- Well, we do have quite a long agenda. We have one member of the Board of Zoning Appeals who is in arrival,
- but we have a quorum. So I think we'll begin. And as soon as our director, our director of planning,
- can call the roll, that would be great. Margaret Clements? Here. Skip Daly? Pamela Davidson? Guy Lofman?
- Here. Jeff Morris?
- Okay, so we have three members in person in a quorum. And would you kindly introduce the evidence? Sure.
- I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance
- is adopted and amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan is adopted and amended. The Monroe County
- Board of Zoning Appeals rules a procedure as adopted and amended. And the cases that were legally advertised
- and scheduled for hearing on tonight's agenda. Moving.
- to introduce that evidence? Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence.
- A vote yes is a vote to approve. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Motion
- is approved, three to zero. Okay, there are no minutes to approve. There's no administrative evidence
- to approve, but we do need to approve the agenda. I move approval of the December agenda of the BZA.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as presented and published in the packet. A
- vote yes is a vote to approve the agenda. Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes.
- Motion is approved three to zero. Okay. Well, the first item under old business is VAR-25-71, and it
- is the say? Say.
- 1 12 slope encroachment and this is a variance request to chapter 823 concerning 1 9.03 plus or minus
- acre parcel and 1 16.41 acre plus or minus parcel and poke township section 4 at 7407 south state road
- 446 and 7415 South State Road 446 and Mr. Smith is going to review that with us and we look forward
- to your presentation So as a recap this was heard at the
- previous meeting last month in November. So the petitioners have come back with additional information
- for the board to review. But I will do just a quick recap of what this request is for. So it is to construct
- a new residence at 7407 and 7415 South State Road 446. Both addresses included because of the petitioners
- will engage in a lot line adjustment.
- So that is why both addresses are included with this request. I'm sorry to interrupt, but let the record
- reflect that Mr. Daly is here. OK, thank you. So the proposal is to disturb areas that are greater than
- 12% slope in the environmental constraints overlay area one, also known as eco one. And that is also
- known as the Lake Monroe watershed.
- Chapter 823, it states that for eco one areas, the property shall be subject to a limit of not greater
- than 12% slope disturbance. So as the petitioners here tonight before you, they are requesting some
- square footage that is encroaching into those 12% slope areas. And I will just briefly go through again.
- This is a recap of last month. The petitioners did receive a variance last year.
- VAR 2441 for the construction of 12% slope disturbance for the construction of a driveway that was approved.
- The petitioners have applied for a stormwater grading permit, SW25105, and that is where the issue regarding
- the construction of the residence in 12% slope was discovered by planning staff.
- So all of this was presented at last month's meeting, so I'll just briefly go through it again. Here
- are some aerial photography. These are site photos that were provided by the petitioners.
- as well as their proposed building area, which also includes their proposed driveway development. And
- all of this is in the packet. I do want to get to their updated information just because we do have
- a long agenda. So the first one being at the previous Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, the board did
- raised two questions. So the first one being that they would like the petitioners to bring a revised
- site plan showing the exact footprint. So for the record, planning staff has reviewed their updated
- site plan and confirmed that the total square footage of the house footprint, which does include the
- attached garage and patio area, equals approximately 5,510 square feet. The dimensions of the home itself
- have not changed between
- the prior meeting and now, however, the amount of impervious cover has been reduced. So that is what
- the petitioners here tonight are here to present. The septic connecting lines are now closer to the
- home, so they were a little more spaced out. Now they're closer to the home to reduce that land disturbance.
- Also, the grading area has remained relatively the same between the prior meeting and then tonight's
- meeting. The second point that was brought up by
- The board was that they would like to see dimensions of any impervious cover and or suggest a maximum
- impervious cover within the blue box of the petitioners submitted plan. So planning staff has confirmed
- that the site plan shows the following calculations. We'll start with letter A and that is the total
- area of ground disturbance. We calculate to be just under an acre 0.9 acres. This would include land
- disturbance for the home.
- the septic, the driveway, which was previously approved under the prior variance request, and the grading
- area surrounding the home subject to this variance. So calculating just the ground disturbance for the
- home footprint, so that would be that rectangular area that was submitted under their prior filing from
- last month, planning staff,
- Excluding the septic and driveway planning staff estimates that that's about 0.41 acres or 17,834 square
- feet to be exact. That does also include areas that are greater than 12% slope. Staff did also calculate
- ground disturbance for the home footprint that is exceeding 12% slope.
- And we calculate that to be 10,218 square feet or 0.23 acres. Letter B, we decided to also calculate
- a pre-project impervious area to be about 0.71 acres. This includes the driveway that was previously
- approved. And then C, a post-project impervious area, which we calculate to be approximately an acre.
- So this would just be,
- the rectangular area for the home, the patio, driveway, et cetera, under this variance. And that equals
- approximately 0.29 acres or 12,632 square feet. The allowable impervious cover for this zone is 55,000
- square feet. So there's not an issue with regards to their maximum that they are allowed to have. We
- are primarily just focusing on the areas that
- encroach greater than 12% slope. So getting into the petitioners certified plot plans here, I'll just
- start going through these. This is just their base map. So this is what is there existing. So they have
- not started construction on the home site or the driveway. So they're hoping to get this variance approved
- before they would move forward.
- The petitioner did submit with their engineer an erosion control plan. The storm water team has also,
- my understanding is they've also had a chance to review this as well. Site improvement plan. And their
- engineer is here tonight, so I will probably be going back to these slides when the engineer comes before
- the board to speak. But otherwise, here are the visuals, grading plan,
- includes both the driveway and the proposed home site. And the sewage plan, again, as I previously stated,
- under their prior site plan, the septic tank was a little bit further out, so there was more space between
- the septic tank and the home. That's been reduced, so it's closer to minimize the
- impact of the land disturbance proposed, and then the septic field you'll see on the screen is to the
- south. So essentially there will be a pipe that gets pumped to that field. So the house footprint, the
- petitioners did also provide a visual, and I did separate that out according to the different sections
- of the proposed home. So again, this is
- approximately in total 5,510 square feet that includes a 67 by 38 garage that is attached to the 62
- by 38 house. And it will also include a 16 by 38 patio. And the petitioners also provided additional
- visuals for the home. And they did also submit a 3D model of what the proposed home would look like.
- And you'll also note the concrete pad that does go around much of the structure. Under their prior proposed
- plans, that concrete pad towards the east would have also been extended to line up with the rest of
- the concrete pad to the southwest, or I should say to the left side of the screen. So that was reduced.
- They did also provide a revised house plan showing what was previously proposed on November 5th versus
- now. So you'll note that the septic tank was moved and therefore a section of the concrete pad was also
- reduced. And planning staff's understanding is that they are proposing that bump out of the concrete
- pad because that will be an additional
- entrance to the garage for their personal vehicles. The one further to the left side of the screen will
- be for trailers or other materials that they are utilizing for the campground that they manage that's
- just at the bottom of the hill.
- Planning staff did this staff exhibit also from the November 5th BZA meeting with this updated plan
- set. We did a rough calculation. The total square footage of 12% slope disturbance on the west side
- of the proposed residence is approximately 4,851 square feet.
- And then on the east side, we calculated approximately 5,367 square feet of 12% or greater slope disturbance.
- And staff's recommendation has not changed since the November 5th meeting. So staff's recommendation
- is still to deny the ECO 1 variance 12% slope encroachment.
- Based on the fact that practical difficulties have not been demonstrated, the petitioner could redesign
- the home to conform with the eco one 12% slope restriction. And I can take any questions.
- I think since we have such a long agenda tonight, we'll go straight to the petitioner or the petitioner's
- representative and ask Ms. Lin or Mr. Shea to please come up and sign in and then we'll swear you in.
- Or if your representative will be speaking on your behalf, you'll have a total of 15 minutes altogether.
- I don't know if you will be speaking.
- but you might as well sign in just in case you need to. And sir, could you tell me your name, the gentleman
- from Riggert and? Andy Canoost from Bledsoe Riggert Cooper James. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.
- When Ming is signing, I think I would just start it. Well, let me first.
- Have every all three of you if you don't mind Raise your right hand and do you swear to tell the truth
- the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you, okay, you'll have 15 minutes all together Okay
- My name is May wait lean and here's my husband Ming Feng she who is the petitioner for this request
- I think the question raised last time is I
- How are we going to design the place and why we need the space? And are we going to protect this place
- that's supposed to be protect for the EGLE zone one? What we think we are the right people is because
- naturally we both are engineer and we are problem solving people. And we try to improve system and that's
- part of what we do every day. Outside of our work,
- we share a deep appreciation for nature. So camping, hiking, kayaking, spending time outdoors, that's
- what we do. In 2019, we purchased the campground right next to this property with the goal of caring
- for the land and improving the relationship between the campground to the lake and also the forest right
- next to it. Since then, we have made some meaningful progress
- We were the first one and still the only one private small business owner that putting the money into
- the campground to install the septic system that meets the healthy department's recommendation to prevent
- the water contamination just because we read the article from the friends of Lake Monroe to saying that
- this is one of the concern they have.
- We think that's the right thing to do, and we just put the money into it in the first three months when
- we got to the place. For the water erosion, when we first come to the place, that's one of the concerns
- that all the campers have. It has been greatly improved under our management. The previous owners say
- that he has to put
- five truckloads of gravel every year just because the bad erosion control and washout. But this issue
- no longer exists after we come to the place the first and second years. It's no longer an issue right
- now. In addition, more than 7,000 square foot of grass area has been restored
- and continue to improve every year because I just love gardening. Yeah. We understand that our effort
- are small compared to what the nature provide to us. However, we also believe that with right intention,
- care, and reach for the right knowledge and our experiences of trial and error, the land can be preserved
- rather than simply be consumed.
- And we tell that to our campers every day. After seven years of managing the campground responsibly
- to the environment, we hope that you can trust that this land will be protected in good hands. And I'm
- going to pass the microphone to my husband to talk some of the background about our variance request.
- First of all, thank you for giving us a second chance to better explain what we are
- what we're planning to do, especially giving us the first spot instead of 1030. Sean, if you don't mind,
- can you move to the page where we have a proposed driveway with building area with a map with blue,
- red colors, which is part of the variance request last year? Yeah, the previous one will work. Yeah,
- this one will work.
- So let me try to explain a little bit of the background of this land, 7415 South State Road 46, which
- we bought last year. So after a few years of campground, we did finally make it more stable and decided
- we wanted to have our own life. So we decided we wanted to buy the land next to the campground and build
- a house over there. So looking at this map, the 7415
- is on the right hand side, right half of this plot. And there is an existing 2.4 acre building area,
- less than 12%, which we can build now, allowed by the regulation. However, in reality, this land, this
- building area, which is allowed by the current regulation, it is a valley. It is collecting water
- from 36 acres of land around this valley. Whenever it rains a lot, whenever soil is saturated, all the
- water is dumping into this buildable area or the building area we are now right now. So it is wet. There
- are a lot of erosion concerns. So after we bought the land,
- we start to take a few testing to understand how deep is the water perturbation and how much erosion
- concern we do have. Because if you can see, campground is actually exactly the same terrain. It's also
- at a valley. And it's wider. So we understand the concern of a valley. Water just getting even though
- it's flat, it's buildable, but a lot of water issue at the valley. So that is the reason we understand
- by regulation,
- we should and we can build there. But in reality, if we build there in long term, there are going to
- be concern, especially erosion concern. That is why last year we started to get different idea and also
- work with planning department to come up with idea to see if there's a better place, which is better
- for a building for long term. So we identified part of the campground land, which is that part of the
- top of the hill.
- is a better building area because whenever it rains, the only water we need to worry about is from the
- sky, not from the watershed area or from the hill around the land. So much more stable soil and much
- less erosion concern.
- this year's variant is to actually we try to apply for a driveway so we can have a way to get up to
- the to the top of the hill to the proposed building area and also propose a building area of 100 by
- 400 feet building area which we can see is the
- green triangular area we mark over there, which is equal to .92 acre. That was what we proposed at that
- time. So at that time the driveway was approved
- but because we don't have a detailed site plan for the green area, so we didn't really get approval
- or take that into consideration. So after we got the first approval for the driveway, we started to
- work with engineer with BRCJ to come up with a better site plan to better conserve the area. So I think
- they did a great job, turned down our original proposal 0.92 acre to
- only 0.36 acre, which is what we show here. So there's significantly reduced area, but for a good reason,
- for better land protection to minimize the amount of land inter disruption. And we also feel that 0.36
- acre is really needed, just because if you look at the map over here, there's only one way, 10 feet
- driveway going up the hill and going down the hill. And we really need an open area
- for our trucks, traders, equipment to store and to turn around. Otherwise, with the current land, if
- we don't interrupt the current land, which is only 40 feet wide, there's really no way for any trader
- to turn around. So we really have to widen the area so we have wide. Originally, we proposed, I think,
- 100 feet wide. Right now, we already dropped to 80 feet wide.
- The message I'm trying to convey here or I'm trying to let the board understand is we spend a lot of
- effort and money to propose this idea. We can build a house in the existing building area, 2.6 acre,
- much larger, much easier, much cheaper, but we know to do the right thing to protect our water, to protect our land.
- and also protect our investment is to make sure we build at the right area which is not at the existing
- building area. So we're actually giving up the 2.6 acre flat land and invest to build at a better area
- which we think is a better area which can better protect the environment with that erosion control.
- That's the key reason we're trying to propose this variance because we know regulation
- has covered what's needed. But outside of a regulation, this is actually the better answer to protect
- our land. And I think Sean already explained the detailed house design. I think last time there was
- concern we're going to build a 5,000, 6,000 square feet house. I should say that is really not what
- we're trying to do. The house itself, the footprint is
- like 2,300 square feet itself. Really, the majority, more than half of the area is really the garage.
- And we really need a garage for our small business here. And that is the reason you can see a pretty,
- it is a large roof cover, but the right-hand side is pretty much patio. And more than half on the left-hand
- side is just a garage for storage. Yeah. Okay. And did you want your,
- Mr. Koontz to speak as well. Yes, thank you. Yeah, I haven't prepared a statement, but I have been enjoyed
- working with Ming and developing the site plan. We've done our best to meet the requirements of the
- slope requirements for the driveway and fit that
- You know it's a very narrow area at the top of that ridge to squeeze within the 12 percent slope line.
- So we've done our best to develop a grading plan that we think works well and can be managed like the
- erosion control can be managed at the top of that ridge pretty effectively. So and the septic system
- is really squeezed in there just you know it goes over those 12 percent slope lines a little bit but
- it's it's within the parameters of the
- presbyseptic system to where it will work, and it's kind of the only spot up there where it really can
- fit very well. So I believe we've come up with a design that works pretty well. Okay. And if there's
- any technical questions, I'd be happy to answer. My colleagues and I may have some questions, but I'm
- going to invite the people standing in the back to take a seat in any of the empty chairs up forward of this.
- enjoy a seat. It might be a long night. So I'm going to turn to my colleagues now and ask if they have
- questions for any of the petitioners and more for staff. Yes. Mr. Bailey. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Smith,
- we heard in the testimony of the petitioners that some of their motive of
- the excess, the large garage and the excess concrete was storage of camping supplies and the such. My
- question is, the way I'm understanding it is the campground is separate. Is this residential property
- zoned to be able to store this commercial property that's meant
- for the other property that they own that's adjacent? Well, I think that what they're proposing, if
- you have the picture with the trailer inside that picture. So part of their business requires some equipment
- that they use both
- both personally and professionally, they are allowed to keep it in their home. They state that they
- have a camper. So if they have their own camper and they need to haul it, and this is equipment they
- can use for that, then they are permitted to do so. But they don't have to store it inside. There's
- no regulation that it gets stored inside. I think their concern is weatherization or rain and other.
- OK. Yeah. Thanks.
- Are there other members of the Board of Zoning Appeals who have questions for staff and or the petitioners?
- Mr. Loftman. How big is the area less than 12%? So the total property width, I think we had
- 80 feet is our area of disturbance, right? Yes, we want to open up 40 feet currently. Yeah, so the top
- of the hill where it's less than 12% slope is about 40 feet. 40 feet wide. Yeah, 40 feet wide by 100.
- It's really long. Yeah, it's pretty long north-south, but the width of that 12% area is pretty narrow
- at the top of the ridge.
- 40 feet or so is, yeah, maybe not that much bigger than this room. Right. It's way bigger than this
- plant is still way bigger, and that concerns me. And I keep wishing we could get to yes, but I'm not
- having much luck doing it because
- It's just too big from my perspective. And this is another redesigned question. But some of this equipment,
- I know the land below is certainly inappropriate for a residence. Would it be appropriate for storage
- of the trailer and the
- campground equipment that's multiple use for both personal and professional ends. First of all, we actually
- do not have plan to bring any business to our personal property. But personally, we got traders, boats,
- RVs, personal stuff. So I just want to make sure we don't plan to do anything, bring any business to
- our personal property.
- But we still got a lot of personal traders which we like to protect and also vote. So we really don't
- want them, we don't really don't want to rent another place to store our personal stuff or stay outside.
- Yeah. Okay, I had misunderstood. I thought that that was both personal and professional and I'm glad
- you, I've got that straightened out. It's a key reason we want to build a house. We want to stay, we
- want to separate business and personal.
- which makes perfectly good sense, would it work to store your personal, the trailers and the boats,
- down lower in that buildable area? I think I probably as planning staff can say more, if we decide to
- build a building on the top of hill, we're not allowed to build anything in other, in the downhill.
- Because last time I remember you said we can only build one house or one structure.
- Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know if I can build another building down the hill. So it would
- just be, I think what Mr. Laughman is suggesting is like a pole barn or some sort of storage structure
- accessory to the home down the hill. You would be allowed to do that if you could meet the standards
- and it's in buildable area and things like that. You have two buildable areas.
- Granted, you haven't done the lot line shift yet, so it would all have to be on the same lot, but you
- can do that. With power and water to the storage area? Yes. You wouldn't be able to make a residential
- dwelling out of the second structure. Frankly, it seems to me you wouldn't have to
- drive those boats and trailers up that long, steep driveway, but you might be able to keep them safe.
- And I don't know what the redesign would look like, but it seems like it would be a lot easier. And
- I think you're probably gonna need a place for maybe a car or two at the top of the hill, but this is just,
- And it would take some redesign to get it to fit in. I realize all that. But this is just too
- much encroachment for my comfort. And it seems to me one more redesign consideration, which would move
- the big stuff down.
- I understand it's not professional stuff now, but it's still big stuff. Very hard to bring that up a
- steep driveway. That you could get it in or much closer to the 12% area. This is way beyond the 12% area.
- And maybe if a redesign was made that way with the pole barn at the bottom, which we think we have clearly
- established you could do, and the home and your personal cars at the top, it might be a practical approach, as is
- I'm simply not comfortable with this much disturbance. I greatly appreciate the work you all have done.
- It's amazing. It's outstanding. It's exactly what we want to encourage, but I can't go this far. Maybe
- the rest of the panel can. Thank you. Do other members of the BZA have questions for the petitioner?
- Not a question, but just
- echoing support for Mr. Lofman's comments. I think this is one of our most environmentally sensitive
- areas in the county, and that's giving me quite a pause, especially knowing that there are alternative
- options. I'm sympathetic to what the petitioner is trying to do, but also protective of the land so
- close to the lake. Yes. Mr. Daley, or do you want to wait until after we hear from the public? Yes.
- We will now hear from the public. If there are negative statements from the public, you'll have a chance
- to rebut. Are there members of the public who would like to speak in favor of this petition? If so,
- please raise your hand. You may sit down for the time being.
- or come to the podium. If you're here in the Nathale courtroom, come to the podium. If you're online,
- raise your virtual hand to speak in favor of this petition. I suggest the petitioners sit down. So if
- anybody does want to come up, they're not right. Thank you. Thank you. We don't see anyone. Are there
- members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to this petition? If so,
- come to the podium in the Nat Hill courtroom or raise your virtual hand. And I can't see all the online
- participants. So there's been no public testimony. So we returned to the board of zoning appeals for
- further discussion and or emotion. I'm not quite certain that
- I've heard anything overwhelming to override the staff's recommendation that this does not fit within
- the practical difficulties. And I feel like my hands are tied with that. While I find the petitioners
- to be excellent stewards,
- I don't know that with yields that I take for this position that I can find a way to maneuver around
- the practical difficulty criterion which I'm here to uphold. So unless if I'm not seeing something.
- I'm not seeing anything.
- So with that for case VAR-25-71, I move that we deny the ECO 1 variance 12% slope encroachment due to
- practical difficulties not being demonstrated. Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny VAR-25-71,
- which is the ECO Area 1 12% slope encroachment to Chapter 823. A vote yes is a vote to deny the variance
- as proposed.
- Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. But I want to thank you for all of the work you've done for
- that campground and the stewardship of the environment that you are taking care of. This is just a little
- too large outside of our standards, and it would set a standard for our community. So my vote is no.
- I mean, yes to deny. Sorry. Skip Daley? Yes. Guy Lofman?
- Yes. Okay. The motion is denied by a vote of four to zero. Thank you for participating in our process.
- And I know you'll be working with staff in the future. So thank you very much. And we're sorry we couldn't
- meet you at this point. Thank you.
- Thank you. The very next item on our agenda is under new business, and that's VAR-25-49, Blackwell on
- South Old State Road 37, General Contractor Use Variance to Chapter 811, concerning one 7.91 plus or
- minus acre parcel in Perry Township, Section 21 at 4810 South. Oh, this one is continued. Oh, sorry.
- I've wasted everyone's time.
- We move on to variances two, three, and four. Variance is 25-52A, B, and C concerning Donovan buildable
- area. Variance to chapter 813, the Donovan accessory dwelling. Oh, that's been withdrawn. The Donovan
- accessory dwelling unit buildable area.
- requirement variance to chapter eight 11 concerning two 5.48 plus or minus acre parcels and Van Buren
- township section 35 and 36 at 66 11 South Rockport road. And I believe Ms. Behrman will review this
- case with us. Thank you. Thank you, Margaret. All right. So to summarize some of what you just read,
- we're looking at
- VAR-25-52 that's a requirement to chapter 813 buildable area for the special flood hazard area variance.
- There are four items under this variance that you will be looking at. One of them is an unpermitted
- 20 square foot awning that was added to an existing barn in the special flood hazard area. We have an
- entrance gate that's at the driveway and there has been
- significant amount of gravel that has been added to the property within the floodplain for turnaround
- primarily, and a lot of that is in the right of way. And then we have a detached accessory dwelling
- unit that is proposed to be relocated from the floodway special flood hazard area and into the fringe
- special flood hazard area. VAR-25-52B, that is no longer needed. They did some
- corrections to their driveway under a right-of-way permit from the highway department. And we don't
- need to address that one under a variance context anymore, but we are going to be recommending further
- removal of some of the gravel within the right-of-way near the driveway. And then VAR-25-52C, that's
- from Chapter 811, which are the standards for the accessory dwelling unit.
- DADUs are basically required to be in buildable area. So we have almost two buildable area variances,
- but under completely different contexts. So a little bit of background. The petitioner purchased this
- property in 2021. In July of 2023, the building department noticed that something was being built on
- the property without permits. So they put a stop worker work order on it.
- No progress has been made on that structure at this time. They thought it was just a garage that was
- being put on the property. But after a lot of dialogue with planning staff, we found out that they were
- planning to have someone live in the structure, which completely changes the way that we look at this
- structure. And so they stopped one of their permits for an accessory structure and then resubmitted
- for residential accessory dwelling unit.
- So yeah, this is located at the intersection of South Rockport Road and West Tramway Road. For the site
- conditions, you'll see this large swath of pink through the site. That is DNR floodway. And then the
- light blue is the fringe. Those have different kind of requirements as far as
- how you can develop in there. Also on the property is an existing 3,500 square foot residence with an
- attached garage. And there are already two existing accessory structures located in the floodplain already.
- They're pretty old. I can't recall how old they are. They've been there a while. They were just old
- farm buildings that have been rehabilitated. And then there is the 28 by 32 unpermitted structure. You
- can see the white
- roof there. Something to point out while looking at this property is there is areas near tramway that
- don't have restrictions for buildable area. And up by the existing home on the southern part of the
- property uphill, there are other locations that are not restricted by 25% slopes or floodplain. So keep
- that in mind when you're looking at
- how to address this accessory dwelling unit. So this white structure here with the roof, that is the
- dadu that's 896 square feet. And then they also have a proposed porch that would wrap around that. Because
- a portion of this falls within the floodway and it's intended to be lived in by a person,
- this structure cannot remain here. It has to be relocated. It is against federal, state, and
- local requirements that you cannot have a new residence within a floodway. And so they have to relocate
- it or decide that this would be just an accessory structure. If they wanted to have it just be a garage,
- there are ways to get a state permit and then also a local permit, which it would still require a variance
- But because it's going to be a dwelling, it has to be relocated. And then the picture to the right,
- I've just highlighted the roof in yellow. You can see the creek kind of running along the northern part
- of that property there. So the DNR flood analysis and regulatory assessment categorizes this as a floodway,
- DNR approximate floodway. So what that means is you have kind of a stream channel
- with a normal water flow level. And as we reach base flood elevation, which is the 1% chance flood,
- we used to call that the 100-year floodplain. It's what we are required to regulate to remain in the
- National Flood Insurance Program. There is the portion of that area of the 1% chance that's nearest
- the stream channel. They classify that as a floodway.
- And that's got stricter requirements, stricter standards from an engineering standpoint. The fringe
- is still regulated, but it's a little more flexible in what you can do there. You can often add fill.
- You can have a residence there. But it still has its hazards. And one thing I want to say is that we
- only regulate the 1% chance flood. It doesn't mean we can't.
- in Indiana have a 0.2% or 0.01% chance flood. There's always a risk factor. We are just required to
- regulate the 1% chance flood. So this is kind of a view facing east. And you can see the house that's
- existing. From chapter 813, that's the buildable area standards, we're looking at an awning that was added
- prior to the petitioner owning this property, something that staff is actually supporting to stay. There's
- a lot of gravel that has been added. We're requesting that to be maybe not supported. We have a gate
- that is also subject to the variance and then also the structure, the accessory dwelling unit. So these
- are the four items that we're discussing under Chapter 813's buildable area.
- And this is just a picture that actually, I think, captures all of it. This is the awning. That's the
- 20 square foot awning. It's just expanded structure in the floodplain. We have the gate that was recently
- relocated. This is an older picture. But they had to relocate that out of the right of way under their
- right of way permit that they pulled recently, like within the last month. There's the gravel that we've
- seen kind of keep growing over time. And then back here.
- Behind this northern barn you can see the accessory dwelling unit that's been under a stop work order
- since 2023. And this is a view kind of more facing west. And then the other variance that's being requested
- is from Chapter 811 and dash 4C, standard number 12.
- standards that have to be met in order to allow a detached accessory dwelling unit. And they meet 12
- of the 13 standards. If they would relocate the structure out of the special flood hazard area, they
- would not be here. But the one that they cannot meet is that each dadu lot shall have a separate buildable
- area for each dwelling. And that's what they're not meeting here. They have to relocate this.
- They're moving it from the floodway to the flood fringe. It's still considered not buildable area. And
- we do think that there are other locations on the property that could be considered buildable where
- the daddy structure could be located. And again, no variances would have, they wouldn't have had to
- come here. They could have been permitted outright. It's unfortunate that they didn't come to the planning
- department or pull a building permit before they got started on this work, or we probably would have
- advised them for,
- a lot of different locations. I'd like to mention that here's the structure, and they'll be relocating
- it kind of roughly here. There's a bridge. And I will say that should that bridge ever have to be redesigned
- or something happen to it, I know that sometimes having insurable structures, such as this Dadu,
- downstream could impact the design of a bridge. I've seen that happen before. I've seen maps have to
- be changed and engineering work happen because of insurable structures. So it's just something in the
- future to keep in mind that should we have to try to work around this insurable structure in the future
- because of this bridge, it's something to just keep in mind. The petitioner did submit an updated
- letter that kind of includes the awning and includes some of the work that they did with regards to
- the driveway and the gate that they were wanting to keep in the floodplain. These are some pictures
- that they submitted showing the current dowdo and where they want to relocate it to. The red square
- showing kind of pictorially where they want to put it.
- This is a picture of the new location to move it out of the floodway. They want to have the siding to
- match what's been upgraded down there. Again, we have the right-of-way permit that reduced the width
- of the driveway. It relocated the gate. The driveway is now in compliance. And we would consider that
- now a shared driveway so they don't need variance.
- 52B any longer. This is one of their certified plot plans that was submitted. We've gone through several
- iterations and ideas on how for them to work within the property here. The black square that's kind
- of bold, that's where they're proposing to relocate it. And then there is also a wraparound porch that
- will be on this as well as proposed. There's a lot going on here. Striped area is the floodway.
- The dotted area is the flood fringe. We have this gray shaded area of all the gravel that has been added
- down in this area. We have these crossed hatched areas. These are slopes greater than 25%. So just kind
- of familiarizing you with what we're seeing from a certified plot plan standpoint. And they have a second
- page as well. Within the packet, I do have all of their architecturally stamped
- plans that show that the detached accessory dwelling unit does meet the flood damage protection standards
- currently. So they do have it elevated. They're using materials that are resistant to flood resistant
- materials. And I don't think that they are going to require vents because they're not going to be putting
- any skirting or anything underneath it. So we have been reviewing this from a
- building code standpoint and making sure that it meets flood damage prevention standards. We went and
- worked with the health department several times to avoid, so what we have here is where their tank is
- going to be located in the flood fringe under the health department that is allowed, but we are adding
- a condition to their permit that we confirm the elevation is met should they,
- if they are allowed to put this down in the floodplain. The force main, we've had them redesign that
- a couple of times, but this is one that we agree on that doesn't go through the restricted slopes and
- yet also meets a design that can push all the waste products uphill, up these slopes and into the holding
- tank up here. And then the septic field is this part here. This is where the house is located currently.
- Again, they have an approved septic permit. If they relocated this structure, it might be an easier
- system to work with, with not a force main, but gravity flow, something to keep in consideration. This
- is a picture that I produced that shows the
- kind of roughly 32 by 35 structure that's down there right now and showing that there's a lot of other
- places it could go on the property. The septic is kind of located over in this area, roughly, so we
- wouldn't recommend putting it on top of the existing septic. But if they got to pick it up and move
- it, they could pick it up and possibly just move it up the hill. This is a picture of one of the flat
- spots not far from the house. I think it's this farthest west one.
- In the packet, there were three letters of support. So these were the locations that they provided from
- the letters. I only put a sample of one of them here in the PowerPoint, but they're all in the packet.
- This little structure here, I didn't get a letter from them, but I did want to talk about this one.
- This property here came before the Board of Zoning Appeals under variance 23-12 in 2023.
- We worked really hard with these folks. They were relocating an existing residence, their sole only
- residence on the property, and relocating it and trying to get it into the safest place possible. They
- needed that variance from buildable area, but this was their primary residence. They built it to all
- the flood standards, and they were able to get a certificate of occupancy. But it required a variance,
- because they had nowhere else to put a home.
- Keep in mind that there is already a home on the property that you're listening to tonight. What they're
- wanting is an accessory dwelling unit. And there are other locations to put it. So with that, staff
- recommends approval of the portion of VAR-2552A that relates only to the awning and the gate structures.
- Staff recommends denial.
- And I guess pictorially, that's these two parts here in green. So you have the awning, you have a gate.
- Staff recommends denial of the portion of VAR-25-52A that relates to the 896 square foot detached accessory
- dwelling unit structure with the attached porch. And the 3,000 square foot of gravel area that is shown
- in the image to the right here
- within the special flood hazard area. And staff recommends denial of VAR-25-52C for the location of
- the detached accessory dwelling unit in the special flood hazard area pictorially. Those are the two
- areas in red. So removing a good chunk of this gravel, converting it back to green plant vegetation,
- and then also the structure here.
- I know I just wanted to kind of reiterate one thing was that Chapter 825 is our flood damage prevention
- chapter. We adopt we have to adopt the state model ordinance and they do have a statement of purpose
- in there and a lot of it has to do with You know public health public safety protecting human life and
- health Minimizing the expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects such as the bridge
- that might need to be upgraded in the future and
- to minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken
- at the expense of the general public. We want to ensure that those who occupy areas in the special flood
- hazard area assume responsibility for their actions and ensure that flood storage and conveyance functions
- of the floodplain are maintained and to minimize the impact of development on the natural and beneficial
- values of the floodplain.
- And then further, we were unable to prove practical difficulties, that a significant development limitation
- cannot be reasonably addressed through the redesign or relocation of the development building structure.
- And there are areas on the petitioner's property where the structure could be relocated or newly constructed
- that would not require these variances. We're concerned that permitting the accessory
- Residents in the special flood hazard area, in the event of a flood in the middle of the night, there
- are concerns that it could not just lead to loss of property, but possibly loss of life. Therefore,
- staff recommendation is for a non-inhabited structure in the special flood hazard area, like the awning,
- the gate, the gravel, a lot of that could stay. And it differs from the recommendation for the relocation
- of the Dadu.
- Since the Dado is already requiring a relocation, the petitioner has failed to prove why they cannot
- reconstruct the structure elsewhere on the property. And I think that's it. Great. Thank you, Ms. Behrman.
- It's OK with my colleagues. I'll go straight to the petitioner for his 15 minutes.
- of discussion. Mr. Donovan, would you kindly sign in or have you already? I have. Thank you. Okay. Would
- you raise your right hand? And do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. So you have 15 minutes to discuss your requests with us. Thank you. And
- if you would state your name, I'd appreciate it. My name is Stephen Donovan. Thank you. Thank you. Tammy,
- is it possible if you could put up the slide deck we uploaded?
- because that kind of goes with my presentation. I apologize. I did upload that into... Is it these pictures?
- Yeah, but they come with words. They're not those pictures. I do not have that ready, but I can look
- for it. Okay. Thank you. And I can kind of start off, and it really doesn't matter until I get to the
- variance part of my presentation. Is that okay? Yeah. Thank you. Good evening to the board, and thank
- you for taking the time to hear our petition tonight. My name is Stephen Donovan, and my wife, Megan,
- and our sons, Jackson and James,
- along with my mother, Anna, and a third baby on the way all live at 6611 South Rockport Road. We're
- here to respectfully request approval to allow our dadu to be moved approximately 20 feet out of the
- floodway and into the fringe. Before I begin, I want to sincerely apologize for how this project began
- without full awareness of proper zoning processes. I'm sorry that we did not consult with the planning
- department or get proper permits before we started this project. I'm not originally from Indiana,
- and I did not understand the permitting process was required. Since realizing that, we've worked closely
- with Doug Graham from Bain and Fayo and structural engineer Dan Beckler, who can attest that the building
- is compliant with building codes and with county staff to make sure everything moving forward is done
- correctly, safely, and in full or above compliance with Monroe County code. I also want to take a moment
- to thank the planning department, which has worked with me very patiently through this whole process.
- Thank you, Tammy. I appreciate all the hours you've worked on this.
- Next slide, please. If we It's downloading. Okay, our purpose a home for my mother and this will be
- on the second slide The project is very personal for us. The dad who was built for my mother Anna who
- raised me as a single mother after immigrating from Peru She worked tirelessly often two jobs at a time
- while I was growing up to provide and build life for me here in America and
- After losing her home during COVID, she's been living with my wife and I and our two boys in our living
- room over the last two years. As you can imagine, that's been difficult, but we've made it work because
- we understand without my mother, none of us would be here. I've been supporting my mother financially
- since I was 17, shortly after joining the military. She has lived with me on and off, more on since
- then. I've always dreamed of the day I'd be able to give her stability, a space to call her own near
- the family that loves her dearly. This small home allows her to have independence
- and dignity while remaining close enough for us to help her with her health needs and her day-to-day
- needs. For us, this isn't about building an accessory structure. It's about paying our debts to our
- elders, creating a safe, lasting home for three generations of our family. Slide three, variance one,
- the existing awning.
- After reviewing our site plan, we're asking the board to include our existing awning attached to our
- southern pole barn within the scope of the buildable area variance. The awning was built by the previous
- owner and has remained in place since then. It's a permanent wood structure with a shingle roof designed
- to protect the entryway from weather. It has not impacted drainage, runoff, or neighboring properties.
- Next slide, please.
- property gate and rock grade. We were asking the board to include the existing gate near our accessory
- structures. This gate plays an important role in controlling traffic. It prevents vehicles from turning
- around on the property, including dump trucks from neighboring rock queries and other vehicles that
- might enter. The gate is partially located within the floodplain.
- Recently, we moved the gate one foot to meet the highway department requirements while still maintaining
- its intended function. In addition to that, we moved our mailbox six inches to the south and removed
- all the gravel out of the right of way. Because of this, we are fully compliant with the highway department's
- ordinances. In reviewing the BZA packet for this meeting, we noticed a suggestion from planning for
- the removal of some of the rock grade we added in the floodplain. Behind the gate shown here, we were
- Excuse me. We weren't aware of this concern beforehand, but we'd like to share why the rocks are important.
- It helps prevent the ground from washing out and directs water flows straight into the creek, which
- supports proper drainage and stability. If it's okay, it'd probably make more sense if I could point
- to the gate, or I guess I could point it from here. To the left of the gate is riprap, and there was
- already, let's just say exactly, a divot, and that divot to the left of the gate leads straight to the
- creek. There was a gutter that was created
- up the hill, and you can look at the topography of the area. So the reason the rock was added, because
- there wasn't one before, and all the water used to just flow, say, you know, to the left or wherever,
- but because of the gutter and all the water that would come from the peak of the hill, it all started
- washing out a lot of my area. So I added the riprap, which didn't cut through my land anymore, and the
- water just cut right, it just cuts right into the creek. I'm just gonna go over there real quick.
- That was the intended function of the rock. And since then, that was about three years ago, two years
- ago when all this started. And again, Tammy, thank you for working with me for two years. My driveway,
- I assume it's not a driveway, but that area hasn't washed out anymore. Next slide, please. Site overview,
- floodway, flood fringe. Here you can see on the map the current proposed location.
- The structure as it stands sits partially within the floodway. Our proposal moves it about 20 feet,
- 20 feet south, which places it entirely within the fringe. We've worked directly with Doug Graham from
- Bain and Vano and structural engineer Dan Beckler, whom both are here. They're sitting in the back and
- can attest that the structural meet and or exceed all required standards. Excuse me, within the fringe.
- If approved, when moved, the structure will be built on reinforced columns rated to withstand significant
- weather events and elevated above required base flood elevation. We're proposing to build it with the
- same approved materials when moved over. In short, it's safe, compliant, and carefully engineered to
- protect both our property, surrounding land, and most importantly, my mother. Next slide, please.
- Flood event pictures. We completely understand and respect the county's position on floodway management.
- In the time that we've lived here, including during what was recorded as one of the heaviest rainfalls
- in the last 100 years in April, the water in the creek has never risen halfway up its banks, nor has
- it come close to reaching the structure or area where it sits. In this slide, the pictures were taken
- the day after the flood event by the planning department. Next slide, please.
- The county has stated that there are other locations on our property that could eliminate the need for
- BZA approval. We've carefully evaluated all of those alternatives. However, we asked the board to consider
- our proposed location to be the most reasonable for the following reasons. First, cost and feasibility.
- Moving the structure 20 feet into the fringe will cost $20,000. Moving the structure to the alternate
- to the alternate sites would more than almost triple our costs from about $20,000 to $50,000 to $70,000,
- depending on the proposed spots, not counting the costs for additional excavation, grading, and utility
- extensions. That's a substantial burden for our family. And while cost is not a deciding factor in this
- matter, it directly affects our family's financial stability, our ability to invest in our children's
- education, local programs, and activities that keep us rooted as a family. Second, environmental preservation.
- Our proposed site minimizes environmental disruption. We care deeply about the land we live on. By moving
- the structure where it is proposed, we avoid tree removal and prevent additional soil disturbance and
- erosion risks. Moving elsewhere on our property would require significant grading in some of the suggested
- areas, which again, could cause erosion and clearing that would permanently change the land's natural
- drainage aesthetic. Next slide, please.
- Third, neighborhood character. Placing the dadu close to our home or to our neighbors would reduce privacy
- and block scenic views, as you can see on the top of this slide, where our neighbor's view is. Both
- we and our neighbors value the open space that gives our area its peaceful, rural feel. The proposed
- location helps preserve that shared view and the character of our neighborhood while keeping it on flatter
- land. Next slide, please.
- Support and precedent. And Tammy, before I get into what I read, I know you'd mentioned that about the
- structure. I did know the 4465 West Tramway Road group. I know that there was another house on there
- as well. That wasn't the only property that was on there. That was for single family residents. But
- on that same land, there was also another home right up the hill. It's a separate lot of record. OK.
- And you can only have one residence on a lot of record. OK, thank you. I didn't know that. I just know
- when I talk to my neighbors that also put a house on the fringe, their parents lived 100 meters up the
- hill, but I didn't know it was a different lot of record.
- I might correct myself here as I'm reading this. We've spoken directly with our neighbors and they're
- supportive of this location. They prefer this placement because it maintains privacy and openness rather
- than adding bulk and density near property lines. There's also precedent for our request, not all the
- way after Tammy let us know, but some in regards to both places are on the fringe, both the place at
- 4465 West Tramway Road and the structure work and the data we're proposing.
- Although there are some differences, that is what they had in common. They're both in the fringe. And
- they received BZA approval for a variance allowing construction within the flood fringe under comparable
- conditions. During the historic flood event earlier this year, this property was also completely unaffected
- by the flooding. Next slide, please. Zoning intent and safety. We understand and fully respect that
- zoning laws are designed to protect safety, property,
- value and neighborhood character. Our proposal supports these goals. It moves the structure completely
- out of the floodway into the regulated flood fringe where the risk is minimal and manageable. The dad
- who will be engineer certified elevated elevated above base flood elevation and constructed to exceed
- code requirements. Next slide. Last slide. This home is part of our long term commitment to Monroe County.
- We plan to live here for decades, raising our family in local schools, contributing to the community
- and caring for my mother as she ages. We've built a new life here and we love being here. We've approached
- this project with respect for the county, for our neighbors and for the environment around us. We've
- made every effort to correct the past misunderstandings and bring the project into full compliance.
- To conclude, I asked the committee to help me with what I was not able to do on my own. I asked the
- committee to help me pay the debt I owe my mother.
- the debt that's owed for the endless love and grace she showed me as a single mother, the debt for all
- the personal sacrifices she made to ensure I would grow up and honor her the way she honored me. I'm
- aiming to continue my duties as a son and bring my mother peace in her current golden years. It is my
- understanding that the only way these matters are approved is through a compassionate approval. So I
- ask the committee for compassion. While also considering how we will
- how we will comply with everything regarding how to properly construct a safe home to code within the
- fringe. Thank you for the opportunity to present my petition, and thank you for your service to our
- community. This concludes my petition. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Donovan. I'm going to
- ask my colleagues on the Board of Zoning Appeals if they have questions for you. Yes, ma'am. Are there
- questions? I have one technical question, and Jackie and Tammy, if you could go back two slides.
- to the drawing. Okay. No, the one after this, I guess. Yeah. I'm just confused. Are you asking approval
- for the site where the Dadu currently is or in the proposed different location? I'm asking. If you go
- to my slides, maybe it makes sense if you went one before this. I think it would paint it better with
- this picture. The only one. Another one.
- There we, I think I can show it here. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
- Okay, but that that pole barn is not moving it's not going to go there it's going to go where it was
- outlined Yes That's what I thought okay and Okay, and that is consistent with what staff reviewed right
- that particular location because
- On that particular slide with the yellow roof and all these optional locations, it did not say proposed
- alternate location, so I just... Yeah, the other optional locations is... None of them are what... Is
- where we're not proposing to put it, but potential places where a building could go potentially without
- a variance. From my understanding, I will also let Tammy correct me if I'm wrong.
- Correct. Yeah, I think so. Okay, I get it now. They're not requesting to stay where it currently is.
- Yes, Mr. Bailey. So, the highlighted is what you're proposing to move 20 feet to the right, which I
- guess is east. The fringe. Yes, sir. Correct. Now, the structure, whoever's got the little green pointer,
- if you could move it. Yeah, about right there. Yep. Probably even a little
- North if we were to pretend that. Well, that is north, actually. The current residence is the building
- directly south of that blue square? No, the residence is over to the right where it says our house.
- And that is another, the one with the awning, that particular structure is the one with the awning.
- Yes, ma'am. That needs a variance.
- Okay, well I appreciate having that extra square on this depiction of a lot of squares. So thank you.
- Do you have any more questions for Mr. Donovan? Do you, Mr. Lofman? The reason you wanted
- The reason you don't want it closer to your house is because it will be more expensive substantially
- by a factor of two or three. Yes, sir. That is the primary and then the other reasons I can also talk
- about as well. And the view and the neighbor jump. And really just it's flat. I mean, it's flat down there.
- really grading anything. I'm just putting columns back in the ground. Whereas the ones up here closer
- to your house would require... Yes, sir. That's a hill. As soon as you go up the driveway, it starts
- to be a hill. I see. So there's less grading to move it down here. Almost dismal. Almost no grading
- minus the columns I'm going to put into the ground. Got it. So what you're saying is that
- considering money a practical thing, it's impractical for you to move it to any of these other sites
- that you've got marked as optional locations, is that right? Yes, sir. And impact on the neighborhood
- and visibility, which are impact on other properties in the neighborhood.
- The location here, which is in the blue to the left of the yellow, you think that's approximately right,
- but it should be a little closer to the top of the... And the creek itself runs along in here. About
- where those trees are, about that way. Yeah. Am I more or less getting it with my little laser pointer? Yes, sir.
- Thank you. I don't have more questions right now. Yes, Mr. Daley. Mr. Donovan, the you mentioned in
- your testimony something about raising the structure to above base flood elevation. So with any of these
- elevations in the fringe, they have to be two feet above base flood elevation. And I am going to raise
- it even more than that for just because if approved.
- Would it be on stilts? Columns. Yeah. You know, Sandy, Hurricane Sandy, remember how they made all the
- houses after on columns. Maybe they're called stilts too. Same thing. A much more substantial sounding
- term than stilts. Yeah. Question out. OK.
- Okay, so if there are no further questions at this point, we'll turn to the public. So you can have
- a seat. And if there are members of the public who would like to speak in favor of this petition, please
- come to the podium here in the Nathale courtroom or raise your virtual hand. Okay. And if there are
- members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to this petition,
- Please come to the podium in the Nathale courtroom or raise your virtual hand. So there's no one to
- oppose it. So we turn now to ourselves for further discussion and a motion. I have a question for Ms.
- Beerman. You mentioned, and I'm paraphrasing here, that locating in the flood plain was against federal,
- state, and local rules. What way? What way? For new residents. Does that apply?
- to the fringe also? No. Okay. Thank you. But there are flood damage prevention standards that have to
- be met. So it's a whole different process. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So let's take these individually if
- you don't mind. The first variance is 2552A Donovan buildable area in the special
- flood hazard area, and that has to do with, I believe, the awning, right? And the gate. And the gate,
- yes. So is there a motion on that? Move to approve. Second.
- Okay, and we're splitting a into what would be four parts. So we'll do the awning and the gate first,
- and then I'm guessing there'll be other motions for the actual detached accessory dwelling unit and
- the gravel area. Is that correct? 52 C. No, those are actually still part of a I see. Well, then we
- better just do the whole ball of wax all at once.
- I think. No, I think this is fine. There are two things that are very easy. Okay. And let's get those
- done. Okay. So it's been motioned and has it been seconded, Mr. Okay. So. Okay. So the first motion
- is on VAR-25-52A, the portion of the Donovan buildable area variance to the special flood hazard of
- Chapter 813. This is only for the gate and the awning.
- to be remaining in the special flood hazard area. A vote yes is a vote to approve those two portions.
- Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Motion is approved four
- to zero. Okay. And the next variance is VAR-25-52C.
- And this is the Donovan Accessory Dwelling Unit, the buildable area requirement, variance to Chapter
- 811. And we now turn to each other for a motion. Well, let me, Jackie, you said we were going to, it
- sounded like we were going to do A into four parts. So we've done parts, we've done two parts. What
- are the other two parts of A?
- On the screen here in the second paragraph, so the 896 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit
- structure with attached porch and the 3,000 square feet of gravel also require 52A. So you could do
- the dado and the gravel under A, and then C as a third motion. It seems to me the big point here, are
- we going to allow them to move it a little bit or not? Is that C?
- I would say if you vote C, then you in essence vote portions of A, but I think the gravel area could
- be a totally separate vote, and that wouldn't impact the location of the dadu. I think at first we should
- discuss the dadu, and then what goes with it. If we deny the dadu, would there be any impact of granting
- the gravel?
- The gravel image is on the screen here. It's to the left of any of the structures towards the road.
- That's the area that we're estimating was added in the special flood hazard area that needs a variance.
- So it's totally distinct and separate from the data. Right. Can we do that now? I mean, because it seems
- to me that his argument was compelling, that with that riprap and everything that he's used, it's solved
- a problem.
- You know, is there in what am I missing, Tammy? I mean, the drainage board is going to be reviewing
- the site as well with the stormwater permit. So if it doesn't get caught here, it'll get caught with
- them. Yeah. OK, so we have reason to believe that that that unapproved but effective flood control for
- the for the property suits me, suits me.
- Okay. So it's me too, but I mean, we need a motion. Right. I just wanted to make sure I understood what
- the motion is. So I'm going to move that we approve the portion of A that deals with the location of
- the gravel and riprap that's been installed. Is there a second?
- Okay. Well, that died of a lack of a second. Can I second? Yeah. I'll second. Okay. Okay. It's been
- moved and seconded to approve the portion of VAR-25-52A, which relates to the buildable area, special
- flood hazard area to chapter 813, only for the estimated 3000 square feet of gravel area
- located in the special flood hazard area. A vote yes is a vote to approve the gravel remaining.
- Skip Daly? No. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? No. Margaret Clements? Yes. Okay. So that motion fails
- two to two. Okay. If I could explain why I voted no, that may help. This is kind of a blanket comment
- that I'm going to make about
- the flooding situation in general. And the reason I voted no is because while this may solve the problem
- for the homeowner, my opinion is that flooding impacts others in the area downstream. And I think that,
- you know, changes to this property in general, while they may benefit this property, could have a negative
- impact further downstream. So that's that's my opinion. That's why I voted no. Yeah, thank you. That's
- a good point. So next up,
- We've looked at A, the gravel, and we've looked at the awning. So what's next up? So you'll have to
- redo the gravel because that failed. A two-to-two vote does not move it from your agenda. But we've
- addressed it. So would you like to redo a motion to deny it or to approve it? Or would you like it continued
- to next month?
- I'm not going to change my vote to moving to deny it. But if somebody wants to move to deny it, I might
- change my vote, but I'm not changing my motion. So it will go to drainage board, I think, this month.
- So if it were continued, we would have an answer from drainage board. Let's continue it and see what
- the drainage board says. Good idea. OK.
- So you still need A for the Dadu and then C for the Dadu. Okay. Can we combine, uh, variances 25-52
- A and C regarding the Dadu? Okay. Okay. Good. Is that okay? I like it. Okay. Does anybody, uh, want
- to- Staff just- It's, this is confusing the way- Could, could staff just go back over what
- is looking to combine, so I'm aware of exactly. Sure, so there's duplicate. 52A and 52C are relatively
- the same. It's just to relocate the DADU from its current spot to the spot that was in the presentation
- in the blue box. And maybe, Tammy, if you have a better slide showing it, they're the exact same. Yeah.
- So that approval would allow that white roof structure to move to the red box. Yes.
- And C. C is very specific to the Dadu residence. A is to a structure in general. So if this was a garage,
- it could be a little maybe different considerations. So they're saying, so A is that the structure can
- be moved. C is saying that it can be used as an accessory. Yeah, someone will live in it. Yes. Thanks.
- Thank you for the clarification. I was close. If you approved A but denied C, they could use it as a
- non-dwelling. Correct. But they could still move it there. Correct. Or if they approved C and not A,
- then it would just have to float. But they could live there.
- From my perspective, you know, Mr. Donovan has, you know, even though it's more complicated to build
- in this area, he's allowed to do it with our permission, and that he's put a significant investment
- into the property, and there's a flat area that seems like it'll work, and he's going to take some extra
- mitigation approaches to raise the home.
- the detached accessory dwelling unit so that the inhabitants aren't harmed and so that if there is water
- that flows, it'll have less obstruction. So from my perspective and given the letters from the neighbors,
- I'm inclined to support it. That's where I stand. I don't know where other people stand, but I feel
- that he's, of course,
- been very respectful with staff. He's been working on this for a couple of years. He bought the property
- with this in mind. It's a complicated property. Yes, that dad who could go on other places of the property,
- he demonstrated very well the practical difficulties, not only the expense, but to the neighbors in
- terms of the views and the obstruction
- of their visual field, and that's my inclination. I don't know where other people fall on that. I fall
- in the same place, and I move to approve the- Point of order. Could I question staff about something
- specific based on this? Of course. If this were to be approved, are there specific details in the code that
- the petitioner would have to oblige in terms of the raising of the structure? Or would that have to
- be conditional in a motion? Because I was attempting to ask the petitioner some of that information
- about what their plans were, but he cut me off pretty quickly and I just backed off. Sorry. No, I'm sorry.
- There's a base flood elevation. In Indiana, you're required to elevate two feet to flood protection
- grade. That is the standard. Plans that have been submitted show that it is right at flood protection
- grade. He stated that there may be going to go higher than that, and I wouldn't penalize that if the
- structure ended up being higher.
- We have to prove this at the end. The permit itself has a condition associated with it. That once this
- is all in place, you have to submit a certified, license stamped elevation certificate that proves it.
- So our obligation would not to be to pass a motion if this were to pass with conditions because that
- is taken care of by another government entity.
- I just want clarification on that before we move forward. Thank you. The only thing you could maybe
- consider is a timeline. This structure's been in the floodway since 2023 of a violation, and to keep
- it moving forward with a timeline might be as helpful. That's well taken. Could I just share my opinion?
- I'm going to explain a little bit about the way I'm going to vote, and that is that my comment about
- flooding impact applies to this as well. I'm empathetic with the petitioner and their cause, and I'm
- happy that there are still options available to them on this property. The fact that there are options
- available are going to lead me to vote against approving this.
- I began to make a motion to approve, and I do move to approve the relocation of A structure and of a
- dadu to the fringe area as proposed by the petitioner. Is that an appropriate motion? That's approving
- A and C. Right. The remaining portion of A with respect to the structure and C.
- Any conditions associated with that or no? Just that they're going to have to meet all the conditions
- to carry that out. I think they want to get this done as quickly as they can. I don't think we need
- to say that they've got to get it done within a year or by Christmas. I'm not worried about that.
- I think recommended additions were made in our packet as far as any. If we approve it, are there? We
- didn't add it. We recommended denial, so we didn't have any conditions prepared. I see. I see.
- Madam Chair. Yes. May I bring the petition back to you? Yes. Yes. May I ask a quick question? Sure.
- Your timeline, could you briefly
- briefly discuss your desired timeline should this get approved. My aim is to drill the columns in March
- after the ground has thawed out so there's less movement before the rain in April and have it done by
- July. But I can make that shorter if needed. My wife's due
- in the end of July, so. Why does it matter? Because staff brought it to our attention that they would
- like to see this two-year violation, if approved, happen. I see. Am I allowed to talk to staff? Sure.
- I will allow it, because I think that these rules can get in the way of understanding. So yes, if you
- would please ask a question of Ms. Behrman. Tammy, is July 30th acceptable for you?
- I think that would work. I think I just didn't want to see it two or three years down the road. I understand.
- We've been talking about it for two years. I appreciate that. And Mr. Loffman, I would be more comfortable
- if we put- And that it be completed by December- By the end of the third quarter. By the end of Jan-
- By the end of- October 1. September 2026. October 1, yeah. Oh, that's October's nice. I like October.
- October 1, 2026.
- Yeah. Okay, is there a second? Or shall I second? I'll second it. I would like to approve this. Okay.
- I'll go ahead and repeat the motion with the amendment as stated. So this is a motion to approve portions
- of VAR-25-52A, which is specifically for the DADU structure buildable area variance to the special flood
- hazard to Chapter 813.
- and the VAR-25-52C standard for the accessory dwelling unit buildable area variance to chapter 811.
- There was a condition that the petitioner received certificate of occupancy on or before October 1,
- 2026 as part of the variance approval. A vote yes is a vote to approve with that condition. Jeff Morris?
- Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daley? Along with my vote, I'd like to state that I tend to agree with
- Mr. Morris on there being other locations, but you raised just enough doubt of practical difficulty
- that I will say yes. Guy Loftman?
- And my explanation of my intended vote yes is that this is on, let's see, it's not pillars,
- it's not stilts, but it's raised. The actual disturbance in the floodplain or obstruction of flow is
- pretty minimal. And that makes me feel comfortable with this.
- I think the gravel is another matter because that's a lot of square feet, but this I'm comfortable with,
- so I vote yes. Okay. Motion is approved by a vote of three to one. So in summary, we will see just one
- portion of this Donovan variance at the January BZA just to handle the 3,000 square feet of gravel
- Okay, so you'll work with stormwater. And thank you, Mr. Donovan. Thanks for coming before us and working
- with our department. And we wish many blessings to your family. Thank you for help, my mother.
- Thank you. Okay. We move on now to a set of variances, 25-66A through F, concerning Chick-fil-A.
- maximum impervious cover variance to chapter 807, a front yard setback for parking variance to chapter
- 807, a parking setback from right-of-way variance to chapter 814, a lighting trespass variance to chapter 815,
- and a landscaping buffer yard variance to chapter 816, and a landscaping parking interior variance to
- chapter 816. And this concerns property at 210 South Kimbell Drive, and that is currently owned by Don
- Cowden Foundation, Incorporated.
- And so I believe Ms. Nestor will be reviewing this with us. That is correct. So previously, Anne Cresulius
- helped to create the report. So I'm taking this over since Anne is no longer with the county. So I'll
- just go ahead and start from the beginning. This was originally on the agenda, but continued from the
- last month. So it was not heard. This is new business.
- Just to give a quick overview that's stated in the report, this is for the yellow box in the upper right-hand
- corner, which is labeled county on the screen. And the petition site will actually, when complete, include
- the city portions of two parcels to the south, where an actual Chick-fil-A restaurant and drive-through
- would be located.
- The portion in the county is the subject of tonight's discussion only, not the city portion, so we're
- not going to be discussing the restaurant use particularly for the county parcel. It is going to be
- a parking facility use, but it does relate to the overall
- Design of the site and the use of the county site as you'll see in the site plan So the county site
- is a point four four acre lot and it's going to have about 35 parking spaces as designed and be the
- start of a driveway and drive through for a Chick-fil-a restaurant and
- The petitioner has received approvals and variances from the city to allow for 32 parking spaces on
- the other two city lots as well as an in-person restaurant with 5218 square feet with 20 indoor seats
- as stated on their site plan and a very long queue for a drive-through.
- The petitioner has stated to staff that if they cannot get approval for the 35 additional spaces on
- the county portion of the property, they will not proceed with the project given the parking demands
- of this use and the shared lack of parking opportunity as with other sites.
- The subject property is owned by Don Cowden Enterprises, who owns several parcels in the area, which
- I'll show on another screen. And this petition is represented by HR Green, a civil engineering firm.
- And we've been working with a few people, but also want to point out Fernando. He's been working with
- us to get us the site plans and updated information. So we're appreciative of that communication.
- So the petitioner is requesting six variances, as stated. And I'll go through each one of these individually
- on slides. But its overview is impervious cover maximum, front yard setback for parking spaces, parking
- setback from right of way, light trespass, landscape buffer yard variance, and a landscape parking interior
- variance. So Don Cowden Enterprises.
- Or counted enterprises owns all of the parcels shown in the yellow highlight according to the beacon
- GIS the parcel in question is Outlined in green on the left-hand side So as you'll note one of their
- testimony items are likely to say that they own the surrounding parcels so some of the
- variance features that they're asking for would arguably impact their own property. But keep in mind
- that these parcels are separate and they can be transferred to other people at any time. And then I
- also want to do a zoom in on the right hand side to show that this area is largely built out with some
- higher density residential development existing that is not proposed to change.
- Here on the location map, you see that the parcel is located on West Third and Kimball. There is a traffic
- light at this location. And on the right-hand side, you see the zoning map. It cuts off where the city
- properties are or city jurisdiction is. And the parcel in question is zoned limited business.
- One of the reasons that the petitioner wished to use this as a parking facility is A there will not
- be any structures proposed on this lot and B restaurant use is not a permitted use in this zone, but
- it is permitted on the city property.
- The city and county comprehensive plan, we have this as mixed residential. The city has this either
- as community activity center or regional activity center. I looked today, I think there might be an
- update in progress. And then on the right-hand side is the site conditions. We've confirmed with the
- engineering firm that we don't believe that there's any karst features on the county parcel. There is
- just some natural vegetation and kind of a drainage way
- just naturally through the site, but it's very flat. Here is a pictometry view of the parcel. This is
- from March of last year. So you can see that the parcels to the south with the city property, there
- was a restaurant, there's a building there that was used as a restaurant for a while and a parking area.
- And the county lot is just vacant.
- Let me just make sure I understand, because that's not part. Would you go back to that one? Sure. Yeah.
- Just above the parking lot there, there's a red car and there's some trees. Is that the lot we're talking
- about? Correct. All right. Yes. Thank you. So it was a parking lot, just for that one car. There is
- a car parked there, yes. Yes.
- So this is the site plan that we've been provided to by the petitioner. They submitted one, I believe,
- yesterday or today that was a little bit updated with a little bit more landscaping detail as requested.
- So we appreciate that just to verify that they can meet some of the landscaping standards. And hopefully,
- this is the only time they have to come to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
- So this is the design on the right-hand side. Part of their proposal includes a full sidewalk on the
- city portion, a long third, and then also a sidewalk portion on Kimball. So they are providing that
- as required. They're also recommending or they're also proposing a widening of Kimball Drive. So the
- current width of Kimball is actually not this wide. So as you'll see in the pictometry and the street
- view photos, it narrows soon after this to be less than the 25 feet that it will be kind of in the middle
- of the site. So they are anticipating
- You know, this use does drive a lot of traffic. So some of the things that they've taken into account
- are putting the driveway for the start of the drive-through to be the furthest possible away from this
- intersection as possible to hopefully stop from having a backup queue of cars from third in any direction.
- And then as you see here with my cursor, they'll drive in this
- direction one way and enter the site to the city. And this is actually the drive-through queue here.
- So it is a pretty long queue to get to that point. So they will have a lot of stacking opportunities.
- But keep in mind that they also want to use this as a parking lot. So I'm sure their hope is not to
- have people boxed in while drive-through cars are parked. So they will ultimately figure that out.
- This is the Google Street View, actually, from Google Maps. This is the city parcel on the right. So
- this would be where the restaurant is located. And then the county parcel is actually behind me, not
- in view in this image.
- And then here are some on the ground photos. We have been coordinating with other departments. They
- did submit a site plan. So they're going to the drainage board this month and then likely again next
- month with more detailed plans. They're proposing to do full underground detention of stormwater. That's
- not a popular option that is out there in our stormwater ordinance but it is an
- optioned. Usually it's for sites that are pretty well covered already with buildings and impervious
- and they need a way just to store the overall water storm water that's running off from the site. And
- then on the right hand side we're on the county parcel looking across the street so there's some commercial
- use and then some higher density residential use. And then this is across the street from the county
- parcel so you see their sidewalks on this side and then they will be
- having to put in sidewalks and widening the road just on their portion of their side as part of this
- request. And then here's just along West Third. So you see they do have, again, a stoplight at this
- location, which is helpful. And then this is the city lot looking north towards the county parcel in
- both views.
- Okay, so this is the first variance that they're asking for, which is impervious cover. This lot is
- located in the Clear Creek watershed, so it has a little bit more stringent impervious cover maximum.
- It's stated in the ordinance for limited business that the maximum is 50%. The petitioner is proposing 81%.
- Based on just the parking space dimensions alone, leaving aside the dimensions of the aisle width to
- accommodate the drive-through, to get down to 50%, the petitioner would have to remove nearly all parking
- spaces and make this truly just a driveway with a drive-through and undergo a redesign. However, I'll
- state this at the end, but the petitioner's parking
- Information that they submitted a memo and a study showed that they needed about 60 spaces. And with
- this design, they're showing that they'll have more than that with the cities and the county's parking
- area. I think they'll have 67 spaces. So this petition will be required to receive approval from Drainage
- Board to allow for the underground detention and any other requirements that they may have.
- And part of the site plan also calls for right away improvements, as I mentioned, sidewalks and widening
- Kimball. This does not count against the impervious calculation. The second variance staff is recommending
- approval for this variance is for the front yard setback. In the limited business zone, we under the
- county development ordinance
- had added a minimum setback for parking to be 10 feet behind the primary structure. This was a carryover
- from some of the areas near the city of Bloomington jurisdiction. We had a requirement that parking
- be set back from the building. There's no building on this property and parking facility is an approved
- use. So there's no way they could meet that standard. Therefore we're recommending approval. And then
- closely related but separate
- a front yard setback for parking spaces. Our ordinance has required and still requires a 10-foot setback
- from right of way for parking spaces. The highlighted area is showing that they're going to meet about
- five feet of setback in this area. So the requirement is 10 feet and they're asking for five feet just
- in that area. And then this will be between the curb and then the beginning of the sidewalk.
- Reducing this area can limit the ability to have drainage stormwater Landscaping fit within this area,
- but they have shown that they're able to meet the streetscape plantings and do not require a variance from that
- The next variance is for light trespass, and what this means is they are going to have a series of pole
- lights on the property to provide adequate lighting for the hours of operation. I believe it's 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.,
- but the petitioner can correct me, Monday through Saturday.
- The areas that are yellow at the bottom of the screen are showing where they're going to be exceeding
- the maximum, which is a half a foot candle at the property line. Because they're not combining this
- lot with the lots to the south and the west, even though they're all one functional site, we have to
- apply this standard all the way around the portion of the property. So basically, part of the light
- trespass is for Kimball.
- which will be where the sidewalk and road is. And then part of it will be where the Chick-fil-A site
- itself is. There's a very small portion that will impact particularly probably these two homes here
- in this manufactured home park. And then again, I've just highlighted the area so you can see in relation
- to the site. They will be providing buffer yard landscaping in hopes that that will
- buffer this light from those neighbors, but I don't think there's a fence on this side or anything.
- The pole lights are about, I think, 25 feet anyways. Okay. The next variance that they're asking for
- is a buffer yard variance to both the north side of the county property and the west side of the county property.
- Now, I mentioned before that the Cowden Enterprises or Don Cowden owns several parcels here. He happens
- to own the northern parcel here. So as part of this petition, they are asking or they are showing a
- proposed 14-foot landscape easement on the neighboring property. And I've outlined and read.
- There's a house very close to this line, but they are showing that they would meet the buffer yard standards
- if we were allowed to include this proposed easement between the yellow, which is about two feet. In
- the 14 feet here, they would exceed the required 15 feet, but they still need a variance because they're
- not accomplishing a lot line shift. They're going to be recording or doing a separate easement if conditioned to do so.
- And then the next variance is for the west side. Similarly, they need a 10 foot buffer yard width.
- This is to ensure that plantings are dense enough and that they fit and they thrive in that area. They
- are proposing a four-foot landscape buffer yard width. So it'll be a little bit tight in this area.
- They are showing that they can meet most of those standards. This is an older site plan. They do have
- to meet a five-foot setback for all trees, so we will be making sure that they meet that as well.
- I believe as well that they may not meet the 45% requirement for trees to be located in this area. So
- this buffer yard variance is all encompassing for the north and the west side as proposed in their site
- plan. The next variance is for parking interior. So those are parking islands with landscaping in the
- middle. They're showing they can meet 2%.
- And they are required to meet 5%. Again, this could be reduced if they are able to remove about four
- parking spaces and convert those into parking interior islands. They could meet this standard based
- on that calculation alone.
- And I just want to remind you the purpose of the landscaping islands in part, according to chapter 816,
- is to provide direct and important physical and psychological benefits to human beings through the use
- of landscaping, reduce noise and glare, provide shade and cooling, and break up the monotony and soften
- the harsher aspects of urban development. With so much impervious on this lot, I think the landscaping
- will provide quite a bit of environmental and hopefully
- human benefit as well for walkers that are entering the site from either direction. So with that, I
- do have a recommendation here on the screen for the various six variances, A and F, which are the impervious
- cover and landscaping parking interior. Staff is recommending denial, and in part that's because we
- think that there could be small possible changes to the parking lot to
- meet completely in the case of F or come closer to the standard in the case of A, we believe that that
- could be done with a redesign. And then for B, which is the front yard setback variance, we are recommending
- approval along with the parking setback and the light trespass. And then for the buffer yard variance
- to chapter 816, approval with conditions. And one of those conditions is that they commit to that landscape easement.
- on the north side. You're recording that. And I'll take any questions that you might have. Okay. Gentlemen,
- if you don't mind, I think I saw you all sign in. If you would come to the podium, introduce yourselves,
- and then I'll swear you in so we know who you are, sir. Hey, good evening. My name is Brent Edmiston.
- Thank you. I'm the Senior Development Manager with Chick-fil-A.
- It's Evanston. Evanston. E-D-M-I-S-T-U-L-I-N. OK. Thank you, Mr. Evanston. Tom Orman. I'm here on behalf
- of Cowden Enterprises. OK. Thank you. On behalf of? Cowden Enterprises. Cowden? OK. Thank you. Todd
- Richards with H.R. Green. OK. And gentlemen, thank you for that. And would you raise your right hand?
- Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
- Okay, thank you. Together you'll have 15 minutes, and I'm sure you know how you want to use it. So we'd
- like to listen to your variances. Good evening. Again, Brandon Edmiston, Senior Development Manager
- at Chick-fil-A. Cut my presentation down quite a bit because Jackie did such a great job talking about
- our site plan. So thank you, and I want to thank Jackie for all her hard work with the HR Green team.
- It's been a long journey. We've been working pretty hard to get here tonight.
- I've been involved in this project for a few months, but we've been working on this for well over a
- year. Many redesigns, really many partnerships, and we're here tonight through working with our landlord
- and also with the city to get here tonight to hopefully work with you. I hope we're going to work together
- tonight to come up with a great consideration of our respectfully asked for the support of our application.
- What I want to do, I'm going to abbreviate my presentation and let these other gentlemen speak, is really
- talk about why do we need all the parking? Why does Chick-fil-A need the parking on the north side,
- which is on the county property? I think it's important to understand. So I was talking with Todd. We
- feel like it's important to talk about service channels at Chick-fil-A. And I hope everyone in this
- room has a favorite menu item at Chick-fil-A. I really do. But there's different ways we serve customers,
- and not every
- QSR has the same service channels we do. Number one, we have dine-in. Two, we have drive-through. Three,
- we have curbside pickup. Four, we have third-party delivery or even operator-led delivery. We do give
- our operators the opportunity to buy into a program and invest in corporate out of Atlanta and invest
- in them and let them have their own fleet of vehicles to deliver food to customers.
- And then we, of course, have mobile pickup, mobile through or mobile pickup. And so when you have all
- those service channels, and we invest in a piece of property for 30, 40 years, well past my career,
- but we have an investment, we want to have the ability to grow our business. We don't want to handicap
- or handcuff our operators as we invest, as we serve customers, and give them the ability to adjust in
- the market based on market needs. And so on this project,
- meet city of Bloomington site plan requirements, we had to put the building up to the street with the
- drive-through behind. And what that did is that puts our entrance to the corner. So you enter our restaurant
- at the very hard corner of the traffic signal. So if we can pull up that site plan, and I don't know
- how to show it, but I want to show you where our front of the counter is. I think it's important everyone
- understands where our front counter is going to be as planned. Is that OK?
- If you can do it from the microphone, then we can hopefully, can we just tip that a little bit? If you're
- going to speak, well, you're going to have to be behind the mic, unfortunately. There's the front counter.
- And so we enter the side here of Campbell and come in and
- There are parking spaces here, and there are premium parking spaces, but you have to cross the drive-through
- to get to our entrance. The entrance to our restaurant is here and here. And so to have parking spaces
- on the north side helps our customers not have to get into the drive-through queue and come around their
- front and cross the drive-throughs. They can park here, walk down the sidewalk, and enter our restaurant.
- Does that make sense?
- And the little area in the top right is the county lot that we're talking about. Is that right? Yes,
- sir. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Um, so I guess I want to make sure we understood where and how you enter
- our restaurant.
- Okay. And the certain different service channels that we have and have the ability to grow our business.
- And then I guess if you talk about another item that we have that we haven't talked about tonight is
- we have a playground in this restaurant. I have three kids. Um, my wife works Chick-fil-A. She used
- to take our kids to playground Chick-fil-A and they wanted a park and stayed there longer than a drive
- through five, 10 minute visit, right? You want to be able to have a family come.
- park, go inside in the playground and have some more to park and have the ability to safely enter the
- restaurant. The East Bloomington restaurant does not have a playground. So we're proposing to spend
- the money, invest and have a playground at this location so that we can have families be able to spend
- more time there. With that, that's a longer duration at our restaurant. So that means we want to have
- enough parking to be able to provide that service channel, that service to the families. Is that outdoor?
- Is that out, indoor? Yes, sir. I'm going to, I'm thought way too much. So I'm going to, I'm going to
- step aside and let Mr. Todd Richards come with H.R. Green. But I do appreciate the working session here
- tonight. I thank you and respectfully ask you to support our application. Mr. Richard. Thank you, Mr.
- Evanston. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
- Good evening, I'm Todd Richards with HR Green, so part of the civil engineering team working on the
- project. So yeah, we'll stay with this slide here and we'll just walk through some of the parking constraints
- and just some of the other, basically the factors as to why Chick-fil-A is requesting these variances.
- So one of the first ones is the landscaping. So we were able to work with county staff and basically
- augment our original landscape plan, so we added
- more landscaping to that north side. Also, we're able to negotiate the easement along there. So in order,
- well, between the back of curb and the edge of the easement, that we will now have 16, I believe it's
- 16 and a half feet for that landscaping. And that's a permanent easement. So that area will always be
- landscaped. So that helps to enhance, you know, basically the visual appeal of the site and also reduce the,
- the harshness of that parking lot area. Onto basically the main reason for the request for the variances,
- it's the number of parking stalls. So Chick-fil-A has been working for quite a while to come up with
- trying to find a location for a new store here in Bloomington. And as part of their research
- and coordination, they have basically determined that
- 67 stalls is where they want to be. And as Brent had started to note, if we take a quick look, actually
- if you can, let's see, if you can back up one slide please. So I believe, and yeah, the red pen does
- not work. So never mind that one. But in the bottom right-hand corner, if you all have this in your
- packet, we'll just walk through the way that the parking is set up. As Brent noted, we've got
- Team members, we're showing that there's going to be roughly 28 stalls used for team members. I'm going
- to skip over to the carry out third party, so that's going to be roughly nine parking stalls. Then we'll
- have curbside, mobile pickup, that's another three. What's left over is 27 parking stalls for dine in
- customers. If we start to look at this in terms of ratios, if we just look at the indoor parking,
- or sorry, the indoor seating,
- versus the number of parking stalls at 27, you get a ratio of roughly 3.4. If we take into consideration
- the outdoor patio seating where we have a total of 112 seats, we now have basically seats to parking
- stalls ratio of four to one. So what that would mean is that you've got basically one car bringing in
- three to four people. So this is not an
- an unreasonable number. It's actually a fairly little, it's a little bit less than what you would typically
- expect for just general customers coming to the site itself. Next slide, please. So just want to touch
- base on a couple of things here. This is the Bloomington site over on East Third Street. Bear with me
- as I get to my slide deck here. Actually, just ignore that.
- Basically, this site has the benefit of sharing parking stalls with the shopping center to the south.
- So as customary with Chick-fil-A, basically, the team members utilize all the stalls furthest away from
- the entrance to the store. And in this case, they would be utilizing those stalls, basically, that are
- off-site. So in this condition, I know that the parking study noted that it didn't show that much of a demand.
- in the study itself provided by, I forget the name, Kimley-Horn, it does not mention anything about
- taking into consideration those offsite stalls. So that's one piece there that, again, the proposed
- Chick-fil-A here does not have an ability to share parking stalls with any of the other adjacent businesses.
- So it's all self-contained. Next slide, please.
- And this one is the Chick-fil-A located in Indianapolis off of Southport Road. So this location,
- back in 2024, Chick-fil-A came in and constructed that large parking lot to the northeast. Hold on a
- second, just a point. So that was basically due to
- a number of concerns, really. One, they continued to see an increase in the amount of parking stalls
- needed. And then also there was a safety concern is that people started to park out on McFarland Avenue
- as well. So from my understanding and from what I've heard, after this parking lot has been constructed,
- there are no more cars parked out on McFarland Avenue at all. So this now gave them a safe place
- to park and to basically walk over to the Chick-fil-A itself. And that's one of the main concerns here
- as well at the proposed location is that Chick-fil-A wants to make sure that there's ample parking so
- that people aren't tempted to go parking out on Kimball Drive. Let's see. So we talked about the different
- service channels taking up some of the parking stalls on site.
- talked about the safety of it, talked about how we enhanced the landscaping as well. I'm trying to think
- of if there's anything else that we need to touch on, I believe that's it. I mean, the main driver again
- for these variances is to obtain the 67 parking stalls. Now I did talk to the folks at Chick-fil-A and
- with Brent and they are willing to reduce the number of parking stalls, but it would be down to 65
- parking stalls. So what that would gain would be an additional roughly three hundred and fifteen square
- feet of pervious landscape area within the site. So that would then reduce the it would it would increase
- sorry it would increase the percent pervious within that. And so instead of two percent it would be
- three point eight percent. So yeah we're just we're just wrong four. So still not the five but
- much better than two. And with that, I'm going to let Tom speak here. Thank you for your time.
- Thank you, Jackie. She represents the county well. We appreciate working with Jackie. I want to get
- that on the record. We've been working on this probably more like two years, and we went through the
- city, and now we're here at the county.
- You know, I'm not in the Chick-fil-A business, but I'm sure they have, how many restaurants do you have?
- 3,500. I'm sure that they know the parking that they need. And, you know, I'm not going to attest to
- that. That's their job. I will say this. We have two 1970 buildings with one tree and parking lot all,
- I don't know, you can look at the site. You probably don't have it before. This is an improvement.
- a vast improvement for everybody. The community is so excited about it. It's been 18 months more finally
- here to you guys. So I just hope that we get your support. I'm not gonna talk about the parking. It
- sounds like they need it. I'm gonna say that they do, or they wouldn't be asking for it. So it's a busy
- night. You're gonna have a long night, so I'm gonna be real short. So appreciate your time tonight.
- Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Holman. I just have a question.
- Maybe it's to Mr. Richards. Before coming here, did the city indicate that they had worked with the
- county in terms of developing this proposed plan before this point in time, or did the city collaborate
- with us on the development of apparently this joint project?
- Did anyone from the city reach out to us to see if there could be a better design, if that extra lot
- were incorporated or available for the planning and the siting of this Chick-fil-A? Not to my knowledge.
- I think that they worked with the city first and they did come to us several months ago
- with a pre-design just to make sure that the use would be permitted, but mostly our coordination has
- been with the petitioner here tonight, not with the city. And I just would like to ask Mr. Richards,
- given the availability of the land and your expertise in engineering, looking at all of the land available
- as far as what you're intending to use, would you do,
- or think of doing anything differently, knowing that both the city and the county are involved in this
- project? I'm not sure I fully understand the question. Well, like for the siding of the counter,
- for example, or the design of the drive-through lane, would it be any different at all, given
- the availability of that adjacent parking lot? I don't know. I can answer that. Yes, thank you, Mr. Holman.
- I will tell you this. This is the second engineer. This is the 14th site plan. Yes. And so they work
- diligently with the city because the county had the smaller lot. So the city dictated a lot of reasons
- why we're here today. They didn't want the building where the building is, but per the UDO, we're handing
- Chick-fil-A's out the passenger window. They didn't want it there. They wanted the building to sit on
- the right side of the property to kind of emulate the one at the mall. So Chick-fil-A's
- 14 site plans, two years. We've been over backwards trying to make this 1.6 acre lot work, which is
- sufficient in size. But with all the landscaping and impervious, it's been a battle. I'll just tell
- you that. So I hope that answers your question. But the city didn't work with the county, no. And would
- you think that there would have been an economy of the number of site plans if that collaboration had occurred?
- I think that's a valid point. I think the city should work with the county. Did that happen?
- Jackie says, no, I don't know. But we had to get through that obstacle before we got to this obstacle.
- And that hurdle created this hurdle, so to speak. I understand. So I guess in fairness, that's how.
- They don't want this building where it is, but that's where we have to put it.
- Thank you for answering those questions. I was just curious about it. Now, I'm going to turn to my colleagues
- and see if they have any questions for the petitioners or for staff. Should we hold off until we hear
- if there's any folks in the audience? It's up to you. Any what? Any folks in the audience or online
- that would like to speak? Anything that you would like, any points of clarification?
- I do have one quick one, and that's Jackie talked about a landscape easement to the north. If that property
- to the north sells, would that landscape easement pass over to the new owner, or would that, you know?
- I haven't seen the actual easement document, but if it's a recorded document, it would be on the title
- for that lot. OK, thank you. Mr. Lofman?
- Well, I'd like to hear from the public. Okay. Are there members of the public who would like to speak
- in support of this petition? If so, please come to the podium and you'll have three minutes or raise
- your virtual hand and you can speak online. Let me know, staff, if there's anyone. Okay. Are there members
- of the public who would like to speak in opposition to this petition? If so, please come to the podium.
- and in the Nathale courtroom or raise your virtual hand? Nobody. So there's no rebuttal necessary. So
- that's good news. So I turn to us now for further discussion and or emotion. This is a deadly stare
- down. Would you go ahead, Mr. Laughlin, please. I'm convinced.
- that you won't build a Chick-fil-A if you don't get to put a lot of parking places in here. That's just
- it. There won't be a Chick-fil-A. You said you can knock it down from 67 to 65. Is that right? Yeah.
- So that brings us closer a little bit. And so I think then the question is. May I? Please.
- For the landscaping they're looking at on the north side,
- with the buffer zones and the other things that were plotted. I almost think we need to be stewards
- of safety as well as of the environment. And let's be honest, the reason for some of the landscaping,
- that 5% landscaping was for psychological issues, as our director said, and let's be
- perfectly honest, this is a chick-fil-a. What could make people happier? I would like to actually, I
- think it's more important that we allow them to keep those 67 spaces. And I think they've made their
- point. I think they've demonstrated
- their stewardship to the environment. I think our director did it for them mostly. I think they reiterated
- it. I do like the conditions on 2566C, but in all honesty, I want to thank these three gentlemen for
- making their case
- because I would hate to wake up tomorrow and to be the headline of denying a Chick-fil-A. But seriously
- though, I would like to go through and motion that we approve variance 25-66 alpha through Foxtrot with
- the staff recommended conditions for 66 echo.
- I'd like to just add a friendly amendment or a request. I don't know why at this point in my life I
- find really aggressive lighting to be problematic. And there are people who live behind that Chick-fil-A.
- And this may not be a requirement that you have to do.
- But I would appreciate it if you could consider the impact of the light pollution that the Chick-fil-A
- and all that lighting around it. I know there are safety reasons. I know you have your model, and I
- know that you have economic reasons that you are abiding by in terms of building a Chick-fil-A. But
- whatever you can do to mitigate that lighting damage to the surrounding neighborhood, because there
- are homes in there, there are older
- people there, younger people, whatever you can do to mitigate that. I would appreciate you taking that
- into consideration as you go forward. But I'm not willing to put a condition on it. I just want to ask
- that respect for the surrounding community. But Mr. Daley had made a motion. Is there anything subject to
- I, other than the staff recommended condition for variance 25-66 echo, echo, with the condition for
- the petitioner to provide the staff a written commitment or recorded easement for the north side landscaping
- area. And they already mentioned in their testimony that that didn't seem to be a problem. Mr. Laughman,
- do you have a question or are you?
- You know, the conceptual issue here to me is Chick-fil-A can come up with 14 site plans and engineering.
- And a local business wouldn't be able to do it.
- It's very hard for the small business to compete in a situation like this. That location was three small
- businesses since I've lived in town for less than 20 years. Cozy Table and Cloverleaf. There was a third
- restaurant there. Every small local business fails fairly quickly.
- Chick-fil-A probably won't. And Mr. Holman, yes, you know for sure. We have relocated Cozy Table Restaurant
- on our dollar to make this happen as well. And I think that is important for the small business in this
- community. Oh, that's nice to know. And I've seen it at its new location. And they're excited. And we're
- waiting on permits. Well, actually, we got the permits now. That was nice of you. It's quite the process.
- But we didn't want to throw them out the door. They're an important part.
- we paid for the whole remodel to put them in a new location. So we took that into consideration. Well,
- I tell you what, that's above and beyond, and makes me feel much better about this proposal. Thank you.
- And you know, I'm huge. I've been on the record as a huge small business advocate my entire career.
- As a matter of fact, I was a consultant for small businesses for most of my adult life.
- But I've got to tell you, even the big boys, you need some of them to be those anchors, to support those
- athletic teams, to support those local fund drives. They do hire locals. Secure Chick-fil-A has a fantastic
- reputation in terms of supporting their employees. And so if there's any doubt in your mind there, hopefully
- there's not.
- I'm ready to vote. I'll second it. Could we not get a second? Could I ask just one clarifying question
- of the motion about the interior parking? Are you recommending approval without additional islands?
- I mean, those things I back in. I am. Alpha through Foxtrot, as proposed, 67. It's been seconded. So
- let's go ahead with the vote.
- Okay, it's been motioned and seconded to approve VAR-25-66A through 66F, which includes pervious cover,
- front yard setback from parking to Chapter 807, parking setback from right away to Chapter 814, light
- trespass to Chapter 815, landscape buffer yard to Chapter 816, and landscape parking interior to Chapter
- 816. This is for the site plan as submitted in the
- packet as well as the PowerPoint tonight, which shows the compliance with the following condition. Petitioner
- provides staff with a written commitment or recorded easement for the north side 14 foot landscape area.
- So they will have to submit that subsequent if approved. Jeff Morris. Yes.
- Margaret Clements. Yes. With a comment that, you know, the, if the city had collaborated with the County
- on this, uh, proposal, we could have possibly worked out a better solution at less expense to the business
- owner. Skip daily. Yes. Guy Loftman. Uh, my comment is that I think the two more parking spaces will
- provide more
- safety for people walking from this parking lot down the sidewalk to the business. And that's probably
- more important than a little bit of extra buffer we would get out of it. So I will vote yes. Motion
- is approved, 4-0. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you for coming to our community. We look forward
- I'm going to come through your drive-through. I'm not going to be playing in the playground, but Thank
- you Okay, so Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Daley. Yeah, have a great we understand. Yeah, you do that Okay
- So we're moving along here And I've lost my place, but I will find it again
- Okay, we are at VAR-25-74, Environmental Constraints Overlay Area 2 from Chapter 823. And this concerns
- a property in Devonshire, if I understand. The petitioner is Jason and Jennifer Urbansky at 3827 East
- Devonshire Lane.
- Mr. Brown, we look forward to hearing from you. Well, may I proceed in the way that we're used to Mr.
- Daly proceeding? On a point of personal privilege, can I ask whether we determine whether anybody in
- the present or online is opposed to this proposal? We haven't heard from the staff yet.
- Okay. I was going to, I was calling the question. I was going to call the question. Staff recommends
- approval. That's, is that correct? Oh yes. Yes, that is correct. Okay. Okay. So given that staff recommends
- approval, given that I've already looked at this then, and all of us have had ample opportunity to look
- at it. Um, and so, so,
- That's why I'm suggesting asking if there's anybody who's opposed to it in the public. Is any member
- of the public either here in the Nathale courtroom or online opposed to this petition? And the petition
- is VAR-25-74 concerning an environmental constraints overlay area two at 3827 East Devonshire Lane.
- If anyone is opposed, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand. If not. All right. I don't
- see anyone online. That being the case, and I would also ask whether any members of the board have concerns
- about this that they want to raise. Okay. If not, I move that we approve
- Varies 25, 74, and call the question. Okay. Practical difficulties have been demonstrated.
- I second that. Okay. Sorry. Move to approve. Yes. Okay. This is for the Urbansky, right?
- It's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-74, the Urbanski Eco Area 2 residential density maximum
- to chapter 823. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Clements?
- Yes. Skip Daley? He's had to leave. OK. It was approved by a motion of three to zero. Yes. Mr. Urbanski,
- is he here?
- That's a South Bend name. Are you from South Bend by chance? You probably went to high school with my
- brothers or something. Yeah, well, thank you for coming tonight. We're sorry we didn't have the whole
- process, but since staff recommended approval, we're done. And yes, thank you.
- The next item on the agenda is VAR-25-75, and this is the Smith minimum lot size variance to Chapter
- 804 concerning one, two plus or minus acre parcel in Indian Township Section 32 at 9501 South Snow Road.
- So... And again, I believe that this is, is it correct, Mr. Smith, that you recommend approval? Okay. Okay.
- So you are calling the question? So that being the case, I would ask if there's anybody in the, that
- you can find out if anybody in the public opposes this. Okay. Is there any member of the public
- who opposes the variance 25-75 at 9501 South Snow Road. And the petitioners are Keith and Stacey Smith.
- Is there anyone opposed here in the Nathale courtroom? Please come to the podium. Or if you're online,
- please raise your virtual hand. There's no one opposed.
- That being the case, I would ask if anybody in the board has reservations that we would. We have no
- reservations. All right, then I move approval of various 25-75 and call the question. I will second.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-75, the Smith minimum lot size variance to chapter 804.
- A vote yes is a vote to approve the variance. Margaret Clements? Yes. Guy Laughman? Yes. Jeff Morris?
- Yes. Motion is approved three to zero. Okay. Thank you. Thank you if you're here, Mr. And Mrs. Smith.
- Thank you so much. We're moving on to item number 13 on the agenda and that's CDU-25-13 and this is Crimson
- Storage conditional use for RV and or boat storage to chapter 8 11 concerning one for a plus or minus
- acre parcel in Bloomington Township section 16 at 4750 North State Road 37 and Mr. Myers Thank you
- This is the Crimson Storage conditional use for RV and or boat storage. You may be familiar with this
- site because last month they received approval from this board for a use variance for self storage at
- this property at 4750 North State Road 37 Business, as well as a design standards variance for the sidewalk
- requirements along North State Road 37 Business and Stone Mill Drive, which is on the eastern side of
- the property.
- The petitioner is now seeking a conditional use approval for RV and or boat storage per Chapter 811
- for the limited business zone at 4750 North State Road 37 Business. As I stated before, variance VAR-25-69
- was approved by this board to continue operating a self-storage use on the petition site, as well as
- a design standards variance VAR-25-73 for the sidewalk requirements.
- The two variances were needed in order to proceed with a site plan amendment to permit the construction
- of two new storage unit buildings on the petition site. Now the petitioner is seeking conditional use
- approval for the RV and or boat storage in order to continue to allow the combination of self-storage
- RV and or boat storage that is listed as conditional in the LB zoning district.
- If the conditional use is approved, the petitioner will have the flexibility to use any of the storage
- units on site for proposed self-storage, boat storage, and or RV storage. However, if the conditional
- use is denied, the petitioner may only use the site for self-storage only. Enforcement could proceed
- for the areas that contain RV and or boat storage should a complaint be received by the public. So here's
- the location map, 4750 North State Road 37 Business.
- It's a location as you're on your way out of town towards I-69. Here's the zoning map showing limited
- business in the pink. Site conditions map here as well showing some floodplain in the northern portions
- and southern portions of the property but are not impacted by the development that occurred between
- 2021 and 2023. And then also a aerial pictometry of the site as well.
- On that screen, the lower right-hand corner, the area to the north or to the left, if you will, of the
- larger buildings is the proposed site for the new larger storage units. Okay, now I'll cover some background.
- This site received site plan approval from the Planning Department for convenience storage in August
- 2021. Upon site inspection for the land use certificate, the planning staff noted that the business
- signs on the buildings advertised vote
- RV self storage options. Planning staff was unaware during the site plan review process that the original
- intent of the storage facility would be to include RV and or boat storage alongside standard convenience
- storage activity. In response, the final land use certificate for the business was issued on November
- 2nd, 2023 and had the following note that use shall not permit the storage of recreational vehicles
- and only allows convenient storage on the site.
- The prior zoning ordinance, which was in effect from 1997 to 2024, did not allow RV storage in any area
- of the county. The prior ordinance did permit boat storage in the LB zone. However, it was a separate
- zoning classification or land use classification, excuse me.
- The combination of convenience storage, which is now referred to as self-storage under the county development
- ordinance, and boat storage was permitted with the following prior standards. And that is all included
- in the staff report. There are several standards listed there from the prior ordinance. Now, in September
- 2025, the petitioner submitted a commercial building permit application for the new storage units on
- the site. The original approved site plan did have storage units in the same location, except they were smaller.
- petitioner has the desire to build larger units, citing a market demand for such units. They have to
- go through the site plan amendment process through the county development ordinance, and they had to
- go through the use variance process to reestablish the permissions to have self storage on the site,
- as well as the permissions officially to have RV and or boat storage. And that is the conditional use
- before you this evening.
- As I stated before, they also received that sidewalk variance at the last meeting, and I think that
- covers most of the background that I wanted to mention. Now on the screen is the defined use of RV and
- or boat storage per Chapter 850 of the County Development Ordinance, as well as the use regulations
- from Chapter 811 for RV and or boat storage. There are four.
- Number one, all outdoor storage must be screened on all sides by an opaque fence in addition to landscaping
- that complies with this ordinance. Number two, all boats stored outside must comply with building setbacks
- for the applicable zoning district in which the use is located. Number three, the retail sales of merchandise
- and or boat repair services shall be prohibited. Number four, all boat storage areas shall have a 200
- foot setback measured from the edge of pavement of boat storage areas or building if boats are stored inside.
- to any adjacent rural or residential zoning district property line. So number four is a particular item
- here for the review of this conditional use in that it cannot be met by the petitioner. Numbers one
- through three can. However, four cannot. And that is, I'll show you an example
- analysis of that in a minute. But number four is new to the county development ordinance, and it is
- a standard that is set in the code. Okay. So now on the screen is some photographs from the petitioner's
- website. You can see clearly here on the screen the sign showing boat, self, and RV. And you have here
- on the right side of the screen some of the larger units that were created with
- I guess the understanding that a large RV or boat could be stored inside. Now on the screen are some
- recent images, just a couple weeks ago, I believe, of the petition site. And this is just the general
- area that new storage units will be installed. And then these two pictures here are from the front of
- the property or the entrance, as well as in the lower right-hand photograph, the passing blister off
- of North State Road 37 business.
- Now on the screen is the letter from the petitioner stating their request. This is also included in
- the packet. Now on the screen is table 1-811 that indicates the conditional use standard or classification,
- I should say, for RV and or boat storage within the limited business zone.
- And on the screen now is the originally approved site plan showing smaller units in the northern section
- of the property or on this screen on the right side, circled in yellow. And then now is the new proposed
- site plan showing larger units in that same location and thereby triggering the county development ordinance
- site plan amendment process and all these other variances that you've heard before and tonight.
- And then on the screen now is the final land use certificate that was issued in 2023 stating
- that recreational vehicles would be prohibited as storage options and that only convenience storage
- would be permitted on the site. And on the right side of the screen is exhibit 10 in your packet that
- indicates a buffering area of 200 feet along the property site showing that the 200 foot requirement
- in that standard number four cannot be met in certain areas.
- for the property and its adjacent parcels. All right. That brings us to staff's recommendation. Staff
- recommends denial due to the inability to fulfill the requirements of the conditional use standards,
- specifically the requirement of 811-9J4, that all boat storage areas shall have a 200-foot setback measured
- from the edge of pavement of boat storage areas, et cetera, et cetera. I will not take any questions.
- Thank you, Mr. Myers. I think we'll go straight to the petitioner. Hello, Mr. Butler. Are you going
- to be working on this? And Mr. Schrand, is this your colleague? No, this is the owner, owner's
- representative. Okay, great. Okay, so if you would kindly sign in, then I'll swear you in. And if you
- intend to speak, Mr. Sir, I will also swear you in at the same time.
- So if you both would raise your right hand, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
- but the truth? Thank you. I do. Thank you. All right. I'll make it quick. Your name, sir? Daniel Butler.
- Yeah, but I didn't think he said it in the record. I'd like to have it on the record. Say what? He would
- like you to state your name. Daniel Butler, Bynum-Fanion Associates. Thank you.
- So with me is Josh Alley. He's representative of ownership tonight. I think everyone is aware of probably
- different cases around the county dealing with boat and RV storage. The the good and the bad with it.
- And we think that this is a good spot for it. It helps get
- you know, some of these vehicles out of neighborhoods in a safe location off streets. A lot of HOA's
- actually don't allow RV storage in front of homes on streets. And so there's a need around the county
- for it. And I think everyone is probably aware of that. This particular property is unique in that the
- long slender nature of it. And we had designed it with the intention of having both
- boat RV and self storage in it originally. As you can see about half ish of the units wouldn't be able
- to accept boats and RVs anyway. So it'd be about for you know because this is mostly built at this time.
- What you heard from us last month had additional larger units that could accept boats and RVs just because
- there's a need. He does.
- Crimson Crimson does get calls for boats and RV storage for the reasons that I stated and there's other
- places in the county that won't accept that or don't accept that or it's outdoors. So we're not asking
- tonight for any type of boat and RV to be outdoor storage but everything would be contained within the
- units. So anything like that we're not asking for. It's also unique that
- the 200 foot stipulation from adjacent properties is a budding property that will unlikely have the
- ability to have anything within 200 feet. And so that's we believe is unique to this property because
- of the floodplain that is on the backside of it and because of the long slender nature and really easy
- access to people and there's a need
- It seems on the north side of town. But with that, we'll answer any questions. I don't think I have
- any. I mean, I see that the floodplain takes up the buffer you need pretty much, right? So we're going
- to turn to the public. If there are members of the public who are opposed to this, you'll have a chance
- for a rebuttal. Are there members of the public who would like to speak in favor of this petition?
- I see a hand raised. There's a person with the initial H. If they could text services, we'll unmute
- them, and then I believe the initial H will have to unmute him or herself. And you'll have three minutes.
- Hello? Hi. Hi. Could you state your name? Heidi Smith.
- Heidi Smith, would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,
- and nothing but the truth? Yes, ma'am. And do you intend to speak in favor or in opposition to this?
- In favor, ma'am. OK, so yes, you'll have three minutes. OK. We have an RV there now.
- I really want to speak about the fact that this is a very, very useful facility. Um, there's really
- nowhere else for me to put an RV that large. And I do love the indoor aspect of it. It's easily accessible
- for me. I cannot store that RV in my neighborhood and I really don't, we don't like driving it through
- the city. We would rather just bring it off and on the interstate on that very accessible corridor.
- So it's just a,
- It's a very nice facility too. I just, you know, there's nothing stored outside. Um, it's beautifully
- landscaped and maintained. So I just would speak in favor because I mean, I, I, I've noticed that the
- back of the property is a rock road and maybe one small sliver of land back there. So I just would like
- to speak in favor of changing that to accept boats and RVs.
- Oh, thank you so much for taking the time to come out and speak on this tonight. Are there other members
- of the public who would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this petition? If so, please raise
- your virtual hand or come to the podium in the Nathale courtroom. And that's either in favor of or in
- opposition to this petition.
- Do we see anyone? No, okay. So there's no opposition, there's no need for rebuttal. We turn now to our
- own discussion and or questions of the petitioner and or staff. No. I try not to second guess the ordinances,
- but if it's completely enclosed,
- I don't see where it makes much difference whether it's a boat or your extra furniture that are in a
- storage unit. The 200 feet, I think, is adequately addressed. It seems like a reasonable proposal that's
- going to meet needs of people in the county, and I feel good about it. Could we have a motion then?
- For KCDU-25-13, I move approval. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve CDU-25-13, which is
- the crimson storage of conditional use for RV and or boat storage to Chapter 811. A vote yes is a vote
- to approve the conditional use. Guy Loftman? Yes.
- Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Motion is approved, three to zero. Thank you, gentlemen.
- Thank you. Thanks for serving our community. Okay, we move on now to variances 14, 15, and 16 on the
- agenda, which include VAR-25-76A, B, and C.
- And this concerns ascension properties front yard setback variance request, ascension properties eco
- area two concerning a one acre contiguous building area. Ascension properties eco area two residential
- density maximum variance to chapter 823 and this concerns one
- point nine three plus or minus acre parcel invent and Township South section 31 at 52 22 East State
- Road 46 and mr. Brown And if before we proceed mr. Brown is it my understanding that you recommend approval
- of these of all of these? That is correct. All right. Well that being the case I would suggest that
- we find out if there's anybody in the public
- who is opposed to this. Okay. Are there any members of the public who are in opposition to VAR-25-76A
- through C concerning a property at 5222 East State Road 46, and this concerns a property owned by Ascension
- Properties
- Incorporated LLC, or Ascension Properties I-N LLC. And so I want to know, is there opposition to any
- one of these three variances under review tonight? If so, please raise your hand here in the Nathale
- courtroom, or raise your hand virtually on the team's system. If there's no opposition, then we feel
- like we could go ahead with a vote
- in order to expedite the process. Does anybody on the board? No. No? Okay. That being the case, I move
- approval of variance, variances 14, 25, 76, A, B, and C, and call the question. Second.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-76A, 76B, and 76C, and those are front yard setback
- to 805, eco area to one acre contiguous to 823, and eco area to residential density maximum to chapter
- 823. A vote yes is a vote to approve the variance for all three items and allow the site plan as proposed
- to proceed. A vote yes is a vote to approve.
- Myra Clements? Yes. Guy Laughman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Motion is approved, three to zero. So if the
- petitioners are here, thank you for attending tonight. We hope you didn't feel circumvented, but this
- petition has been approved.
- So thank you. Okay, we move on now to VAR-25-77A and B and this concerns the Bettler front yard setback
- variance to chapter 805 and the Bettler buildable area in a special flood hazard area variance to chapter
- 813 concerning 1.69 plus or minus acre parcel in Richland Township section 15 at 4265 North
- Heart Straight Road. And if, I think who is presenting this? It's Mr. Brown. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
- We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. So the purpose of this petition is that the petitioner
- is proposing, I apologize, that is the wrong description.
- So in 2023, the petitioner received a residential accessory structure permit for the establishment of
- a 780 square foot single story detached garage, permit number R-23-359. In July of 2025, however, the
- Planning Department received a complaint regarding a second story being added to that structure without
- a permit, along with other complaints that are being addressed by the appropriate departments.
- For the establishment of the second story, a residential accessory structure permit was applied for.
- However, the updated certified plot plan revealed that the property owner built the structure larger
- than was approved under the original building permit and that it was also built closer to West Dallas
- Lane that was approved. The petitioner claims that the
- Building it closer to West Dallas Lane occurred as a result of measuring the required 25 foot setback
- from the center line of the road rather than from the edge of the right of way. As such, the structure
- as it exists now is encroaching into the front yard setback for West Dallas Lane. The petitioner is
- also requesting to remove two driveways existing on the site and replace it with one driveway to access
- the new two story building.
- However, this proposed driveway will encroach into the special flood hazard area zone AE flood fringe.
- So in discussion of the front yard setback, the property has frontage along West Dallas Lane and Heart
- Street Road, which are respectively a local road and a major collector road respectively, according
- to the Monroe County thoroughfare plan.
- Chapter 805 of the County Development Ordinance states that the front yard setback for a local road
- shall be 25 feet from the edge of right of way. But right now the encroaching structure is only approximately
- 12.2 feet from the right of way of West Dallas Lane. So they're requesting, so the petitioner is requesting
- to allow for a 12.2 foot setback with an encroachment of 12.8 feet.
- Now, regarding the flood hazard area, so Chapter 813-3 states that any building or structure constructed
- after October 2nd, 2025 must be located within a buildable area. Non-buildable area is considered to
- be the following under Table 2-813. We see exceptions under beef below.
- And on that table, it does state that special flood hazard area does count as non-buildable area. The
- definition is included below. Would the board like me to run through this? No. All right. Under Floodplain
- Activity Permit FP-25-24,
- The floodplain administrator, Tammy Bierman, gave the following notes saying that the permit allows
- for the removal of the existing northern driveway and also graveled areas on Dallas Drive easement via
- scraping gravel from the special flood hazard area and replacing it with sod, seed, and straw. A new
- driveway is to be constructed within the special flood hazard area to the south of the existing driveway.
- Sod is to be scraped and replaced with gravel.
- and refer to uploaded site plan from November 17, 2025. Timbers are to be relocated out of the floodplain,
- and there shall be no fencing in the special flood hazard area without a review out of an additional
- floodplain development permit application. So the petitioner is proposing to reconfigure the driveways
- which are located in the flood fringe. Currently, the petitioner has not provided proof that they have
- legal access to West Dallas Lane
- via the driveway built without approvals, we have asked the petitioner to remove the West Dallas driveway
- or to obtain an easement rights to West Dallas Lane. Since the two-story structure closest to West Dallas
- Lane, which is the subject of VAR-25-77A, has the garage, the petitioner is proposing a new driveway
- off of North Hart Street.
- This new driveway avoids the petitioner driving over their existing septic tank from the existing driveway
- and avoids constraints such as a limited 25% slope area. At one point, the petitioner was entertaining
- the idea of placing a fence in the special flood hazard area, but they did not have an approved design
- ready in time for this hearing.
- Offense located in the floodplain would require both an additional floodplain development permit review
- and design standards variants to buildable area should they decide to install this at a later date.
- And here is the plan showing the proposed removal of two driveways and the establishment of a new driveway.
- The petitioner has also received several complaints by neighbors during the course of the construction
- on this site. The petitioner is working with us under an active enforcement case.
- and a stormwater complaints. The planning case has been dealing with a long-term storage of vehicles
- on the site, which a petitioner states are all personally owned and being personally repaired. In addition,
- the complaint about soil erosion and the second story of the garage became evident post-complaints and
- county inspections. And here is the location map and zoning map. This is near the jurisdiction of the
- town of Velletsville, which is why some of the properties on the image on the right do not have any
- colored highlight.
- And here is the comprehensive plan map, as well as the site conditions map. Here is a view of the property
- that was taken before the proposed garage was constructed. And here are two images showing the garage
- that is the subject of the front yard setback, one showing the structure itself and the other showing
- its distance to West Dallas Lane.
- And again, here is the site plan showing the new proposed driveway modifications. As well as an approved
- 2023 garage plan on the left and an as built on the right from this year. And so staff recommends approval
- of VAR-25-77. So regarding, I apologize.
- Staff recommends for VAR-2577 denial of the front yard setback as practical difficulties have not been
- demonstrated and the petitioner could relocate the structure to match what was approved under R-23-359.
- We do recommend approval of VAR-25-77B as it relates to the driveway as practical difficulties have
- been demonstrated with the following conditions.
- A, the petitioner could remove the gravel and re-see the areas as shown under the proposal in Exhibit
- 5 in the packet, and the petitioner can comply with all standards implemented under FP-25-24. Should
- the Board of Sending Appeals approve this variance, then staff recommends the following condition of
- approval, that the petitioner is to comply with all standards implemented by the floodplain administrator.
- And I will take any questions.
- Oh, that was a good presentation. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Do you have questions at this time, or would
- you like to hear? No, let's say the public. Okay. I mean, the petitioner. Yeah. If Mr. Bettler is here
- and would come to the podium and sign in, please. I believe he's online. Okay, if he's online. Sir,
- could you please state your name? Tech Services, if you could promote Richard Bettler. Thank you.
- And then Mr. Bettler, I think you have to unmute yourself on your device. You have to kind of click
- on that microphone with a line through it. So Mr. Bettler, you have to try to unmute yourself
- on either your iPad, your iPhone, or your phone, or your computer, or whatever device you're using to
- connect to this meeting. There you go. My apologies. I was having trouble finding where the mic was
- located. We're having a difficult time hearing you. So sir, if you could state your name, and then I
- will swear you in. Sure. My name is Richard Bettler, B-E-T-T-L-E-R.
- Thank you, Mr. Butler. 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. Thank you, Mr. Butler. You have 15 minutes to make your
- requests known to us. Thank you. And I do appreciate the county's assistance in working with me on the
- plans for this structure. They are correct. It was my mistake on where we located the structure that was
- strictly a misunderstanding on my part, as well as the fact that the original design was not intended
- to be a second story. It was intended to be that height. But after having started the building, we realized
- that we storage and a workshop above would be a better plan than just the height. But I was not aware
- that that was my mistake was just that
- the footprint was not the square footage. That's stupidity on my part is not particularly excused, but
- it is an explanation. As for relocating the structure, that's more of a problem just from the sheer
- cost and the impracticality of
- now that the structure is 80 to 90% completed. Basically, I don't have an easy way to move the structure.
- It is a pole-type structure. It would mean demolishing the entire building, and most likely that means
- just not having a building. I do not think that we are presenting any particular
- hazard for blocking views or blocking anything in the way of the flood zone flow of water or presenting
- any kind of danger. It would be an advantage to move the driveway over for both the community and myself,
- but that lacks much of a point if we don't have a garage. Outside of that, I appreciate your consideration.
- hoping that you will grant us what amounts to a mulligan and allow us to continue on this project.
- Thank you, Mr. Butler. Are you finished? Yes. OK, so we will hear from the public now. And if there
- are members of the public who are opposed to what you are asking, you'll have another chance to speak.
- But I will now turn to the people in the public
- if they would like to speak on this. Are there members of the public who would like to, yes, please
- come to the podium and sign in? You'll each have three minutes, so we can go one at a time, or are you
- together? Okay, so yes, the First Lady, if you would kindly sign in.
- And then state your name. And then I'll swear you in. All the way out? Yeah. I'm sorry. Thanks for coming
- out tonight and for your patience. I think it's snowing out there. It was snowing earlier.
- What is your name? My name is Vicki Compton. Can you bring that microphone down a little bit? Thanks.
- There we go. Thank you. Ms. Compton, would you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth,
- the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. OK, thank you. You have three minutes to talk with
- us. Well, I oppose this. I live on the south side of him, of Mr. Beller.
- And this easement was originally brought up through my father-in-law's property years ago. And it was
- a nice easement until this gentleman come in with his trucks, his heavy vehicles, his trailers, and
- running over the property. I have all kinds of pictures if you would like to see them.
- If you have them, you can pass them to Mr. Laughman, and then we'll pass it to each other. But you have,
- you know, yes. This is what I have to look at. Water has, they filled the ditch in where the water runs
- down the hill on the side of the easement. They run their trucks over it. There's a mud everywhere.
- There's no gravel left on the easement at the bottom of the hill, none. And it's a nuisance. They parked
- their trailers right there next to the easement. People can't pass because there's not enough room.
- I had my neighbor come over and put up a fence, temporary fence, and I put logs up so they wouldn't
- drive through my yard because they were driving through the yard and telling other people to drive through
- it because they didn't want to move their
- vehicles. At one time there was 20 some vehicles over there. I thought he was supposed to not have any
- access to this garage. Three car garage it is. I thought it was supposed to just be a garage. But this
- has been going on for three or more years. And I'm just put out with it.
- I mean, I've called the sheriff, I've called the police. And the easement, I don't think he should have
- access to it at all. Okay. Is that your testimony, Ms. Compton? Yes, it is. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
- And we're going to give these pictures to staff. They may take copies of them and then send them back
- to you if that's okay.
- Just a point of clarification. We agree that they do not have legal access to Dallas Lane. They actually
- the last time they were here for the variance stated they would not create a driveway off of Dallas
- Lane. So in this variance they are proposing to completely remove the driveway from Dallas Lane and
- the northern driveway and create one new driveway off of Heart Street. Right. He did it anyway.
- Okay, thank you, Ms. Compton. And if the next person would like to come up and sign in and then state
- your name. Dave Cochran. Mr. Cochran, would you
- Please raise your right hand. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
- I do. Thank you. You have three minutes. Thank you. I just want to ask you guys as a whole when it was
- OK to start asking for forgiveness instead of permission. Because this, obviously, I've done a lot of
- work in Monroe County over the years. And we abide by the rules that you guys set. And if we want a
- variance for something, it happens before the structure's built.
- I do not believe at all that this was done unintentionally. I do not believe at all that this was done
- as a two-story building with the living quarters and a stairway in the back unintentionally. I do not
- believe at all that there is a current septic permit for the property, and I'm wondering why some of
- this stuff wasn't caught in the inspection process.
- If the inspection process would have happened in a timely manner and he would have called in inspections
- like he should have, foundation, footer inspections, so on and so forth, I believe that these things
- would have been caught in a more timely manner. The gentleman that's in question that has this property
- seems to do a lot of things on weekends and holidays and so on and so forth when nobody's around. I've
- seen a lot of things dug up in that front yard and replaced, piping, so on and so forth.
- that I believe there's pictures that you guys can see that is not according to our Monroe County standard.
- I'm wondering why myself as a builder is held to a standard that we try to abide by and we try to learn
- the practices, we do our due diligence, we ask for permission instead of forgiveness, and why somebody
- like this is allowed time after time
- to break that standard. So that's my question. Why is this being allowed? I do not agree with any sort
- of an option other than a complete tear down and rebuild of the structure to build to the current spec
- that is on permit with the county. You guys issued a permit. It was a certain
- size, it was a certain setback, and this is completely a complete different structure than what you
- guys approved originally. Well, thank you, Mr. Cochran, and thank you for your testimony. And is the
- next person wishing to speak?
- What is your name, sir? Jake Conard. Jake Conard? Conard, C-O-N-A-R-D. Okay, Mr. Conard, would 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 three minutes. I just wanted to touch base on the same things. I mean, I've
- been around this community all my life. My grandpa done a lot of stuff around this place and we've always
- had to follow the standards. I mean, when you put a septic tank in on a Sunday afternoon when nobody's
- open, there's a problem there.
- When you call it in to the health department to ask, hey, how about the subject tank? And they say,
- well, do you have pictures? Because we didn't see it. Well, there's a problem there. We shouldn't be
- the people that have to patrol this. When we give a complaint, something should be done. It should be
- looked at of, hey, yeah, this subject tank was put in on the weekend. We better see what's going on.
- Because there's pipes just running out to the road ditch that who knows where they actually hook up
- to because they all go to the subject tank that was put in on a Sunday night.
- And I just then back to the lane. I mean, I've put a lot of time in myself because I'm the one that
- takes care of the lane. I do the snow removal. I do the stone. I do the cleaning of the ditch. And we
- used to never have mud on the road. Now you can't drive down hard street for the mud that's on the road
- because it's coming off this property where they put this building in. So I agree that something needs
- to be done about the building because it was not done intentionally. Whatever he says is I don't believe
- it because that building
- was put there on a reason. And when the people that's working on it say, oh, we're going to use that
- because we're going to live upstairs, it's being considered a residential place, not a workshop.
- And I just, that's all I got to say. Thank you, Mr. Conard. Thanks for coming out and sharing with us
- your views. And if you would kindly sign in and then state your name, then I'll swear you in.
- Ms. Conard, would you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
- but the truth? Thank you. You have three minutes. We have lived at Dallas Lane for almost 12 years.
- We used to have a beautiful property, beautiful community, and you cannot drive in and out of our property
- any longer without being harassed, spoken to like you are dirt, because the people who work for him
- treat us like crap.
- They block our access. We live on a one-lane road that's in and out. And I know that they say that they
- don't block Dallas Lane, and they're not going to use Dallas Lane. They use it every day. I have over
- 150 pictures in my phone from dirt, mud. They filled in our ditch that my husband and my son have worked
- tirelessly to build our road so that we can drive to and from our homes every single day.
- Backed into our mailboxes last week. They said they're gonna fix it. The only thing they've done, puts
- them in on pylons. My mailbox is falling off. They continue to say that they're going to do something
- and they turn around and lie to our face over and over and over again. And you got an employee telling
- us where the stuff is that they're taking out of every single one of those vehicles and pouring into
- the ground. We have complained and complained and complained and we are getting nowhere.
- That's all I have to say. Thank you, Ms. Conard. Thank you. And yes, please sign in and then state your
- name and then I'll swear you in.
- He has your name, please. Christina Kramer. Miss Kramer, would you kindly raise your right hand? You
- swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you, Miss Kramer. You
- have three minutes. Well, the house that I lived live in, I've lived there almost my whole life since
- when my parents built that house. We've had a nice community in that area. Mrs. Johnson, the former owner,
- begged us to buy that house. I kick myself in the butt every day for not doing it. Had I known that
- we would be dealing with this monstrosity next to our house that we have to look at every day we walk
- out the door, we see this mess that they have created over there. I suggest you have them tear that
- whole freaking building down that they should have never built right there to start with.
- It's been a headache for us, for all of us. We have a guy that lives down the road from us who has complained
- about it because he has to drive through their mud that they've created with his nice truck. This guy's
- meticulous about it. And another thing, Jake mentioned the septic. I walked the trail across the road
- from our house, the Carst Park
- trail goes down that road there, or down the old railroad tracks there. And when I go across the bridge
- there, I smell sewage. I don't know where it's coming from. I can't prove where it's coming from, but
- I didn't smell anything until they put in their little septic tank thing that they did. So it's just
- we're all heartbroken of our area now. People that I work with that drive by that place every day,
- What in the world is going on over there? Well, you see what's going on over there. It's a mess. It's
- a monstrosity. So we're just all upset about it, just totally upset.
- Thank you for bringing these matters to our attention and we appreciate your testimony tonight and for
- your patience with us. I'm going to see if there are other members of the community who would like to
- speak either and oh yes please come up to the podium and sign in and state your name and then I'll swear
- you in and then also one person online. OK.
- I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm
- not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
- The ditches have been filled in with mud. So there's nowhere for the water to go. So it cuts across
- the Dallas lane into their yard. There's just been a lot of changes. Obviously, we're all happy with
- what's happened. But I think the point that needs to be taken is he did not follow the rules.
- The rules have not been followed. He did not do as he was supposed to do. And if there was any of us
- here that did that, we would be in trouble for it. And I feel like the building should be taken down.
- He can get his new permits. He can start over just like anybody else would have to do. Thank you.
- Thank you, Miss Flynn. Is there anyone else in the room?
- or online. I know that Mr. Benjamin Walker has his hand raised. And if tech services could unmute him.
- And then you may have to unmute yourself. Oh, thank you. Mr. Benjamin Walker, would 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 three minutes, sir. All right, thanks. Yeah, I also live on Dallas Lane. I just
- have to move a little bit.
- And I guess I rewrite everything that's been said on this lane. Ever since the structure come up,
- I mean, it does encroach on the lane. I had a few people trying to come and visit me in the evenings.
- And they passed the lane several times because they thought there's, like, because the condition of
- the road there and the construction there, that that wasn't a residential road in the evening.
- That building itself definitely, I would say, is a big problem. And in addition, I think I just want
- to echo that everyone else said it doesn't really pass the red face test, that these are accidental
- mistakes. I mean, the idea even that he has all these cars there as his personal cars, and this is not
- a business he's working out of, or that this new
- large, very large structure isn't going to be used as a business. And that really does affect a residential
- area like ours. And it really does damage the values and just the overall experience for everyone else
- on that lane. So I also just want to voice my opposition. He's broken the rules. He's encroaching on
- the lane. And there are negative consequences for
- all of his neighbors. Well, thank you, Mr. Walker, for testifying tonight. I'm going to check to see
- if there are any others who would like to speak either in favor and opposition to this petition. Please
- make yourselves known. I see no one else. So we'll go back to Mr. Bettler. If Mr. Bettler could be unmuted
- or if he could unmute himself, he has a five-minute response period if you would like to speak to the
- issues raised by your neighbors.
- Certainly. First of all, we've not operated without a permit. I've admitted that we did make the mistake
- on where we placed the property. That's not in question. There's no possibility that any smell of septic
- would be coming off of the property because the the property has not been occupied or septic in use since we
- have waited to have the county test the water on the property. We have not installed anything to do
- with septic. We have graded some of the front yard as was requested. We've offered to put in additional
- drainage along the side of the road, but we're told to wait until after this variance meeting.
- Basically, the idea of the fence along the side of the road was to prove that we would not access Dallas
- Lane from my property, as in we would literally just block ourselves from Dallas Lane because the flood
- zone is problematic with the having a because it requires a special permit is the only reason that the
- the fence is not included. I'm more than happy to install a fence so that there is no chance of us doing
- anything of the kind. The building is not meant to be commercial, is not meant to have any living space
- above it. None of those things are correct. I understand why people are upset about it and I understand
- that they're upset that I have
- a number of vehicles through there since I've had a number of people coming and going. The faster I
- get it done, the faster it thins out, but we've been in stall mode as we get through this particular
- variance and are just trying to accomplish the end goal of getting to where I can move to this property
- and proceed to reside here.
- We've offered to chip in on the side of the road where even though we won't use it for the maintenance
- of the road, we've offered a number of things where that's concerned. Most of the runoff that are the
- complaints can be viewed from the road as coming up further than my property. That's just the nature
- of the grading that is involved in the land.
- It doesn't come off. You can look at the pictures and see my property sits lower than the road. But
- I understand the upset that this happens. They're going to blame the property where the work is being
- done. As I said, I will happily accommodate what I can to correct that. And I will happily put up a
- fence, prove that I am not going to access Dallas Lane.
- that would also prove that the upstairs is not meant to be a living space. I think that covers what
- was asked. Okay, thank you, Mr. Butler. I'm going to ask my colleagues on the Board of Zoning Appeals
- if they have questions for you. Mr. Loftman, Mr. Morris. I have a question for staff.
- There's a setback issue. There's also the two-story issue. Is that correct? The two-story complies with
- the height. It's that they did not get a permit for that design. If it met setbacks, they could have
- done a revised permit if it met all the other standards.
- barely was under the height maximum, but because they're not meeting the front setback, we stopped the
- permit from proceeding after the fact. So there was an after the fact permit request? The correct operational
- permit. And that would have been granted by staff, you think, or would have that come to us?
- If it would have met the front setback, it could have been granted by staff. However, we did have a
- long conversation with Mr. Bettler about the purpose of the second floor. There's not allowed to be
- a detached accessory dwelling unit on this property due to a number of features without variances. So
- they have stated that they are not using it for an accessory dwelling. They're using it for office or
- storage is what we're being told
- Um, we have to go with what the applicant is stating unless we have proof of reasonable, you know, without
- reasonable doubt that we can prove otherwise. So we have sufficient. I'm sorry. There's not sufficient
- septic system to support another dwelling. I mean, the property doesn't, it's a small prop,
- a small house, small septic. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Butler.
- Is there a business on the property? No, so I'm sorry. Mr. Butler. I think I'm sorry, Mr. Law. I felt
- that was directed at me asked of staff. So Mr. Miller, sorry, the five minutes is up, so I believe they're
- directing questions to staff. I don't know if you're able to see them. I apologize. OK, so there we
- have several
- complaints on the property and two of which are more serious than some of the others. So one is that
- there was a complaint of junk vehicles on the property. We've worked with Mr. Bettler to remove many
- of those vehicles that were inoperable and we questioned whether those vehicles were being repaired and sold.
- We did not find proof of an automotive salvage license or some sort of license that's required by the
- state to sell a certain number of vehicles. They said that they were personally owned. And so that part
- that was part of the complaint we could not prove was a business. Mr. Butler has been working on the
- remodel of the existing home and then now this two story garage for several years. So
- No one is living in it currently because it's not finished, either the home or the two-story structure.
- So there's no business activity occurring in that regard. And then the other complaint that we've received
- is stormwater dumping of fuels, erosion control, and they have previously received a stop work order
- to stop all work due to the number of violations that
- were not corrected in a timely manner from Stormwater's perspective. And then also with the two-story
- garage, we stopped that work because they're now operating not under a valid permit. Is it OK for me
- to ask Mr. Bettler a question? Yes. Yeah. Mr. Bettler, is this property been used as a business? No.
- That comes about because I
- I have a bad hobby of I like trucks and I have a lot of them. I have a valid ownership and license and
- title for every vehicle that has ever been on the property. They've all been owned by me, but there
- have been a good dozen properties in and out of that property at any time.
- I don't have a good excuse for that other than, yeah, I like trucks. I have a bad habit of tinkering
- with them. And when I was told that if they were not in adequate running order, they couldn't be there,
- I promptly eliminated them or moved them off the property when requested. So all of those have been
- taken away.
- what's on the property or just the ones that are, I use, or basically tinker on as in tune up or rev
- up, you know, I do fiddle around with. Okay, thank you. Now, let me, do you, there was testimony that
- your employees were parking. They're referring to my contractors that work for me as in to put this
- property together.
- I see. So contractors might have been parking in the road and caused problems, but they weren't your
- employees. Yes. OK. Thank you. And some of the vehicles were the contractor's vehicles, which is why
- there were such a number of them. I've tried very often to give chances to a lot of the less than
- Well, basically, those who are having trouble, they're either recovering addicts, which means oftentimes
- they'll end up being fined for a few months and then crash out and I have to move on to the next person.
- But that does mean that I've kind of gone through people that come and go. So vehicles have come and
- gone because of that. It just exacerbates the visual aspect of what's going on. I probably should.
- That's another issue. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Cochran, I know that you want to speak,
- but the rules don't permit it at this time. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. So anything else, Mr. Hoffman?
- Thank you. Mr. Morris? I'd like to make a comment to all the people that spoke tonight. First of all,
- I appreciate everybody coming out and speaking. But I want to make sure that everybody's aware that
- we've heard a lot of troubling
- concerns brought up tonight, but I want to make sure that everybody's aware that the petition in front
- of us is really about the setback in the gravel. So no matter how this is voted on tonight, a lot of
- the concerns that were brought up won't be addressed. So I just want to make sure that everybody is
- aware, kind of the limited scope of what this vote is on tonight. So I would encourage you to continue
- pursuing this through the appropriate
- I think a lot of what we heard isn't in the purview of the BZA or even the Planning Department. I just
- wanted to point that out, so thank you. The Planning Department is aware, as you heard, of some of the
- issues that you're facing. They are aware, they're following it, and it's not as though we're uninvolved,
- but they are monitoring the situation and doing what they can.
- So with that in mind, I think we need to turn to each other for discussion and or a motion, unless you
- have further questions. Well, it's an awful thing when we had to tell. I feel it's an awful thing when
- I have to tell people, I'm sorry, but you didn't comply with the rules and we aren't going to
- allow you to build where you're not allowed to build, but I don't see anything compelling me to say
- anything other than, I'm sorry that you didn't abide by the rules, but I want to enforce the rule in
- this, and so I'm gonna deny, I would expect to deny, to vote to deny the petition.
- I would like to add that anytime that there is a request for variance, we have to take into consideration
- the value of the surrounding homes. We've heard so many concerns tonight about how people feel that
- the value of their homes have been degraded. We also have standards to uphold as far as our rules are
- concerned. I plan to be- But. Yes. But.
- There are two petitions. Yes, there are. And it seems to me that the neighbors will all be well-served,
- as well as Mr. Bettler. So I want to separate the votes. And I want to first move to approve various 2577B
- which is to allow the driveway to be moved so there will no longer be any access from Dallas Lane, which
- it seems to me will serve both Mr. Bettler and the neighbors better if he's not driving in and out on
- that lane. And if I understand correctly, Mr. Brown, does that restore it then to the way that it was
- before the disturbance took place, the Dallas?
- with the condition, if you're approving it with the condition of approval, we're asking that the petitioner
- also remove the gravel and reseed the areas shown in their proposal in Exhibit 5 and the petitioner
- comply with all standards implemented under their floodplain permit. So we would look at the plans.
- Yes, subject to those conditions. Okay, so subject to this, too. So I move to approve
- variance 2577B with the conditions as stated by Ms. Jelen. And I will second. Okay. It has been moved
- and seconded to approve only VAR-25-77B, which is the buildable area to special flood hazard area of
- Chapter 813. This is only in regard to the driveway.
- And this also includes the following condition that the petitioner remove the gravel and reseed the
- areas as shown in their proposal in exhibit five, and the petitioner comply with all standards implemented
- under FP-25-24. A vote yes is a vote to approve 77B. Margaret Clements? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes.
- Jeff Morris? Yes. Okay, that motion is approved three to zero.
- I would now move to deny variance 2577A, which is the setback request. And I'll second. Okay. It's been
- moved and seconded to deny VAR-25-77A, which is in regard to the front yard setback. A vote yes is a
- vote to deny the variance. Guy Loftman? Yes.
- Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Okay. So that petition is denied by a vote of three to zero.
- Okay. Well, Mr. Butler, we're sorry that this is going to be
- Causing you some inconvenience, but we've heard so many so much testimony about inconvenience experienced
- by the neighbors and that testimony was quite compelling and and so I know that you'll have questions
- for staff and
- And I'm sure the neighbors will as well, perhaps. I know that evidentiary photos have been submitted
- to staff. They will take copies of those and get them back to you somehow. And I know that that was
- Ms. Compton, who I want to note for the record, Vicki Compton, who gave those photos. Oh, OK. You can
- keep them.
- It has to be submitted as part of the record. So I think we'll just take these for now. That's OK. OK.
- OK. And I would just add, while I'm concerned about the neighbors, I'm also concerned about the fact
- that this gentleman should have, if he was going to get something and he knew he had to set back, it
- was his responsibility to figure out where the setback was from. And setting back from the middle of
- the road isn't
- pretty obviously not setting back from the road. So I want to, while I'm concerned about the neighbors
- and concerned about the effect on their properties, I'm also concerned about the underlying fact that
- he didn't abide by the setback. And also the size of the building and then the second story of the building.
- Yeah. Thank you. That's kind of a lot. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good evening.
- Okay, we are moving on now to variances 25-78A and B. Oh, I need to check with my colleagues. It's a
- quarter after nine. The last two variances are perhaps variances in which the question could be called
- if there's no opposition. This next request for variance is we will hear.
- And we have to vote as to whether or not we wish to continue. I will continue. I will vote to continue
- if we could take a quick break. OK, we will take a quick break for those who just need to stand up or
- what have you. Or whatever you need to do. Yeah, we'll reconvene as soon as everybody's back. And then
- we'll try to get through the evening.
- Thank you, everyone, for your patience during this short break. We have now two variances, VAR-25-78A
- and B, concerning Michael's or is it Mikel?
- Michael's Hollow Accessory Dwelling Unit concerning a 1,000 square foot limitation to variance, and
- Michael's Hollow Accessory Dwelling Unit, a sliding scale subdivision parent parcel remainder variance
- to Chapter 811 concerning 180 plus or minus acre parcel in Benton North Township at 9730 North Low Gap
- Road. And Mr. Brown will review this with us.
- Thank you. So the purpose of this petition is that the petitioner is proposing to convert an existing
- single family residence into a detached accessory dwelling unit. This is part of a sliding scale subdivision
- request as well.
- The subject property currently contains two single-family residences, which is pre-existing non-conforming
- with the standards of the County Development Ordinance. The petitioner is proposing a three-lot sign-scale
- subdivision to divide 80 acres. Two of the lots will be vacant and dedicated to conservation purposes,
- while the third will contain both residences. One residence is proposed to be converted into a dadu
- to allow this. According to the property report card, the homes on the site were constructed in
- 1910 and 1972. The building from 1910 is proposed to serve as the converted dadu. Now under the county
- development ordinance, a detached accessory dwelling unit is permitted in the Forest Residential 5 zoning
- district with standards. However, one such standard is that a detached accessory dwelling unit can have
- a maximum of 1,000 square feet of livable residential space as defined in Chapter 850. However, the
- petitioners
- current second home has a total of 1,437 square feet. A detached accessory dwelling unit in a sliding
- scale subdivision is also required under the County Development Ordinance to only be constructed on
- the parent parcel remainder. However, the petitioner is proposing that the Dadu instead be located on
- one of the smaller lots.
- And here is the definition of both accessory dwelling units and livable residential space, as well as
- the standards of the accessory dwelling units. Would the board like me to go through this? No, you can
- read it. We read it. And here is the location and zoning map of the property, as well as the comprehensive
- plan map and the site conditions map. Here's a view of the property as it stands. Where my mouse is
- currently, that is the home that is proposed to be converted into a detached accessory dwelling unit.
- I don't know if you can make that out. Oh, now I can. Yeah. And here are some images. The image on the
- left is the home that is proposed to be converted into a
- detached accessory dwelling unit. The image on the right is some residential structures, sorry, residential
- accessory structures. In the back of the image of the left is the other house on the property. That
- one is to become the primary residence, as well as a view of another accessory structure. And here is
- what the slide scale subdivision proposal currently looks like.
- So the two homes are located where my mouse is currently circling. One to the north near the gravel
- drive and one at the end of the gravel drive to the south of the southeast corner of the lot. And as
- you can see, this proposed lot is going to be one of the smaller lots in the subdivision. About how
- small do you think? I'm sorry.
- It looks like it's going to be roughly 7.23 acres out of 80 acres. Okay, great. And so staff recommends
- denial of the VAR-25-78A and VAR-25-78B as the proposed subdivision could be modified to have the proposed
- status placed on its own separate lot.
- as well as the fact that for the parent processor remainder limitation on their science skill subdivision,
- the practical difficulties have not been demonstrated. And I will take any questions. I think we'll
- hear from the petitioner. The petitioner and Mr. Butler, if you, Mr. Butler's already signed in.
- So Michael, if you would sign in and then I'll swear you in.
- Ozzy Lauer. Oh, yes. My neighbor. I am, yes. It's good to see you. Likewise. Did you sign in already?
- I did, yes. 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 between you. Good evening, members of the board.
- My name is Ozzy Lauer, representing Bienvenu and Associates on behalf of Michael's Hollow LLC. I'd like
- to start off by thanking the
- planning department and being so helpful throughout this whole process. We are requesting the variance
- approval to development standards to designate the existing 1,437 square foot structure as a detached
- accessory dwelling unit and to allow both of the primary residence and the dadu to be located on lot
- two of the proposed sliding scale subdivision rather than the parent parcel.
- Both dwellings have existed for many years as stated earlier and each has its own fully functioning
- septic system. No construction expansion or additional site disturbances proposed. The request is strictly
- related to use classification and lot placement. The existing configuration of buildings of the ground
- remains unchanged. There are no adverse impacts both dwellings
- have already existed and independently served by each respective septics, and use remains entirely
- residential. No additional infrastructure or site activity is introduced. The surrounding area
- is agricultural and low density residential. This request does not increase density, does not change
- traffic, and does not alter the visual character of the area. Everything will appear exactly as it does today.
- The request also supports the current residence, Scott Davis, and his family care needs allowing close
- proximity between the primary household and the occupants of the proposed dadu, his parents. There's
- two arguments I'd like to explore, the first of which is the alternative to place the dadu on its own
- lot would present financial hardship for Scott Davis as he is not financially able to purchase
- the all of tract three, which is the parent parcel. An alternative to this variance, alternative to
- this would be a variance to allow for smaller than five acres, which would allow each of the properties
- to have their own residence on it, but we would not meet the five acre requirement. Another option or another
- The path I'd like to go down is under the sliding scale subdivision requirements. The parent tract must
- retain 55%, as said. In this proposal, Lot 3 will remain the parent tract with 43.09 acres, all of which
- will be labeled as conservation use only. Although the ordinance typically places the dadu on the parent
- tract, the proposed configuration actually better fulfills the intent of Chapter 831, specifically the
- objectives in 831.4b.
- and those are Number one preserve large areas of sparse and load residential density by placing both
- dwellings on lot to the six point seven six acre lot and the entire forty three point oh nine acre parent
- tract and the twenty eight point nine five acre Lot lot one remain a single under uninterrupted parcels
- of rural land number two
- protect and enhance vulnerable land and rural areas. Clustering the existing structures prevents disturbance
- to the larger tract in lot one, keeping its full available for conservation use. Three and four, support
- and sustain agricultural use and preserve large tracts capable of farming, forestry, and agricultural
- related production. Keeping both dwellings on lot two, the parent tract and lot one remain fully functional
- and uninterrupted for farming and forestry.
- Number five, preserve opportunities for rural lifestyle. The residents can maintain a rural lifestyle
- while ensuring the majority of the land remains natural, undisturbed, and sparsely populated, exactly
- as the ordinance intends. Number six, allow limited residential development while maintaining rural
- character. The petition adds no new structures, no change in density, and no visual change to the ground,
- merely formalizes an existing arrangement, and keeps development clustered, which is encouraged in rural planning.
- development without overburdening infrastructure. As stated, no new utilities, road extensions, or septic
- installations will be required as both dwellings already operate independently. Finally, keeping both
- existing dwellings on lot two not only avoids unnecessary disruption, it meaningfully advances the goals
- of the sliding scale subdivision ordinance.
- The parent tract and lot one remain large agricultural conservation oriented parcels with the maximum
- land preservation value. Residential intensity stays minimum and clustered while also allowing the current
- residents to maintain close day to day care for his parents to rely on. Thank you for your time. I'm
- happy to answer any questions the board may have. Thank you so much, Mr. Lauer. That was a good presentation.
- And I'm going to see if anybody has any questions for you, Mr. Laughman.
- Yeah, a couple. This is conservation use only for the both remaining tracks. How is that, are those
- going to be subject, what keeps those in conservation? So it's hard to see on this
- plot, but under both of those kind of boxes, you'll see us for Lot 1 and Lot 3. Under that, it says
- for conservation use only. Yes. How is that enforced? Is this going to be a conservation even given
- to Sycamore Land Trust, or is this going to be put in a reserve with the Department of Agriculture?
- It's ensuring that no buildings will be and no further development will be produced on those lots. Is
- that going to be in the deed? It is on the plat, which in course will be on the deeds, yes, because
- the deeds will reference the plat. So the deeds for lots one and three are going to prohibit residential
- construction? Correct. All right. All right. Is that a condition that's
- They're opting to not submit the required soil reports. So on the actual plat, it's going to say not
- for development. To actually propose development in the future, they would have to come back through
- our department and amend the plat through the Plat Committee or whatever body approves the subdivision.
- So it's in the plat that it says conservation. It's on recorded plat.
- The recorded plan, okay. And if it has ever changed, I believe they have to go through the assessor
- and pay for the differences between what they propose and what has been kept. I just wanted to feel
- somewhat, you know, understand how that would be enforceable, and I get it now. To me, it's always better
- to have two
- two tracts of land, and it would have been sensible to say, can we just wave the minimum acreage instead
- of coming and asking for the data? And I don't mean to second guess the choices, but still I'm second
- guessing the choices. Is it because of the plan commission and these... In order to put a house
- in an area like this, they would need to have 10 acres. There is a sliding scale subdivision provision
- that allows for what Mr. Lauer so eloquently argued that it preserves larger tracts of land. I get all
- those goals, but if we would waive the 10 acres, would we have been able to waive that or would that
- have to go through the commissioners or the planned commission?
- So if it's in the subdivision portion of the county development ordinance, it has to go through the
- plan commission. If it's in the zoning portion of the CDO, then it comes to you. What we're looking
- at is the standards for creating a DADU. Although it exists really as a DADU since before our ordinance,
- they're solidifying it under this subdivision procedure, and we're just correcting it. I'm on board.
- Thank you. Mr. Lofman, if I can add.
- A big point on both of those being on the same lot is that, as mentioned, Scott Davis is the current
- resident of the primary structure, and his parents live in the proposed dadu. And on purchasing this
- land, Scott has made it very clear that he would like to keep them both on the same property, just as
- mentioned, to keep close care and continued care for his parents.
- Right. Thank you. One of the things that I, well, we'll hear from the public, but one of the things
- that I kind of like about this is that even though the house size is larger, you know, it's an old structure,
- you know, was built in 1910. And we get to, we get to fulfill the purpose of the Dadu, the detached
- accessory dwelling unit at the same time that we preserve, you know, a structure, a home that's more
- than a hundred years old.
- Yeah, I'm not concerned about the size at all. That's minimal anyway. Yeah. OK. I move to approve. Well,
- we have to talk to the public. Oh, so correct you are. They might talk me out of that position. So we
- will hear if there's any opposition. And if so, you'll have a chance to respond to it. But thank you,
- Mr. Lauer. Are there members of the public who would like to speak either in favor or opposition to
- this petition? If so,
- Please come to the podium in the Nath Hill courtroom or raise your hand online. None? So we come back
- to us. I now, not having been altered in my position by the opposition of the public, move to approve
- variances 25, 78A,
- and 2578B because this is the practical approach to preserving these properties in their historic condition
- and serving the needs of the family and being practical in how we deal with bureaucracy. Yes. I'll second.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-75
- VAR-25-78A and VAR-25-78B, which is the 1,000 square foot size limitation of ADADU to Chapter 811 and
- the requirement that ADADU be located on a parent parcel remainder only of a sliding scale according
- to Chapter 811. A vote yes is a vote to approve both variances as proposed. Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Clements?
- Yes. Motion is approved. Thank you very much. I'm sorry I didn't recognize you. I didn't expect you
- here. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for your good presentation. Okay. We're moving on to the last two items
- on the agenda.
- which feels good. Item 21 is VAR-25-79, Raymond Buildable Area in a Karst Conservancy area, variance
- to chapter 826, concerning one 7.84 plus or minus acre parcel in Clear Creek Township, section 34 at
- 341 East Valley Mission Lane. And I believe that these have been recommended
- Recommended for approval, yes. Do you want to call the question? Well, yes. Let's see if the public
- has any position. Are there members of the public who would like to speak in opposition
- to this petition, and the petition concerns the buildable area in a car's conservancy area, and it's
- on a property owned by Nicholas Raymond, and the property is located at 341 East Valley Mission Lane.
- Is there a member of the public or members of the public who are in opposition to this request? We see
- no opposition, therefore,
- Mr. Lofman. I move to approve variance 2579, Raymond buildable area and call the question. I'll second.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-79, the Raymond buildable area, Kahrs Conservancy
- area to chapter 826. A vote yes is a vote to approve.
- and allow expansions to the area encroaching in that 50 foot required conservancy. Margaret Clements?
- Yes. Guy Laughman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Motion is approved three to zero. I hate to disappoint you.
- Okay, so we're going on to the last item in the agenda. And this is VAR-25-80, Hostetler Eco Area 2,
- a residential density maximum variance to Chapter 823, concerning 1, 1.44 plus or minus acre parcel
- in Perry Township, Section 23, at 3034 East Chase Lane.
- and this is a property owned by Adam Hostetler. Is there any opposition I would ask? Is there any member
- of the public who would like to speak in opposition to this petition concerning a property at 3034 East
- Chase Lane
- owned by Adam Hostetler and it concerns an environmental constraints overlay area and an exception to
- the residential density maximum is being requested. So if there is opposition, please come to the podium
- or raise your virtual hand on Teams so that we know you would like to object to this request. Is there
- any member of the BZA that would like to speak in opposition to this?
- Given that no opposition has been expressed, I move to approve Variance 25-80, Hostetler Eco Area to
- 3030 Far East Chase Lane and call the question. I'll second.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-80, which is the Eco Area 2 residential density
- maximum variance to Chapter 823. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes.
- Margaret Clements? Yes. Motion is approved three to zero. Thank you so much for your patience through
- this process and sitting here all night. We really appreciate it and good luck to you.
- Thank you. Well, is there anything else you guys want to discuss with us? Any administrative legal business?
- I do. Yes. Regarding the Bedford Recycling case, the Supreme Court granted transfer and vacated our
- Court of Appeals victory and held that the BZA does not have the authority to
- revoke its decisions except in limited circumstances, none of which applied to our case. So Bedford
- Recycling will be in front of the Monroe Circuit Court handling the judicial review petition filed by
- Republic Services. Wow. So we'll see what happens.
- We'll see what happens. It's a bumpy ride, isn't it? Yeah. Giddy up. And we'll try to advise you as
- best we can so we don't have anything like that moving forward. But it does happen. It does happen.
- And things are complicated. But thank you for guiding us through everything. You've all done a remarkable
- job. It was a complicated evening. I feel a little bit bamboozled by it all.
- I also just want to take a moment just to thank you as we approach 80 variances for this year. Thank
- you for your time. And all three of you have been very patient with us and staying through the night.
- And thanks to everyone on the board, Pamela and Skip as well. Thanks to the staff. You guys are amazing,
- amazing. And make it a pleasure to be on this board.
- Many of you will serve again. I know terms are coming due, but we would appreciate you serving again.
- So hopefully we can have a good year next year. So thank you. Thank you. I know I'll see you soon.