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.