- I haven't heard the bells ring, but I think it's 530 and we have a quorum, and I'd like to call this
- meeting to order. And if you would kindly call the roll, Ms. Nestergellen. Margaret Clements. Here.
- Skip Daley. Oh, he's here. Guy Lofman. Here. Jeff Morris.
- And Pamela Davidson. All right. So we have four members in person in a quorum. And would you kindly
- introduce the evidence Jackie. I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence the Monroe
- County Development Ordinance has adopted and amended the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan has adopted
- and amended the Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals Rules of Procedure has adopted and amended and
- the cases that were legally advertised and scheduled for hearing on tonight's agenda.
- That's our motion to approve. I would like to move that we approve the evidence as just outlined for
- this evening. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes
- is a vote to approve. Skip Daly? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes.
- Motion is approved. Four to zero.
- One item on the agenda that's been continued by the petitioner, and that is for a property at 6611 South
- Rockport Road. So if you're here for that or dialed in for that, we will not be hearing that tonight.
- But it has been continued by the petitioner. And other than that, is there a motion to approve tonight's
- agenda? I move to approve tonight's agenda as indicated. Second.
- And moved and seconded to approve tonight's agenda as published. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Pamela
- Davidson. Yes. Guy Loftman. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Skip Daley. Yes. Motion is approved four to
- zero. OK. And we have one set of minutes that are subject to our approval tonight, and that's for the
- November 5th, 2025 meeting. Is there a motion to approve? I move that we approve the minutes of November 5th
- It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes for November 5th, 2025. A vote yes is a vote to
- approve. Guy Loftman? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Motion is approved three to
- zero. I'll note for the record, Skip Daily just exited the room, but we have enough people to approve
- the minutes. Okay. There's no administrative business and we'll go directly to new business. And the
- first item on
- new business on our agenda is VAR-25-81, and that's the stallion eco area two, one acre contiguous buildable
- area variance to chapter 823 concerning one 5.54 plus or minus acre parcel in Perry Township, section
- 35 at 6050 South Airline Road. And I believe Mr. Brown will be reviewing this with us.
- So the purpose of this request is the petitioner is proposing to convert an existing single-family residence
- into a tourist home or cabin. It has been found that the subject property does not meet one of the standards
- in Chapter 823 regarding the environmental constraints overlay area two, however. There is an exemption
- in the ordinance from the standard for the construction of a single-family residence, but it does not
- apply to the conversion
- of single family residences to another use. At this time, the petitioner is not proposing any further
- development and is only pursuing a permit to change the use of the property. So part of the reason for
- the one acre of contiguous buildable area in the eco area is to ensure development can occur in areas
- that do not lead to runoff of soil, excluding setbacks.
- The petitioner has very minimal buildable area existing, less than 0.1 acre when excluding required
- front yard setback standards. The petitioner did remove and set a new modular home on the property in
- 2025, receiving a certificate of occupancy for that in 2025. However, that was replacing the footprint
- of an existing family residence that was damaged.
- And since it was still under the use of single-family residents, they were able to qualify for certain
- exemptions. The septic and home area would have otherwise required buildable area variances for being
- located in steep slope area, as well as the requirements for the one-acre contiguous buildable area.
- Now that the new home has been complete and is ready for occupancy, the petitioner would like to proceed
- with converting it to a short-term rental. Have they received an original building permit for a tourist
- home or cabin originally?
- the additional variance for a slope disturbance would have been required as the structure would not
- have qualified for an exemption. And here are the eco standards as listed for area two. The one that
- they do not meet is number four. Staff has measured that the property only has about 0.26 plus or minus
- acres of area under 15 percent slope. Only of this about 0.6
- acres is in the front area setback, leaving only about 0.1 acres of buildable area meeting setback standards.
- The area of the buildable area is not located near the existing home and is located at the south property
- line. And here are the areas in question. And here are maps showing the areas in question. Viewpoints
- of the area using
- using EagleView. And here is a view of the new home as it stands currently. As you can see on the right
- side of the image, it does run off its steep slope fairly quickly. And here is an image of the site
- plan that the petitioner used for the building permits, as well as what was submitted for the variance.
- Staff recommends approval of VAR-20
- 5-81 as practical difficulties have not been demonstrated. The lot cannot meet the residential area
- requirement. This variance would be needed for any new development on the subject property unless an
- administrative subdivision is pursued. I will take any questions. I think we'll hear directly from the
- petitioner and then from the public and we might have questions in the future.
- If Mr. Stallion is here, if you would kindly come to the podium and sign in, then I'll swear you in.
- I don't know if I pronounced your name correctly. Devlin Stallion. Thank you, Mr. Stallion. I'm sorry,
- I can't hear you. I'm just kidding. I'm going to help her. OK, thank you.
- Yes, and would you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
- but the truth?
- Yes. Thank you. Well, you'll have 15 minutes to make your presentation and your petition to us. 15 minutes.
- OK. I apologize. I didn't know that that was part of the process. I thought this would have
- been pre-reviewed. It is. But we want to hear from you. I'm sorry if I'm not clear enough or if my words
- aren't the right thing. But basically, we'd like to hear from you what you're seeking and why you would
- like our approval.
- OK, no problem. So my name is Devlin Stallion. My wife and I bought this property shortly after COVID.
- I'm originally from southern Oklahoma. I live down a dead end road, rural area. It's dirt road. This
- is a paved road. And I've got three daughters. And we just wanted to buy the property to have an escape,
- to go out into the natural area and things of that nature. It resonates with me personally.
- as a chance to build something for me and my family, like financially as well as a place for us to enjoy
- each other's time. We thought of the property to purchase it as a chance for income property as well,
- so we're not just straight W-2 employees, that kind of thing, just all together. We saw the property
- listing and we just
- I knew it was 100% the right choice, the perfect location. It was beautiful. We bought it not knowing
- all of the regulations and things like that here in Monroe County. But we've become much more familiar
- with the assistance of Mr. Brown and the highway department. I met with Jack as well on one occasion.
- But as part of the making it a short-term rental, the opportunity
- get some additional income, we thought while the value to us was personally like the natural habitat,
- like it's five acres that goes down into the creek bottom. It's just a beautiful, serene, quiet place.
- We thought that people would also like to enjoy that and we'd like to maintain that and build it as
- a quiet retreat for people to escape.
- Whenever we bought it, shortly after we bought it, we put tens of thousands of dollars into it to make
- the old structure habitable. And shortly after that, a massive red oak tree had some root rot and just
- actually crushed it all the way down. It didn't crush it, but it damaged it all the way down to the
- limestone foundation. It was a really quirky, unique little cabin that had been originally built in
- the 1920s. It had a lot of character.
- Yeah, but then everything changed whenever the tree destroyed it. And then going through that insurance,
- the insurance process and the rebuild, that's when we actually learned that you had to change it from
- tourist home, from residential. The use change is the whole purpose here. Sorry. Yeah.
- So we're going through the process, the formal process of converting it to tourist home slash cabin.
- And it's our understanding that the, what is it, the CDO, the ordinance, like that's one of the primary
- allowed uses for it with restrictions or specific conditions. And we plan to just keep it in that same
- to maintain the character of the road, the rural area. And from our understanding, the variance that
- we need for it to successfully and officially be transferred is just, it's more of an administrative
- thing, is the way I interpret it, because we're not building a new structure, or making a new structure
- with septic and all that.
- That's all I've got for here, but I'm open to answer any of your questions. Okay, thank you. My colleagues
- might have questions for you. I have two questions. The picture that we looked at of the structure,
- which you put on the same footprint as your damaged tree. Hey, no one was in the house when the tree
- fell. No, no, no. Thank goodness for that. Oh, that's a terrible story. Anyway, this driveway looks
- pretty rough, or the entrance area. Does it still look like that?
- It still looks like this currently. They just finished placing it, and there was a bunch of issues with
- the... This concrete thing here, that's a cistern, and that was damaged in the demolition. This right
- here is going to... It was originally a fire pit area, and underneath it, there is a... What did they
- call it? A water right of way. It's a drainage pipe.
- Mr. and Mrs. Young's property that's on the other side of the road. Yeah. The driveway is actually down
- by the garage. So this is not the access point. That's not a driveway. Oh, wonderful. That looks pretty
- rough. It does look like you get a good amount of erosion in that area. I would think that would be
- true. I can see that from that picture. The highway department's going to come in and put a culvert
- in there and gravel it, and we're going to make it more of a patio.
- but the only formal driveway is right in front of the garage or parking area. And I met with the highway
- department representative yesterday and he made it, I just wanted to have an understanding of what exactly
- isn't required for it, so. Thank you, that's what I wanted to know. Are there any other questions for
- Mr. Stallion? Not at this time for me. Bailey, do you have any questions for him or for staff?
- Do you know, I just want to confirm with Mr. Brown, recommending approval on this? Yes, practical
- difficulties have been demonstrated or staff feels that they have. But it would seem, but. Yeah, the
- lot could not be expanded without an administrative subdivision being pursued and this variance would
- be needed for any new developments. Repeat that last sentence. This variance would be needed for any
- new development. Thank you.
- Thank you, Mr. Stallion. I'm going to turn to the public. If there's anyone who is speaking against
- it, you'll have an opportunity to return. Thank you. Are there members of the public who would like
- to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand on teams.
- Do we see anyone? Are there members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to this petition?
- Please come to the podium and sign in, and then I'll swear you in.
- So if you would lower the mic so that we can hear you and state your name. My name is Shannon Robinson.
- I reside at 6110 South Airline Road. And would you raise your right hand? And do you swear to tell the
- truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You'll have three minutes to express
- your opposition to this petition. Thank you.
- My name is Shannon Robinson. I reside at 61 Chin South Airline Road, Bloomington, Indiana 47401. I've
- lived at this address since September of 1997. I have no ill will toward the petitioners here, but I
- oppose the variance from residential to tourism slash cabin for a number of reasons. First of all, Airline
- Road is more of a lane than it is a road. Two vehicles cannot pass on Airline Road without somebody
- getting off the pavement.
- because either both cars have to get slightly off, or one car's got to pull over and let somebody go
- by. In order to get the 6050 address that they want to have this Airbnb on, basically, you have to go
- through four 90-degree turns, four of them. And two of them completely blind, even with the foliage
- off in the winter like it is now. The other two with the foliage on are not so bad. On the side of this
- road are steeper beans.
- entries. It's a very wooded, wooded road. There are only nine residents located on Airline Road. It's
- about a mile long down the road. The residents know and understand the road and the need to use caution
- on this road. I do not believe out of state unknown
- travelers, unknown strangers would be familiar with it and know that necessity to use that caution on
- these curves. I think that this is really a safety issue for the residents and even the potential tenants
- of this Airbnb. Airline Road dead ends at my house. And so if anyone goes by their address at 6050 and
- keeps going on down the road, be it dark, be it their light, be it they missed it,
- they've got to turn around in my driveway to get back out. The county maintains the road down to my
- driveway, such as it is. I mean, I'm not blaming the county. I love the county for maintaining my road.
- But it is, it's, we have very, very little traffic on the road. And I do not want strangers that on
- my property, particularly considering it's absolutely isolated location.
- They were operating Airbnb already before they ever provided for this variance. They were operating
- it under the name of the headless goose cabin. And they had it advertised on Airbnb. They have it advertised
- on Basecamp. They have it advertised on Veriboo. And they were saying, we take up to six occupants.
- Six occupants. That's what it says on their own advertising here. Sleep six. Sleep six. Not only that.
- They also had it where you would have outdoor fire pit, open burning, open burning at ground level where
- they had a fire pit. And they have photographs of it on their advertising where they have this ground
- level fire pit, open burning. This is a very wooded area. I don't know that people from out of state
- or people visitors would abide by no burn.
- Ordinances or things of that nature. Thank you. Your three minutes is up So thank you for your test.
- I did make a video of the road
- for you to watch. I cannot get signed in. I cannot play it. But I think that if you either drive the
- road or watch a video of the road, and you'll see my concerns. I thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Robertson.
- Thank you. OK, thank you. And I understand there's a gentleman who would like to speak in opposition
- to the petition if you would kindly come to the podium and sign in. And then I'll swear you in. And
- you'll have to adjust the microphone so that, is there a pen there? Yes.
- I took me a second to find it though. I'm high, thank you. Would you raise the microphone so that we
- can, and also your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- I do. Thank you, and please state your name. My name is Brad Ehrman. Thank you, Mr. Ehrman. I also live
- at 6110 South Airline Road since September of 1997. As my wife mentioned, it is not a neighborhood in
- any conventional sense. It is a one-lane road that weaves back into the woods. It offers privacy and
- security. I can't speak for my neighbors, but that's why we bought our property.
- a commercial business operating in the middle of it, this road erodes our privacy and our security and
- our seclusion. And for that reason, I oppose this variance. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to ask my
- colleagues if they have questions. I have a few questions.
- You know, we heard your wife testify that it's been operated as a business. It's been on the internet
- and so on. Do you know if there have been any accidents on the road since any traffic mishaps with those
- users? Not that I know of. To the best of my knowledge, the answer is no. OK, that was my most important
- question. OK. And then we'll hear now from Mr. Stallion.
- If you would kindly come back to the podium, you're still under oath, and you have five minutes to rebut.
- Devlin Stallion back at the mic. Yes. We did have the business running for a handful of months, completely
- oblivious to the rules and regulations. But going through the process, became more than aware
- going through making every intent to be completely reading all I get with the county health department
- things of that nature completely above board. I don't know what you don't know what you don't know.
- But now we definitely do with the concern for the the safety of the road. She was correct like we did
- previously have it to where we could have six
- residents, people staying, but we have addressed it in our letter to the board saying we would only
- allow one car and two adults. And if they have kids, I don't feel like we could restrict that if that
- was the case. But I would contend that the Airbnb with the restriction of one car would most, it's all
- subjective, it's all speculation, but I think most, it would probably be less traffic than
- having a, like if somebody were to buy it from like Indy, they could bring three, four cars up here
- every weekend if they wanted to, but we have a strict restriction of one car. I was a law enforcement
- in the military for 12 years. Worked in five different countries and most traffic accidents are like
- stop signs and like in parking lots and stuff.
- I think people have their wits about them enough to see, like, you're going over a hill and around a
- turn. You just got to slow down. So I don't really have the same concern for the safety concern that's
- there. We'd be more than happy to make it very blunt in anything that's provided on the business
- advertisements and, hey, this is down to one lane around. You have to go slow. Be careful and things
- of that nature.
- And then I don't know what to say about their security and safety concerns, but it is a public road.
- I think that's all I have to say about that, but if you have any questions, more than happy to answer
- them. Questions for Mr. Stallion? Yeah, so as is, you could use this for your own personal residence.
- We could, or we could rent it out traditionally.
- Right, but you bought it as a retreat and you could go out there on the weekends or anytime you wanted
- to and use it for the... And we still can and we do. We've stayed out there. Right, if you haven't got
- it rented out or you just want to have it for yourselves that weekend, you rent it and then sometimes
- you rent it out depending on whether you want to use it. Did you buy it with the intention of using
- it for rental?
- for both purposes, personal and like I like to be out, like we live in a neighborhood in town now and
- it's just a really nice little escape. Right, I get the escape. That's not controversial. But when we
- did purchase it, we did want to rent it out. Right, and it didn't strike you as something that might
- be wise to do to see if a commercial use at that remote location would be something that might be regulated.
- I mean, no, sir, like where I'm from, like just rural Oklahoma, like those things don't exist. Those
- type of regulations that I've come to learn in the last year since we started the rebuild, right? Okay,
- thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your service. Thank you. Well, I return to us for Mr.
- Daley. Oh, Mr. Daley, do you have a question for Mr. Stallion? I do.
- And thank you for your service. You should beat me to it. But the sentiment remains. Quick question
- for you. The driveway. Yes. Can you walk us through if Mr. Brown could find a shot of where that driveway
- is? I can explain it with this picture. Pardon? Which driveway are we talking about? There's only one
- driveway. Yeah. One parking area.
- Right. Could you point to where that is, as if Mr. Brown can find it appropriate? He has the drawing.
- There we go. That perfectly shows it here. There's the garage, and there's a 25 foot wide pad there
- that goes about 20 to 23 feet deep off of the road. OK. And how many vehicles does that
- driveway appear to? It could hold two, but we would restrict it to one if we were renting it out as
- a short terminal. And was that pad there with the house that got destroyed that was already existing?
- Yes, ma'am. So all you've done is rebuild in the original footprint from a weather-related insurance
- claim, and now you're
- Backtracking to say, oh, whoops, we need to make sure that we have the right variance in order to do
- short-term rental on this. Is that summing up? I mean, that could be one assessment, but that wasn't
- our intent. We didn't learn about it until we were doing the rebuild.
- I have a question for staff. I mean, this isn't a use variance. No, it isn't. This is just a variance
- on the slope, so it has really nothing to do with the use as a short-term rental, if I understand. Is
- that correct, Mr. Brown? So they would be able to continue using it as a single-family residence.
- if they did not get this variance. This variance was activated by the fact that they did wish to convert
- it to a short-term rental tourist home slash cabin. And the variance is for the one acre of contiguous
- buildable area, which would be needed for any further development on the slot, say an expansion of a
- structure or new structure. Okay, thank you. Correct. However, in all objectivity, the objection from
- the member of the community
- was based on a safety issue based on the usage. So I do feel it's relevant to at least discuss. But
- I think realistically, I think the point that was going through my head and the point that was made
- in testimony by the petitioner that there is
- significantly less traffic caused by his intended use of this as opposed to a 24-7 residency with two
- and a half vehicles, two and a half kids, and a couple of animals, right? We're looking at short-term
- rentals, and those are limited largely to weekends if you follow the industry. So I think the point
- that he made
- really addresses the one concern that was brought up of safety, which would be relevant to what our jobs are.
- And I would add to that as a postscript, we heard his neighbor say, if you know the road, you know the
- road. That is very, very true. This whole county, this whole area is filled with long and winding roads
- with 90 degree, you drive out to Gosport and it's like that with 90 degree turns. So we understand that.
- You are right. People that are unfamiliar with it, there's always a risk. But there's always a risk
- with people who are familiar with it, frankly. So it's just part of the topography that we all enjoy
- and love about this area more than anything. And irrelevant to our decision, I will trust, and I'll
- leave this rhetorically, that you will
- go back over based on concerns of neighborhoods regardless of this decision and make sure your communication
- with potential potential renters is based on the utmost safety and concern of the neighborhood. Yes.
- Can I add a PS to that? Your neighbor said they're going to drive by that house and miss it and drive
- down the street and turn around in my driveway. Is it possible to make the address seeable? As somebody
- who drives around constantly in strange cities looking for house numbers, it is terrible how badly marked
- they generally are. So if you can help with that concern that that is less likely, that may be a good thing.
- can absolutely do that. And the property is like, it's like you saw it with like a, it's got a yellow
- door, like they're going to know they're there. There'll be lighting and things, but we can definitely
- put like 60, 50 airline. You're here. Yeah. Let me follow up just a little bit. If it weren't, there's
- no restriction on you on this use in this, in this zoning district. The only there's standards, there
- are several standards that they have to meet.
- But it's permitted upon meeting those standards. Okay. And do they meet all of those standards except
- the slope or do they meet all the standards and the slope is only because they want to change the use?
- The latter. Okay. And also I will note it says no more than two guests per guest room. So I think once
- they have it up and running, if they are still renting it for
- say six guests, and they only have one guest room because it is a one-bedroom house, that would be against
- that standard. So we could enforce on that if we needed to. So regarding the driveway and the traffic.
- Given that it's one bedroom, there's a limit to two people who could stay there. Essentially, yes. With
- kids out of the living room and pull out. No, I'm... Is it two guests?
- We do make exceptions for dependence of those guests. So if they have two guests and one child, we would
- not enforce on that. OK. And so the reason they need this is because they're trying to make a change.
- If they wanted to change the footprint, they would need something like this. Would this change allow
- them to change the footprint? They would still need a buildable area variance in addition, because the
- house is on steep slopes.
- So they would be coming back for another variance. They would need this variance first, but then they
- would still have to come back for a particular development in this deep slope area. Okay. I think I've
- got the picture clear and Mr. Daley seems to have some. I was the petitioner was requesting permission
- to speak and I was suggesting that he might want to hold off based on the nature of his
- inquiry until after we make a decision. Got it. And may I add, Mr. Laughman, we are not really concerned
- about the slopes because they had a weather catastrophe and used the same footprint. What we are concerned
- is the size of the lot. So it cannot be changed, the size of that lot. Right. Right. OK. OK.
- It's got nuances, and I'm satisfied that I have a reasonable grasp on them. Well, is there a motion
- then? I'm going to move that we approve variance 25-81, the stallion, echo area two, one area contiguous
- buildable area variance to chapter 823, because practical difficulties has
- been met, the lot cannot meet the residence area requirement. And I am very compelled by the comments
- of Mr. Daley that such a use is probably less of a use than occupied residency or full-time rental,
- which is a plus for neighbor concerns. I'm going to make a quick recommendation. No, a recommendation
- before anybody seconds or discusses your motion.
- that we check in with Mr. Morris because he's online and I don't know if this kind of new format, if
- how easy it is to see whether or not he, so Mr. Morris, if you're there, do you have anything to add
- before somebody might make a motion? His hand is raised and I think tech services has to unmute him
- and he has to unmute himself.
- And I don't think he was in the roll call, was he? He wasn't at that time, but if he's here now. He
- wasn't at the time, but now he's here before the first vote. Tech Services, can I go ahead and allow
- the mic for Mr. Morris? Or, oh, you already have. Yeah. OK. OK, thanks. It looks like I can speak now,
- Jackie, but I still, oh, now I can turn my camera on. Sorry. Did you have anything you wanted to add, Jeff? OK.
- I was just gonna say, for the record, I've actually been here the whole time that had been unable to
- unmute or turn my camera on. So thank you, Mr. Daly, for recognizing that. But my main comment is really
- centered around the conversation that we've already had, and that is the fact that I do have concerns about
- this use being an Airbnb for the safety aspect of the road and just the fact that this is a
- small neighborhood that you're bringing different people into on a regular basis, potentially. But I
- think basically the fact that this variance is really about the slope, that's what I'm talking about.
- So that's my only comment.
- All right, so my motion, anybody wants to second it? I will second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded
- to approve VAR-25-81, which is the stallion eco area to one acre contiguous buildable area to chapter
- 823. A vote yes is a vote to approve the variance.
- Guy Lofman. I want to explain that I have great sympathy with the concerns of the opponents of the neighbors,
- but a tourist home is allowed in this. And the history of this property is consistent with that.
- And it is, if somebody just bought it and moved in with their family,
- it would certainly be more traffic. Maybe fewer people ending up down in the petitioner's driveway and
- the opponent's driveway, but I find that the variance is appropriate and vote in favor of it. If Morris?
- Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly?
- And I will add some commentary as well. As valid as the concerns are of the objecting parties, it is
- not pertinent within our jurisdiction of voting. So yes. The motion is approved five to zero. Well,
- I want to thank you. I want to thank Mr.
- The Robinson, your neighbors, I really want to thank you for coming to speak and expressing your concerns
- because I think the result will be better. Mr. Stallion has heard your concerns and there have been
- recommendations by the Board of Zoning Appeals as far as signage for the Airbnb.
- We just hope that everyone can live together as good neighbors and that everyone's happy with the outcome.
- Thank you so much. And safe as well. Yes. Thank you for coming out tonight. Okay. We move on to items
- number two and three.
- on the agenda, and this is the Willard Eco Area 2 concerning a one acre contiguous buildable area variance
- to Chapter 823, and the Willard Eco Area 2 15% slope encroachment variance to Chapter 823 concerning
- one 8.24 plus or minus acre parcel in Polk Township Section 20 at 8900 South Roberts Road. And I believe
- Mr. Brown will review this with us.
- Thank you. So the purpose of this petition is that the petitioner is proposing to establish a residential
- accessory structure in the form of a 12 by 20 foot shed on the property, along with a proposed retaining
- wall adjacent to it. In addition, the petitioner has also applied for an attached 12 by 18 awning by
- the home within buildable area, but that's not the subject of this variance.
- It has been found that the subject property does not meet two of the standards of the chapter 823 regarding
- the environmental constraints overlay area two. Hence, this variance petition is required. There is
- an exception in the ordinance from the standard from the construction of a single family residence,
- but it is not applied to accessory structures or additions. The petitioner's property contains very
- little buildable area. The home, driveway, and garden areas currently take up the entire buildable area
- on the property that is
- close to the road, leaving no other area for development. The septic system is existing and is in front
- of the house. The property does not meet two of the four requirements listed for properties in the ECO
- Area 2. The first is the 15% slope requirements. It has been estimated that the proposed structure and
- retaining wall will be completely in an area between 18.1% slope and
- 24.99% slope. The other is that each dwelling unit must have at least one acre of contiguous buildable
- area. Staff has measured that the largest amount of contiguous buildable area under 15% slope is only
- an estimated 0.49 acres, but that 0.49 acres is on the southeastern end of the property, nowhere near
- the proposed building site, and accessing it would require either an easement to South
- Holland Ridge or a driveway to cross areas over 25 percent slope or greater. This variance is the minimum
- needed to require, allow any further development even within the buildable area such as the proposed
- awning. If any further slope is proposed in the steep slopes area, the ordinance will require the owner
- to return to the Board of Zoning Appeals for further variance approvals. Furthermore, approving this
- variance does not allow the petitioner ability to develop further into steep slope areas
- beyond what they are proposing for the current site plan. And here is the location and zoning map. Here
- is the comprehensive plan and site conditions map. Here is an eagle view photo of the property. And
- for the images, on the left is the existing home, and on the right is the proposed area for the shed.
- And here are site maps that were submitted by the petitioner. The one on the left was the original site
- plan that I believe was included in the packet. Since then, we have obtained the image on the right,
- which shows the location of the shed. It's a bit clearer for digital attachments. It also attempted
- to show a slope over a 50-foot run across the building site using a transit tool.
- And staff recommends approval of VAR-25-2082A. As practical difficulties have been demonstrated, the
- lot cannot meet the contiguous buildable area requirements. This variance would be needed for any new
- development on the subject property unless the administrative subdivision is pursued. And even if the
- land were to be purchased to add the property, it would not add buildable area near the existing built-out
- structures on the lot.
- However, we do recommend denial of VAR-25-82B as practical difficulties have now been demonstrated by
- the petitioner. And I will take any questions. Thank you, Mr. Brown. I think we'll hear from the petitioner
- first. And yes, sir, if you would kindly come to the podium and sign in, and then I'll swear you in.
- Would you state your name for the record? Christopher Salem Willard. Mr. Willard, would you raise your
- right hand? And do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do.
- Thank you. You have 15 minutes to review your requests with us. OK. Well, thank you everyone for being
- here this evening to hear my petition. For those of you all who don't know me, I am a local farmer.
- I have another property on South Roberts Road as well, 9127, where I have a small organic farm.
- that my wife and I operate together. Prior to that, I also was a landscape architect and designer under
- a business called Bread and Roses Gardens that I co-owned with my business partner, Jonas Carpenter.
- And so over the 10 years that we ran that business together, I have since backed away so that I can
- take care of the farm exclusively. But during that time, I installed
- everything you can imagine in terms of a landscape, fences, hardscaping, raised beds, retaining walls.
- I've done a lot of work in this area. So I'm coming, just saying that to let you know my background
- and to let you know where I'm coming from. I have a very simple request that you're here to
- review. I would just like to put a small garden shed on my property and I understand that the property
- is very sloped. I understand that better than most people because I have worked very hard to try to
- make a garden work on this property. So and the slope is a definite issue. I'd like to also add that
- This is the absolute last thing I ever want to do on this property. I am not asking for a variance so
- that I can try to go up this crazy slope. What you can see as you go behind the house further towards
- the woods, it is steep. And I am not that young anymore. I do not have any interest in trying to develop
- anything. All I'd like to do is put a garden shed. And I picked, as you can see here, the last remaining
- flat, reasonable,
- to be considered space to put in this shed. Doing so will help me improve my business. It will give
- me the ability to store my tools, which currently are either in the barn. They're all over the place,
- because I don't have places to put them. So I'm hoping that you will hear my petition and understand
- that I'm trying to do everything that I can to be
- As respectful to the land, I'm not trying to build something on the insane slopes. I'm working with
- what I have. And this is what I have that's left, where I can expand slightly, ever so slightly. I have
- additional copies of what I measured myself, which is the cross-sectional slope, if I may.
- present them to the board. Thank you. We need you to speak in the microphone. And just for the record,
- moving forward, should you have something else to pass out to us? Just ask for permission to approach.
- Thanks. So as you can see, I've had many conversations with Mr. Brown. I've been trying to do everything
- as above board as possible. I did my own measurements because, as I said, I have done this in the past
- as part of my profession. While I understand that the property in general does not meet these standards
- because of the slopes, the extreme slopes are all back here behind the property.
- And I have actually other pictures. I don't know if we're able to see them from the attachments that
- I sent in, just to further illustrate how flat that ground is where I'm proposing to build. I mean,
- I basically don't have any options. And I'm trying to do everything by the book. And that's why I'm
- here before you today to make this request, because I do feel like it is a reasonable request.
- I'm happy to answer any questions. I would like to add in regards to I understand why these why these
- restrictions are in place. Here's a picture where you can see I parked my truck right next to the proposed
- building site. And while back there it is sloped I'm trying to work on the flat ground. I actually as
- a part of our farm have multiple
- grants open with the USDA, the National Resource Conservation Service, and the Soil and Water Conservation
- District. That is to say, I go above and beyond in all of my work to make sure I respect the land and
- take care of it. I would never do anything that would jeopardize further erosion. I'm a no-till farmer.
- We don't even use tractors.
- Everything is done by hand. And yes, and so this is further illustration of how flat the ground is around
- the actual proposed shed. While I understand the rest of the property is extremely sloped in places,
- I would never imagine trying to build anywhere like that. My only, like I said, this is what I have
- to work with. And I thank you for hearing my spiel.
- I'm a little nervous, obviously, but thank you. And I'm more than happy to take any questions and anything
- else that I can do to help you with making your decision today. Hang on just a second. Mr. Brown, are
- there any other areas on that property where a shed could be constructed? And my second question is,
- what is the size of the shed for this picture?
- I can't tell proportionally compared to the house and so on. Is it a large shed, a medium size?
- 12 by 20. Okay, thank you. And I can happily adjust the size if that is an issue as well. So Mr. Brown,
- is there any other area on that property to build? Based on the lidar that we saw in Beacon, the existing
- structures, driveway and garden take up all of the
- buildable area that is adjacent to the road. As mentioned previously, there is some area of non-steep
- slope in the southeastern portion of the property, but that would require either an easement to access
- it or possibly even a driveway that crosses the areas of 25% slope or greater. Which would be a lot
- of disruption. Okay. Mr. Daley.
- Questions are for Mr. Brown as well. One, did the petitioner provide a, maybe I missed it, an image
- of what the property would look like with the structure on it? They did provide a site plan as shown
- on screen. Just a two-dimensional, not like an image with, hey, here's the shed, and this is what it
- looks like with
- They didn't do it yet. All right. My other question for you is, you mentioned a recommendation of denial
- of part two of this for practical difficulties. I'm not challenging you here. I'm just trying to understand
- what was in your head, A through D. Is that right? Are we in chapter 850 on this?
- Sorry, I was pulling up the building permit side view of the accessory structure. I'm a little bit behind,
- but this is the side view that the conditioner applied for with the shed. All right. What letter of
- the practical difficulties did you feel didn't work out? I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm
- just trying to understand. I'm looking through the practical difficulties,
- I just want to know if I'm missing something. Could I just refer us to the packet? First of all, the
- findings of Mr. Brown were that the property is proximate to the Lake Monroe and is located
- in the environmental constraints overlay area 2.
- And eco area regulations exist to protect the water quality and supply of Lake Monroe. And the county
- development ordinance only allows an exception from the one acre contiguous buildable area and the 15%
- slope encroachments for the establishment of a new single family residence. So if this were a new single
- family residence being proposed, it's possible that we could consider
- the variance, but since it's not, it's an accessory structure, we're not necessarily entitled to review
- the variance for the accessory structure. Am I correct? I think it's the other way around. So the exception
- under the code is only for new single-family residences, but the section about the exception
- would only apply if they didn't have any other buildable area. I think the question that Mr. Daley has
- is under the findings under 841-4, there's a section under three, and we did provide findings under
- A, which is the one acre contiguous and support, but it looks like maybe the question is what
- finding is negative for B, which I don't see that is in the report, but stated in the PowerPoint presentation
- is just that under the definition of practical difficulties, it's always difficult for staff to find
- practical difficulties if the property's already built out as a primary use and they want to add additional
- accessory uses such as, in this case, the
- The petitioner has provided you testimony why there's a practical difficulty in not having a shed. But
- in other cases, some people may come before you for a swimming pool or a rather large pole barn. And
- that would be a little bit under your discretion or review of the findings to determine if that's a
- practical difficulty. And to piggyback on what you just said, landscaping business, farming business,
- gardening business,
- You do need a place to accumulate your tools in that situation. That makes so much sense in terms of
- the use of the property already. And by the caretaking, we are well served in your depth of experience
- that you've described. The retaining wall, does that help with the erosion? Because we're all concerned
- about the erosion into the lake.
- Is that a plus in terms of reducing that risk? I'm unaware, I don't know. I would say that since the,
- I believe the retaining wall is going on the side where the ground is sloped up, so I'm sure it's also
- in part to probably divert some water from going directly into this structure, but the petitioner could.
- I believe Mr. Lofman had a, yeah.
- I'm looking at this diagram that you gave to us, and if I'm interpreting it correctly, you've got the
- southwest to northeast axis there, which shows 8.167 degree slope within 50 feet of the center of the cabin.
- Can I revise that slightly? So what I did is I did, I was told I needed to measure a 50 foot section
- by the planning department. So I did a cross section where I put the transit in the center of the proposed
- site and went 25 feet in each cardinal direction based on the orientation that I would like to build
- the shed. So it is a 50 foot run from the top southwest corner to the bottom northeast corner, for example.
- Right. So that's a 49 inch rise over 50 foot. And that's 8.167 percent slope. Yes. However. Yes. However.
- However the actual site where the shed is planned where I am hoping to be building the shed is actually
- practically flat by all by all purposes. Like that's why I provided multiple
- photographic evidence of this evidence. Mr. Brown, I hear evidence that while the general area is steeper,
- that this particular 50 foot by 50 foot square is not within the prohibited slope.
- Does what I just said make sense that a small area might be buildable, might be usable, whereas the
- area around it, it might be too steep? It is possible that the area around it is too steep. However,
- my understanding is that the measurements should be 50 feet on each side rather than the 25 that was
- done. That is how we do it.
- That is what is stated in the county development ordinance as how slope is to be measured. Okay. There
- is the missing piece of information that I needed is that this drawing needed to go out 50 feet. If
- you went out 50 feet, do you think it would be too steep under the ordinance or
- I'd like to add to that. I can't tell you because I didn't do those measurements. I think based
- on extrapolating from those numbers, I would think that it would be within 8% to 12% if I went. The
- only direction really that is a problem is this direction. Everything in this direction and continuing
- this way if we have photos is
- for all practical purposes, flat. When you go in this direction, no matter what you do, it's going to
- be steep. But I would never propose trying to build on something that steep. And in addition to that,
- I'm sorry. I did not mean to interrupt. I'm sorry. I did multiple times ask for clarity as to how to
- measure this cross-section. And I proposed exactly this and was said, that sounds OK. Go for it. Please
- submit that.
- And that is what I've done. I found out yesterday that I was supposed to actually have measured 50 feet
- in every direction. But it was something that I was trying my utmost to do responsibly the entire time.
- As you understand it, you sought guidance and were told 25 feet was OK. I said it's 50 foot cross section
- such as this that I have drawn. Right. And I went with that information, with that to clarify.
- I was told, OK, go for it. That would be helpful. But I was not aware until yesterday that that would
- be this big of an issue. Right. Well, it's a fairly big issue to me. Because if this 100 by 100 square
- is within the slope, this seems to be
- kind of detail that's very important. 50 by 50 is clearly okay. The ordinance says 100 by 100. If I
- understand 50 feet on each side, not 25 feet on each side. Is that right, Mr. Brown? So I can read into
- the record what the ordinance states. So it says the percent slope shall be measured as a six foot fall
- in any 50 foot distance.
- And this is eco to right. So it's actually sorry, that was eco one, the percent slope shall be measured
- as a seven and a half foot fall over a 50 foot distance. The design should be suited to the lot and
- minimize the amount of cut and fill. So it's
- in any 50 foot distance measurement and we have worked with people and I do agree that we agreed to
- the transit map. We uploaded a PDF stating exactly how to measure within that 50 foot and I agree we
- could have been clear to say 50 feet from the structure itself but I do think that basically the ordinance
- says we can go 50 feet from any distance and we typically, we do
- do 50 feet away from the proposed structure. Would you read that to me again? Sure. The percent slope
- shall be measured as a seven and a half foot fall in any 50 foot distance. Okay. But this was measured
- in a 50 foot distance. That's correct. Centering on the structure. Centering on the structure and which
- doesn't sound like 50 feet away from the structure. It doesn't sound like it should be, it needs to
- be a hundred feet to me. Okay.
- I understand how my confusion is cleared up and I appreciate the reading that ordinance to me. I have
- no further questions. Does anybody else? We'll turn to the public now and if anybody speaks in opposition,
- you'll have an opportunity to return.
- Thank you. Are there members of the public who would like to speak in favor of this petition? If so,
- please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand online. We see no one. Are there members of the
- public who are in opposition to this petition? If so, please raise your virtual hand or come to the
- podium. No? Okay, so we return to us for further discussion and or a motion.
- I'm satisfied that the building site, while it's in an area of steep slope, is not itself in violation
- of the ordinance. As to whether it's 25 feet from the center of it or 25 feet from the edge of it, given
- this evidence, it sounds like the area in question, this little flat top, is going to be
- So I guess I don't think it's, the evidence it seems to me seems to establish that it doesn't violate
- the proposal, doesn't violate the ordinance, but that's not much of a decision. So I think I'm going
- to move to grant the variance
- in light of the evidence as to the actual extent of the slope. Which variance? Yes, both variances.
- One for the reason set forth in the staff report. The other, the second one, for the reason that the
- general slope requirements are
- of concern, but the specific slope in this area alleviates that concern for me and makes me comfortable
- voting in favor of this. Mr. Daley. This is an interesting conundrum I find myself in. I don't know
- that I either understand what you're offering or whether or not I just disagree with what you're offering. However,
- I believe that variances 2582 alpha and 2582 bravo should be approved because while listening to testimony
- and the staff's presentation, I found practical difficulties even referring back to
- the definition in Chapter 850 of the Code of Practical Difficulties that all four criterion of those
- appeared to be met. So I agree, but for different reasons, and I don't know that I can't. If you want
- to make the motion saying that, I will second it. Does Mr. Morris have anything to add? Excellent question.
- His insight is always appreciated, and I don't know the technology well enough. Yeah, I do not really
- have anything additional to add. Thank you. I do agree that practical difficulties have been met.
- All right. I will motion, if I may have the floor, Madam Chair. I will motion that variances 25-82 alpha
- and 25-82 bravo both be approved.
- based on demonstration of practical difficulties. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve both
- VAR-25-82A, which is the eco area to one acre contiguous buildable area, and VAR-25-82B, which is the
- eco area to 15% slope encroachment, both to chapter 823. A vote yes is a vote to approve both variances.
- Jeff Morris?
- Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Margaret Cummins. Yes. Skip Daly. Yes. Guy Lofman. Yes. Motion is approved
- five to zero. OK. Thank you, Mr. Willard. And good luck to you. And we appreciate your coming before
- us and sharing with us your proposed plan and working with our staff. Thank you. OK. Happy New Year.
- OK. Thank you, Mr. Willard.
- Yes, thank you. Thank you. Yes. Yes. I think we're finished, right, Jackie? It was old business.
- Did that get? The old business was published as continued. So that one has been continued and possibly
- further continued. But we'll keep you updated. The only thing I wanted to mention as part of our reports
- is that at the next meeting, we'll be voting on chair and vice chair. So please think about that.
- Thank you. Thank you, everyone.
- Have a good night, and if there's a motion to adjourn. I move to adjourn. Okay, nobody objects. I don't
- think so. No. Okay, thank you. Bye, Jeff.