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.