- Good evening and welcome to the September 8th, 2025 Monroe County Board of Zoning and Appeals meeting.
- I'm going to call this to order. It is 5 31 PM. Director, could you please take a roll? Margaret Clements.
- Skip Daley. Yeah. Pamela Davidson. Guy Lofman. Here and wearing a mask because I think I have hay fever,
- but I don't know. So I'm abundance of caution. Here I am. I'm feeling fine. Jeff Morris. Okay, so we
- have four members in person, a quorum. Thank you, doctor. Let's go ahead and 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 and Procedure as adopted and amended. And the cases that were legally
- advertised and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's agenda. A motion to accept. So moved. Second.
- Evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve the introduction of evidence. Skip Daly. Yes. Pamela Davidson.
- Yes. Guy Lofman. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Motion is approved, 4 to 0. Director, it's time for the approval
- of the agenda. Are there any amendments to the agenda that you'd like to recognize before we vote?
- I would like to recommend that item number seven under new business be moved to item number five, and
- that is because items two, three and four and seven, which will then become five, are going to be asking
- for continuances. I move approval of the agenda as proposed by Director Nestor-Gellin. I second that.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve tonight's agenda with one amendment, which is
- Number seven, VAR-25-54, Washington Township Governmental Facility Use Variance to Chapter 811 is moved
- to number five under new business. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Guy Loftman?
- Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Motion is approved, four to zero.
- I have not had a chance to review the meeting minutes for the August 6th meeting, so I'm going to postpone
- that until our next meeting. I see there's no administrative business. Can you confirm that?
- That is correct. All right. Let's go ahead and jump into our... Oh, sorry. Also, there's no old business.
- Is that also correct? That's right. All right. Let's jump into our new business variants.
- So that one was actually published and advertised as continued before the seven day period. So that
- one is not on the agenda.
- Okay, we will go ahead and move forward to our second item on the printed agenda, which is variance
- 25-52A, B, and C. Yes, and so before we get into introducing this item, I know that the petitioner is
- here tonight and they're going to be asking for continuance. So if the board would like to hear from
- them first. Let's go ahead and
- bring up the petitioner and hear their plea for a continuance. And sir, before you speak, I'm just gonna
- ask you to sign your name and then speak into the microphone telling us your name. Good evening, my
- name is Stephen Donovan.
- All right, gentlemen, can you please raise your right hand? And do you swear that the testimony you
- are about to provide us is the truth as you know it? Yes, sir. All right, go ahead. We'll just give
- you two minutes to request a continuance. OK, I wanted to request a continuance because we've been working
- with the county and they've identified some variances that could go away.
- as long as I get things done between now and the next meeting. And in addition to that, I wanted to
- remedy some other things to improve the chances of keeping my structure between now and then. But that's
- all I had planned to say, but I can talk more on it. Why don't you stay there and we'll see if anyone
- has any questions for the petitioner. All right. Is there a motion to accept?
- with the county. So there's less for us to do. So I appreciate that very much. What's the what's the
- date that you'd like October one and then we have November fifth October one, please. Before you confirm
- that date,
- would probably be less likely moving forward to continue this again. Are you confident that you can
- get your information squared away by then? I just don't want you to
- We'll go with November one. All right, there is a motion to accept his continuance for November the
- first. Do I hear a second? Second. All right, can we run a roll on this? Okay, so this is going to be
- a move to continue to the next two BZA meetings from now. So that will actually be November 5th.
- First Wednesday of the month, November 5th, 2025 at 530. A vote yes is a vote to approve the continuance
- to November 5th. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Pam? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Motion is approved four to
- zero. Fantastic. Thank you. We'll see you back here in a couple of months. Thank you everybody.
- All right, let's move along. That takes care of items one through four. Let's jump into item number
- five. And did you say that five and seven were going to run concurrently? Number seven is taking the
- place of five. Seven is taking the place of five. Thank you for keeping that straight for me. So let's
- jump into number seven, which is variance 25-54.
- Washington township governmental facility use variance to chapter eight one one and I believe that Mr
- Smith from the planning department will take that.
- So this is VAR-25-54 Washington Township. And they are also requesting a continuance. So we thought
- we would have the petitioner come on up and do the same as before. Do we have the petitioner available
- for Washington Township Governmental Facility Use Variance Chapter 811? Thank you. If you wouldn't mind
- also just signing in real quickly for me and speaking your name into the microphone.
- I'm Jerry Ayers. I'm a board member at Washington Township. All right. Well, thank you for being here,
- Mr. Ayers. Could you please raise your right hand as the testimony that you're about to give the truth
- as you know it. I swear. All right. Let's go ahead and give you two minutes to plead your continuance.
- We've been requested by our township attorney that he would like to be president for this meeting and
- he could not make it tonight and wasn't really prepared for it tonight.
- And so he asked that we ask for a continuation until October 1st. October the 1st. All right. Anything
- else you'd like to add? All right. Stick around in case there's any questions. Any motions? I move to
- continue Washington before Washington Township government facility use various to chapter 811 to October
- 1st. I second that.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to continue VAR-25-54, which is the Washington Township variance
- to October 1st, 2025. A vote yes is a vote to continue. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes.
- Skip Daley? Yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Motion is approved, four to zero. The record, I'm sure,
- tech is aware, but just for the record, for any transcript, we are having some challenges with
- the microphones. It seems that there's a bit of a delay. It was about eight or nine seconds before they're
- kicking on. So if that presents any problems, we'll be happy to repeat things onto the record. All right?
- If we push the button before we start to speak, does that seem to help? Who knows? Perhaps.
- All right, so now we're moving to number five. That's correct. On a printed agenda, yes. Number five
- on the printed agenda, variance 25-53, welding front yard setback variance to chapter 805. And Mr. Smith,
- you've won the game again. Thank you.
- Just to repeat, this is a front yard setback to chapter 805, a variance for that. So the purpose is
- to permit an after the fact accessory structure that is intended to be used as storage. So a little
- background on this case is that planning and building departments did receive a property complaint about
- the unpermitted accessory structure that is on the property.
- A site visit was conducted by planning staff on March 14th, 2025, and that confirmed the existence of
- the structure that was placed on the property that it does encroach into the front setback, approximately
- 19 feet. So in this case, it would be approximately six feet from the right of way. The front setback
- is 25 feet. The subject property is
- platted in the Hoosier Aloha Edition South Phase 1, and that is dated January 28, 1991. So the plat
- does clearly delineate a 25-foot building setback line from the dedicated right of way of both Norway
- Drive and Aloha Drive. The petitioner did state that the structure was not on a permanent foundation,
- but due to its size being greater than 200 square feet,
- In this case, it's approximately 450 square feet in size. A building permit is still required. So R-25-732
- is the petitioner's building permit, so they did go ahead and apply for that building permit, and that
- was submitted on July 1st, 2025. So some further background information on this case. An anonymous complaint
- was received regarding the accessory structure.
- When planning staff reached out and discussed it the petitioner did state that they would like to utilize
- the structure To house things like his lawnmower as well as fuel that he would prefer not to keep in
- his existing attached garage That is attached to his primary residence the petitioner also expanded
- the existing driveway on the property that also encroached in the right-of-way and
- which did prompt the highway department to start a separate enforcement case on the property. We would
- note that the property is close to meeting its maximum impervious cover, meaning the structure could
- not be moved without also removing part of the driveway. So based on our calculations, so the maximum
- impervious cover is 5,500 square feet for this property.
- and they are currently at approximately 5,454 square feet. So even if they were to move that structure
- further back, that would put them over their maximum impervious cover unless they remove part of the
- driveway that they added during the course of this structure being placed on the property. The petitioner
- has not stated why the structure cannot be moved back, however, to conform with the building setback line.
- So on the screen, I have a snippet of the Hoosier Aloha Edition South subdivision. I have highlighted
- on the screen the 25-foot building setback line that was platted at the time. And it's lot number 29,
- so that red square indicates the property in question. And then the highlighted area is that setback
- line that was delineated on the plat.
- And this is just a location map to indicate approximately where we are. So this property is off of Norway
- and Aloha Drive, which does derive access from North Smith Pike. And then to the north would be the
- town of Ellensville jurisdiction. As far as the property goes, there's no indication that there's any
- issues with regards to the site itself, so no environmental hazards noted on site. These are just some
- site photos taken by planning staff. And in the center here, that white siding structure, that would
- be the accessory structure in question. That, again, does encroach approximately 19 feet into the 25-foot
- building setback line.
- They corner lot, so they technically do have two front setbacks and then two side setbacks. On the screen
- indicates the petitioners plot plan that was submitted to planning staff as well as the letter that
- was also provided on the petitioners plot plan. The accessory structure is indicated by shed.
- on the screen, so that's just approximately the location of that structure. And I can come back to this
- if need be. But this does lead me into staff's recommendation, which is to deny the front yard setback
- and that reasoning being that practical difficulties have not been demonstrated
- The property is platted within established building setbacks, which are 25 feet from the dedicated right
- of way. The petitioner is requesting an after the fact building permit that was brought to planning
- in the form of a property complaint. Had a building permit been applied for previously, planning would
- have suggested a redesign to avoid any setback issue. And I can take any questions. Just one quick question
- before we bring up the petitioner.
- If I suppose, even if this was approved, do we does the petitioner still need an approval for impervious?
- So if if it were to be approved in its current state, they would not need an impervious cover variance.
- If it was denied and they had to move it back, they would only need an impervious cover variance if
- they didn't also remove the portion of the driveway that was also added.
- Okay, so assuming it's approved, it's completely approved, assuming it's denied and they wish to move
- it within the allowed setback, then they would need to come back here and request another variance.
- Yeah, if they choose. Or remove
- 54, 56 feet, whatever it was. Okay, all right, understood. Let's hold off any other questions to staff
- until we hear from the petitioner. If the petitioner is in the room, question mark? Is the petitioner?
- Is that me? I'm online. It's Richard Bodinger. All right, sounds like the petitioner is online.
- All right, before you start, if we could
- have you state your name for our record. Richard Welding, Jr. Richard L. Welding, Jr. All right. Mr.
- Welding, thank you. Could you please raise your right hand and swear that the testimony you're about
- to give is the truth as you know it? I do. All right, let's go ahead and put 15 minutes on the clock
- and your time is now.
- Okay, so I don't know what you need from me at this point, but I didn't realize that I needed to get
- a permit for the building. I was under the assumption that since it was on skids, it's not a permanent
- foundation, so that I didn't need a permit, and that's my fault. I didn't realize that. The gravel next
- to my cement, the concrete driveway, was already
- partial existent there. I just extended it out to get it underneath the shed itself. And then I understand
- that since it connects to the driveway that I've got to do something there with the highway. I mean,
- as far as that goes, I can remove a section of the gravel that's connected to the sidewalk. Therefore,
- it wouldn't be connected to the road if I need to be. And I'm not
- I'm not sure exactly what I need to do at this point. I've been trying to communicate back and forth.
- I've paid a couple of the fines that I had to pay, the permits. And then now we're here. So I'm just
- not sure what I need to do at this point. And I'm trying to do whatever I need to do to keep the shed.
- It is full. So I would prefer not to move it if all possible.
- Okay, is that all you have for us right now? I think so, unless you need anything else from me, I don't
- know what else I need to tell you. All right, Mr. Weller, why don't you hold tight and we'll hear from
- anyone that would like to speak on this matter from the public. Can we ask questions? You absolutely
- can ask a question. Are you asking staff or the petitioner?
- Yes, I know that neighborhood a little bit. Does that placement of the shed, because it looks six feet
- from the street, has it affected traffic lines and vision? You are on a two-way corner, both of those,
- and it violates it on both sides. So I'm concerned about the safety issue. Can you speak to that?
- Um, it's quite a bit off the side of the road. I measured them about 25 feet from the center line. Uh,
- and I'm about 10 or 15 feet, 10 feet roughly from the back, uh, property line, which is my neighbor
- behind me. And then as far as eyesight, as far as the road, it's, it doesn't impede any vision from
- the road whatsoever.
- Okay. And my second, thank you for that. My second question is it's on skids. So that means it is definitely
- movable. And that also takes care of the issue of the gravel because then that extended area that it's
- on with the gravel would also be removed. So that would be a two winner. How hard is a building on skids
- to move? I would have to,
- I had a guy move it to an easy guy had a big forklift type of machine that took it off the trailer and
- just wielded over there and set it down so. Okay, other than just the expense, I guess. Thank you. Yeah,
- very well. This will often go ahead.
- I have a staff question, and that is the plat has a 25-foot setback. My recollection is we usually don't
- enforce plat setbacks, we enforce ordinance setbacks. And it may be in the packet, but we've talked
- about the plat. Is there a plat setback requirement? I mean, an ordinance setback requirement, or do
- we just adopt plat setback in this case?
- So we recently did a text amendment to allow the flexibility of either using the planet setbacks or
- the zoning setbacks. But my understanding is that this is a 25 foot setback from right away, either
- by plat or by zoning. So it's both. It matches. OK. Because I'm used to hearing the zoning rather than
- the plat. So that was a little confusing to me.
- the what would the side yard set back the at this location. The by the ordinance. We will double check
- and while you're looking at a Mister Smith could you possibly put back the photograph that shows the
- structure. And in any relation to. The road to help alleviate
- the question of visibility in terms of traffic. Is this the image that you were referring to, like an
- aerial image? Does that not help? This one? That one. This one here. All right. It looks like it's on
- the, the property's on the corner, but the structure's on the,
- opposite side of the corner, so I don't know that. And Mr. Loffman, to answer your question, from the
- side yard setback, they could be as close as five feet. Ah, OK. So 19 on one side, five on the other?
- 25 on one and five on the other.
- a 25 foot front yard setback, and then they can be as close as five feet from the side. How close? They're
- six feet. So they're currently approximately six feet from the right of way. So they're encroaching
- 19 feet into the 25 foot setback. But they aren't encroaching at all into the side yard setback. If
- that was what we applied. Correct.
- Does our ordinance say, if it's got frontage on both streets, that you have the 25-yard setback, or
- is that just the plant? It's both. If you have a corner lot, then you have two front. If you have four
- sides and you have
- two front setbacks, then you have two side yards. There's no rear setback. So it would be two fronts
- and then two sides. OK. But the front of the house, their address is Norway. And that's the one that's
- not in the picture. Let me see.
- Okay, I'm looking at the upper left picture in this photo shows the front of the house and there's a
- sidewalk that goes out to Norway. So while it's defined as a front yard, it feels like a side yard.
- If you're living there, I assume you might feel like it's a side yard. Technically, neither by plant
- nor by ordinance is it a side yard.
- But it just gives me a little better understanding of the situation to know how our ordinances interact
- with the plats and how side yard setbacks. And thank you for that clarification. And I have a question
- for staff too. If we required it to be moved, is there a spot legally on this property where it could
- be moved? Do they have enough land that would meet all setbacks, be it of any variety?
- Yeah, so the petitioner didn't provide that information, but just judging by looking at the aerial imagery,
- he could move it further back in what appears to be his backyard. I know it looks like it's fenced in,
- but you could move it further back. I just want to make sure he has an option on that property. Thanks.
- And one more question for staff. The petitioner mentioned
- it being on skids and movable in essence. So how does that weigh in in terms of the ordinance actually
- applying to this structure? So anything that's over 200 square feet or on a permanent foundation requires a permit.
- All right, just wanted that on the record. All right, is there anybody in the audience that would like
- to speak for this petition? Seeing no one, is there anybody online that would like to speak for this
- petition? I don't see anyone, staff, is that true? All right, is there anybody in the audience
- that would like to speak against this petition? Is there anybody online that would like to speak against
- this petition? All right, the bell tells us we're done. Let's... I have one more question for Mr. Welding.
- You have a question for the petition? All right, go ahead. Mr. Welding? Oh, yes, you're online. No wonder
- I can't see you.
- The documents you've provided say that you want this for storage of your lawnmower and gasoline, but
- given its size and my understanding of lawnmowers and gas cans, you must have a lot of stuff in there
- other than just
- the gas and the lawnmower, is that right? Oh, yes, absolutely. I've got a workbench and a drill press
- and I just do a little knickknack working stuff out there and I store my lawn furniture in the winter
- on my cushions and stuff from around the pool. Okay. Umbrellas. Right. Yeah, just storage mainly. Is
- there electricity in the building? No.
- Okay, so the drill press isn't isn't used as a I think you said. No, I it's basically out there storing.
- I gotta carry that over to the garage to run and I can run a. Extension board out there. OK, so if you
- do have power there when you want it, but it's not installed right here. Thank you, that helps me. And
- I've got another question. So the 25.
- I'm going to ask you a question about the foot set back. Is that where does that measure from is that
- from the road edge or the center of the road. It's measured from the from the right away which is going
- to be the back of the sidewalk.
- In essence, you'd have to move it 19 feet back. If you get denied. All right. With that being said,
- you couldn't move that back 19 feet other than getting everything out, moving it by getting a guy in
- with the forklift to move it, and then having to put everything back in. Correct.
- Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So I asked you to really hope that you guys approve this, please. I really I'm
- begging you. Thank you for your time. All right. We appreciate that. Let's go ahead and see if there's
- any deliberation here. I have concerns about
- it violating on two different sides. And that much, you know, it's not six foot encroachments,
- 19 out of 25. So it's the vast majority three times as much. If I were driving, that would distract
- my view. And he has a vehicle, just in that picture, he has a vehicle parked next to it. So you're limited
- in what you can see.
- that people can drive down the middle of the road. Yes, it does happen, I believe. So I have concerns
- about that. I'm very happy it's on skids, it's movable. And it's possible to be relocated elsewhere
- on his property. He doesn't drive to it because it's storing other things. So having it close to the
- road or driveway is not an important factor. So I'm of the mind to,
- deny this request. I've got one more question for staff. I'm a little confused. If he moves it back,
- that increases the impermeable surface because it's an impermeable surface, so he has to fill where
- it's sitting now, he would have to get rid of the gravel. Is that it? Yeah, so what I mentioned earlier
- was that if they do
- move it back, they would also have to remove a portion of the driveway that was also put in without
- a right-of-way activity permit. And I think he told us that he put it there so it could lead up to the
- shed and perhaps even be under the shed. So if he moved it, removing that gravel would make total sense.
- Yes. OK, I got it. Thank you. Even though we're not really here to talk about impervious, it's up to
- him to do it?
- and if not, he'll come back and ask us about it, right? Okay. Okay. Can I make one more comment, please?
- Sure. I'm not the chairman. The road that it is coming off of, the Aloha, I just wanted to mention that
- that is a dead-end road. I don't know if that matters of any, but there's not really traffic down that
- road other than the
- 6 houses that are there on that road but just wanted to point that out. Thank you I thank you for that.
- So the other or discussion. Anyone wish to make a motion.
- I'm going to move that we deny variance 25-53, the welding front yard setback variance to chapter 805.
- I don't think practical difficulties have been shown. And I think the ordinance makes a lot of sense.
- It's both the ordinance and the plat, a twofer. And that subdivision has been there for many years,
- maybe 30 years. It's been a while. It's not newish. So I move to deny. I'll second.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to deny VAR-25-53, which is the welding front yard setback to Chapter
- 805. A vote yes is a vote to deny the variance. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela David? Yes. Skip Daley?
- Unfortunately, what Ms. Davidson said is true. Our hands are kind of tied in terms of
- the burden not being met. So, yes. Aye, Loughman? Okay. It is disapproved or denied by a vote of four
- to zero. Thank you, Mr. Welding. Good luck with that process. And we'll be in touch with you, Mr. Welding,
- to help. Okay. Thank you.
- All right, let's move along on this agenda. We're moving to page, back to page 55, or anyway, we're
- moving to page 55. CDU-25-8, the Kunkel Rural General Contractor Conditional Use to Chapter 811. And
- here we go, Mr. Meyerson.
- So this is the Conditional Use for Rural General Contractor to Chapter 811 at CDU-25-8. It is located
- at 4851 North Kinzer Pike. It's in Bloomington Township, Section 8. It is unplatted and is 19.341 acres.
- The current zoning district is Agricultural Residential 2.5, or AGR for short.
- And the proposed use is a rural general contractor which involves the establishment of a primary residence
- as well as a contracting company by the property owner. Uses in the area include single family residential
- as well as agricultural. And the comprehensive plan has this area designated as farm and forest and
- adjacent areas are also farm and forest or the Monroe County urbanizing area rural transition designation.
- So the petitioner, as I stated,
- is proposing a rural general contractor. And the petitioner intends to live on the petition site and
- is the owner and operator of Genesis Build LLC. Let's see here. There will be proposed outdoor storage
- with respect to the rural general contractor use. The petitioner has stated that they will operate with
- about two to three employees maximum on most days. And the conditional use for rural general contractor
- does require
- to meet Chapter 811-11C. In the report, you'll see that it says 811-11B. That is a typo. It should say
- C. That's the correct code number for this particular chapter and its standards for Rural General Contractor.
- All right, so here on the screen we have the site conditions map as well as the location map. It's right
- along North Kinser Pike with primary access coming from North Kinser Pike. That's where the existing
- driveway is, as well as the primary driveway that the petitioner is planning to use. There was an older
- driveway cut towards the south end of the property that has since been removed, but the property does also have
- frontage along West Bell Road, which is a local road. North Kinzer Pike is noted as a minor collector
- roadway. Here on the screen we have a couple pictures from a site visit. You can see the property marker
- sign there right at the entrance of the driveway. And you can see the level of sight distance that it
- has along North Kinzer Pike. And then turning around looking towards I-69 as the North Kinzer Pike goes
- over the highway there in the distance.
- On the screen now, we have the definition for rural general contractor. I will not read this into the
- record, but it is in the packet and it is on the screen for your review. The big key takeaway for this
- particular use is it's accessory to a primary residence on the same rural property. So there must be
- a primary residence first in order to establish this particular use.
- Okay, now we're gonna go through some of the conditions from Chapter 811-11C. Each of these are also
- detailed in the staff report, and so all this information is in there as well. Basically, each of these
- would be nine items with number nine having A, B, C, and D. The standard is already met by the petitioner
- with respect to the current status of the property.
- or the standard can be met by the petitioner's statements with respect to what they intend to perform
- on the property, as well as a chance for that petitioner to meet those conditions with respect to the
- site plan process, which follows approval of the conditional use. If it were to be approved tonight,
- there is a commercial site plan
- procedure that's evaluated by staff administratively. So we would double check to make sure all of those
- particular standards are met through that process. And if there were any situations where additional
- variances were required, then they would have to come back to this board. So I'm not going to go through
- each of these individually as they are in the packet, but basically they can all be met or are being met.
- So now on the screen we have the letter from the petitioner stating their request as well as The type
- of home that they're going to be building which is a barn style home for personal use to house their
- small contracting business As well as a new outdoor storage area for materials and equipment related
- to the business They provided some conceptual design plans as well within the packet and their application.
- So here is the
- proposed or excuse me, the conceptual site plan. Again, a more robust site plan will be submitted as
- part of the formal procedures to get permits for the construction of the rural general contractor as
- well as the primary residence. So you can see on the screen the right photograph there are on the on
- the right side of the screen. That is just a zoomed in version of the left photograph. And you can see
- here the proposed location of the house as well as the driveway in an outdoor storage area as well.
- Here's some conceptual designs of the pole barn style home as well that will be housing the rural general
- contractor as well. More photos are available in the staff report in the packet. And then these are
- conceptual design plans for the floor plan of the residence and general contracting use.
- All right, so that brings me to staff's recommendation of CDU-25-8. Staff recommends approval due to
- the ability to fulfill the requirements of the conditional use standards subject to county highway engineer
- and stormwater program manager reports. I won't take any questions. Thank you. Let's bring up the petitioner.
- Is the petitioner in the room? Is the petitioner
- online. Going once, going twice. Number six, Kunkel Rural General Contractor. All right, is there anybody
- in the audience or online that wishes to
- support this petition. Is there anybody in the audience or online that wishes to oppose this petition?
- All right, any deliberation? Questions of the staff? Is there anything that prohibits us from approving
- a petition that doesn't have an advocate?
- You can approve it if you find that there's evidence in the record to support your decision. Thank you.
- Well, it's it looks like one of those things where the person there is evidence in the record that all
- the conditions for conditional use have been met. That being the case, I move we approve
- CDU 25-8, Kunkel Rural General Contractor Conditional Use under CHEP to Chapter 811, 11C, and concerning
- the real estate 4851 North Kinzer Pike on the basis that it meets all the conditions set forth in the
- ordinance for conditional use.
- And would that also be subject to county highway engineers from water program manager reports? Yes,
- that any any any reports from that from that body must be adhered to in order to proceed. Great. Do
- we have a second? Sure do. All right, can we get a roll call? OK, it's been moved and seconded to approve
- CDU-25-8, which is the Kunkel Rural General Contractor conditional use. A vote yes is a vote to approve
- Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Sorry. Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Motion
- is approved, four to zero. All right. Let's move along to page 106 in your packets. Number eight on
- the agenda, variance 25-55. Mr. Brown is taking the hot seat.
- Thank you. So this is a use variance to Chapter 811 for the use of general contractor rural. The Planning
- Department received a property complaint about the unpermitted use of a general contractor on the subject
- property. A use determination filed by the petitioner after a cease and desist enforcement letter was
- sent identified that this would be a general contractor rural use.
- The current zoning of this property, however, would not permit a general contractor rural use, and thus
- to establish said use, the petitioner would now need to receive either a rezone or a variance. However,
- the general contractor rural use is only permitted in the zones of Agriculture Residential 2.5, Conservation
- Residential 2.5, and Forest Residential 5.
- and this property does not meet many of the design standards for any of those three zones, particularly
- in regards to lot size. They also, however, do not meet fully the standards for the general contractor
- rural use. So a site visit also confirms that a considerable amount of gravel has also been placed on
- site, so an after-the-fact grading permit will be required, and the community
- Development Residential District's design standards, such as its previous cover, will need to be checked
- as they've likely been exceeded by the amount of gravel placed by the petitioner. In addition, the petitioner
- has placed a second driveway on the property without a right-of-way activity permit, which allows driveways
- to be established. The petitioner has applied for a permit, RW-25-201,
- However, Monroe County code stipulates only one driveway per legal lot of record. And as of this morning,
- RW-25-201 has been rejected by the highway department, meaning the petitioner will be required to remove
- that second driveway or it will become an enforcement issue. And here are the standards for Chapter
- 811-11C, which applies to this use.
- I won't be going through every one of these, but the following either cannot be met by the petitioner
- or need to be clarified during his testimony at this meeting. One, the site must have a minimum lot
- size of two and a half acres. This condition cannot be met. The property is only 0.607 acres.
- Number four, employees of the
- A business living off-site may park at the residential location provided there is sufficient off-street
- parking to fully accommodate the employees and that they meet a parking setback of 50 feet. The number
- of employees who live off-site and may park at the business location is limited to five total. The petitioner
- has said that there is only one employee there under use determination.
- However, the Facebook page for this business indicated that the petitioner was looking to hire two full-time
- employees as of March of this year. On two separate site visits, multiple vehicles were parked on the
- property in the rear and eastern property lines. The petitioner should confirm this during their testimony.
- Number six.
- Any building used in connection with the general contractor use shall be located at least 35 feet from
- the rear and side property lines. This standard is not met for the detached garage which may be used
- in connection with storage of equipment and materials for this business since it is 19.5 feet from the
- northern property line according to GIS Beacon.
- On a site visit, there was a sign for the business posted above the detached garage door indicating
- that it was used for the business. The petitioner should confirm this fact during their testimony. Number
- seven, no permanent advertising signs are permitted on the residential property. This condition could
- be met. There are no
- signs located on the property currently. However, there was a sign on the detached garage as of a site
- inspection for the enforcement case on June 26, 2025. Petitioner is to confirm the standard will be
- met going forward. And finally, number eight, hours of operation shall be between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. The
- petitioner is to confirm the hours of operation.
- And here are some images of the property as it stands right now. The image on the left shows the property,
- the main house, and the detached garage that was covered under number six. And on the right, you can
- see the gravel lots, that a considerable amount of gravel has been placed in the backyard. Same with
- the image on the left here, and in the back there, indicated by my mouse,
- you can see the bit of the gravel drive, that second gravel drive that was put in. And the image on
- the right shows the same. And here is the table. And here is, on the left, the table of permitted land
- uses. As you can see, general contractor rule is only a conditional use in the AGR, FOR, and CVR zoning
- districts. And on the right is a list of the uses, primary, conditional, and accessory
- that are allowed in this zoning district. And here is the petitioner letter and the petitioner submitted
- site plan. And so staff recommends denial of the general contractor role use variance request as the
- petitioner has not proven that they are faced with unnecessary hardship by utilizing the property for
- another permitted use in the CDO zoning district, such as single family residential.
- Let's hold off on questions of staff until we hear from the petitioner. Is the petitioner in the room?
- Okay. Come on up. And when you come on up, please make sure three things. One, that you adjust the microphone
- properly, that you sign your name, and then speak your name for the record.
- John McArdle. Right, Mr. McArdle. Could you please raise your right hand and swear to tell us that...
- Swear to tell that... Confirm that you are about to provide testimony that is the truth as you know
- it. Confirmed, yes. Thank you. All right. We're going to give you 15 minutes. Hopefully, during your
- testimony, you will
- specifically address those six or eight concerns that Mr. Brown had? Yeah, that would be great. First,
- I'd like to just apologize. It seems like there's quite a few people here addressing this issue. So
- I'm very sorry that you've spent your time just kind of pursuing. I was not probably
- doing what I should, I guess, by just assuming that there weren't zones or anything like that. But I
- am motivated to resolve however means necessary. I didn't mean to be deceptive in any way regarding
- employees.
- I really only need one full-time person right now. We get a lot of business inquiries, so I know the
- business has a lot of potential to grow, but I'm still learning a lot in business. This being one of
- them, one of the main things I've kind of been doing this year was getting a shop that could adequately
- allow my business to grow. So that's the goal.
- I believe I can meet the parking requirements. I believe I can meet the 40% gravel covered or non-pervious
- ground. That's not going to be very hard. I've put a lot of money into
- the gravel and the trees lining the gravel so that no one would have to see any equipment. And I've
- put a lot of time into it. So in a perfect world, I'd get to keep it, but we don't live in that. So
- that's okay. I just would like to do everything I can. You know, I removed all the
- The second driveway, you know, whatever has to happen has to happen. I'm willing to apply for more permits
- and I have applied for another right of way permit. I believe there's another permit that I had to apply
- for and I have done that. I've done everything I can so far.
- In the case that things do need to get removed, all I ask is for adequate time because it was really
- expensive getting and spreading all of that. And it's going to be really expensive to try to like remove.
- And so a little bit of leniency as far as time would go would allow me to best execute
- a financially feasible plan for myself, which would involve working with others, I'm sure. There was
- a long list. If there was a way I could see that, if we could pull that slide up, possibly.
- Yeah, there's an earlier page, I think. Am I right? Yeah. We can read you the ones that are...
- I don't see any actual questions on that page. The questions you raised, he's told us he's removed the
- sign, and that was one of the outstanding issues. But there were several others that you said he should
- comment on this in his testimony. That list. Yes. So one of them I know that he's already commented
- on regarding whether or not he only has one employee. Yes.
- The other one was the two more were related to the sign. And the final one was to confirm the hours
- of operation for the general contracting service. So I kind of just work a lot personally. So if the
- business is getting a call, I usually just take it. But sometimes I can't because I'm always trying
- to get things done as well. But people would
- It's very uncommon that anyone's working past like 6 p.m. I put seven on there just to cover my bases.
- Can you tell us your exact line of work? General contracting, but that can mean a whole lot of things.
- It's primarily lawn mowing actually, but landscaping is kind of what I'm trying to dive a little bit
- more into. So like,
- For example, what I learned this year was how to do a gravel driveway effectively. You know, I did it
- the ineffective way. So I've been doing some trial and error, you know, with family over the years to
- kind of learn things. And so, yeah.
- May I ask, I know you use the facility to store your lawn service equipment. How many items and do you
- have to trailer those in and out of that area? Is that why you made the driveway so spacious? So there's
- not a crazy amount of stuff in there. I mean, I guess I do have
- I mean, it looks like I have a lawn mowing company, because I've got seven different string trimmer
- type tools and trimmers. And then I've got three chainsaws in there. And then I keep another chainsaw
- in the truck. I've got a saw, and then I've got just a skill saw that a homeowner might have, that type of thing.
- 12 of those. Do you have mowing equipment? Yes. I have like gas cans in there too. I'm sorry. Also like...
- Because those are large. They're not super big. I have like three five gallon gas cans in there and
- then like... Gas cans. They're empty. It's just I didn't want to throw them away because it's wasteful,
- but in case I ever need them.
- I think that Ms. Davidson meant that the lawn mowing equipment is probably large, right? Right, the
- actual mowers. How many of those do you have? Big riding mowers. I have two big riding lawn mowers.
- Okay, that's what I really wanted to know. Thank you. Sorry, I didn't realize that's what you were asking.
- I don't keep those in the shed. I usually leave those on the trailer during the working season, but
- that's something that could easily be adjusted as well.
- And is the trailer parked on this property? Correct. Yes. Okay. We've kind of adjusted to. Okay.
- Is your, Mr. McArdle, is your sole testimony at this point done and you're welcome to some questions.
- Is that where we are? Correct. All right. We can go ahead and cut the time. Mr. Lofman.
- Lights on. Okay. There we go. Staff question. I'm looking, I happen to have the staff report and I'm
- looking at the definition of general contractor, which covers a multitude of things as Mr. Daley says,
- but including landscaping
- tree service, electrical faming, et cetera, et cetera. If you're doing lawn care, you need, lawn care
- and landscaping to me are different. Landscaping means you're going in typically with equipment. Lawn
- care can certainly mean some chainsaw work because you've got to get rid of fallen branches and things
- like that.
- If this business didn't expand into more general contracting than lawn care, would the petitioner need
- a general contractor rural permit?
- Unfortunately, under the ordinance right now, all we have besides rural general contractor is home based
- business or home occupation. Those have been revised over time to pertain to business activity that
- occurs only at the house or in one accessory structure. So we've lumped in lawn care with
- a rural general contractor largely because in the county we do see people have multiple riding lawn
- mowers and trailers and other things that take up quite a bit of space and usually necessitate outdoor
- storage. So it is required that they get a rural general contractor use for this. Could he? Even though
- landscaping to me is different from lawn care, you treat
- lawn care as landscaping because it doesn't meet home occupation standards. So it falls in the cracks,
- and we enforce against it. Let me ask the petitioner a question. Mr. McArdle, and I don't even know
- because there's a lot of moving parts to this whole situation, but
- It might be, and I don't know if it is, but I'm exploring here. If you said, this is not a big enough
- place to run a landscaping business, but I would like to continue running my lawn care business out
- of this location, is that something that would work for you? Absolutely.
- That's the only business that I've consistently had since day one. So my efforts this year and last
- year have been more towards trying to grow that side of the company. But really just one truck one trailer
- and two lawnmowers is all of.
- that my business is or could be at that location. It would be really easy for me to move any excess
- equipment and then start a different LLC. And then honestly, I would probably just keep saving until
- I could purchase something that I could put a barn on and
- move everything to in the next five years, probably, but could be a lot sooner than that, if necessary.
- Mr. McArdle, do you live on site? Right. I have a question, Mr. McArdle. You mentioned a minute ago
- that you only need one employee right now, but how many employees do you currently have? So I have one.
- And then today I had a new guy start. We'll see. So you've got two employees plus yourself right now.
- I do, but I'm only booked until the end of this week as far as landscaping goes. And I've never been
- booked this far into the fall for landscaping. So.
- the new guy that I hired, he knows that he doesn't have any expectation for more work than what I can
- give him right now. Thank you. Thank you. About a certain kind of license or permit to be a rural contractor.
- He would be permitted, wouldn't he?
- to the side shed or whatever storage shed he has with the two lawnmowers and he's got the trailer parked
- outside. He said he put the lawnmowers inside the trailer or at least one of them for sure.
- He would be permitted on that property to store those items without a sign. He's not really operating
- a business out of that property. He is just storing things he uses in his business. And because he lives
- there, it's a secure and rent-free location. He's already told us he's willing to take out some of the
- gravel, because that's definitely a problem. But my question is, could he just store them there
- all rules. I definitely think we get into a gray area with general contractors.
- When people have equipment that they use both personally and for their business, that's an
- easier justification to say that that can stay on the property. But if there's a trailer there, let's
- say that's strictly for business use and comes in and out of the property just through business hours,
- that's not really a personal use item. So, and especially if it's stored outside, it tends to attract
- attention and we get a complaint.
- And may I say to you, sir, that our concern is that the variance runs with the land. It's not you. It's
- not your business. It's not how you operate. It then can be passed down to successive people. So we
- have to be very mindful of that fact. I just wanted to mention that. Thank you. OK, let's go ahead and have you
- Take a seat for a moment, and we'll bring you back up if we need you. Thank you. All right, thank you.
- Is there anybody here in the audience or online that wishes to speak on behalf of the petitioner? Seeing
- no one, is there anyone in the room that wishes to speak against this petition? OK, I see a couple of
- hands. The gentleman.
- Your hand came up first, why don't you come up. When you get up to the microphone, if you could adjust
- that, write your name down on the sign-in sheet and speak your name into the microphone, please, for
- the record. Do you need me to sign the form, sir? There should be a sheet there, yes.
- So, I certainly. Okay, if you could state your name for the record, please. My name is Doug Thomas.
- Could you raise your Mr. Thomas, raise your hand and do you swear to tell the truth as you know it for
- your testimony? I do, yes. Fantastic. All right. We're going to give you three minutes. Sure. Just to
- really keep it simple, my first concern here with allowing a business to operate in this neighborhood
- is where do you draw the line? You are establishing a precedent
- for others to move forward with similar applications. I have several hundred thousand dollars invested
- in my property and I've lived in that neighborhood for 11 years. The use is not permitted by your standards
- and that has been represented to me by the staff. We have clearly have a
- an issue with the zoning. And as I mentioned, precedent. I also have concerns about traffic. There's
- a lot of children that board buses up and down that street. One would also have concerns in a general
- contracting business. You may arrive or plan to arrive at your determined job site location at 8 or 9 a.m.
- in the morning. However, employees will arrive at the shop
- or at the business location, much earlier that to load trucks, prep machinery, perform maintenance,
- things that would be an externality to residents who have purchased homes and plan to peacefully occupy
- those residences. And though I commend an individual for starting a business and wanting to grow a business
- in any community, this was a bad decision.
- And there should have been some due diligence performed by that individual before making that decision.
- At the time that staff placed the public notice sign on the property to notify individuals such as myself
- that this was being attempted, the sign was moved back up near the home, a good 25 feet from the street
- and hidden behind a tree.
- And I felt that that was a bit deceptive. And I think about an individual standing here today saying
- that, yes, I've started this business, I'm growing the business, but I've only got one employee. What
- about a year from now? Is it eight employees? That can't really be controlled, though once this would
- be approved potentially,
- there is a lot of control that is lost by the neighbors. And I would ask that the council take that
- into consideration. I would also have the council take into consideration about the precedent of what
- potentially may be proposed in the future in this neighborhood. And as it would affect property owners
- such as myself, my personal residence is valued at over $800,000. And I don't expect to have people
- starting businesses next door to my home. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. So that's all I had to say, really.
- I could have went on, but I did. Thank you. All right. Is there anybody else in the audience? There's
- a young lady. And the same rules will apply if you could adjust the microphone.
- properly. Speak your name into the microphone for the record. Sign in while you're accomplishing that,
- and we'll offer you three minutes. Good evening. My name is Susan Graves. I'm a local railter. I have
- some concerns about this. Hang on one second, Mr. Graves. Oh, will you sign in? If you could sign in,
- please, and then I'll have to do a little oath here.
- You can raise your right hand after you sign in for me. And do you swear the testimony you're about
- to provide is the truth as you know it? All right, Ms. Graves, it's all you. Okay, I made a few notes
- and I've also got a few pictures. I do want to say that I stopped, I travel that way all the time. My
- sister lives back that direction. We have numerous properties over the years that we've sold. So we
- know that market well. And there's a wide variety of price points in there.
- Some of them are even up to 1.3, 1.4 million. There's such a variety of prices the farther you go back.
- Kathy tried to count the number of lots from the point of this on back that would be the main thoroughfare
- that many people would use. And it's 208 or 209 total parcels back through there that have people living
- in the majority of them. There's a few vacant lots. But just to give you a feel for how much traffic
- goes along there,
- Another concern is that right at that spot where that house is, there's a little blip upwards with the
- road. So that's an additional concern. It's not his problem, but it's not always easy to see what's
- coming and going right there. I took some pictures and I did stop by there to talk with him for a few
- minutes. I saw him yesterday afternoon walking from
- the garage to the house and I just thought I'll just I just want to introduce myself and see if he's
- got some insight that I don't know anything about. I can only see what I can see from the road and so
- I got several pictures. There have been very large pieces of equipment. I was very concerned with that
- blip in the road itself with taking and creating a new driveway that is
- wider than the initial driveway made of gravel on the opposite end with stacked stacked stones. It looks
- very nice but from a user standpoint that'll then allows a person to pull a very large piece of equipment
- all back through there around behind the house and then come back up the other side. You'll be able
- to see from some of the pictures I never got on the property at all but I've continued to watch because
- I have serious concern about
- the safety for people, first off. And then secondly, if it's going to become just flat out a business,
- it's not got that classification currently. And I don't think that we need to change that. It was a
- single couple that lived there for many years, an elderly couple that kept it up very nicely. That's
- some of my main comments with it.
- I've got pictures and if anybody has questions of me or my concerns with it, I just think it's a big
- mistake to allow that to go on at that location. It's not, there was some talk that it may even become,
- that it may become commercial and it's crazy. Thank you, your time is up. One moment, stay there for
- a moment. Mr. Schilling, point of order.
- It's unusual for those either objecting or approving to bring evidence into the matter. Is that something
- which is allowed in what's the formal procedure? Do we have to allow the petitioner to see it first?
- Yes, I think it's appropriate for people to bring pictures and evidence. That's what a hearing is for.
- But it's only fair to allow the petitioner to review and respond to that. And if the petitioner needs
- more time to do so, they can always ask for that. You want me to provide him a set of the pictures that
- I took? Do you have a copy for him?
- I've got a copy for anybody that wants, well, I've got about three copies. All right, if you go to,
- if we're gonna review it, then I'm going to insist that you show him one copy and then you can, you
- have permission to approach as well with two copies. Mr. McArdle. All right, thank you, Mr. Graves.
- We will see if there's anybody else, yes.
- if you would please approach, and all the same rules. Did you guys get a copy of the picture? She's
- approaching now. She has permission to. And if you could sign in, speak your name, and adjust the microphone,
- please, and make sure you're speaking into it so we can...
- Hi, I'm Kathy Stahl-Smith. Susan and I are sisters. One moment. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I have you
- raised your right hand. Could you swear that the testimony you're about to provide us is the truth as
- you know it? Yes, it is. Thank you. Three minutes starting now. OK, so Susan Graves and I, we are sisters.
- I live back in Muir Field, which is accessible by going through Shelburne.
- I'm the one that counted the residences, and there's about 209 lots. There's also an 11-acre parcel
- which could possibly be developed at some point. There's a lot of traffic that goes in and out of there.
- There's a lot of buses.
- There's walkers, there's not sidewalks that are along that section. That's an older section of town
- that starts off. There is a hill as you go to, if you ask the highway department, they have to sand
- that hill or salt that hill all the time. And just hope that no one has a wreck. I've seen several wrecks
- there. And it's just, it's not, this is the second, I don't think it's really been stressed, but this
- is the second driveway
- or the second property when you go to turn in off Arlington Road. So you've got traffic that's coming
- off the highway, that's coming down there to turn in. You've got traffic that's coming from downtown
- that's turning in. And most of those are going, I don't know, 20 miles an hour. I mean, it's not safe
- for someone to be
- pulling out and that sort of thing, and someone will get hit. I know that whenever he first did the
- driveway, he waited a while before he finished the wall, then he finished the wall, and within a couple
- days, it looked like that either some of his people had hit the wall, so then he made it a little wider.
- But it's very unfortunate because I do feel for him, but you can't just buy a property and think,
- and think that you're gonna make a business out of it if it doesn't allow that. Also, I'd like to say
- that the first sign that went up in the yard, and I've got a picture of it, it said integrity tree removal.
- I don't know what the one on the garage door said, didn't try to get a picture, but there was also one
- on the garage door. And I have reason to believe, I mean, there's been all kinds of big equipment, there's been
- One weekend, I think there was a trailer that had tree limbs and stuff, probably because he couldn't
- get rid of it at that point, that was parked in front of the garage. So it's not exactly just a lawn
- mowing service. He is wanting to get into landscaping. He's done a nice job as far as landscaping. He's
- added to the front, but he's also,
- just taking carte blanche that he would be able to do this business, and it is not a safe location to
- do the business. It's not, I'm sorry, but it's not. I travel that way several times a day. If you've
- got 208 houses back there and you have more than one driver in each house, I probably have at least
- four trips a day that I come, well, it would be eight. I probably go that way about eight times a day.
- So it really just is not, it's not a safe location.
- And I don't think it's being illustrated like what it really is being used as. Thank you for your time
- and your words. Okay, thanks. All right, is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak
- on this behalf? Anybody online that wishes to speak in opposition to this petition? I'm seeing no one.
- Can you confirm that?
- All right. Well, the board is open for deliberations. Well, I have some doubt about whether landscaping
- falls within this, but this is not seeking a landscaping. This is seeking a general contractor. And
- there's evidence, substantial evidence. Tree removal is, I think, expressly
- in that definition, and it's way too small. So you can't put this use on that property. I sympathize
- with Mr. McCardell, and I know he's just trying to do what you'd think you'd be allowed to do if you
- don't pay attention to zoning, but you gotta pay attention to zoning.
- And so, I move. Well, let's hold on if we're at the point of a motion. Let's offer Mr. McArdle
- the opportunity. Excellent point. Thank you. Let's offer Mr. McArdle the opportunity to come up. There's
- been some folks that have spoken in opposition. We'll give you five minutes to address that which was
- spoken against your
- movement here. Thank you. Regarding this placement of the sign, when I got the sign, I was thinking,
- it's really ugly. And then I was like, where do I even put a sign like this? I've never seen one. So
- I just kind of put it up where it was like visible from the road. All I knew is it had to be visible
- from the road. So it was visible from the road at least like halfway up the drive.
- Um, and the tree is like really small that had like a little limb that was near it. Um, so I apologize
- for that. We did move the sign. Um, yeah. Um, if, uh, if, if there's anything I can do as far as,
- you know, fully hiding all of the contracting use and then
- perhaps making up for this in some other way. I don't know how. I love planting trees. I think that's
- pretty great. But I would be open for any of that. I don't believe it's an eyesore or a safety issue.
- All right, thank you. Does the board have
- Any other questions for Mr. McArdle while he's here? Yeah, I have one. Is your website for your business
- integrity lawns and landscaping.com? Yes. Okay, thank you. Our deliberations. And we don't have to worry
- at all about that driveway. You've already told us that's a highway enforcement issue and he knows all
- about that. So we're only worried about that.
- All right, I'm sympathetic with Mr. Laughman's view on this. It's just too small. We had a home-based
- business a few months ago that we denied, size, traffic, all the very same issues. So are you making
- a motion, Mr. Laughman? Well, I was expressing a tendency to make a motion. I think you could. I move.
- to deny variance 25-55 McCardle General Contractor Rural Use Variance to Chapter 811 for 4410 North
- Shelburne Drive in Bloomington, Indiana in Monroe County on the grounds that it fails to meet
- the standards for general contractor on numerous bases, the most glaring of which is the property is
- way too small. And it is a established residential neighborhood inappropriate for a general contractor
- use. I'm going to second that.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to deny VAR-25-55, McArdle General Contractor Rural Use Variance.
- A vote yes is a vote to deny. Skip Daly. Along with my vote, I would like to state it's pretty obvious
- that our hands are 100% tied, that the hardship is absolutely not met.
- With that being said, in the past the board has requested of staff that they work with the petitioner
- in terms of a transition. The petitioner was sincere, in my opinion, and is willing and wants to do
- the right thing from what I gathered.
- So it is my request that while I do vote yes in denial for this, that the staff goes out of their way
- to help Mr. McArdle on this transition and to be available to him moving forward for doing the right
- thing in a property that is appropriate. Yes. Guy Lofman. Jeff Morris. Yes.
- Pamela Davidson? Yes. Okay. It is denied by a vote of four to zero. Thank you. Sorry, Mr. McArdle. Please
- work with staff moving forward and they'll try to get the right thing accomplished for you. All right.
- Our next variance petition is number nine.
- Number nine, number nine, page 120. Variance 25-56, the Clark Maximum Impervious Cover Variance to Chapter
- 805. Ms. Cresselius, thank you for taking away the microphone.
- just one moment, do a quick refresh. Okay, thank you. As you said, Clark maximum impervious cover variance
- to chapter 805. So this variance request petition site is located within Van Buren Township section
- three. This is within a platted subdivision. It is Van Buren Park first edition lot 68. It's a 0.36
- acre property.
- The property is zoned Community Development Residential and is fully surrounded by the same zoning acronym
- CD. So the petitioner is requesting a design standard variance to the maximum pervious cover requirement
- of Chapter 805 for the petition site. It's 3501 West Farrington Drive. The site is developed with a
- single-family residential home. So the property... Oh, I'm not sharing.
- So the Monroe County Building Department received a complaint for construction without a permit. The
- petitioners did construct a 30 by 30 detached accessory structure without a building permit or an improvement
- location permit through the Planning Department. So on-screen is the site conditions map. The new accessory
- structure is located on the south of the existing home.
- The building department posted a stop work order and the petitioners did go ahead and apply for an after
- the fact building permit. They did add a second driveway off of West Farrington Drive in order to access
- the property. They have stated that they intend to remove the prior driveway access point and a portion
- of the original parking area, and I have an illustration of that in a moment.
- Regarding the new driveway, they did apply for a new right of way activity permit through the highway
- department and have stated that they intend to remove the original drive access.
- So upon review of the building permit, the zoning inspector did identify that the impervious cover exceeds
- the amount allowed under Chapter 805. The property is within a critical watershed, so that's the Clear
- Creek watershed. So Chapter 805 would allow for 50% of the lot or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less.
- So the site before development of the accessory structure without permits was already at for approximately
- 4,700 square feet with the additional accessory structure and the additional parking area for the accessory
- structure. We are right at around 6,400 square feet of impervious cover.
- So we've seen it before, but we don't have any tonight. So I will go ahead and remind everyone that
- impervious cover is a surface material through which water cannot pass or through which water passes
- with difficulty. Included in that calculation is any developed surface that either prevents or significantly
- slows the infiltration of water into the ground compared to the manner that such water entered the ground
- prior to development.
- or which causes water to run off in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow than that present
- prior to development. So impervious surfaces shall include without limitation, rooftops, gravel areas,
- excluding landscape applications, pervious pavers, asphalt, concrete, private roads, driveways,
- gravel areas, patio, decks, et cetera.
- So on screen, since this was a more recent addition, we don't have aerial imagery that reflects the
- new structure, but I do have images of that. So on screen is the site plan that I created with
- the petitioners. So highlighted in red are the areas that they wish to stay. So the new accessory structure
- is located on, looking on the screen at the map.
- is located on the right. It also has a new gravel area and shows the new driveway. They would like to
- keep the gravel area that's on the west side of the existing home, but remove a little bit of driveway
- and concrete and then remove the driveway that is outside of their property. So they do have a right-of-way
- activity permit with the highway department for that work.
- driveway entrance is a safe location. They could remove that old driveway. Planning does not count the
- impervious cover that's outside of their property boundaries. So we're just looking at what's inside
- what's highlighted the yellow property boundary. So on screen are a few site photos. So this is the
- looking at the single-family dwelling and the existing driveway. So they had expanded that into a gravel
- area some years ago. They are wanting to keep this gravel area, but remove basically the concrete that
- connects the driveway to the sidewalk to Farrington Drive. And then we're looking at the east side of
- the property. This is the new accessory structure on the left side of the photo with the new driveway
- entrance, which would become
- the main primary drive. So staff is, you know, after reviewing this petition, we did note that if they
- removed, the petitioners did not necessarily address how they would be accessing that existing parking
- area once they remove the original driveway.
- That was not addressed. If they removed that area, this site would be back under the allowed 5,000 square
- feet of impervious cover. It would be down under 4,400 approximately square feet. So this is an illustration
- of an option that could be available to them if they were willing to remove that existing parking area
- that they like to keep, that they'd be moving the driveway for.
- So on screen is the petitioner's letter to the BZA. So staff is recommending denial of the variance
- request as the petitioner's been unable to satisfy the standards for the design standards approval.
- So they could remove the original 2000 plus or minus square feet of that original parking and meet the
- maximum pervious cover standard of chapter 805, and it would remove the need for a variance. The petitioner's
- unable to approve
- practical difficulties, specifically Part C of the definition that states a significant development
- limitation that cannot be reasonably addressed through the redesign or relocation of the development
- building structure existing or proposed. Does anybody have any questions? Thank you, Ms. Krasilis. Let's
- go ahead and bring up the petitioner or the petitioner's representative.
- As you make your way to the podium, I'll need both of you to sign in if you're both going to speak and
- just make sure when you are speaking that you adjust the microphone so we can hear you. And we'll need
- each of you to sign in and speak your name into the mic. Carolyn Clark.
- I'm Rodney Clark. All right. Both Clarks, please raise your right hand for me. All right. Do you swear
- to tell the truth as you know it for your testimony? Fantastic. Both affirmative. We're going to have
- a combined 15 minutes for the two of you to speak. Just make sure you bend that microphone so we can
- hear you. Hello, everyone. So yeah, we're just we're both in our late 60s and we
- As you've seen in the picture, there was an old 56 Chevy Bel Air. And so we bought a couple of old cars,
- and we're just wanting to go to car shows and stuff like that. So we want to put our cars in the garage
- and have a decent driveway. We finally got our house paid off after 30 years. But 69, one of the biggest
- reasons why we need
- driveways, 69 come in a few years ago and basically that area is one way in and one way out anymore.
- It used to be that cars, you wouldn't see 10, 15 cars all day. Now you see just, I don't know, 30 cars
- just flying by there constantly. And so it's hard to park on that. If you look, that house is on a corner.
- it's called a corner lot. And there's just cars just constantly and you can sit on the front porch and
- they'd come down through there 35, 40 miles an hour sometime. We also have been sleep at night and have
- woke up and there's cars running and hitting trees and different stuff like that. And we, last year
- we went on vacation to Texas to see our grandkids and we come back and we noticed the neighbor's car
- was all up in their yard and everything with somebody, I don't, they drive like,
- down through there, like they're on Tap Road. And they had hit that car and that car hit another neighbor's
- car. So I don't allow my friends and my kids when they come to park there. So we have to have extra
- parking spaces because it is so dangerous. I'd rather, to be honest, I like to see them put speed bumps
- down through there.
- I don't know if that'll happen or not, but like I said, we're just in our 60s and we're just trying
- to enjoy the rest of our lives and she's already retired and I'm working towards that retirement and
- that's it. So if there is a need that we need to, we definitely are going to take out our old driveway.
- And if there is a need that we have to take out the gravel and put grass there, our plan was for the,
- when we take out the oak driveway, there will be grass again. And so if we have to take out the gravel
- part, we do plan on planting grass there also. So if that's what we need to do so we could have our
- driveway, we're more than willing to do that. So.
- But we also, where you see the gravel, we do have a, we went out and bought a 40 foot camper so we can
- enjoy that part of our life too. But we do park the camper in that gravel area right there. Could you
- just make sure you're speaking into the microphone so it's picking up? Thanks. We bought a 40 foot camper
- and so it's,
- I don't know if it was in the picture or not, but if we need to get rid of some of that gravel and make
- that gravel neural so that I can still have, be in mind that that camper is pretty big. So when you're
- backing it in there, you know, but I mean, we can make some of that grass area as well as getting rid
- of the old driveway that's originally there. There was a concrete driveway that's there now.
- and getting rid of it and putting grass. Please. Staff, if they remove that old driveway they're talking
- about, the concrete driveway, will that satisfy the impervious cover percentage? So the way that they
- had expressed their original plans is that
- would be removed, but that they would keep the parking, say, on screen where the white truck is, and
- then kind of a little bit of buffer, maybe new grass, but then they'd keep the majority of that gravel.
- So that was the original idea. So if they're willing to take out more. Well, Mr. Cacillus, what would
- they, do you have in there,
- What they would need to remove of the gravel or gravel and or driveway and replace with grass or some
- kind of gardening. So on screen I have the blue area shaded is 2000 square feet. And that puts them
- under five. The 5000 limit.
- So they they maybe could have a wiggle room of a gravel pad in there that could maybe be 600 square
- feet and we'd certainly be happy to work with them. All right well. And safely keep it off the road
- so you can work with them to accommodate because.
- They've talked about having enough gravel to park that safely, back it up so it's not over the sidewalk.
- So that's going to be a concern as well. And those, you said you have two antique cars? I do. I have
- that 56 Chevy and I have a 63 Chevy Impala. Oh, it's very pretty. You have to store those inside. There's
- just no doubt about that. But we're really talking about the driveway and the gravel, not the building.
- It's not the building.
- The building, the new building and the new parking push it far over the edge. Well, I thought I heard
- in your testimony that you were willing to, and by the way, we can go ahead and shut off the clock on
- this. I thought I heard in your testimony that you were willing to remove the stuff that is in blue
- on the screen up there. Is that correct?
- Yes, if that's what we need to do in order to, um, um, re satisfy the code. Yes. Yes. All right. Um,
- and that will eliminate the need for variance. It wouldn't. Well, you have a variance request up here. Let's
- move forward. You still had some time left. Was there anything else that you would like to address at
- this point? All right. Why don't you guys have a seat close here. We'll call you back up in a moment
- if we have questions. Is there anybody in the audience or online that wishes to speak on behalf of this
- petition? Is there
- Anybody in the room or online that wishes to speak in opposition to this petition? All right, I'm seeing
- no one. Is there any deliberation or questions of staff at this time? If we have any questions
- for petitioners, we can bring them up. It seems to me that we're in the territory of satisfy impervious
- cover because they're willing to,
- to remove a portion, and staff is willing to work with them to make sure the numbers all work out, so
- I think we can have a happy marriage. Well, in order for that to happen, we would first have to deny
- the petition. Perhaps there's reason to believe that somebody on this table would be willing to defend
- approving it.
- deliberation here. Well, it seems they don't meet the standards for impervious service. And that's a
- pretty important thing. And they're well over it, but they can. So I'm
- I don't see approving the request as it stands. At that point, let me consult with staff real quick.
- Is there any benefit one way or the other to withdrawing versus having a denial on the record?
- I mean, if they withdraw, then it's just an, either way, we're following up to make sure the work is
- done. So there's no pro or con for their case, future, does that the next thing? I think a move to deny
- would be a clear record, but. Okay.
- All right, I don't know if we have any motions one way or the other. If we deny it, they cannot reapply
- within a year. Is that right? It's the same proposal. But I also think to withdraw it would have to
- come from the petitioner, which they have not requested to withdraw. They've just stated that they could
- do what staff is saying. I understand. I was going to.
- one of the things we could do or is one of the things we could do to deny it, but ask staff to work
- with them to delay any enforcement action until they've had ample opportunity to work with you all toward
- a mutually acceptable compliance plan.
- We will continue to work with them on the compliance pathway. I think they have to comply with both
- highway by removing that driveway, thereby making that gravel area somewhat inaccessible from the road.
- They would have to pull through the other driveway that's now permitted through the front of their yard
- to get over to the gravel. So we would work with them if we wanted to get right at that 5,000 square
- feet somewhere else, we could work with them. Thank you.
- So where does that leave us with the variance request? We need a motion. If we deny it, you're still
- going to work with them. And if we approve it, you're not going to work with them. Well, they're out
- of the picture. They don't need to work with them. Either which way you're going to work with them,
- right? It seems like it. If you approve the variance request,
- and they are still required to remove that front portion of the driveway by highway. I think that one
- of the concerns will be that highway would then still have a possible issue moving forward because they
- could get a complaint that people are pulling up over the sidewalk and into that gravel area, even though
- there's not specifically a driveway connector piece between their property and Farrington. Sounds like
- we have to deny it.
- So you could still work with them. We will work with them either way. Either way. There we are again.
- It's confusing. Not certain our approval or denial of this petition is has any contingency on whether
- or not the staff is going to move forward to.
- assist in the matter. But we do need to, if there is someone with a motion or a further deliverance.
- They could legally say we, we, we,
- can keep things the way they are. So I'm worried about that, even though they sound very agreeable,
- amenable people that just want it to work out. I don't think they meet practical difficulties, so I
- don't think approving it is even a choice at this point. I mean, it's a choice, but. Yeah, if we approve
- it, then they don't have to deal with planning. They just have to deal with highway. And I don't think
- we want to, I'm not prepared to approve this
- sort of expansion above impervious surface. It doesn't have any of the factors that might make me want
- to do that. So I move to deny the variance 25-56 Clark maximum impervious cover variance to chapter
- 805 for the real estate at 3501 West Farrington Drive.
- in Bloomington, Indiana, Monroe County, Indiana, on the grounds that there is no justification for expanding
- beyond the permitted impervious surface, but at the same time, given their willingness to cooperate
- in reducing that as
- As plans evolve, I suggest that the plan department be patient and cooperative in finding a
- way to accommodate the smaller size, a compliant size without making any hardship other than the minimum
- necessary to achieve that.
- I just want to clarify, Mr. Laughlin, that this is variance 25-27. I think I heard a different number.
- If I'm wrong, apologies. I did as well. For variance 25-27, I would second that. It is VAR 2556, Clark,
- maximum pervious cover. And in the online packet, it says dash 27, but in the
- On the printed agenda, it says, dash 56. I see. Sorry. Okay. It is correct on the printed version and
- correct on the online version, apparently. Sorry, Mr. Lofman. Okay. So it was introduced as 56? Yes.
- I believe so. It's posted and published as 56. Okay. Sorry about that. Sorry for the confusion. So it's
- been moved and seconded.
- Yeah, he did. Yeah. Thank you for making sure we're all on the same track. Yes. So we have a second
- motion. OK, so it's been moved and seconded to deny VAR-25-56, which is the Clark maximum pervious cover
- to chapter 805. A vote yes is a vote to deny the variance. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela
- Davidson? Yes. Skip Daly?
- The motion is denied, 4-0. This was denied with love. You mentioned in your testimony that you're willing
- to do X, Y, Z, which rebukes the need for the variance. Ms. Chriselius will continue to work with you,
- and you guys will get sorted. And I might just add, when I was
- I drove my brother's 1955 Chevy. So this was very close to home when I looked fondly at that picture.
- 25-57, Alpha and Bravo, page 129 on your packets. Let's see, what is this? Foster Accessory Dwelling
- Units, variants from Chapter 811, and Foster Accelerate Dwelling Units, variants from Chapter 811,
- one for 1,000 square foot size limitation and one for shared
- Driveway, Ms. Casillas. Once again, you are the lucky winner. All right. This is variance 57. So the
- petition site is one lot of record and is 134 acres. It is zoned. It is located in Bean Blossom Township
- Section 13. It is unplatted. This one lot of record is made up of, I believe, five
- It is zoned Agricultural Residential 2.5, generally surrounded by other ag properties with a few small
- residential one lots and some forest residential five lots. So on screen is the site conditions map
- just showing the general topography of the property.
- developed with an existing single family residential home that is approximately 7700 square feet according
- to the assessor's property report card and multiple accessory structures. So this zoning district does
- permit with standards, a detached accessory dwelling unit, meaning that that proposed dwelling unit
- has to meet all of those standards. With this amount of acreage, a subdivision could be pursued to create
- up to a total of four lots of record.
- So on screen, the bright yellow circle is the proposed location for the new detached accessory dwelling
- unit. And in blue is the existing home and accessory structures. So planning first spoke with the petitioners
- and their family in July of this year. They brought to us a full title research
- that they had conducted. So they were originally under the impression that they had multiple lots of
- record that they would be working with. And upon review, staff did determine that they only had one
- lot of record. Because they believed that they had several lots of record, they did not start a subdivision process.
- So the petitioner doesn't tend to subdivide the property, but is stating that time constraints are requiring
- them to build before a subdivision can be completed. And I will touch base on that. So a subdivision
- process through planning can take about six months, but this can greatly vary based on the availability
- of the surveyors in the area, their timing for survey work and review.
- So on screen is the certified plot plan. They have been in touch with Deckard land surveying for this
- new detached accessory dwelling unit. They're showing it the new driveway entrance off of North Mount
- Pleasant Road and a proposed dwelling and a proposed accessory structure. So the DADU does not meet
- two standards.
- The data would be greater than 1000 square feet of visible space and would not share driveway with the
- primary dwelling. The proposed home would have a footprint of 60 by 40 and across three levels would
- be a total of 5100 square feet of livable space and that is a basement first floor and loft.
- So the petitioner is employed by the Monroe County Sheriff's Office and is required to obtain a permanent
- address within Monroe County within one year. The property owners have stated that they intend to pursue
- a subdivision to create a new legal out of record for the petitioner and the proposed dwelling, which
- would not have size or driveway limitations. But they have not necessarily stated why they could not
- obtain temporary housing within Monroe County while the subdivision process is pursued.
- Let me jump through. So on screen are these standards, Chapter 811-4C for the detached accessory dwelling
- unit. So it states that for these zoning districts, the minimum lot size is met. And then it goes on
- to say that the detached accessory dwelling unit is limited to 1,000 square feet of livable space. So
- the petitioner is proposing a dwelling
- That is five times more than what is the allowed standard. A note that since 2022, the BZA has reviewed
- many detached accessory dwelling size variances. They have ranged from 1,100 square feet to 1,900 square
- feet. So you've not necessarily seen a variance for a deviation from this requirement to this extent.
- So a staff note here is that we are stating that the petitioner could redesign to meet the 1,000 square
- feet of livable space and that it is larger than the CDO standard. The next standard that cannot be
- met is that the data in primary dwelling shall share a driveway entrance. So this is not being met under
- their current proposal. And upon reviews, staff does believe that redesign could be done to utilize
- a shared driveway.
- Or even be redesigned and have the proposed dwelling be relocated to utilize a shared driveway So on
- screen is the petitioner's letter and this is going over their new employment within the county and
- the timeline that they are under and
- So the petitioner, since the publishing of the report has applied for a building permit, if these variances
- were approved, the petitioner would be held to the exact size of the proposed data as proposed within
- the variance request, which should be 55,180 square feet or as stated here in the hearing. And of course,
- if the variance is denied, the petitioner would be required to meet all the data standards or wait to
- subdivate the property before pursuing the dwelling.
- 55. 5180 square feet. Thank you.
- So staff is recommending denial of both variance requests of the petition has been unable to satisfy
- the standards of the design standards approval. So they're unable to prove practical difficulties,
- specifically the part that says a significant development limitation that cannot be reasonably addressed
- through the redesign or relocation of the development building structure existing or proposed. And then
- as we like to do,
- that if the board is considering granting this variance, a condition of approval is recommended that
- would include the petitioner submit an application for the subdivision within eight months of the BCA
- decision. And so reasoning for that is that the condition would ensure that the petitioner does subdivide
- the property and it would make the variances moot.
- It would also mean that this variance would only apply to the location in the home as stated within
- this packet and would not be able to be basically reused in another situation in the future. Ultimately,
- staff has not found the practical difficulties met as to why they could not pursue a subdivision first.
- Does anybody have any questions? I do. And thank you for that. If there was a subdivision
- granted that they have kind of outlined on that one map that you showed earlier, would that eliminate
- all of the necessity for the standards that we're talking about? Yes. All right. With that being said,
- is there, with your level of expertise, do you see any reason of why they would not meet
- the standards for subdivision. I know that's not necessarily your belly wick. No, this is absolutely
- what we do. And looking for big red flags that could stop a subdivision is absolutely what we do daily.
- I do not see any- Oh, okay. Well, I rescind that. That is your belly wick. No, no, but I mean,
- I don't see... We always rely on
- a surveyor. They do have to do their due diligence to understand the code, and they are on ground. They'll
- see more. But at this point, I don't see any red flags for subdividing. They should be able to make
- this work. They have access outside of floodplain. They have slopes that are reasonable, and they have
- plenty of acreage. They state that they are simply pressed on time.
- But they have not necessarily informed us why they couldn't find temporary housing, why they could pursue
- that subdivision, so they can obtain that permanent address that they need for their employment.
- All right. Well, let's find out what they have to say about it. And is it Mr. or Ms. Foster? Mr. Foster?
- All right. Are you the individual that works for the Sheriff's Department? I am not. That is my son.
- I'm a landowner. All right. Well, for the record, thank you for your service.
- and all the rules that you've witnessed in the past, they're adjusting that microphone. Standing your
- name for the record. I'm Todd Foster. Thank you, Mr. Foster. Do you swear to tell the truth as you know
- it during your testimony? Yes, I do. All right. 15 minutes. Good evening, and thank you for this opportunity
- to share a little bit of the rationale for our request, which Ann has done a nice job of framing up.
- Ultimately, my goal was to share additional information and provide some additional clarity
- not only to our circumstances and situation, but also with the findings and the reasoning behind the
- recommendation of denial that Ann has described. It was also in our denial letter. So my wife and I,
- we thought we were so pleased to find this 135 acres. We'd been searching for about two years to find
- our forever property. And we were so excited. We had three criteria. We needed a home that we could live in.
- We wanted a pond and we wanted at least 100 acres. And the rationale for that acreage is we wanted to
- be able to give our sons, our three sons, property large enough where they could ultimately build. Selfish
- motivations there to try to keep the boys together. Borderline bribery to keep the grandson, future
- grandkids kind of close as well. So ultimately with that, Zachary, our oldest, and his wife Katie decided
- to take advantage of that right away.
- They sold their home in Avon, they moved into our basement, and both obtained employment here in Monroe
- County, including my son switching from an officer with the IMPD in Indianapolis to being a deputy with
- the Monroe County Sheriff's Office today. We began that process of submitting for the approvals going
- through the checklist for a building permit.
- We got the approval for the septic the driveway multiple approvals for that build site that was up in
- that Northwest parcel or apartment, the Northeast parcel and then contacted for the surveying work,
- Mr. Deckard who had been recommended to me by a neighbor and during that process.
- In looking at our deed, he recommended that I do additional research as related to that because of the
- lot of record, which was different than what we had even discussed during the closing with the title
- company. So I had the title company go back and do a 75-year search on each five parcels separately,
- thinking that we just needed an individual deed for that. So we submitted all that and put it into the
- record for us, and then
- We got the feedback that it still didn't meet the need for the lot of record here in Monroe County.
- Jackie and Anne both met with us. And once Jackie described what was needed versus what we had in our
- deed, I realized an administrative resolution to this was going to be impossible because it just literally
- didn't exist. We couldn't get that type of information. So that's when we just started to discuss the
- other options. The subdivision was discussed. We even went through the planning process with Anne to
- divide it up 25, 25, 25, and 60 acres to meet
- that minimum four lot requirement, talked to Mr. Deckard with it. And then we realized the timeline
- issue that two different surveyors had told us that at this point in time, it would be eight to 12 months
- before that could be completed. And that does not allow my son to fulfill his employment commitment
- of having a permanent address here in Monroe County within a year's time period. That's when we went
- to the other option that was presented to us looking at
- you know, looking at this detached accessory dwelling unit with the two variances that we have requested
- as far as the driveway and the limitation around the square footage. Now, specifically to the denials
- themselves, the denial or the square footage and the shared driveway, I understand through the definition
- and just looking at it through the ordinance itself of why they would think that potentially just taking
- the build site
- from where we're recommending, where we have the approvals to, I believe it says the adequate area that
- we have up by where we live right now. Upon further review though, it's not a viable build site as it
- exists today. In order for it to be so, we would have to cut some trees, have excavating work completed
- in order for that build site to work there. We've also been advised finding a septic to be approved,
- it would be,
- probably very difficult because on our south border we have a creek that comes up almost to the tree
- line to the south. To the north we have two ditch lines that are the natural water feed systems into
- the pond itself. Going east we have a farm road that goes up to the hay fields. I'm sure there would
- be offsets that would be required from that as well. And then going east you would have the driveway
- as well that would be a limitation for that septic. So when you look at that, as far as moving that
- and saying you can move that light, that site to share a driveway, it's not as feasible as it seems
- like on the surface. And that's why we requested that variance between those two locations. Also, when
- you look at the square footage aspect of things, I think that the point that Ann made, I think is critically
- to understand that once we go to the subdivision,
- And we're fully committed. We want to fix that for our long-term deed issue to go ahead with the subdivision,
- with a much more aggressive timeline even that was suggested as far as just submitting an application
- within eight months. I would hope to almost have it approved in eight months, you know, from
- that perspective. But once that gets approved, the variances become moot, null and void as it relates
- to any type of precedence that would be concerned about setting with square footage or actually even
- a separate driveway.
- So that's the other thing that I would ask for consideration and looking at that, again, with the board's
- understanding that we have a full commitment to complete that subdivision. Question? Oh, I'm sorry.
- No, you have nine and a half minutes left. Well, basically, the only other thing I would like to address
- was the point that was made that as far as showing those practical difficulties, that's really what's
- driving all of this. And why can't we find a different permanent address
- at this point in time. The rationale for that or the reality of that is that once we got the approvals
- on the other site for this septic, as well as the driveway and things, we went ahead and made a commitment
- with the contractor to get on their scheduling list. We thought we had buffered at least two and a half,
- almost three months, because we set August, the middle of end of August, as the start time for the building,
- thinking that we may have some delays with the septic and other permits.
- not realizing that the issue would be trying to give land to my son so he could build. I had never had
- any experience with a lot of records. So that is why that timeline aspect is so critical. And because
- of that, basically then to get that permanent address for him now, you would basically be saying you
- need to pay a mortgage and also pay rent to move out of where they're living in our basement now to
- a permanent address
- wait for the subdivision to get approved, build your house. That's going to be another year. And we
- started this back in September of 24 with our application for the septic. So that's the rationale of
- why just financially that's not feasible for him to have a mortgage as well as then to have to pay rent
- to try to move out and go somewhere else during this time period. So with that, that's just additional
- information that I wanted to share.
- and provide a little clarity on. And on behalf of my family and I, we just appreciate the consideration
- for these variances to be considered and also appreciate the work that both Anne and Jackie,
- as well as Mr. Deckard have provided to us as far as the education process and helping us walk through
- all these different scenarios, because I understand it is a unique situation. Thank you, Mr. Foster.
- Before you leave, I'm sure there's going to be a couple of questions. I'm going to start with
- Help me out again, because the main issue, as you so stated, the main issue is the variance would be
- moot if you were subdivided. Planning staff has stated that there's no current red flags. Clarify for
- me, I know you spent a little bit of time at the tail end of your presentation discussing
- the impracticalities regarding the timeline. I would like some further clarification of that and for
- you to be as efficient as possible and to explain why the eight months or the six to eight months that
- it might take, which if that's the case, that's too bad that it's taking that long at this point. But
- if that's the reality it is, why
- the current living status could not be considered acceptable to the Sheriff's Department and really
- why he can't get a year's lease somewhere else. That is something that we could pursue and request,
- I guess, from an integrity perspective. The spirit of that agreement was that's temporary and we're
- going to do something permanent before that year's end. So I think that that is something that
- It would drove that, but from the Sheriff's Department's perspective, I would have to rely on Zach and
- get his leadership to make comment on that directly. We were just going on the commitment that he made
- for that permanent address within a one-year time period. Would the integrity not be there if you're
- in the middle of a subdivision process to be able to get this done without a variance? I would. Okay.
- All right. That's my question. I appreciate the question. That's my question.
- He's living in your basement right now. Why is it your address, his permanent address? Whether you charge
- him rent or don't charge him rent. That's a good idea, though. I would think in the meantime, and then
- I can't imagine the Sheriff's Department, if you're subdividing land and working on a raft of permits,
- who would not think that is a permanent move? And I appreciate that. On the flip side, I guess, from our
- from our point of view, at the same time, then why can't we go ahead and start now if we know everything,
- the same type of home, the same location that we've already received the approvals for, why couldn't
- we proceed with the commitment of doing the, to do the subdivision, but go ahead and start that process
- now as far as building, because we're going to get into a weather window, have to work in the winter.
- So that would be, I guess, a little bit of my rebuttal, but I do appreciate the perspective.
- Well, let me ask staff this then. Is there an impediment to their starting that without the
- if the subdivision is in progress? I mean, as a owner of that much acreage, if the five acre tract is
- met, so on and so forth, what's the downside to him of going forward with the best hope intention that
- it's all going to be approved? Is there a risk?
- We would not be able to issue an improvement location permit for this new dwelling while it's still
- legally one lot. So and up until there's multiple steps of review that a proposed subdivision has to
- go through that does just take time. And until it gets walked over to this courthouse and recorded at
- the recorder's office and the GIS changed with the auditor's office, it's still one lot. So we can't
- issue a permit.
- Now, let me ask you this, the site, everything that they've picked, let's just say if the subdivision
- were approved, is that site going to work or is that outside your
- They've already met the standards that we would review for the subdivision just for a building location,
- which is they're far enough from a road. They have an approved septic location. They meet buildable
- area, i.e. not with the setbacks, no sinkholes, no flip plane, et cetera. Yeah. So we have to classify
- it right now today.
- or before that subdivision gets recorded as something. And the only way to do that would be as an accessory
- dwelling unit. Which this clearly 5,100 feet, there's nowhere it's even close. So it's not the right
- thing. But I would be stunned if the Sheriff's Department is probably awfully delighted to have you,
- very delighted every single day. So I would be shocked if this,
- factual recitation to them would not apply, particularly when you really do have a permanent address
- that's just in the basement. Is there not work, you said you're under, and I'm just trying to understand
- the bigger picture, is there not work that could be started before the winter season that would not
- interfere with, I mean, you mentioned having to cut
- trees and we believe everything has already been done to the present build site as it relates to the
- work that we've done for the drive the work that we've done with the septic the other surrounding perimeter
- at this point in time from my understanding because it has to be in that subdivision before we can start
- any other work because we asked the same question that you did and we got the the definition and the
- explanation for man that that wasn't viable unless these variances would be approved and so
- The other reality of this is, again, we hate to wait even outside of the standard of the timelines because
- of the background work that we did for the lot of record, et cetera. Again, we started this process
- a year ago, and now it's going to be another year before they're going to have their home. So that's
- a selfish kind of perspective, but one that I wanted to be honest with. If you started the process a
- year ago, why wasn't the subdivision sought?
- If you started the process a year ago, why wasn't the subdivision stopped? A majority of that time was
- once I contacted Mr. Deckard, which was probably two months into the process, the lot of record, it
- went back to the title company. They took almost eight weeks to get back all of that information from
- all eight parcels because they went back 75 years. So then once we got that, we get the approvals.
- We did the driveway were the septic and then when we've submitted and began to get the work for the
- actual building permit. That's when we realized that the timeline when we started looking at the subdivision.
- Working with Mr. Decker. He never recommended prior to this that hey, you're going to need a subdivision.
- He said, if we can't handle it administratively, he felt that would be the way that we would need to
- go. My hope was that we would handle it administratively, because that was less costly in all transparency,
- but also much more time efficient. Yes, sir. Are we done with questions for now? All right, let's see
- if there's anybody here in support. I have questions.
- for Mr. Foster. The first is really trivial, but I just want the record to be straight. The petitioner's
- letter, I think, in the package. Are you talking about the county name? Yes. OK, yes. He does state,
- Marion County Sheriff Deputy. He meant to say his son transferred
- Monroe County Sheriff Deputy. That was a typo and it was updated in the most recent upload that we did
- to all of his work. So that is a no copy and that was my mistake because I'm the one that typed it.
- Well, I've made so many typos. I recognize them. He worked at IMPD, Marion County. That's what I had
- in my mind and I just messed it up. I just wanted the record to be clear that he's moved to Monroe County,
- not to Marion County, and that's why this is needed.
- He was commuting back and forth until he got the job here, though. Yes, sir. Yes. OK. So you've done
- a lot of prep, but no building construction work. Absolutely not. On this alternate site. When does
- his year run that he has to have a new address? May 21st. I believe it's May 21st. OK. It's May.
- Fine. And I know this is a dreadfully inappropriate solution, but at some level you could buy a, you
- might be able to buy a mobile home and put it out there. No, you can't even do that. You can't do that.
- You can't do anything. No, nevermind. Well, then it would be, then it would be, you could get a small
- mobile home and meet the thousand square foot requirement.
- Is that right? Yes. But the location, yep, would still need a shared driveway. Got it. So the solution
- is either approval, or a lease for his basement, or a lease at an apartment, or the Sheriff's Department
- understanding and making it work. All right, do we have any other questions of the petitioner?
- I'm not done. Oh, you're not done? Not done.
- I just, I want to make a speech, okay? And that, my speech is, if we grant this, we've granted it. We
- can't un-grant it. And if this, not that it's going to fall through, but things fall through, and if
- this falls through, we've got a terribly out-of-whack dadu.
- detached additional dwelling unit that's completely at odds with all of our ordinances that we have
- to enforce. And I'm absolutely totally sympathetic with the goal, but I'm not comfortable that this
- is the way I can see to get to that goal.
- The most obvious thing to me is, will the sheriff, and I know your son's here, and this is gonna be
- a question I need to check with him, but it seems the sheriff, he does have an address right now, he's
- living there in Monroe County at your address, but is the fact that he shares that home with you
- I make it so that they won't count that. It seems sort of harsh for them to say, well, you've been living
- for the last six months and Monroe County doesn't count.
- You know, looking at things I've done, I've practiced law for a long time, and you know that if you
- deeded them part of your property with the intention that they deeded back so they are part owners of
- the property. They won't allow me to do that, sir. It's one deed. I can't deed any portion of my five
- parcels to them. No, as co-owners. This would be as co-owners. But I have to do it for the entire deed
- for all 135 acres. I can't do an individual parcel.
- Let me interrupt. I just want to clarify. Yeah. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe in the interest of time.
- I mean, we're talking a little. We've gone on to some semantics at this point. I don't know that that
- information is going to weigh in specifically on a board vote on the approval. So I'd like to move forward
- and ask if there's anybody in the audience or online who would like to
- speak on behalf of this petition. Thank you for your comments. And I think you'll be able to get your
- answers. Got it. OK, if you could speak your name into the microphone, raise the microphone first and
- then sign in. And after that, we'll get you sworn in. Zachary Foster. Yeah, Foster. Mr. Foster, you
- raised your hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth as you know it?
- Absolutely. All right, we're going to give you three minutes. I appreciate you guys allowing us to be
- here tonight, first of all. And second of all, my wife and I have made a commitment to this county by
- selling our house in Avon. I was making the commute back and forth from Indianapolis, where I served
- eight years on the east side of Indianapolis as a police officer up there. And once dad had this property,
- We knew that this was the place that we wanted to raise our family and be able to grow and thrive in
- this environment. Monroe County gives just the perfect setting for that. And just so happened that I
- was able to make the transfer to the Monroe County Sheriff's Office where I planned to have a long,
- steady career serving the people of Monroe County. And in doing so,
- Like he had stated that we started this process trying to get ahead of everything back in September
- of 2024, where the septic was approved. And then he went through all the title work and everything like
- that. And we went ahead and continued on, but I just,
- We are looking forward to whatever the decision here is today. We're looking to make an impact. My wife
- is a master gardener for the state of Indiana. She's also a master naturalist. She currently works at
- a farm on the north side of town and trying to improve the natural
- standpoint and maintaining the national standpoint of Monroe County is huge especially she was at it
- she was out at Hendricks County originally and when we moved down here it was a definitely a good step
- in the right direction. That's all I would have to say. Do you know whether the Monroe County Sheriff's
- Department would allow you to claim where you're living now as a Monroe County address?
- I would assume they probably would. Yes, sir. I will allow other questions. Thank you for your service.
- Glad you're both here. Yeah, it's terrific to have you down in our county and we got to make it work
- for you some way. And that's just something as well as learning a new struggle, right? I try not to bring
- emotions into things, right? However, living in a basement is not the easiest thing to do in the whole
- wide world, especially working such a... Challenging job. Violent, traumatic job that I work, right?
- I'd like to have that space to come home and decompress and not saying that necessarily a basement is
- what we can make work, but it is not ideal, especially to some of the traumatic things that we see on
- a day-to-day basis. And just being able to have my wife and I sit down and talk about some serious things
- that I have seen here recently and particularly, and having that time to detach. But I understand ordinances
- and stuff, but I just wanna give you guys a little bit
- background. We appreciate your time. And again, thanks for your service. And let's bring up anybody
- else that would like to speak on behalf of this or anyone online. There is one person online and Mr.
- Sam Urey. All right. Mr. Urey, could we please hear from you? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. OK,
- thank you. I'm aware of it.
- That's right. Thank you, Mr. Davidson. Could you please raise your right hand and swear that the testimony
- you're about to provide is the truth as you know it? Yes, it is. All right. And your name is? Sam Urey.
- All right. Thank you. You've got three minutes. Thank you. I am neighbors to the Foster's and I have
- been listening today to the variance request.
- One question that I have, just reading, you know, if the Board of Zoning Appeals considers granting
- the variance, the conditions of the approval would include the petitioners submit the application for
- the subdivision within eight months of the BZA decision. If that recommendation was increased in timeline
- to like two weeks or even one month or something that's reasonable for the board to review,
- I know the foster's dedication to getting that put in place is imperative to them and to their situation.
- My thinking being, it's like they're willing to put their money where their mouth is. They're good stewards
- of our community. They're good stewards of our neighborhood, like our area that we live. They're practically
- trying to find a practical solution to the situation that they haven't. I recognize that if,
- One of the board members was saying that, you know, if they grant this variance or 5,100 square feet,
- it sets a bad precedent. However, if that recommendation comes with the conditional approval of them
- doing something to take that action, it would seem to me that you aren't setting a new precedent because
- it comes with that condition. So I'm just curious, like one, I believe the foster has had every intent
- of staying here for a long time.
- I think they're good stewards of the community, of the county. They want to see it continue to improve.
- And if we can help grant them this timeline in order to, like with that condition that doesn't set a
- precedent against what could be in the future, but allows them to like put their money where their mouth
- is in and get the subdivision moving forward very, very quickly, then
- that timeline may allow them to, I guess, start that building process a bit sooner, if they can get
- something on the docket, if they can get the ball rolling. I'm just trying to see, I understand what
- the board is up against with what they're attempting to grant, but I also understand that the fosters
- are here for the long-term commitment. And if we can make it work to where you don't set the precedent,
- but they can still continue to move forward, that would be ideal.
- The only other thing I would say is, you know, I'm also new down here. I met with you guys about a couple
- of months ago. I appreciated your help when you helped me work through my zoning situation. The fosters
- are great people. They've been great neighbors to me and I appreciate them and I appreciate your guys'
- time. So thank you. We appreciate your words, Mr. Urie. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak on
- behalf of the petitioner?
- could we add to, Mr. Urie, that the variance runs with the land, not with the owners? That's always
- a big concern we have. I just wanted to put that point to it. Stephen Bay, are you signed in? Yes.
- All right, is the testimony you are about to provide the truth as you know it? Yes. All right, thanks.
- Go ahead, three minutes.
- I'm not sure I understand this whole process because this is not the first time that someone in my area
- where I live, I live next to these guys, has had to go through this. It's kind of their property. If
- something were to happen to his parents, they're gonna get that property anyway. And they could probably
- do whatever they wanted to with it. So I don't understand what the delay is, I guess, with the approval
- of the subdivision. Why does that take so long?
- I think when we're looking in an area where we live that we're looking for people to come out there
- to improve what we have going, not just to come in and throw in houses and go about their business and
- run into some of the issues that we listened to earlier today about neighbors bitching that somebody
- wants to do something with their property.
- I know these people, I haven't known them long, but I know good people when I see them. And these are
- very, very good people, very good people. They've taken to other people in the neighborhood and everybody
- around us, hey, they just wanna see these people get their house built and get on with their life.
- Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
- I do want to clarify one thing Pamela you said this would run with the land so it's with this one because
- they're requesting a data or accessory dwelling unit in a certain location and of a certain size if
- they subdivide and create that exact data there they can't pick that same design up and move it elsewhere
- so it is subject to the site plan and we have been talking behind the scenes I know that we had a
- condition of approval. There is a way that we could request a written commitment from the petitioner
- both to state when they would file for a variance and clearly state that it would nullify the variances
- and then we could even withhold certificate of occupancy of the new home until they subdivide it so
- they could start but they couldn't basically get approval to move in which
- depending on the timeline of the construction that may align with the subdivision or may not. Thank
- you for that clarification. That's so helpful. It doesn't change the fact that the dad do request is
- 5100 square feet. That's right. It does not change that. Okay. Yes. Could I bring this one? Right.
- Did you hear what the director stated? You did not? I did, and if we need to do that yet tonight, I'm
- more than willing. All right. That's your final report to that? All right. If I understood that correctly
- as far as what we would need to do. This is should it be approved? This is a solution-oriented approach.
- It might help the board make a decision based on your willingness.
- If it's a can do, I appreciate it. No. It would be file for a variance in a certain time period. Sorry,
- file for a subdivision in a certain time period and not receiving certificate of occupancy to occupy
- the new home until the subdivision was complete.
- And we would also need you to understand that the footprint is the footprint. Is that correct? The footprint
- can't change? Correct. We would also avoid the variances that were to go through.
- All right. We're going to relation on that as far as completion would be at the mercy of the surveyors
- and to complete that work. But from our perspective, yes. All right. I'm going to have you step away
- from Mike for one moment. Is there anybody else that wishes to be heard on this matter from the public?
- Seeing no one, is that correct, Seth? All right. And hearing no one. All right. Let's open this up.
- to some deliberation, and that was not, Mr. Urie did not speak in opposition, he spoke in favor, so
- there's no rebuttal required. So let's just bring it back to the board for some discussion. Well, there's
- only one problem. We desperately want these people to be facilitated. I understand making this the,
- address, well, I didn't, yeah, making this the address might satisfy the Sheriff's Department, but it
- doesn't satisfy Mr. Zachary Foster's need to get in home. And it seems that we may, so let me ask staff
- a question.
- approve this with all those things. And then they don't change anything. They can build this but can't
- move in. So if they build it and can't move in, they haven't gotten very far down the road. In fact,
- they moved backwards x $100,000. So I think the risk
- we face is very small. And I'm not concerned that this is a precedent that's going to come back to bite
- us because it's going to have so many conditions on it that nobody trying to take advantage of this
- would do. And talk about serving the public good, getting a committed career. Monroe County Sheriff Deputy.
- our officer is really important. And these people thought everything was fine. They bought all this
- land and then find out, you know, it's always hard to know the perfect order of operation. So with the
- conditions that have been suggested by the planning director, I'm leaning toward granting it. Let me
- ask the staff a question.
- There's a raft of permits, the septic, the driveway, the shared driveway, if it is a tattoo, all those things.
- Granting this very unusual request with lots of conditions, does it move their timeline up a whit in
- terms of construction because there's a raft of moving parts? The subdivision request being just one,
- even though if it did take eight to 10 months, that would be quite a sting compared to everything else.
- So my question is, does granting this
- to allow them to move forward or just peddle in place? For the site that they are proposing, they have
- an approved septic location and driveway permit. They have a building permit application submitted.
- They would be able to obtain and pull a building permit tomorrow if this was approved with conditions.
- Okay, that's very informative. All right, do we have a motion to throw?
- I can make one if you'd like for me to. For cases VAR-25-57A and 57B, I move approval on both with the
- following conditions, that the petitioner file for a subdivision plat within eight months time. Sorry,
- did you give a time frame? Can you hand that to us?
- So it's been suggested that we do a written commitment instead. So I'm writing up what I think the motion
- could be and then if you agree. Okay. All right, sorry.
- I want you to know we've all lived in the basement. With kitchen privileges.
- Good thing we have an attorney in the room.
- All right, so we have a motion that will be read. It's the second part, the petitioner. Yeah, sorry,
- the very top you can make. Yeah, that's right. Okay. Correct me if I start to mess up here, Jackie.
- Okay, so for cases VAR-25-57A and 57B, I move approval of both with the following condition, that the
- petitioners submit a written commitment within 30 days of the BZA decision that states one,
- The petitioner apply for a subdivision by May 8th of 2026 to an acknowledgement that no certificate
- of occupancy will be granted for the proposed single family dwelling until a subdivision is recorded
- and the lot in question is created. And number three, the petitioner acknowledges that the variances
- will become void at the time of the subdivision approval and recording and would not authorize
- the construction of an additional detached dwelling accessory to the proposed single family dwelling.
- The only question on the motion is the May 8th date, what is? That's just eight months. That's eight
- months, I see. Okay. I second that motion. It's been moved. Roll call, please. Okay. It's been moved
- and seconded to approve VAR-25-57A and VAR-25-57B with the written commitment as stated by
- member Jeff Morris. Did it include the expiration of the? OK, good, so it does say that the variance
- will become void at the time of the subdivision. They cannot occupy it and then yeah, OK, thank you.
- So a vote yes is a vote to approve with that requirement for written commitment. Pamela Davidson, yes.
- Skip Daily, yes. Guy Loftman.
- I want to thank the planning director for getting us to yes. I think yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Okay. The
- motion is approved four to zero. All right. Thank you, Foster's. I appreciate what you guys do for the
- county. And let's move on to item number 12. Variance 25-45.
- 5.9 economy and non-conforming structure damage expansion variance to chapter 8.4.4. And look, Mr. Smith
- is back. All right, let's see what you have. All right. So the purpose of this non-conforming structure
- damage variance is to allow for more cubic feet
- for rebuilding a previously non-conforming structure destroyed in the May 16, 2025 tornado. So due to
- that damage, the pre-existing two-story A-frame building that used to be located on the property was
- destroyed, and that prior A-frame was considered non-conforming due to its location in relation to the
- front setback. So portions of
- What is destroyed can be rebuilt if they can meet Chapter 844 regulations. So the A-frame building in
- particular would be required to be 50 feet from the edge of the right of way to meet the design standards
- for the zoning district. The petitioners rebuild using the same foundation will be approximately 40
- feet from the right of way. So that's where the non-conforming structure comes into play.
- So the petitioner is requesting to rebuild that structure within its existing foundation. So it is going
- within the existing footprint, but with an altered design featuring a slanted roof rather than an A-frame,
- which would result in an increase in the cubic feet of the structure.
- So some background on this property. The property is zoned community development, or CD for short, and
- maintains a pre-existing non-conforming hotel or motel use under the county development ordinance. And
- that use was established as a hotel or motel in the 1960s. I don't have an exact date, but it was roughly
- around 1965 when the first structure was built.
- For the county's zoning ordinance, it wouldn't have taken effect until 1986 for this area. So based
- on historical records, this site has always been pre-existing, non-conforming in nature. So it's never
- fully conformed to any zoning ordinance since at least 1986.
- When staff was reviewing the construction plans and we were reviewing the Chapter 844 standards for
- nonconforming structures, we did note that the definition, which I will read aloud, specifically states
- that any legal pre-existing nonconforming structure damaged by fire, flood, explosion, or other casualty
- may be reconstructed and used as before
- if such reconstruction is undertaken within 18 months of such casualty and if the restored structure
- has no greater coverage and contains no greater content measured in cubic feet than before such casualty.
- And then the last part of that definition relates to special flood hazard area but there is no special
- flood hazard area to consider so that remaining definition would be irrelevant for this petition.
- So the old building, the A-frame, was estimated to be between 21 feet wide, 24 feet long, and 8 feet
- tall ceiling on the first floor, which was approximately 4,032 cubic feet, and 12 feet wide,
- 24 feet long, and an average of 5 foot tall ceilings. So roughly 1,440 cubic feet for a total of 5,472
- cubic feet
- the ground floor cubic feet with the 10 foot tall ceilings would be five thousand eight hundred sixty
- cubic feet and the second floor with eight foot ceilings would be roughly four thousand six hundred
- eighty eight cubic feet for a total combined cubic foot of the new structure being ten thousand five
- hundred forty eight cubic feet so the purpose of this standard is so that in the event that there is
- damage or otherwise
- has a height limitation larger than the structure that previously existed, the non-conforming use is
- limited in its expansion. So chapter 850 defines hotel or motel use as follows. So a building or portion
- thereof in which five or more guest rooms typically accessible from an interior hallway are furnished
- to the public under a short-term lodging agreement. Or a building or portion thereof in which five or
- more guest rooms typically
- are typically accessible from an outdoor parking lot are furnished to the public under a short-term
- lodging agreement. So the location is just off of South Old State Road 37. I've got the site conditions
- map on the screen as well. As far as planning staff is concerned, there's no real site condition concerns
- with the area. It meets buildable area. There's no floodplain, no evidence of sinkholes.
- So all around, nothing unusual popping out at us. So these are some site photos, aerial view and also
- street view. So the photo on the screen represents what was there previously. So that was before the
- May 16th tornado, which ultimately destroyed the structure. But that is a photo of what it used to look like.
- Our staff photos. So what is on the screen represents what is there today. So it's really just down
- to its foundation. And then these are just some other site photos that was taken by planning staff.
- And you'll note the damage from that tornado is prevalent.
- And then on the screen is the new design that the petitioner is proposing. So getting rid of that A-frame
- and instead opting for that slanted roof. So important distinction, it is still utilizing the existing
- footprint that is there. So that is not expanding. But because it's a slanted roof instead of an A-frame,
- that allows for more cubic feet or space in the structure itself.
- And that's what triggers the issue here for the need for a variance from that provision. So this does
- lead to staff's recommendation, which is denial based on the fact that practical difficulties have not
- been demonstrated. The pre-existing non-conforming structure did not meet current standards. And while
- the structure was destroyed,
- As a result of a natural disaster, its non-conforming status leaves little room for deviation from the
- size of the structure that was there previously. The proposed rebuild could be redesigned to conform
- to Chapter 844. And I'm happy to take questions. Any questions for staff? All right, Mr. Patel, please
- come on up.
- And let's hear from you. And while you're coming up, I would like to say I'm thankful that you and your
- family and your residents were not seriously harmed. It was devastating. And we're thankful that the
- loss was minimized to stuff. So let's hear from you. And let's see if we can get you moving.
- My name is Jayendra Patel. Can we have you also raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the testimony
- you're about to provide us is the truth as you know it? I do. Thanks. Good evening. Folks must be tired
- by now anyway. Just to give you a brief history, I've been here 40 years, and that motel has been my
- home as well for close to 30 odd years. My wife and I have worked at it.
- taken care of it, our children have grown up there. So I put in a lot of energy into that property.
- So it's more emotionally tied rather than always a business sense. Unfortunately, this was the first
- year when I received my social security tax check. And at the same time in July, ready to think about
- retiring. But something else decided to hit me, and no problem.
- I can handle this as best as possible. The staff has been very helpful in every sense. I know they're
- restricted by certain things, but that's understandable. They just have to go through the process. This
- motel has served the community for a substantial amount of time.
- It has changed its market position. It's not always that everybody from Bloomington who are visiting
- this town come to stay here just for overnights. There are people that are doing specific jobs for a
- month or two, contractors and supervisors, and they'll all use my facility. So it's also nightly and
- somewhat extended. There are people who are transitioning apartments, and they need a place to stay
- for a short week to four to five. They will also use my facility. That's the situation.
- The A-Frame initially was built in the 60s. I think they used to have a little restaurant in there,
- then it was an office, all kinds of mixtures. And there was tremendous trees and everything. It was
- like in the rural part of the country that people didn't even know what was there behind, except just
- one building at the front. Now, unfortunately, as I said, this building has now been totally destroyed.
- And the logistics were that, of course, when you go inside,
- There's space issues and everything else in there. Not every bit of space is usable. Also, when it was
- built in those times, utilities were not a big factor. So building like that nowadays would
- cost a substantial person just to heat and cool it. All the inefficiencies you can think of were the
- classic situation on that. I'm hoping that instead of me going back to having to put in an A-frame,
- and that is if they allow because of the 40 foot or 50 foot setback,
- It's not worth the money and the effort and the energy, because it wouldn't serve the... But if it's
- possible to be able to build the same two-story building, this time, of course, not having the slants
- and vertical walls, it would make the difference of now being able to have my rentable units, because
- everything has gone up in prices to even to build. Even if those kind of efficiency units, it's just
- very difficult to make it cost-effective.
- So that's the reason for me wanting to make this happen in that sense. I'm hoping that the emphasis
- more is on the square footage. I'm not encroaching on that. I'm staying within the square footage and
- just building straight up. And that's what I'm hoping that you folks would consider. I understand cubic
- footage is something I cannot control there.
- Anyway, thank you for listening to me, and also I appreciate what the planning people have done so far
- with me. Thank you very much, Mr. Patel. At this time, why don't you stay there for a moment. Let's
- see if anyone has any quick questions for other staff or for you. I want to confirm that the new structure
- you're suggesting uses the same footprint. It doesn't change the foundation size.
- goes up instead of pitched. Thank you for confirming that for me. Do we have any other questions of
- staff or for Mr. Patel at this time? Well, we were hit very badly by the same tornado. I live just a
- little ways away from there. And so I certainly have
- particular sympathy, but we got our new roof and got the trees cleared, but it's very hard, and I sympathize
- with it, and I believe it must have been about 1969 I was in the A-frame.
- Whoa. All right. We've got some personal connection there. The Canada Motel. That's right. All right.
- Stay tight. There's nobody else in the room, so nobody is here to approve or disapprove in terms of
- adding testimony. Is there anybody online that wishes to support or work against this petition? Anybody?
- All right, we have no one, so just hang out there for a moment. I'm going to open this up for
- some deliberation, but I would like to begin. I would like to say I do find some practical difficulty
- here. I think the difficulty is mostly
- the fact that this, we're asking somebody to rebuild in a way that something would not be built by today's
- standards just because that was the exact method that it was and that it's currently too close to the
- road. I think that's,
- a little ridiculous. I think if we're going to allow Mr. Patel to build anything in that footprint,
- I think we build it in a way that's practical, in a way that's to today's standards, and that is economical,
- and I believe that he meets practical difficulties, and I'm going to yield to
- Mr. Lofman, you look like you want to say something. Well, I think you're exactly right. This was one
- of the most impractical buildings I've ever been in. The A-frame was a terrible idea, except if you
- lived in Switzerland in the mountains when you need to keep the excessive snow from piling up on your
- roof. And that's not yet the situation in Monroe County. It is an impractical design. And it would be
- absurd to say one had to duplicate it.
- And it was, but it was effectively two stories. So I think we're, I'm very prone to support this. Mr.
- Morris, do you have anything? I was just going to say that I think there are practical difficulties
- demonstrated in the fact that the foundation exists. And if you were to move the building, I doubt that
- insurance would
- that is perfectly good. So to me, that seems like a practical difficulty. Ms. Davidson, you're ready
- to move forward? For all those reasons, I'm going to move that we approve variance 25-59, the economy
- in non-conforming structure damage expansion variance to chapter 844, because we believe practical
- difficulties have been met, and we want you to have a building that you can use, a utilitarian. Mr.
- Lockman's right about that design.
- really seems to work. There's one across the street from me right now and they're very aggravated. Yes.
- So I'm going to move to approve it. I'll second.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to prove VR dash 25 dash 59, which is the economy in nonconforming
- structure damage expansion to chapter 844. A note on this approval, it will be limited to the construction
- plans proposed in the variance report. So vote yes is a vote to approve. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris?
- Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Skip Daly?
- Yes. Motion is approved four to zero. Thank you. Thank you. And good luck with the rebuild.
- And once again, we are very appreciative that you and your family and your residents were as safe as
- possible in a horrible situation. Thank you for waiting so long. Yes. At this time, there is one more
- item on the agenda.
- I have to leave. There are three folks here, and Mr. Morris has agreed to chair this next hearing. Is
- there any challenges with that? I understand completely. Thank you for being able to attend this long.
- All right. Well, thank you, guys, and Mr. Morris.
- So we will move on to CDU-25-9. This is the conditional use for a new wireless communication facility
- at 7221 South Lodge Road. So Mr. Smith, I will turn it over to you. Thank you. So the purpose of this
- conditional use request is to construct a new wireless communication facility and a 199 foot monopole
- tower. So the petitioner is seeking approval
- in hopes to lease approximately 10,000 square feet of leasing area that will house all necessary equipment.
- So for example, equipment cabinets, generators, shelters, et cetera, and a 195-foot monopole tower,
- which will have a four-foot lightning rod. So 199 feet total is what they're asking for.
- The property does consist of a single-family residence and garage owned by the current property owners
- who have agreed to lease part of their property to Verizon. The location of the new facility is located
- on a former I-69 fill site for the construction of the interstate, and the site derives access from
- an existing platted ingress, egress, and utility easement on the property.
- So chapter 850 defines wireless communications facilities as follows. Any unstaffed facility for the
- transmission and or reception of wireless communication services, usually consisting of an antenna array,
- transmission cables, equipment facilities, and a support structure. So WCFs are located under the special
- uses category in the county development ordinance and are subject to the standards in chapter 812-3,
- where their conditional use standards are also located. So the proposed WCF is subject to conditional
- use approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals per chapter 812-3 because the structure is not concealed
- and it is taller than 60 feet in a residential zoning district as referenced in chapter 812-3B. Any
- WCF that does not meet the requirements for administrative approval
- must follow the conditions of Chapter 812-3D for conditional approval. So the petition site is Zoned
- Agricultural Residential 2.5, or AGR for short, and that is defined in Chapter 804-1. Table 1-811 states
- that wireless communications facilities is permitted with standards or conditional in all zones to be
- determined by Section 812-3.
- So that chapter specifically lays out the process for when WCF are permitted by administrative approval
- and when they are conditional. So for the scope of this project the use was identified to be conditional
- due to its height and that it is not concealed any residential district.
- So some conditional uses shall satisfy any use regulations as set forth in Chapter 811. But you will
- note that there are no additional regulations in Chapter 811 because this is a special use. So they
- derive their standards from Chapter 812. And specifically, I have taken Chapter 812-3A3, which is the
- purpose of wireless communications facilities.
- And since this is the first one we've done under the CDO, I will just read through these really quickly.
- So A, ensure Monroe County has sufficient wireless infrastructure to support public safety wireless
- communications throughout Monroe County. The proposed facility is stated to significantly increase cell
- coverage in the area.
- ensure access to reliable wireless communication services throughout all areas of Monroe County. Again,
- the proposed facility is stated to significantly increase cell coverage in the area. C, encourage the
- use of existing structures for the co-location of wireless communications facilities. The proposed structure
- is a monopole design and does not make use of existing structures. However,
- The nearest tower to this location is over one mile away, so there is no other opportunity for them
- to co-locate in this area. D, encourage the location of wireless support structures to the extent possible
- in areas where any potential adverse impacts on the community will be minimized. So the proposed facility
- is situated a large distance away from the existing homes. They are not
- by any means, and I will get into that later. E, facilitate the deployment of wireless communication
- structures and facilities in residential areas as necessary to establish comprehensive wireless services
- across Monroe County in a manner that preserves the character of residential areas. So this facility
- is placed in a rural area and will encompass a larger coverage area than existing towers within the
- five-mile radius, according to the petitioner.
- The subject site, again, is a prior fill site caused by I-69. So that's why this site exists. F, minimize
- the potential adverse effects associated with the construction of monopoles and replacement of towers
- through implementation of reasonable design, landscaping, and construction practices. The facility is
- placed in a predominantly rural area and will include a landscape buffer yard around the facility.
- And then these last two here ensure public health safety welfare and convenience. The facility will
- not directly impact the public health safety or welfare of the public but it will expand cell coverage
- that will improve the general welfare and convenience of communication for the public. The petitioner
- states that all lighting will comply with federal law.
- H, to help ensure compliance with federal legislative changes to a zoning authority under the 1996 Wireless
- Communications Act and Indiana Code Section 8-1-32.3-19 through 8-1-32.3-21. And that facility can only
- be constructed in compliance with federal law and approval.
- So I did include findings of fact on here, but just to save time, these are in the staff packet, and
- I can come back to these if you'd like. But essentially, each one of these bullet points, the planning
- staff believes they are meeting those conditions. I will just.
- keep going through these and we can come back and talk to them if you would like. But again, granting
- the conditional use would not conflict with Monroe County's comprehensive plan goals. It does not otherwise
- alter the character of the area. It does have all necessary utilities available on site. It will not
- adversely affect traffic conditions.
- It's an unstaffed facility, so it's not going to generate any increased traffic. There will be a buffer
- yard planted around the facility as to conceal at least the equipment area. The petitioners stated that
- that will not be an issue to them. They are fully committed to planting the necessary plants around
- the facility.
- would be back here at the BZA requesting a variance from that provision. And again, it stays consistent
- with the neighborhood environment, which includes I-69 and nearby quarries. Just an important thing
- to note, any new wireless communication facility does have to comply with the FAA and FCC.
- Even though we, or I should say you, might grant the conditional use, it does not stop there. They do
- still have to comply with federal law. So the location map, so this is located in Indian Creek Township.
- It is right next to the relatively new constructed I-69.
- This is off of South Lodge Road, which is a dead end road. So there's only one way to access it from
- Lodge Road, and Lodge Road is derived from South Rockport Road. So as far as site conditions beyond
- it being a former fill site, there are no real concerns that pop out to staff. I did locate via an orange square
- on the right-hand side approximately where that 10,000 square foot leasing facility will be located.
- So you'll note that at the bottom of the property lines, that indicates the current property owner's
- residence and garage. So it is a distance away. These are some aerial photos of the site. Again, the
- red square indicating roughly where it will be going.
- the blue rectangle indicating where the petitioners reside. These are just some other photos of the
- sites, of the two photos in the middle. If you were just looking straight ahead, that's where the tower
- would be going. So you would see it off in the distance. But as you can see, the surrounding area is
- very rural, very spaced out.
- area with regards to other single family residences. And then on the screen we have the petitioners
- proposed plans. You'll notice the dashed circle around the leasing area indicating the fall zone. So
- they've already went ahead and calculated that in the worst possible event that the tower were to fall
- over. That would be roughly the area that it could potentially fall over on.
- On the right-hand side, that just indicates the ingress, egress, easement at the start, and then they
- will just expand that up to the facility. And these are just some other snippets of the site plan. They're
- just detailing their plans and how they'll run utilities to the facility and how they will get access.
- on the screen here is just their snippet of the 10,000 square foot leasing area. So they've identified
- where their proposed equipment will go, where the proposed tower will go. And then they've also identified
- potential future locations where other equipment would go. So whether that be additional generators
- or equipment cabinets or shelters, that's where that,
- That's where those structures would go. And that is just a design of what the tower would look like.
- And as part of the conditional use request, they are required to submit a line of sight diagram. So
- these next few slides will be that.
- So in the center, they've got the proposed tower location, and then they went out and identified north,
- south, east, and west what the line of sight would look like from those proposed locations. So location
- number one, they've got existing, that's what the site looks like right now, and then what it would
- look like after the tower was constructed.
- Location number two again existing on the left and then proposed on the right. And then location number
- three and four there would be no line of sight visible at least from the roadway. So. The blue represents
- the areas that you could see the tower from the red represents the areas that you could not see the
- tower from.
- And this is the petitioner's letter to the BZA on behalf of Verizon. They did provide an exhibit just
- indicating their justification for why colocation is not feasible. And they also indicated the extent
- of what the cell coverage would look like.
- They did also, as part of the conditional use request, provide a statement from the engineer basically
- stating that the tower should not fall over based on the designs that they have come up with, even in
- the worst scenario. But we do have them still show the fall zone on the site plan. And they do have
- consent from the owners, the Ryans, William and Ashley Ryan,
- And it is in a platted subdivision, the Danny Abram Miner subdivision. And then I did just include,
- this is not part of the official plat, but I did just include on the screen the blue rectangle representing
- the owner's residence and then approximately where the tower would be.
- That leaves us to staff's recommendation, which is approval due to its ability to fulfill the requirements
- of the use. And that is derived from Chapter 812. So just for planning staff's notes, if the conditional
- use is approved, the petitioner will be required to apply for a site plan review application.
- And once the site meets all the requirements, they can apply for a land use certificate. If, during
- the site plan process, it is discovered that they will not meet a requirement of the ordinance, they
- would need to redesign the project to meet the requirements or be subject to variance approval. So even
- if they do receive approval tonight, their work is not over. But they do first need your approval in
- order to proceed. And I can take any questions.
- And the petitioner is online, just FYI. Do any members of the BZA have questions for Mr. Smith? Let's
- hear the witness. OK. We can turn now to the petitioner or the petitioner's representative. If you're
- online, you will have 15 minutes to speak. If you could unmute and state your name, I will swear you
- in. Tech Services, if you could promote Michael Saris.
- Mr. Sarah, she should be able to unmute. You'll have to unmute on your side. Mr. Sarah's I see your
- hand raised, but we won't be able to hear you until you unmute the computer. If you're unable to unmute,
- you may need to leave the meeting and then rejoin.
- like they had to leave the meeting and they'll come back. Okay, while we're waiting on Mr. Saris, I'm
- going to ask any other members of the public online if you wish to speak for or against this, if you
- could go ahead and raise your virtual hand and we'll put you in the queue after Mr. Saris speaks. Hello,
- can you hear me? Yes. If you could state your name and raise your right hand, please, and state you'll
- swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
- Yes, my name is Michael Saris, and I will. Thank you. You have 15 minutes. Thank you. I will try and
- be brief. I know we're at a late hour here. I just want to start by saying thank you to Mr. Smith for
- his summation of our conditional use. Yeah, again, my name is Michael Saris. I'm here representing Vertical
- Bridge and Verizon Wireless for our conditional use application.
- for our proposed wireless communication facility on the property at 7221 South Lodge Road in Bloomington,
- Indiana, owned by Ashley and William Ryan. And I like to start by just, I throw out some data points.
- I don't think it's any secret to anybody on the board that the demand for wireless services has just
- gone up and up and up.
- Again, just some data points. The average monthly smartphone data usage in 2017 was 7.1 gigabyte. Projected
- at the end of 2025 is 59 gigabyte per month for smartphone user. 61% of homes are wireless.
- And that actually seems pretty low as I don't know too many people with landlines these days. And also
- there's 245 million 911 calls that are originated annually and 80% of those are from wireless devices.
- And an average household in North America has 13 connected devices. So those are just some data points
- and what kind of brings us to the need for this facility
- We're in Monroe County, we're trying to service the clients, service the customers there and service
- the constituents. And we need to, we have our licenses and we need to operate those licenses and be
- able to service those licenses by continuing to develop our network design and also not being compromised
- with coverage and capacity. So, that's the reason we're here, that's the reason for the conditional use.
- And, you know, Mr. Smith did do a great job of summarizing our application. And I did want to point
- out the map of the existing towers within five miles. I did want to put some data points that have been
- put in the application. There were 10 listed. Two of those have been dismantled. And five of those,
- actually Verizon is a
- co-locator on existing. And those are towers one, two, six, seven, and eight. So basically, the closest
- one that we are already on is the two furthest ones, number four and number nine, which we're not on.
- And those are way too far away to meet our needs. So I could take any questions at this time.
- Thank you, Mr. Saris. Do any members of the BZA have questions? Not I. No, I don't think so.
- Okay, no questions, Mr. Serres, thank you. So we will turn now to public comment. If there's anybody
- online who wishes to speak either in favor or against this, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, not
- seeing anyone, we will come back to the BZA for discussion and or emotion.
- I'm going to move that we approve CDU 25-9 Ryan wireless communication facility conditional use to chapter
- 812. It's a rural area. It will increase cell phone coverage. In the Indian Creek area, I think that's
- a worthy, worthy thing to have happened. And it's on Phil Land from 69. It's a winner. So I'm going
- to move to approve it. Second.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve CDU-25-9. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Guy Loftman? Yes.
- Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Motion is approved three to zero. Thank you, Mr. Saris. Jackie,
- is there any other business tonight? I do not have any reports. Okay. Do we have a motion for adjournment?
- I think we should adjourn. Second.