- It looks as though on the computer clock that it's five 30. I have not heard the bells chime, but that
- being said, let's call the meeting to order. We have a quorum and a full agenda. So would you please
- call the role of Ms. Nestor challenge? Sure. Margaret Clements here. Skip daily. Yeah. Pamela Davidson
- here. Guy Loftman here. Jeff Morris here. We have five members in person that quorum.
- Before we go much further into the agenda, I'd like to make the announcement that Charlotte Zitlow has
- passed away. She was a long-serving public servant and a colleague of ours and a civic leader. And we'd
- like to take one minute of silence to remember her and also to think of what we each can do to improve
- our community. So with that being said, we'll take a minute.
- Thank everyone for their good thoughts and hopefully good deeds that follow. With that remembrance and
- with our own reflection, would a member of the BZA please make a motion to introduce the evidence? I
- move that we introduce tonight's evidence.
- I'll go ahead and introduce the evidence and then call the roll. I'd like to introduce the following
- items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance has adopted and amended. The Monroe
- County Comprehensive Plan has adopted and amended. The Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals Rules of
- Procedure has adopted and amended. And the cases that were legally advertised and scheduled for hearing
- on tonight's agenda. A vote yes is a vote to approve the introduction of evidence. Skip Daly? Yes. Pamela Davidson?
- Yes, and thank you for enumerating those. Thank you. Guy Loftman. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Margaret Clements.
- Yes. That motion carries five to zero. The approval of the agenda. We've been notified late that Chick-fil-A.
- The item on our agenda numbers 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 has requested
- of continuance and would not be heard tonight. And so with the approval of tonight's agenda, we will
- be approving also the continuance of Chick-fil-A to be heard at the December meeting. I think since
- they continued within the seven days, we'll have to move them to the top of the agenda and then we could
- hear from them for a minute and then yes.
- Well, the agenda is listed. Is there a motion to approve it as published? I would like to move to approve
- the agenda with the movement of Chick-fil-A's interest, as previously mentioned, to the top of the agenda
- for consideration. Thank you, Skip. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to
- move item 17 through 22 on the agenda under Chick-fil-a up to be the first item under. We'll go ahead
- and just take it right after administrative business. And if they're going to be asking for continuance,
- and then we'll continue on with the rest of the agenda as published. A vote yes is a vote to approve
- the agenda with that one amendment. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Guy Laughman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes.
- Barbara Clements. Yes. Skip Daley. Yes. Motion is approved five to zero. Okay. There are two sets of
- minutes that are been submitted to us for approval. Does anyone care to make a motion? I move that we
- approve the minutes of September 8th, 2025 and also the minutes of October 1st, 2025. Second. Second.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve both sets, September 8th and October 1, 2025 meeting minutes.
- A vote yes is a vote to approve both sets of minutes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Clements?
- Yes. Skip Daly? Present. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Okay, the minutes are approved four to zero. And there's
- no administrative business? That is correct.
- Okay. So the first item on our agenda is the Chick-fil-A, the continuance. Is there any discussion about
- that? Anything? I believe they have to formally request it on the record. I believe they are online.
- They should be able to be unmuted.
- Text services can unmute Joseph Beverina. Joseph, if you would like to just briefly state your request
- for continuance. You will have to unmute on your side.
- Uh, Madam Chair, would we have to swear him in first? Yes. Is he present? He is present. I'm not sure
- if he's able to unmute at this time. Joseph, if you're not able to unmute, you'll have to leave the
- meeting and reenter. Okay. It looks like he unmuted. Yep. Sorry about that. My apologies. Joseph, would
- you kindly raise your right hand? And do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
- the truth? I do. And please state your full name.
- First name is Joseph, last name is Verena. Thank you. And your request for the continuance, could you
- state your request and the reason for the continuance? Absolutely. Yes. As mentioned earlier, we would
- like to request continuance to the December 3rd BZA meeting to allow some additional time to work through
- the formal site plan review with staff just to make sure we have all our variances identified to hopefully
- eliminate multiple trips to the BZA.
- Is there anything else that you'd like to add? Nope, that was it. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to
- approve the request for continuance to the December 3rd meeting for the items, uh, director specified.
- Yes. Um, is that, do we don't have to hear public comment on that? So is there a second for that motion?
- Um, I just want to ask, uh, is December 3rd enough time for you to do the plan, the revisions?
- Which revisions? To the site plan, whatever you're going to present to us? Yeah, I mean, I think our
- plan is ready to go. We're just going to go through that formal site plan review to make sure we're
- not missing any variances. Just to minimize trips back to the BGA. OK, sounds like you can make our
- next meeting. I second that motion.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to continue items VAR 2566A through 66F. These are the Chick-fil-A
- items noted on the agenda numbers 17 through 22. A vote yes is a vote to continue these to the December
- 3rd, 2025 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daley?
- Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris?
- Motion is approved five to zero. Okay. So the Chick-fil-A hearing will not
- take place tonight. If there are members of the public who are here to weigh in and to testify either
- in favor of or in opposition to Chick-fil-A, please note that that will take place in December at our
- next meeting in December. So there are other items that have been continued, and I just want to make
- sure that before any member of the public might sit through the entire meeting only to not have
- I believe that item variances two, three, four.
- And four, the Donovan buildable area in a special flood hazard area, variance to chapter 813, the Donovan
- accessory dwelling unit regarding a shared driveway. And the Donovan accessory dwelling unit with the
- buildable area requirement will not take place today. That's at 6611 South Rockport Road. That's been
- continued by staff.
- and there are no other continuances? That's correct. That's okay. The Crimson storage, self storage
- use variance has been withdrawn by staff. Part of that has been withdrawn, just the RV and boat storage.
- So they're still on the agenda for self storage use variance. Okay, with that being said, let's just
- get right down to business with old business. And this is variance 25-43F, the Casey shake sidewalk
- requirement variance to chapter 88.
- property at 31 40 North Smith Pike. Mr Brown, if you'd kindly review that with us. Thank you. So this
- is in regards to a proposed expansion of an existing veterinary service. They are requesting a sidewalk
- waiver to avoid putting in a sidewalk as dictated under chapter as is required
- As a bit of a recap, the petitioner is proposing a new design that includes an expansion of the primary
- structure by approximately 3,186.5 square feet.
- A site plan is required for site expansion, and the county development ordinance requires a sidewalk
- installation, but the petitioner does not want to install a sidewalk, so a variance is required. The
- petitioner was approved for other design standards variances, those being VAR-25-43A, B, C, D, and E,
- as well as a conditional use, CDU-25-6 on August 6th,
- 2025. That made the veterinary service conform to the county development ordinance and the Board of
- Zoning Appeals continued to decision on the sidewalk variance discussion tonight. And to give a recap
- on the sidewalk requirement itself, Chapter
- 818-1B states the following standards, that sidewalks shall be placed in the right of way to the extent
- possible when prompted by a site plan. Under a site plan, sidewalks are required to be installed if
- any of the following prompts apply to said commercial site. One, the sidewalk is present within 2,000
- linear feet of the property.
- The property is shown on the transportation alternatives plan with a greenway corridor or road improvement
- label, or three, the property is within the urban area boundary as defined, which is included below.
- The site meets all three criteria for requiring a sidewalk. According to the estimates, the sidewalk
- would measure approximately 160 feet, would need to be installed on the site of petition site, the sidewalk
- would be bisected by an existing driveway and will need to be at least five feet wide. In speaking with
- the Monroe County Highway Engineer, statement in the image below was given. This was presented to the
- Board of Zoning Appeals during the last time this petition was heard. And that comment is included below
- from Paul Satterly.
- So here is the petition site itself on the left and on the right is the area behind the property where
- the expansion would take place. Here is the site as it currently exists. And here is the proposed expansion.
- These are new submittals received by staff showing the surveyor showing the proposed sidewalk.
- And staff recommends denial of VAR-25-43-F based on the findings of fact, as well as comments from the
- Monroe County Highway Departments. And I will take any questions. Members of the Board of Assembly and
- Appeals have a question for staff? Let's listen to the petitioner first. I think we've been doing, and
- it's worked pretty well. If the petitioner or the petitioner's representative would please come to the
- podium and sign in.
- Mr. Sheik, it's good to see you again. Hello, good to see you. Please raise your right hand. Do you
- swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You have 15 minutes.
- Okay, thank you. I'm Casey Sheik, owner and veterinarian at Town and Country Veterinary Clinic. Thanks
- for taking the time out of your busy schedule to hear my request. I greatly appreciate your time. Thankfully,
- I'm fortunate enough to be one of the first ones on the agenda
- because by the looks of tonight's agenda, you guys are all in for a busy night. So glad I get done and
- get this done and over with. As most of you are aware, Monroe County community is in need of more veterinary
- services and I'm trying to grow and expand the town and country veterinary clinic to better serve the
- Monroe County area. I'm requesting the sidewalk variance since the sidewalk measuring approximately,
- or five feet by approximately 110 feet
- in length is currently required to complete the addition to the veterinary clinic. There's already 50
- feet of concrete for the entrance of the clinic from North Smith Pike, so this adds up to the 160 feet
- of sidewalk that Daniel mentioned. Since this is an existing business and not a new build, the requirement
- for a sidewalk is simply not feasible for many reasons, which I will explain shortly. The addition of
- the sidewalk will be
- the only land disturbance and construction project clearly visible from North Smith Pike whenever the
- clinic expansion project occurs because it will be hidden behind the clinic. This proposed sidewalk
- will dead end at the property lines for Town and Country Vet Clinic. The nearest sidewalk on the east side
- North Smith Pike is over a quarter mile away, approximately 1,500 feet, and located near Speedway gas
- stations. There are no schools, parks, playgrounds nearby, and North Smith Pike is more of a rural area
- than an urban area. The proposed sidewalk route is also an area where distracted drivers frequently
- veer off the roadway to avoid collision from someone making a left-hand turn onto
- Carmola Drive, so safety is a concern as well. So Mr. Satterly had some remarks and was in favor of
- sidewalks, so I've got a little rebuttal for him. Mr. Satterly reports that Smith Pike is a popular
- pedestrian corridor. However, there is very limited foot traffic on the east side of Smith Pike and
- south of Carmola Drive.
- I rarely ever see anyone walking on the east side of Smith Pike. The majority of the foot traffic occurs
- from Carmole Drive and continues north towards 46. This is obvious by the path worn into the grass to
- the north from Carmole Drive. There is no path worn into the grass on the east side of Smith Pike. The
- most recent addition of sidewalks to North Smith Pike occurred at the roundabout on the south end at
- Woodyard Road.
- However, looking at the sidewalk, it is clear that there are no future intentions for this sidewalk
- to continue north on the east side of the roadway as the sidewalk dead ends at a guide wire for a utility
- pole. It's almost dead center in the center of the sidewalk. It just goes right up the guide wire and
- stops. Mr. Satterly also neglected to mention that the county does not have right-of-ways on the vast
- majority of properties along North Smith Pike.
- The county will have to purchase additional right-of-ways in order to complete a sidewalk project along
- both sides of North Smith Pike. Therefore, this proposed sidewalk will be a sidewalk that dead ends
- at the property lines and serves no purpose. If there were ever to be a sidewalk to extend
- to the north in a straight line from this proposed sidewalk. The sidewalk will extend through the neighbor's
- garage located on the corner of Maryway Lane, and if it continues a little farther down towards Speedway,
- it will run through somebody's living room. So let's talk about some practical difficulties.
- The first one cannot be reasonably addressed through the redesign or relocation of the development building
- structure existing or proposed. Daniel mentioned that the sidewalk does conflict with an existing sign
- for the business. However, he did not mention that the sidewalk conflicts with a mature maple tree,
- the flagpole, lighting for both the sign and flagpole, as well as established landscaping as illustrated
- in the sidewalk plan.
- About 8 to 10 years ago, or not 8 to 10, about 10 to 12 years ago, I obtained a permit to update the
- previous business sign, which was in the exact same location of the current business sign. The town
- and country veterinary sign has been in this location for at least 20 years that I'm aware of and most
- likely much longer than that. In 2023, there was a rezone and a lot line shift that occurred on the
- property that I own.
- This was to preserve the vacant agricultural land. During this process, the county quietly acquired
- an additional 10 feet of right-of-way, which then included the area where the sign currently resides.
- So let me sum this up. Basically, the county took 10 foot of land without fair compensation to the landowner,
- being me, and state that the landowner was required to dedicate this land during the rezone lot line shift
- process. Now in order to grow my business and expand the business, the county is requiring the small
- business owner, me, to remove their business sign that is set in this location for many years and install
- a sidewalk in the area that the county recently acquired at no cost to them. The county's actions in
- this case definitely does not promote the growth of a small business.
- The sign, lights, landscaping, flagpole cannot simply be relocated just east of the proposed sidewalk
- because it will be in the existing parking lot. The current location of the business
- sign is in a very visible location along road frontage. However, relocation of the sign will require
- a new sign in a much less visible location because there will be no areas along the road frontage for
- the business sign. The sign will need to be relocated back away from the roadway. According to the CDO,
- no sign shall be placed in any public right-of-way except publicly
- own traffic control and transit signs. Therefore, I will not be allowed to place a sign back in this
- location. The proposed sidewalk will also require removal of current landscaping around the business
- sign. I sought a variance for regarding additional landscaping, but I did not expect to be required
- to remove existing and established landscaping. Also, the proposed sidewalk
- a 40 inch diameter maple tree located at the south end of the property as depicted on the site plan.
- This mature tree is estimated to be greater than 120 years of age. 16 inches of the base or trunk of
- this tree will need to be removed as well as vital roots located in a critical root zone for this sidewalk
- installation. The proposed sidewalk
- will be detrimental to the mature maple tree and will eliminate this tree. Even if the sidewalk is curved
- around the tree, there is multiple six to eight inch diameter roots at the top of the ground that extend
- out eight foot beyond the trunk of the tree. Placement of this sidewalk will require removal of these
- roots. I've contacted tree expert Corbin Forsten at Alpro Tree and Land Service regarding the placement
- of this sidewalk, and he confirmed that the sidewalk
- will result in the death of this tree. I had a similar project in our sidewalk installation, but similar
- project in Greene County where the tree roots were cut adjacent to the tree at the top of the ground
- and both of the mature trees that were affected died. Again, I sought a variance for additional trees,
- for having to plant additional trees, but did not anticipate that I would be required to remove a large
- mature tree.
- Now I'm seeking a sidewalk variance to save this healthy tree. Neither the sidewalk nor the tree can
- be reasonably relocated to prevent killing the mature tree. Sidewalk cannot be moved closer to the roadway
- due to existing utilities. Another practical difficulty may not be reasonably overcome because of uniquely
- excessive cost of complying with the standard. The sidewalk installation itself
- cost approximately $6,500 to construct. This estimate is from Gardner Concrete Service, and I think
- that's a fair estimate. However, complying with the standard will cost twice as much as the sidewalk
- installation itself. Since the sidewalk installation will require the elimination of mature maple tree,
- I have a $5,250 estimate from All Pro Tree and Land Service for removal.
- A new business sign will be required to conform with the standards in a new location. A rough estimate
- for a new lighted sign from SignWrite is $7,500. I have not obtained estimates for removal and disposal
- of existing sign flagpole. Keep in mind that both the flagpole and sign are set in concrete.
- and for removal of landscaping, nor have I received an estimate from electrician for safe removal and
- termination of electricity at the current sign. I anticipate these associated costs may easily reach
- $1,000 to $3,000. All the additional costs, not including the sidewalk, will likely be around $15,000,
- which will be more than double the amount of the sidewalk installation itself. This short 110-foot proposed
- sidewalk project will cost at least $20,000. This is an unreasonable burden to be placed on a small
- business owner for a sidewalk that will dead end at the property lines. In conclusion, please consider
- my request for a sidewalk variant since this is an existing business and not a new build. Complying
- with the standard will create excessive costs, require the elimination of mature maple tree, and conflicts
- with the sign lighting flagpole and established landscaping, all which
- cannot be reasonably relocated due to the existing parking lot. This is all for a sidewalk to go nowhere
- and dead end at the property lines because the county does not have right of ways to continue this sidewalk.
- Thank you very much, Mr. Sheik. We're going to hear from the public and if anyone is in opposition to
- your petition, then you'll have a chance for rebuttal. Do we get questions? You can ask him questions
- if you'd like. Mr. Laughman?
- Dr. Shea, could the, I don't know, could the sidewalk, I hear you talking about where you would be putting
- it, and you can't move the tree and you don't want to move the sign for reasons I find understandable.
- Is there any way to move the sidewalk in further away from the right of way and avoid moving the sign
- and destroying the tree? Then you've got existing utilities to contend with.
- Okay, I thought the utilities were if you moved it closer to the right, closer to the street. Oh, so
- you mean away from the street. Exactly. So then that would take in my existing parking lot. You would
- have to give up parking spaces to do that. Okay. Thank you. I may have other questions, but that was
- the one right now. Okay. I have a question. First of all, we're only here for the sidewalk variants,
- correct? Nothing else.
- That is correct. The landscaping and impervious cover variances, as well as the conditional use, were
- approved back in August, I believe. That's what I thought, too. My question is, for the record, we asked
- last time, how was the drainage ditch affected by sidewalk installation? Do you have an answer for us?
- It would be closer to the street. It's about four or five feet off the edge of the street, so it's back
- away from the sidewalk.
- So the drainage ditch is not an impediment to sidewalk installation? Based on this proposed site plan
- for the sidewalk, no, it wouldn't be an issue. Thank you. I wanted that to be in the record. Thank you.
- Any other questions for Mr. Shake? No? Maybe this is a staff question, and I guess I like to ask questions
- because I don't know the answer, even if I should.
- There was a question about the city taking right of way. If somebody owns property that's subject to
- this and they want to put in, and they're being told to put in sidewalks, does it matter if the county
- owns the right of way or is it just the fact that they own the property that makes them need to put it in?
- Well, this this property does have the right away dedicated as Mr Shake pointed out. But other properties,
- if they were subjected or required to put in sidewalks, we'd work with the highway department. We can
- actually do a deed to dedicate the right away easement to the county and then place the sidewalk in
- that easement. So if it wasn't already dedicated, there would be some steps taken to get it dedicated.
- And that would be the part part of the process we're going through right now. Is that right?
- That's correct. And if the county, as they mentioned, if the county wanted to put or continue the sidewalk
- and we did not have the right of way to do so, then we would have to approve and purchase right away
- from those neighbors to put in that sidewalk if it wasn't a requirement of their development. Okay.
- And a couple more. You say if the sidewalk were continued, it would go through
- your one neighbor's garage and living room? It would go through a garage. This would be continuing the
- sidewalk to the north. It would continue on through their garage. And if you go farther south, or not
- farther south, farther north, in a straight line, it would continue through somebody's living room.
- And in a straight line, I mean, I assume it would continue. Straight north, yes. OK. Would it be?
- If you continued parallel to the street, but not necessarily in a straight line, I assume that there's
- room to put a sidewalk parallel to the street, but not through the garage. It would be close. It would
- look like the sidewalk snaked down through there. Right in front of their house, right by the house,
- almost through the house and by the garage, which I think you're implying would be any impractical solution
- for putting in sidewalks in the next parcels.
- on additional parcels. Okay, thank you very much, Dr. Shaikh. Thank you. Mr. Daley? A quick question
- of staff, Mr. Brown. You mentioned in your recommendation of denial comments from the Monroe County
- Highway Department. Is it possible you could quickly sum up those comments once again, just so I have
- them fresh in my mind? Yes, they're currently displayed on the screen.
- Paul Satterly of the Highway Department said, I would like to see sidewalks installed along Smith Pike
- wherever we can. Previous developments along Smith Pike installed sidewalks even if they were short
- sections. Smith Pike is a popular pedestrian corridor and I would like to see a future sidewalk project
- along this corridor.
- The roundabouts at Woodyard and Curry have sidewalks on all sides, and the Smith Pike approach to State
- Route 46 has sidewalks on both sides. All right. So to sum it up, it's his wish, not necessarily based
- on past traffic data or accidents or other evidence. It's his desire.
- Is that correct? I believe he's making that recommendation based on pedestrian traffic. Okay. But without,
- without those numbers in his request to you? Uh, we do not have numbers for pedestrian traffic.
- All right. Um, with that, I also have, while I'm looking over the definition of practical difficulties,
- I would like to make a quick comment to the petitioner.
- I'd like to thank you for your organization and your well put together approach to your presentation.
- Thank you. You did something a lot of folks do not address, which is taking the concern of the staff
- and specifically laying out how and why, and that was the practical difficulties, and you successfully
- outlined why you have practical difficulties here. Thank you.
- Thank you. We'll now hear from the public. Are there members of the public who would like to speak in
- support of this request? If so, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand to be recognized.
- Are there members of the public who are in opposition to this request? Please either come to the podium
- in the Nathill courtroom or raise your virtual hand. Okay. Is Paul Satterly by chance online?
- It looks like we may have someone who is raising their hand. Oh, we do. Oh, great. So if the person
- who is an attendee whose telephone number begins with 585 would kindly unmute themselves. OK, and please
- state your name. Hi, I'm a little delayed. My name is Candice Callahan.
- but I'm actually in favor of Dr. Shake's request. Okay, but I still need you to raise your right hand
- and do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. And your name
- is Candace Callahan, the sound here is not so good. Yes, that's correct. And did I hear you correctly
- that you're in favor of this request? Yes. Okay, thank you. Is there anything else you'd like to add?
- No, I think Dr. Sheik's presentation was very thorough and he makes valid points. So he's pretty much
- covered it and I think he's done a great job with that. I have a question. Does Ms. Callahan, do you
- live in this neighborhood? I do not live in the neighborhood. I actually work at the clinic with Dr.
- Sheik. Okay. My mother lives right next door on Mary Whaling.
- And so I'm familiar with the area. I've worked for Dr. Shafe for a number of years. He's just the greatest
- guy, I'll be honest. I know he's really just wanting to make our jobs and being able to help animals
- in our community. We are so busy, this guy gives up his lunch breaks, he stays late, he comes in early.
- And being able to add this addition without
- some of this extra, the sidewalk that's pretty much in, like you said, on our property line or his property
- line. It's just kind of a hurdle for him. And I think with the clinic in order to better serve our community
- and that's handled in our community. So. Thank you. Thank you so much, Ms. Callahan. Okay.
- Return now to the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals for further discussion and or emotion. I have
- a question for staff. I when I read the notes, I know that this street is on the high priority road
- improvement by the county. That was a 2018 recommendation. Has the county done anything to fund or further
- that goal?
- No, I think that we need to re-review that map. It's a high priority. I believe it's a road improvement.
- So not too far from that location is the Carson Greenway phase two that was constructed maybe in 2021,
- 2022. So I think that this was identified as a corridor for people from the residential area to the
- north to get down to that roundabout area and then make their way over. So that's why it's part of the plan.
- Yeah, because that's seven years ago. That's hard to say a lot has happened. And I would just, are we
- into comments now? We're into our discussion and deliberation. I drive up and down that road with some
- regularity, and so I looked.
- The sidewalk would be marooned. It would basically be all by itself. The report said the next closest
- is a quarter mile away. I personally, I understand the comment from the colleague in the city. I don't
- see pedestrians on there. If I do, it's on the other side because they come from Aloha Heights neighborhood
- and they're walking down towards that neighborhood. I can understand the doctor's comments that the
- grass is worn on one side and not his side. My experience has been exactly that. Well, this is one of
- those tough cases for me because if we don't put in sidewalks when it's time to put in sidewalks, then
- We'll never have continuous sidewalks, and the trigger for putting in sidewalks is an upgrade to the
- property. Certainly, Dr. Shakes made many important points, but to me, one that's particularly important
- is it's very different if it's a new build than if it's an existing build.
- $6,500 for sidewalks is a lot of money, but $20,000 to destroy a tree and move and signs and stuff is,
- you know, if $6,500 isn't a practical difficulty, $20,000 seems to me it may very well be a practical
- difficulty. And while I'm completely sympathetic to sidewalks, I think it's, you know, if the county
- had to condemn this,
- there would be a lot of cost to the county to do it. And I don't foresee a real world continuous sidewalk
- in this area within the foreseeable future. So I'm, with grave reservations, leaning toward voting in
- favor of the petitioner. Thank you, Mr. Laughman. Mr. Daly? And with all due respect, Mr. Laughman,
- I also share your opinion about it would be nice to have sidewalks. And I'm in favor of sidewalks. However,
- that's not our job. Our decision is did he meet the criterion for practical difficulties? That's it.
- It was obvious to me that he meant that on a number of occasions the removal
- in the relocation of that sign being perhaps the number one reason in my mind. But he outlined several
- other situations. And our favor or disfavor of sidewalks plays no role in how we should be voting in
- here, in my opinion. With that said, I'm going to move we approve variance 25-43F, the Casey Shake sidewalk
- requirement variance
- to Chapter 818 due to practical difficulties have been shown. I will second. It's been moved and seconded
- to approve VAR-25-43F. This is the Casey Shake sidewalk variance to Chapter 818. A vote yes is a vote
- to approve the variance to not have the sidewalks installed. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes.
- Guy Loftman?
- Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Motion is approved, five to zero. Thank you. And thank
- you, Mr. Shake. Yeah, Dr. Shake, very good. We really appreciate that. Well presented. Yeah,
- that presentation. OK, item number one under new business is VAR-25-41, Walker's Chapel personal service
- use variance to Chapter 811. And this concerns
- three 1.95 plus or minus acre parcels in Indian Creek Township at 8312 South Rockport Road. And Mr.
- Smith, if you would kindly review this case with us, we'd be grateful. Sure. Again, so the request is
- for a personal services use variance to Chapter 811, and the purpose is to allow for the use of the
- property to be a photography studio.
- So currently the property is a vacant church, also known as Walker's Chapel. So planning did receive
- a pre-filing, sometimes also called a pre-design on behalf of Sarah Moore Photography to repurpose the
- former church into that photography studio.
- The studio is proposed to supplement the maintenance and renovations of the existing structure, so not
- necessarily to be utilized as a church per se, but also to supplement the maintenance of the nearby
- cemetery, the Walkers Chapel Cemetery, which is just across the road, South Rockport Road.
- South Rockport Road actually runs through the middle of the property So the chapel is on the western
- side and then the cemeteries on the eastern side And this property is zoned residential one So that's
- important to note because it does not otherwise permit the use of any personal service use And then
- on the screen here I just have the location map and site conditions map so just at a glance there's no
- environmental concerns or any other concerns that are generally popping out at us at the moment. And
- then on the screen, I have the zoning map and then the comprehensive plan map on the right-hand side,
- and we can get into that a little bit later. Some background on this property, although not necessarily
- pertaining to this variance request,
- But Walker's Chapel and Cemetery are both labeled contributing in the Indiana State Historic Architectural
- and Archeological Research Database, which is also known as SHARD. So really what that means is that
- the property met the basic inventory criterion of 40 years, but it is not important enough to stand
- on its own as individually outstanding or notable. Such resources are important to the density of continuity
- of an area's historic fabric.
- So contributing properties, they may appear in the National Register if they are part of a historic
- district, but they do not generally qualify individually. And then that'll be important information
- here in just a little bit. And then on the screen, I just have some site photos. You will note that
- the parking area, which you can see from the planning car in the bottom center photo,
- is mostly grown over, so that'll have to be something that's addressed at a site-filling stage should
- the BZA approve this request. This is the petitioner's letter addressed to the Board of Zooming Appeals
- essentially stating why they are requesting the use variance. Sarah Moore photography, so this would
- be the person who is
- Inquiring about this use and hopefully for them they would get this use and if they were to get that
- their intention is to occupy a space in the chapel and with the idea that their business will help supplement
- renovations of the church so they do list in their request a list of items that they would like to do
- such as painting ceiling repairs flooring renovations
- Sanitary repair that sort of thing and then they do a go into detail about exactly what Sarah
- more photography is about and what they do and what they would like to Utilize the rest of the space
- for And I'll let the petitioner or petitioners representative go into more detail about what their business
- plan is but essentially This is what their proposal is They do have a certified
- plot plan from Indiana license surveyor, Sean Rector. So they do have the site surveyed, at least the
- western portion of the property. So they do have that information. It'll be very useful going forward
- if they do end up getting to the site plan review stage. So some important information for
- the RES Residential 1 Zoning District.
- Before you is a list of all the different uses that can be utilized on the property. All of these uses
- are permitted either outright with standards or conditional. An important aspect of this petition to
- note is that the petitioner is not proposing to live on site. So if the petitioner was living on site,
- there may have been a scenario where planning staff could find a way to, you know,
- Identify this use as a home-based business. They're not going to live on the property So home-based
- business is not a permitted use that they would be able to follow but that would be a use they could
- potentially if they Decided that they were going to live in the former chapel So personal services could
- be permitted there is a way that they could do this although it does involve a
- Some other steps that they would have to take, so if the petitioner opted to apply for a rezone to the
- historical preservation overlay and apply for a historic adaptive reuse conditional use request, it
- is likely that staff would support those actions, but they would still have to come back to you
- Only instead of requesting a use variance, they would be requesting a conditional use, of which planning
- staff, we would likely support that petition. So there are five items that use variances must meet in
- order for planning staff to recommend approval. For the purposes of my presentation, green means they
- do meet that criteria. Red means they don't.
- Those findings being that the approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, and general
- welfare of the community. Planning staff agrees with this. We believe they provided evidence to support
- that. Numbers two, three, four, and five, we can get into if the board would like. But just because
- I know we have a long agenda, just for everybody to know, two, three, four, and five, planning staff
- does not generally believe that they have provided enough evidence
- that we could recommend approval for that request. I do want to point maybe to number five, which is
- that number five states the approval does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan. Planning
- staff believes this actually would go against the comprehensive plan, which generally states for the
- rural residential area that
- It's a rural character with low density residential housing. It's not intended for retail, and it's
- not generally seen as having personal service uses. So that would probably be the biggest one out of
- this list. But this does lead me to staff's recommendation, which is denial of the personal services
- use variance request.
- As the petitioner has not proven, they are faced with an unnecessary hardship by utilizing the property
- for another permitted use in the RES zoning district. And I will take any questions. Okay. Well, generally
- we wait to ask questions until after we've heard from the petitioner. If the petitioner, the petitioner's
- representative, Mr. Borer, if you'd kindly come up, you'll have, if you would sign in, that'd be great,
- but we don't have to swear you in because
- You're a lawyer. It's good to see you again. Thank you. Thank you. Jim Boer from Clendenin,
- Johnson & Boer, and I represent the Walker's Chapel Cemetery Association, the petitioner, which owns
- the property at 8312 Rockport Road. I also have here this evening a few representatives from the Cemetery
- Association and petitioner, the photographer who would
- occupy the property as her studio if this petition was to be approved, which we certainly hope that
- you would do tonight. As Sean represented to you and mentioned, this chapel has been there for over
- 40 years. The cemetery has been there as well. Some of the members here tonight have family members
- buried in the cemetery.
- The problem is the chapel is vacant and is not being used and is falling into disrepair. The cemetery
- is only being mowed and taken care of because members who have family members there are contributing
- out of their own pocket. We've come to you tonight because we believe we've got a partial solution to
- the problem
- That is we've got somebody who wants to make productive use of the chapel, and we believe a good use
- of the chapel, repair the chapel, make some additional improvements to the chapel, and one that would
- not impair the area or be a detriment to the area, and that would then pay some rent to the cemetery
- association, the owner of the property, that would then give them some
- income to help take care of the cemetery, keep it mowed, keep it in good repair as well. So we think
- it's a win-win for both the area and for the owner of the property because the chapel would be better
- taken care of, some improvements would be made to the chapel, and the cemetery could then be mowed on
- a regular basis and could be taken care of as well.
- which at this point it's all up to just voluntary contributions of family members and those family members
- are getting older and at some point it's going to all fall into disrepair if we don't come up with some
- solution similar to what we're proposing tonight. The construction of the property that is there predated
- the Monroe County zoning ordinance. So the chapel and the cemetery were both there before the zoning
- ordinance was there. The zoning ordinance that now says only residential use would be appropriate. The
- petitioner respectfully disagrees with the staff that this is not appropriate for a personal service
- use variance.
- We think that the approval would not be injurious to the public health safety and general welfare of
- the community. Right now, the building is vacant. The cemetery is there. Both the building and cemetery
- pre-exist. We're not going to expand the chapel. We're merely going to repair it. And the use would
- be sporadic. It would not be
- every day that anyone other than the photographer herself would be occupying it and she would not have
- an intense or dense use of the chapel, bringing lots of traffic to the area. She's not gonna be doing
- manufacturing in the chapel. It's going to be something that would be a very, a use that would not be
- something that the neighbors would find offensive. So we think that it would not have an injurious effect
- on the public health safety and general welfare of the community. We also think the use and value of
- the adjacent property would not be adversely affected. To the contrary, the use and property values would be
- positively affected because the chapel will be kept in good repair and the cemetery as well would be
- kept in better repair. It would be mowed on a regular basis and the chapel would not be allowed to fall
- into disrepair. It would be kept maintained and would be kept in good repair, which now there is a good
- chance that without funds, it may fall into disrepair.
- We think that the need does fall or does occur from a peculiar condition of the property. This property
- was constructed before the zoning ordinance was adopted. We think that now the zoning ordinance says
- only a residential use is appropriate, but it was used as a chapel and a church well before the zoning
- ordinance was adopted.
- The chapel is no longer, there is no congregation that uses the chapel anymore. So it's necessary that
- we find some alternative use for a chapel. And while it could be said that you could modify it and have
- somebody use it as a residence, that would require significant repairs or modifications to make the
- chapel something that somebody could live in as a residence.
- using the chapel as a photography studio would be less detrimental to its historic character than modifying
- it for somebody to live in. And so to the extent that this is a historic property, modifying it for
- a residence would require significant modifications and destroy more of its historic character than
- what we're proposing.
- It's certainly not functional as a residence today and it would not be functional as a residence without
- it being either substantially modified or the more drastic solution would be to raise it, destroy the
- structure entirely and put up a mega mansion or some other very large structure on the property which
- of course would comply
- with the zoning ordinance, but it would be the worst of all solutions. So the need is peculiar to the
- condition of the property. We think we've come up with a solution that meets the property owner's needs,
- and although it doesn't strictly comply with the zoning ordinance, we think that it conforms with the
- intent of the zoning ordinance
- which is find something that does not do detriment to the environmental conditions, that basically doesn't
- introduce an intense use, that doesn't bring a lot of traffic into the area, and that doesn't do something
- that is going to destroy the residential character of the area. For those reasons, we think that it's
- never going to be a church again
- are unlikely to be a church again. So how are you going to use this structure in the best and most productive
- way? We think we've come up with the idea that we'll do that, generate some income so the cemetery can
- be well maintained, and that will allow the structure to be
- used in its present form without destroying its historic character. So we think that the personal service
- that we're proposing is not significantly different than what would be allowed if this was in fact a
- residence and it was a home service. And for those reasons also, we think that this should be granted
- The comprehensive plan designates this as residential. And if this was a home-based business with a
- studio where the photographer was taking photographs of people in her home, this would likely be something
- that could be approved for her to have a studio in her home on this very site if this was, in fact,
- her home. It's not her home. It's a chapel.
- but the chapel's vacant and these people would like for you to approve its rental so that it could be
- used and used appropriately. So we urge you to approve this petition. It's for personal service use.
- Yes, that's not strictly approved, but that's why you're here is to find reasons why
- the board of our why the zoning ordinance when it's not appropriate as it's written should be varied
- and we believe that this is one of those situations and we urge you to approve this personal service
- use variance so that it can be rented
- The rental income can be used to maintain both the structure, which is a historic structure,
- and the cemetery, and that the area itself can be preserved as a residential area, and that, you know,
- nobody would come in and destroy the chapel and build some sort of massive structure there instead.
- I'd be happy to answer any questions. As I said, I've got several members of the Board of Directors
- from the Cemetery Association here, as well as the photographer. Thank you, Mr. Borer. Do you have questions,
- Mr. Daley? I have a question. I'd like to start with staff and Mr. Smith. I'm trying to clarify some
- of this. I had some difficulty when I was looking through the packet. The petitioner is
- The property owner or not the property owner? Not to the property owner. Not the property owner. OK.
- My next question is, this is currently a commercial use, well, in terms of that it is a church. Is that
- correct? It's formally a church, so it's technically vacant right now. OK. Formally a church. So church
- services can go on.
- in there and church activities can go on there. Yeah, they're permitted in residential zones. A lot
- of churches host other activities. If the church, just hypothetical, if the church had a photography
- club, you laugh, I'm serious, that would be a permitted activity because it was a church sanctioned
- activity, correct?
- If you have, I mean, they can have accessories. Okay. So, okay. Now my next question is for Mr. Schilling.
- Sorry. You and I had this conversation once before, it was five or six years ago. When practical difficulties
- is an issue, I raised the question and I'm asking you to repeat the answer to me.
- The petitioner is not the property owner. The petitioner does not really have the ability to declare
- practical difficulties according to the county's definition because they could walk away from the deal.
- So that's a gray area in my mind.
- How legally, where are we to put that if they meet everything else, but this is not the landowner? So
- there's technically no practical difficulty that can be met. I assume that the petitioner had the landowner's
- consent. So, you know, in my mind- Just speak into the mic. I think other people can't hear you.
- Yeah, the petitioner would have had to have had the landowner's consent to file for the variance. Okay.
- You stand in the shoes of the owner. Do you determine whether or not practical difficulties apply to
- the landowner, not to the petitioner? To the use of the land, yes. Okay. And this is a use variance,
- so it's hardship or unnecessary hardship?
- It's a different standard. Sorry. Okay. Okay. Do other members of the BZA? Yes, Mr. Lofman? I'm looking
- at the proposal. I think it was one of the first slides we had. And I just want to make sure I understand
- how much is
- It says, please consider our proposal of a five-year contact with a secured rental fee of $3.50 per
- month in exchange for the following work performed on the walkers. So is the photography studio going
- to pay $3.50 a month, and the church, the cemetery association, is going to do the bathroom renovations
- and the sanitary repair upstairs, et cetera? Or is the photographer going to pay $3.50 a month and
- help with these improvements? The photographer is going to pay, and the photographer's construction
- company is going to do the repairs as well. OK. So it's $3.50 a month plus. In answer to the previous
- question, the petitioner is Walkers Chapel Cemetery Association Incorporated.
- tenant will be the photography studio. So we want to make clear that the owner of the property is the
- petitioner, which is the Walkers Chapel Cemetery Association, Incorporated. That should be made clear
- in my letter. And that's who I represent. They own both the chapel and the cemetery across the street.
- And we're here on their behalf.
- but we are here because we have a potential tenant who is going to rent from us and provide a stream
- of income that will make this a viable project. Without that potential tenant, we don't have any way
- of doing anything other than what we're doing today, which is sitting on a vacant building and mowing
- a cemetery based on donations. I understand, I just needed
- clarification on who the petitioner was. I understand, but I think you got a different answer from staff.
- Correct. Thank you for clearing that up. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Borer? No? We'll hear
- from the public now. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there members of the public who would like
- to speak in support of this request? If so, please come to the podium in the Nat Hill Room or raise
- your virtual hand to be recognized.
- See no one. Are there members of the public who are opposed to this request? If so, please come to the
- podium or raise your virtual hand. See no one. So it comes back to us for discussion and or emotion.
- I have to say there were a lot of facts there that I'm sympathetic to. The fact that we heard from our
- own staffer that a conditional use on this property would probably pass muster. My, that was
- very illustrative. The fact that the building has no way to be restored, utilized, or kept intact is
- also very concerning.
- The fact that the tenant has said, I will pay a rent and do these repairs and that will create income
- perhaps to maintain the cemetery. There is a harmony in those many factors. Anybody else want to chime
- in on their feelings about it?
- It's a unique situation, but not an uncommon one. We have a use that is effectively commercial, a public
- use of this property, that if they jump through hoops A, B, and C, we could say yes, but they want to
- jump through this hoop to get to the same effect. I think it's certainly not going to injure the public
- health having a building not falling down.
- It can only improve the neighbor's property if they don't have a derelict building there. The need for
- the variance arises from a condition peculiar to the property, and that is it's got a building there
- that precedes zoning that needs to be maintained. It would be a hardship to see this church fall apart.
- We've all seen
- ancient, you know, seeing historic buildings and important old buildings fall down for lack of maintenance.
- And in terms of the comprehensive plan, I think the public use preceded the plan. So I'm willing to move.
- And may I just add a PS to your wonderful list there, Mr. Loftman, is that we should not assume that
- list of acceptable businesses is all inclusive or exhaustive. We should not assume that even though
- there is an enumerated list in the code. Yeah, especially this, which is a particularly low impact.
- Low impact. You know, there's not going to be a whole lot of people coming.
- So I'm ready to move that we approve variance 25-41, the Walker's Chapel personal services use variance
- to chapter 811. For all the reasons we've talked about, it seems like a good use to save a valuable
- property. Second.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-41. That's the Walker's Chapel personal service use variance
- to Chapter 811. A vote yes is a vote to approve the use variance. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson?
- Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Laughman?
- Before I vote, I want to thank Mr. Smith for having made our job easy to say no to you and yes to the
- Walker Chapel, and I vote yes. Motion is approved. Five is here. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Borer. Thank you
- for bringing this before us.
- Okay, we move on now to page two of the agenda, so we're moving along. This is variances five, six,
- and seven on our agenda concerning variance 25-61A, B, and C. The stone maximum height variance, the
- stone maximum impervious cover variance, the stone front yard setback variance concerning
- One 3.37 plus or minus acre property in perry township section 20 at 898 west church lane. Mr. Smith
- We look forward to hearing more from you Sure So the purpose for these three variances is to permit
- an after-the-fact permitting of an approximate 4800 square foot garage structure so
- A little history on this property, the building department did receive a complaint regarding the construction
- of building without permits. This prompted the property owner to apply for a building permit, and that's
- R-25-770, upon which planning was also notified by the building department and noted three zoning violations
- of the structure. So that's the maximum height.
- the maximum impervious cover and the front yard setback. So that's what they are here for tonight. Chapter
- 805 calls for a maximum height of 20 feet for all accessory structures located within the residential
- one zoning district. The structure is 21 feet. Chapter 805 also calls for a maximum impervious cover
- of 11,500 square feet or 30% of the lot size, whichever is less. So whichever is less being the key word.
- Of a lot located within a critical watershed. So the property is located within the Clear Creek Critical
- watershed the property contains 25% lot coverage and according to the petitioners survey Indicates that
- they have approximately thirty six thousand eight hundred forty two square feet
- I know that there was additional information that was submitted tonight. So those numbers may be a little
- bit different, but just for the purposes of the presentation, I'll go ahead and continue. And chapter
- 805 also does call for a front yard setback of 25 feet for properties with no direct road frontage.
- So this is a property that does not have direct road frontage, and they access the property via an easement.
- So that means that the
- It just so happens that the structure that the petitioner built the garage is actually within its front
- yard setback and it is actually on the line. So they are encroaching 25, that full 25 feet into that
- front setback. So upon speaking with the property owner, they had believed they fell under the log cabin
- roll, which
- Essentially would state that they didn't need a permit for this construction. However, the building
- department had determined that they did not fall under this category and had instructed them to apply
- for a building permit, which they did. Planning did begin an enforcement case, and that is AC-25-30.
- After review of the petitioner's building permit, just attract progress of the events and bring the
- property into compliance.
- It is worth noting that this enforcement case never escalated beyond a staff desk level review because
- the petitioner has been working with all departments to bring the property into compliance. So that
- is worth mentioning. And has been forthcoming ever since, has been applying for any permits needed,
- been communicating effectively with staff. So that's why that AC case has never went anywhere.
- but it is there to track to bring the property into compliance. So since 2021, the petitioner has added
- additional impervious cover in the form of gravel, also now in the form of the garage to the site. It
- is also worth noting that recorded on July 9th, 2025, so this year, the petitioner did secure an encroachment
- agreement, which is exhibit nine in the packet of 0.19
- acres with the adjacent property owner with whom they share an easement with. And completion of the
- garage occurred sometime in early 2025. This is the location of the property. On the right-hand side
- is a site conditions map. You'll note that much of the property is in a mapped floodway. And then that
- is the only access point that the petitioner has to access the site.
- They do have a bridge structure that they did construct that also requires permitting. But for the purposes
- of tonight, that is not included in part of this request. But just note that they are working towards
- getting all of that permitted in compliance. So these are just some site photos that I took on site.
- So it is gated. Both properties do share this driveway. On the bottom center of the screen, the bottom
- center photo, that is the garage structure that is before you tonight. That is for the request of these
- three variances. Here are some additional site photos.
- Again, the center bottom photo is a photo of the interior that the petitioner did request make it into
- the packet just to illustrate exactly what is being stored in the garage itself and their justification
- for having it. And then the bottom right would be the newly constructed bridge.
- It is also worth noting that this property is adjacent to the north and to the east, the Clear Creek
- Trail. So it is a public trail. You can see it if you are walking along the trail. You can see this
- property in its entirety. The petitioner did submit a video, but I did go ahead and include snippets
- of that. So one, two, three, and four being the direction here.
- The petitioner did show their bus that they have that they store within this garage structure and just
- illustrating the justification for why they needed all of that gravel space and that expansion of their
- driveway. So typically the petitioner would be turning this bus around within that general vicinity.
- This was the certified plot plan that was submitted to staff on behalf of Deckard land surveying. This
- is primarily where staff has gotten our calculations from. Eric Deckard did go ahead and calculate that
- for us. So that's very helpful.
- I did include a zoomed in image here, which does clearly show Eric Decker did put on there the 25 foot
- yard setback. So you'll note that a portion of the garage does run all the way through it. And it does
- appear to be directly located on the property line.
- This is a snippet of the easement exhibit. So this easement was recorded again, July 9th, 2025.
- So essentially Mr. Stone has an encroachment agreement with his adjoining neighbor, essentially indicating
- that yes, it is okay that you encroach onto this property for 0.19 acres as clearly shown on Eric Deckard's survey.
- And I did, on the right-hand side, try to reincorporate that, shown on a map from an aerial viewpoint,
- kind of what that would look like. So I did my best, but that kind of shows the extent of their encroachment
- agreement.
- This is the petitioner's letter to the BZA that's also included in the packet explaining their justification
- and the reasoning behind why they are requesting these variances. They included some aerial images over
- time. And the petitioner did also supply, which is also included in the packet, did also supply a letter
- addressed from nearby neighbors.
- He did collect their signatures, as well as their name and addresses. I have that shown on the screen.
- It's also in the packet, and it is also as a separate exhibit for the Board of Zoning Appeals members.
- It should be in front of you to look at that. The petitioner did want to make sure that this was in
- the presentation and known to the public. But essentially, the letter states that these property owners
- are in support.
- of these variances, and they do not foresee an issue with the structure remaining in its current state.
- And this is just part of that exhibit. I believe the locations that are illustrated in green, I believe,
- are the neighbors for which the petitioner received signatures from.
- The petitioner did also supply historical photography throughout the years. Just to illustrate, this
- is what the property looked like once upon a time. So 1939, 1946, 1955, and then I included the image
- on the right-hand side, 2024.
- This does lead me to staff's long-winded recommendation, so bear with me. Planning staff for VAR-25-61A,
- we recommend denial of the maximum height variance based on the fact that practical difficulties have
- not been demonstrated. Had the petitioner applied for a building permit or contacted the planning department,
- we would have informed the petitioner of the maximum height limit.
- For 61B, staff recommends denying the maximum impervious cover variance based on the fact that practical
- difficulties have not been demonstrated as the petitioner could reduce the size of the proposed structure
- or locate the proposed structure over an area currently counted towards impervious. Additionally, the
- current location adds further impervious for the driveway turnaround area, which could also be reduced
- and redesigned if the garage is placed closer to the existing home.
- Planning staff for VAR-25-61C recommends denial of the front yard setback variance based on the fact
- that practical difficulties have not been demonstrated while the petitioner does have an encroachment
- agreement with the neighbor to the south. The ordinance does not allow for an exception to encroach
- into a setback without obtaining a variance.
- had the petitioner applied for a building permit or contacted the planning department, we would have
- informed the petitioner of that setback requirement. In the event that the Board of Zoning Appeals approves
- the maximum height and or front yard setback variances, planning staff recommends conditioning that
- approval to the structure itself and not the property overall.
- In the event that the Board of Zoning Appeals approves the maximum impervious cover variance, planning
- staff would recommend conditioning that variance to the impervious cover that exists on the site currently.
- And that concludes my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Well, the petitioner, the petitioner's
- representative would come to the podium. You'll have 15 minutes to present your requests.
- And if you would sign in, we'll then swear you in. Are you Robert Stone? Yes, would you raise your right
- hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. If
- you would aim that mic right at your mouth, we'll be able to hear you better. Thank you.
- Yeah, it is. All right. So good evening. I appreciate all your guys' time. I want to start off and tell
- you guys why this is an after fact. And I don't want to take up much of your time. But to start back
- when we started building this barn in March, I had every intention of doing this right. We read the
- CDOs. We followed the rules, what we thought, how they read in there.
- I never intended to have to go through this step of it. But it was never my intention to try and sidestep
- the county or the planning or CDO. But this is where we find ourselves. But also to note, it was brought
- to my attention in April that building department did receive a complaint. So we started this in March
- during the footers. We put the slab in. April 21st, the building was delivered. April 22nd, building
- department got a complaint.
- So April 23rd, they showed up at my house with a note, pinned it to the gate. And on April 24th, I called
- and talked to Bobby LaRue at 8.02 when they opened that next morning. So I've been trying since April
- to make this right. I've got close to $18,000 between engineers, surveyors, everything else to try and
- make this right. So I kind of wanted to lead off with that a little bit, just to let you know that it
- was never my intention to try and sidestep anything.
- When I got the letter, I reached out to building department, contacted Bobby. He came out on April 28th,
- visited the site, him and Kurt Sylvester. We walked around, we talked about the building, we talked
- about why it was there, and we talked about the log cabin rule. That's when he informed me that the
- log cabin rule does allow you to not go through the building department, but you still have to go through
- planning and get an ILP permit. So he also informed me that since it was right on the setbacks,
- He suggested we get a certified plot plan. He also suggested that since it was over 10 foot sidewalls,
- we needed to get engineered drawings for the sidewalls. So that week, I hired a local structural engineer.
- I hired Deckard Land Survey to come out. And every surveyor in this county is about 8 to 10 weeks out
- to get a certified plot plan right now. So that being said, on July 10, I filed for a building permit.
- July 17th actually is when I came in and talked with planning and learned that I needed three variances.
- When we built that barn in that back corner, it was always our intention to build over that old rock
- pile. That was a limestone mill back in the 40s and 50s. There was a scrap pile in that corner. Once
- you get off of that scrap pile, it literally drops down on the floodplain.
- And then if you look at that overlay on that property, the majority of that, or not majority, half of
- that property is in a floodplain. So we approached the neighbor, talked with him about an easement.
- I know it says that the easement was filed in July. We had a written agreement prior to all of this
- back in November of last year, just he and I, because again, I thought we were doing this right. And
- then when everything got official with certified plot plans and filing with the county, we decided to
- go ahead and make it a perpetual easement.
- that would live on both properties, and it wasn't just an agreement between he and I. So that added
- to the time. So there's a couple things that staff said I just want to address real quick. One, that
- we could have built that barn over an existing impermeable coverage. That's what I thought we did. That
- was a gravel lot that was made to turn around our bus. When we bought that property,
- We commonly have trucks and trailers. We have a horse trailer that goes on the back of that bus. So
- you can add that to the fact of turning around in that space. It just needs the room to turn around,
- to be honest with you. We don't have a front yard or we don't have a road access on the front. My driveway
- is close to a quarter mile long. So when you drive a 45-foot coach with a 25-foot trailer back in there,
- I need somewhere to put it that's not in the yard. It weighs close to 45,000 pounds.
- Having a spot to turn around and put it in and be protected was the whole goal of this building. It's
- not for rent. It's not for business. It's literally just trying to store our assets as we grow as a
- family. I've got a daughter that's into horses. We travel all over this Midwest, it seems like, doing
- competitions. And we take that. We pull the horse trailer. We go as a family.
- Kind of a quick summary. There's one more thing I want to address real quick was it was put in there
- that we could have done a lot line adjustment. So the property to the south of me is in a trust. The
- landowner had no interest in going through with his trust attorney and changing any of that. I was also
- quoted close to $7,000 to do a lot line adjustment and told it would take 8 to 10 months by Mr. Deckard.
- So with that said, the quickest way to fix it was an easement. It was the most practical, most
- cost-efficient. If you look at that overlay on that property, there's nothing else to the south that
- can be built. There's a very small corner on that property that's not in a floodplain. That's basically
- where my easement is and my barn is. They had also stated that we could have moved the property 25 foot
- north to get out of that setback issue. If you do that, it blocks my existing barn. I can't get in and
- out of it.
- by putting it back there and getting the easement or getting the agreement and then the easement. We
- thought we were doing the right thing and building over a rock pile. It was already impermeable. We
- were leaving the existing building that's been there since the 50s. We were utilizing the existing drive
- that's been there since the 40s, 30s in the photos. Yeah, like I said, we're just here trying to make
- it right, I guess. So I'm not going to take any more time. I'm going to let Mr. Biggs give you some
- information on what he's found though. But happy to answer any questions if you guys have them.
- Thank you, Mr. Stone. We'll hear from Mr. Beggs and then there may be questions for your team.
- Good evening, Board of Zoning Appeals. My name is Bill Beggs. My first question to you is were you all
- furnished with our proposed alternate findings and the... Okay, thank you very much. I won't bother
- asking to...
- approach to sort those out. This property, I would suggest to you, one of you has knows this and has
- known this property a lot longer than the others of you have known it, but all of you, to all of you,
- you may very well have read about it. This is one of our community's gem properties. The house is comprised
- of various
- components of buildings from around the community that most of us have heard of.
- On the outside, you would see, I'm not sure these pictures do it justice, but you would see iron work
- from the Princess Theater. On the inside, you would see, if you were inside, you would know of steel
- work that was from the Von Lee Theater. You would see one of the old-fashioned elevators from Ryan's
- Jewelry. You would see refinished flooring that came from RCA. And I know I'm forgetting a number of different
- different components. This is a community gem. It's been written up in any number of publications and
- it's a pretty cool property I would suggest.
- I think Mr. Stone, I hope, was as clear with you as he has been with me. He did not intend to run afoul
- of the Monroe County, the CDO. That was not his intention. He thought he wasn't doing that, and I want
- to make sure that anything you read in the staff report, we took a little issue, and we don't like to
- take issue with the staff report if we're going to help it at all, but we took a little issue with the
- way it sort of came across from timing. From the moment he found
- out there was an issue he has been engaged and I think Mr. Smith did say that but he has been engaged
- and that leads us here tonight and so this is not a case of a person who has just blown this off.
- With respect to the three ordinances, I've kind of laid this out a little differently in the proposed
- findings I gave you than what you got in the staff packet for the reasons that I think these are three
- variances that stand on their own two feet independently. And with regard to the impervious surface
- variance, I would suggest that one. And if you don't have your own, I've got plenty so you don't have
- to share. Would that be good?
- We can share a map. Oh, my goodness. I think we're the only ones who don't have. I'm the only one who
- doesn't have his own. Thank you. So if we take these, if we start with the impervious surface variance
- request, we would, and again, we don't
- like to take issue, disagree with the staff, but we would suggest that the impervious surface, under
- the language of the CDO, the impervious surface variance is unnecessary as we read the ordinance. What
- we mean by that is
- At table 2-805, there is the table that would apply to this zone, and it would tell us that for 2.5
- acres or more, the maximum pervious cover is 25,000 square feet, excluding
- agricultural buildings, which we contend that building that you saw the photos of is. Now, I realize
- that the staff report makes reference to watershed, and there may be some reason why that table 2-805's
- 25,000 square foot impervious surface limit doesn't apply, but we believe it does. And so, on that basis,
- we don't think
- We don't think the BZA needs to take this up, but just to further explain that, if you look at the map
- we gave you tonight, it's very similar to what's in your packet, but slightly different. And so what
- we've tried to explain to you
- The pink is the existing drive that leads to the residence, and we know, and this body knows better
- than anybody, that that square footage is excluded from the impervious surface calculation. That green
- area that's in the map we gave you there, you've got historical photos of this site
- I think another reason the property is a gem is because of what used to happen there. This was a mill.
- This was a limestone mill. Mr. Lofman may tell us in a few minutes some more things about it that I
- don't know from living nearby several years ago and hunting mushrooms there and all the rest, but we
- contend that the green area
- or almost all of the green area should also be excluded from the impervious surface, impervious cover
- calculation for the reasons that it is an existing drive. It goes back to the 30s and 40s. The area
- there to the side that you read as gravel parking was almost and mostly also covered by limestone. That
- was limestone that was left over from
- A days gone by when this mill was in operation, Mr. Stone has worked very hard to move that. So in other
- words, it's a wash. It's an even exchange there nearly from our perspective, at least in terms of what
- he has removed from that site. And then if you look, now the one that I will tell you we find no support
- in the ordinance for is the red, which is the home.
- of 2,986 square feet. And I don't think that there is a basis in the ordinance for you to exclude those
- 2,986 square feet. However, the house utilizes a rainwater collection system. And for that reason, we
- think the impervious surface spirit is more than met by way of that rainwater collection system.
- So we think, even though I would
- understand if the board has a hard time accepting that because you don't have a basis in the ordinance.
- We think, frankly, the spirit is met in that regard. And then I think I've covered all the colors. We've
- talked about the purple that you see on there, and we can parse the language in the ordinance about
- traveling upon it and
- landscaping and those kinds of things, we didn't go into that math. But if you look at what we gave
- you then, if I direct you to Mr. Deckard's statement there, kind of in the middle, existing impervious
- surface 31590, you'll see. And then on the first page of these proposed findings I gave you, then we
- just did the math. We removed the 4880 for the barn, the agricultural building.
- removed the 16321 for the historical driveway that you saw in the pictures going back all the way to
- the 30s or 40s. And then we removed, understandably, with some doubt on our part and maybe yours, the
- rainwater collection system to be well under any number that would be required for impervious surface
- coverage on the site.
- On the other hand, so therein lies our request that you just dismiss that particular one. If you see
- that differently, then we have prepared proposed findings for the impervious surface cover, impervious
- cover variants as well.
- Board members, this property sits down and back at least 550 feet from Church Lane. It's not as if this
- is out front, out on the road. It's back.
- ability to access the property requires you go through the other property before you get to it, and
- it's a largely, mostly wooded, semi-rural area. None of that will change, and none of that will be affected
- adversely if the impervious cover variance is granted. The same would go, and I don't want to take too
- much time here, but there will be no change. The impervious cover variance would not make any difference in
- intensity and any change with respect to the ordinance or with respect to the property. And so we suggest
- then that it would comply under that element. And then finally, with respect to minimum
- necessary to eliminate practical difficulties. The practical difficulty you heard about is that the
- floodway is present. Point of order. We'll allow you to finish your thought in your time. Thank you.
- I'm sorry. That went a lot faster than I thought. Finish that one time. Poor time management. So we
- believe that the floodway
- minimum required step taken to take care of this particular peculiarity with this property would be
- accomplished by this variance. The other two variances, height and setback, are similarly set forth
- in our proposed findings. Before I sit down, the conditions that Mr. Smith spoke to you about
- Mr. Stone is amenable to those, and in fact, we've included those in what we gave you. Don't sit down
- yet, because members of the BZA may have questions for you. Thank you. So do members of the BZA have
- questions for either Mr. Beggs or Mr. Stone? I have a question for either one of you. What a comprehensive
- drawing this is. When it came to the proposed location of the garage, which happened this very year,
- And here's Mr. Deckard's report that says, oh, it's going to be right on the line. Why wasn't that a
- red flag for the setback problem? Right here on the photo, I'm confused. Correct. We didn't have the
- photo. We didn't have that. We knew we were going to build on the line. That's why we had the perpetual
- easement put in place. Before that, we had a signed agreement between the property owner and myself.
- So we knew that we were going to have to push back
- all the way as far as we could onto the line. I didn't want to go over it, but that was the buildable
- area we had that wasn't in a floodway, and I needed that farther room to the south to have a turnaround
- area for the coach and the trailers, and also not to block the existing garage that's been there since the 50s.
- The old building gets blocked otherwise if it moves further to the north. And frankly, we'd rather not
- be here in front of you. To your point, to your question, we'd suggest that the setback or the easement,
- which is perpetual and permanent in its nature, runs with the land cures that problem.
- If I understood correctly, and I'd like to clarify this with Mr. Stone, you took basically what could
- have been considered a detraction on the land, which was a pile of stone, and you used that in order
- to build your structure on so that it would not be in the floodplain. Am I understanding that correctly?
- No. So there was the limestone pile that was on that property. So when we bought it in,
- March of 21. We started removing pieces of that pile to put a parking area and you could see it in one
- of the photos. Yes. So when we went to build the barn, we removed more of that limestone and rebel and
- built a pad for the barn on top of what was that existing limestone pile. Okay, but in order to stay
- out of the
- We didn't raise any elevations. Yeah, we just took it down to a flat grade that matched the existing
- driveway. So we didn't haul it out or we did haul out the stone. We didn't push it off in a floodplain
- or anything like that. No, I wasn't insinuating that you were using it to avoid. Yeah, we took it down
- to the existing grade just to match it, but it was about four foot of stone.
- You can see it in one of the photos behind the barn. So that was where the barn sits now. Thank you
- for clarifying that. Are there other questions for Mr. Stoner, Mr. Beggs? Yeah. By way of information,
- as Mr. Beggs has indicated, I've lived
- very close to this property for 50 years. I live at the corner of Victor Pike and the Clear Creek Trail.
- So we're not immediate neighbors, but I know this area for 50 years. It used to be, I believe, the Limestone
- Company owned it, and Don Robertson bought it, and then Randy Sisko ended up with it and made the amazing
- structural improvements. And at every step,
- wasteland has improved, has been improved. The limestone pile was sort of fun for kids to walk in, but
- very dangerous, and the property has been greatly improved, and the neighborhood's been greatly improved
- by the changes that have been made.
- None of which excuses not checking with us in advance, but it has certainly been a valuable modification
- of the existing real estate. There's been an existing driveway that used to be drive and stone pillars
- where they bring
- limestone into the mill for cutting it, and then the waste would be dumped behind there. I think there
- was a dynamite shed that was out of use, fortunately, when I used to work on it.
- I'm not speaking in favor or against this as a neighbor, but it certainly is a historic property that
- has been subject to use well before the 50 years that I've lived there. There was an existing gravel
- drive that went
- And I don't really know how far down it went, but along the northern boundary, which is where I would
- walk on the rail trail, there was a driveway. And then there was this giant pile of stone, which was,
- I don't know, it might have been pervious as opposed to impervious, but it was certainly not useful.
- I guess all of that leads me to say, I don't know what mechanism
- is useful. And I haven't really looked at all of the things. And I haven't. So let me ask. That was
- introduction. Let me ask a couple of questions since Mr. Biggs had pointed out that at least one member
- of the board knows the property pretty well. You said that there's a rainwater collection. What happens
- to the rainwater? It's piped to an irrigation system that runs right there in front of the house.
- So it's just set up on a timer basis. But it's run into that, and then it's got its own separate spigot
- off the back of the house. So the water that goes into the watershed goes into the watershed about the
- same place? Essentially, yes, but not all of it, I guess. So the hip roof drains off, goes to a cistern
- or a collection tank.
- and then it's used for the irrigation system that's just around the front of the property up on the
- top level area there. Yes, I guess you could say it does go back out. I haven't read your, this of course,
- quite a packet we got tonight. What's the story on the 21 feet of the height
- It's a one-foot height variance. Yes, there's a one-foot excess, and you don't dispute that that's present.
- We don't dispute that that's present. We do not. Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions for
- the petitioner? If not, we're going to hear from the public. Are there members of the public who are
- in favor of this request for variance? If so, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand.
- Are there members of the public who are opposed to these requests for variance? If so, please come to
- the podium or raise your virtual hand. I'll wait for staff to let me know if there's anyone who has
- raised his or her virtual hand. Okay, since there's no opposition, there won't be a rebuttal, but we
- come back to our BZA for further discussion and or a motion.
- I did want to just clarify, since we noticed that the petitioner did submit additional information,
- we reviewed that they are correct that they actually have a maximum impervious of 25,000 square feet.
- I think in the PowerPoint we may have mentioned the smaller square foot of 11,500.
- Calculations on alternate one, they are excluding the calculations for the buildings, the garage and
- the dwelling and then the proposed existing garage. Those are not exceptions under the impervious cover
- calculation unless one of them is used as an egg structure. Even then with staff's calculation, we're
- still coming up with an overage of 2,500 square feet.
- Thank you for clarifying, Ms. Nestor-Gellin. And I would point out that attached to the package, and
- I assume the members have seen it, but there's a petition signed by, boy, it's a long package, by dozens
- of people who live in the neighborhood supporting this and saying it's beneficial to the neighborhood.
- A comment to that, Mr. Lofman, is that my biggest concern about this is flooding in the Clear Creek
- area and the tributary. When I look at the neighbors that have signed, those neighbors are primarily
- uphill from this property, so they wouldn't be impacted by that. The impervious cover issue has been
- my biggest concern about this, but hearing
- from the director that the number is much lower than what's published in the packet has changed my thoughts
- a bit. But I do have a question for staff or for Mr. Schilling, and that is around the setback being
- essentially zero in that Southeast corner. And there's the current agreement in place between the existing
- property owners, but I'm just curious if there's any concern from the county's perspective about future
- issues that the county could face if
- ownership changes on either of these properties in the future, or is this strictly a civil issue between
- property owners with that setback being so little? Yeah, I think the easement takes care of that. We
- frequently have situations where people will get an easement for a septic system on other individual's
- property. I think it was a perpetual easement, and I don't see it as a problem, certainly not from the
- county's perspective. Okay, thank you.
- Now to follow up on that, may I? Yes. Mr. Schilling, would that be a requirement of any potential future
- sale for the owners to disclose that in the property agreement? That easement would be a part of any
- future sale, I would imagine. Okay. Okay. It'd be in the title search. Okay.
- discussion and or a motion you want to take them separately or together I want to collect my thoughts
- because it's a complicated case and well I will just have that I am not disturbed by
- the maximum height being 21 when the regulation is 20. That bothers me not a bit. Okay. I move that
- we approve variance 25-61A, stone maximum height variance to chapter 805. And I won't combine anything
- because I want you to collect your thoughts, Mr. Lofman. So that one I'm going to move to approve. Second.
- It was moved and seconded for just the first variance. Are you breaking, you wanna break these out then
- into three votes? Yeah, that's what she did. Let's do that for now. All right, so the first one, VR-25-61A,
- the height maximum to chapter 805. It's been moved and seconded to approve, just 61A. A vote yes is
- a vote to approve. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes.
- Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Okay. That motion is approved. Five to zero. And I'm going
- on a limb because Mr. Morris made the comment that the impervious cover is not as wildly disparate from
- what we would like as possible. So I'm going to
- approve the move that we approve variance 25-61B, the stone maximum impervious cover variance to chapter
- 805. And let's go for C while we're at it. Oh, should we do that too? And also to approve variance 25-61C,
- the stone front yard setback variance to chapter 805. I think the facts have been compelling in terms
- of the use, the prior use, the historical use. The agricultural use.
- and the improvements to the property that neighbors are widely in favor of. So I move that we approve
- those last two. I'll second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to also approve VAR-25-61B, the impervious
- cover maximum to chapter 805, and VAR-25-61C, the front yard setback to chapter 805,
- And just another note, just to mention that the impervious cover recalculated overage by staff's calculation
- was edited to be only 2,501 square feet over the maximum. Everything else in the staff report is still
- accurate. A vote yes is a vote two. Point of order. Was there a condition that we wanted to put on there
- that the height just applies to the building?
- I would like it to be with the property myself. And I also support the fact that, I really appreciate
- the fact that they have taken such efforts to collect rainwater and to minimize and mitigate any of
- their runoff issues that is the goal of our impervious surface regulation. So I would like to go forward
- with that original motion.
- The height was already approved in a prior motion, but I'll note that for the residential zoning district,
- the standard that they're getting a variance from is for accessory structures. There's actually a larger
- height allowance for primary structures such as the house. Okay.
- Okay, so this is still a vote, a motion and a second to approve 61B and 61C, maximum impervious cover
- and front yard setback to chapter 805. A vote yes is a vote to approve both of those variances.
- Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes.
- Okay, motion is approved, five to zero. Thank you, and I have some personal satisfaction knowing that
- a man by the last name of Stone is on a former quarry property. So thank you for all of your work with
- staff and for your cooperation and your due diligence. We appreciate it. Thank you.
- Okay, we're moving on to item eight on the agenda. And this is CDU-25-11, Tag Towers LLC wireless
- communication facility conditional use to chapter 812. And this concerns 129 plus or minus acre parcel
- in Clear Creek Township section 20 at 8720 South Gore Road. And Mr. Smith.
- A point of information. Yes. Mr. Smith, is there been any other evidence that needs to be distributed
- on this? I have not been given any, so. Great. A continued point of information. Are there any members
- of the public here to remonstrate this petition or online? Against it.
- who would remonstrate against it? Remonstrate against, correct. In other words, are there people who
- are opposed to this particular petition? Yes, there is a person in the audience who is opposed. OK.
- Thank you. OK. So we won't have you speak yet. No, not now. We were just trying to find out. Clarification
- on. Yeah, before we proceed. All right. OK. Sorry, Mr. Smith.
- So Mr. Smith, if you'd kindly present this case to us, we'd be grateful. Sure. So the request is for
- a wireless communication facility. And this is a conditional use, so they do have to have approval by
- the BZA. The purpose is to construct a new wireless communication facility in a 199 foot monopole tower.
- So wireless communication facility being cell tower.
- The petitioner is seeking the conditional use approval to lease a 10,000 square foot leasing area that
- will house all necessary equipment. So equipment, cabinets, generators, shelters, et cetera. And a 195
- foot monopole tower plus the four foot lightning rod, hence 199 feet. The current property consists
- of a single family residence with multiple accessory structures. They appear to be ag structures.
- owned by the current property owner who has agreed to lease part of their property to Tag Towers LLC.
- The location of the new facility will be located approximately one mile from Harrodsburg and just a
- little over half a mile from State Road 37. And the site does drive access from an existing driveway
- which drives access from South Gore Road, which is a local road.
- So chapter 850 defines wireless communication facility as any unstaffed facility for the transmission
- and or reception of wireless communication services, usually consisting of an antenna array, transmission
- cables, equipment facilities, and support structure. So WCFs, as we call them for short, are considered
- special uses. So that is why this is coming out of chapter 812, where the conditional use standards
- are located.
- In the event that a WCF does not meet administrative approval, it is now considered conditional, meaning
- it does have to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. So specifically, the reason why it is before
- you tonight is because the structure is not concealed. It is not a concealed design, and it is taller
- than 60 feet in a residential zoning district. So that is why it is considered a conditional use, and
- they are here before you tonight.
- So some conditions, so for chapter 841, conditional use standards, the first one being the requested
- conditional use is listed as such in the zoning district. Yes, it is a permitted use in the agricultural
- residential 2.5 zoning district. Something that's a little different with this case is that, again,
- It does come from a special use category, so it does also have to meet Chapter 812 conditional use standards.
- So normally we would refer to any of the conditional uses that come from Chapter 811. This is Chapter
- 812. The proposed facility planning staff does believe meets the requirements of Chapter 812.
- It is stated to provide communications for emergency services. It's also a monopole design, and although
- it does not make use of existing structures, the nearest tower that it could locate on is nearly three
- miles away. So there would not otherwise be another opportunity for them to co-locate.
- just going through this briefly. The proposed facility is situated within a forested area located several
- hundred feet from the nearest neighboring residents. Planning staff believe it meets this requirement.
- The facility is placed in a rural area. It'll provide coverage for an area that otherwise relies on
- towers located to the east and south from three to four miles away. The nearest towers to the north
- and west are located more than five miles away.
- from the proposed tower location. That's Exhibit 2 in the packet, and I do also have an illustration
- coming up. As well as the facility is placed in a predominantly rural area and will include a landscape
- buffer yard around the facility, that is just simply a requirement as part of their conditionally used
- request. If they opt to not do that requirement, then they will be right back here at the BZA requesting
- a variance if they can't meet that provision.
- Planning staff does not believe it will directly impact the health, public safety and welfare of the
- public. It does expand cell coverage by up to three miles and fills gaps in coverage area according
- to the petitioner. This otherwise would improve the general welfare and convenience and communication
- for the public. Facility can also be constructed in compliance with federal law. It can only be constructed
- in compliance with federal law.
- There's only going to be one facility, so not multiple. There's going to be one tower, not multiple.
- Planning staff does believe that the petitioner has provided evidence that they can meet all
- code requirements, both local and federal. And they do have to submit, even if you do approve this,
- they do have to submit a site plan review. So there will be a, there's an extra layer of review that
- they do have to go through even if this gets approved.
- So the Monroe County comprehensive plan designates the site as rural residential. There's nothing in
- the rural residential zone comprehensive plan designation that indicates that this would go against
- the comprehensive plan. The petition site is very rural and it's 29 acres. So it's a very large piece
- of property. The minimum lot size for the zoning district is 2.5. They have 29.
- Much of the area is rural. There might be some smaller lots that are zone residential one, but all of
- these contain single-family homes, so there's not a lot of density out here on South Gore Road. And
- as I mentioned previously, it's about a mile from Harrodsburg. If you've ever been out to Harrodsburg,
- it's a very rural character.
- So, planning staff otherwise did not believe that granting this conditional use would conflict with
- any of the comprehensive plan's goals or objectives. All utilities, of course, will be available on
- site. It does not require sewer or anything like that, so there's no need to necessarily look for that
- requirement.
- It does access through an easement through which the petitioner and the owner have agreed to create
- as part of this request. I included all of that information in the packet. Cell towers otherwise do
- not generally generate noise or waste, pollution, vibrations, so planning staff otherwise concludes
- that the petitioner is
- stating they will comply with these performance standards. We don't necessarily see an issue, especially
- in regards to traffic. It's unstaffed, so nobody's necessarily going to be going to the site, at least
- not on a daily basis. Again, I did mention the buffer yard requirement previously. It's possible that
- under a site plan review, due to the existing vegetation that's on site, that they might be able to
- be credited a certain
- percentage or number of trees, but they will have to prove that under a site plan filing and they'll
- have to conform with that type B buffery yard. And like I said, if they opt not to, then they'll be
- back here requesting a landscaping variance. But otherwise, planning staff believes that petitioner
- meets this requirement and landscaping is otherwise just another standard requirement of this facility.
- Again, adjacent properties are zoned single family residential or vacant. It's a rural area, very low
- populated. For our purposes, you know, planning staff believes that the cell tower would otherwise be
- consistent with the surrounding area and environment. A lot of these rural areas, their only way to
- achieve increased cell coverage is through these, you know, monopole style towers because they don't
- have other structures that
- they are able to co-locate antennas on. Much of the findings are kind of repetitive. Again, the site
- is unstaffed, requires minimal attention. The homeowner lives on site. Installation of the cell tower
- does not create a traffic concern. There should be no traffic congestion with the installation
- and maintenance of the tower.
- And of course, as I mentioned previously, they have to meet federal standards. So, you know, the tower
- itself does not get approved unless it's going to have approval from FAA, FCC requirements. So that's,
- you know, not something that we as local will look at, but that's just a requirement of any new cell
- tower. So staff.
- did create an exhibit. So located on the screen, you see the proposed tower and the properties outlined
- in blue. And then I just did a quick distant measurement from the existing cell towers in the area,
- the closest one being to the south, which is approximately 2.8 miles
- you know, the greatest extent here being 4.8 miles on the east side. I did mention in the packet that
- there were cell towers to the north and west, but they were greater than five miles, so they didn't
- make it onto this map because they were too far away. And this is a location map just indicating that
- it's in Clear Creek townships in the southern part of the property or of the county.
- Site conditions map on the right-hand side, I did outline roughly in orange, an orange square, roughly
- the location of the facility where it will be. But otherwise, as far as construction goes, there's not
- any environmental concerns or constraints that are popping out at staff. When they do submit for their
- site plan review, of course, it'll have to be certified by an engineer.
- So these are some aerial photography again this the orange square rectangle just indicating roughly
- approximate where the leasing area will be and then the cell tower would presumably be in the center of that.
- And then these are just some photos that I took on site. So the first photo would be looking towards
- Gore Road. And you'll see the owner's residence is there. The second photo, just looking straight back,
- this will be the access point to the facility. And then that third photo, that's where we start getting
- into where the actual leasing area will be.
- And then I just provided some photos of the surrounding area on the bottom part of the screen here.
- So again, this area is wooded. It's very rural. It'll be pretty far away from South Gore Road. The petitioner
- did submit plans. And I will just go through these briefly. They are also included in the packet. I
- think this is the most important.
- piece of the site plan to bring out. So for our purposes, we do require having a fall zone calculated
- and certified by an engineer. So you'll notice that from the white dashed lines in a circle. So that
- is the calculated fall zone. So in a worst case scenario,
- event if the tower were to fall over, that's generally the area that would be affected by it. So we
- did have an original iteration of this, which did include a fall zone that actually incorporated part
- of the owner's barn. We had them redo that and reposition the tower in a way that it's actually outside
- of it. So there's no concern if the tower were to ever fall, that it would ever fall on the owner's
- structure there.
- And then again, I'll just go through these briefly, but these are the site plan that's in the staff
- packet. And they did go at length to identify approximately how many feet away it is from all structures
- within the general area. So, of course, the property owner structures are going to be closest, and then
- they also included nearby
- properties and how far away approximately the structure is from all of their primary and accessory
- structures. And this is them indicating some trees that they would have to take out to construct the
- facility, but again, it is in a heavily wooded area.
- And this is what the tower would look like. As part of the request, the petitioner does have to submit
- a line of sight diagram. So on this map, they included the areas for which they took their own photos
- showing the line of sight from the tower. So location number one, the left,
- This is true of all of these slides showing these pictures. The left-hand side will be the existing
- photo. So that's what it looks like currently. And then on the right-hand side with the tower in the
- distance. A really nice job on this. Visualization. And this one's a little hard to see, but it is just
- Above the tree line. I see it now. Yeah. And then this one they drew in just to indicate that you can't
- see it from this angle. I see.
- This is the petitioner's letter to the BZA as well as their co-location statement, essentially stating
- they looked at other structures in the area, did not identify structures in the area which they could
- co-locate on, which planning staff does agree because the closest one is 2.8 miles away, the closest
- tower. And of course, an engineer's statement regarding the structural integrity of the tower.
- Its ability to withstand certain mile per hour winds. This is just part of the requirements for a new
- facility. And then there's also a statement from the president just essentially stating that they need
- this tower to increase coverage and they of course will apply for all applicable permits.
- I also did include a copy of the owner's consent, so a land lease agreement with the property owner.
- Again, I'll briefly go through this, but it is also included in the packet, essentially stating that
- they agree to the utility and access easement as well as the leasing space.
- of Verizon, they did submit a statement of network need, essentially stating why they need this increased
- coverage, the length of time they have been searching for an area where they could expand this coverage,
- and then their justification for why that service gap is needed to be filled.
- They also included this diagram. The only modification that I added is the black box. So in the center
- there, that would indicate where the property is and where the tower is going. So on the left-hand side,
- they're showing you the current coverage. And then on the right-hand side, they're showing what they
- believe the proposed coverage of this cell tower were to be approved in its current form. That's the
- expanded network coverage that they would have. So generally speaking, they are looking to
- Increased coverage in the Harrodsburg area, that general region because of the gaps in coverage that
- they have there. So poor coverage being the red color on the map. So that leads me to staff's recommendation.
- Sorry, that should say CBU 2511.
- But staff does recommend approval due to the ability to fulfill the requirements of the special use
- from Chapter 812. Thank you so much, Mr. Smith. That was a very good presentation, and we appreciated
- the visuals, especially
- the line of sight and the extra coverage and location and the fall line and everything like that. So
- we'll hear from the petitioner, the petitioner's representative. If you'd kindly go to the podium and
- sign in, then I'll swear you in.
- Would you be sure that the microphone is pointed at your mouth, and what is your name, sir? Royce Lau.
- Mr. Lau, would you raise your right hand, and do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
- but the truth? Yes. Thank you. You have 15 minutes. Okay. Just for starters, I wanted to go over my
- role in all this. My name is Royce. I work as a site acquisition agent for Chaley Towers.
- We were contacted by Verizon Wireless to assist TAC towers in locating a site that would be viable in
- this area for the construction of a Verizon tower. And my role in that is to essentially go through
- the ordinance. In this case, your ordinance largely reflects what we see in Michigan as opposed to Indiana,
- which isn't a bad thing. It gives me everything I need to know in order to
- select the parcels I'm looking at. So after that, we had a conference call with Tag Towers, me, and
- the RF radio frequency engineer of Verizon Wireless going through where it would best suit their needs,
- where Tag would actually be able to build a tower, financially speaking, and then where you guys would
- allow for a tower.
- And that's where we ended up at the area. It's just to the north of Clear Creek. And it's with Old State
- Road 37 and South Gore Road. That was the pocket that we found and we couldn't go too far north because
- how these grid networks of towers operate is a lot like a honeycomb. You got to kind of fit them in
- together. Sean, if you want to bring up the RF propagation maps,
- So the reason we couldn't go too far north is Verizon had service online in that area. If you start
- overlapping those services too much, you create interference and you'll create dead zones in areas that
- you would have had service. And we also couldn't go too far south because, and that's a much bigger
- issue, if we go too far south, we'll create permanent dead zones.
- And that's when we really can't do anything to fix the problem. You're just gonna have dead air.
- Beyond that, I wanted to explain a little bit about our photo simulations. I chose those locations,
- four in particular, to suit the county's requirements. The reason I picked them all along that roadway
- is simply because you don't have a road that you're gonna be able to see them to the west. Basically
- have South Gore Road and then I threw in the North Road for good measure just to represent that we're
- trying to show everything we can to you guys. And I hope those gave you a pretty good idea that we're
- very far setback. We're trying to be as least evasive as a 200 foot tower can be.
- And lastly, I wanted to touch on the fall zone. The reason we initiated the first fall zone letter,
- that first fall zone letter was for the height of the tower. We met the setbacks for parcel lines at
- the height of the tower and the tower's not gonna fall further than what it is. So then Sean pointed
- out that we had some accessory buildings within that fall zone. I went back to our engineer Don and
- asked him if we
- if he could take a closer look at the tower and at its structure and let us know whereabouts it would
- fall if it were to fail. So he ended up taking a look and seeing that it would fall within 130 feet
- of the center of structure. So beyond that, I think Sean did a fantastic job. I would really like to
- turn it back to you guys to see if you have any questions for us. Members of the BZA have questions
- for Mr. Baum.
- No? Mr. Laughman? This has been very helpful because I don't know much about this. One of the questions,
- it's been co-location, your Verizon, if one of your competitors, and I understand for instance AT&T
- might be a competitor, if
- Would they be able to use this tower if they wanted to expand their service? So, yes. Verizon isn't
- the applicant here. They're what we would refer to as an anchor tenant. Essentially, they're the reason
- we're coming to you. Tag Towers is the guys that operate these facilities. Tag Towers build their facilities
- in order to co-locate almost always three. This one might have been for four.
- Was it four or three co-locations on this? I believe it was four. Yeah, I count four. So yeah. Tag Towers
- wants people to co-locate because that's how they make their money. They lease the tower space to the
- carrier groups. OK. Good. That helps me. OK.
- I'm glad that you've been moved so that it won't fall on the barn. How often do these fall? Monopoles,
- almost never. So the self-support, they're more at risk because you're using angle iron. And every one
- of those pieces of metal is like a little sail, whereas you have to build a huge foundation in order
- to keep that to the ground. Monopoles, it's a circle. Wind just goes right around it.
- So this is what they build out in the Great Plains. They're standing. And one of those technic things
- I was looking at it said with one and a half inches of rain, of ice, it'll stand up to a 40 mile per
- hour wind or something. But I mean, if you look at all over the Midwest and things like this,
- Ice is pretty common, and 40-mile-per-hour winds are pretty common, especially if there's ice. So apparently
- they don't fall down consistently, even if there is a 40-mile-per-hour wind and one and a half inches
- of ice. Is that a fair conclusion? Yes. For instance, one of my favorite places in the world is St.
- George Island, Florida. It's basically a sandbar on the Panhandle. They've got a lighthouse and they've
- got a monopole, and those do not move when the hurricanes go through.
- Thank you. Information? Do you have any other questions? No? Okay, so then we'll turn it over to the
- public. And if anyone is opposed, you'll have a five minute rebuttal time. So are there members of the
- public who are in favor of this request? If so, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand.
- see anybody. Okay. And I know that someone is here in the room who is opposed to this petition. If you
- would kindly come to the podium and sign in. And then you'll have three minutes
- And what is your name, ma'am? My name is Marlee Fry. Marlee Fry, would you kindly raise your right hand?
- And do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. OK, great.
- So you'll have three minutes to discuss with us why you're opposed. Sure. My name is Marlee Fry, and
- I'm speaking on behalf of my husband, Rick Fry, and our neighbor, Lori Bowles. Together, we own six
- properties located in close proximity to the proposed cell tower site.
- we share significant concerns regarding this project. As we reside in a rural area, I believe the board
- should favor lower impact concealed structures in neighborhoods such as ours. However, this proposal
- involves a 199 foot non-concealed commercial tower, which is the tallest and most visible structure
- permitted. This directly conflicts with the objectives of a residential
- neighborhood. The maps provided do not demonstrate a genuine coverage deficiency, only indicate that
- the carrier may desire to increase capacity. They do not establish that residents are currently unable
- to make calls or that emergency services cannot communicate in this area. Evidence of an actual
- service need rather than a preference for network upgrades should be required before approving a 199
- foot tower. Furthermore, while the applicant asserts the co-location is not feasible, no technical
- documentation or engineering assessments have been presented to substantiate that a lower impact alternative
- is unviable.
- The visuals provided don't reflect the new home we just completed at 8724 South Old State Road 37 or
- show accurate seasonal conditions. Simulations were taken in summer, not accounting for bare trees for
- half of the year or views from the most affected homes. We need visuals that truly represent the impact
- before decisions are made. If this project moves forward, screening
- is one of the only options to soften the impact of a 199 foot structure in this residential area. The
- applicant has already mentioned wanting to waive some of the landscaping and the plan further includes
- tree removal. It is important that we see a clear landscaping plan. And while no property value study
- is required by ordinance, it is undeniable
- Towers can lower nearby property values and erode neighborhood character. Before moving forward, these
- consequences demand serious scrutiny. In closing, this tower does not match the spirit of our residential
- zoning, and we haven't seen full proof that less impactful options don't exist.
- The proposals' visuals do not show real-world impacts, and the landscape and screening plan is lacking.
- This proposal creates a one-sided outcome. Our neighbor gains financially from the private tower lease,
- while families like ours face permanent loss in property value, scenic quality, and rural character.
- with all the economic and aesthetic burden, but none of the benefit. I urge you to act decisively, deny
- this request unless and until all the required documentation and accurately representing visuals are
- provided and reviewed thoroughly.
- only a complete and transparent process can ensure a just decision for our entire community. Thank you
- very much, Ms. Frey. Do members of the BZA have any questions for Ms. Frey? I seem to be full of questions
- tonight. What a surprise. Do you have cell phone reception where you live? Yes, with no problem. And
- I've asked our neighbor as well, and she does not have any problems.
- If you go south a little ways, do you continue to have reception? We do not have. I'm not sure what
- service she has. We have T-Mobile. We have no problem. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. And then Mr. Lau,
- you have an opportunity to rebut the complaint that you've heard.
- You have five minutes. Margaret, did we call if there were any other demonstrators? We only saw one,
- but I will do that. Are there any other people who are opposed to this petition? If so, please come
- to the podium or please make yourself known. Are there other people online who are opposed? I don't
- think anybody else had raised their hand. There was just one when we originally asked. So you can proceed
- if you're ready. Thank you.
- Thank you. First and foremost, I'd like to just address the visuals. I was trying to give you guys the
- best visual view of the site from those angles. Our engineer is that guy that goes and does those photo
- sims. And the reason I picked the spots is because I just drive in myself. I thought the one on the
- corners where you would want to see
- of a property, it was kind of the clear site, then one further up the road, one south of that, and then
- one to the north just indicate that the South Core Road was the only afflicted part, visually speaking.
- So that was an honest attempt on my behalf, and I hope you guys see that as well. If we could bring
- up the RF propagation maps again, Sean, I'd appreciate it.
- So a lot of what we're doing is to the best of our ability within the confines of the ordinance. When
- we're discussing concealed towers, not only are those, we're still talking below 60 feet, but concealed
- towers are towers that look like a tower that grew branches. They're not particularly aesthetically
- pleasing. Michigan's well known for them, but
- You know it's a tower, it's 200 feet tall, and the branches are designed so that they do not interfere
- with the signal that is being put out. They don't cover them like a pine tree. So the concealing of
- the tower, while I understand the efforts put into that to bring that about, in practice, it's just
- not a practical application. In my opinion, a much cleaner view is a monopole. As far as
- the propagation maps, I was instructed that RF agents wanted increased coverage not only in the area
- that turns yellow, but also they wanted to start hitting the red areas within that. For that reason,
- they asked me if you guys
- would consider a taller tower. That was the first time I spoke to Sean, and this was a while ago, so
- I doubt he remembers, but I just touched, just, hey, would this be something the county would be interested
- in? And we kind of had a conversation. You guys have a very clear ordinance. You want what you want,
- and kind of, that's what it is. So I went back to the RF and he said, of course, we can try to figure
- out how to make this work.
- let's look at the properties that are viable. So then that's where my search starts going into effect.
- The next, on tree removal, I do have to work with my landowner in order to get an area that they would
- approve of. My first suggestion to her was a bad suggestion, looking back at it, because it would have
- been straight out from her drive to the south in an
- open field area, which would not require terrain removal. She understandably pushed back from that because
- she's got a nice property. You enter her drive and you'd look right at the tower as opposed to tucking
- it back in the corner. Lastly, I do believe your staff is correct that this does fall within the use
- of this district and
- We have tried to be as harmonious as possible. Tall structures in this area are not unknown to happen.
- We do have higher transmission power lines running down the street. And lastly, as far as real estate
- prices going, as far as a young man looking to buy a house, coverage and access to video streaming,
- all these things is a benefit to us. So it is hard to get put together an idea of the real estate market
- in those terms. We have not done that as of now. So with those points, I would like to leave you. Thank
- you so much. Thank you. Mr. Laughman? I am looking at the north along Gore Road.
- And yeah, looking north on Gore Road and then looking south from Harding Place. Sean, do you have those?
- Harding Place. Yeah. Boy, your picture's much prettier than mine. Yeah, that shows going through sort
- of a wooded area.
- towers that hold electricity. You have no duty to know it, but do you know about how tall those towers
- are? I couldn't say for certain, but my boss over here was in construction. He has a pretty good eye,
- if you don't mind me asking him, and I'll repeat it back in the mic for you guys.
- 80 to 100 foot. I said 90, so I wasn't too bad. Right, yeah. Okay, so the tower you're talking about
- is twice as tall. Is it a good twice as tall as those? Okay, that helps me grasp what we're looking
- at, what's already there and what would be there. Thank you. And I have a question, too. As I read the reports,
- One of the justifications said that the law enforcement and fire protection agencies had spotty service
- in that area. Where did that factual statement come from? I forget. It was in a list of many statements.
- It's from the petitioner. It's from the petitioner. Do we know that to be true? So that's not exactly
- the case in point. What we are saying is that our services
- are for the use of your fire emergency services. So we did not contact them directly and ask, have you
- ever had a call drop in this on this road or in this area? Just because that would be a little bit cumbersome
- to even try to track. So how do we know that there's spotty service in this area? How do we know? So
- the way we tell this is through Verizon. Verizon's a big
- company, they don't put up towers where they don't identify an issue. And they don't like to put up
- towers because it's a large expense. More of an expense than they'd like, but that's too bad. Essentially,
- they have to go through their legal department to actually verify that what their RF engineer is seeing on their
- propagation maps matches what is established as a need. A need can be not making calls, but it can also
- be not being able to provide the service their customers are paying for. In that part, we are becoming
- a much more data-driven economy. Jobs are at home. I work on the road constantly. I get to go to places
- where there is not coverage.
- I rely still on data from wireless signals. That is what they're driving to get is to expand their coverage
- in order to allow for more people to access more of what they need to do in order to do work or for
- entertainment. Thank you. When I go south on I-69 and you get toward the Hertzberg area, there's a big
- dead zone.
- that you can't access anything. Is this tower going to affect that? In part, yes. But also, as you can
- tell by the map, this is an ongoing project. They're going to have to establish another tower somewhere
- else that I'm not even able to guess, just because I'm not an engineer. But I'm familiar with what you're
- talking about. In my search, I actually went
- south of where I was directed, just in order to get an idea of whether or not I had to get a candidate
- down there. I ended up being okay with a couple candidates on the north side. But yes, this is an ongoing
- problem, and it should help out Harrodsburg somewhat. I don't know if it will completely cover that
- area. Okay, it won't solve all the problems, but you think it'll solve some. Yes, it will help. Thank you.
- Any other questions for the petition? Okay, so we'll discuss among ourselves and maybe make a motion
- on this. We'll deliberate. Well, I would say it's the information age and these are
- very important. I just watched a program today on super floods and they talked about how self towers
- were primary sources of updated minute by minute weather information. So they're used for a variety
- of things other than our phones as we think of them. So I can certainly understand if this is a dead
- spot and Verizon has so identified it because I don't want to put up a tower unless it's going to be
- used. I can absolutely understand all of that.
- on the honeycomb discussion as far as building on current connectivity and ensuring that there are no
- dead zones in the map to be compelling. I have to say that I have driven through, I had my car stuck
- on Cedar Bluff Road and I had no service. I had to walk like two miles to get service so that I could call.
- emergency vehicle to pull me out, but I don't know if this coverage will serve Cedar Bluff Road, but
- it certainly is a building block toward that.
- my own experience. We won't have any more questions for you, so you can sit down, but we're deliberating.
- Here throughout the county, Monroe County, one of the frequent comments that we get from residents is
- that they have really terrible cell phone service and internet service out in the
- extreme areas of the county. And all that red area that we see on this particular map that's on the
- screen is an indicator of what we should be working toward solving. I'm not an engineer, but this seems
- to me to solve a pressing need that our fellow community members
- frequently stipulate is important to them. And with that said, we have to be sympathetic to neighbors,
- too. I can understand that. It's an eyesore. It is not what many of us would choose. In our backyard,
- we've heard that with wind farms, with turbines, with all sorts of renewable energy sources.
- It's a comment. And the rural character is affected by that.
- But with that said, I'm going to move that we approve CDU 2511, the Tag Towers LLC wireless communication
- facility conditional use to Chapter 812 because the need is great for that kind of technology. So that's
- my motion. Second.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve CDU-25-11, tag towers, wireless communication facility, conditional
- use to chapter 812. A vote yes is a vote to approve the conditional use. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris?
- Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Barbara Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Motion is approved five to zero.
- It's 8 15. I haven't asked my colleagues yet if they need a break or if we'd like to power through Well,
- I'm I'm I'm good to go to line and then reassess. Okay, so we'll continue I am yes. Yes, so let's Were
- it items number 9 and 10 on the agenda? VAR dash 25 dash 64 a and
- and B, and this is the Childress Accessory Dwelling Unit, a 1,000 square foot size limitation variance
- to Chapter 811, and the Childress Accessory Dwelling Unit Shared Driveway variance to Chapter 811, concerning
- one five plus or minus acre parcel in Bean Blossom Township Section 18 at 2590 West Fry Road. And Mr.
- Myers, we look forward to hearing from you.
- So this is VAR-25-64A and B. The petitioner is requesting two design standards variances to the detached
- accessory dwelling unit standards of chapter 811. The petitioner proposes to convert an existing single
- family dwelling into a detached accessory dwelling unit or DADU, perform a plat amendment to the Clio
- Helton type A administrative subdivision, and ultimately construct a new residence in a separate location
- on the newly reconfigured and would be now vacant lot
- one of that subdivision. This variance request is a prerequisite in order for the Platt Amendment process
- to comply with the county development ordinance. So before you tonight is simply the first stage in
- that whole process, which is establishing the use of a DADU for the existing structure at 2590 West
- Fry Road. The proposed Platt Amendment that would be after this, immediately after this, if this is
- approved, is to address
- two items, the possible property line encroachment slash setback encroachment of the existing single
- family dwelling at 2590 West Fry Road and also place the dwelling at 2590 West Fry Road along with 8665
- North Mount Pleasant Road, the residence there.
- on the same lot of record, thereby establishing that vacant lot that they need to ultimately acquire
- a building permit and build a new residence on that vacant lot. So I will explain this a little bit
- more detail when we have some maps and imagery in front of us. Ultimately, the process of the variance
- as well as the Platt Amendment is a method to save time.
- instead of performing a subdivision, which can require a bit of time with respect to the surveyor firm
- and the planning process through the Planning Department. In order to establish the existing single
- family residence at 2590 West Fry Road as a DADU, the property must comply with the DADU conditions
- that are outlined in Chapter 811-4C. Those items are numbered one through 13.
- Now the petitioner is unable to meet two of those requirements, one of them being the thousand square
- foot size limitation, and the other being the shared driveway requirement. Additionally, I will note
- that the highway department, their code chapter 755-11, the manual for construction within and adjacent
- to the Monroe County right of way, also stipulates that residential lots are limited to a single driveway.
- So as such, the petitioner's application to petition to keep their pre-existing driveway when they perform
- the Platt Amendment and they have one lot of record with two residences, one trying to be the Dadu and
- two separate driveways, they needed to submit a right of way activity permit to establish that driveway
- formally. And that application to the Highway Department has been preliminarily denied.
- So should the board approve the ability for the petitioner to utilize a configuration that does not
- share a driveway, the petitioner will have to appeal that decision from the Highway Department to the
- Monroe County Board of Commissioners. Overall, the petitioner was encouraged to pursue a subdivision
- action to accomplish their proposed end goal rather than the variance that you have before you tonight
- as well as the Platt Amendment.
- However, the petitioner's representative indicated that time is of the essence, as I stated, and that
- a subdivision action will take too long before a building permit can be acquired for the new home in
- the desired location on the eastern side of the property. The petitioner's surveyor has not applied
- for the sliding scale subdivision at this time, but they have been provided the preliminary documentation
- or pre-design necessary for county staff and the subdivision process and the submission of its application.
- It's unclear to staff currently if the stated time delay is specifically due to the county's process,
- which can be two to three months, depending on if there are waivers involved or the surveyor's timeline
- for finishing the plat document that's required for submitting the application. On the screen is the
- defined words for accessory dwelling unit and livable residential space. These were pulled from the
- county development ordinance.
- So an accessory dwelling unit includes a dwelling that has or is defined as a dwelling that has a kitchen
- sleeping area and full bathroom. So the existing single family residence at 2590 West Fry Road is certainly
- a dwelling, but it is large enough to be over that thousand square foot limitation for the
- detached accessory dwelling unit. And that's measured as livable residential space, which is defined
- here on the screen, which is more or less heated and cooled space is considered livable space. Now on
- the screen is Chapter 811-4C, which is the conditions that all accessory dwelling units must adhere
- to. It's item 1 through 13. And again, as I stated before, item 2, which is the 1,000 square foot
- requirement and item, let's see. Item number nine is the requirement that the DADU and the primary residents
- share a driveway. Now on the screen is a little bit of details with respect to the highway department's
- decision that I just mentioned.
- Okay, so further discussion on this variance application. If both variances are denied, the petitioner
- will not be able to perform the Platt Amendment as they intend, which would allow two primary residences
- on one lot of record, and therefore the petitioner could pursue one of the following options. Reduce
- the existing residence by 248 square feet to meet the 1,000 square foot size requirement. It's currently
- 1,248 square feet.
- So it's 248 square feet over the thousand. And also they would be required to establish a shared driveway
- between 8665 North Mount Pleasant Road and 2590 West Fry Road. In the packet you'll see some information
- about how that may be difficult to establish a shared driveway between these two residences given some
- topography on the property as well as the orientation of the residence
- at 2590 West Fry Road, given that its garage entrance and its driveway are on the eastern side of the
- residence, and 8665 North Mount Pleasant Road, that residence is on the western side of the property,
- so it could be difficult.
- Another option would be to obtain a building permit and decommission the existing residents at 2590
- West Fry Road and perform the plot amendment as proposed. Decommissioning in this sense means removing
- one of the three aspects that classify a building as a dwelling. And those again are a kitchen, a bathroom,
- and a space for sleeping.
- So if the petitioner chose to this option, they could remove the kitchen or the bathroom in that structure
- and it would not be considered a dwelling and would not need to go through this variance process. The
- third option is to perform a three or four lot sliding scale subdivision, as I stated before, and that
- would place each dwelling, it's on the property, there's two listing, on their own lots of record and
- then have that third lot they're seeking
- or vacant lot that they're seeking to build a new residence on the far east side of the property. Okay,
- so here are some maps to give you some visual representation. So on the right side of the screen we
- have the site conditions map. So there's two lots here currently. This larger lot is where 8665 North
- Mount Pleasant Road and that residence resides. So that residence is actually in the southwest corner
- of the property, just right on the corner of West Fry Road and North Mount Pleasant Road. Its driveway
- access is actually off of West Fry Road, but it's addressed off of North Mount Pleasant Road. There
- is a few other structures, a small garage as well as a ag pole barn on this same lot. This
- smaller rectangular shaped polygon here, that is where 2590 West Fry Road currently exists.
- So that is where it's also referred to as the cabin and that is where they are hoping to capture through
- the plot amendment process that residents and the residents off of North Mount Pleasant Road on one
- lot and then have a new home built in this location up on the hill here on the eastern side of the property
- through a new building permit application I'll say overall
- The county development ordinance allows for one primary residence per lot of record. So that's why there's
- all these hoops to go through in establishing permission to do so. So the whole lot itself, the larger
- lot has already residents on it. And the second lot already has a residence on it. So that's why they're
- having to go through the DADU process and the Platt Amendment process to reconfigure things and get
- permission to get ultimately a building permit and building new residents where they would like.
- Okay, so here are some pictures of the residents at 2590 West Fry Road. This is the structure that they
- intend to establish as a detached accessory dwelling unit. You can see the existing driveway here extend
- to the east of the structure and underneath the building is its garage. You can see that here. And then
- this is a shot on the western side of the building.
- and then also on the front of the building. During the site visit, staff did notice that there is active
- construction for a deck on the property. That work is not permitted. There was no permit on file for
- that construction, so we will be going through the process to get an after the fact permit for that
- construction. So I just wanted to indicate that. Now on the screen are pictures of the
- Other existing residents, this is the one off of North Mount Pleasant Road, 8665 North Mount Pleasant
- Road. So this is the other residence that's going to be the primary residence if they go through the
- Platt Amendment process. And you can see it's clearly got its own driveway and it's got its own little
- garage there as well. The bottom right photograph is looking on, looking east on West Fry Road towards
- where that other cabin building is. There's the ag pole barn that I mentioned that's on the larger lot with
- 8665 North Mount Pleasant Road. And then finally on the right side of the screen is just continuing
- down West Fry Road. You can see that driveway cut to the cabin that will or is the proposed Dadu if
- you will. All right. Now on the screen is the petitioner's letter or the petitioner's representative's
- letter indicating their request and the rationale for their request.
- Now on the screen is the current Clio Helton administrative type A subdivision on the left side. So
- this shows the current configuration that was shown on the site conditions map that shows those two
- lots. On the right side of the screen is the proposed plot amendment document. So I'm going to click
- once more to get a zoom in version. So you can see here how they've reconfigured the shape of that lot
- to now capture the cabin structure, hopefully,
- becoming the Dadu, and the existing residents in North Mount Pleasant Road under one lot of record,
- therefore triggering the Dadu requirements and the shared driveway, 1,000 square feet, living space,
- et cetera. This would enable them to have a larger vacant lot here and seek a building permit for the
- location that they wanted to build a new residence. And then this document here, also included in the packet,
- kind of gives you an idea of their choices here and the ultimate location for that new residence on
- the northeastern middle way through that larger lot after performing the Platt Amendment. Okay.
- Overall staff recommends a denial of both variances, saying that practical difficulties have not been
- met. Specifically for VAR-25-64A, the petitioner could pursue a sliding scale subdivision where each
- existing dwelling can remain on its own lot of record and therefore not require any DADU variances.
- The same rationale applies to VAR-25-64B. Essentially for both of these variances, the time constraint is
- a self-imposed constraint by the petitioner and practical difficulties have not been met because they
- can pursue the sliding scale subdivision and avoid both the variance process as well as the Platt Amendment
- process. I will now take any questions. Well, let's hear from the petitioner or the petitioner's
- representative, Mr. Deckard. If you'd kindly come to the podium and sign in and then I'll swear you in again.
- It's good to see you. Thank you. Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the
- whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- I do. Thank you. Well, thank you, Drew, and I really appreciate the thoroughness of your name, please.
- I'm sorry. Eric Deckard with Deckard land surveying. Thank you. I'm here representing the petitioner
- for 2590 West fry road.
- Once again, thank you, Drew, for your report and your thoroughness on that. There is a few comments
- that I would like to make with respect to the driveway and some of the logistics of being able to access
- the cabinet in its current conditions. True, this is not the best site location for the driveway. However,
- it is the only location that the driveway can be. It was a previously approved
- lot of record, so we've got a five-acre lot with a cabin on it and an existing driveway. Currently,
- if we was to try to reconfigure this and make this a shared driveway situation, we would have to use
- the driveway for where the farm home is located at near the intersection of Fry Road
- traverse approximately 600 feet up a hill, around the barn, around the backside of the cabin. Andrew,
- could you please turn to the picture of the cabin? You had a really nice picture there of the decks
- on the back of the cabin. So essentially, you would have to try to navigate a driveway between the deck
- and a steep slope. We're talking 25% slopes there to be able to get to the garage that is underneath of
- of the home itself. So as you can see, practically that's not going to be very doable to be able to
- utilize the garage in the current cabin configuration. We do understand that we are asking for a modest
- 10% increase above the current CDO. We know that we've got approximately 1,100 square feet of the home
- that the code says that we must have 1,000 square feet.
- The purpose for not pursuing the sliding scale subdivision at this time, however we will seek a sliding
- scale subdivision later, is it would potentially eliminate the ability to have one more additional lot.
- So currently he has two. At the end of the day with a sliding scale subdivision with approximately 73
- acres, he could yield a possible four more, yeah, four more lots.
- Okay, so in total, at the end of the day, he would have five lots, possibly. If we do the sliding scale
- subdivision now, he could only yield four lots with the current condition. One of the reasons that we're
- asking for the Platt Amendment is because we have an encroachment of the cabin itself. So on the five-acre
- lot for the Cleo-Helton
- type A administrative subdivision, the cabin lies on the western property line, so we must have a plat
- amendment in order to correct the encroachment of the building itself. We felt that because of timing
- and also being able to come closer to compliance, that if we configured the lot in this fashion and
- asked for the variance with the size of the cabin, that we could accomplish both.
- If we try to pursue a sliding scale subdivision, this is the self-imposed portion of it. This takes
- anywhere between eight months to 10 months in time, where we can do this more administratively using
- the Platt Amendment. Let's see. That's really all I've got to offer right now, but if you have any questions,
- I'll be glad to try to answer some of these questions.
- I have one question. Several times the comments have been made that they're in a hurry, times of the
- essence, they're anxious. Why is time of the essence in this? Mr. Childress would like to build his
- forever home on the eastern portion of this lot. His daughter is essentially going to be receiving this
- five acre portion where they have recently done a remodel on the old farmhouse.
- One of the desires here is, for temporary purposes, Mr. Childers would like to live in the accessory
- dwelling unit on this piece of property until his forever home is constructed. Yes, Mr. Daley, sir.
- I have a question for you, Mr. Decker. Sure. You had Mr. Myers bring up the picture of the deck
- Could you bring that up one more time? And the point you were looking to make failed on me. Oh, sure.
- Regarding the driveway and the slope. I'm trying to picture what's going on. Okay. We'll get to that
- picture here in just a moment then. So currently the driveway enters off of Fry Road and gives the ability
- to drive around
- the side of the building and be able to access a garage that lies underneath the cabin. Yeah, now you
- can see it. Now, if you would say being the vehicle that's in the picture in the upper left-hand corner
- and try to drive around that corner, you're going to be getting into some very steep slopes. There's
- very small space between the cabin itself and where the slopes start dropping off at over 25%.
- So you're suggesting sharing the driveway is not feasible because of constructing at least 600 lineal
- feet of additional driveway and then also disturbing the 25% slope that lies on the east side of the
- cabin. If you can go back to my picture on the Platt Amendment, Drew,
- Could you zoom in on the cabinet itself by chance? Do you see the pink colored line that says 25% slope?
- This is the area that I'm talking about trying to navigate between. It's going to be very tight.
- Where's the current driveway on this picture. It is it is the green line. That. And the mind if I step
- over to the monitor and just kind of point.
- And we wouldn't let you go in 25%. Not without another variance. That's the existing property. Salute.
- This is the existing property. The existing drive. The property as it lies now. Could you zoom out,
- Drew? A bit further. I'm trying to get to the original shape of the five acres in its current conditions.
- Once again. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Decker?
- We're going to hear from the public like we do. Are there members of the public who would like to speak
- in support of this petition? Are there members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to
- this petition? Let me know, staff, if you see anyone. So we return now to us for further discussion
- and or a motion. This case is confusing because the existing house is
- 1264, they want it to be a dadu, which would be 1,000, and then they want to build a brand new primary
- structure. So it's confusing because of the, you can't have a shared driveway. We've just heard that
- because the topography doesn't really allow that to happen. We've heard many, many times of family members
- coming back to live on the same property. This is a constant factual situation.
- So it's confusing because the existing primary residence, to reclassify that as a dadu, when the principal
- residence has yet to be built, it's kind of not in the general order of things. I think we've had cases
- where somebody was going to have a very similar case. I can remember at least one and I think a couple
- of more where
- They wanted to build the new home. They wanted this to be the data while they built it. And I don't
- see it as it's confusing, but I don't think it's a flaw to me. But let me clarify with staff.
- My understanding is if they were to pursue a sliding scale subdivision, they can do everything they're
- wanting to do without any variances, correct? Except they would only have four instead of five.
- So I thought that if they had five parcels that they would be required to make it a PUD and
- put in infrastructure. So when we met with the petitioner, they did not have a final sliding scale proposal.
- I think that where we landed though on the petitioner's representative or the petitioner
- State if this is accurate I think that they want to keep the dad do on that property and not include
- the lot that we're speaking of in the sliding scale So it would be the other lot to the east on this
- screen. That would be vacated and Resub divided into four lots. Well, basically they're not done yet
- with the carving up of the property and they are going to take the four
- Parcels and separate them from the master purse. I don't get it So right now we're basically trying
- to write the ship by getting the cabin to comply with being on its own lot or at least on a on a lot,
- okay, and later we do wish to seek a sliding scale this is kind of the first step the first hurdle to
- try to clean this up so that we can do the sliding scale and
- At the end of the day, we are going to have additional lots. Doing the sliding scale now, like I said,
- timing is one thing. The other thing is it would eliminate a potential lot by doing the sliding scale
- now. And we would still need to ask for variances for the driveway, because the sliding scale subdivision
- would trigger the driveway conditions. Madam Chair? Yes.
- If I may, I have almost a follow up to that. How does that new driveway you're proposing fit in to the
- master plan of additional lots? Right now, we're not proposing in a new driveway. If we was to create
- a new driveway so that it would be shared
- What we would have to do is connect on to the existing driveway for the farmhouse located near
- the intersection of Fry Road. Navigate up the hill, around the barn, and behind the cabin. Follow that?
- I can point at it once again on the map while it's zoomed out. I can offer some clarification as well
- if I may. Yes.
- On the screen now is the GIS map for this property as well as the, there's two lots here. There's this
- larger lot that is 73.88 acres. This lot has the existing residence of 8665 North Mount Pleasant Road.
- That is the structure that the petitioner's family member is or will be living in. That is the primary
- residence of this lot.
- Is that the five acres? Where is the five acres? The five acres is located over here at 2590 West Fry
- Road. You can see even the GIS here is a little bit off. This is the cabin and its existing driveway.
- So this is the second lot of the Cleo-Helton type A subdivision. So what the petitioner is hoping to
- do is reconfigure the shared lot lines between these two lots to capture both 8665 North Mount Pleasant Road
- and the cabin all the way over here under one lot of record, both each with their own driveway.
- To do so, you need to classify this residence, the 2590 West Fry Road, as the DADU, and that's why it's
- requiring the shared driveway and the thousand square feet of living space. They're doing that so that
- they can have this vacant lot, which was originally part of the 73 acres,
- and build a new home up on the hillside over here with a new residential building permit. Staff is saying
- that in order to accomplish all of that and avoid variances, just perform a sliding scale off the bat
- and don't have to worry about a shared driveway, don't have to worry about thousand square feet, and
- each home can be on its own lot of record moving forward.
- That would that would that would not make it without any variances because the sliding scale subdivision
- triggers the driveway permitting. The triggers the driveway permitting, which means that if I put the
- cabin on its own lot, then I'm going to be asking for a driveway permit for it, which I'm still asking
- for this variance here before you today. So instead of kicking the can or the proverbial can six months
- down the road, let's ask for it now.
- I'm not sure the rationale behind the variance for the driveway, because the DADU structure would be
- on its own lot of record. Because if we go through the sliding scale subdivision, that's going to trigger
- the driveway permitting. Ben will have to come and examine the driveway to make sure that it meets site
- visibility. That's the issue. So that would be the process through the highway department and the sliding
- scale subdivision. But you would not be coming to this board?
- for that review. That's the determination from the highway department. And it would be an appeal to
- the highway department's decision that goes to the board of commissioners. Oh, I see it. I understand
- what you're saying there. Well, I just want to say where, you know, first of all, this is a lot of fancy
- footwork. It really is a lot of fancy footwork. I'm not bothered by the
- accessory dwelling unit being slightly above the thousand square foot minimum. But I, I'm just,
- you know, I don't know where everybody else is thinking about this. Well, I agree with you on that point.
- Uh huh. Yes. It sounds to me, um, basically if I might just try to synthesize this,
- There's a large parcel of land that they haven't quite figured out what they want to do with it yet.
- They're trying to preserve the maximum flexibility for that land at the same time that they're trying
- to get some things done here.
- with regard to what exists on the land and what they hope to have on the land. And they think that seeking
- these variances is the most expeditious way, even though it flies in the face of our CDO. Do you think
- I got that right? I mean, do you think that's pretty spot on? I think what they're asking for is
- bit out of sequence. So yes, we're doing this. If they were to put the data on its own lot or keep it
- on its own lot and include it as one of their sliding scale lots, we would not be here for these variances.
- But we don't have that sliding scale petition. So we don't actually know how many lots they're going
- to create or whether... They may or may not know.
- But if they make a sliding scale on the 73 acres, they get an additional four lots. That was the maximum
- they could get. So instead of four homes across all of the acreage shown on the screen, it could be
- as many as six homes, if you include the current home, the Dadu, and then four new homes.
- That's the bottom line. But the density is not of the, I mean, you could look at the accessory dwelling
- unit standards that they're asking for. Really, it's a size, the use is permitted, the size is over
- the limit, the driveway, things like that. If we could come up with a hybrid solution here where we
- approve both of these tonight, but add a condition that the petitioner pursue a sliding scale subdivision
- within a certain time period.
- about that, Mr. Deckard? Unlike the other ones that you've seen, even if they do the sliding scale,
- that won't negate these variances. So they do need these variances long term. Okay. Well, I don't,
- we created, the ordinances create obstacles which you can overcome in one way or you can overcome in
- another way.
- But this doesn't go against the principles say that this can be done. Exactly. And if it can be done,
- if it's not in violation of the goals of the ordinance, but it can be done this way. And if it means
- grandpa can get into his house a year earlier, that means a lot to anybody who wants to build their
- forever home.
- And I sympathize with that. So it's an odd way to do what you're allowed to do, but they're still doing
- what they're allowed to do eventually. And if this is all consistent, and to say there's a condition
- that they've got to do the sliding scale subdivision, I don't see how we can enforce that. We can't
- make them undo the dadu.
- if they don't do that. So this variance, if Drew has on the screen, if the variances are denied, kind
- of some of the options. So do note that this variance is proceeding a Platt Amendment to make the dadu
- on the same lot as the home. So step one is they want to put the dadu on the same lot as the existing
- home. Right now, they're not on the same lot. Right.
- they will work with the other 72 acres to do the sliding scale. So if you were to deny right now, we
- wouldn't even be able to move forward with a Platt Amendment to make this a debt who officially on it's
- on the same line. Is done. I'm rocking my brain on how I, okay, I can part a, I can see, but with the
- order that this being presented to us, I don't see how
- The conditions are possible for us with Part B. What about the slope? In Mr. Meyer's presentation, he
- discussed options around that. Did you not?
- Yes, so the issue with changing, the issue with denying the shared driveway standard is that
- the configuration of the cabin itself is in a situation where creating a shared driveway between this
- structure and this blue house would result in a very long distance
- from this driveway on the screen all the way over to basically the eastern side of the cabin, which
- is where the garage is. Staff's main point of contention with respect to the variance is practical
- difficulties with respect to
- this situation can be overcome by performing the sliding scale subdivision, which is another option
- in the ordinance, rather than performing the variances. Right. So. Well, I'm comfortable with saying,
- if we do this, then they can have the data. And whether they ever do a sliding scale subdivision
- is their decision. Maybe they'll find the dadu is just right and they don't even want to do that or
- maybe they will. I see them as somewhat independent. I know they need this dadu to do what they want
- to do and it seems to me that I don't care about the thousand square foot very much. I think
- We have a tradition here already of saying that that might be a little low for daddos. It's hard to
- build a dwelling unit that comes in underhand, and nobody does. And the driveway, I'm absolutely convinced
- they need to have two driveways if this is going to be a daddo. So with these two standing on their
- own, I'm comfortable with it.
- So I guess I'm going to move that we grant 2564A.
- and 2564B children's accessory dwelling unit, 1,000 square foot limitation and shared driveway on the
- grounds that this is, there are practical difficulties in terms of the driveway and that 1,000 square
- feet is a practical difficulty because it's too small and we're working with existing structures and
- this is an appropriate size for a Dadu.
- I'll second that. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve both VAR-25-64A, which is the Children's
- Accessory Dwelling Unit 1000 square foot size limit to Chapter 811, and VAR-25-64B, which is the Children's
- Accessory Dwelling Unit shared driveway requirement of Chapter 811. A vote yes is a vote to approve
- both variances. Pamela Davidson? Yes.
- Margaret Clements, skip daily. They were separated. I could approve a I don't see that the conditions
- after Mr. Myers presentation are are met on be separated. I agree with a but my vote has to be no on
- a combined
- Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Okay. Motion is approved four to one. Thank you. Thank you for coming
- and bearing with us. And we are at the nine o'clock hour and we have an extraordinarily long agenda
- and we're not, we're about halfway through it.
- And so I know that the petitioners have been advised by staff that there was a strong possibility that
- we might not get through the entire agenda tonight and that if not, that there was a, we would continue
- the meeting to November 12th at 5.30. But I want to check with my colleagues to see what your stance
- is. Do you wanna muscle through
- Or do you want to go any longer? Or what is your disposition? I'd be happy if we did the Berg case,
- because then we will have done all of this second page. And we have only left the last page of our agenda.
- So I'm up for one more long case, but I may have different things. I think you have some support in
- the audience from at least.
- We got Mr. Daley on number eight. On the tag towers, we thought, well, we'll just move right through
- this with a truncated procedure, which I thought was a great idea. But my experience with that makes
- me a little hesitant to count on that working for some of these other potential
- approvals. Could we ask before too many people leave the room if the Nature Conservancy, if you wanted
- to call the... We've already approved the agenda. Yeah. Yeah. If it was just one, I wouldn't say let's
- go through, but if we've got 10, I think we've gotten
- We've gotten halfway through the agenda and my read of Berg is it's I Want to I want to listen to all
- the evidence and I don't want to listen to the evidence after nine o'clock when I'm You know getting
- someplace between grumpy and exhausted so III
- I don't think we're going to get through this entire agenda tonight. I don't think I'm going to make
- it through the entire agenda tonight. Nine o'clock's a good stopping time. I think we can do the whole
- agenda in our next, in our delayed meeting. I would never believe we could get through the whole agenda.
- If you all want to stay, there's an, we've got a... That's an option too, but my question is if we do the burg
- situation. I'd like to know if there are people in the audience or online who are opposed to the request
- for the Nature Conservancy Eco Area 2 variants to Chapter 823 concerning three 359.9 plus or minus acres
- on East Allen Creek Road. Are there people who are opposed to that?
- request. And if not, if we're going to do the Berg set of variances, which isn't just one, it's five.
- I'd like to make a motion. Six. I would like to suggest that we take the next two items on the agenda
- bang them out in terms of giving everyone their due process and then we call it a wrap and go home and
- we'll set up for next week. What are the next two items? Is it two of the burgs or all of the burgs
- and nature conservancy? What's two items? Variance 25-65A through F and then?
- skip to page 214, then we skip to page 214 and have 25-67. And then I would also like to note that Ms.
- Ann Criselius is here and this is, these two are her petitions and this is her last week, tomorrow is
- her last day. What? Today is her last day. What?
- And so we would have some kind of resolution, harmony with her wonderful service to our county. And
- we're lucky to have her continue in the county by working in the city for the planning department.
- So how... That's compelling. That's compelling. We'll have a quorum. We'll have a quorum without you
- if you need to leave. I'm staying.
- We're not going to stop now. Let's just see how far we can get. That's what I think. Because several
- of these next ones may go through. And for the people who are remaining here and who have been patient
- with us all night, we will not be hearing Van Tassel, Eco Area 1. We will not be hearing Thompson. No,
- I don't want to say that. We don't want to let the people go? I think we may be able to hear them.
- There's only one that's got any contested elements left after this. And we may be able to go with the
- simplified procedure for all those approvals. If they want to leave, they certainly can. They are entitled
- to it. I would say if they want to leave, we will definitely grant a continuance to the next meeting.
- If they want to hang out and hope, I will hang out and hope as long as I can.
- We're going to try. I guess that's as indefinite as we can be. So we turn over now to Ms. Anne Chryselius.
- I really was saddened to hear that you're leaving, but I thank you for all that you've done. We look
- forward to hearing from you on these cases.
- Okay. Can we start? Okay. So we'll see. He needs to excuse himself. So Ms. Chris Elias, if you would
- kindly, kindly go over these Berg variances, uh, 25 dash 65 a through F concerning accessory dwelling
- units, uh, eco area to
- lot size, buildable area, limitations, maximum residential density concerning two one plus or minus
- acre parcels in Bloomington Township at 4977 East State Road 46. All right, thank you so much.
- Okay, so just to familiarize yourself, we are on the northern side of East State Road 46. This is a
- one acre parcel. We're located in Bloomington Township. It is zoned residential one and is also within
- the environmental constraints overlay area two. So it is subject to a 15% slope maximum. That is not
- really gonna be a play at all here today. So as you can see on screen,
- We're looking at contour lines in the buildable area on the aerial imagery, a little difficult to see,
- but the general layout is we have two structures on the property, a dwelling on the southern side towards
- the road and a barn slash dwelling structure towards the northern side where it starts to get steep.
- So the petitioner is requesting six design standard variances to allow
- an as-built dwelling to remain as a detached accessory dwelling unit on the property. So in August of
- this year, we did receive a call about the petition site from an interested buyer, and they were inquiring
- about the status of the property having two dwellings. So the normal questions of is this legal, is
- this allowed, et cetera. So over the years, the Planning Department has received, I believe it's,
- 17 different calls just between 2023 and 2024. So there was a lot of interest in the property. So we
- have some kind of notes in our call log over the years that there's been reference to a second dwelling,
- but there's also been a lot of references to the property maybe sitting vacant. So we told the interested
- buyer that there's limited information and we were unable to confirm whether the use was legal.
- So we did upon doing some a little bit of research the real estate listing for the property this year
- did show that both of the dwellings had been recently remodeled even though there was only one building
- permit on file that was issued for the southern dwelling. So the.
- home that's on screen. So you can see that there's been vast improvement. The building permit that was
- issued was a remodel permit, so there was no... Under a remodel permit, it's supposed to be interior
- or facade. There's not supposed to be any expansion to a footprint. Looking a little bit closer,
- there was... Discovered that there was
- technically in addition to the footprint, so there was a carport added to the existing primary dwelling.
- That is in addition, and it is a separate permit, so that was requested that after the fact permit is
- applied for. While looking, we also saw that the northern structure, which had been hinted at having
- a dwelling in it,
- Had also been remodeled and we did not have a permit on file for for that structure so we informed the
- you know the caller and then reached out to The the property owner reached out to us very quickly that
- same day It has been working You know to the best of their abilities to follow instruction and try to
- bring the property into compliance with the CDO So what we are looking at is
- had the proper permits applications been submitted. The property owner would have been informed by staff
- that the legal status of the use of having a second dwelling was unknown. And that is where we would
- generally refer to something called providing that the petitioner bears the burden of proof. So a little
- bit of an overview again here. So one lot of record, one acre total,
- Two dwellings, the main primary to the south and then the barn slash maybe accessory, what is proposed
- to be an accessory dwelling here today. We've got some history on the property and the petitioner purchased
- in 2024. We've got one remodel permit for the primary southern dwelling. We've asked for an after the
- fact addition permit for the carport structure and they have applied for that permit, it's pending.
- there are two variances that are needed here today for that carport to stay. So when we get towards
- the end of the presentation, we'll kind of go over some options. And then with the remodel of the dwelling,
- the northern dwelling, let me get to it.
- So the use of having a detached accessory dwelling unit is permitted with standards in the residential
- zoning district, but it has multiple standards that it cannot meet. So because of the size of the property,
- it is unable to meet the standards of the use. The petitioner does state that that barn structure did
- contain an apartment on the second floor.
- And I will go over that in just a minute. So I'm going to start running through some photos so we can
- get familiar with what the site looks like. On screen is here where we talk a little bit about burden
- of establishing status. So that's where if
- somebody who wants to prove that there's been a use, they need to be able to provide sufficient proof
- in a form acceptable to the planning director, and that includes the date of the construction of the
- building or structure and the date of the use that it was established, that there's been a continuous
- operation of that non-conforming use, and then that proof may be deemed necessarily by the planning
- director, and then it goes over like it can include utility bills, leasing information, et cetera.
- So that was an option that could have been available if there had been a different scenario play out.
- So we're standing across the road for 46. We're looking, 46 looking north at the new dwelling, the existing
- dwelling. So this had the interior remodel permit. You saw that earlier photo. So they've done a lot
- of work. The property looks very nice. We can start to see that the carport is,
- was the unpermitted carport that is the addition that has a pending permit now. So the property has
- one septic system, but it is large enough to accommodate all of the bedrooms if both dwellings can stay.
- So if the proposed data was permitted tonight with the rest of the variances,
- The septic system has the capacity. It's a little disjointed because of the size and narrowness of the
- property. So we have two septic tanks directly north of the existing home. And then as you move north
- and follow the driveway into the property, there's a large newly updated septic field on the right.
- So the petitioner actually did not have enough capacity and through these conversations with talking
- about what you know what the CDO required for compliance and pursuing the daddy route here today they
- were actually able to get some work with the Monroe County Health Department and add more capacity to
- this septic field that's seen on the right.
- So we've encountered the barn structure, we've moved farther to the north. So our understanding is that
- the petitioner states, and from what we kind of can gather, is that there was an apartment on the second
- floor of the property. So those stairs and everything have been existing. From what we can tell, the
- footprint of this structure has not changed. It was an interior remodel. Now, that being said,
- The second floor apartment was about 800 square feet. And the petitioner did remodel. And they added
- a staircase to the first floor, the ground floor, which doubled the size of the accessory apartment.
- So it went from 800 square feet to 1,600 square feet. So we do see this kind of as an expansion of an
- unpermitted use.
- We also, again, for an accessory dwelling unit, we're looking at livable space, which we have a specific
- definition for, which is considering what is heated and cooling. Because our definition of a dwelling
- is livable space, a kitchen, a bathroom. So we do have that here at approximately 1,600 square feet.
- This is the second floor of what used to be maybe that existing apartment and the barn structure.
- So that's the upstairs. This would be just looking east at the property. So there was no expansion of
- the footprint, which was great. And then this is just looking south at the, towards the kind of what
- we would call the primary home. So we did get a certified plot plan from the petitioner. This was great.
- It helped fix some lot line issues actually in the area.
- were able to provide us a little bit with a little bit more information that we needed. So just the
- red icons on screen are kind of general location of the septic tanks on the left, the squares, the field
- on the right. This did show us that the existing barn structure that was remodeled is not meeting a
- side yard setback.
- I am going to start running through the variances and talking a little bit more about them. And then
- this is kind of layered, so I would love to be able to answer any questions. So the first three variances
- are from the use. The barn structure was expanded. We missed the opportunity to do any kind of pre-existing
- non-conforming. It's there. We need to permit it. So the property cannot meet three standards from
- from the permitted with standards use. So the first is that point number two states that for lots within
- the residential one zone, they have to be in their own septic, they have to be 1.25 acres. So it's a
- quarter of an acre under the minimum requirement. And it also states in that same requirement that the
- accessory dwelling unit is limited to 800 square feet, and that's 800 square feet of liveable space.
- So they have it at 1600 square feet currently.
- The standard number 12 states that each accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate buildable area
- for each dwelling Because the barn structure is already located within the side yard setback.
- It's technically not located in buildable area So then this one's triggered And then because it's also within a
- the eco area too. So within the protections of Lake Monroe watershed, there are two standards that also
- get triggered. The first is that, so it's area two and no issues with slope, but points three and four
- talk about density and contiguous buildable area. So point number three states that the maximum residential
- density shall be, that shall be allowed, shall be one unit per 2.5 acres. So we would be doubling that.
- And then point number four does state that each dwelling unit should have at least one acre of total
- contiguous buildable area of land. This property has about 0.7, 7.5 of buildable area for the whole
- property. So that would be two dwellings for the whole property. And then this last variance, which
- is that side yard setback. So the existing structure, as we can tell, has not been expanded. But that
- survey did show us that the covered deck
- which is a part of the structure, is one foot off of the property boundary. The current minimum setback
- for the zoning district is 10 feet. So on screen is the petitioner's letter. I'm sure you've had an
- opportunity to read it. They do kind of run through their requests and state that this is what they
- believe is the minimum necessary relief.
- So I will let the petitioner who is here and has been with us all night, I'll let him go over his reasons
- during his time. So I've got two couple pages to the staff recommendation. So we are recommending denial
- for the three detached accessory dwelling unit standard variance requests. That's from 800 square feet,
- the buildable area and also the lot size.
- but we are recommending approval for the three that are not necessarily related to the accessory dwelling
- units. 65D and 65E are the minimum requirement to allow the carport addition to remain as built. So
- that's from the eco area to one acre contiguous buildable area and also eco area to maximum residential density.
- Whether there was an issue with a second dwelling on the property, both of these variances would get
- triggered because he built the carport without a permit. Well, we would have told them during the permit
- process beforehand. So these two eco variances are just required. And planning staff is kind of looking
- into options with how to make eco area
- regulations and the rest of the zoning ordinance work. I think it's going to the ordinance review committee.
- So we are also recommending that the side yard setback for the barn structure or the accessory dwelling
- is approved. That structure has been there for from what we can tell a very long time and has always
- been in that location. So on this screen I'm going to just
- Those are some of the reasoning. So denial of the daddy variances will require that the petition or
- alter their building permit application to include the removal of the dwelling as defined by chapter
- 51. So that would include removing livable space kitchen or bathroom. So one of those three elements.
- We found that the petitioners unable to prove practical difficulties specifically part C which states
- the significant development limitation that cannot be reasonably addressed through the redesign or relocation
- And we are recommending approval of the two eco variances. It's the minimum variance required to maintain
- the carport addition Staff recommends approving the side yard setback and that would maintain the original
- barn structure and then
- Little side note, if the board considers approving the accessory dwelling unit, the variance number
- 65B must be approved in conjunction with 65F. They kind of go together, so a side note. Okay, I know
- that was confusing. What can I do for you? No, that was very good.
- I think that, you know, you've always been exceptional, Ann, and we thank you for all of your presentations.
- We're going to miss you. We're going to miss you, but we're proud of you. So we're going to turn now
- to the petitioner, and if you would kindly come to the podium and sign in, and then I'll swear you in,
- Mr. Berg. Are you Mr. Berg? I am, yes.
- I'm ready. And would you kindly state your full name? Chris Berg. And raise your right hand. Do you
- swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please. I personally,
- I don't have much of a presentation because I want to hurry up out of here as well. And I was always
- told, don't argue with the planner.
- But I am more of a Q&A guy. The one thing that Anne did not go over is this used to be two parcels owned
- by Mr. Mefford. He swings by Mefford. I think it's in my notes. That's why this whole property is just
- kind of quirky. The barn was obviously there for a very long time. There was an apartment up there.
- We rehabbed it. When we originally bought the property, it was for personal reasons.
- It's nice to have a primary home with an additional unit. It was sold to me that way on market. It was
- on the MLS. It was sold that way. I thought it was an apartment. It was an apartment. Coincidentally,
- two years ago when Mr. Mefford passed away or before that,
- He had a yard sale, and I met his son. And he walked me through the wood shop, which is the lower half
- of that barn. It was full of wood. You could tell he made all of his wood swings there and rocking chairs.
- And he walked me through the house, all three homes. There's another home on site, but it's on a different
- parcel. But it's right next to the barn, which I don't know if Ann showed. But he did tell me that his
- dad used to drink bourbon in the wood shop.
- He used to love to hang out down there. That's why it looks like a living space, and it definitely could
- be a living space. But he said his dad always wished that he would make it more livable, although it
- was full of sawdust and all of that. But yeah, I mean, I was sold the property thinking it was an apartment
- up there, and it was an apartment. I think, I don't know if he ever rented it, but I was told from the
- son that family used to stay there. He slept up there many times. But yeah, we just made it much nicer for
- for reasons. We probably made it a little too nice. Although I think the pictures that Anne showed was
- not the pictures of the upstairs of that. That's of the primary home that's up on the south side of
- the street. But nonetheless, it's really nice regardless. So yeah, ask away. Members have questions.
- Yes, Mr. Daily. And I don't know if Mr. Seelys could throw back the photo of the inside of the barn.
- Yeah, we call the wood shop. Okay. Yeah, wood shop. That's the one I'm looking for. You should have
- seen the before pictures. Yeah. All right. So what we're looking at is 800 square feet. Yep. And that
- spiral staircase leads to another 800 square feet. Yeah. And it's called livable space 1600 square feet.
- Where is the
- kitchen where is the that's upstairs bathroom upstairs so all of its upstairs it is honestly it's just
- back and forth battle between planning and building building does not designate that is living space.
- They say it's heated and cool it cooled that was heated and cooled when I bought it that is a newer
- unit. But either way it's now considered livable because of the spiral staircase go ahead. Okay so. Should
- If this space didn't exist the 800 square foot of apartment is above it. Yes, sir and the only way to
- access it there is a There's a staircase outside that goes upstairs in order to get to his wood shop
- He'd go back downstairs into a door into here Okay, so now we just made it more convenient to get downstairs
- Okay, turn my picture of the upstairs
- Or was there a confusion about it? This is the downstairs. Where does the stairway come out? When you
- go up the stairs, I don't think I've ever actually had a photo of that. Are you talking about the spiral
- staircase? Yeah, that goes near the bedroom that's upstairs. She doesn't have a picture of it. Yeah,
- we showed one that had a kitchen. That's not the same building. So in order to get to the
- In order to get to the apartment upstairs, you go an external staircase. You walk inside to what we
- see here, which you would call a sitting room, I'm sure. And then you take a staircase up to what you
- would call the apartment and it enters in the bedroom. So just to be clear, there's two ways into this
- place. This is access from ground level.
- This is where the wood shop was, where he had all of his table saws and all that. This is ground level.
- This is ground level. That's all concrete. So it's like 12 inches of concrete. There's another way,
- an exterior staircase, which I think, and you have the picture of that side of the barn. That's the
- main house, but they kind of look the same. So that staircase, you go up, and that's the apartment right
- upstairs. And then the wood shop is, you see underneath of that deck, you can see
- A door, maybe. Yeah, she's kind of, that's the door into that concrete space. And to the right of that
- is actually, underneath the staircase is a garage door where it's just still kind of gross. Can I ask
- a question, Madam Chair of our planning department? If the internal staircase, the spiral staircase
- from the ground level
- up to the apartment wasn't there, would you still as a planning department classify this apartment as
- 1,600 square feet? I think that it wouldn't be a single family interior access, only 1,600 square feet.
- So we have had people where they've
- taken out the interior staircase and made two units. So we would want to. But there would be no kitchen
- downstairs. Right. That wouldn't be classified as a dwelling then at that point. So they could. A good
- idea from the building department been working hand in hand with me with this because I told them the
- issue. He would recommend talking about Kirk. He said he would go to the top of the spiral staircase
- and there's there's like a landing right. He said
- build a wall and the spiral staircase would lead to nothing, therefore cutting off the two livable areas.
- That's silly. That's just silly. It is. Yeah. You know, come on. That's what he said. I said that's
- what he would do. Yeah. Yeah. Or just take out the staircase. Yeah. Okay. We're correct. Yeah. Yeah.
- Yeah. And we're flexible. Well, let's see if there's any opposition.
- Yes. Are there members of the public, we're going to switch now, and if there are members of the public
- who are in opposition, you'll have a time for rebuttal. Are there members of the public who are either
- in favor of this petition or in opposition to this petition? Please come to the podium or raise your
- hand. We see no one, so we come back to us for further discussion and or a motion.
- It's 800 square feet's not big enough for a dwelling unit. And the historic circumstances of this, that
- the spiral staircase changes its nature,
- I get, I don't think it's a bad ordinance, but I don't think it's appropriate to apply it to a building
- that was clearly constructed before zoning was created. And it's always been used in partly as a dwelling,
- living downstairs, living upstairs, where you'd walk outside. Now you don't have to walk outside. I'm
- comfortable with the 800 square with that one.
- buildable area and that these are these is this is old turf it used to be two lots anyway. So I'm comfortable
- with moving to prove Berg accessory dwelling unit. Two parcels at forty nine seventy seventy state state
- road forty six.
- approving A, B, C, D, E, and F on the grounds that it doesn't violate any, that it meets all the criteria
- for hardship and appropriate use. I think in addition, just as a side note, these detached accessory
- dwelling units are relatively new in terms of our code.
- And so we're finding out more as we go along. But somebody else needs to second your motion. I'll second.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve var-25-65a Which is the 800 square foot size limit to
- the accessory dwelling unit 65b, which is the buildable area for the accessory dwelling unit 65c, which
- is the lot size requirement for the accessory dwelling unit 65d eco area to contiguous buildable area 65e
- Eco area to maximum residential density and 65 F the side yard setback to chapter 805 a vote. Yes is
- a vote to approve all six variances at once Jeff Morris, yes, Pamela Davidson. Yes, Margaret Clements.
- Yes, skip daily. I'm glad you'll have your votes. I have to I have to say no to remain consistent. Well, I've
- I'm not comfortable with 65 be without further discussion. So I'm gonna have to vote. No, you'll have
- your votes though And guy Loftman, yes, okay motion is approved four to one Okay. Thank you so much.
- Mr. Burke and Keep up the good work. It looks great Thank you
- Thank you for waiting too. Now we're moving on to VAR-25-67, and this is the Nature Conservancy Eco
- Area 2 variants to Chapter 823 concerning 3, 359.9 plus or minus acre parcels in Folk Township,
- Section 20, 17 and 16 at 7375 East Allen's Creek Road.
- Before we proceed, point of information. Yes. I would like to find out if there's any members of the
- public here which object, either online or in present. Are there members of the public who are in opposition
- to this petition concerning the Nature Conservancy Eco Area 2 variants request at 7375 East Allen's
- Creek Road?
- All right, seeing nobody, because we have all the relevant information in the packet, which we have
- been provided ample time to review, now I'm asking, are there another point of information? Are there
- any board members that have grave concerns about this particular matter?
- All right. With that being said, the packet has already been entered into evidence of record. There's
- no additional provided evidence. There's no members of the public here to oppose the measure. I formally
- move to call the question, which is having the board take a quick vote to see if they agree to bypass
- further presentation and testimony for the purpose of an ensuing vote for approval. Second.
- seconded. Does this include the Monroe County Drainage Board Review? Yes. Okay. Okay. So hearing no
- objection. There's no objection. And I think we can go ahead and vote on the main motion. Uh, I think
- we have no objection. Okay, we can. We can call the roll that way. All right. Um, then, uh, with that
- being said, um,
- Let me pull this up. Page 214. Bear with me. I can make a motion if you want me to. For case VAR-25-67,
- I move approval of the variance request with the following condition. Number one, Monroe County Drainage
- Board Review. Second.
- has been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-67, which is the Nature Conservancy Eco Area 2,
- Chapter 823. And there was a recommendation of approval with the condition that they require Monroe
- County Drainage Board review. A vote yes is a vote to approve with the condition as stated. Skip Daly?
- Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes.
- Yes. Motion is approved five to zero. Mr Eken off. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Chris. Tonight and I would
- like to say, Miss Chris. It's good that you were the beneficiary, the first beneficiary of our accelerated
- consideration process. We send you on the road with Godspeed. Yes. Yes. And thank you for your good
- work. We're sorry that we're rushing along now, but
- Nobody else is. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Eganoff. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we're moving on with the
- approval of the BZA.
- Let's go to the next one. Okay 20 item number 24 on the agenda VAR dash 25 dash 68. This is the Van
- Tassel Eco area one residential density maximum variance to chapter 823 concerning one five point one
- six plus or minus acre parcel in Benton Township South section 34 at eighty eight thousand two hundred
- East Fleener Road and
- if you would like to. Yeah, I would ask as a point of information whether there is anybody present either
- in person or online who opposes this Van Tassel eco-area petition. Seeing nobody in person, is there
- anybody online? Okay, that being the case,
- I would call the question to see if anybody objects to moving straight to a motion to approve. Anybody
- object to that? The staff has recommended approval. We've read the packet. We're well informed.
- So, um, no objection. All right. With no objection. I moved it. We approve variance 2568 Van Tassel,
- eco area one at 8200 East Fleaner road. Um, that good enough because practical difficulties were met.
- Good point. Is there a second? Oh, I'll second that. Oh, first of it, didn't I?
- It's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-68, which is the Van Tassel Eco Area 1 residential density
- maximum to Chapter 823. A vote yes is a vote to approve the variance. Pamela Davidson? Yes.
- Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Motion is approved five to zero.
- Ms. Van Tassel, thank you very much for your patience tonight. I hope you feel okay with the process.
- Thank you so much. Thank you so much, and thanks for working with us. Okay, so we're moving on to the
- next item on the agenda, which is VAR-25-70, and this is the Thompson
- Whitaker buildable area car's conservancy area variants to chapter 826 concerning a five plus or minus
- acre parcel and bean blossom Township section 27 at 79 46 North Old Dutch Church Road and This has been
- recommended for approval with conditions. So is anyone interested to call the question and
- Well, I would ask as a point of information whether there's anybody in attendance either in person or
- online who objects, who wants to say anything against the Thompson Whitaker Buildable Area at 7946 North
- Old Dutch Church Road.
- that has been recommended for approval with the condition to reroute roof drains of the structure to
- direct water to the south side of the structure and away from the sinkhole. Before I state no objection
- on that, is the petitioner in the house? I think that they're online.
- Is the petitioner online? I would like to know as a point of information, Mr. Laughman, if the petitioner
- has any objection to the condition that's recommended. I think that's an excellent question. Madam Chair,
- would you point of information and request if they have an objection to the recommendation? If Thane
- Thompson or Christine Whitaker is online, if you could unmute yourself or if staff can help you unmute,
- We would like to see if you have objections to the condition about rerouting the stormwater and runoff
- water away from the karst feature. Do you have objections? No ma'am, we do not. Okay, thank you. So none.
- So I'm understanding at this no objections no objections. All right. I have I have no objection to a
- Call to question if someone all right if hearing no objections I move that we approve variance 2570
- Thompson Whitaker builder area with I think I think we're rushing Can we confirm that the entire board
- has no objection to the call to question? I have no objection
- Okay, okay. Thank you miss law. Yeah That we approved the Thompson Whitaker buildable area 7946 North
- Old Dutch Road With the conditions which the petitioner has accepted On the grounds that this is hardships
- been proved if we don't do it this way and it's in the public interest I'll second that
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-70, which is the Thompson Whitaker buildable area
- karst conservancy area to chapter 823 with one condition that the petitioner reroute roof drains of
- the structure to direct water to the south side of the structure and away from the sinkhole.
- This was also heard by the drainage board, I believe. Or this was also reviewed by the drainage. Yes.
- This was reviewed by Erica Pena from the stormwater team, who deemed it was not required to go to the
- drainage board. OK, thank you. A vote yes is a vote to approve with the one condition as stated. Margaret
- Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes.
- Okay, motion is approved five to zero. Thank you, Mr Thompson for working so well with our staff and
- with Erica Pena. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Brown. And I would like to thank you for coming up with the
- suggestion for for for accelerated management of these cases, because otherwise I wouldn't have had
- any possibility of making it to the evening. I now do. Thank you, Mr Thompson. OK, so we are moving now to V.
- A.R.
- VAR-75-71, the- 25-71. See, it's getting late. Okay, VAR-25-71. Could you- Shea. Shea, that's what I
- thought. Eco Area 1, the 12% slope encroachment variance to Chapter 823. Now, this is a recommendation
- for denial.
- We can't call the question on this. Concerning one 9.03 plus or minus acre parcel and one 16.41 acre
- plus or minus parcel in Polk Township section four at 7407 South State Road 446 and 7415 South State
- Road 446. So thank you for staying and bearing with us, Mr. Smith. We'll hear from you now.
- Sure. I will try to be as quick and thorough as I can. We just want everything to be fair. So these
- petitioners have been before you before. So this may or may not be a refresher for some of you. So the
- purpose is to construct a new residence.
- This includes both 7407 and 7415 South State Road 446. So their intention is that they will perform
- a lot line adjustment between these two properties. So that's why it's coming before you as two separate
- addresses. But just note that that will change in the future.
- The proposal will include disturbing an area that is greater than 12% slope on a property that is in
- the environmental constraints overlay area or eco one of the Lake Monroe watershed. So chapter 823 states
- that eco one area is subject to that limitation, that 12% slope limitation. So no land disturbance can
- occur beyond that 12% slope.
- And the petitioner has submitted plans showing the proposed footprint of the new residents with portions
- of the home that do encroach into the 12% slope. So that is why they are here tonight. So just brief
- background, VAR-24-41 was approved by the BZA on August 28, 2024 for the construction of a new driveway
- which would access the buildable area location on top of a hillside.
- So the conditions of that variance were that the variance is limited to the construction of the driveway
- as shown on the petitioner site plan and the petitioner work with a surveyor engineer to design the
- exact driver location to minimize true removal and erosion control the petitioners have Hired engineers
- and they have been working with them and they have submitted plans and they have submitted their stormwater
- grading permit logging permit and septic permits and
- Just a refresher, this is out by the lake off of State Road 446. I believe it's the Lake Monroe Campground
- LLC. There is a campground here located on the property. So the petitioners do have to access through
- that campground to get to this location. Again, this is Eco Area 1. These are some aerial images.
- of the subject property. Again, this is all in the packet. I did include the previous petitioner's plot
- plan and pictures that they submitted last year. Build location has not changed. It is still going on
- top of the hill. And they took some photos of what that location looks like.
- This was also from the petitioner's original request. So this is what I was hoping to get to. So the
- petitioner's certified plot plan, they have been working with their engineers. So they have located
- the exact location of the driveway location, as well as the proposed residence on top of the hill. So
- you can see here, they have delineated all of the
- Great elevations. They've also relocated the proposed septic from instead of being down at the bottom
- of the hill where the water would wash into the lake, now the septic will be relocated on top of the
- hill next to the residence.
- So brief discussion was had last year about different soil types, and it was determined that this build
- location where the proposed new residents will go is more favorable than what it was down below at the
- bottom of the hill, which had a stream running through it. And in the event of a rain event, it would
- all just wash into the lake. So this was the area that was identified to be a more suitable location.
- And the board did grant a variance for that.
- driveway you see to the north that kind of loops around and then it goes all the way to the top of the
- hill. So this is just kind of the layout of what that driveway will look like. The septic is this rectangular
- exhibit to the south of that driveway there, so that's where their septic system will go. And then the
- elongated rectangle there, that's the location of the new residence.
- The petitioner did submit an updated letter. They did use their original site plan, but essentially
- they stated their reasoning why they believe they should be granted this variance. This is also in the
- packet. The petitioner did go at length to provide this exhibit, just delineating where that 12% slope
- line is, so they did highlight it in yellow there.
- The green indicating where the septic is going and then the blue indicating the erosion control areas.
- So that area is still going to be graded, but essentially that is where they plan on implementing their
- erosion control measures that they are working with the stormwater program manager Erica Pena. They're
- working closely with her on. The petitioner did
- asked to provide this exhibit. It's not in the packet, so I will leave it up here for just a brief moment.
- But essentially, they are going into detail about the existing buildable area. Otherwise, they believe
- too small to accommodate a house, and a septic, and a well. And then they also go on to explain traditional
- standard house sizes throughout the United States.
- And then they also did include this helpful exhibit just kind of showing that's where the existing buildable
- area in blue, that's the 12% or less slope, and then roughly an outline of the proposed disturbance.
- And then to kind of help with this, I did create, or I should say I used the Petitioner Certified Plot
- Plan to kind of calculate approximately what are the areas here that are being disturbed.
- It comes out to approximately 9,150 square feet of 12% slope disturbance, 4,339 square feet of which
- is located on the western side here of the image. And those are the portions that specifically include
- portions of the proposed home that disturb that 12% slope. So the ordinance currently only allows new
- residences
- up to 2,500 square feet in size to qualify for a slope waiver. This proposed home is well over 5,000
- square feet, so they do not qualify for that waiver. So if they want to move forward with this specific
- design, they have to obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Having said that, staff is
- recommending denial of the ECO-1 variance 12% slope encroachment due to the fact that practical difficulties
- have not been demonstrated.
- the petitioner could redesign the home to conform with the eco area one 12% soul restriction. And then
- I did include an exhibit. So outlined in green, that is what was approved under VAR-24-41. What you
- are potentially voting on tonight is located in the red rectangle proposed under VAR-25-71. And that
- concludes my presentation. Thank you Mr. Smith.
- Okay, so we'll hear from Mr. Shi, if you would kindly come to the podium and sign in.
- Okay, and if you would point the microphone toward your mouth and raise your right hand, do you swear
- to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. You can review this. You have
- 15 minutes. Sure. Thank you, Sean, and thank you everyone for staying so late. You really appreciate
- that. So I'll try to make it quick. So first of all, if we look, Sean, can you go back to the
- the buildable area. We do have buildable area on the top of hill, however, it's very narrow. So after
- the survey, the width of that strip is about 40 to 50 feet wide. So it's really difficult to build a
- home, especially with construction equipment, just cannot access that. And also you'll be very
- difficult to have turn around driveway because the only driveway, we have the 10 feet driveway, which
- we got approval from last year and just straight up to the hill. And with 40 feet wide, it's very hard
- to turn around, especially for our lifestyle. We got a lot of truck with trailer. It's just difficult
- to turn around. So we have to really widen the buildable area so you will have better access for building
- construction and also for driveway.
- And but another, the most important point I'm trying to make here is actually, I totally agree with
- the restriction for ECO 1 area. We shouldn't really touch the ground unless necessary. But for this
- specific case, we are on the top of the hill. We are not hillside. For hillside, whenever you want to
- create a flat ground, you're going to create some steep slope.
- and then you need to have a retaining wall or whatever to support that, and it can fail. But on the
- top of hill, what VRCG has helped us is create a plan. What we did is actually we just removed the top
- of the hill. So instead of really creating retaining wall or doing anything, we just cut off the top.
- of the hill by two feet, or two feet or three feet, I forget. So in that case, we actually remove some
- of 12% to 15% slope without adding any extra slope to the ground. So really, in reality, the chance
- of erosion is less than what we currently have. Imagine we just cut off a hill, and originally there's
- a small hill over there. Right now it's a flat ground for the top.
- for the building side. So for that purpose, we actually think we should have the justification to do
- that without having a concern for erosion if we can follow the plan correctly. And I think that's all
- my statement here. I don't have any question. Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals have questions
- for Mr. Shi. Let me tell you what I understood.
- the eco area here, if you shave off two or three feet, you get down to a flat area that shaved off material
- is hauled off site to some place where it won't cause any mischief. And then you build on a flat area
- so it's no longer
- no longer disturbing where you're building is not gonna disturb the 12% because you've gotten rid of
- that steep slope. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. Okay. Because we are on top of the hill, yeah.
- Right, you couldn't do that if you were halfway down the hill. Yes, yes, I agree. But you can do it
- on the top of the hill. Yeah. Okay, well, I get it. It's an interesting way. And something said there
- would be erosion control.
- Now, is there a permanent erosion control, or is it just that it's no longer a steep slope? I think
- someplace in your drawings, it said erosion control. Yes, for driveway, there are specific erosion control
- for the driveway part. But that's only on the driveway. And is that permanent erosion control, as opposed
- to temporary? It's not just during construction. Oh, no, no, no, it's permanent. Yes, it's permanent.
- OK, thank you.
- Madam Chair, may I ask staff a quick question? Yes. Mr. Smith, in an eco area like this, is it within
- code to change the degree of slope by removing land? My understanding is that you can disturb the slope if
- You acquire an eco variance to do that Okay, so Okay I think what he's proposing though is to shave
- off the two feet in the buildable area So he is allowed to grade and work within the buildable area
- if he's doing that outside of the buildable area and changing that slope Then that would require the
- variance. I I thought I understood and maybe i'm wrong I thought you said you're going to
- take off a couple of feet in the 15 degree area to bring it down to 12. Oh, no. Actually, it's like
- a top of hill. We just cut the top. Like an ice cream, you eat the top. OK. So become flat. And that's
- within the buildable area. It's kind of a ridge top on either side, on the blue, yellow, red.
- So I'm guessing that that's their shaving within the blue area to then bring that lower and more in
- line with the orange and the yellow. So I think on his exhibit and correct me if I'm wrong, you're showing
- on the right hand side. The blue it basically what you're proposing is to make that area flat.
- AKA, you're going to change the color on the screen to the blue area? Yep. Yep. And as you can compare
- both, the left-hand side got more yellow area, where we have erosion concern. But on the right-hand
- side, it's just less, and there's no extra erosion concern area comparing left and right. So technically,
- it would be greater than 12% slope, that they would be
- Cutting. Cutting, yes. Which requires the eco variance. Yeah. Okay, is that a preliminary step to us?
- They wouldn't be able to get a grading permit or permit for the yellow to make it blue without a variance.
- Which they do have a grading permit that we as planning staff have on hold because of this reason.
- So this is the first step then. Okay. Okay. Sorry, Hank. Oh, thank you. So is your house plan two story?
- Um, yes, two story. Yeah. It's more like a basement. No basement. Yeah. More like a bondo minion, like
- a bondo minion. So like a barn house. So it will be, yeah.
- Now let me, I know I'm asking ridiculous questions. Just out of curiosity, if this 5,000 square foot,
- two-story home was a one-story home with a basement at 2,500 square feet, it wouldn't be an issue, right?
- I have to correct that. The original, because I thought that this part will not touch the house part.
- The house is not going to be 5,000. It was original plan. But after working with BRCJ, we downsized
- to about 4,000. But my point is still, if it were a basement, if it was a 2,000 square foot home with
- a full basement, then we wouldn't be
- We look at the full square footage of the livable space, but we do have an exception in the ordinance
- for the eco chapter that says if it's 2,500 square feet or less, we can consider giving it an exception
- if they maximize the buildable area. So that's maybe the 2,500 square foot reference. So if it were
- a home with one story with a basement, you could get an exception.
- Even just one story, no basement, 2,500 square feet or less, we could consider the exception. Right,
- but basement doesn't count to a livable space, correct? It does. Why is that? It's heated and cooled
- unless they're making it just like a crawl space or a... Oh, okay. In the insurance world, it doesn't
- count as livable space. Okay.
- understand how shaving off a top isn't an ecological disturbance. I don't either. I mean it's a manipulation
- of the slope. But that's not what we're here for apparently. Apparently we're here for the encroachment.
- That is why we're here. Their grading plan and their footprint is into the top. I was going to say,
- yeah, they are disturbing land that is greater than 12% slope. Other than, right, OK. But they'll end
- up with the house on an area that's basically flat instead of on a, so the erosion and the runoff will
- not be changed in any substantial way because
- The only change is going to be getting rid of stuff. I guess that's what I'm getting rid of. When you
- get rid of that, you expose. But they're going to put the house on that. But even if we approve this,
- it still has to get further approved by the eco variance, correct?
- This is the eco variant. So what they're talking about, we didn't make them do like a tree survey or
- anything. But if they are disturbing this amount of land outside of the 12%, I know they originally
- in the first variance showed kind of a natural clearing existing. Now what they're talking about is
- a further encroachment to actually construct the home. So the first variance you did was just to access
- the site for the driveway. And now they can't.
- they're stating that they cannot fit within the buildable area confines. So this variance would allow
- them to expand to the footprint that they're requesting. Okay. So this is the chop off in buildable.
- Right. And you're absolutely right, Ms. Clemens. There is, we are disturbing the soil. What we are disturbing
- in a soil in a way that will, the net result will be no
- runoff in steep slopes. I'm just having a hard time with it. I mean, I'm just having a hard time with
- it. I think that's true in every construction though. You put in a foundation, you put in footage, you
- put in anything, you always disturb the slope or the building area to manipulate it for
- The shell of your home. I mean, there's an area that they are free to do that to, and they're expanding
- beyond that. Yes. And so they have that blue, the LIDAR. What size home could fit on that buildable
- area without chopping off the ridge top? I think we were able to determine. I mean, it would not be
- in the configuration or the
- what they would like, but we do believe that they would be able to fit a home of that size just longer
- in the buildable area. It wouldn't be able to be as wide as what they're proposing. That's why staffs
- recommended denial for the fact that they could redesign or relocate and meet the standard. I don't
- understand why the engineer didn't do that in the first place.
- The same square footage, 4,000 square feet can be accomplished on that property. If they redesign the
- home. And how wide would the living room be? I mean, I know that's a silly question for you to answer.
- If I can answer, if we imagine 40 feet wide, like probably slightly wider than this room,
- it need to include building area, the actual building, and also construction area, which is the side.
- So really for a crane, crane probably need 20 feet already from one side, depending on how we build.
- So for 40 feet wide, I really don't know how to build, but also,
- Just for driveway, it will be very difficult for us to turn around a truck with trailer. Because on
- the top of the hill, we don't have any other open area to turn around the truck. Because our driveway
- is just that 10 feet driveway from the bottom of hill to top. And we don't have access to public road.
- So of this image that you're looking at, the bold rectangle
- that is kind of maximizing the buildable area within the red outline is the home. And then the bold
- line grades outside of that, I believe they're gonna do like a concrete surrounding pad around the home,
- which makes up the other portion of the disturbance that's outside of the eco. So it's a home plus the
- grading and the footprint of the pad.
- Or drive away, I'm not sure. Whatever. It's more a build site. We're trying to create a build site.
- This is a site plan. It's not about building yet. So yeah, we need to make sure we got site for construction
- and building. Just using the GIS, really, I mean, this is really rough, but there are some instances
- where it can be as wide as 50 feet that they have to work with and then
- There are other instances where that shrinks to 40 feet wide of buildable area that they have. So it
- kind of weaves in and out. Does the buildable area include construction? I mean, the buildable area
- doesn't. Construction disturbance is in addition to the outside the buildable area. Yeah, so buildable
- area in this instance would just
- It would just relate to land disturbance. It would be the 12% slope, the buildable area. I mean, just
- looking at this drawing on the screen, it looks like if you scooched it three feet to the east, six
- feet to the east, you'd make it better. You'd have the entire east side
- in the buildable area and less encroachment to the west. Do you follow what I'm saying, Mr. Shi? Actually,
- east side is a more steep hill. Actually, probably not shown in this picture. Trying to reserve both
- sides equally wide for construction. That one picture, as you say, is rough.
- Sorry, I'm just trying to switch screens here. Have you talked to Stormwater? I believe that they did
- review the driveway, is that correct? Yeah, so they have a grading permit for the driveway and the home, so it's
- home. They're currently being held up by the planning department because of the disturbance of the 12%
- slope of the proposed home. So when they first came here, they didn't have. Any. Designs for the actual
- home. Um. But now that they have certified their driveway design, they moved forward with the home,
- and so they applied for a grading permit to
- come to find out there were issues with disturbance of the 12% slope? If we grant the proposed variance,
- then... No, the construction, the home construction. If we grant the home construction variance, then
- you presumably will issue the ground, the excavation. Is that right?
- You can't issue that without this, but if we issue this, if we grant this, then you can issue the excavation
- permit, and would expect to. Is that right? If you approved this variance based on what they have provided,
- then they would have to follow that under their grading plan, and then we would approve it. OK. It's
- already been stated that he's changed it to a different square footage, so it's
- It would be, they'd be going kind of with the outer boundary box. So even though they're showing right
- now a skinnier home and longer home and a concrete maybe pad or grading area, if they switch that at
- the end of the day to be a maximum square foot of house, they could, I mean, that's, how much did they
- say that they needed a variance from the build?
- Well, we had determined that it was 9,150 square feet of land disturbance in the 12% slope or greater
- area. So that area could change. They could put a pool in. They could make their home that size. It's
- just that that's the outer boundary that you're approving without a redesign request. You know, we're
- casting a net. I would be way more comfortable if we handed
- a drawing of where the home was going to be instead of a schematic of where the home might be and a
- drawing of the, you know, the engineers go in and they make a, not an approximate, but a specific one
- and see how we could fit that house in. I'm sympathetic to the goal. We're not far from it, but I just,
- I would just really appreciate getting a specific
- plan that would be show where that put the footprint of the proposed house. The square, the square actually
- is the house. Okay. And the house is a rectangle. Yes. The house is a rectangle. We try to make it narrow
- to fit the side.
- Right. And if you could make it a little bit narrower, it would fit. But that's just not going to be
- a very comfortable house for you. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. And we feel it is almost impossible
- to build a house without disturbing any ground. We're going to disturb. OK. I misunderstood that this
- is, that is actually where you want to put the house. And that's the actual, it's not just the GIS.
- This is surveyed.
- Okay, great. I misunderstood. Thank you. The bold lines outside of that rectangle, are those just grading
- lines or is that area that's going to be paved? Do you know?
- Sorry, what area? The area outside of the house where the surveyors showing the grades. Is that like
- concrete or is it? Concrete pad. Okay, concrete pad completely surrounding the house on all sides. And
- that's where we're getting the extra square footage. And how wide is the concrete pad around the house?
- Probably better erosion control. They proposed that. Or we can use gravel. How many feet outside the
- house? Oh, it's about 20 feet there, 20 feet.
- 20 feet east, 20 feet west. Of the pad? Of the house. OK. So house over here and 20 feet west is concrete
- pad. OK. Why does it have to be that big? So it doesn't have to be that big for the concrete pad, but
- has to have some flat area for construction. So let's say if we
- It's not supposed, I probably shouldn't say it's concrete path. It is just a flat area. So we have flat
- ground to construct the house. So because when we put roof truss, we need to have crane on the side.
- Right, but it seems to me that permanent disturbance and construction disturbance have different impacts,
- long-term impacts. It seems to me if you need the crane there, once you're done building, the crane
- goes away.
- Yes, but crane need to sit on a flat ground. Oh, you need to have flat ground the crane can sit on.
- Yes, the whole purpose is to have a flat ground wide enough for construction. Yeah. I think I'm confused.
- Concrete to me is completely different than leveling the ground for construction purposes, and if
- If there's a 20 foot pad of concrete around that to me, that seems like a lot in that eco area. But
- if it's just dirt that's flattened out for construction purposes, that'll be planted with grass
- or landscaping when it's over. Sorry, I probably should correct that. Concrete pad is what we asked
- engineer, we told engineer we want it. It's not saying we will have, it's still optional.
- As long as we can get the flat ground, it can be, I think if the board requires that to be grass or
- anything, we're okay with that. The whole purpose for this request is to make sure we have a flat ground.
- And I don't think we have gone to the detail of landscape or concrete or grass that level. We don't
- have a final design for that yet. It is more just for the site. It's just, I think that's,
- It sounds excess. I agree you need it for the crane, but it doesn't need to be permanently concrete.
- Yes. We can take that. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I wish we could see it with just the house and the necessary
- permanent outside pad because you don't need concrete 20 feet on either side of the house everywhere.
- I don't think we can do that. Yeah.
- I would really appreciate if you come back next time. I know we wait all night to get to this and say,
- but I'm not comfortable with 20 feet on either side of the house. And I think your wife is suggesting
- she might have something she'd like to say.
- Sorry, if you could speak into the mic just for the minutes. And also, I have to swear you in. No, ma'am.
- Ma'am. Ma'am, if you'll please come forward and give your name and let... Yeah, I have to swear you
- in. Yeah. Because we have to know who's talking, and we can't know that unless we go through this procedure
- and appreciate... We wanna hear what you have to say, and we wanna...
- go ahead with our required procedures. She makes the final decision. Would you kindly state your name
- into the microphone and then I'll swear you in. What is your name? My name is Mei Hui Ling. And do you
- swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. I happen to have
- my laser pointer.
- And if you want to tell me where to go, or I'll just let you have my laser pointer. But you still have
- to speak into the microphone. So this is the flat area. That's not assuming it's concrete or gravel.
- It's just a flat area that gets flat first, and then figure out what to do with it.
- And then this is what we thinking the house might be this size. And we are trying to get as narrow as
- possible so that way we can fit the septic tank on the right side and the west water can go directly
- to the sewer system. And the reason we need a little bit wider on this side is because
- That way we can walk on this side and then also have enough space for the septic. And you don't want
- to put a septic on a tilted surface. So that's why we need a little bit more on this side. We try to
- get as less as disturbing on the left side as possible. I was just talking to him. Maybe we can do just
- gravel on this side. Maybe just one or two feet.
- away from the house to be concrete, so that way make sure you don't open the door and then fall into
- the hill, right? So the reason we put a little bit more space on this side for the septic is because
- now we are not having the septic down the hill, right? So our previous permit is having the septic down the hill.
- So we try to not having disturbing the hill dirt all the way from the house and then connecting the
- pipe to the bottom of the hill, which is what the septic permit is issue right now. I'm going to ask
- you a quick question. Do you have a permit for the septic you're talking about? Yes. OK, so the health
- department has approved this. Yes, when we bought the land, the septic
- permit, it's already there, and they haven't paid it for... There's a little bit more detail. There
- is a septic permit at a different location, which is down the hill. But I think Sean suggests, and also
- from previous... Okay, so there's a septic permit for a different location.
- It was at a different location, but now we got a new permit. We update a permit with this new septic
- system. Oh, okay. And that's within the 15 degree? Yeah, yeah, that is, yeah. So that's why we think
- this plan is more eco-friendly, because now we are not having the septic build right next to the creek.
- Oh yeah, this is very important. So we are moving that septic tank all the way to the top of hill, so
- we are not disturbing all the land from the house. Try to connect the septic pipe almost 1,000 feet.
- We are not disturbing that, because if we are using the current septic permit, we probably don't need
- 20 feet on one side.
- We can make it a little bit smaller because now we don't need the septic right next to the house. But
- in that way, let's call it plane B. But plane B, you will need to connect your septic pipe all the way
- from the top of the hill to the current septic permit location, which is down the hill. Yeah,
- so not current, but the older one. And so now the new proposal is having the septic
- get up to the, build right next to the house, which is less disturbing to the older land. It's right
- next to it, but we need a little bit, let's say 10 feet wider to do that. Let me ask staff a question.
- Is it practical for us to say that if we approve this, that they work with staff to have the minimal
- impervious surface for the final plan approval or You could limit the amount of area that you're approving
- for the Eco variance to be smaller than what we're seeing here or you could just say I approve the eco
- variance for land disturbance with a maximum square foot of impervious as
- But we have to make up a number. You'd have to make up a number. And I don't think this design is including
- their comments about needing an area to turn around. I don't know if there'll be a garage or whatnot.
- But if you just carte blanche approve what you see as the large rectangle, then technically speaking,
- if they come back and max out that area with
- a swimming pool or concrete pad or what have you, or even just a larger house, we don't have any authority
- to say, no, because you showed this site plan with a smaller house. You are approving that bigger footprint.
- I'm going to interject and say, as is, there's not enough concrete, no pun intended, concrete information
- for me here. I need a schematic
- plan of this house and to see where everything is fitting in. Not just, hey, here's a blue box. I want
- a big concrete slab and the ability to build whatever we want on it. And the septic's gonna go around
- here where my laser pointer was. I'm willing to say, hey, if you wanna bring us those
- design plans, those current design plans with the septic permits and everything laid out where we can
- see this. I'd be willing to offer a continuance, but other than that, I've got to be honest, I cannot
- support this because it's just ambiguous to me.
- I can say a little bit more. Actually, this does include that. Actually, what has been designed here,
- so on the right-hand side, all the septic system has been drawn together, the two small square, those
- are septic tanks location, and also the bottom part, those are the actual
- driveway with concrete. What I say earlier on the left and right side, those, no, there's nothing dirty
- in the plane. There's nothing. That is what we think. What is the dimension? I don't even know the dimension
- of that blue box. That is the exact dimension. That is engineering drawing, engineer design. You said
- that's the exact dimension? Yes, there's a GRC design that we do have the stamp that's drawing for that.
- Mr. Smith, what is the exact dimension of that?
- Then 85... What dimension? What's the dimension for the blue box? Hang on a second. Let me second, let
- me see if I can pull up their original designs. My biggest problem with it is its proximity
- to the community's drinking water supply, and we're just
- touching the tip of the iceberg as far as land disturbance is concerned. We allowed a variance for a
- driveway, but there seemed to be a natural break. But now we're talking about cutting off ridge tops
- and laying, it just seems, it doesn't seem as though it fits with our
- with our goals and our CDO as far as some of our overarching values. If we say no, how do they come
- up with a plan B or can they not come up with a plan B? Well, they have buildable area on the ridge top
- But then that doesn't include apparently a flat space for the cranes and the other building equipment
- to work. And so they're gonna have to do grading plans. They're gonna have to build longer driveways.
- They're gonna have to... I mean, I don't get it. I don't get how this is not really disturbing the eco
- area, which is right adjacent to the lake.
- It's the dimensions of the blue area are 200 by 80 or 17,000 square feet. Say again, was it 200?
- 200 by 80. 200 by 88. Or 88, sorry. And how big is the house? I think it's 400 by 100. So 40 by 100.
- So 40 wide and 100 length north to south. I'm measuring 145.
- north, south and 40. Is it possible it's 145 on there? On the BRCJ plans, I'm measuring 145 feet north,
- south and 40 feet east, west. 14 feet wide and north to south of square should be 100. Otherwise they
- probably made a mistake. It says 145. It does measure 40 feet though east, west.
- I'm just not comfortable voting in favor of this tonight. I'd be comfortable continuing it and getting
- more refined drawings that specifically state the size of the house with it there than what that is
- going to be in between the shaded rectangle and the blue line. Mr. Smith, is this something that if...
- The green is actually the septic field that we finished the soil
- testing. The line on the right side, these two are the septic tank liquid and also the pump tank. Where
- is the septic field? This is the septic field. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And this is the driveway that
- he was talking about. We tried to get
- as narrow as possible, and then be able to do, this is kind of like the front of the garage. And we
- try to get as minima as possible, try to make this work. I know there are some concerns, kind of like
- what we had on our first review meeting. I understand that this is an equal zone. And the reason that
- we discussed from the first meeting
- Why we issue back then was because there was land down the hill, and it was right next to the creek.
- I think we understand that you've moved the septic system to a better area. I think what concerns me
- is you've got a 40 by 100 foot house on a 200 by 80 foot
- Pad and it seems to me that the 200 by 80 foot pad is way more than I'm comfortable with I think what's
- what I'm saying and if it's short when I'm hearing yeah shorty, but 40 by 50 to story It's 40 by 100
- is what they're saying It's the length so because we utilize the area so it is long but what we're trying
- to get approval here is to make it wider and
- The problem of that strip on the top of here currently is too narrow. What I'm saying is, I'm not going
- to vote yes on the information I'm getting. But I want to get to yes. But I can't do it on this information.
- So if you want to continue it and work with planning and seeing if you can come up with something we're
- comfortable with, but it's not going to be 200 by 80 foot of
- of permanently disturbed land for a 40 by 100 foot house. Two story, which is 8,000 square feet. So
- I can just say in all the years that I've been on the Board of Zoning Appeals, I've never seen anything
- like this ever. Well, so I'm going to ask you if you would like me to make a motion for a continuance
- to work with Mr. Smith to come back with some more detailed information for us.
- Or if you'd like me to make a motion for to deny what is in front of us today, what would you like?
- We can continue to All right. I make a motion that we continue this how long do you need to come back?
- Would you like to come back in December or would you like to come back in January? December will be
- better December 3rd
- All right, I'm going to make a motion that we continue this until December the 3rd, if that's okay with
- you, Joe. That's fine. That's fine. Does anyone second? I'll second.
- And moved and seconded to continue VR dash 25 dash 71, the Shea equal area one, 12% slope encroachment
- to chapter eight, 23 to December 3rd, 2025. Specifically, we're asking that the petitioner bring a revised
- site plan to show the exact house footprint and the dimensions of any impervious cover and or come up
- with a maximum impervious cover within a
- Bounding box that they want to provide staff with about yes is about to continue to December 3rd skip
- daily Yes, Guy Lofman. Yes, Jeff Morris. Yes, Pamela Davidson. Yes Margaret Clements. Yes motion is
- approved five to zero. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for all your work Thank you. Thank you Okay,
- we have two cases left the next one is
- Is it the are the 27 and 28 withdrawn or is it just? So we have 27 and 21 page 281, whatever that is.
- I'm my 729 and 30 is what we have left. So as far as crimson storage is concerned, we have both 25-69
- a and 25-73.
- Okay, so this concerns The same one 4.0 plus or minus acre parcel in Bloomington Township section 16
- at 4750 North State Road 37 and One is a self storage use variance and the other one is a sidewalk variance
- Mr. Myers, if you would kindly wait, I'm I'm confused items 27 and 29
- on the agenda. 28 has been withdrawn. I'm sorry. Okay. 27, 28 is withdrawn. Okay. And what's the staff
- approved recommendation on 69? Denial, then withdrawn by staff and then approval. So the self storage
- use variance is denial. The sidewalk variance is recommended as approval. Okay. I misunderstood that.
- Yeah. Okay.
- So the petitioner is requesting one use variance and one design standards variance in order to proceed
- with a site plan amendment to permit the construction of two new storage unit buildings on the property
- at 4750 North State Road 37 business. This is the location of an existing permitted self storage use
- called Crimson storage. The use variance is to permit the self storage land use on the property, which
- is zoned limited business.
- Under the county development ordinance, self-storage is listed as conditional only in the general business
- zone, while RV and boat storage is listed as conditional in the institutional public, limited business,
- and light industrial zones. Petitioner is also requesting a design standards variance to chapter 818
- in order to avoid having to construct a sidewalk. I'm sorry, but it's 1030. I'm reaching the...
- And what I'm suggesting is that, and I'm sorry, and I knew you'd been here all night, but I just,
- you know. There'll be a quorum if you have to leave. Yeah, I mean, the last two are approved, and I
- thought that's all we had left, but yeah.
- I'm going to leave. Sorry. I'm sure they can take good care of you, and I'm just sorry I can't be here
- in case my vote is needed one way or the other, but it's 1030, and I'm 80 years old. Thank you, Mr.
- Loftman, for all of your good thoughts tonight. So, Mr. Myers, if you'd kindly continue. Sure.
- The petitioner is requesting a design standards variance to Chapter 818 in order to avoid having to
- construct a sidewalk along the petition's road frontage on North State Road 37 Business as well as North
- Stone Mill Drive. So a little bit of background for this petition. Originally the property was approved,
- it received the site plan approval for convenience storage under the prior zoning ordinance in August of 2021.
- Upon site inspection for the land use certificate, planning staff noted that the business signs on the
- buildings advertised both RV self-storage options.
- Planning staff were originally unaware during the site plan review process that the original intent
- of the storage facility would be to include RV slash boat storage with the convenience storage use.
- So in response, the final land use certificate for the business was issued in November of 2023. With
- the following note, the use shall not permit the storage of recreational vehicles and allows convenience
- storage on the site. Only allows convenience storage on the site.
- The adoption of the county development ordinance on December 18, 2024 updated the permitted use table
- from convenient storage to self-storage and changed where this land use is permitted. So self-storage
- is no longer permitted in the limited business zone. It's only listed as conditional in the general
- business zone. Therefore, the property is now considered
- legal pre-existing non-conforming. In other words, they have an approved site plan, they have a land
- use certificate, they're allowed to operate as such in perpetuity. However, if they choose to expand
- the property or make changes that would trigger a site plan amendment, then they have to come into compliance
- with the county development ordinance, and that's what's happening with this petition.
- Originally the petitioner had smaller self-storage units on the property that had not yet been constructed
- and were approved as part of that original site plan process. However, they now want to build larger
- storage units in place of those originally approved smaller units that were never constructed.
- As I stated, the property is also subject to Chapter 818, which provides guidance on when a sidewalk
- is needed to be constructed with respect to site plan filings. And those conditions are as follows.
- Sidewalk is present within 2,000 linear feet of the property, or the property is shown on the transportation
- alternatives plan with a greenway corridor or a road improvement label, or the property is within the
- urban area boundary as defined.
- That last item is applying here, so they do require sidewalks. On the screen, you can see the location
- map. It's on North State Road 37 Business. The zoning map has it limited business. Site conditions map
- here also shows some floodplain around the property and some steep slopes along the eastern side with
- respect to North Stone Mill Drive. Now on the screen are some imagery.
- The location of where the smaller storage units were originally intended is over here where my cursor
- is. And I zoomed into this area as well. It's this blank area of pavement where the smaller units were
- proposed to be. And now they're proposing larger units, hence the variances. Here's a picture on ground
- of the already built units. And you can see there on the side that they are advertising both RV and self.
- And also you can see the size of some of the units clearly large enough to store boats or RVs. And that
- initial size was missed during the site plan review process originally by staff. And there was nowhere
- on the site plan that had indicated to staff that boats or RVs were going to be intended to be stored
- on site. On the screen now is the two letters.
- to the Board of Zoning Appeals, one for the use variance requests on the left and one for the design
- standards variance on the right. So here on the screen now is the original approved site plan. You can
- see those smaller units down here in the bottom right-hand corner of the site. Those were never constructed,
- although they had originally planned to construct them, but now are planning to build larger ones that
- you can see now on the screen, circled in yellow.
- Here is that original land use certificate that was finalized by the planning department upon site inspection
- and meeting all conditions. We also added that note that RV storage is not allowed because it is a separate
- use to the convenience storage use that was originally permitted on the site. I will take a moment to
- say that the withdrawal aspect of this petition, which would be VAR
- Staff had to withdraw that request due to an error in understanding how that particular use fits in
- the CDO. That is actually, as I stated before, a conditional use in the LB zone. So in order to have
- properly noticed and presented this case, you would have received a use variance, a design standards variance,
- and a conditional use on the same report. So we have to have the petitioner submit a conditional use
- to formally go through the process for the RV and boat storage use on the property, since they are wanting
- to keep that use. Okay, so that brings me to the recommendation. Staff recommends denial of the self-storage
- use variance, Chapter 811, citing Item D,
- From Chapter 841-4E, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance does not constitute
- an unnecessary hardship. In other words, the petitioner is able to construct the smaller storage units
- that are detailed on the original approved site plan without the need for the variance.
- And then also staff recommends approval of the sidewalk variance, Chapter 811, citing all three criteria
- of Chapter 841-4F. Practical difficulties are met with respect to the petition site's proximity
- to floodplain, as well as North Storm Mill Drive being a gravel road. I will now take any questions.
- Well, let's just go straight to the petitioner. The petitioner is here. And do you see him?
- Yes, it looks like Daniel Butler is in attendees, so if he could be allowed to speak. Mr. Butler, if
- you would kindly unmute yourself and raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole
- truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. OK. Well, you'll have 15 minutes. Welcome to our Nat Hill room.
- It's good to see you. Yeah. Sorry about that. I had to leave.
- I'm glad that you're able to get to our case tonight, but Josh Alley is there in the room. He's the
- owner of the project and just wanted to give some clarifications that we received approval like Drew
- was saying some years ago for this project and they decided not to build the last set of units and partially
- just to see marketability of the units that would
- beyond the site and how they would do. And the larger units on the site have done really well and the
- small units haven't done as well. And so that's really the reason we're asking for additional larger
- units in that corner. And when we came back, you know, the CDO had been approved. And so then this triggered
- this meeting to have to come back and get approval on the,
- use variance even though it's the use that's on the site now. So the additional units that we're asking
- for are not as big as the rest of the bigger units on the site. They're medium-sized units and so these
- aren't for boats and RVs or anything like that so we're not lumping that together with the other variants
- that we're going to be asking for boats and RVs but this wouldn't
- necessarily contain those, it would just be there's a need and showing a need and the hardship is that
- I have a, I would show you in person, but we have the actual occupancy of the site right now and the
- smaller units
- for only about half full and then all the larger units are full. And so there's just a need for, the
- hardship is just a need for more like a larger type unit for self storage for people. And that's what
- the market is showing. I don't have a camera to show you this sheet that just came from the owner today
- about how that's occupied. And that's a,
- The other thing is we already met with the fire department. They're okay with adding these units to
- that corner of the site. And we would have to remove two of the 30 foot long units to make sure that
- the fire truck could turn around in there. But otherwise they're okay with adding the larger units in
- that corner. But with that, I'll take any questions.
- Okay, do members of the Board of Zoning Appeals have questions for Mr. Butler? I have a question for
- Mr. Meyers. You mentioned that the current use is not necessarily what you guys had originally thought
- it was going to be. Are there enforcement efforts going on right now?
- So the property is legal pre-existing non-conforming. They received an approved site plan and a land
- use certificate to operate the property as convenient storage under the prior zoning ordinance. When
- the new ordinance came through and changed how that land use is classified and where it's permitted,
- their property automatically became legal pre-existing non-conforming. They're allowed to operate as
- such in perpetuity.
- until they make a change or an expansion to the property. And that's what's happening. And now you have
- to come into compliance. Okay. But you're not knowing about the RVs and stuff does not constitute an
- issue of that would necessitate. We do not have an open enforcement case under the CDO. They actually
- bought an RV storage has become easier on the limited business, but self-storage has become more difficult.
- So we're hoping that they will follow up and get the
- conditional use next month, which I think they are going to do. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions
- for Mr. Butler? We'll turn now to the public. Are there members of the public who are either in favor
- or opposed to this petition? If so, please make yourselves known. Raise your virtual hand. We see one
- hand raised.
- So if that, it's Craig. Craig, if you would kindly unmute yourself. Okay. Yeah. Can you hear me? Yes.
- And could you please state your first and last name? Craig Smith. And Mr. Smith, would you raise your
- right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- I do. Okay. And will you be speaking in what capacity? In favor. Okay. You have three minutes. I was
- just gonna say I was in favor it. Um, if I'm not mistaken, they're wanting to put 62 smaller units in
- there as opposed to 16 bigger units, less traffic on that highway there. So
- Just wanna make myself known as I'm in favor of it. In favor of the larger units, but the smaller number
- of units, right? Do I understand correctly? I'm in favor of the bigger units instead of the 62 extra
- smaller units they're gonna put in. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Smith. You're welcome. Are there any other
- members of the public who would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this petition?
- If we see none, we come back to us for further discussion and or emotion. Well, the the last witness,
- that is a good point. Fewer units versus more that
- That is a valid point. I'm glad he brought that up. I'm not sure, you know, with the use variance on
- RV and boat storage, which isn't on the table today, whether or not highway, I would like just advance
- notice. I would like highway to weigh in on that because that is on the corridor to I-69. But as far
- as the larger units are concerned, I'm not, you know,
- This is our corridor into Bloomington, but the storage units already exist there. It's not the most
- attractive gateway experience, but at the same time, they have the buy right to do the smaller units.
- Mr. Smith was very compelling in saying that this would actually be less traffic But if I'm just standing
- on notice here that if the goal is to put in RV storage and boat storage that might meet with more resistance
- just from my perspective because of highway and
- So we did inquire, since we had to continue the boat and RV storage, we stated to them that if they
- wanted to just go to this meeting and they only received approval for self storage and the sidewalk
- variants, that these units that they're proposing would only be approved for self storage. So even though
- they're larger, they would only be for self storage until or unless they come back for the conditional
- use for a boat and RV. OK.
- Larger units, even though they're labeled self-storage, do not qualify for the RV. Is that what I'm
- hearing you say?
- I'm not following. Self-storage is not RV. Self-storage is like personal storage. Correct. So what we're
- saying is that even though the units are going from being small, which were clearly for self-storage
- use only, to be larger, the question we had for their engineer was, are these now going to be, instead
- of for self-storage, for boat and RV storage, similar to Margaret's request. And they said that they
- would comply with whatever the BZA approved. So if they only approved the use variance for self-storage,
- tonight, then as of tonight, those units could only be used for self-storage. But if they come back
- later and they want to use them as both an RV storage and they obtain the conditional use, then they
- could do so.
- And I thought the testimony was they weren't going to use them for RV or boat. Didn't he say that? We
- had the conversation offline. Yes. So they would be using it for self storage for now. That's right.
- OK. Well, that takes care of your concerns. OK. I'm going to move that we approve variance 25-69A crimson
- storage self.
- Crimson storage, self-storage, use variants to Chapter 811, and also variants 25-73, the Crimson storage
- sidewalks variants to Chapter 812. Second. 818. 818, yes, thank you very much.
- second okay it's been moved and second to approve both VAR-25-69A self storage use variance and 73 which
- is the sidewalk variance. A vote yes is a vote to approve both variances one use variance and one designer
- development standards variance. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes.
- Skip Daly? Yes.
- Motion is approved four to zero. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Smith. Thank you. Mr. Brown Thanks for bearing
- with us this long night Okay, we have one Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Yes. Thanks. You've been
- so patient We have one more case And I believe on this one Mr. Daily You have to introduce it one you
- have to introduce it Oh, yeah
- I'm sorry. I'm just struggling here, I know. This is the last item on the agenda. Item number 30, CDU-25-12,
- Oliver Winery Conditional Use to Chapter 811, concerning 125.45 plus or minus acre parcel in Washington
- Township at 200 East Winery Road. As a point of information, Madam Chair, I would like to
- Find out if any members in the audience or online wish to oppose this specific petition. Show your hands.
- Do a dance. Seeing nobody.
- Now I have another point of information. Are there any members of the board who have strong objections
- or questions that they need answered on this specifically? I have a question about the address of this,
- because it has a North Kinser Pike address, but the map appears to be on the other side of I-69, and
- I just wanted to clarify. That is a typo. The address is 200 East Winery Road.
- Sorry to call you out at 11 o'clock at night, Drew. Good catch. Are there any other pressing matters
- that folks have concerns about? Any concerns that board members have about this specific? All right.
- Well, with that being said, I would formally move to call the question that
- Yeah, call the question. Does anybody? Approval? Can you move approval? We have to vote on. The question.
- Well, does anybody have any disagreement with calling the question on this? No. No? No objections? Are
- you sure? I am more positive about this. Because if you have an objection, we do need 67%. All right.
- with that being said, I would like to have Mr Morris take it over. Okay, two minutes before I fall asleep
- for KCDU-25-12, I move approval due to the ability to fulfill the requirements of the conditional use
- standards subject to county highway engineer and stormwater program manager reports. I will second that motion.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve CDU-25-12, the Oliver Winery conditional use to Chapter
- 811. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daley? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela
- Davidson? Yes, and with congratulations to going the
- distance, and winery road. I mean, that alone was a good sweet spot to end with, don't you think? Sample?
- Thank you. Sample? Thank you. Oh, Sample. Oh, geez. Oh, geez. We want to thank you for how much you
- serve the community. We really appreciate you, and we're proud to have you in our community.
- So thank you. Yeah. Thank you.
- I was in the Bar Association when Bill Oliver was giving Camelot mead and wine. Thank goodness his son
- made better wine. I move to adjourn.