the other is a gravel parking lot behind said principal use structure that the petitioner intends to pave and use for employee parking. Under Table 4-816 in the County Development Ordinance, approximately 5% of the total lot
 In other words, 1,764.18 square feet must be dedicated to interior planting. Chapter 816-12C also states that all rows of parking spaces shall be provided a terminal island of at least 162 square feet of area to protect parked vehicles, promote visibility, confine moving traffic to aisles and driveways, and provide space for landscaping.
 The site is calculated by staff to require 11 parking spaces. However, the paved lot would not easily accommodate the required interior landscaping islands due to the end parking space on the north end also being a driveway to another parking area. It would also result in losing one paved parking space. If the property were to lose parking spaces, in other words, it would fall below the minimum parking requirements and thus create a nonconformity. And here's an image to
 show that the areas outlined in a dark blue are areas that would require interior landscaping islands. And as you can see, at least some of the existing parking spaces would need to be taken down in order to accommodate that.
 In regards to buffer yard landscaping, based on the surrounding zoning and uses of the adjacent properties, staff has determined that Type C buffer yards would be required, resulting in a minimum of 315 density value per 100 linear feet along these side and rear properties. It's estimated by Planning Department staff that the buffer yard for this site would require the following.
 A 674 density value on the northern side of the lot, which was approximately 20 trees. 547 density value on the eastern side, approximately 16 trees. And 667 density value on the southern side, approximately 20 trees. Again, if all of those density values are dedicated solely to trees rather than shrubs or grasses or perennials.
 The petitioner does have the space on the south side for this landscaping to occur, but is constrained on the north side. If the variance is denied, the petitioner could pursue a lot line shift and the property line to the north with that property that they currently own that's used for agricultural uses. Streetscape landscaping would also be required for this site.
 Chapter 816 calls for one tree, 10 shrubs, and 10 perennials, ferns, or grasses for every 35 feet of streetscape. For this property, this results in a required density value of 698. Based on a subdivision final plot amendment that was approved in 2024, this is Exhibit 5 of the packet, however, the existing parking lot of the existing sites is directly adjacent to the property line or even encroaches somewhat.
 Thus, if the streetscape were to be planted, the existing parking lot would need to be partially removed in order to create the required green space. And the width of the parking lot is around 54 feet. It's required to be a minimum of 43 feet when taking into account the minimum length of a parking space, which is 18 feet long, and the aisle width to provide area for turnarounds, which is 25 feet wide.
 According to the plan, it is about five feet within the right of way. If they scale back the parking to the minimum 43 feet, they would have only six feet to plant the streetscape trees and maintain both that minimum parking space width and the minimum parking aisle width. But per the county development ordinance, they would need to have a streetscape at least 10 feet wide. So if it's installed, it would make their asphalt parking lot nonconforming.
 In regards to the parking perimeter landscaping, Chapter 816-11A states that one tree, 10 shrubs, and 10 shrubs or pollinating plants, grasses, or ferns are required for every 35 lineal feet around the parking lot area, excluding vehicular access aisles with no adjacent parking. Staff has determined that there are three areas where the parking perimeter landscaping will be required, as shown in the image on the next slide.
 Parking perimeter A measures approximately 100 feet and thus would require 472 density value, which is approximately 14 trees. Parking perimeter B measures approximately 45 feet and thus would require 100, 212 density value, approximately seven trees. Parking perimeter C measures approximately 70 feet and thus would require 326 density value, approximately 10 trees.
 And here is, again, an image. The drawings and text in light blue showcase where the parking perimeter would go. And the letters indicates the perimeter parking landscaping areas. And lastly, in regards to the sidewalk requirements, Chapter 8, 18.1-B,
 states the following standards. Sidewalks shall be placed in the right-of-way to the extent possible when prompted by a site plan. Under a site plan, sidewalks are required to be installed if any of the following prompts apply to the commercial site. One, the sidewalk is present within 2,000 linear feet of the property. Two, the property is shown on the transportation alternatives plan with a greenway, corridor, or road improvement label.
 or three, the property is within the urban area boundary as defined. This site meets all three criteria for needing a sidewalk. According to estimates, a sidewalk measuring approximately 160 feet long will need to be installed on the site of the petition site, the western side. The sidewalk, which will be bisected by the existing driveway, will need to be at least five feet wide.
 In speaking with the Monroe County Highway Engineer, the statement in the image below was given, quote, Daniel, I would like to see sidewalks installed on along Smith Pike wherever we can. Previous developments along Smith Pike installed sidewalks, even if there were short sections. Smith Pike is a popular pedestrian corridor, and I would like to see a future sidewalk project along this corridor.
 The roundabouts at Woodyard and Curry have sidewalks on all sides, and the Smith Pike approach to SR 46 has sidewalk on both sides. And here are the same images of the property shown in the conditional use, as well as the site plan that the license surveyor provided yesterday. And so Stafford recommends the following.
 Staff recommends denial of VAR-25-43A as practical difficulties have not been demonstrated. Staff believes the petitioner could undergo a lot line shift or deep combination with the property to the north and east to increase the size of the lot and thus lower the percentage of the lot covered by impervious surface. We recommend approval of VAR-25-43B based on staff findings, more specifically that the
 Installing the required landscaping islands would result in insufficient parking spaces, thus creating a nonconformity. We recommend denial of VAR-23-43C based on the findings of FACT, more specifically that while the property does have currently insufficient room to the north and east for a buffer yard, the petitioner could undergo a lot line shift or deed combination with the property to the north. Approval of VAR-25-43D
 based on the findings that the current width of the parking lot is not sufficient to require the required streetscaping, parking aisle width, and the minimum parking space length. Therefore, installing the required streetscaping would create a non-conformity. Recommend denial of VAR-25-43E as staff believes that the current existing greenscape on the property could adequately hold the required perimeter landscaping.
 and denial of VAR-25-43F based on the findings of FACT as well as comments from the Monroe County Highway Department. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Smith. So if you'd like to return to the podium, you're still under oath. And if you would like to review with us these requests for variances. Okay. So we'll start with the maximum pervious cover. So the
 Practical difficulty here is there's a small lot size. Currently, there's no minimum requirements for lot size in the limited business zoning district. Per Deckard land surveying, the current impervious cover is right at 50%. With expansion, impervious cover, based on his calculations, goes to 57%. So I'm still less than 10% over. So that very minimal amount being over.
 Not a single one of the neighbors that I sent neighborhood notices to would be impacted by the impervious cover. I know there was concern in the packet that their neighbor to the south could be affected. Unfortunately, water doesn't flow uphill. So the neighborhood at 3130 is about three to four feet higher in elevation than what I am. So that the water all flows to my adjacent property.
 which I'm fine with. If any of the adjacent landowners, the ones that I had to send neighborhood notices to, if they have problems with the excessive impervious cover, then I'm going to need to install boat docks brush up on my fish and duck medicine.
 So I am an adjacent landowner. I'm in favor of expansion in the business. However, I strongly oppose a lot line shift or a lot combination. If I were not the adjacent landowner, the planning department would not be making this recommendation. For instance, if Daniel Brown was the adjacent landowner, you would not be recommending that I go to him to purchase land to extend my lot. The other thing, the approval of this variance will not affect the use and value of the land adjacent
 the property meaning my property. The planning's recommendation is to do a lot line shift or a lot line combination or a lot combination and that definitely impacts the use and value of my adjacent property. Expanding the lot size will reduce the acreage of agricultural land, yes and limiting
 business zoning districts, agricultural uses are permitted. However, the productive acreage of agricultural land will be reduced by the implementation of trees and landscape. The decrease in acreage of productive agricultural land will reduce both the use and value of value or purpose of the adjacent property, which is exactly what the planning department's recommendation is, but a variance is not allowed to do this.
 to change the use or value of the adjacent property. In 23 and 24, I went through a rezone process to rezone the house at 3130 North Smith Pike, which is directly to the south of me, so that I could sell that as a residential lot and preserve the agricultural land. And that's what I accomplished and intend to do. My intention for that land is to continue to use it for agricultural
 pay production and leave as is. The addition of acreage to the limited business only changes the impervious cover on paper. It doesn't change the flow of the water. The water from town and country vet clinic naturally drains onto the northwest corner of the adjacent agricultural land. The majority of the agricultural land is at a higher elevation in the clinic. By conforming to the standards, my
 adjacent property will suffer a decrease in use and value and a negative impact on my adjacent land is unacceptable. So that's why I'm requesting use for variance for the impervious cover. The interior parking landscaping, again, practical difficulty, small lot size. I agree 100% with the planning department that implementation of interior parking landscape will significantly diminish the available parking spaces.
 buffer yard landscaping. Again that goes back to small lot size 0.81 acres. There's insufficient space to accommodate the buffer yards. The adjacent agricultural land to the north and east serve as natural buffer yards. In 2023 and 2024 I took the steps to undergo a lot line shift to shift the property line on the south side 15 feet farther south to give
 more area, larger grassy area for clients to walk their dogs for elimination purposes. The veterinary clinic requires ample grassy areas for clients to walk dogs. The need for grassy areas is unique for this type of business when compared to other businesses such as retail shops, dentists, optometrists. The addition of landscaping will reduce the useful and purposeful grassy areas. Bushes, trees, and other landscape
 serve as a habitat for other animals, which dogs get nosy, they sniff out, potentially harm the other animals or birds in the landscape. As a result, trees, bushes, plants, they may get trampled or the leashes get tangled up, or we had to have eye injuries in the brachycephalic breeds, the Boston Terriers, the bulldogs. Also, if a dog escapes,
 from an owner, landscaping and trees make it more challenging to recapture the animal because there's more obstacles present. Also, dogs urinate on the landscape, and that can be detrimental to the landscape. We have some rose bushes currently in front of the property that the male dogs have been hard on. The abundance of trees, again, conserved. Dogs get their leashes wrapped around, conserved.
 injuries to trees or animals, also the trees that will shade the grass. The grass is not as hardy and thick in the shade. Hardy, thick grass is needed to hold up around the clinic for the winter months. There's a reason why there is not an overabundance of trees and landscape currently at the clinic, because the grass serves a practical purpose for us at Town and Country Vet Clinic. Just in FYI, the planning department is advising the total of 56 trees be planted for the buffer yard landscaping.
 Again, I need grassy areas for my business, not a forest. There was concern about in regards to detrimental impacts for lack of buffer yard to your neighbor to the south at 3130. Well, if concerned about lack of buffer yard, you should take a drive down North Smith Pike and look at the property. There's areas around the house where the weeds are chest high,
 Most often they're knee high. There's an old boat that hasn't been moved since it was parked there, same with an automobile. So upkeep of the yard and landscape is not a priority. I can assure you that my property will not adversely impact my neighbor to the south as I take great pride in keeping the grass and current landscape in great shape.
 The current landscape of town and country veterinary clinic is very similar to the landscape of surrounding residences and businesses currently in Long North Smith Pike. Again, I'm the adjacent landowner and I oppose the lot line shift to accomplish these goals because it will negatively impact the value of my adjacent land. Parking perimeter landscape, again, practical difficulty, small lot size, there's not insufficient room to accommodate the
 parking perimeter landscaping in Daniel's parking perimeter a image. It's directly in front of the clinic. This is a high traffic area, which is.
 will interfere with the ability to get into the clinic quickly. Parameter B is exactly where the expansion is. The yard with lawnmowers, equipment, anything that we need to do to get in there.
 That is the area where we walk dogs. Occasionally some dogs won't urinate or defecate on leash, so we have to let them off leash. Again, trees, plants, landscape in that area make it more challenging for us to recapture dogs. So we want to try to minimize the trees in the area and keep plenty of grass.
 So if we were to go with the number of trees in the parking perimeter landscape, that's an additional 31. Now we're up to 87 trees in this area, which is not a practical amount for us to do what we need to do. The streetscape landscaping, again, there's not enough size, and I agree with the
 Planning Department addition of streetscape landscaping will further reduce parking lot to an impractical size. The sidewalk, I'm concerned about the location and safety. 3140 North Smith Pike is adjacent to Carmola Drive. So clients, or not clients, drivers often stop to make a left-handed turn on Carmola. Distracted drivers,
 veer off into the grassy area in front of the clinic. There's no curbs there to potentially stop or slow automobiles that would veer off the roadway and potentially hit somebody on the proposed sidewalk. The current foot traffic, which is minimal, also frequently is kind enough to leave trash and syringes behind. I personally do not want to encourage foot traffic
 in front of the clinic to leave trash and syringes behind. Although the sidewalks don't count them towards impervious cover in the right of way, the concrete still doesn't create impervious cover, which is one of the things that we're concerned about. Underground utilities, Miller Pipeline has a 10 inch high pressure pipeline that runs in this location. For those of you that's traveled up and down the North Smith Pike,
 this past winter. I don't know how many times there's been stoplights where they've been excavating and digging along the right away. There is a higher volume of foot traffic that is located on the west side of the road, although it's minimal. Most of the foot traffic occurs from Caramola and goes north. But they travel on the west side
 of the road because it's much easier route for them to travel. There's less ditches, there's fewer fences, so it's much easier. So that would be a better location for the sidewalk. The other thing is cost. Yes, that's a considerable cost to add to a small business to undertake. Unfortunately, that will require price increases for clients to cover the additional cost. Whenever clients ask me about
 the sign out front, what my plans were, and I explained to him that I'm going to, or I want to create an addition on the back to better serve the community, but I said one of the steps that I have to take is develop a sidewalk in front of the property, and their response is why or what for? The closest sidewalk is at least a quarter of a mile away for me.
 So there's no closed sidewalks. In the packet or meeting notes, it said that this area is eligible for federal transportation project investments. Why not use the federal funds to construct a sidewalk instead of taxing small business owners with this burden?
 What questions can I answer for you? I'm going to turn to my colleagues here for further questions of you. I think you've been very clear and Daniel's presentation was very clear. Do members of the BZA have any questions? I have a question for staff. Yes, as we were going through those and they were mounting the number of trees, it did seem like a
 very large number to me as well. But it's a difference to go from 81 total trees in this property expansion to zero, to none. And I can understand your point about needing the grass and so on and so forth, but you know, trees also are a windbreak for your agricultural business behind you, no question about that as well. So is there
 any medium ground between 81 and zero, 87 and zero, because that seems a huge gulf in terms of landscaping and requirements for vegetation. So the vegetation requirements, they were converted to trees for the purposes of expressing how many
 those density values are dedicated solely to trees. It's expected that it would be a mix of trees, shrubs, and grasses, perennials, and things like that. So if the petitioner is requesting a variance, you could condition the approval of that variance on a smaller amount of landscaping. That could be one option. That's helpful.
 questions of staff or comments or thoughts? Well, my thought is it's very different when somebody starts with a blank slate than if you're modifying a business. And to increase the size of this, and I must admit,
 I understand is the property, is the agricultural used to just say as a hay field? Yes. And to make this conform, do you know or does staff know how much, the adjacent property is how much the agricultural, how many acres? There's approximately 11 acres there. Okay. And about how many, how much would need to be added to the existing site to address the things that could be done with that?
 with the lot line. Yeah, if we take Mr. Shakespeare's testimony about the 57% impervious just using that as a equation, we probably just need about 0.25 acres of the other site to bump that up because the site currently is 0.81 acres.
 So, but I'm not sure about the space needed for the landscaping. They may make that call a little differently. But his point about the impervious cover was that that won't change where the runoff happens. It will still go in the same direction as it does now. That really will not affect that particular scenario. But he also has like met for the most part, the impervious cover. Right.
 50 to 57%. I think there's a 10% allowance, you know, so he's met that, but yeah, I'm going to save my comments until we hear from the public. Okay. Good point. Yeah. So are there members of the public who would like to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please raise your virtual hand. Are there members like to speak in opposition to this petition? Please raise your virtual hand.
 And should we do have the letter from Paul Satterly? Should we ask KiWay anything? Are they online? They're not present tonight. I see. Okay, so well, this is for me exactly kind of the point of keeping the rural rural versus urban. I know that this is an area that
 Some people would like to see urbanized and there are other people who, a super majority of people who don't want to see it urbanized. And in fact, he's harvesting agricultural hay in his backyard. And I know that road very well. I've been up and down it like, I don't know how many thousands of times, you know, because I used to live near there and it is a rural area.
 I do know that it was slated for IU Health and that area was developed and there was significant roadway infrastructure put in by the federal government, but I don't think that the intentions for which it was earmarked ever materialized because the hospital went elsewhere.
 It didn't build there. We might get a jail there. We might not get a jail near there, but it is a rural area. I think that what Guy said that converting an existing business and placing the burden of
 all the shrubs and perennials per 35 linear feet and then the 87 trees overall and taking away potential parking spaces and putting up a curb in the middle of the
 Are on the side of the parking lot I view those as hazards when I drive myself there. I run into them my tires get scraped on them. I don't see very many plants thriving in those beds, despite the theory that
 plants can and should thrive in the middle of these islands, in the middle of hot asphalt. I just don't see it working out as planned. But I'm inclined. I mean, I'm convinced too that he thinks that the sidewalk would be a detriment to his business because he doesn't
 necessarily want to invite a lot of foot traffic there. He's inviting car traffic. The only hesitation I really have on the whole thing is the sidewalk. And that's because if we don't, definitionally, we would re-approach it in a very piecemeal fashion.
 And if enough people had sidewalks, most of the area, then maybe the county would come in and put in more areas. But you don't put sidewalks in because you want people walking in front of your property. Almost nobody wants more foot traffic in front of their property. Maybe McDonald's does, but the veterinary clinic doesn't want more foot traffic.
 It's not there for the owner of the land. It's there for the public. And I think there's a long-term bias or policy in favor of constructing sidewalks when people upgrade their property. And that's what I see here.
 I'm sympathetic to all the other variances, but not to the sidewalk. I know it costs money. I know it's not, people walking by are a nuisance. But it's also something I think we need to encourage. So that's where my thinking is. I'm sympathetic to everything but the sidewalks.
 But he also testified that the closest sidewalk is a quarter mile away. I drive up and down that area, too. I don't know where people would be on sidewalks walking to. Even the McDonald's, the Speedway gas station, I guess, that is a truck. The schools are nowhere close. There's a church down the way, but people drive in and out of that. I just am uncertain where you would take that sidewalk to in that area.
 I don't know what you would walk to. And they are piecemeal out there. I wish we had an aerial view of where we had sidewalks there or not, because we've had this before on Curry Pike. Is it a loner stretch that no one else is responsible for? And you also said there's a drainage pipe of some type where the sidewalk would go. Didn't you mention that? And the utility work.
 on that has been all summer long. I know what you're talking about. So there's a 12-inch pipe that runs parallel with the road, and it has surface drains. I installed that shortly after I purchased the clinic. And that's why cars veer off, because the ditch is no longer there. I made it easier and safer to mow, put the pipe down in the ditch.
 and put drains in there because those of you that drive up and down Smith Pike, you know that it's like a racetrack and mowing along a ditch on the roadside can be dangerous. So I just made it flat ground and put drains in according to the county's requirements. And so, yeah, I've got a 12-inch pipe that runs the entire length in front of the property, so. So would the sidewalk have to go on top of that? In that area?
 Because then if you want it to run straight, it would about have to be partially on top of it because you have a large tree at the south end, water meter at the south end, utility pole at the south end.
 I've placed on the screen just the nearest sidewalk which was it's in the Subdivision to the west. There's just a portion of it that has sidewalk coffee lane also has sidewalk, but this is the closest What Daniel Brown brought up in the CDO is that this is because it's within 2,000 feet so 2,000 feet is quite far That's half a mile almost to the nearest sidewalk and this is within that
 Additionally, I'll just point out that, you know, people are probably cycling to here because there's a car. So I'm Greenway is not too far from this area. And then it was identified as a high priority in the transportation alternatives plan eventually to upgrade this area, probably for more of a bike lane. But that also prompts it for sidewalks. So that's that's what the CEO says. OK.
 I'd like to know from staff, so let's say that this is designated as a high priority area because you've stated that and that's what the MPO does, but will they come in and put down sidewalks and everybody, will they procure an easement including to his property and then pay the expense of the sidewalk or?
 So if the county were to do an improvement on North Smith Pike and we were to try to meet the criteria for federal funding, one of the scoring criteria is to have a complete street, which is to include sidewalk on both sides. So what I've, this is in the area that if MPO funds could be, they could be expended here. So it's within that boundary and then
 if the county were to do work in this area, it would likely require or be more incentivized to do sidewalks. Now, if we're repaving or we're fixing ditches or things like that and we're not using MPO funds, we would not be considering likely purchase of right of way and a sidewalk. When Dr. Schick did the lot line shift, there was a dedication requirement. So they do have, I think it's 45 feet from the center line of dedicated right of way.
 So that does give them a bit more room to put in the sidewalk if required. But as we show on the site plan in the packet, part of their asphalt parking lot area is already in that right of way. So we're not saying it wouldn't require some modifications to the site or changes, but it's something that could be designed around.
 I was just gonna say that I agree with Mr. Lofman's comments a few minutes ago. I'm always surprised, and I'm not talking about Smith Pike particularly, but I'm always surprised in the county where I see little paths in the grass where people have been walking along the side of the road, even in front of my own house, I'm surprised how many people I see walking by. And I just think that we all have a responsibility to make things a little bit safer for pedestrians when the opportunity presents itself. So I could agree with,
 approval on all the other things there, but the sidewalk one is the one I keep coming back to. I just wonder, Mr. Lofman and Mr. Morris, in specific, if it becomes, I mean, just based on some things that I've heard testified,
 to tonight, it could turn into a real practical nightmare for him to install that because there's a drainage pipe underneath, there are easements underneath. Is there any protection we can give to the homeowner so that we don't bankrupt him, for example, with the engineering of a sidewalk that is impossible to engineer right there? If we
 approve 43 A, B, C, D, and E, but don't approve F, then he can proceed with everything. It's just, and we assume they're just, if it turned out to be 2-2, which is what it looks to me like it would be, then it comes back. Or could we continue
 F, and ask for more information from highway? From highway and as to how this could be accomplished. And what would be involved like it? I mean, he said there's a drainage pipe underneath that. And what would be done? I feel like I need information as to not just, to me, it's a sidewalk. There ought to be one. But if there are practical difficulties making that unrealistic,
 I would, so I'm gonna move that we approve the Casey's Shake, various 25, 43 A, B, C, D, and E, Casey's Shake, maximum impervious surface, interior parking landscaping, buffer yard landscaping, streetscape landscaping, and perimeter landscaping. I move that we approve those.
 A second. My friendly amendment question is, again, does it go from zero landscaping to some landscaping? Because you're really voting on zero and it's all going to be grass with no grasses, no trees, no anything else. Is that a good decision? The reason I feel comfortable with that decision
 is because it's a veterinary hospital and the dog's gotta pee. It's a special situation because the dog's had to be walked and the trees are going to obstruct the intended use of the property.
 So that's why I'm sympathetic to zero, where I would be glad to negotiate. Well, how about 16? Yes. Trees are a plus. Definitely. And grasses, even though it's easier to mow without them. I've heard you loud and clear on that one. OK, so there's your motion. I'll second.
 It's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-43A, impervious cover, 43B, interior parking landscaping, 43C, buffer yard landscaping, 43D streetscape landscaping, and 43E perimeter landscaping. A vote yes is a vote to approve all of those aforementioned variances. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson?
 Oh, this one's hard for me. I'll vote yes. Barbara Clements. I'm going to vote yes, and I'm going to make a comment as well that veterinary services are really important in our community, that we have lost, as we've heard, a lot of valuable veterinary services. And I know I don't have a dog or a cat, but I know I have friends who's
 animals suffer and they have to drive very far to get them treated so we're lucky he's expanding yes we're lucky we're lucky he's expanding so yeah so my voted yes and now what about can we continue technically this other sidewalk requirement good
 I would add to this, I agree with Mr. Laughman and Mr. Morris, sidewalks are a good thing, but we should all be cognizant that federal money is going to be less and that there'll be fewer things granted. So we really should be realist in terms of, could there be other outside money for a dream upgrade to that area?
 I would just say let's be realistic in terms of the future forecast on that. Now we have a heavy schedule for our BZA. Could we hear this in October or November, the sidewalk requirement? Could we continue it till then? We need more information, you know, because I just
 I just don't even know what we're technically looking at, you know, and don't either. Yeah. So if Dr. Shake were to since he has the other variances approved, what could happen is I think it would be a pretty minimal request for now if he applied for the
 site plan showing the sidewalk going in, but we could keep this on the docket and then just simply remove that polygon from the site plan if it gets approved. The construction plans would be more in depth, so that would be going through the grading of the actual sidewalk, how it would be installed and where. But that might also be helpful for the variance in the meantime, so it may be worth, I don't know if Eric Deckard has somebody that he could work with, like an engineer that could produce some civil work that could
 then prove back to the BZA, hey, this really isn't a viable option because of these conflicts. I think that might be helpful. And we can continue it to a future date. If Dr. Sheikh's amendable, I would suggest, yep, October or November. That would give your surveyor and engineer time and us time, since we have some busy agendas coming up.
 You know, I don't know how you are with this, but we we are having to have an extra meeting in September and then October is already filled up and so I don't know if you would want it in October to get it over with or is November okay with you.
 I farm. So November will be fine. Hopefully we'll be done with harvest. Okay. So we need to make a formal motion to continue that, which I've taken off my glasses. So, okay. I moved to continue variance 2543 F case sidewalk requirement. You could shake sidewalk. Could you state the date and the time you're continuing it? And that it be continued to the November regular meeting of the BZA.
 November what? Fifth. November fifth meeting of the BZA. And I would like to commend Mr. Daniel Brown. I mean, your research on this was really exemplary. All the calculations you did, you know, I mean, you really provided us with a lot of data and information and I can't thank you enough for the professionalism once again of your presentation. So thank you. Thank you.
 Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and vote on that. Continuous. I appreciate it. Appreciate your time. Yeah. Does someone want to vote on that? We're going to vote on that. OK. Oh, yeah. We have to move to, yes.
 You made the motion. Did we second that? I'll second it, yeah. OK, it's been moved and seconded to continue VAR-25-43F, which is the Casey Schick sidewalk requirement to Chapter 818. This would be continued to November 5, 2025, BZA meeting that begins at 5.30 PM in this room here. A vote yes is a vote to approve the continuance of just the sidewalk requirement. Guy Lofman? Yes.
 Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. All right, motion is approved four to zero. Well, thank you all. Thank you for a good night's work. Thank you for all of your patience and everyone for your good ideas. Really. It's really good. And thanks for your service to all of our community. Is Purdue sending more vets into the market or are they flat numbers?
 flat numbers. How many of those stay in state? Yeah. I don't expect you to know the answer to that. I mean, more corporate ownership.
 And so corporations are offering large sign-on bonuses. For instance, here in Bloomington and Bedford, I'm not sure what corporate clinics they are, but I get an email from a headhunter hunting veterinarians. They're offering $250,000 sign-on bonuses. Wow. You don't do that.
 No, I don't do that because you'd be putting in your job application. We appreciate you. Thank you. That's scary. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, we need you. Do we need a motion to adjourn, Ms. Clements? Yes. So moved, right? Okay. Thanks. Have a great night, everyone. Thank you.