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.