- Good evening everyone I'd like to call to order the October meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals and
- if there's anyone that needs additional seating there's a bench you can sit on up here in the front
- of the room and also some spare chairs so you're welcome to come up and take any available seat. Jackie
- to get us started would you call the roll?
- I'm not sure if the microphone's working, but we're gonna go ahead and call the meeting to order if
- we could get everybody to be quiet, please. I'm gonna go ahead and call the roll. Margaret Clements,
- Skip Daly, Pamela Davidson, Guy Lofman, Jeff Morris. We have three members in person in a quorum.
- So I'm not sure if that's something that could be investigated. I'm not sure if you got the first part
- of that, but we've got a delay when our microphones are turning on, about 10 seconds or so. Jackie,
- would you please introduce the evidence for tonight? And amended?
- the Monroe County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Control 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. Time for tonight's meeting.
- of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve the introduction of evidence. Kyle Lofman? Jeff Morris?
- Pamela Davidson? Motion is approved three to zero.
- Pre VAR-25-48C was actually decided under VAR-25-45 back in August, so that is no longer needed tonight.
- So do we have a motion to approve tonight's agenda with everything except item number three? I don't
- believe we need to since those were already noted on the agenda. Okay, it's been moved and seconded
- to approve tonight's agenda with the
- Exclusion of item number three, VAR-25-48C, which was decided at the August 25th, 2025 BZA meeting.
- A vote yes is a vote to approve the amended agenda. Jeff Morse? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Guy Laughman?
- Yes. Motion is approved three to zero.
- So do we have a motion to approve both sets of minutes? I move that we approve both sets of most enumerated
- minutes. Second. Yes is a vote to approve the August 6th and August 25th, 2025 BZA minutes. Pamela Davidson?
- Yes. Guy Laughman? Yes. Jeff Morris?
- Motion is approved three to zero. This is the huff new road eco area one twelve percent slope
- land disturbance various to chapter eight twenty three
- And item number two, VAR-25-48B. This is the Huff New Road Eco Area 2, 15% slope land disturbance variance
- to chapter 823. So Ms. Biermann, I will turn it over to you. There we go. My name is Tammy Biermann.
- I'm the Assistant Director for the Monroe County Planning Department. So this evening we're here to,
- listen to the presentation for VAR-25-48. This is the new road parcel, which is outlined in blue in
- the map above. Last month on August 25th, 2025, we heard three different variances for the main gate
- parcel, the dadu slash vacation home parcel, and the ag parcel. And I will say that with VAR-25-47 and VAR-48,
- 45, there was a portion of the road that will be discussed this evening that was decided upon, and it
- was denied that they would be able to widen that road to 16 feet wide. So in relation, if you look to
- the right-hand side, you can see the portion that was already decided upon on August 25th, 2025, and
- then you can see
- As it goes north from that blue square, the road that we will be discussing this evening, it's 1.4 miles
- long that meanders through this blue parcel that's highlighted here, the new road parcel. So the petitioner's
- original site plan, when you measure it out, it starts on what we call access easement number four and starts
- at the north of that new road parcel and then kind of meanders through.
- Um, a lot of different terrain and has four different Creek crossings and is 1.4 miles long. They're
- wanting this to be 16 feet wide and also in the end to pave it. Uh, this is a little bit different from
- the one that we were listening to for the majority of last week. They are not requesting to have utilities
- associated with this road. It would just be to widen it, uh, throughout the different terrain.
- So staff performed a site visit and hiked as much of this terrain as we could. So the blue segment here
- is what we would consider more of new road segment. We don't see a lot of existing logging roads that
- would, I guess, meet... It's spotty. Like if there's logging roads there or if there were skid trails
- or there is no
- like roads through this area. And we also have this other little segment that was not portrayed in the
- very first packet from last month. But we did decide that there's some new road segment that would be
- over in this area, and I'll describe that later. And then the red is where they will be widening the
- road. So they are requesting it to be 16 feet. And then down at the bottom, again, I can just point out that
- The road expansion under VAR-47, which was that little segment I pulled out earlier in the blue box,
- was already denied to be widened. And then also the purple VAR-25-45, that was also denied to be widened.
- And those will not really be further discussed during this petition. So we have a little bit of...
- background that we're just going to touch on for this time. Prior to the creation of Lake Monroe, the
- Chumley Parcel, which is kind of right in here, this was likely connected by East Cleve Butcher Road
- that followed what is now the lake shore. And so over here we have Fairfax Road, Cleve Butcher
- is this road here that terminates down here where the lake is now, but that road used to continue and
- have access along the petitioner's parcel, but it is pretty much underwater now. It's not a usable,
- passable road.
- Upon the creation of the lake, the remainder deeds created the parcel lines that we see now on GIS.
- The original deed creating Lake Monroe from the agriculture parcel, aka the Chumley parcel, which is
- this one here and these down in here, does state, the grantor for the consideration recited above hereby
- waives its right to any way of necessity it may have over the herein described land
- as a means of ingress or egress to any other lands of the grantor, abutting or adjoining thereto, and
- agrees that the consideration herein recited liquidates in full all damages, if any, due to restriction
- or loss of access to any of grantor's abutting or adjoining lands. The grantor further hereby releases,
- quit claims, and conveys to the United States of America and its assigned
- a signs forever, all right, title, and interest, which the grantor may have in and to the banks, beds,
- and waters of any streams opposite to or fronting upon said land, and in any alleys, roads, streets,
- ways, strips, gores, or railroad rights of way, abutting on or adjoining said land." And so we're looking
- at exhibit 15.
- This deed was assigned by Norris and Mary Ellen Chumley on August 31, 1964. And I'm thinking that this
- is just how it basically landlocked this parcel here. It was signed over. It's in the deeds. It's in
- the title work. And I think this was pointed out. Well, I'll just stop there.
- So what we're looking at here is the petitioner's property kind of throughout this area here. It does
- have a lot of steep slopes within this restricted overlay that we have. And we do note that there are
- four access points. We talked a lot about access one last month. And there's access two, which gives
- access to much of the buildable area on this ridge top.
- We have access three that comes in and has a lot of access to the buildable area for this area. And
- then access four also has a little bit of buildable area that is there. And there are easements to each
- of these and all accessible from Shadyside Drive. What I will say is the roadway creation, the petitioner has
- What we're gonna try to convey here is that the petitioner has not proven that the roadway creation
- from the northern parcel all the way to the southern parcel is the minimum variance necessary to overcome
- a design limitation. Each buildable area currently has an easement that provides access from South Shadyside
- Drive. And then the roadway widening, the petitioner has not proven why the road is necessary, nor why
- it is required to be 16 feet in width
- and paved. Portions of the roadway are currently 8 to 10 feet wide. The petitioner has not proven a
- significant design limitation since all buildable areas are currently able to be accessed using other
- current access roads. To expand the roadway to 16 feet would require a significant amount of land disturbance
- and vegetation removal.
- During our site visit, staff photographed the width of South Shadyside Drive that enters the northernmost
- portion of the property, which is that access four right in here. We measured that to be 12 feet total,
- and that is an easement that is currently shared by eight residences and their accessory structures.
- So the specific variances requested here are the Eco Area 1 greater than 12% slopes depicted in blue.
- So this is the bluish area that has the 12% slope restrictions and it's for the encroachment into the
- slopes and the disturbance of natural vegetation. Petitioners proposing to do roadway creation of 72,118
- square feet and then the roadway widening
- is 13,102 square feet. Eco2, which has slope restrictions of 15% slopes and the disturbance of those
- natural vegetations on those slopes. We're looking at roadway creation of 5,191 square feet and the
- road widening of 10,641 square feet. So, you know, this is gonna be over two acres of disturbance.
- So we have some proposed new road facts that we'll go through. This is a 1.41 mile road from the northern
- part of widening and an easement adjacent to access four to the northern part of the main vacation home
- and dadu parcel, which was decided upon last week or last month.
- Of the 1.41 miles of road 0.74 miles are located in slopes greater than 12% or 15% and an additional
- 0.18 miles are within the repairing areas located on flat ground repairing areas are non buildable per
- the CDO but allows infrastructure crossings.
- So total, we have 0.91 miles of the 1.41 mile proposed road that are not in buildable area. That's more
- than 65% of the road's total mileage. The road plans include nine different corrugated metal pipes and
- crosses four creeks, two of which are considered to be within a riparian area. The site plan is not
- certified and states that an existing eight to 10 foot logging road exists, which
- could not be found in several instances while staff was performing a site visit. So staff has not been
- provided construction plans or grading plans for the new road as proposed. We know that significant
- grading and tree removal will be required to be able to traverse the proposed road.
- The Huffs contend that they need the new road due to their ability to log the property and access issues
- from the Shores subdivision, which is along Shadyside Drive. And previously, the Huffs applied for and
- were denied a variance to reroute an existing road and create what we term the litigation road. And
- they argued that it was because these slopes of 22%
- They stated those were limitations for logging. And there was a quote by the Huff's legal representative,
- Chu Lee, and he stated at the February 1st, 2023 hearing that they had attempted to continue to use
- the higher sloped road, the existing road, the old road, and they were losing equipment. They would
- have had to drag equipment up using bulldozers. The cost of that and the damage to their machinery was rising.
- So continuing with some new road facts, it's 1.41 miles total. And with that statement that we just
- heard that they were saying you couldn't really use logging equipment on slopes that were greater than
- 22% slopes, which was what they argued the litigation road for, we ran a different GIS modeling. We
- have in red here slopes that are 22% or more, and that's
- 0.59 miles worth of the road is going to be steeper than that. And then we went further and looked at
- slopes that are 36% to 45%. Those are within pink. So you can kind of see where the road starts here
- at the top and meanders down through. So through the pink areas, we're 1,274 linear feet in ECO 1 and
- 161 linear feet in ECO 2.
- And then finally, we do have some slopes that are 46 to 55 percent, and that's pretty steep. We have
- 87 linear feet in ECO 1 and 45 feet in ECO 2. So one of these is this area here where staff
- We actually quit our hike at this point and double backed. It was kind of too steep to traverse. We
- didn't even see where a road would have gone at that point. And we have another one over here where
- they do have an ATB trail that is significantly steep. Let's see. So in exhibit 13,
- of the packet on page 186. We do have an affidavit from Jared Veeling. And this was an affidavit that
- was submitted during the litigation road variance to the BZA back in 2023, where they were saying that
- that max 22% slopes was just too high to be able to conduct logging and get their machinery up and down.
- So from that affidavit,
- Statement four says the road was so steep that it was problematic to our equipment and employees from
- the very beginning. Statement five says during the time we attempted to utilize this road, we suffered
- an increase in equipment, including vehicle malfunction going up the hill. Also, we were unable to continue
- using this road to access portions of the property because oncoming traffic going down the hill.
- Statement six, we began using bulldozers to pull equipment up the hill in a non-paved area. This is
- inefficient method to access the property. And statement seven, our trucks have to get a running start
- to get up the hill. Anyone coming the opposite direction will most likely have to have a head on collision
- or fall into the lake. It is impossible to see oncoming traffic until you reach the top of the hill.
- you know, listening to these statements and then looking at the map that we see here where this road
- that they're proposing anywhere within red, pink, or gray kind of goes against the case of being able
- to do efficient logging and bringing equipment and based upon the affidavit that you heard back in 2023.
- So now we're going to start looking at the petitioner's site plan a little more in depth
- And we'll be comparing it to our severe slopes maps and then also kind of looking at, I guess, the linear
- feet of where they're wanting to have this new terrain road and where they're wanting to have widening.
- So we're going to start at the top. This is the northern portion where they come in off of access easement
- number four. And right away, we get 4,100
- 81 square feet of road in the ECO 1 area. Now, in this area, you'll see it's blue. This is actually
- slopes that are less than 12%, so we're not counting that. That is not part of this variance. And then
- we dip down and have to get, there's more slopes here. So this portion here is also within restricted
- slopes, especially if you're comparing it to the left, the severe slopes map.
- We have our first creek crossing in this area, which was not deemed to be a riparian area, but it will
- need some improvements and likely a corrugated pipe to be able to traverse that. Then we have more segment
- here. Just before you get to this second creek crossing, this is where staff was unable to access because of the
- severe slopes that we have here. These are 46% to 55% slopes. You can see the gray in this area. And
- we do have some staff photos where we're kind of standing on the top of this precipice, kind of overlooking
- this area. And we made a judgment call not to make a workman's comp claim. So here we're going to have
- some photographic evidence. And then also to the right, you'll see like a yellow arrow that just
- shows like where staff is standing and getting a feel for what we saw during that segment that we just
- saw on the petitioner site plan. We are measuring here 10 feet apart for the existing kind of road that
- they have there. And again, we'll probably have to see some trees, vegetation be removed when they're
- doing this widening to 16 feet. There's another spot on that northern portion kind of continuing on.
- And this one looks pretty well used. But I think in spots, you'll see that these trees are very close.
- One or both of these would probably have to be removed if this is to be widened to 16 feet. And then
- the terrain gets a little more tricky. It's not as well maintained. I don't know how much logging they
- did here. You can kind of see the 2024 aerial where they did take out some trees in this area and maybe
- didn't do as much logging here.
- Again, we've got some different perspectives. And another one where we're standing 16 feet apart. And
- one or both of these trees would likely need to be removed to widen it. This is an eight feet apart
- where it looks like it was an old logging road or a current logging road. And then we start to get into
- some of the steeper terrain here. Staff is...
- standing and walking on this eight to 10 foot existing logging road that we're kind of traversing down.
- And then in this image, staff is holding a 50 foot long tape measure. We added the yellow line signifying
- like where the tape measure was going. At six, well, let's see, 50 foot tape measure at six feet tall.
- So the person kind of down lower is
- got their elevation at six feet, slope exceeds 12% here. So if the slope were less than 12%, the string
- would show as being flat or lower than the person to the right, and instead it shows the string as being
- higher on the right side, indicating that the slope is greater than 12%.
- The percent slope shall be measured at a six foot fall over any 50 feet. And that is in our ordinance
- as to how we calculate looking at slope. So this is like a real world example of just showing that this
- is greater than 12%, which is the restriction here. Again, we're doing our first creek crossing here.
- It's not identified as a riparian area necessarily. This is a view of the creek.
- So again, they probably have to do some improvements, corrugated pipe. And then we've got some more
- topography here as we like turn back and look at that riparian area that we just kind of came down this
- way and back up. Here we're measuring a nine foot feet or a nine feet wide area of the eight to 10 foot
- logging road. So again, this would have to be widened, graded, vegetation removed.
- In some areas, it was a little bit difficult to get a good picture. We've got some fallen trees every
- once in a while. And then this is about the place where we stopped. It just got to be so steep in this
- area, circling in yellow here, that it didn't make sense to keep going forward. So the next segment of the 1.4-mile-long
- road that we're going to look at is here. So it kind of picks up.
- We stopped kind of like over here on the most left-hand side of the slope map, but where we actually
- end up starting on this one is up here in the blue and hiking down this way. It was difficult to find
- this. There were some tree blow downs, but also just not a maintained road at all. We weren't able to
- traverse this area. It was, there was too much vegetation and yeah, unable to find it.
- in places. So this area here is in slopes that are not restricted. These are less than 12% slopes where
- they have the road here. But as you dip down into this area and it gets steeper, this is where we kind
- of lost ourselves in this area. And we were not able to confirm that there was an existing 8 to 10 foot road.
- So this is kind of where staff was, and we're able to kind of pick up a little bit of the gravel underneath
- there, but it's quite overgrown. And then we just get to this part where it was just impossible, and
- we had to turn around. One thing we were looking at was kind of the tree canopy. You could kind of see
- an opening here, which made you think that it maybe had been a prior skid trail clearing or something,
- but it was unable to confirm that this is an existing road. It really would be more new terrain.
- And then kind of backing up, we were able to get a picture of us eight feet apart. It was pretty steep
- here, too, like just to kind of beyond that eight feet, you're kind of going down a hill. And then this
- part up here, we can see the yellow arrow. We're kind of looking down towards the
- west. And that's all slopes that are less than 12%, not restricted. We've already got some roads in
- there. And we're going to be coming down to this area here next. So you can kind of see that in the
- tree line over here. So this next segment of road
- Again, here's the 12% slope line that they were following for a little bit. The road does continue this
- way down a ridge top, and that is actually what staff did, but that was incorrect. They actually make
- kind of a sharp turn to the south with the design that they submitted in their site plan, and it is
- almost a new terrain road. We did not even see that as a road that we
- should have gone down when we were in the site visit that day. And again, we kind of break this up between
- the ECO 1, so this is where 12% slope restrictions occur, and ECO 2, where the 15% slopes occur. And
- then right in this area here is where we start to encounter the 200-foot
- riparian area. And so even though we're not encountering steep slopes in this area, we are encountering
- non-buildable area in the form of riparian area. But the way our ordinance reads is that you are able
- to kind of have some creek crossings infrastructure within riparian areas. So that's not included as
- a variance in this case.
- And so again, like staff, when we were coming down this blue ridge top of 12% slopes, we actually just
- kept following it down and came and curved around and followed the riparian area back before we came
- up the steep gray area. And upon further reflection and looking at our photos and comparing the maps,
- we realized that we missed actually a turnoff through here. So it is shorter.
- But it's through a lot more steep terrain. It would be new terrain road, I would say, versus this existing
- road that is through slopes that are not as severe. And it already exists. But their site plans do not
- show them using this. And then I'm going to point out this spot here. This is a really steep grade that
- we did go up.
- You know, throughout the day that we were doing the site visit, we were being kind of monitored by an
- ATV that followed us through most of the site visit. The ATV was able to use this road here back and
- forth and was able to come up through this area. So in the packet, we have some pictures that we crossed
- out because this is where we thought that the site plan was taking us down.
- Again, here's this map where we took a picture here. But really, the road that we should have done was
- this new terrain road through this way. It's a shorter distance, but through steeper slopes. And I think
- this is right where it gets really steep within that gray area that we're getting ready to come upon.
- But this is where that connection piece would have been. And I'm sure we would have tried to get a photo
- of it had we been aware that we were supposed to be doing new terrain.
- We did have a prior inspection on file from April 18, 2022. Now, this wasn't in the packet, so this
- is kind of new information for you. You can see this road pretty clearly. This is the one that staff
- followed in the most recent site visit. But actually, we were supposed to come this way. And we do have
- a photo that we were able to take. It's this one to the right here. And you can kind of see a skid trail
- up this steeper terrain slope.
- All right, so we have another segment. This is that gray steep slope that we're going to pick up on.
- The riparian area cuts across through this. And then we're going to be going through some slopes that
- are 36% to 45% in places and come to yet another area of where it's a ridge top. And the slopes are
- less than 12% in that spot.
- correlates to this right over here. So our first photo is kind of this really steep cut. You can see
- where they carved this out while they were doing a logging operation. We were trying to get
- a good perspective of that, where we demonstrated earlier the slope with that bright yellow line and
- the tape measure. We just couldn't get a real good perspective for that photo in this instance. And
- then here's the ATV that was kind of
- joining us throughout our walk throughout the property that day. And then this is 8 to 10 feet logging
- road that was existing. Here, we're standing 11 feet apart. Again, there's some steep coming here. And
- I know it was steep coming off the other side. So there'd be some interesting grading work happening
- and, of course, some vegetation and tree removal to get this to be a 16-foot wide road.
- Here we're at that, what we would call access easement number two, coming off this way. This does kind
- of provide access to a lot of buildable area, which is slopes less than 12%. Keeping following the yellow
- arrow on the right. This is that terrain here that we're going down. And then we've got our final segment,
- and this is
- Coming through various terrain, we get a little bit steep right before we get to the final series of
- creek crossings within the riparian area. So here we have the road widening here. This large area is
- the riparian area. And then we do have slopes that are less than 12%. But again, this is riparian area.
- We're down in the creek. Each one of these black,
- lines that you see here are corrugated metal pipes that are already in place. These are to allow for
- drainage to happen. Sometimes it looks like they wash out and are repaired frequently. So here's some
- of the photos that we have of this area kind of coming up
- And we're getting close to down here at this bottom picture, you can see that access one road that we
- talked about last month, where it will make a connection here in just a moment. So here's the terrain.
- This is the area that's within the riparian area. You can see some of this is one of the areas where
- there's a pipe that goes under the road.
- signs of erosion and gravel washout while we were down in here. This is an area they're intending to
- both widen and then pave. This is another area where we have a corrugated pipe. I think this was a metal
- pipe, or it's supposed to be a metal pipe. But we have a lot of great work that's been done.
- You can even see, you know, we saw a lot of gravel kind of in this area getting washed down the creek.
- This was a piece of machinery that they just kind of seems like they leave down in here. It's like sort
- of a bucket dump truck where they can pour more gravel to repair this area because this does have a
- creek that's active in it, likely floods, has some washout issues. So that was the petitioner's site
- plan that we just reviewed. I am going to get the packet, swing it over here.
- All right, let me get a little bigger. Just a couple of things we want to keep covering. This is the
- Eco Area 2, which is in red, and Eco Area 1, which is in the blue. And we're focusing this week on just
- these golden parcels here. Here's the site plan map.
- In total, we have that overall slope map for the subject property outlined in black. And again, we're
- able to pull out slopes that are anything that's not light blue is basically a restricted slope other
- than in the eco area too, which would be blue and or light green. That would be acceptable to do development
- and to put the road on.
- Exhibit three, we have examples of nearby properties that are comparable for driveway widths. So here
- we have a single-family residential. This road or driveway width is less than 11 feet wide. We have
- another driveway in the area that was a new build, and this was 11.28 feet wide for their driveway.
- And just kind of comparing the slopes here,
- These houses out on Shadyside Drive, they really try to utilize the buildable area and keep their development
- within that. I mean, we do see that there are a few areas where driveways have had to traverse the steeper
- slopes. But again, these are not 16 foot wide driveways. And then we have similar ridge formations throughout
- the area. This is not unique to the Huff property. This is the Huff property here.
- And it looks similar to a lot of the other terrain. We have a petitioner letter. And I think that was
- that for the packet for now. I'll bring it back. All right. So we have the petitioner's site plan. We
- do have a note that's on the site plan that says,
- This exhibit was prepared based upon documents obtained from the Office of the Recorder of Monroe County
- and other sources and is not intended to be represented as a retracement or original boundary survey,
- a route survey, or a surveyor location report. And we did not see an assigned licensed engineer stamp
- on these site plans. All right, so this was not in the original
- packet, but after thinking about it, we were able to geo-reference the stewardship plan that was done
- through DNR and reference the new road on it. And so the stewardship plan kind of in yellow here are
- these stream crossings that pop out. The green areas are log yards and possible home site or wildlife
- food plots that were identified that you can kind of see. And these do match kind of the terrain. And
- then we have
- These gray lines were going to be skid trails, and the blue lines intended to be more of an access road
- for a large logging truck that could get down to these log yards and load up and pull and haul the logs
- out. So they've done a significant amount of logging out here already. What we want to point out is
- that the new road is utilizing prior skid trails recommended under the stewardship plan. And in other
- areas, it will be creating a new road.
- There are sections of the new road that were not included in the stewardship plan. So we have this area
- here that comes through, down through this repairing area that was just not intended to be a road. May
- have been partial skid trails throughout here. And we have another section, though they have it kind
- of coming off this way as a skid trail, like this is kind of some new terrain that they're building off.
- This is the urban area map in relation to the new road. So it's a little difficult to see because we
- overlaid two maps on each other. So we have this blue circle that comes through here. This blue circle
- represents a quarter square mile. And that's an important statutory requirement when defining an urban
- versus a rural area in Indiana. So the area within the blue circle,
- is the urban area boundary, which has been agreed to by the petitioner and the county, is restricted
- in terms of logging on areas of slopes greater than 12%. As it relates to the new road proposal in this
- section, the petitioner's survey would have to further identify all trees required to be removed for
- the build out of a 16 foot wide paved road in and along this area if the variance is approved.
- So within the blue circle, there's just no statutory right. And where they come up with this in Indiana,
- it's where there are eight residences or houses within a quarter square mile. That is what we consider
- to be an urban area. And so our ordinance is allowed to have greater restrictions in these urban areas.
- And so this is an agreed upon map that was just done within the last month.
- You can see the new terrain or the road that comes through here. Any of it that is outside of slopes
- greater than 12% or 15% in certain areas would likely have to come back here for additional review to
- do logging specifically. So going back to the packet.
- Exhibit 17 in the packet. We have five prior logging plans that were submitted by the petitioner under
- permit 17-IL-05 and permit 18-IL-04. These are the original plans and also then the geo-reference plans
- within the 2024 aerials that follow. So this logging plan was submitted
- May 4th, 2017 from Steve Smith. And it identifies with an L, a lot of the like log yard landings where
- they would be loading up logs to cart them out. The logging roads are in these like flat, like solid
- lines. And then there are skid trails with the dashed lines represented through here. So the next photo
- or next image is this, but we overlaid it with
- the log with the site plan. I'm sorry, we overlaid it with the 2024 aerials. Thanks. So the aerials
- are kind of depicting like, yes, they were in general following their logging plan. We can see the roads
- were following the logging plan roads and the log yards. Here we have another plan that was also submitted
- May 4th, 2017.
- kind of showing each one of these one, two, three, four, those easements. They have each of these easements
- that they're utilizing. There's log yards associated with these. And then when you put it with the aerials,
- you can kind of see that they have removed a lot of the trees within these log yard areas. The roads
- are in place. They have extra roads that are in place in certain areas. There's another one from,
- May 4th, 2017. And again, overlaid with the 2024 aerials, showing the logging that they were able to
- do out here. So this one's a little different because this is from a 2018 logging permit. Neither of
- these permits were ever issued. The 2017 permit was not issued. The 2018 permit was issued with conditions,
- but it was never picked up from our office and was not posted on site. So in a sense,
- not really issued. Again, though, we're seeing the L for the log yards. We have these dashed lines,
- which are kind of, I guess, skid trails in this instance. Primary skid trails are dashed. Hall roads
- are the solid lines. So they do have the solid lines kind of depicted here. And then here it is overlaid
- with the 2024 aerials. Again, looks like it's matching up with their logging plan.
- for the most part. This might be the last one we have of the log yard with the landings and the main
- roads for the hauling. And then here it is with the aerials, the roads we're following it. But it's
- a little more extensive than what we were seeing in their original logging plans.
- Then, yeah, please. Something to note on these different logging plans was that we noticed that there
- had never been a road proposed from the north access number four down to access number one until this
- variance petition. So throughout all the different logging plans that we had received at staff level,
- even the stewardship plan, this new road was never
- asked for by either their engineer at the time, loggers at the time, or the DNR for logging. All right,
- so the three of you were given a packet earlier. We did get a flurry of new remonstrance letters after
- the packet went out. I don't think, did we include any letters in the packet?
- Yeah, we got no letters before the packet went out a week ago. So these have all just been what have
- come in. I think all of them here on the slides, but you also can take a moment to read them. We can
- leave them up on the screen for just a short moment so you can kind of get a perspective. I reviewed
- them as we were getting ready to start.
- We did have some extra copies that were on the desk over there that might be circulating. So if anyone
- else from the public wanted to look those over, hand them around, they're there. Let's see. Here's another one.
- Skip to the next one here. Keep going with another one.
- Switch to another. This was a two pager. That's the first page and then the second page from the Monroe
- County Soil and Water Conservation District.
- This one here also came to us this afternoon. And it's kind of describing the statutory thing that we
- went over with the urban versus rural statute. Another one. Is this? Yes. This is still an introduction
- of evidence here.
- And you have that in your packet. And it's three pages. So this is the second page here. And then the
- third page. This is a much quicker presentation than last month. For VAR-25-48A,
- The Huff New Road Eco Area 1 12% slope land disturbance variance to Chapter 823. Staff recommends a
- denial of the variance based on the findings of fact. And for VAR-25-48B, staff recommends denial of
- the variance based on the findings of fact. And I'll take any questions if you have any.
- So we can turn now to the petitioner. If the petitioner is here in the room, you're welcome to come
- to the podium. If you're online, please raise your virtual hand, and we'll ask tech services to allow
- you to unmute. Okay, I cannot see your last name, but Nicholas, are you the petitioner's representative?
- Yes, thank you. I'm unmuted, yes. My name is Nicholas Mullian. I'm the attorney for the Hubs.
- Can you hear me? If you could raise your right hand, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,
- and nothing but the truth? I do. OK, thank you. You'll have 15 minutes to speak to us. OK, thank you
- very much. I want to thank the members of the board who were able to make it for being here and listening
- to this presentation. This variance arises. I got a bad echo from somebody. I'm not sure if you can.
- or there's an extra mic on or something. Okay, I'll just go ahead. We'll move on. That's fine, I can
- hear myself. This variance arises out of a necessity from the uniqueness of the properties that the
- Huffs own. The Chumley parcel, which is the southernmost parcel they own, became landlocked when the
- Army Corps flooded the area to create Monroe Reservoir. However, through unity of title, the Huffs have kind of
- eliminated that landlocking by purchasing the property north of that and hopefully giving themselves
- access through this variance out to the public road. The huffs as it stands today though do not have
- access to that chumlee parcel for agricultural purposes. That meaning harvesting timber, accessing their
- agricultural barn, planting or growing crops through any of the other easements or accesses that you
- guys saw today. Especially that
- access that goes through the shore subdivision. While the Huffs do not believe they need this variance
- to construct an agricultural road, they understand that the county or the county attorneys may have
- a different opinion on that matter and therefore are here requesting this variance to meet their request,
- meet the request of the county. Despite not needing a variance to construct this road as designed and
- despite their previous settlement with the county, which states that they only need variances
- for non-agricultural purposes. Accordingly, the Huffs are submitting this request for a variance in
- good faith
- to address the county's concerns and to ensure that they may proceed with construction of the agricultural
- road as designed. I hope the board has taken the opportunity to read through all the documents provided
- by the staff. They did a thorough overview there, but I hope you had a chance to read through everything.
- First, I wanna address that the staff makes several allegations that the building of this road would
- create erosion into the lake or would create some sort of damage to Lake Monroe. The staff supports
- none of these conclusions with any testimony, studies,
- evidence or from an expert witness or an engineer. It just seems to be the staff's opinion that this
- will happen without any actual evidence to support that. We've submitted a letter from the Indian Department
- of Environmental Management from 2019, which you guys should be able to see digitally, who did a site
- visit of the house property during and following some logging activity. And as you can see in that letter,
- the item concluded that there was no active erosion that was observed.
- It's my opinion that it's disingenuous for the staff to conclude without any support or expert testimony
- or any engineer that the construction of this road will cause harmful erosion into Lake Monroe. Despite
- multiple site visits and very close attention to the Huff property over the years, no harmful erosion
- has ever been identified from prior work undertaken on the property. This record of responsible land
- management stands in stark contrast to the staff's unsupported conclusions. The staff also raised
- the issue of a couple of the affidavits from the litigation road, and I want to take a second to address
- that. It appears the staff is trying to utilize those affidavits to say that because that logger and
- those individuals stated that it was dangerous or hard to traverse the 22% slope on the litigation road,
- that this road will never be
- able to be used for logging or is not necessary for the huffs to be able to log that Chumley parcel,
- which is just not true. If this road is built to the specs that we've proposed, it will be able to be
- used for logging purposes. But I think the staff is focusing too heavily on the logging down there on
- the Chumley parcel and not the fact that this is a overall agricultural road. The huffs are going to
- use this road primarily
- to access their agricultural barn, which houses their agricultural equipment. They're going to use it
- to grow crops, possibly grapes and other things on the Chumley parcel, and also to log timber on the
- Chumley parcel as needed and take it out through this road and this access. But more importantly, I
- wanna address that the staff's repeated claims that the huffs already have agricultural access to the
- Chumley parcel.
- through what they refer to as access number one, which is an even along Shadyside Drive through that
- shore subdivision. As it stands today, that access does not provide the house with agricultural access
- to the Chumley parcel. And I believe members of the shore subdivision who are probably there today or
- on the call today would agree with that. Their contention is that the hubs do not have access
- through that access number one or any of the other accesses except for the one the huffs are trying
- to connect to with this variance for purposes, agricultural purposes and logging on that Chumley parcel.
- Whether this misunderstanding stems from an error or an intentional misrepresentation, the fact remains
- the same. The staff is incorrect each time they claim there's an alternate agricultural access to the
- Chumley parcel. The huffs do not currently have such access.
- Without this proposed road, the Huffs are unable to use the Chumley parcel for agricultural purposes,
- including access to the agricultural barn, harvesting timber, planting or cultivating crops. This road
- is not optional. It is necessary to restore the Huffs' ability to use their property as intended and
- as allowed under Indiana law. Because this road is the only access the Huffs have to the Chumley parcel
- for exercising their agricultural rights and purposes, a denial of this variance
- would effectively prevent them from using that parcel for agricultural purposes. Such a denial would
- be a direct violation of Indiana Code 3674-1103. That statute makes clear that no ordinance or action
- of a plan commission may prohibit outside of the urban areas, the complete use and alienation of mineral
- resources or forests by the owner. The Chumley parcel is indisputably outside of any urban area. By
- denying this variance and thereby denying access to the Chumley parcel,
- This board is preventing the complete use and alienation of their mineral resources and forests. That
- is a direct violation of the plain language of the Indiana code. So accordingly, we respectfully request
- a clear statement or discussion today from the board or the board's attorney, if they will, as to how
- they would justify prohibiting access to the Chumley parcel and alienating the Huff's right to utilize
- its resources and why they would not consider such a prohibition to be a violation of state law.
- From our perspective, the statute is unambiguous and any decision short of granting this variance would
- run contrary to that. The Huffs and their contractors have worked diligently to design in this road
- in a way that minimizes environmental impact, taking into account the unique and challenging terrain
- of the property. We believe this plan reflects a careful balance between the responsible land stewardship
- and the agricultural necessity of accessing that chumlee parcel.
- I think additionally, one of the things I want to address was the staff has pointed to a couple times
- these driveways indicating that the driveways are not 16 feet or the driveways are 12 feet. But the
- staff at no point ever compares the Huff's roads, which are the Huff's agricultural road, back to the
- Chumley parcel with the
- the roads, the shores, Shadyside Drive Road. The width of that is approximately 18 to 22 feet in different
- areas. This is more likened to that type of road through the property than a simple driveway. It is
- an agricultural road that needs to be wide enough for agricultural equipment. And I've submitted some
- pictures of some of that agricultural equipment to the staff that you can see how wide, you know, at
- eight feet
- or less, or even 12 feet, it's not wide enough for that type of equipment to be safely used for the
- huffs to execute their agricultural rights on this property. So, you know, at this time, I'd welcome
- any questions from the board. I'd also welcome discussion and I'd really like some kind of response
- regarding the potential violation of the Indiana code that we've raised here today. Okay, thank you,
- Mr. Moline. Do any members of the Board of Zoning Appeals have questions for the petitioner's representative?
- your comments. You've quoted the law to us quite a bit. I want to ask you a factual question. Are you
- contending
- that the Hoffs have had no access to their agricultural building and have been greatly compromised in
- their logging operations from not having this road, which has never before appeared on any plan until
- right now. Is the ag building just sitting there built and vacant and not used if they have no access?
- I'm confused. Okay, thank you. I'll clear that up for you. So the ag built barn have not
- been built yet. You guys have the plans, and you guys have seen that. That's something that the board
- knows about. But the agricultural barn has not been built yet, but it is being built. And so the access
- issue is an interesting issue. The Huffs accessed that parcel and that area through the Shadyside Drive
- originally. The members of the Shores and Mr. Kane and
- I forget the other individual on there, Mattia, had filed a lawsuit asking for an injunction against
- the huffs preventing them from accessing that parcel or pulling logs out and actually seeking damages
- from the huffs for using that easement for that purpose. The members of the Shores, and you're welcome
- to talk to the ones who are there, will tell you that they do not believe the huffs have the right under
- their easements to access that chumlee parcel for agricultural purposes. And if that is the case, the
- huffs only other access
- is this road out to access that parcel for agricultural purposes. So yes, they have originally utilized
- the other accesses, but they are being prevented from doing that by those who the easement impacts.
- So I assume they are using access one to construct the agricultural building, which is being built right
- now. Is that the access they're using for that building site? It has not been built yet, but that would be
- that would preferably be used through here. And so there would be no dispute with the members of the
- shores. But there's a legal dispute that may need to be resolved on that, on how they can build that
- there. But right now, no, they are not building it through there. Thank you. I'd forgotten it hadn't
- been built yet. Thank you for that clarification. Other questions?
- Staff has, it seems to me, a bit heroically managed to go down in these deep ravines. They've taken
- pictures. They've explained what they saw. And that to me is evidence that they've said they've seen
- erosion. Are you saying that we should disregard the evidence of what our staff saw when they visited
- the property? I don't believe the staff
- says they have seen erosion, nor do I believe the staff are qualified to make that determination. I
- don't believe that they have the qualifications to make that. We've had IDEM out there. We've submitted,
- you know, the highway department's not here to discuss this. There's nobody, the MS4 coordinators are
- not here to discuss this. There's nobody here who has the qualifications to determine whether or not
- there is erosion. The huffs have gone to extra length every time they have done work on that property to
- prevent erosion into that lake. So yes, I think you should disregard any any allegation that there might
- be erosion without expert testimony or people with the qualifications to review the property and do
- that. And the House would welcome at some point, the actual members of the board to come out and view
- that property. That's an open invitation as well.
- engineers, so I don't think that we would bring any expertise our staff doesn't have to the project,
- and the expert witnesses are available, as I understand some of the pertinent rules of evidence that
- used to be in effect when I was practicing law, is particularly valuable where ordinary people can't see.
- the situation that's under question, that's being looked into. The staff said they saw gravel that had
- washed off the creek, off the road and down into the creek beds. I think that that is something that
- a person of ordinary training, much less the extensive training our people have, is, in my opinion,
- something I am legitimately
- able to rely on in evaluating the petitioner, and I am not required to rely on expert testimony
- which hasn't been presented by anybody, but we certainly have very skilled testimony of people, very
- knowledgeable in this subject, who I think are capable of seeing gravel wash into a creek. Thank you.
- And just to quickly address that, at that time they had come, there had recently been, as you probably
- know, very generational storms that had
- done things to the property, lots of downed trees, things like that. But in addition, like I had shown,
- IDEM had been out to the property, said there was no active erosion when they actually did a visit.
- The huffs are willing to take all the necessary steps in construction to prevent erosion into the lake,
- and that can be built into the variance and can be built into the site plan. But
- Preventing this road, again, is going to be a violation of state law. There needs to be an access for
- them to access that chumlee parcel for their agricultural rights. So however we need to design the variance
- to allow the huffs to build it and limit or completely get rid of any sort of erosion can be done. But
- they have a legal right to have this road or access to that parcel.
- Thank you, Mr. Moline. Do any other members of the VCA have questions? Yes, there we go. I have a question
- for staff based on that. Access, is there access to the agricultural building site already from one
- of the access one, two, three, four? We've heard access one is, is that true or not?
- Sorry. OK. So there is.
- Currently, that's how staff was able to drive out to the location of where the agricultural barn is
- being proposed is through access one. There was a, I believe a court of appeals decision limiting the
- use of access drive number one. However, as you saw in the packet from August 25th, 2025, the Huffs
- are proposing to pull utilities from access drive number one to the agricultural barn. There are no
- utilities proposed on this new road.
- They are still developing and using access one for the construction and build out of agricultural parcel.
- I also have on the screen just to bring up the issue of something that Mr. Moline mentioned, which is
- that they dispute that the huffs require any permits or variances for agricultural uses. This was an
- order by Judge Harvey on November 5, 2022. Just reminding everyone, especially item number three, the
- huffs violated the terms of condition seven by building or modifying the road within the property, which used for
- and bring logging without a necessary permit. The hubs are required to either rebuild the road or obtain
- a variance to bring the road into compliance with applicable statutes. That's specific to the litigation
- road. So just wanted to point that out.
- questions from members of the BZA. We will turn now to the public. So I will quickly run through the
- order in which I'm going to go. If there's anybody here in the room who wishes to speak in favor of
- this petition, I would ask you to come to the podium. Once we have heard from everybody in the room,
- we will turn to the public online who would wish to speak in favor. Once we've heard from that group,
- we'll come back to the group in the room and listen for anyone who wishes to speak against. And then
- we will turn online to anyone who wishes to speak against. So for everyone that wishes
- to speak I would ask that you come to the podium I will swear you in and you will have three minutes
- to speak so sir if you'd like to be first okay then we will first ask for anybody who's in favor of
- this petition so you're welcome to go ahead and come to the podium yes and everybody has to sign in
- as well so if you'd like to go ahead and step up sign in and then I will swear you in
- If you could state your name and then raise your right hand and tell me if you swear to tell the truth,
- the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Okay, thank you. Okay, first off, I'm gonna tailor my discussion
- a little bit based on what I'm hearing, especially in regards to erosion. I'm a friend of the Freeman
- family that's done construction for Mr. Huff throughout the years and I've had the great privilege of
- utilizing these trails to walk and I walked there
- once a week, twice a week sometimes. And over a period of three weeks, I have walked all these trails.
- So I want to put this discussion erosion to rest. First off, there was, I don't know when you're all's
- pictures were taken and referencing erosion, but there was like an epic rainstorm event right over that
- valley where Lake Monroe was 10 inches over one night. And sure, it washed out tons of these trails.
- But I do say Mr. Huff poured his resources in and then fixed those gravel washed out areas. There was
- great extensive damage, but he fixed it.
- And I walked out the other day, and there's no erosion. Now you might find some isolated spots, but
- it's not a catastrophe. I mean, this guy has been a great stewardship of protecting this property for
- erosion. I think I mentioned before, yes, he's done a lot of logging, but it's been done responsibly
- where there's certain tree arbors there have told him what trees to mark, and where the trees were most
- of the time were cut, he's dug up his stump, plant grass seed for erosion control.
- I'm considering myself an expert because I'm there frequently, once or twice a week, walking these trails,
- these gravel trails down in these steep ravines. Today it's pretty good. He's done a lot of work there
- to fix it. We had a lot of rain this spring, a lot of big horrific events, so with that. Also, I know
- you guys in the planting zone, you mentioned the creeks.
- Maybe you call runoff ditches creeks, but I don't think there's any creeks. Right today, they're dry.
- I just want to put that in the right perspective. Maybe you were seeing that also, but... Okay.
- That's okay. I'm just making a general statement that where I walk, yeah, when it's during the spring,
- yeah, there's a lot of water running, but it's just from runoff. But today, there's no creeks in these
- valleys. Just to make that point.
- So another discussion, I know there's some pockets over here, some people are against Mr. Huff. Just
- made some stuff, maybe some noble comments. Kind of out of character, there's one from Marcia Velman
- about erosion caused by construction. Well, once again, I'm just, I guess I'm an advocate for Mr. Huff
- that he takes great pride in his land, he pours a lot of resources in preventing erosion, because I'm
- there all the time watching this stuff. You know, I don't have a dog in this fight about
- vacations or what I just love the walk properties but there's no erosion there you know and then you
- know there's another statement here about the visual impact of roads near the lake you can only see
- one gravel road by the lake and if you go out you know I do a lot of voting when there's a lot of roads
- you can see it from the lake so I don't see where Mr. Huff is violating anything
- You know, just having this one road I can visually see from the lake. The other roads, the gravel roads,
- they're up on top and you really can't see it. The stuff that the property used to do see from the lake,
- it looks like a state park. He's done a lot of care. He's planted a lot of grass seed where the trees
- were harvested out, got rid of the stumps. It looks like a park. I'd encourage you to look at it from
- the lake. How about three minutes are up? Okay. All right.
- Is there anyone else here in the room who wishes to speak in favor of this petition? Please come to
- the podium. Okay, seeing no one, we will turn to our guests online. If there's anyone online who wishes
- to speak in favor of this petition, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing no one, we will come
- back to the room. If there's anyone here in the room who wishes to speak against this petition, please
- come to the podium.
- If you could sign in once you've finished, I'll ask you your name and swear you in.
- Sherry Mitchell-Brooker, and yes, I do. My name is Sherry Mitchell-Brooker and I am the president and
- founder of the Friends of Lake Monroe. Friends of Lake Monroe works to protect water quality in the
- lake by reducing the nutrients, pollutants, and sediments entering the lake. Soil erosion is one of
- the primary mechanisms by which excess nutrients enter the lake.
- The additional disturbance that is in the position for variance includes acreage in the environmental
- constraints overlay area. The purpose of the eco zone includes
- preserve and enhance the quality of the water supply, prevent pollution, erosion, siltation, and the
- loss of topsoil, preserve shore cover and the natural beauty of the lakes and streams, enhance and protect
- forests, wildlife areas, wetlands, parks, and recreational facilities for beneficial water management.
- The type of pollution that we are seeking to prevent is called non-point source pollution. Non-point
- source pollution comes from many dispersed sources rather than a few major sources that may be obvious.
- It's something that you can't just point to and say, this is it. It's very dispersed.
- People are inclined to say that their small bit of pollution won't harm this big lake. But the fact
- is that all the little sources add up to a measurable and significant impact on the lake. Friends of
- Lake Monroe is working to reduce pollution one property at a time. And it is very important that Lake
- Monroe water quality is not compromised by allowing variances on the protections that the eco
- zones provide. This is important for small areas as well as large areas. Every little piece adds to
- the whole. We encourage the BZA to strictly enforce the zoning laws of protecting Lake Monroe and ensure
- the public safety by protecting our water supply.
- You could sign in, I'll then swear you in.
- My name is Ernie Hayes, and I live on access four. Oh, I'm sorry. I do. So my name is Ernie Hayes, and
- I live on the access four that we're debating tonight. And I've lived there since 1978. I was the second
- house on that lane. I've been accessing that whole property, including the house, since I was 12 years
- old. So I've been around a long time.
- thing erosion the petitioner said you know there had been a lot of rain when when the staff visited
- that and we see an erosion I think that's the perfect time to access that because it rained and eroded
- so the other thing is if you go off a of that road that goes down pump to the lake into the lake if
- you go fishing down there and don a set of waders
- your walk out in there, more than likely, I'll have to pull you out because there's so much silt in
- the bottom of that, what we call the branch bottom, which is right off the end of that. And because
- I've done it, and I didn't think I was going to get out one time. But there is a lot of silt problem
- in that. Our staff couldn't go on over the hill because of foliage and trees. There was a large tornado
- that hit us in 2004, wiped that whole hillside out right there. There's never been any logging
- down there since, like I said, I've been down there since 12 years old. All that tree damage was due
- to that tornado. I took 26 full-size trees out of my front yard because of that tornado. The other thing,
- we really don't want our little road. I mean, we got nothing but a driveway. That gravel road that you
- see coming past our houses is just a gravel driveway that's shared by our neighbors. And we don't want
- that paid. I mean, we have a hard enough
- controlling the trash, people speeding down that, the trash guys, the FedEx, Amazon, et cetera. If we
- pay that, we're gonna have plenty of speed bumps. So that's a big issue. The other issue is, we leave
- our slider open at night and we used to hear the owls. And I woke up the other night and I didn't hear the owls.
- Now with all that logging going on, and we used to see an eagle down then, with all that logging going
- on, you know, it's also got into our wildlife too. So I think we've got to consider that. I just think
- there's better options and try to go down our lower driveway, jump a holler that, you know, is going
- to be an engineering feat in itself. So we just ask you all to follow the rules
- and don't let this petition go through. Thank you. OK, OK, sorry. Let's see if this is. Getting here,
- my question was, can I get a show of hands from everybody in the room who still wishes to speak against
- this so we can get an idea of how many people wish to come forward?
- Okay, we've got a small handful. I'm gonna hop up and move the sign-in sheet over here to the table
- so that we can change the process up a little bit. So if we could go ahead and get the next speaker
- to come up. Once you're done signing in, I'll move the sheet over to the table if we can start getting
- people to sign in in the order you wish to speak while the person is up speaking so we can speed up
- the administrative process of this a little bit.
- My name is Patty Dennison. I swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you to the Board
- of Zoning Appeals regarding the ongoing changes at the Huff property. I am a county resident, although
- I do not live on Shadyside Road. I did spend
- the summer of 2013 out there, I didn't know who owned the property at the time, walking that entire
- peninsula, and it is steep. I mean, going down was one thing with a lot of falling on your bum, but
- you're right, it's extremely steep out there. I'm also aware of others who wanted to be speaking tonight,
- but for fear of additional calls from the Sheriff's Department,
- or fear of litigation, they can't be here. I'm here to speak on behalf of the reservoir, the lake, which
- is the sole provider of water for, that quote was 215,000 plus people in Bloomington and the surrounding
- area. Resources have limited, reservoirs have a limited lifespan. I want to repeat that. Reservoirs
- have a limited lifespan.
- making it especially vulnerable to any contamination and silting from runoff and chemicals
- such as fertilizers and silt and gravel. Thankfully there are steps to follow through local permitting
- that ensures we will have water long into the future and the work of the planning department assures
- the Bloomington community
- our water is in good hands for generations to come. I understand the process can get bogged down in
- the demands of lawsuits and changes, be it a chicken farmer for a culturalist or a golf course developer,
- but knowing these regulations apply to all applicants cannot be ignored. Those ordinance are there for
- this very reason, and you are the legal body to enforce them.
- It is well within the rights to enforce the ordinances in the urban area. Your packet shows the urban
- area in question on pages 184 and 185. Exhibit 12 on the page 184 shows the proposed new road overlaid
- on the urban map. I strongly recommend that you not vote for this.
- while the community works hard to follow these ordinances, that it is only fair that the new landowner
- do the same. As far as silting and that goes, in a boat two summers ago going around the peninsula,
- we had extreme rains and the small berms that they'd set up did nothing whatsoever.
- It eroded and eroded and eroded. And in fact, the trees that were left standing there to protect that
- erosion fell into the lake. Thank you very much.
- I do, yeah. My name is Robert Harmon. I came here 48 years ago from Scotland. Monroe is a great Scottish
- name. Where I'm from, we don't call it a lake, we call it a loch. So I think it's Loch Monroe, but that's
- neither here nor there. So anyway. I want to thank you for doing this, your job. We all know the issues.
- and what such take. History is replete with stories of the wealthy feeling that their personal interests
- are more important than community interests. It's great when these interests are united, but it's not
- often the case. Here it is personal interest which, if allowed, would have a negative impact on the
- watershed of Lake Monroe.
- from the construction of a new wider than needed road and would primarily be a new road 16 feet wide.
- In this case, interests of Lake Monroe and its environment will impact our drinking water. That doesn't
- need to take precedence. Please vote to deny the variance and, if you will,
- I would like to quote Princess Leah in Lake Monroe and at Star Wars when she said, help us BZA, you
- are our only hope. Got the truth?
- You have three minutes, thank you. One point is about the erosion issue, and the other point is about
- the agricultural barn and the necessity that the petitioner is claiming. With respect to the erosion,
- we've had staff go out there once, no one else has been able to see what's going out there. There's
- no visibility. The fact that there is gravel,
- that has been seen and the fact that the gentleman who spoke first on behalf of petitioner has testified
- he's out there. He's fixing it. If you're fixing it, it means there is erosion, right? And the other
- thing is that as a resident, we see gravel trucks come and go all the time. So where is that gravel
- going? I think it's being washed away. I think there is erosion. My second one is about that the
- The purpose is for an agricultural road and a necessity for that. I question whether a 16 foot wide
- paved road is needed for an agricultural barn. Now we've heard that it's going to be a vineyard or grapes,
- but my question is after seeing
- the packet before and the building plans, it doesn't look like an agricultural barn to me. It looks
- like a tasting room and an event center. And so what I would like to ask the Petitioner's Council is,
- will there be a tasting room at the vineyard? Will that testing room serve food? And what was the last one?
- Oh, will it hold private events? We were told that it was not a private event center, but it looks to
- me like it's a tasting room with food and private events. And so that's why you need a 16-foot paved
- road, not just an agricultural road that is only wide enough for a tractor. And so that's what I would say.
- referring it to it as an agricultural barn is misleading. And I would really like to ask the petitioners
- council for a little more information about this agricultural barn. Thank you. To answer any questions
- that are asked of them. OK, if you could state your name and raise your right hand and confirm that
- you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
- I'm a retired environmental educator, worked over 40 years. Oh, didn't go through the microphone.
- Kathy Meyer. I'm a retired environmental educator. I've worked over 40 years with DNR, the Hoosier National
- Forest in Monroe County Parks and Recreation. I have master's degrees in ecology and environmental science.
- I took an environmental engineering class. I was a trainer for the state Hoosier River Watch program,
- which is a volunteer water quality monitoring program
- run by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, and I'm also a consumer of the water from
- this lake and a recreational user of the lake. I looked over the 204 pages of the board packet, and
- I agree with the staff conclusions and believe that the request for variance from the watershed overlay
- should be denied. Rather than go through that point by point, I thought I would add some additional
- information.
- Last year, I attended the 60th anniversary celebration of the creation of the reservoir, which was created
- initially to solve over a century of water shortages in the county. Monroe Reservoir is a water supply
- for 128,000 people in Monroe County and also supplements the water supply for Brown County. This reservoir
- has a limited useful life, as other people pointed out. And unless we protect and maintain it, we are
- going to have a water crisis again.
- There are continuing issues with water quality at Lake Monroe. We have turbidity levels. We have taste
- and odor problems every fall. There was brown color this summer due to manganese and iron. All of these
- things increase the treatment cost of the water that we consume. We also have the cyanobacteria, the
- toxic algae that causes warnings and beach closures every year, along with E. coli.
- We have low water levels that prevent the lowest water intake for the treatment plant from being used
- last year. We have problems with access for recreation, like the docks at the Lake Monroe Sailing Association
- that can't be used because the siltation has lowered the water level. These problems are all directly
- related to non-point source pollution, which other people have pointed out. And the soil erosion is
- where this is coming from.
- The sediment affects turbidity, the algae growth and siltation. The soil particles carry nutrients,
- especially phosphorus, which is a limiting factor in Indiana waters. When you add phosphorus, you get
- more algae. When the water is shallower, it heats up, and you get more algae. All of those things add
- to the problems we have with the water quality. The Lake Monroe Watershed Management Plan, written in 2022,
- says that Lake Monroe retains almost 92% of the sediment that enters with an estimated accumulation
- rate of 35,696 tons per year. And I also looked at the DNR Division of Forestry study on the focus of
- Lake Monroe watershed, which also looked at phosphorus delivered as a sediment-bound particle and says
- that limiting an erosion
- and sedimentation will limit the phosphorous. Monroe Lake has 82% forest cover, and while this is largely
- beneficial to watershed water quality, many studies show that there are activities within these forests
- that have negative impacts, such as, sorry, I did print some of this, and it was just before the four
- o'clock, so they're copies.
- room who wishes to speak against this petition? Seeing no one, we will turn to our guests online now.
- If there's anyone against this petition, please raise your virtual hand. Thank you. I'm not seeing anyone
- online who wishes to speak against this. Do staff see anyone?
- Okay, so we will turn now to our petitioners representative, Mr. Moline. You have five minutes if you
- wish to use it for a rebuttal to any of the comments that were made against this petition tonight or
- to answer any questions that were asked. Do you wish to use your five minutes? Thank you, yes. I don't
- think I'll need all five minutes, but I'll do my best. Can you hear me fine? Yes. Okay. I know we've
- been having some issues.
- First thing I'll address is the question that was directly asked of me about the barn. And we addressed
- this in the August meeting pretty thoroughly, but that is a private agricultural barn that is being
- used just by the huffs. There is no intention for this to be commercial. There's no intention for it
- to be a public tasting room. It is a private agricultural barn for the huffs. Whether you think the
- designs are too nice,
- for what you would do for agricultural barn is neither here nor there. This is not a public barn. There's
- no commercial use here. The house are not using it as a commercial wedding venue, et cetera. You can
- see our testimony from the last hearing on that to get some additional detail, but I don't think she
- was here, so I didn't want to address that. Again, to talk about the issues of alleged erosion or
- runoff into the lake, and there's just no actual evidence of that happening. This is all just speculation.
- It's not happening. The professionals who have been out there have said as much. We'd continue to welcome
- any professional from any state body out there to look at it and do the same thing. It's just not happening.
- And the huffs have expressed time and time to this board that they are willing to take, go above and beyond
- take steps to prevent erosion for the projects that are being conducted down there. They're not trying
- to allow erosion in that lake. They love that lake as well as anybody else down there, and they want
- to see that lake thrive. Despite all of the recreational use that lake gets and all the pollution that
- comes from that, for these individuals to think that what the huffs are doing is
- is contributing significantly to some sort of poisoning or harming of that lake is ridiculous. You know
- as well as I do, the amount of gas that gets poured in that lake, the amount of trash that gets poured
- in that lake from the recreational use, it's not on the huffs. The huffs are going above and beyond
- what is necessary to protect that lake.
- But yeah, beyond that, you know, our original testimony stands. We think that this, you know, a failure
- to grant the house this variance is going to be is a violation of the Indiana code. They have a right
- to that use that parcel. It is outside of the urban area. The that the discussion on the urban area
- here and I'll get in that since I have two and a half minutes. The discussion on the urban area here
- was around the road where the road.
- ties into the easement in that part that goes out to the public road up there. We do not disagree that
- there may be some review necessary if this variance is granted so the Huff's can identify which trees
- would be removed in there. But that is not necessary for the violation of the code that the county would
- be committing if they prevent the Huff's use of their
- mineral and forest rights outside of the urban area, which is that Chumley parcel. Not giving them some
- sort of agricultural access to that parcel completely alienates that parcel. They have no agricultural
- use of that parcel if they are not granted some access by the county and that whole parcel is outside
- of the urban area and that is a violation. So I would just ask that you speak with your council and
- make sure that you understand what you're doing today if you do not grant them this variance. Thank you.
- before discussion. Mr. Moline is right about the agricultural right and access to property, but I factually
- do not understand how that has been denied with the access road that is available to reach the ag building,
- whatever its future point is. It's already there.
- The steepness of these slopes concerns me mightily 45 to 50. They're just, it just makes total sense
- that there would be steep slopes, gravel, hard rain and erosion.
- All that makes a lot of sense. The silt problems in that lake, I'm glad we were reminded that the reservoir
- has a limited life. I appreciate being reminded of that because it's absolutely true and it's a constant
- battle to keep that lake operational. We've heard concerns about that for a long time. And so the regulations
- matter mightily towards the water quality and the environmental protections. I have a lot of concerns.
- I feel that access has not been denied and that is the point
- we've heard from the other council over and over and I just do not understand how access has been denied
- when there is a route to that which has been used for many years and all of a sudden let's build a new
- road that causes a lot of environmental issues and destruction.
- As the petitioner has the burden to establish that the conditions for a variance are met, and I don't
- see that they have come close to establishing that the conditions for a variance are met.
- We've got ample evidence from credible witnesses that there are serious problems. The witness who's
- been on the property said he doesn't walk down in the ravines, he walks in the nice cleared areas. There's
- serious environmental damage that would take place to Lake Monroe, numerous violations that would be
- required of our ordinances.
- and I don't see that anything that's been presented overcomes those in my mind. So I have nothing further
- to add. I don't think the microphone was on when I first started speaking, so I'll just repeat it that
- I have nothing further to add to what Mr. Lofman and Ms. Davidson have said. I agree with both of their
- statements. So do we have a motion? There's my...
- system coming on. I'm going to move that we deny variance 25-48A for the Huff New Road eco area 1, 12%
- slope land disturbance variance to chapter 823. And also that we deny variance 25-48B, the Huff New
- Road eco area 2, 15% slope land disturbance variance to chapter 823. And I think Mr. Laughlin and I,
- Laughman and I,
- have enumerated our reasons. I'm so glad you talked about the presumption. Who has to meet the burden?
- So I appreciate that very much.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to deny VAR-25-48A, which is the Eco Area 1, 12% slope disturbance
- to Chapter 823, and to deny VAR-25-48B, which is the Eco Area 2, the 15% slope land disturbance of Chapter
- 823. A vote yes is a vote to deny both variances. Jeff Morris? Yes.
- Yes. Yes. The variances have been denied by a vote of three to zero. Expressing your thoughts. We greatly
- appreciate it. So thank you all.
- Moving on to the next item, as I mentioned earlier, and we approved in the agenda, VAR-25-48C was decided
- at the August meeting and no longer needed. So I'm going to propose that we take one more case, which
- I believe is going to be quick, and then we take a quick break.
- Let's move on to VAR-25-49, which is the Blackwell on South Old State Road 37 general contractor use
- variance to chapter 811. Planning staff has notified me that the petitioner requested a continuance
- to the December 3rd, 2025 meeting this morning. So given that that was not published in the packet and
- planning staff just heard that this morning, we need to hear from the petitioner to explain why they
- are requesting this continuance. So if we have the petitioner here in the room,
- if you could come forward, or if you're online, if you could raise your virtual hand. Again, this is
- the petitioner for VAR-2549, the Blackwell on South Old State Road 37. Okay, we have Lana Allen online.
- If you could unmute, state your name and confirm that you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and
- nothing but the truth.
- Yes, sir. Good afternoon, or good evening. My name is Lana Allen with Blackwell Contractors, and I swear
- to tell the truth and the truth. OK, if you could explain to us why you need a variance, or sorry, a
- continuance. Yes, sir. We've requested the continuance as the site has developed some questions that
- we need to answer internally. So in a meeting this afternoon, it was determined and asked if we could
- just continue to the December
- meeting to allow us some time to gather some additional information regarding the site. Okay thank you
- very much. I'm going to ask staff a procedural question. Do we need to take public comment given that
- we are proposing to continue? Okay so do we have a motion from a member of the BZA to continue this
- petition to the December 3rd 2025 meeting?
- We move we continue variance 2549 Blackwell on State Road 37, contractor junior use variance to Chapter
- 811 to the December meeting. So it's been moved and seconded to continue VAR-25-49.
- to the December 3rd, 2025 meeting. A vote yes is a vote to approve the continuance to December 3rd,
- 2025. Pamela Davidson? Guy Lofman? Jeff Morris? Okay, the continuance is approved three to zero. I'm
- gonna break and we will reconvene.
- So we will reconvene this October meeting of the BZA with case number VAR-25-54. This is the Washington
- Township Governmental Facility Use Variance to Chapter 811. So Ms. Chryselius, I will turn it over to
- you. Thank you very much.
- So we are looking at one lot of record. It is 2.15 acres located in Washington township section 28.
- It is addressed off of 505 West Simpson Chapel Road. And this is a request to allow a government facility
- use variance. So on screen is a township map identifying the site. The property is one lot of record
- and is three tax parcels. The property is zoned
- residential one and is generally has residential one properties to the west with some limited business
- to the north and the east. So onsite is a site conditions map. The property contains one structure is
- was a former church building and holds a current cemetery. The Washington township trustees office purchased
- the property in 2022.
- So planning staff does not have records that the Washington township, anyone from Washington township
- reached out to planning for any more information about the property. The property was used as a religious
- facility. The prior zoning was a state residential. It would have permitted, so Washington township
- has changed the use from a religious facility to a government facility. It is currently the township
- office. They have,
- an agreement with the prior religious facility owner for a religious use to continue once a week for
- Sunday services. Trustees are using that interior of the church building for as an office use essentially.
- So before the adoption of the current of the county development ordinance or the CDO, it was a state
- residential. It would have permitted a government facility use with an approved site plan through planning.
- So they are requesting a use variance to allow government facility in the residential one zoning district.
- If the use is approved, it would still be required to go through a site plan review, which wouldn't
- require engineer plans that would be reviewed by planning highway stormwater and health department,
- just as applicable.
- So this use variance was triggered by a building permit application for the addition of an ADA ramp
- addition to the front of the structure. So on screen is a clip of a site plan provided by a licensed
- surveyor with a detail of the ramp that they were proposing under that building permit. So it was proposed
- to be on the
- north side of the main office, the main structure. So a little bit about the use. So the government
- facility, it is a government owned or operated building used for a public purpose. The use includes
- but is not limited to trustees offices, fire department buildings, county offices, et cetera.
- So if the use variance is approved, the variance will run with the land and any government facility
- could establish business on the property. And then again, if it was approved, a commercial site plan
- must be supplied and reviewed with the changes that are required implemented under this full site plan
- unless a variance is sought before continuing to occupy the building and utilizing the property as a
- government facility.
- So on screen is a screen clip from the county development ordinance with a highlight showing the government
- facility use and a red vertical rectangle showing that the residential one zoning district and where
- they overlap, it shows the government facility is not permitted. We can see that it is permitted in
- a few other zones, but not in the petition zoning residential one. So if approved,
- The government facility use does have a standard which states that any outdoor storage areas shall not
- be visible from streets and or adjacent properties. This would apply to the use if approved. And of
- course it will run with the land. We have gone in depth with the predesign and was given provided to
- the petitioner a bit about what the site plan review would go into.
- So the site plan would be required to show the improvements proposed and required by ordinance for the
- established for the use being established in the building. We have identified that there will be some
- issues with the current parking. It will require the parking chapter will require reconfiguration of
- the existing parking area. The site plan will also trigger the construction of sidewalks per transportation
- alternatives plan. We have
- been in touch with petitioner and we have expressed you know that we will assist them in any way if
- they if we get to the point of a site plan review the site currently has I'm gonna show just in one
- two photos real quick the site currently maintains a very
- large access point. And the Monroe County Highway Department under their authority and ordinances would
- not be able to allow this wide of an access to a county public road. So driveway entrances are typically
- 20 to 30 feet wide. So if this is approved and they get to a site plan review, they will have to reduce
- the full area of access
- down to something that is acceptable to the Highway Department's ordinances, and that is going to affect
- their current setup of pull-in-front parking. So, if approved, we may have to work with the petitioner
- on variances they may have to seek based on the layout of the property and, of course, the fact that
- the presence of the cemetery is directly abutting the eastern side.
- Jump back just one picture. So on screen is a letter, the petitioner's letter requesting this variance
- is assigned by Mary Vandeventer. And now moving forward to some site photos. So two photos on screen
- just giving you some context of how much frontage direct access their current parking area has to West
- Simpson Chapel Road.
- So this is a current ramp that is on the building. My understanding is that this would be removed or
- altered in the future if the ADA ramp is able to go on. Because of that parking situation, they're gonna
- have to work with an engineer to maybe figure out a better location for the ramp and also for the parking.
- So I think there's gonna be some design changes there in the future. So this is looking west on the
- property, looking behind the current structure.
- You can see there is a septic tank lid or access point out in the grout in the grass behind This is
- looking south on the property with just a little bit of slope This is the side of the structure and
- then looking northwest This is looking directly west along Westminster Chapel and
- screen is a letter of support that was received today so it has not been included in your packet that
- was published last week but we have provided copies to you along the dais and we also have extra copies
- if anybody's interested.
- So overall staff is recommending denial of the government facility use variance request as the petitioner
- has been unable to prove that they satisfy the standards of approval for a use variance. There is no
- substantial evidence that the property cannot be utilized for permitted uses within the residential
- zoning district. And that planning staff recommends the petitioner seek a rezone to an appropriate zoning
- district to pursue the government facility use. Does anybody have any questions? Let's proceed.
- with the petitioner. Okay. We can turn now. Thank you, Mr. Seales. We can turn now to the petitioner.
- If you're here in the room and wish to speak, please come to the podium. If you could, oh, sorry, the
- sign in sheets still on the table. Okay, perfect. Thank you.
- Okay, great, thank you. If we could just make sure that we go in the order that you signed in so we
- can line everything up in the minutes. If you could state your name and raise your right hand and confirm
- that you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you'll have 15 minutes.
- Kenny Bryant, and yes, I do. Kenny Bryant, president of the Washington Township Trustee Board. Basically,
- the church came to us in a need of help because of the declining
- attendance and things of that nature and some financial issues. So, you know, offering the trustee an
- office that we've not had in the township before and some of these other folks will go into greater
- detail about that. Thank you. I'm Jerry Ayers.
- Are you speaking on behalf of the petition or are you speaking as a member of the public, either in
- favor or against? I'm the secretary of the township board. Okay. Okay. Do you swear to tell the truth,
- the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, thank you. Indiana state law requires the township
- trustees to maintain an office within the township where the trustee can perform the duties of the township
- executive, have a township posting board and a box so that paperwork can be transferred to
- needy people, and what's the occasion for that than a church, a historic church surrounded by a tranquil
- cemetery, a former church that served the needs of the community for decades. The church has been there
- for 188 years, not that particular church, but a church on that building. The cemetery is probably dating
- to the founding of the county,
- We have soldiers there from the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, the Civil War, both sides. World War
- I, World War II in Vietnam. It's a very historic cemetery. The former church building has been used
- for the township for related activities for decades.
- everybody knows if they want to go to one of our township meetings, they go to that former church.
- In 2022, when the church trustees asked the township to accept ownership of the historic property as
- a community center and township office, the township acted to save the historic building from destruction
- or further deterioration. And at the same time, provide the
- We're saving the building and we're providing a space for the trustee to conduct her township activities
- in privacy while maintaining a tranquil space for the future generations of families that use that cemetery.
- The proposal was accepted and an agreement approved that permitted the church to reserve the auditorium
- for Sunday services for a few years. And they agreed to continue to operate the 700 plus barrels
- in the cemetery until it meets the criteria that passes it to the trustee because the trustees
- are responsible for cemeteries in the state of Indiana. In recognition of the history of the building,
- we agreed with the church as a part of donations that we would not change the exterior of the building.
- We would leave it in its form. We also recognized that
- If we didn't accept the building, it was going to deteriorate and we're going to end up with it anyway
- as the township because we're responsible for the cemetery. The cemetery is, we have two and a quarter
- acres, about almost two acres of it is cemetery. So we're talking about a 45 by 60 foot building is
- about the only thing that is usable on that property for other cemetery reasons. In 2022, the deeds were
- process through the recorder's office. We didn't check with planning because I don't think anyone thought
- about that. We did look at the elevate listing for the parcel. It showed it as tax-exempt church, and
- it is now tax-exempt trustees or township, which seems to be an appropriate designation for it. How
- do we get here?
- or for safety reasons, we decided that the old obsolete and rotting down ramp needed to be replaced.
- And rather than rebuild it with a wood one that was going to stick out into the parking lot more, we
- went to a specialist and had an aluminum ramp design to fit the building that meets ADA requirements.
- We checked with the building
- department, and we're basically told you don't need a permit. However, we don't have a site plan on
- file for that location, and you need to do that. We had Bynum Fanio prepare a site plan, took it in,
- and that's when we discovered that the zoning for the building changed from exempt to residential, which
- is absolutely
- You know, I puzzle that because the church has been there for 188 years. The parcels are immediately
- adjacent. Brown School, which is owned by Cook, is across the road, 31 acres of it. The bakehouse and other
- commercial customer are on the east side of us, on the west side of us as well as landscaping. So we're
- surrounded. We've got a house that abuts on the backside of the property. And so the automatic changing
- of that to residential makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe it makes sense to somebody else.
- The one thing that we do know that the land is owned by the township and therefore it's tax exempt.
- We're hoping that you all will allow us to use it so that we can give some return back to the taxpayers
- who are paying for it. I have a question. Sir, may I ask you a question? May I ask you a question?
- Did I understand you to say that the deed of conveyance, when you got the property from the church,
- that the structure outside is not going to be changed, so if it's a government building, it will still
- have a steeple and look like a church building? Did I understand that correctly? We agreed that we would
- not. Now, the steeple, we think, will have to come down. But we agreed that we would leave the external
- of the church
- way it is because at 75 years old it's a landmark to the neighborhood and that's part of the agreement.
- We had to agree that we would let other churches or other groups use the building if they so requested it.
- We've not had that request, but by letting one person use it, we opened it up to somebody else wanting
- the building. Well, thanks for letting me know that the steeple might come down, because that would
- be an odd piece of structure for a government building if we approved it. It's going to need maintenance,
- and so the steeple will have to come down. All right. Thank you, sir.
- Next services, if you wouldn't mind resuming the clock, I think they had about eight minutes and 40
- seconds left. They're gonna keep running through the line here and they're all petitioner based. Yeah,
- combined total time for all petitioners representatives will be 15 minutes. So if we run out of the
- 15 minutes, you're welcome to take three minutes as a member of the public and speak. So, sir, if you
- could raise your right hand, state your name and confirm that you swear to tell the truth, the whole
- truth and nothing but the truth. Andy Spurriggs and I do.
- Yeah, my name is Andy Spriggs. I'm a lifelong resident of Washington Township for nearly 57 years. I
- just lived down the road from the Simpson Chapel property. I've talked to several of the residents in
- the area and they really think that community center would be a great idea to hold 4-H meetings, family
- reunions, different events, birthday parties,
- and much more. I don't feel like the community building would harm or degrade the surrounding properties
- of any way, but basically just the opposite, if not occupied. There's a fear of vandalism and how buildings
- decay if not properly maintained. So in closing, with the people that I've talked to in the community,
- The community building and Township headquarters would be a great fit for the property. And thank you
- for your time. Thank you. Hey, could we have the next speaker? If you could state your name and raise
- your right hand and confirm that you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
- Mary Van Dievender. I'm the Township trustee. And I do. OK. Go ahead. OK. I'm a new trustee. I'm on
- my third year. And when I took office,
- I knew that there was going to be an office there because before I had thought about being a trustee
- but did not want people to come into my house for different reasons, safety reasons being one and the
- other thing is the privacy of them getting to come and speak what they need to tell me, their personal
- stuff, their finances. So I felt like that that was,
- better fit for me I don't think there is any township trustees left that have it in their house they
- used to that was a common thing but now we've gone to the laws that says you have to have a bulletin
- board you have to have public meetings with plus with the board and so we were allowed to do that now
- with this building also the community center has been a
- It's been substantial to the community because if you have a funeral, which we have the cemetery, which
- is not shown on any of the pictures, it's a huge cemetery. Jack can speak to how many people that are
- there. So you have people that say, hey, can we use the community building for the dinner? And I'm like,
- absolutely, yes. We have baby showers there.
- dinners there for Christmas and Thanksgiving that people have not had the opportunity to use before
- because we've never had a community center in Washington Township. So I feel like not letting us have
- that is going to be a big loss for our community. Thank you. Thank you. To the next speaker, if you
- could state your name, raise your right hand and confirm if you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth
- and nothing but the truth.
- I do. I am the past trustee for Washington Township. I am now the deputy clerk. I am speaking to the
- reason why this was a move, a positive move for both the township as a community and as an office.
- In 2017, due to the contentious government workings that we were involved in in creating a fire territory, I was
- told by the state police and the sheriff's department because of threats that I had had that I needed
- to move our meetings. We were able to have one meeting at another cook facility within the township
- before Duke bought it. That is the property right behind Brown School, which is directly to our north
- that has not been mentioned yet. So there is another business there, quite a large one. So we started
- in 2017 actually meeting
- at the church. We started meeting in the basement and then it became quickly known that that was not
- accessible to those who wanted to attend but could not make the steep stairs down to the basement. So
- we moved upstairs.
- to have our further meetings, and we have had our meetings there ever since. As I was leaving office
- in 2022, starting in about October, that is when the proceedings to transfer the property, I had been
- reached out to by the prior trustee from me, I was in office for 12 years, and she is also a member
- of that church, and they were offering us the ability to take that
- building for a community center and an office to ensure that they could continue having church services,
- but also to continue the advantageous placement of a meeting spot for our meetings. Personally, it was
- too dangerous to have meetings in my house as well as the 75 to 100 people who wanted to attend the
- meetings would not have fit into my little 1,600
- foot square house. So we had to have a meeting spot. There are no other adequate meeting spots in Washington
- Township. We are a small township. We are a close-knit community, but we are small. And that is the
- space that we have. Thank you.
- If you could state your name, raise your right hand, and confirm that you swear to tell the truth, the
- whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Diane Branham, and I do. Thank you. Yes, thank you. I'm representing
- the church. I'm one of the members of our church, and that's the reason why I'm here tonight to tell
- you why we thought about doing this. Our church went down to seven people, and so that's all that's
- coming now.
- to our church or to our meetings or our services in the mornings. And we knew that we could not maintain
- the church anymore. We could not financially do anything to the church at all. And so we thought, all
- our congregation said, well, why don't we give it to the township? Because then we know that it would
- stay in our township and be as a community building.
- So that's why we did it for them and for our township. And our congregation has not regretted that we
- have done this to help our community. And we know that it will be there for a long period of time. One
- of these days, like I say, we have the age of 75 to 85. And so some of us won't be here one of these
- days. So we knew it was dwindling. And so that's why we did it.
- and I hope you will let them continue with the building and do the improvements that we could not do
- because of financial situation. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, do we have the next petitioner's representative?
- And this will likely be the last.
- that we could get in in the two minutes remaining on the petitioner's time. So if there's anybody else
- who wishes to speak, we'll give you three minutes as part of the public comment period. So if you could
- state your name, raise your right hand, and confirm that you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,
- and nothing but the truth. I do. My name is Jack Branham, and I do. Basically, it won't take me two
- minutes. I can pretty much confirm what my wife has said. It was our understanding after COVID that
- Obviously the church was not going to grow in attendance. We knew that financially we weren't going
- to be able to sustain the operation of the church indefinitely. And at the same time, we wanted to contribute
- something to the community.
- that would benefit as many people as possible. So we established contact with the trustee of Washington
- Township. My wife had also been trustee at one point, so she's aware of the circumstance of providing
- an office.
- having individuals come to your home that you don't necessarily know. And so it seemed like it was a
- good fit. And I think we've all benefited. It's been almost three years now since we've made the exchange.
- And I think it's working out really well for the neighborhood. Okay, thank you.
- With only one minute remaining now, I'm gonna recommend that we move to the public comment period so
- they don't have to cut anybody off after one minute. So if there's anybody here in the room that wishes
- to speak in favor of this petition, please come to the podium. Please sign in and then come to the podium
- if you haven't done so already. Mr. Plank. You can state your name, raise your right hand and swear
- that you tell,
- swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So my name is Devin Blankenship, and yes,
- I do. I'm here as a member of the public, as a lifelong resident of Washington Township, and I'm here
- to give a bit of a historic arc. So it's been a national conversation that we Americans are lacking
- third spaces, places for community outside of work and home. The petition mentions the word hardship,
- and this lack of public space is a hardship we in Washington Township know all too well.
- We need community space. In July of 1967, my neighbors began a campaign to raise $400,000,
- which is $3.7 million in today's money, for a public facility. Over 17,000 square feet, indoor plumbing,
- a multi-purpose room, a big upgrade. Less than a year later, on Sunday, June 9th, 1968, the townships knew
- 17,000 square foot facility with multi-purpose room, indoor plumbing, office space, commercial kitchen
- was dedicated by Judge Nat U. Hill, after whom this name is, room is named. We named our facility after
- the late Thomas Brown, a beloved Washington township educator. A school by day, the facility hosted
- Boy Scout meetings, Little League,
- Farm Bureau Thanksgiving suppers. And on April 15, 1982, it hosted a hoedown. The Drifters Band played.
- There were square dance lessons, 50-door prizes, and a country store selling local baked goods. In the
- blink of an eye, our mid-century modern public building was on the MCCSE chopping block. Oh,
- auction block. Washington Township's 1968 $400,000 facility
- $400,000 facility sold on August 23, 1984 for a mere $250,000 in that year's money. While several had
- cautioned that we would lose the community center, a flood of concerns continued after the sale. We
- rural Monroe Countians are skilled at making do. In Washington Township, we have known a 43-year bridge
- detour, a five-year interstate construction standstill, driving into town for gas or a candy bar.
- Going nearly 40 years without a community space is too much, though. I support my Washington Township
- Board, my community, in whatever rezone, historic designation with adaptive reuse, or other means necessary.
- While a 1954 building under 4,000 square feet is less than ideal, it is the building we do have. And
- I support the board and community in taking any necessary steps to use this building for the community.
- for a little bit of history. Simpson Chapel is named after the first president of DePaul University.
- A lot of people don't know that. And then we have the road that's the namesake of Simpson Chapel as
- well. We mentioned the nearly 200 years of history of Simpson Chapel in our community. So I will close
- with that. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Hey, could we get the next person who wishes to speak
- in favor of this petition to come forward?
- Is there anyone online who wishes to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please raise your virtual
- hand. Is there anyone here in the room who wishes to speak against this petition? If so, please come
- forward to the podium. Seeing no one, if there's anyone online who wishes to speak against this petition,
- please raise your virtual hand.
- Not hearing anyone speak against this. We don't need to go to a rebuttal, so we can close public comment
- and come back to the BZA for discussion or a motion. I have a question for staff. If this variance is
- granted and it becomes a governmental facility use, that runs with the building, so that will always
- have to be used in that manner in Washington Township, correct?
- My question is, they can use the building for the purposes that they're using them right now. There's
- no barrier to doing that, I assume. But once you become a governmental facility, then that's what you
- must be. And I don't know, does community center fit under governmental facility? I'm just wondering
- if it's restrictive or expansive. That's what I'm wondering.
- Dave Schilling is online as well if we want to hear from our attorney, but it has been explained in
- two ways. If you do get a use variance, there is, I think, some case law that would support that is
- the only use that you're stating can go in the building, and that's why you're able to meet the conditions
- for a use variance as you're saying nothing else can possibly financially or otherwise be located at
- this location.
- The way that we've also interpreted and seen it used is that you basically get your category of zoned
- uses. So residential one is a zoning category and that is in the table on the CDO. And that has a list
- of uses that can change over time with amendments to the CDO. And what they're asking for is just an
- additional government facility add on. So I think that answers the question in the latter. Okay.
- I'm a little confused too. This was an ongoing use for a public facility when the county development
- ordinance was adopted. Is that right?
- Always been I think at least part-time used as a religious facility, which is different than a governmental
- facility So think government facility could also be a police station EMS fire station ambulances could
- be deployed from that location in this case is a township office so those uses under the county development
- ordinance were
- Um, you know, revised as opposed to what it was under the old ordinance, which was a state residential
- and it did allow for government facility under the new ordinance. Residential one allows religious facility,
- which is what this previously was thought to be and did not allow for governmental facility. Okay. When,
- when the township started using it, was it permitted? They did not ever.
- to pursue a site plan. So it was a permitted use, but they were held to changing the site plan, getting
- a site plan approved for changing the use. So that's when we would have seen upgrades to the parking,
- for instance, and landscaping. Okay, thank you. Well, I find this compelling.
- the use here is appropriate, that there is a need that the property, that it's a very serious hardship
- for the community to not be allowed to continue to use this, and that the conditions for the variants
- have been met. Therefore, I move that we approve
- variance 25-54, Washington Township Government Facility Use Variance to Chapter 811 for the real estate
- at 501 West Simpson Chapel Road. Let me just ask a clarifying question before there's a second. That
- doesn't make the use more restrictive, does it, from what it is currently?
- So currently, the use of religious facility is permitted, but the use of government facility, which
- is the office use, which I believe is now the primary use of the building, is not permitted. So it's
- less restrictive. I mean, it allows an additional use.
- Can, in a government facility, can they continue to allow a religious organization to use it once a
- week? I'm sorry about the seven people in the congregation. I see that complaint. But is that an acceptable
- use for a governmental facility building? Yeah.
- So typically when we're establishing primary and accessory uses in a site plan, we list out what's the
- primary use, what are the accessory uses, or what are other primary uses, and we add up all the requirements
- for like parking, or if there's more restrictive landscaping, things like that.
- In terms of them being in a private agreement to partially host some religious services, I think that
- there is probably some case law and federal laws like RLUPA, which protects the rights of people to
- assemble for religious activities. So I don't think that we would necessarily restrict
- the religious use as an accessory to this. Okay, then I'll second it. Now that I know that the way they're
- using it now can still be allowed. I was concerned about that if there were prohibitions based
- on governmental. So I'll second that motion. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve the Washington
- Township use variance. A vote yes is a vote to approve VAR-25-54.
- Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pam Davidson? Yes. Motion is approved three to zero. And I'm really
- glad Washington Center has a community center. I understand that completely. I'm very glad that we need
- more togetherness. So I'm happy for you on that vantage. And congratulations to the Washington Township
- community for all supporting each other and making something happen that's good for the church and good
- for the community.
- and good for the township. Thank you all for coming out tonight and for organizing yourselves to speak.
- So thank you. Moving on, item number six, CDU-25-11 has been continued by the petitioner. So we will
- move on to item seven, which is VAR-25-63. This is the Lehman environmental constraints overlay area
- two, residential density maximum variance to chapter 823. So Mr. Brown, I will turn it over to you.
- Thank you.
- So this is an environmental constraints overlay area two variance for residential density maximum. The
- petitioner is proposing a new residential accessory structure on the property, more specifically a 24
- foot by 40 foot pole barn. However, upon review of the building permit R-25-989,
- It was found that subject property does not meet one of the standards in Chapter 823 regarding
- the environmental constraints overlay Area 2, hence this variance is required. There is an exception
- in the ordinance from the standard for construction of a single family residence, but that does not
- apply to accessory structures such as ball barns. More specifically, the item that
- is not met by the property is chapter 823-5B3, which states that the maximum residential density that
- shall be allowed shall be one unit per 2.5 acres. The legal acreage of this petition site is 1.54 acres
- more or less. However, this proposal does not change the residential density of a slot.
- as it's not adding any additional residential units. The lot still requires a variance from this provision
- prior to any further development, but the lot dimensions have existed in their present dimensions since
- at least 1976, which was before the environmental constraints overlay was adopted. And here are some
- views of the proposed building site, as well as the site plan that the petitioner has submitted.
- And so staff recommends approval of VAR-25-63 as practical difficulties have been demonstrated. As the
- lot has existed in its present dimension since prior to 1976, and the ECO regulations came into effect
- in approximately 1992. And I will take any questions. I think I hear the petitioner. OK. I assume you're
- the petitioner. If you could raise your right hand and state whether you
- Sign in. Yes. Okay, thank you. If you could raise your right hand, state where you just swear to tell
- the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then state your name. I do. Mark Lehman.
- And you'll have 15 minutes. We recently relocated down here to the property on Night Ridge after living
- 25 years in Johnson County out in the country. One of the desires was to
- add a pull barn, a dry pull barn, which no water or no sewer, but it will have electricity. It's being
- built by Graber Brothers or Graber Pull Barnes. We're not going to have livestock. It's going to store
- my mower, subcontractor,
- It's gonna have a workshop where I do a little bit of woodworking and river tables and storage. I'll
- answer any questions you have. Okay. Welcome to the county. Thank you. No questions? No questions. Okay.
- Thank you, sir. We can turn now to public comments. So if there's anybody in the room that wishes to
- speak in favor of this, please come to the podium after you've signed in.
- If you could state your name and then raise your right hand and confirm whether you swear to tell the
- truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Hi, my name is Thomas Westgard. Yes. I just wanted
- to come to support my neighbor's petition. The house that they moved into was a derelict mass. It was
- in terrible condition.
- somebody bought it at a sheriff's sale, fixed it up. So I'm very glad to have some actual neighbors
- there instead of the mess that was there. They put a tremendous amount of effort into cleaning up the
- yard, which had become very overgrown. So it looks much more like a yard now. And I don't want to overburden
- the point, but I guess I have talked to other neighbors. Nobody's raised any objections. And I think
- the barn would,
- you know, help them make the property look nice. It doesn't seem out of scale or inappropriate to the
- area to me in any way. So if you have any questions, let me know. But that's all I have. OK, thank you
- for coming out to support your neighbor. Seeing no one else in the room, I will turn now to teams to
- see if there's anyone online who wishes to speak in favor or against this. I see one hand raised. I
- cannot see the name, but it starts with a J. Jeremy.
- Jeremy, if you could unmute, state your name and then raise your right hand and state whether you swear
- to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Looks like you're still muted on our end.
- You should be able to unmute yourself. If you're unable to
- You may need to leave the call and rejoin. So Jeremy, if you could try leaving the call and rejoining,
- that may solve the technical issue. If there's anyone else online who wishes to speak for or against
- this petition, please go ahead and raise your virtual hand as well. If not, we will go ahead and pause
- for Jeremy to try to reconnect.
- Hey, Jeremy, I think you're back online. If you could try to unmute again. Tech Services, if you can
- promote Jeremy to speak. And Jeremy will just have to unmute.
- Jeremy is at the bottom of the attendee list there, it looks like. Hi there, sorry, I'm trying my best.
- I support Tom and I agree. Okay, we can hear you just fine now. Thank you for your patience. So you'll
- have three minutes to speak. That's really it. I support Tom, I support them, and I agree. Okay. And
- we're neighbors at 2200. Okay, thank you, sir.
- Is there anyone else online who wishes to speak for or against this petition? If not, we will turn back
- to the BZA for conversation and or a motion. I'm very compelled by the fact that this lot has been around
- since 1976 and these eco regulations happened in 1992. So with that, I'm going to move that we approve
- variance 25-63, the layman environmental constraints overlaid
- Area 2 residential density maximum variance to Chapter 823. Second on the assumption that it means because
- practical difficulties have been demonstrated. I appreciate that. Second. Okay. It's been moved and
- seconded to approve VAR-25-63, which is the Lehman Eco Area 2 residential density maximum requirement
- to Chapter 823. A vote yes is a vote to approve the variance. Jeff Morris? Yes.
- Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
- they do not need to speak to that. It was already published as such. Okay. Thank you. So with that,
- I move we adjourn, Mr. Boris. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.