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.