- It's now 531 and we have a quorum. So I'd like to call this meeting of the Monroe County Board of Zoning
- Appeals to order. Ms. Nestor-Gellin, would you kindly call the roll? Sure. Margaret Clements? Here.
- Skip Daly? He might be joining later. Okay. Pamela Davidson? Here. Guy Laughman? Here. Jeff Morse? Here.
- We have four members attending in person in a quorum.
- Okay, and would you kindly introduce the evidence? I'd like to introduce the following items into the
- evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Zoning Ordinance
- and Subdivision Control Ordinance as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted
- and amended. The Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals Rules of Procedure as adopted and amended, and
- the cases that were legally advertised and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's agenda.
- I would like to move to introduce the evidence as just enumerated so well. Second. It's been moved and
- seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve the evidence as presented.
- Pamela Davidson. Oh, yes. Guy Loftman. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Motion is approved
- four to zero. Okay. There are no minutes for
- for approval tonight, and so we move on to the approval of the agenda, which I think will have some
- changes, right? We will, but I would suggest approving as published, and then we will get to those.
- Great. Is there a motion to approve? I move approval as published. Of the agenda? Of the agenda, yes.
- I left some words out, sorry.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as presented. A vote yes is a vote to approve
- the agenda. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Motion
- is approved four to zero. Okay, so we're moving on to administrative business and tonight we have the
- election of the chair and the vice chair. Is it okay if I just go ahead and make a motion?
- I'd like to, if Mr. Jeff Morris would kindly accept, I'd like to nominate him as president of the Board
- of Zoning Appeals for this next year. I sure appreciate your service. You're welcome, and I accept.
- I appreciate the compliment. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you. And I second the nomination. Great. Been
- moved and seconded to nominate Jeff Morris as the chair of the Board of Zoning Appeals. A vote yes is
- a vote to nominate.
- Jeff. Yes. Emma Davidson. Enthusiastically, yes. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Motion is approved four to zero.
- And I spoke with Skip Daly, who is our current vice chair. And he said he would accept the nomination
- if we nominated him for vice chair. And so I am nominating him as vice chair of the Board of Soil and Appeals.
- Should we wait until he's here to verify that? I mean, you can trust me. Okay. I guess he can disclaim,
- I guess. Okay. If that is so, I will second that motion. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to nominate
- Skip Daley as the vice chair. A vote yes is a vote to approve Skip Daley as vice chair. Guy Laughman?
- Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Motion is approved, four to zero.
- And Mr. Morris, since you're the newly elected president, if you would be so kind as to take over the
- meeting now, I'd be most grateful. I can brush off my skills, yeah, but I may need some help as we go
- through here. OK, no problem. But Mr. Chairman, before we go any farther, I would like, on the point
- of personal privilege, to extend my deepest
- appreciation to Margaret Clements for the outstanding service she has provided both in me keeping orderly
- and in making this a very humane and person-centered board. And I would like to thank you at this time.
- Thank you. You're welcome. It's been a privilege and an honor, especially with such great colleagues
- on the board and with such wonderful staff. We get wonderful guidance from our professional staff and
- our attorneys, and we have good minds on our board. So it's real nice. Thank you, Mr. Hoffman. And I
- agree with everything you just said. So thank you, Ms. Clements.
- Okay, so moving on to old business. The first item, VAR-25-52A has been continued by the petitioner
- to April 1st, 2026, so we will not be hearing that tonight. Under new business, VAR-25-49 has been continued
- to April 1st, 2026 as well. So we move on to VAR-25-72A, B, and C. And I believe. And D and E and F.
- D, E, and F. D, E, and F. It's on the second page, thank you.
- And I believe Ms. Nestergellen has an update on those cases. Yes, the petitioner is here and they would
- like to speak to you about requesting a continuance, but because that was requested only yesterday,
- it is a requirement by the rules of procedure that they speak to you and then you vote on the continuance.
- So I believe they're here. Okay. If the petitioner could come forward to the podium and sign in.
- Once you sign in, if you could state your name and raise your right hand, I'll swear you in. My name
- is Mark Fisk.
- And do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. OK. Thank you.
- If you could give us a brief explanation as to why you'd like to delay. Yes. We first saw the staff
- report Monday. And after looking over it, there were some items in there that I think that, given some
- time, we could generate additional information and make some modifications to our submittal that
- Jackie and Daniel, who we've been working with, might find as a positive. And so, you know, a lot of
- snow on the ground. We're not in any huge hurry. We thought that extra month would help us because,
- again, we just saw the report two days ago and I need to mobilize my local engineer and we need to get
- together and do our work and give it back to planning. And we said that we would do that within the
- next two weeks.
- and that would give them two weeks to digest it, and we'd be ready to see you all in March. Okay.
- Thank you, Mr. Fisk. Do any members of the BZA have questions for Mr. Fisk? I move we grant the request
- for continuance. We first must ask the... Yeah, I first need to ask the public if there's any opposition
- to granting this request. Excellent point. Thank you for being such an efficient chair. That was our
- former chair that pointed that out.
- Seeing no opposition, we can go ahead and accept a motion. Move that we grant the continuance. And I
- want to second that and thank you for looking at those recommendations and seeing if you can make our
- work easier. So thank you for that compromise and good luck at it. Okay. Appreciate it. There been a
- second? Second. Yes, I second. Yes. And just to confirm, it's a continuance to the
- March 4th, BZA. Is that right, Mr. Fisk? Correct. Okay. So it's been moved and seconded to continue
- this case to March 4th, 2026, Board of Zoning Appeals. A vote yes is a vote to continue the Fisk case
- items, VAR-25-72A through 72F. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes.
- Margaret Clements? Yes. Motion is approved to continue till March 4th. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Frisk.
- Moving on to the next item, VAR-25-83. This is the Snedegar floodplain prevention standards, consummatory
- storage, various to chapter 808. And I believe you have an update on this one too, Ms. Nesterjolen.
- We do this one. I'm not sure if the petitioner is here but their representative was transparent in letting
- us know that they did not get the neighbor notices out in time. And so by the rules of procedure they
- must be continued as well. So that is the sole reason of the continuance is that there was a legality
- in the lack of notice requirement. Do we have a petitioner or petitioners represented if he wishes to
- speak to this.
- then I'll ask for any public opposition to continuing this petition. Seeing none, I'll come back to
- the BZA for a motion. BAR-25-83, the Snedeker flood damage prevention standards compensatory storage
- variance to Chapter 808. I move that we continue this to the March 4th BZA meeting. Unknown participant
- is now joining. Okay, do we have a second?
- I second that. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue case VAR-25-83, the Snedeker flood damage
- prevention standards variance for lack of required notice requirements. This unknown participant is
- now exiting. This will be continued to March 4th, 2026, BZA if voted yes by all members or by a majority
- of members. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson?
- Margaret Clements? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Motion to continue is approved four to zero. Hey, moving on
- to item number nine on the agenda. This is VAR-25-84. This is the Chasteen maximum impervious cover
- variance to chapter 805. So Mr. Smith, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you. So there is one.
- petition request for a maximum impervious cover variance to Chapter 805 for the purpose of constructing
- a 216 square foot addition. In this case, it is a back deck to the primary residence. So some background
- on this property. The property is zoned Community Development Residential, or CED for short, and it
- is also located in the Clear Creek Critical Watershed.
- So for properties in the CD zone and also that are located in a critical watershed, that means that
- they have a maximum impervious cover of 50% of the lot size or 5,500 square feet, whichever is less.
- So planning staff did calculate a rough approximate estimate to the total impervious cover of the site,
- and we estimate that to be about 10,294 square feet.
- And that is excluding the driveway connecting to the residence, because for our purposes, we don't count
- the driveway that connects to the residence. We don't count that against the petitioner. However, with
- the proposed addition, they would be adding that additional 216 square feet. So already they're over
- approximately 4794 square feet of total impervious cover on the property.
- So I did include a staff exhibit where we calculated that and then as well as the chapter 850 impervious
- cover definition which essentially states that impervious cover is surface material through which water
- cannot pass or which water has difficulty passing through. So I did highlight a few of the relevant
- definitions in here or I should say the
- specific structures or materials that we would count as impervious cover. So that being gravel areas.
- I did a site visit. This area is no longer gravel. It is now asphalt. So they did pave. So that asphalt
- is also included in that definition. Driveways, also decks. So everything to do with this project contributes
- to the maximum impervious cover.
- This is just location and site conditions map from a planning standpoint. There's otherwise no environmental
- concerns besides the impervious cover. So no cars features, no streams, nothing like that. And it would
- appear that they would meet all of their design standards. These are site photos. So I did include an
- aerial image as well as the site photos that I did when I did a site visit.
- And I did outline in the red box approximately where the proposed deck is going. It did also include
- the petitioner's letter, which is also in the packet. I can always come back to this slide if need be.
- This is the petitioner's plot plan that was submitted with their permit application, so they did a really
- detailed drawing, and they do show the proposed deck. They do identify it as being covered. And then
- this is a secondary plot plan that was also uploaded into the application, clearly showing where the
- proposed covered deck is going.
- And then that leads me into staff's recommendation, which is a recommendation of denial due to the fact
- that the increase in impervious cover on the property could promote conditions on site or off
- site detrimental to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the area. The example giving such as
- ponding of water in Chapter 841-4F3, which states that practical difficulties have not been demonstrated.
- And I will take any questions.
- Let's listen to hear the petitioner first, I would suggest. Is the petitioner or petitioner's representative
- here? Do you wish to speak? If you could come up to the podium, sir, and sign in, then I'll ask you
- to raise your right hand and I'll swear you in.
- If you could go ahead and sign in on the paper there on the podium.
- The address of the property or my address? Legal question, Mr. Joan. Does he sign his address or the
- property address? I think it's your address. My address.
- If you could state your name and then raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole
- truth and nothing but the truth? You'll have 15 minutes to explain your case to us. Okay. This project
- has been long coming. It's been something that has been the desire of the homeowner, my brother Paul
- is here, but I'm speaking
- on his behalf as a contractor. Been in the business for about 50 years around Bloomington.
- And this property, my brother Paul has owned it for the 50 years that I know of. What was it, Paul?
- 1975. And there's never been any ponding of water.
- There's never been any reason to think that any of the improvements that have been made to the property
- have been anything that would have impaired the ability for water to get away from the property. Blacktop,
- I know it's an impervious cover. I know it's by definition, but we had already tore off the deck
- about three or four years ago while we're making other improvements around the property. And the intent
- was always to put back another deck. And you can see that the door there is extremely too high for access
- out of that property for emergency situations. So it's about, it's at least four feet off the ground.
- and perhaps four and a half feet. But there's always been the intention of building a deck there. The
- driveway became something that neither one of us knew would, there was no mention ever of any while
- we were doing work at that project or on that property. Never has there been a mention that I did know
- there was a watershed
- but I didn't know there was an impervious cover that had to be, a certain amount had to be allotted
- for the property. So our position is that it has to have a back deck. It has to have an opportunity
- for people to get out of there in case there's an emergency. Impervious cover,
- If I put another deck on there, I'm still not in my reasoning, in my logic, I'm not putting an extreme
- amount of impervious cover there because water can go underneath this property up underneath the deck
- and still use or access all of that impervious area there for the purpose of absorbing water.
- before it ever gets to the watershed. But like I said, there never had been mention of an impervious
- cover limit on that property. In the 50 years that I've been dealing with my brother and building the
- property up and improving that property, there's never been that as an issue. And there's never been
- any mention of an impervious cover.
- I knew that there was a watershed area. It's not necessarily a critical watershed. It's just a simple
- slope there. As far as Blacktop, Blacktop has the ability for water to go underneath it. And I dispute
- the amount of imperious cover that's there because
- I measured some of that off and the snow was on the ground and I didn't get an opportunity to actually
- measure that blacktop, but I come up with about 7,100 square feet of impervious cover. I realize that's
- still over the 5,500, but at that particular time, we knew nothing of even a 5,500 limit of impervious cover.
- Setting all that aside, there still has to be a deck put back there for the safety of the people that
- are occupants of that property. It would do nothing but enhance the community, which it has already
- done tenfold with the improvements that have been made. And this has been a long project.
- about seven years in the making off and on. And so I just feel like the deck is something that has to
- be there for the reasons that no one knew there was an impervious cover situation that would have been
- excluding this from being able to be done
- We did consider through the steps of the construction on the project, but the blank top was something
- that may provide impervious cover to a degree, but it's something that water can saturate underneath
- it. If you take, for example,
- deck that I'm asking to build. If you were to take a tub full of water and lay a towel across the top
- of it, then that water would transfer over to that dry area or to the other end of that towel. And so
- for the same way or the same way or same reason, water has the ability to go underneath that deck and
- saturate that as it needs.
- in order to provide a area for the water to slowly saturate and get down to that particular watershed
- area. The watershed area is down at the far corner of the property. Nearly the whole back half of the
- property is available to saturation of water.
- There's never been anything done that would obstruct water from going to that low-lying area which they're
- calling a watershed and It's just You know, we're trying to be compliant with with county wishes and
- stuff in the building and struck construction that's went on we have in the past gotten permits and
- We're seeking a permit to do this as well. And Rachel Henry was the first one that ever provided any
- any doubt to the ability to get that permit. We held off on this. We've had other permits and worked
- on other parts of the property. But that deck has always been something that has been a future project to
- to work on there. Other than that, I really don't know what to tell you. I think that we're trying to
- be compliant. We're trying to make the area around this particular piece of property nice and
- make improvements that are conducive to
- quality living on that end of town. Okay. Thank you, sir. Do any members of the BZA have questions before
- you sit down? I have three questions, two for you, sir, and one for staff. You said there was an existing
- deck there when the home was purchased and you tore it down three or four years ago. Is that right?
- Correct. Was it about that same size? No, it was a little smaller than that.
- And was it on stilts? Was it on an elevated? And is that what you're thinking of with this new deck?
- What is going to be poured on the ground underneath the deck? Nothing. So it will be grass.
- It will be soil. Yes. OK. And my question to staff is the impervious cover requirements have really
- been kind of new, right? This last year. That's why you were unaware of those. The twenty twenty five is
- that the execution date, December 18, 2024. So pretty close to 2025. So that's why it's a brand new
- thing for all of us. And it has, I'm sure, everything to do with the great amount of water we have in
- the county at certain deluge times. I think so. So thank you. You've answered my three questions. Any
- additional questions, Ms. Clements? With what material do you intend to make the new deck?
- It will be out of laminate, well, it's a, the synthetic wood deck and it'll have treated six by six
- posts bearing to the ground with a small amount of a footer, an 18 inch diameter footer underneath each
- post. There'll be seven posts there. Well, there'll be slats between the,
- there would be a little space for the water to get down to the ground in the decking? Well, there could
- be. But the greatest opportunity for water to get there is because the ground slopes as it does. Yes.
- It'll be able to allow the water to go through and down and transfer down to a drainage area that drains
- directly to that wet. Is that a roof?
- Yes, there is a roof. I see. Okay. But nonetheless, you know, the water that's dispersed off of the
- roof is going to be able to go underneath that whole area and saturate the ground before it ever has
- to worry about running off and ending up at the watershed. Yeah. Mr. Lofman. Mr. Chastain, um,
- Did you say that if you get to the bottom of the hill out where this blacktop, that very elegant blacktop
- is, that there's already a drainage facility to get that water away from the house? Yes. If you see
- the red clay looking area there, all of that is tunneled or funneled in a, yes, right there, it's funneled
- in such a way
- All of that runs directly down and channels directly to that watershed area. I'm exploring possibilities.
- Do you think it would be practical, or do you intend to have gutters on this property, on this deck?
- Yeah, there'll be gutters there, yes.
- Would it be possible to run the gutters so that they come all the way down to the area that you've already
- got set up for drainage? Yes, that can be accomplished. We can simply run them in a drain pipe. There's
- already a drain pipe right at the edge of that wall. Yeah. And so we can empty it out right down there
- with that, no problem. Would you be comfortable making that a condition that you would
- to have guttering or drain all the way down to that area that's already established? Yes, I don't see
- a reason not to. And if that's a condition, does that ameliorate staff's concern about water runoff?
- Does that help at all or not? If there's a condition that they channel the water via a gutter,
- a hook into a pre-existing gutter for water management. It looks to me that the water that is right
- now falling on this impervious surface runs right down to the area that's been designated as already
- carrying water. So if we can get the exact same water that would have fallen on the grass,
- to go down into the same drainage, it seems to me it doesn't affect, there's no net effect on the impervious
- surface by adding this because the gutter will move the water to the same place it would have been anyway.
- Right. The deck will be uncovered though, is that correct? It's covered. It is covered, completely covered?
- Yes, we're seeking a covered deck.
- So you would tie in that existing, the new covering into the existing roof drain. You could condition
- that. And we would look at that during the permanent review. Would that be helpful to your concerns?
- You'd have to look at it. Yes, it just is a covering. So it's just additional area that can't be infiltrated.
- But yes, we can do that. And if I add one more thing, all of the black top that's there that you see,
- is all sloping toward the watershed. Everything drains to that watershed. Well, that's not exactly what
- I'm concerned about right now. What I am concerned is making sure that there's no additional burden
- And I think if you accept that as a condition, I'm comfortable personally with approving this, depending
- on what the public has to say. Any additional questions? No, I don't. OK. Thank you, sir. You're welcome
- to have a seat, and we'll take public comment. If anybody speaks against, then you're welcome to come
- back up for five minutes of rebuttal. So we'll turn now to public comment. Is there anybody here in
- the room who wishes to speak in favor of this petition?
- Anyone online who wishes to speak in favor, please raise your virtual hand. Anyone in the room that
- wishes to speak against this petition, please come to the podium. Anyone online who wishes to speak
- against, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing no one, we'll come back to the BZA for discussion
- and or motion. I move that we approve variance 25-84.
- It's covered 4605 south old state road 37 on the condition that gutters be installed that will gutters
- and drainage features so that the water goes to the already existing drainage to the downhill. I'll
- second that.
- And I would like to add a rationale that basically is replacing a pre-existing deck, although the timing
- is a little bit awkward, and it's slightly larger. It was integral to the house such that there's even
- a door there. And so it makes some sound reasoning to replace what had been taken down for
- for the property itself and for the value of the house. And for the safety of the house. That's right,
- I'm glad you mentioned that. Thank you. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-25-84, which
- is the Chasteen maximum impervious cover to chapter 805, with one condition that the petitioner's building
- permit incorporate a gutter and drainage feature
- to tie into the existing roof drain of the structure. A vote yes is a vote to approve with the condition
- as added. I'm not sure it's a roof drain. It's tying into, it's the ground drain I think it's tying
- into. The roof of this is gonna come down to the drainage for the whole house. Okay, so you just want
- a new drain to
- go in the direction of where the water was headed before? To the already installed drainage system.
- Okay. So then I will revise that motion. So VR 25-84, a condition be that the petitioner create a drain
- or gutter to allow the flow of water to continue in its direction prior to the deck expansion. Yes.
- Thank you. All right. A vote yes is a vote to approve with the condition as stated. Jeff Morris? Yes.
- Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Guy Laughlin? Yes. Motion is approved four to zero. Thank
- you Mr. Chastain for coming out and explaining your project to us.
- Okay, moving on to the next two items on the agenda. This is VAR-25-85A. This is the Junkins Accessory
- Dwelling Unit owner occupied variance to chapter 811. And VAR-25-85B. This is the Junkins Accessory
- Dwelling Unit five acre lot size variance to chapter 811. So Mr. Smith, I'll turn it back over to you.
- So as previously stated, there are two variances here from the accessory dwelling units standards in
- Chapter 811. So the purpose would be to permit a detached accessory dwelling unit via internal conversion
- on the property.
- So the property is zoned Agricultural Residential 2.5 or AGR for short on a 3.44 acre lot. This is known
- as tract one in the subdivision Bueller addition. So properties with accessory dwelling units are required
- per the county development ordinance to have the property owner reside in either the primary residence
- or the accessory dwelling unit.
- The petitioner does not live on the property, so the petitioner does not meet that requirement. Properties
- with accessory dwelling units are also required to have at least five acres. The property's under five
- acres, so the petitioner is not meeting that requirement either. There does exist a primary residence
- on the property that is under a long-term rental agreement with the property owner. And the proposed
- 1,000 square feet accessory dwelling unit
- is currently a pole barn structure that is currently inhabited by tenants. So this is all after the
- fact. I did leave a note that the 1,000 square feet is of the total structure that is proposed to be
- a dadu. So it's not the entire pole barn structure. It's only 1,000 square feet of it. This is located
- off of north
- at the corner of North Old State Road 37 and East Wisnand Road, and that is just north of Griffey Lake.
- So I do apologize ahead of time, but this is gonna be a long-winded presentation, but there's a lot
- of information to go over. So some background on this petition, planning staff was notified via anonymous
- property complaint.
- That is property complaint 25-38 that there were several mailboxes that were placed along the petitioner's
- driveway entrance at 1680 East Wisnand Road. So the petitioner's residence is adjacent to the current
- property in question. The zoning inspector did a site visit and I included some of her photos at the
- bottom of the screen. We did confirm what appeared to be multiple apartments.
- within the pole barn structure. There are no building or planning permits on file for the scope of work.
- So we did confirm that a zoning violation had occurred on the property and we did open an enforcement
- case. That's AC 25 33. The zoning inspector did send the property owner who is the petitioner an enforcement
- letter with instructions to contact the planning department to resolve the issue.
- Due to the extensive work that has been done on the property As well as what had appeared to be six
- apartment units planning did advise the property owner to submit a use determination With our department
- so we could determine exactly What the use of the property was so that's use 2554 Planning did determine
- that the property's use was multifamily five plus units
- The only zone in the county that allows for that use is high development residential or HD.
- So as a result, planning had directed the petitioner to file for a rezone. And that rezone application
- is REZ 2510. So over the next several weeks, conversations were had between planning department, building
- department, as well as the petitioner.
- regarding the improvements to the structure that were going to be necessary in order to meet Indiana
- building code for a class one structure. So that would include things like a sprinkler system, firewalls,
- as well as a commercial septic system. So these are all necessities when we're talking about an apartment building.
- The petitioner did state that the cost of the improvements for six apartments was not financially feasible.
- So planning gave the petitioner time to decide exactly how he wanted to pursue if he still wanted to
- pursue the rezone request or if he wanted to withdraw that request and start the decommissioning process.
- So the petitioner did opt to withdraw his rezone request
- So planning directed him to the next steps, which would be decommissioning and then also vacating the
- structure as it currently stands in its use. The petitioner did inquire with planning about a number
- of other potential uses to replace the apartment units. So some of those uses being office spaces, storage
- units, religious facility.
- None of these uses ever received an official use determination since none of them were ever pursued
- by the petitioner. The petitioner did ultimately agree to decommission the apartment units. And while
- working on decommissioning, the petitioner did ask planning if it was any way possible to keep one of
- the apartment units in the structure. So if you're keeping one,
- of the units then he could potentially classify it as an accessory dwelling unit which is a permitted
- use in the zoning district. However planning staff did mention to him that he does not meet two of those
- standards so doesn't meet the five acre lot size requirement and he doesn't reside on the property.
- So those are two standards that you have to meet if you're going to have a permitted accessory dwelling unit. So
- If the BZA were to deny VAR 2585A, then the petitioner can't pursue the dowdo unless he actually moves
- onto the property. And if VAR 2585B is denied, then the petitioner is unable to pursue the dowdo use
- unless he obtains acreage from a neighbor. And it would have to be enough that it would equal five acres.
- I also included a timeline of events that occurred that I'll go through, I'll try to go through quickly.
- So this came to planning staff's attention on July 29th, 2025. That's when the property complaint was
- filed with our department. On August 7th, the zoning inspector did complete a site visit and that's
- where she did note the violations that I had mentioned before. On August 11th,
- The planning department did open an enforcement case after we confirmed that a clear zoning violation
- was occurring and a letter was sent the same day with a deadline to file for a use determination by
- August 28th 2025. On August 19th the owner had called planning and asked what was needed to submit use
- determination. So planning staff did assist in applying for that use determination.
- On August 27, 2025, the owner called the zoning inspector and explained that he was trying to obtain
- septic permit information. And it's our understanding that there are at least two different septics
- on the property that the owner has installed.
- But he had indicated that the health department said it could take a few weeks to get him the information
- that he was looking for. So the zoning inspector did extend the filing deadline to October 22nd, 2025.
- Again, on September 10th, 2025, the owner came into the planning department requesting assistance with
- submitting that use determination. We got him over the finish line and submitted that use determination.
- And that's use 2554. On September 19th, planning staff issued the use determination. So that is where
- planning staff officially determined the use to be multifamily five plus units. And that is where we
- instructed the owner to apply for a rezone. On October 13th, 2025, planning staff
- We had helped the owner apply for the rezoned application the same way we did with the use determination.
- Again, that's REZ 2510. On November 6, planning staff, the owner and the building department, again,
- discussed the requirements for bringing the structure up to compliance with Indiana Building Code. So
- that is when planning gave the owner time to determine exactly what next step he wanted to take if he
- wanted to go through with the rezone.
- And then on November 17th, 2025, the owner came to planning and asked about different uses. That's where
- we had discussed what would go into permitting those different uses. Ultimately, the owner had decided
- maybe he would discuss the options with an attorney. It's unclear if that happened. December 5th, 2025.
- The owner had asked planning about just keeping the one apartment. So that's where we get into the proposed
- accessory dwelling unit use. It was the understanding that five of the six apartments would still have
- to be decommissioned. So even if he was to get the variance for the accessory dwelling unit, he does
- still have to decommission five of the six units.
- The on the same day the owner had indicated that the tenants were quote on their way out Planning did
- give him a deadline to file for a variance, which is what he's here for tonight by January 7th 2026
- in the same day planning stopped the rezone application and then on December 22nd 2025 that's when the
- variance before he was submitted and the owner has been
- periodically throughout the entire process, been working with planning, and he's been working with planning
- ever since that date, so nothing has necessarily changed in that regard. He has been very responsive,
- been working with staff the entire time. At present, as of this meeting, this is what planning staff knows.
- We do know or at least have confirmation from the property owner that four of the six tenants in the
- pole barn structure no longer reside on the property. So there still are two of the six residing on
- the property. They are working to only have one because only one would be permitted even if this was
- granted. So as of the staff site visit we did note that there were still multiple vehicles on the property
- all around.
- the structure in front of the apartment units. Again the petitioner states that four of the six tenants
- have vacated. So when we inquired about the multiple parked vehicles the owner did state that it was
- a prior tenants business detailing vehicles and these vehicles were awaiting pickup.
- We planning staff have not, there's been no further evidence provided on this. And as planning staff,
- we don't typically enter inside someone's home. So we have not confirmed for a fact that these units
- have been vacated. The property owner has also submitted two accessory structure permits
- The first being for a carport. That's our 25 1256 and for a covered porch to the structure. That's our
- 25 1255 That were also built on the property without permits Those applications were rejected by the
- Planning Department due to the active enforcement case on the property so We would not issue
- either of those permits until the enforcement case has been resolved. And so once that enforcement case
- is resolved, then planning will review those permits. And if the petitioner meets all of the requirements
- for those structures, then planning will issue those permits. These are site photos. So the first photo
- being the farmhouse. That is the
- Long term rental agreement that that tenant has with the property owner as planning staff. We just treat
- that as any other residents. And then the following photos is the pole barn slash apartment structure.
- And I took photos all around. You'll note there are vehicles around the structure.
- And I separated these photos out from the rest because they contain the location of the proposed accessory
- dwelling unit. So the one with the covered porch, that would be for the accessory dwelling unit that
- the petitioner is requesting a variance for. And the petitioner did state that it would be 1,000 square
- feet. That would be the absolute limit that
- planning staff could permit an accessory dwelling unit because as part of the accessory dwelling unit
- requirements it cannot be greater than a thousand square feet. We did note that there is an expanded
- driveway connection that's located on the southern property line. It is connected to an existing easement. It's
- Planning staff's understanding that that driveway connection shouldn't be there. There is already access
- off of old State Road 37. So there should not be a secondary connection there. But that was noted as
- part of the complaint that tenants were using that driveway entrance. This is the petitioner's letter.
- It's also included in the packet.
- stating his request. The next three slides will be the petitioner's plot plan. So staff did assist with
- that with help from the petitioner to try to locate exactly where those septics are and the location
- of the DADU, the Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit. So we put that on the screen here. And then
- The initial image that's been kind of grayed out here, this initial image was submitted as part of his
- rezone request. So we did work with the petitioner to try to outline exactly where each of the six units
- were. So when we looked over this with the petitioner, it would appear that you would prefer to keep
- what is apartment unit number four. That would be
- the accessory dwelling unit, and then the rest of the structure not only would have to be decommissioned,
- but he also could not utilize that for anything other than accessory storage. So it would have to be
- his own personal, maybe the tenant's personal items, but it could not be used to rent to anybody.
- and it cannot be of course used for any sort of apartment or dwelling unit. Planning staff did receive
- a letter of opposition. I did include it in the packet. If the board would like to revisit this after
- the presentation, I can do so.
- The person who submitted the letter listed about eight different reasons why they are opposed to this
- petition, and they signed their name. We can of course come back to this if the board would like, but
- it is also in the packet. Planning staff did provide the petitioner with next steps.
- In the event that the BZA denies both variance requests, the petitioner will be required to completely
- decommission the pole barn back into an accessory structure without any residential living space. Even
- though the pole barn was previously legally used as a two unit apartment building,
- When the petitioner expanded the building, converted the interior, and added several new apartment units,
- it lost its pre-existing status. So he would not be able to just revert back. At this point, it's too
- far altered. The enforcement action will be to, A, apply for a building permit,
- and receive approval and that building permit will be for decommissioning the structure back into a
- pole barn. All other complaints that are related to, you know, law access or a potential unpermitted
- business by one of the tenants or any other issue with, you know, pertaining to multi-tenant occupancy in the
- farmhouse. All of that will have to be reviewed by planning staff, and he will have to comply with each
- of those. If the variance is approved, the petitioner will still be required to obtain a building permit.
- We would classify it as a remodel to the existing building, but it will have to be only one accessory
- dwelling unit with the rest of the
- Approximate 4,100 square feet of interior space reverted back to personal storage or accessory use only.
- On multiple occasions, the petitioner did inquire with staff about turning the soon to be empty space
- into commercial storage or office space for rent. That is not permitted under the existing zoning.
- you wouldn't be able to start another business in that empty space. Staff's recommendation for both
- variances is denial. That is based on the petitioner's inability to prove practical difficulties,
- specifically part A, which states that
- arises from conditions on the property that do not generally exist in the area i.e. Property conditions
- create a relatively unique development problem petitioner has not proven that they meet that practical
- difficulty and part B Which states precludes the development or use of the property in a manner or to
- an extent enjoyed by other conforming properties in the area again, the petitioner has not
- proven that that practical difficulty has been met. And I will take any questions. I have one quick
- question before I turn to the petitioner. What is the lot size? The lot size is 3.44 acres. OK,
- thank you. Does anybody else have questions for Mr. Smith? OK, we can turn now to the petitioner. If
- the petitioner or petitioner's representative is here in the room, you're welcome to come to the podium.
- I believe he's online. Okay. If you're online services, unmute David. No last name. David, if you wish
- to speak, you'll need to unmute. I can't see David Jackie on team. So can you let me know if he's unmuted?
- He is not unmuted. I think that tech services has pressed the ability to allow the mic, but he is not
- yet unmuted. David, if you wish to speak, could you raise your virtual hand to let us know that?
- He can speak. Okay. Sir, could you state your name and raise your right hand and tell me if you swear
- to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- I think that was tech services speaking. Oh, okay. Do we know if the petitioner wishes to speak? Tech
- services, if you could unmute Teresa. And then, Teresa, if you can unmute your mic. Okay. Yeah, can
- you hear me now?
- Could you state your name, please, and then I'll swear you in. Go ahead, David. David Jenkins. OK, and
- could you raise your right hand and state whether you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
- nothing but the truth? I do, so I have the gun. OK, you'll have 15 minutes to present your case to us.
- Well, there's a lot to take in right here. I would request to have
- one dwelling on the eastern side, not the western side. But that's, I just now thought about that from
- hearing all the other options. And the water runoff has a slope, very gentle slope from east to west away
- from the structure. There's too much for me to continue any kind of building and structure. So there
- are still two more people that
- refused to move and I have filed an eviction notice on them. So that would comply with the one resident
- structure. And you mentioned that I should not be using the accessory entrance on
- driveways. So, well, I could stop that. They would have to come in from the Eastern North East. I can't
- think of anything else except what you have offered me. I just request to have the one resident
- on that accessory structure. That I have to say. Okay, thank you, sir. Do any members of the BZA have
- questions for the petitioner? Okay, seeing none, we will turn now to public comment. So if there's anyone
- here in the room who wishes to speak in favor of this petition, if you could come to the podium.
- Okay, seeing no one, if there's anyone online who wishes to speak in favor of this petition, please
- raise your virtual hand. If you're here in the room and wish to speak against the petition, please come
- to the podium. If we've got more than one person, you're welcome to form a line here along the wall.
- If you could sign in and then I'll ask you to state your name and swear you in.
- What is your name, sir? James Hurt. Okay. Could you raise your right hand and tell me if you swear to
- tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. You'll have three minutes. Yeah.
- I own the properties at 1580 East West Nand Road and also one at 1680 that was divided into two parcels.
- So my land actually abuts what is going on here at 4899.
- Essentially, this is a residential area that's supposed to be used for single family homes. That's not
- what's going on at the property. Instead, it's been converted into a rental development here. He doesn't
- live on the property. The entity actually that's applied for the permit is Junkins Rentals LLC.
- is he's trying to rent the property. First of all, that's a dissolved LLC. It's not even a legal entity
- anymore. So the petitioner doesn't exist. But for what it's worth, it seems like what Mr. Junkins really
- wants to do now is convert this auxiliary. He wants this to be an auxiliary dwelling unit where we can
- have one renter. And that should not be permitted. It should not be permitted because that's not
- what this land is supposed to be used for. This land is supposed to be residential, and the owner is
- supposed to live there. Oftentimes, the owner will live in a property. The auxiliary dwelling unit will
- be for mother-in-law, father-in-law, grandma. That's not what's going on here. What's going on here
- is that he's turned this, what should be a single family home, into his own personal rental development,
- one with six
- six different units right here. And then this other home that's also on the property is the main home.
- It appears to me at least that there's more than one renter or more than one family living in there.
- I think that the rental value on that, I think he was renting it for more than a couple grand is what
- I had heard. That's more than market value and that would tend to
- leads somebody to believe that there's more than one family living in there. So that would be a violation.
- And then also moving another rental family on there, there'd be at least two different people renting
- on one plot. That's not what this was designed for. This is a neighborhood. It's a beautiful area of
- Bloomington over on the north side of town by Griffey Lake. There's lots of young families like mine
- that live there. And having multiple renters in and out,
- or even turning this into a business or whatever it might be, that's not what this is for. It's supposed
- to be single family use, and that's not what's going on. I would suggest that any request for this to
- be turned into an auxiliary dwelling unit for the purpose of renting it out even to one person be denied
- because he doesn't live there. And then also, I would encourage everybody to go look at the square footage
- there. I believe it's much, much more than 1,000 square feet, the auxiliary dwelling unit, and that
- would be a violation as well.
- I would also encourage everyone to go look at the main home is what I'll call it here. I think there's
- probably more than one family or more than one tenant that's living in there. And that would also violate
- the use of a single family home because it's not a single family that's using it. It's multiple families,
- multiple tenants that's using it. And again, this is supposed to be a neighborhood where young families
- live. And that's not what's going on. What's going on is that this has been turned into his personal
- rental real estate development here. And I know that he keeps asking for these different things and
- different variances. But the fact of the matter is he's done a lot of things without permit. And he's
- kept going and kept going and kept going without permits. And it's degraded the land, it's degraded
- the area, and it's degraded the neighborhood.
- And if he's continued to give a long leash, he'll keep making these mistakes without permits and will
- continue to get worse and worse and worse and further and further away from how it's supposed to be
- used, a single family home. And so I would encourage everybody to not give any more leash, to stop this
- before it gets too far away from what it's supposed to be, which has already occurred, sadly. Thank you.
- Thank you for sharing your thoughts, sir. Do we have anybody else here in the room who wishes to speak
- against this petition? You can sign in and then I'll swear you in. Debbie Hanna.
- Okay, could you raise your right hand and state whether you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,
- and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Okay, thank you. You'll have five minutes. I don't have much to
- add other than I'm in agreement. My property is catty cornered to it, to his property, so I'm not adjacent
- to it. But I just, over the years, have seen numerous additions, numerous buildings, numerous things
- going on. There are multiple, multiple cars, multiple, multiple families. You know, we pretty much mind
- each other's business.
- on that road, but we are primarily single family homes, estate homes with large land plots and that
- type of thing. So it's what he's done and the violations, I'm sure there's, it cannot pass any kind
- of safety code violation for the people living there. So again, I would be worried about the people
- who are actually dwelling there. It's just a hodgepodge. It's a big mess.
- I would agree that if we can stop it where it is, that that would be beneficial to the neighborhood
- and to the community. Everyone who comes in on old 37 to Bloomington is driving right by it. That would
- be it. I would recommend that if he wants to turn the pole barn back into where horses used to be stored
- there back in the 80s and 90s,
- He could make as much money if he just rented out the horse, you know, horse stalls. People pay good
- money for that. There you go, David. Okay, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Is there anyone else
- here in the room who wishes to speak against this petition? Seeing no one, we'll turn to online to see
- if anybody wishes to speak against it. Please raise your virtual hand.
- Okay, seeing no one, we can go back to Mr. Junkins now. If you wish to speak to the people who were
- in opposition to your petition, you'll have an additional five minutes if you choose to do so, but you're
- not obligated. Okay, I understand and sympathize with Mr. Hurt and I don't know who the lady was,
- but Mr. Hurt is speaking from hearsay.
- several of the items he mentioned is not correct. One glaring problem is that I have a single family
- renter in the farmhouse, what we call the farmhouse on the corner lot. So that is one problem I have
- with what he is saying.
- for some of the other stuff that he brought up. Like I say, I sympathize with him and it would be advised
- for anybody who wants to buy this property, they're welcome to come and give me an offer on it. And
- they can turn it into a horse barn or whatever they want. And that way I won't have to deal with all
- this stuff
- It's prohibitive for me to do anything more with this property except move away. That's about all I
- have to say. I will comply with whatever the planning board deems proper.
- Okay, thank you, Mr. Jenkins. May I ask him one question? Sure. Mr. Jenkins, how far do you live from
- this property? 300 feet. 300 feet. So you live outside the blue lines that we're looking at right here,
- but maybe right across the road. And the zoning area, it's like 10 or 15 feet from the plotted. Thank you.
- Hey, so we will turn now to the BZA for discussion and or emotion. Just for clarity sake, I put on the
- GIS, the parcel where Mr. Junkins resides and then the parcel, the subject parcel for tonight's variance
- is just north of that. So it does, but his current property. Thank you, Jackie. I've got a couple of
- staff questions if I could.
- If Mr. Jungens moved in to the house that's now rented, would it then qualify that he could, would that
- be, would solve one of the problems? Yes. Yes. Okay. And I think I know the answer to this from previous,
- but let me, let me, if, if he moves in,
- Does he have to, at least at one point, file a petition and say that the owner must always live there
- if there's somebody in the dwelling unit, or then if he moves out or sells the property, does that continue
- to have to be a data with the owner occupant? He has to sign an affidavit and record it to meet that
- condition. So that condition runs with the land, no matter where he lives.
- If he were to sell the property and the new person wanted to implement the data, we would require a
- new affidavit from the new owner to live on the property. Right, or else they'd have to give up the
- rental unit, the other unit, okay? I think I know what I'm, you say decommission. What does that mean?
- That's a great question. So decommissioning.
- Each of the units have a bedroom a kitchen and a bathroom. So decommissioning it would look like eliminating
- at least two of those three from each of the quote unquote units. The work that's been done has not
- been permitted so
- You know, we don't necessarily know exactly what it looks like on the inside, but yeah, part of the
- decommissioning process would be having to prove that none of the rooms could ever be used as a dwelling,
- which we know the structure already was not built to be habitable, so it already wouldn't meet
- the requirements anyways. One more I think is,
- Even if Mr. Junkins redid all the deeds, did some sort of subdivision so that he would, if he combined
- the properties and then divided off the one rental, then he might get over five acres with his two properties
- combined and he could have the one unit
- the big house which, you know, which is when the 110 at the large house could be, might be a freestanding
- rental on one, on an independent piece of property. I'm not suggesting that be done, but if he wanted
- to do that, is that something that would likely work?
- His property is owned agricultural residential two point five requiring a two and a half acre minimum
- lot size. His current home lot is one point nine four acres so it doesn't have any acreage to give.
- Very good. OK. Well.
- That's my staff questions. Does anybody else have anything they want to say before we? And I would add
- to the witnesses that we heard, we're not concerned that there at one time were six units because we
- have learned four are decommissioned and two is trying to evict those people. At least he just so testified
- about that. So that was then and this is now. So we're looking at one unit,
- possibly in that pole barn. And we're also not concerned at this meeting about how many people live
- in the farmhouse. That's another group that would look at that, not us. So I just wanted to clarify
- that we're looking at the possibility of one unit in that pole barn. I would also say that I don't know
- which governmental body
- passed the dadu requirements. And dadus are all over the country. I've stayed in one with my niece in Seattle.
- The five acre requirement is a continual issue. The 1,000 square feet size is a continual issue. And
- the third continual issue is living on the property when this man lives across the street. So we've
- had some factual concerns. If we really want to expand housing in our county, I hope they at least revisit
- it to look at the practical difficulties of some of those
- seemingly fine regulations at the time, but the practical application has been quite troublesome. We've
- had very limited authority to help grant daddus, to help with the housing issue we all know we have
- in the entire country. And I just want to make that point that I hope it's revisited at one point to
- say, is it working for what we intended? That's really what I want to say.
- Thank you, Ms. Davidson. Are there any other comments on this case? I think I'm aligned with staff's
- recommendation in this case. I think I am too. Okay. Do we have a- It's just, I like to get to yes,
- but this is just too many steps for me to be able to get to yes. Do we have a motion?
- I appreciate Mr. Junkins talking with us about it and all the efforts he's made, but I don't see any
- way any efforts he could make are going to allow this to be a dadu. It seems to me the touchstone of
- the dadu is living on the property.
- I feel bound by the ordinance. Therefore, I move to deny variance 2585 B, junk and accessory dwelling
- unit at 4899 North Old State Road 37 on the grounds that he has not carried the burden to
- allow a Danu to be created because it's not owner occupied and the lot is too small. Do we have a second?
- Second, Pat. It's been moved and seconded to deny VAR-25-85A, which is the owner occupancy requirement
- for the junk and success redwelling unit.
- and deny VAR-25-85B, which is the five acre lot size requirement for any Dadu. A vote yes is a vote
- to deny both variances. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Guy Loftman?
- Yes. Okay, the variance has been denied by a vote of four to zero.
- Thank you, Mr. Jenkins for coming out to share your case tonight. I'm sorry that this did not go the
- way who you had hoped and thank you to members of the public who came to speak as well. So we will move
- on to the next cases which are VAR-26-1A and 1B. This is the Scientia interior parking landscape variance
- to chapter 816 and the Scientia sidewalk requirement variance to chapter 818. So Mr. Brown, I'll turn
- it over to you. Thank you.
- So the purpose for these variance requests is that the petitioner is proposing a new structure on an
- existing commercial property along with an expanded parking lot. They have filed for a proper site plan
- under SIT-25-15. Before they can receive a site plan approval as proposed, however, the petitioners
- are requesting variances from both
- requirements for interior landscaping, more specifically the parking islands as well as the sidewalk.
- So in regards to the interior landscaping islands, the petitioner is proposing a 6,000 square foot building
- and 30 new parking spaces at the commercial site. As such, the landscaping standards of Chapter 816
- would need to be met. Regarding parking island
- interior parking standards, the petitioner is proposing to expand the parking lot by 33 parking spaces,
- bringing the total up to 57, including four ADA spaces. The parking lot is estimated by staff, including
- the proposed expansion, to equal a total of 22,609 square feet. And the county development ordinance
- under Table 4-816
- This means that approximately 5% of the total parking lots, or 1,130.45 square feet, which equals seven
- parking islands, must be dedicated to interior planting, which translates to parking islands that have
- trees, shrubs, and grasses on them. The petitioner is showing compliance with the required number of
- parking islands proposed, eight in total, but they are requesting a variance from
- Chapter 816-12D listed below, which says that landscaped islands of at least 162 square feet of area
- shall be provided every nine spaces or less within a row of spaces. Planting islands should be spaced
- evenly throughout the parking lot to consistently
- reduce the visual impact of long rows of parked cars, and islands shall be utilized where needed to
- control vehicular circulation and to find major drives. Due to the existing parking lot not having interior
- landscaping islands, approximately four of the proposed and existing parking spaces would need to be
- converted into interior parking islands. And regarding the sidewalk, according to Beacon,
- Petitioner property is located in the county development ordinance urban area boundary and according
- to Chapter 841-2-4A, site plans and site plan amendments located in areas that prompt sidewalks per
- Chapter 818 must be installed before a final approval. Specifically, Chapter 818-1B states the following
- standards, that sidewalks shall be placed in the right of way to the extent possible when prompted by
- a site plan
- Under a site plan, sidewalks are required to be installed if any of the following prompts apply to the
- commercial site. One, the sidewalk is present within 2,000 linear feet of the property. Two, the property
- is shown to be on the Transport Alternatives Plan with a greenway corridor or road improvement label.
- Or three, the property is within the urban area boundary as defined. The site meets two of the three
- criteria requiring a sidewalk for specifically number one and number three.
- According to estimates, a sidewalk measuring approximately 590 feet would need to be installed on the
- side of the petition site. It would be somewhat bisected by an existing driveway and will need to be
- at least five feet wide. So the image on the left and below shows comments from the Monroe County stormwater
- team. Sorry, the highway engineer.
- Quotes Kirby risk has recently constructed sidewalk on the south end of Loesch Road and on the east
- side of the road They provide a mid-block crosswalk north of their property because they were unable
- to continue the Sidewalk across the railroad tracks and connect with a West profile Parkway I'm not
- in favor of granting sidewalk waiver to this property a sidewalk along this property would help provide
- future connectivity to this existing sidewalk on the south side of Vernal Pike unquote
- That statement comes from Paul Siderly, the highway engineer. The map on the right shows the Karst Farm
- Greenway biking trail and connector for the yellow line. And the existing sidewalk is in blue. The petition
- site is highlighted in a light blue. And here's the location and zoning map of the property, as well
- as comprehensive plan and site conditions map. These are images of the property.
- Image on the left shows an aerial view of the property. The proposed building is going to be placed
- right where my mouse is, if you can see that. The image on the right shows the existing building on
- the property. And here, the image on the left shows the location of where the proposed building is going
- to go. The image on the right shows where the sidewalk would need to be installed if this variance is denied.
- And this is also a Google Street View of the property showing kind of the width of the parking lot as
- it exists currently. Here is an image of the petitioner's site plan, as well as their landscaping plan.
- As you can see, they are proposing several landscaping islands. It's just a matter of putting some where
- there are nine spaces or less.
- per the standard requested. Staff recommends denial of both VAR-26A based on the findings of FACT and
- denial of VAR-26-1B based on the findings of FACT as well as comments from the Monroe County Highway
- Department. And I will take any questions. Does anyone have questions or do we turn straight to the
- petitioner? Well, usually we hear the petitioner before we get into questions to seek what
- where the issues are. We can turn then to the petitioner. If you could sign in. Good evening.
- Mr. Butler, if you could state your name for the record and raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell
- the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Daniel Butler, Bynum Family and Associates.
- I do. Thank you. You'll have 15 minutes, sir. All right. I'm Daniel, Bynum Family and Associates. And
- I believe Lucas Johnson and Doug McDaniel are here with ownership tonight. Are you guys here? If you
- guys could come up here. They're here with ownership so that they can answer any questions as well.
- This project started out as a growing company. They're doing well and they need in addition to their
- facility including some some new parking and We also wanted to protect the west side of the site and
- keep it a tree preservation area as much as possible and so that's kind of how we went about starting
- to have the
- the site plan kind of laid out to allow for some tree preservation, but also expand, place the building
- in just the right manner and provide some extra parking and do so. So I think we've achieved this in
- the site plan that you saw, but it did end up requiring two variances. So I'll try to explain those
- and describe what we were aware of and what we believe some of the code is saying in regard to those
- two variances. So I'll explain.
- First, the sidewalk variance that's out front. The first thing is that this is a really we're seeing
- as a site plan amendment. There is an extra building and some parking being added. We're not doing a
- subdivision. We're not doing a brand new facility. And so we view it just a little bit of a financial hardship.
- to add 590 feet of sidewalk that's out front that wasn't there previously for an addition. So that's
- the first reason I just wanted to draw your attention to. The next reason is in the CDO, it does allow
- that in cases of subdivisions,
- You can choose or the normally the plan commission can actually give a waiver. I'm not we're asking
- for a waiver tonight, but I'm just it's something along the same lines That if you have an all-purpose
- trail that's at least 10 foot wide on one side Then they can wave the sidewalk on the other side And
- I believe that that's kind of what we're asking for in the same lines of thinking here so that the karst
- Greenway is on one side right now it is 10 feet wide and so we're asking if you wanted that piece of
- code that's chapter 18-1 3a and we were under the impression that that would be something that could
- be taken into account because of the usefulness and the beauty of that greenway that's out there now.
- The next piece is this is actually still under the old subdivision
- Northwest Park Platte that current that platte was This the stormwater department had quoted that plot
- for some of the requirements that we needed to do on this project currently So they asked for us to
- fall within that those rules and regulations of that plot and that plot does only have a path on right now
- the opposite side. So it doesn't require it on both sides. So there's two pieces that we believe only
- required on one side. And, you know, it's called the Karst Greenway, right? I'm saying that correctly.
- I thought it was the Karst Greenway being on the other side. Some more minor reasons for that particular
- one. There are some existing street trees.
- they're getting larger oaks that are along there. So if we put that in, it'd be difficult to try to
- save them. So that's just a more minor reason. There is a section of woods along our property that kind
- of falls off into the woods. So it wouldn't be necessarily easy to construct. You'd be eliminating some
- more mature street trees and then possibly getting, I'm not saying
- into the woods, it just wouldn't be nice and easy to construct. Okay, let me go to islands and then
- we'll be happy to answer any questions. The purpose generally for curved islands in a parking lot is
- to allow for maneuverability within a parking lot and also provide
- trees to grow within those to provide less than the heat island effect. And we understand that. So we're
- not asking for all the parking lot islands to be removed from this. We have just reasons to remove three
- of them from the west side of it because of the nature of how we had to lay out what I was describing
- at the beginning. So we don't get too far into and remove more woods than we need to. So this is one
- long line of parking that we want to continue.
- on this site on the site plan so it makes it one it makes it more difficult to plow and we need one
- side to just for practicality of maintaining a site just
- with having plows going back and forth. The second is they do have places in the new building and the
- old building to receive shipments. These are not always small pup trucks. They can be large trucks that
- need to have a little bit of maneuverability to get in and out. So we're asking for that reason. We
- are providing large canopy trees on this property and saving a large chunk of
- Preserved woods on the property and so we're not asking you to take away all the trees But we are providing
- them elsewhere on the property that will still when they mature will still help with that He Island
- effect even across the parking lot Another reason that you saw a letter in your packet Was from the
- adjacent property owner the way that that got laid out. It was must been some time ago, but their building
- is really right and
- close to this property. And so they requested that, hey, if you're going to do this new, can you make
- sure some of these large trees, when they get mature, don't kind of stretch over into that? And so that
- was another reason we took them out. So it was for many reasons that we felt was necessary to ask you
- tonight for a variance. And farther down where the building's not at, we are providing those large canopy
- trees. So it's just
- in some of that west side closer to where the building's at. But you guys want to add anything? I'll
- need to swear you in before you speak. If you could sign in and then raise your right hand. Tech Services,
- if you could pause the clock. Could you state your name for us?
- My name's Douglas McDaniel. Okay, and then do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
- but the truth? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you, sir. I just wanted to add a couple of comments regarding the
- sidewalk and the trees that are over there. There are five very large mature oak trees that are 10 feet
- from the curb to Loesch Road there. So if the sidewalk has to be five feet wide and it has to set a
- foot or two foot back from the curb,
- The sidewalk would actually be within three or four feet of the base of those oak trees. According to
- the internet, my research says, and I'm familiar with oak trees and how the roots go along the top of
- the ground more so than straight down, it's detrimental to the growth and you can kill those oak trees
- if you put a sidewalk. Actually, they recommend at least 15 feet.
- away from the base of an oak tree. And on that one picture, well, you can see right there, that's the
- largest of the oak trees there, and it's within about eight feet of the curb. The sidewalk would kill
- that tree, I'm certain of it. I'm not an expert, but I'm certain that it would. On the other side, where
- we're talking about the curb islands, I planted, or my son-in-law and I planted 18 arborvites.
- on that side of the parking lot. So we already have a lot of shade. And now that was 12 or 13 years
- ago. And so they're probably close to 15 feet tall now. And it will create eventually a complete barrier
- there that will help protect from the heat from the sun coming in on the parking lot there. So we've
- also planted
- We planted two other oak trees that are on the side of the building towards Loesch Road. We've planted
- numerous shrubs and we've got flowers that my wife takes care of and planted up along the front of the
- building too. We do sophomore engineering. We support crane a lot. We work almost exclusively on forest
- protection systems.
- And so we're growing business. Unfortunately, the world's not getting any safer. But a lot of times
- we have our customers want to come to our facility to meet and that kind of thing. And in fact, our
- the new proposed building has a much larger conference room than our current building for that very
- reason. And there are times even now with our existing parking lot, we don't have enough space for all
- of our folks. And so that's why we request the
- approval of the waiver for all of the islands. We don't object to putting a couple in if that would
- be acceptable to the board. I want to thank you for taking the time to hear our presentation and for
- the work that you do. We want to be good citizens of Monroe County. We live here and have our families
- and grandchildren and children here. So we want to be good members of the community, but we request
- that you would approve our waivers.
- Thank you, sir. May I ask? I'm sorry. I'm the managing member of Skientia there, and also, Lucas and
- I are the owners of Interchange Investments that own the property.
- May I ask you a question? I just drove by down this road today. You couldn't tell if there were any
- sidewalks because of the snow, which you is. No question. Are there any other sidewalks on your side
- of the road? Because I'm aware there are on the other side of the road with the trailways. There is
- a sidewalk that's a little ways down. I actually designed that sidewalk myself.
- And that was a result of a subdivision that was required and partially because there was no greenway
- halfway there. The greenway turns off and goes into the woods about halfway. And that's why we provided
- the mid block crossing down there. And so in this case, because of the reasons I mentioned before, that's
- why we're asking for it not to be in this section. And that's why we provided in that section.
- There's no sidewalk on the other end of our property that goes out to Vernal Pike. There's none on the
- west side of this property as of right now. That's right. Well, I am aware of the large trees that you've
- talked about because those are quite beautiful. Certainly don't want to lose those beautiful trees.
- Thank you. Are there any other questions for the petitioner?
- Not at this time. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome to have a seat while we take public comment. I'm sorry.
- I'm sorry. Who does have a question? I do. Can I see the site plan? As I understand it, at one end of
- this property, there is wooded property. There's a wooded area that you all own.
- If you all cut down the woods, not suggesting that this is a sensible thing to do, but if you cut down
- the woods and built a parking lot into the area where the woods were, then you'd have room to put in
- the islands. Is that right? That was part of our point. We didn't want to do that because we wanted
- to keep those woods, and we're trying to keep everything compact on that side to
- keep the open area that is there now, and that provides more trees and mature trees, and so we're asking
- that because of the compaction, keep it in over where it's at, that we would remove a couple, it would
- be three trees, three islands, I believe, on the west side. And I think Mr. McDaniel said that, and
- You are, you know, I think it was the future's the hardest thing to predict. But what is the, I think
- you said you didn't think there would ever be sidewalks to the other end of the property and the north
- of the property. Why do you think that's the case? No, and use the microphone. I'm sorry.
- On the other side of us, well, immediately next to us is the Rising Star Gymnastics building. And it's
- just like five feet from our property line. And that's why there was a letter supporting not having
- new trees on that end, because it literally butts right up to where our parking lot is. But beyond that,
- there's no sidewalk there where Rising Star Gymnastics is.
- And I don't think there's enough room to put another building on that particular piece of property.
- It's a pretty good sized building. But the rising star if they wanted to make an adjustment would be
- sort of in addition to their property would be in sort of the same position you are. They would probably
- have to go ahead and put in a sidewalk according to most of the standard application of the ordinance.
- greenways right immediately across the street from them as well. They have the same exception, perhaps,
- but they would face the same requirement. So it seems to me, I just wanted to understand why you were
- saying that. But on the other side of there is a fairly large area where it's just nothing but a big
- woods. On our side of the Lowe's Road and also on the other side of the road, I can't predict whether
- that would ever be developed or not, but it certainly doesn't appear
- to be any activity towards developing that particular area. It's pretty big. There are people who love
- big woods to tear down and turn into development. And if there is a site plan on that site, they would
- be required to get a sidewalk or come to you for a variance. Right. Okay. Thank you. May I add to that,
- Mr. Lofman? Okay. And that was part of my point is that the original plat, the platting of this area
- did not appear to
- that the plan all along was to have it add that greenway on that side and not to have it on this side.
- So that's why we believe we're unique compared to other properties where typically if you have a site
- or a site plan amendment they would ask you to extend sidewalks on your side for these types of purposes.
- But that was my point is that even if there was a subdivision on that side that this was plotted with
- that purpose there's a separate plan in mind for
- This area that is unique to this property. That's my that was my point to answer your question Can I
- ask a question of the petitioners representative we did receive a site plan showing the park there were
- like five parking islands able to be shown in an earlier iteration is that now removed to add more parking
- spaces based on a need because what I heard was that
- It's narrow so you can't fit the parking islands, but we actually have a design that showed that they
- did have parking islands originally I must not have been clear. I'm not saying it's so narrow that they
- can't fit I'm saying that we pushed it to the setback on that side so that the request with the building
- is against that side also the long narrow feel of it and I'm not saying that it's so narrow that we're
- making anything different than a normal parking lot, that the point is that the long pushing over against
- the setback, not necessarily the narrowness of the actual parking lot, but yes, just on that west side
- is where the islands would be taken away and that we would add have, we would still have parking lot
- perimeter trees though that provide the heat island effect on that side.
- but not up against where the Arborvitae currently sit. I hope I'm clear. I'm sorry if that was confusing.
- I just would like to ask a clarifying question. How many islands would you say you would be building
- in this parking lot? We're meeting the nature of the ordinance everywhere else except for the west side.
- So if you go to the landscape plan, it will show it.
- I have that up here, but I just got a little confused. Yeah. I'll just point at the screen. I don't
- know if anyone can see me, but you have it here. Yeah, yeah. Okay, great. Great. Thank you for clarifying
- that. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Butler. And we've heard before in different situations about the safety of
- turning trucks. That has come up in some previous situations.
- because it is not a simple thing to turn a large truck in a parking lot. So we're aware that that can
- be an issue. There's no removal as well. Ms. Jelen asked, you received a plan and that's not the one
- that's being shown on the screen right now. Correct.
- More specifically, during the site plan review, there was a site plan that was uploaded that showed
- parking islands in place at somewhat appropriate intervals along this site here. However, the one you're
- viewing tonight is a more recent plan that excludes those, and that was included with the variance
- application. And so at one point, Mr. Butler, you had additional
- Would that have complied with the ordinance or was that still? That's correct, sir. At one time we showed
- everything that would comply with the ordinance and after discussing with these gentlemen about trucks
- and plowing and pushing everything over, we now showed a plan to remove some of those that was complying
- with the ordinance before. And so what you see in front of you is now the most recent if the variances
- were granted.
- We can turn now to public comments. So if there's anyone here in the room who wishes to speak in favor
- of this petition, please come to the podium. If you're online and wish to speak in favor, please raise
- your virtual hand. If you're here in the room and wish to speak against this petition, please come to
- the podium. Or if you're online and wish to speak against, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing
- no one, we'll come back to the BZA for further conversation or emotion.
- I'd just like to say that I would support both requests just because of, first of all, we're glad to
- have you in our community and for doing the good work that you do and the synergies you're creating
- with Crane, and we appreciate that. And that although islands are something that we would like to have
- in the ordinance, that
- when you're actually running a business, they can be practically difficult to operate, for example,
- trucks or snow removal equipment, and they can actually get in the way of actually their goal. And so
- I think that their requests are reasonable given the terrain that they occupy, that there's a lot of
- wooded area around there that supplies and furnishes a lot of the goals
- of the islands and I think that these are reasonable requests for the work that they're doing. The sidewalk
- there, I think Mr. Butler made a really wonderful point about its proximity to the Cars Farm Parkway
- and that the law allows for that exception. And I just think that that would be a long and excessive sidewalk
- to both maintain in an area that pedestrian traffic isn't really common. So I would be in support of
- both of these requests. I am very worried about the death of those oak trees with the installation of
- the sidewalk. That is absolutely true. That is going to kill those mature trees and boy do we need those.
- So I'm leaning in your direction.
- Mr. Luffman, any additional comments? Well, I'm sympathetic, too. I think the fact that they could comply
- by tearing down part of a forest is not compelling to me that that's the correct trade-off. And I understand
- from what Butler said that the ordinance that allows
- The using the greenway, the wide greenway as a sidewalk isn't directly applicable to this. It's pretty
- analogous. And if what we want is pedestrians to have a place to go, they're pretty much always going
- to go use that nice greenway rather than a narrower sidewalk on the other side of the street.
- So, I'm sympathetic to the petitioners. That greenway is so popular you cannot park in those Loesch
- road spots. There's never enough that's so popular. I'm going to move that we approve variance 26-1A
- and also variance 26-1B for sign to interior parking landscaping variance and also the sign to
- I don't think I've said that correctly. Sidewalk requirement variance to chapter 818. I'm going to second
- that. And because I think the property is unique, its location is unique, it's got the Karst wave, Karst
- greenway right adjacent to it and that they've
- address practical difficulties, especially with the purpose of their business. And we're proud to have
- that business in our community. And we appreciate their tree planting too. Yes. Appreciate that. Yes.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve both VAR-26-1A and VAR-26-1B. These are for interior parking,
- landscaping, and sidewalk requirement variances. A vote yes is a vote to grant both variances. Pamela
- Davidson? Yes. Myra Clements? Yes. Kyle Laughman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Motion is approved four to
- zero. OK, thank you. Mr. McDaniel?
- Okay, we've been going for about two hours. Does anybody on the BZA want to take a break or do you want
- to keep going? Let's see. Where are we on the agenda? We've got three more. We've got three more petitions
- left. Oh, I'm good. Let's keep going. I'm comfortable if everybody else is.
- Keep going then. So we will move on to VAR-26-2A-2B and-2C. This is the Bennett front yard setback variance
- to chapter 805, the Bennett Lake Lemon overlay area, 50 foot setback variance to chapter 824, and the
- Bennett buildable area special flood hazard area variance to chapter 813. So Mr. Myers, I will turn
- it over to you. I believe that the recommendation for all three of these is approval. Is that correct?
- Correct except with the last one is approval with conditions. Yeah I think where we have an approval
- or approval with conditions we've been recognizing that this is is subject to approval and consider
- moving to call the question on that if there's nobody in the public
- online or present in the meeting room who opposes it. If so, we certainly want to hear all that opposition,
- give this full consideration. If the petitioner accepts the conditions. And if the petitioner accepts
- the conditions. That's exactly right. Thank you. Okay. So let's start. Thank you, Mr. Laughman. So let's
- start with the petitioner. Is there a petitioner here in the room if you could come forward?
- If you could sign in and then I'll ask you to state your name and raise your right hand. Holly Bennett.
- And do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- I do. Okay, so I have a simple question for you right now, and that is, do you accept the conditions
- that have been put forth in the packet tonight? No, I would like to discuss those. Okay, okay. Okay,
- so then let's have you sit down. We'll have Mr. Myers give his presentation, and we'll go through our
- normal procedure. Thank you. All right. So this is located at 9409 East South Shore Drive. It's in Benton
- North Township, Section 31. It's unplatted, and it contains 0.3 acres.
- It's currently zoned residential one, and there's a small sliver of the parcel also zoned forest residential
- five. Adjacent properties are zoned residential or forest residential. The comprehensive plan designates
- it as rural residential, and the use is residential. The petitioner is requesting three development
- standard variances from chapters 805, 824, and 813 of the county development ordinance.
- In June 2025, the petitioner submitted a residential building permit application for the construction
- of a 420-square-foot bedroom addition to the existing single family residence at 9409 East South Shore
- Drive. Upon review of the application, planning staff noted that several variances will be necessary
- in order to permit the proposed addition. That includes a front yard setback variance, the Lake Lemon
- overlay 50-foot setback variance, and a buildable area special flood hazard area variance.
- Additionally, it was noted that the existing 118 square foot shed was located partially on property
- owned by the city of Bloomington, which is an area that is known as a lemon lake shore. The petitioner
- has since moved the shed entirely onto the subject property. However, the shed is now in violation of
- the 35 foot front setback as well as the 50 foot lake lemon lake setback as well.
- Please note that the shed structure is not built on a permanent foundation and is under the 200 square
- foot size limitation and therefore would not have required an improvement location permit from the planning
- department. So some background for each of these variances. The existing residence sits approximately
- 15 feet away from the property line fronting East South Shore Drive. The Monroe County thoroughfare
- plan designates this road as a minor collector roadway with a 60 foot right of way.
- Table 2-805 of the county development ordinance lists this minimum setback for this roadway as 35 feet,
- measured from the edge of right-of-way. Therefore, the existing residence is encroaching approximately
- 20 feet into the front setback. The proposed 420 square foot addition does not increase this encroachment,
- but it is a pre-existing nonconforming structure, and any expansion to such structure does trigger the
- need for a variance. The relocated 118 square foot shed sits approximately 11 point
- four feet away from the property line, and that encroaches a total of 23.4 feet into the front yard
- setback. Let's see, what else do I wanna cover here? For the lake front setback, the existing residence
- measures 42 feet from the normal pool elevation of Lake Lemmon, which is 630 feet elevation.
- According to chapter 824-2A2, no structure shall be located 50 feet in the normal pool elevation area.
- That existing residence encroaches eight feet into this 50 foot lake front setback. The proposed 420
- square foot addition, again, does not encroach further into this setback. But again, as I stated previously,
- any preexisting nonconforming structure that is being expanded upon does require variance.
- The relocated shed measures 24 feet from the normal pool elevation of Lake Lemon. That's an encroachment
- of 26 feet into the 50 foot Lake yard setback. I will note that the setback from Lake Lemon is a new
- standard for the county development ordinance, which was adopted on December 18th, 2024. And the existing
- home was constructed originally in 1972. So that's according to the property record card.
- Therefore, this structure, as I stated before, is a legal pre-existing non-conforming structure. And
- then finally, we have the third variance, which involves the special flood hazard area. So the entire
- property is located in an area between the elevations of 630 feet and 634 feet, based on available contour
- data. Lake Lemmon-based flood elevation is 635.1 feet, according to DNR flood analysis and regulatory
- assessment information.
- This area is considered a special flood hazard area and is subject to Chapter 825 the flood damage prevention
- chapter of the county development ordinance as well as Chapter 813 which lists the special flood hazard
- area as a non-buildable area. And that's where this variance is coming from. So any new construction
- on this petition site at all requires a floodplain development permit from the floodplain administrator
- as well as this variance.
- After review of the submitted materials, including an appraisal submitted by the applicant on December
- 4th, 2025, and an estimated cost of improvements submitted on December 1st, 2025, it was confirmed that
- the improvements are not considered substantial. And that means that the proposed construction is not
- required to comply with the elevation requirements or flood protection grade requirements based on federal
- and state regulatory guidelines.
- However, the local guidelines can be a bit more strict if we choose to exercise that. So I will say
- that the flood protection grade is two feet above the base flood elevation. So that would be 637 feet.
- And the submitted construction plans identify the finished floor elevation of the existing residents
- between 635.75 feet to 635.82 feet.
- So although the federal requirements are not applicable with respect to the flood protection grade and
- the finished floor elevation, by not elevating the structure or the proposed addition to the flood protection
- grade of 637.1, the petitioner is leaving the property theoretically susceptible to eventual flood damage
- during a large precipitation event. And that concludes all three of the variances and their details.
- So I will go ahead and state now the outcomes. So if any of the three variances are denied, the petitioner
- will not be able to construct their proposed addition to the existing single family residence as currently
- designed. If all three variances are approved, the petitioner can proceed with their plan to construct
- a proposed addition and a floodplain development permit will be issued from the planning department.
- And that permit is ready to go. It's just waiting on these variances after that.
- permit is issued, the petitioner can pursue a improvement location permit application, which is then
- followed by the residential building permit application from the Monroe County Building Department.
- So here on the screen, we just have some exhibits. There's a location map East South Shore Drive along
- the south section of the property. And then, of course, Lake Lemon to the north. And then we have here
- the site conditions map as well.
- Now on the screen is the map that shows where the special flood hazard area is. All of that light green
- is the Lake Lemon Flood Elevation Confirmation, meaning that it is within that area that's considered
- special flood hazard area. Then here we have some photographs of the petition site. So I'm just going
- to click through these. We can come back to any of them as needed.
- So the addition will be in that area where the boat is currently sitting. Okay, here on the screen now
- we have the letter from the petitioner. We can come back to that. It's also included in the packet.
- And then also now on the screen is the proposed site plan that shows the addition to the existing residence.
- And here we have some design specifications for the addition as well.
- And then now on the screen is the proposed floor plan. So if you read the packet, there is a section
- in the packet that talks about bedroom count. Initially, staff was concerned that the addition would
- create a fourth bedroom and the septic permit for the property only rated the system for three bedrooms.
- However, in conversation with the petitioner, they indicated that one of the bedrooms in the existing
- residence will be converted into an entryway because the front door
- enters right into that bedroom. So at the end of the day, there will still only be three bedrooms on
- the property. OK. That brings us to staff's recommendation. Staff recommends approval of VAR-26-2A,
- which is the Bennett front yard setback variance, citing that practical difficulties have been met.
- An expansion to the existing residence or shed will first require front yard setback variance. The petitioner
- shall note the following.
- Approval of the Monroe County, that bit there is about the septic permits, so that's no longer relevant
- because they confirmed only three bedrooms will be on the property. So moving on, staff recommends approval
- of VAR-26-2B, citing the same practical difficulties have been met. And then finally, staff recommends
- approval of VAR-26-2C with a condition, stating that the petitioner elevates the proposed addition and
- and the relocated shed to meet the flood protection grade of 637.1 feet elevation. The petitioner is
- proposing to expend a lot of funds to improve the structure and have not provided a reasoning for why
- they would not want to meet flood protection grade for the addition to avoid future damage by flooding
- to the addition. I don't take any questions.
- I just want to state for the record that Mr. Daley has joined, although I think he's going to sit out
- this vote since he joined midway through the petition. Also, you were elected vice president,
- so congratulations. Thank you. So we can turn now to Ms. Bennett. I think I've already sworn you in
- and you've signed in, so you'll have 15 minutes to share your case with us.
- So I think the condition that they want us to do is to raise the addition to the flood protection elevation
- of six thirty seven point one. Currently the elevation of the house is six thirty five point seven five.
- So it is slightly above the base flood elevation. And you know we
- That house has not flooded. It's been there over 50 years. And the reason we don't want to raise the
- addition is, well, a couple reasons. One is we don't want to have to step two feet up into
- the addition that's one of the reasons we're you know moving the primary bedroom from upstairs to the
- main floor so as we age we don't have to go up steps and it would sort of defeat that purpose with having
- to go two feet into the addition. The second reason is that we are trying to make the addition look
- aesthetically pleasing and we think that it flows better when it matches up to the elevation of the
- current house. Again, the current house is above the base flood elevation, which is required by the
- state and federal. We went through DNR and FEMA and they agreed that it wouldn't be required. It's just
- that with the new ordinance,
- adopted in December. I want to say we've been working on this for quite a while. And then in December,
- that's when the new, you know, two feet got added. So the main reason is, you know, we want to keep
- it level and we don't want to have to step up two feet into the house. Thank you. Any questions for
- Miss Bennett before we turn to the public? I just think I might have written something down.
- Wrong. The recommendation, how high is the current house? What's the elevation of the current house?
- 635.75. I wrote it down wrong. Thank you. It didn't make any sense that way.
- You've been planning this under the prior ordinance. Your understanding is it would have been permitted.
- Yes. And you've been planning on this for a long time. And then the goalpost was moved and you're asking
- us to temporarily move it back for you. Is that right? Yes. And like I said, we just are, you know,
- for the addition, we would like it to be level with the house. I understand that it's nice having one
- level on a house.
- especially as one gets older, which I've done. That's hard to believe. Any other questions
- for the petitioner? Okay, thank you. You're welcome to have a seat. And if anyone is against your petition,
- you'll have five minutes to come back up. So we'll turn it out to members of the public. Is anybody
- here to speak in favor of this petition? If so, come to the podium. If you're online and wish to speak
- in favor, please raise your virtual hand.
- If you're in the room and wish to speak against this petition, please come to the podium. Or online
- and wish to speak against, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing no one, we will close public
- comment and come back to the BZA for conversation or a motion. We've been in this position many times,
- I think, since the new ordinance was adopted.
- a project under one set of rules and then the rules change, very sympathetic to saying they should be
- allowed to proceed as they had originally intended. So in light of that, I move we approve variances
- 26 to A to C, Bennett
- front yard setback overlay and buildable area at 40, it should be 9409 East South Shore Drive for the
- reason that the change in the ordinance has created a reasonable hardship that should be addressed by
- letting them proceed. I'll second that. And I understand about the house looking
- consistent. That really is a big issue. Those houses that have two or three steps are very baffling.
- I do want to just clarify for the record but still take the roll call that the ordinance change only
- impacted VAR-26-2B. I believe that the front setback in the buildable area the special flood hazard
- would have still been applicable under the old ordinance. But we showed practical difficulties for those
- Two items. Yes. I will go ahead and call the roll. Thank you for the clarification. Jackie, before you
- call the roll, I just want to clarify with Mr. Lofman that all other conditions have been met as part
- of your motion. This meets the, it just doesn't meet our county flood plain ordinance. It meets the
- state level and so
- I'm in agreement that we should allow for this and without the hardship of the petitioner having to
- raise the level of the addition that would not match the rest of the House. I think that practical
- difficulties have been met. Yes, and I'm saying without the condition that they have different elevations.
- I'm saying that they can do this. So it's one level one level on the current elevation of the current
- house. Okay. Thank you. Okay. If you could go ahead and call the roll Jackie and our legal department
- just reminded me to remind the petitioner that they are subject to a three bedroom
- accommodation or getting a new approval from the health department. That's not a condition. That's just
- a reminder. It will hold up the building permit. Yes. Okay. So there's been a motion in a second to
- approve VAR-26-2A, a front yard setback to Chapter 805.
- 26-2B the Lake Lemon overlay 50 foot setback to chapter 824 and VAR-26-2C the buildable area to the
- special flood hazard area section of chapter 813. A vote yes is to approve without any conditions all
- three variances. Margaret Clements? Yes. And Skip Daly? Abstain. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris?
- Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes. OK. That motion is approved for zero to one. Ms. Bennett, we will move on
- to VAR dash twenty six dash three next. And that is the electric plus general contractor use variance
- to chapter eight eleven. So, Mr. Myers, this looks like it's yours again. Yes. Thank you. So this one
- is located at seventy eight fifty four North Wayport Road. It is one parcel measuring six point two
- one acres in Washington Township, section twenty eight.
- It is one of the parcels that was formerly known as the Worms Way property. Right, so this particular
- property is zoned Agricultural Residential 2.5. Adjacent zoning districts are Agricultural Residential
- 2.5, as well as Residential 1, and Limited Business. The county, the comprehensive plan zones it as,
- designates it, excuse me, as rural residential.
- And the use was formerly agribusiness, and its adjacent uses are commercial and residential in the area.
- It is in a platted subdivision. It's part of the Wormsway Type A administrative subdivision. And this
- is a use variance. So the standards are a bit different than your regular development standard review.
- All right. So the petitioner is requesting one use variance in order to proceed with establishing a
- general contractor use on the subject property currently zoned agricultural residential 2.5 under the
- county development ordinance. General contractor is not permitted in this zoning district. The petitioner
- electric plus is locally owned and is seeking to relocate to the subject property and operate their
- electric contracting business here.
- Electric Plus intends to purchase the property and utilize it as their primary business location. And
- they have stated that the main building will function as a construction office and warehouse. Vehicle
- equipment that will be on the property includes a bucket truck, one ton 12 foot flatbed truck, some
- service vans,
- and site trucks, as well as a few small SUVs slash trucks. And I will let them speak more to the specifics
- of their particular use request when it is their time to speak. Also, the petitioner does intend to
- store vehicles inside whenever possible. And they stated that there are no plans to make any exterior
- changes to the property.
- So currently a petition site does retain the ability to operate an agribusiness per a 1995 special exception.
- And on the screen you can see the definitions for general contractor and agribusiness that come from
- the county development ordinance.
- And establishing a general contractor on the property does constitute as a change in use, which thereby
- triggers a commercial site plan amendment and the adherence to the county development ordinance chapters
- that regulate such commercial development if the variance is granted. All right. So now some background
- with respect to the property. This property has seen a lot of history.
- with respect to this board as well as the plan commission and board of commissioners. So I will go through
- these relatively quickly and if we want to come back to discuss any of them we can. So in June 2019
- there was a use variance to add metal metal fabrication to lot A which is the southern lot. That is
- the lot that is not on the agenda tonight. Lot B is the lot that's on the agenda tonight. But this is
- just still a relevant history across both parcels.
- That use variance to add metal fabrication was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals three to two
- on June 5th, 2019. However, a commercial site plan filing was never submitted by the property owner.
- In September 2021 through October 2021, we did see a rezone application come through suggesting to rezone
- from agricultural residential to light industrial for both lots. This was given a positive recommendation
- by a vote of seven to zero by the Monroe County Plan Commission.
- in October of 2021, but it was ultimately denied by the county commissioners three to zero in October
- 27th, 2021. August 2022 through August to March, excuse me, 2023, we saw two use variance applications
- come through the Board of Zoning Appeals to add general contractor to both lots, lot A and B. Initially,
- VAR-22-34 was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals by a vote of three to zero.
- An amended application was submitted in February that following year by the same petitioner. And that
- was VAR-22-36. Again, the use variance to add general contractor to both lots. And again, that was denied
- by the Board of Zoning Appeals by a vote of 3 to 0 to 1 on March 1, 2023. Next, we have August 2023
- through September 2023.
- where the property owner submitted an outline plan amendment, or excuse me, an outline plan application
- to create a planned unit development on the property for both lots A and B. Planned unit development
- is a unique zoning district that you create your own ordinance, essentially, and have your own permitted
- uses, and it goes through the rezone process, so it goes to the plan review committee, the plan commission,
- and ultimately by the board of commissioners.
- However, with this particular petition, it was heard by the plan commission on September 19th, 2023,
- but was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioner later that month before it reached the board of commissioners.
- In July of 2024, the property owner filed a lawsuit against the board of commissioners, citing the zoning
- map. And there's more information on that in a minute. In December of 2024,
- The petition site remains relatively unchanged under the new county development ordinance that was adopted
- that month that was changed from agricultural rural reserve to agricultural residential 2.5 while the
- southern parcel lot a was rezoned to limited business and soon thereafter transferred to a new owner
- and is now occupied.
- All right, so covering a little bit of the details of the litigation, the cause number is listed in
- the staff report and it was filed in July 18th, 2024, citing that the zoning of the property should
- have been made pre-existing business during the county's 1997 rezone. The owner and their legal
- representatives then amended that complaint after the adoption of the county development ordinance in
- December 2024 to only include the northern parcel in the complaint because the southern parcel was rezoned
- limited business.
- And that was part of the county development ordinance adoption. The northern parcel, the subject parcel
- for tonight's hearing was rezoned from agricultural reserve, agricultural rural reserve to agricultural
- residential 2.5 as I stated before. And this litigation has been placed on hold citing this use variance
- request with a pretrial conference set for April 24th, 2026. Okay, and also some other relevant information
- for you this evening is a use determination form that the planning department received on January 6,
- 2026. It was from a prospective buyer for the petition site, Lot B. The use determination detailed the
- proposed use of the property as a controlled environment agriculture, or CEA, which is also known as
- indoor vertical farming. And this applicant indicated on the use determination form that they plan to
- use the existing buildings and have no
- plans to construct any new buildings or make any exterior modifications. And it was through this use
- determination process that the controlled environment agriculture was closely linked to the classification
- of agribusiness, which is already permitted on the property through that 1995 special exception. So
- that's just additional information for your consideration. It looks like my PowerPoint.
- did not get updated, so let me fix that one second. There we go. All right, so now going through some
- exhibits that are found in the packet. Here we have the location map. As you can see, it's just the
- northern lot. The southern lot on the zoning map is the pink, which is the limited business. And then you have
- a neighborhood to the north and east in residential zone. And then across the street, across Wayport
- and the highway, you have some resident, or excuse me, some agricultural residential zones as well as
- some residential zones as well. And then you have limited business up to the northwest.
- Here we have the site conditions map showing the structures on the property and the contour lines, as
- well as a aerial imagery map that shows a general proximity to some of the residential homes in the
- area. So now on the screen, we have the petitioner's letter from Electric Plus, as well as the owner's
- consent letter. And these are both in the packet.
- I will also now distribute a letter of support from the property owner himself. This did not make it
- into the packet. It is two pages, so I will distribute them each to you up there. One of you will have
- to share. I only printed four, because I did not know skip would be in the sentence. So I will pause
- for a moment while you
- read that. And I apologize for not letting you know, but the good news is the St. Charles Hawks eighth
- grade girls team did bring home a victory tonight. Yay. Good shirt. Do have the letter on the screen
- as well for the folks in the public.
- And we can also distribute some of the copies of the letter to the table if you want to look at them as well.
- If all members of the VCA had a chance to read the letter. Okay. I will resume the remaining portions
- of my presentation. So now on the screen, you can see the conceptual site plan that's showing the existing
- structures and development on the property, as well as some possible future parking for the proposed
- electrical contractor use on the site. This is just a conceptual site plan, mind you.
- Okay, now on the screen we have additional exhibits that are found in the packet. On the left we have
- a page pulled from the county development ordinance that indicates all the primary uses conditional
- uses and accessory uses that are available to the existing zoning district, which is the agricultural
- residential 2.5 district.
- as well as some snippets from the card stock of the original 1995 special exception, which did include
- a few conditions of approval. And it was heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Plan Commission,
- both in 1995. That was February and January of 1995, respectively. This is all included in the packet.
- And then here's that letter that I just distributed from the property owner.
- Now on the screen, we have staff's recommendation. So overall, staff is recommending denial of VAR-26-3.
- Per Chapter 841-4E5, the strict application of the terms of the ordinance will not constitute an unnecessary
- hardship when applied to the subject property.
- Planning staff has been in contact with potential buyers for this parcel and has responded to one inquiry
- via use determination that their proposed business would be conforming legal use without the need for
- a use variance. The petitioner nor the owner has applied new information under this use variance request
- regarding why this use variance constitutes an unnecessary hardship.
- The BZA has heard and previously denied the request for a use variance to general contractor use on
- August 31st, 2022 and denied an amended petition of the same use variance on March 1st, 2023. The petitioner
- nor the owner of the site has provided evidence to overturn the BZA's prior decision. And under that
- we have the specifications of the standards for use variance approval as well as the definition for
- hardship or unnecessary hardship.
- and I'll take any questions. Okay, let's go ahead and turn straight to the petitioner. So Mr. Cochran,
- it's good to see you again. If you could sign in, state your name and raise your right hand, I'll swear you in.
- If you could state your name, first of all. Chris Cochran. And if you could raise your right hand and
- state whether you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. You'll
- have 15 minutes. Great. And I do have some things I'd like to pass out if it would be possible for me
- to approach and pass a few items out here. And then I'll reference those in my comments.
- All right. Again, my name is Chris Cochram and I represent Electric Plus on this use variance request.
- And Tim Wicker is here. He's the president of Electric Plus. He's happy to answer any questions. There
- are also Steve Webb's here as well and he can answer any questions if you guys have any for the company
- itself. And I realize that we only have 15 minutes for my comments and I really want to leave as much
- time as possible to hear the
- the neighbors or any concerns that they have. And it's important that obviously we want it to be good
- neighbors to anyone, the businesses that are up there or the Windsor private, the neighborhoods that
- are in the area. In fact, I personally reached out to many of the neighbors wanting to hear what concerns
- they have because Electric Plus wants to address those concerns.
- if possible, and just make sure that everybody's comfortable with any reservations that they may have.
- I did speak with a board member. I spoke with the chair of their board, and we tried to get a meeting
- together. Unfortunately, we were not able to do that, so I never really heard any major concerns that
- they had. I did have one neighbor that reached out with an email with questions, and we answered that
- immediately.
- sent me all their answers to those questions. We got right back to them. I even called to follow up
- with a phone call. Didn't hear any real concerns. And again, we wanted to address any concerns if there
- was any. In fact, I believe there are some neighbors here and I'd love it if they supported this use
- variance. I'm not sure what the comments may be, but maybe they will.
- Electric Plus is going to be a great neighbor and I think they'll be a great neighbor to the businesses
- there and also to the neighborhood itself. More about Electric Plus. They have business hours Monday
- through Friday from 630 till 5 o'clock. They have 10 employees that are in the building daily.
- Most of their employees, they're electricians. They're out in the field. They take their vehicles home.
- So there's not a lot of vehicle storage there where people drive their car there, park, and then go
- to their site. They actually take their vehicles home with them. They do have a bucket truck, a few
- items on there. When they're not in use, they might be stored there. Anything for long-term storage,
- they're going to try to keep it inside as long as materials as well. There is no plans to add to the building.
- In fact, the building is three times as big as the building they're in now. It's going to work perfect
- for them. They can store all the materials inside. They have a very clean site. In fact, Drew, I brought,
- you can see up here, this is their Bloomington location now, which is on West 17th Street. So this is
- where they'd be moving from, very clean site. And do you have their Indianapolis location as well?
- So this is their Indianapolis location. Again, it's right off 465. I mean, it's a super clean site.
- They don't have anything stored outside. They're a great use. They're a great buyer for the building.
- And then if you think back to Wormsway, when they were there for 20 years, they had 50 to 70 employees.
- They had a retail store where the public came in and out. They had 20 to 30 trucks delivering per day,
- tons of activity.
- didn't create a lot of problems. Electric Plus's use is going to be so much more low impact for the
- area. That's why I think it'd be a great use of the property. The next thing I want to talk about is
- just the financial hardship. I know it was talked about, and that's one of the requirements, is there
- a financial hardship.
- Vacant properties are not good for any community. We have way too many in Bloomington. This one has
- been vacant way too long. And it's in the entryway as we come down through here. Martin Height, even
- when I sat on planning commission he came, I always wanted to thank Martin for keeping the building
- in such great shape. But it has not been cheap. It cost Martin $53,000 a year to maintain that property.
- And all just to be a good neighbor. I represent building owners all
- around the county. And for a vacant building, a lot of people don't put this kind of money into it just
- to keep it in decent shape. We've got a lot of eyesores. This was not one of them. And I thank Martin
- for doing that. He just kept the building in great shape. The building has also been marketed for the
- past seven years or since 2017 on the largest commercial MLL site
- in the world. It's loop net. I use them. They're way too expensive, but I use them for my marketing,
- and it's been marketed on there since, I guess, since 2017. It gets activity. I get calls as a commercial
- broker all the time on it trying to find a good use for it. The agricultural uses that have come in,
- we couldn't get them to qualify financially to
- to work in this building. And so it just never worked. The majority of the calls that come in are general
- contractors. And so the market's telling me that that's the highest and best use of the property, because
- those are most of the calls that actually can make the building work. And so the other thing, too, the
- information that I gave you is a list of comps. I sell these buildings all the time for well over $100
- a square foot. Martin's selling it for less than $40 a square foot.
- The market price, if it was zoned right, is $6.2 million. I could get that all day. I get it already
- here in town. And I gave you comps of properties that I've sold that we've gotten well over $100 a square
- foot. So if it was $6.2 million, our asking price is below $2 million. It's 70% below what I think you
- could get. So that's a huge difference. If you add the $375,000 he's spent for the last seven years
- to maintain it,
- plus the decrease in value, it's come down to value $4.7 million. And that's a real number to me. And
- the comps that I've given you prove that. And then the other thing I want to mention is a gentleman
- has shown an interest of doing an agricultural use. We don't know who they are.
- I've asked Martin, do you want me to call him and get an offer? He's not made an offer on the property.
- We don't know if he qualifies financially. He may, but we don't even have a deal. So to me, he's applied
- for something, but there's no agreement. There's no purchase agreement or anything. And again,
- I've asked, do we want to get a purchase agreement? And Martin's like, let's wait to see what happens.
- Because I think this gentleman still needs to qualify, all due respect.
- I mean, you have to go through that process, but we don't know how real that buyer is. And no disrespect
- to that buyer. So I ask that you approve the use variance. The owner has experienced financial hardship.
- He's maintained a property, a vacant property. He'd like to just move on. He'd like to fill the building
- and just move on and let it go back into a productive use.
- And the other thing too is we also have a great it's a win win. We have a great buyer. We have a great
- buyer with a clean use with it's going to do a very low impact in the area. So I ask that you just vote
- positive on a use variance so we could fill the building up and eliminate another vacant building in
- our community. So I'm happy to answer any questions. Again Tim's here to answer questions if you do
- if you have any questions as well. But I'd love to hear from the neighbors as well. So.
- Thank you, Mr. Cochran. Do any members of the VZA have questions? I do. You said earlier that you had
- no plans to add to the building, so that means that it's future growth. This is a company that has locations
- in other parts of the state, you said? Yeah, and they handle, I use one of their big clients, they handle state
- Work as well. So they're all over the state, but this would be there They're gonna relocate to this
- and this is gonna be their home in Bloomington and You said it's you've been marketing for seven years
- and there's been no traction no You're in your commercial broker, yeah the
- When Wormsway was there, I was new to Bloomington, but 37 existed before 69. Was that really what this
- property is? It's been a bone of contention for several years. Was it 69 that drove Wormsway away? No,
- actually, I'm sure Martin can answer this better than me, but I think our marijuana laws changed.
- because I think this was a big shipping area. And I think the market, in my opinion, again, Martin may
- have a different opinion, but I think the market changed a little bit, and then he sold the business.
- And then they leased the building for a while, operating, and then they relocated, I believe, to Mooresville.
- And again, Martin, who I believe might be online, could answer those questions a little bit better.
- And I don't want to monopolize, but I do have one more quick question.
- The last time this came, I've been on the board long enough to have seen this come before us a couple
- of times. There was an asphalt company that was looking to come in and there was an enormous amount
- of concern from the neighborhood largely due to the traffic and the potential environmental hazard.
- From my recollection, the major concern, they thought there would be runoff asphalt and the petitioner
- was unable to convince the neighborhood otherwise. It looked like you were in a professional building
- in Indianapolis. What type of environmental issues? Tim can speak for this better than I can, but they're
- an electrician company.
- I mean, they go out and they work on the electric. There's nothing, and they don't plan to store anything
- outside. So it's not like it's a chemical company or maybe an asphalt. I'm not sure exactly what the
- asphalt company was going to do there, but it's not going to have any of that residue on there. I mean,
- they're basically just a commercial electrical installer. So they're going to, I can't imagine anything
- that would cause any environmental issues. And as far as the traffic, like I said,
- They're going to have 10 employees there that are there nine you know eight six thirty to five each
- day. Trucks may come in to pick up parts but it's not going to be it's not they're not going to be there
- in the building working at all times. So it's a low low impact. That's why I think it's a great use
- for the building. I have a question for staff. The use always runs with the property.
- Not with this owner. That's always our concern that it runs with the property. So this is an electric
- a general contractor use. So general contractor use it could be any general contractor use not an electrician
- nothing like that. Correct. That's correct. That's always a concern. But it's such a large building
- that it would have to be
- quite a contractor to be able to use that much space. What did you say? How many square feet, 40,000?
- Well, there's one building, 45,600. 45,000. Yeah. It's a huge building. It's a huge building. And it's
- a building that's needed in our community, and it really is. That's why the value has gone up so high,
- is because it's really hard to build those buildings today. So people are paying more for
- And this one here is not supporting what I'm getting elsewhere in the county because of the limited
- use of the zoning. And no reason why half the property was zoned one way and half was zoned another.
- It's a mystery, I'm sure, even to you. And it's odd. I would think being one owner and splitting their
- property in half and zoning them two separate seems odd. Yeah.
- And two industrial type buildings on there. It's not like one was residential and one was, they're both
- similar buildings. Commercial. Yeah, commercial buildings, yeah. Any additional questions for Mr. Cockroom?
- Great, thank you very much. Thank you, sir. If anyone speaks against this, you'll have a chance to come
- back for a five minute rebuttal.
- We will turn now to members of the public. If there's anyone here in the room who wishes to speak in
- favor of this petition, please come to the podium. If anyone online wishes to speak in favor of this
- petition, please raise your virtual hand. If anyone here in the room wishes to speak against this petition,
- please come to the podium and you're welcome to form a line along the wall or on the bench.
- could sign in and then I'll ask you to state your name and I'll swear you in. My name is Jeff Rensberger.
- Okay. Could you raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
- the truth. You'll have three minutes. Thank you. I live in the adjacent residential neighborhood and
- have recently moved in with just within the last year. And one of my concerns is that the
- Windsor Private, that's what the neighborhood is called, is a relatively unique neighborhood in Bloomington.
- It is accessible to urban Bloomington, but it also has rural and wooded characteristics. There are suburban
- areas in Bloomington, but they tend to be more small lots and dense. There are outlying rural wooded
- areas, but they tend to not be as nicely developed. And so there's peculiar qualities to this neighborhood.
- That I'm familiar with because we've just been looking for houses in the last year The staff made several
- findings which I think are really important to remember There's been no change since the last two times
- which this identical request has been denied Second the need for the variance doesn't arise from any
- quality of the property. That's peculiar to it third there is no unnecessary hardship and I think
- you need to look at the Ordinance 841-4. The definition of unnecessary hardship is not that the property
- is not put to its highest and best use. That was in their letter. That's what Mr. Cochran said. That's
- not the standard that you have to find. Section 841 says the board must find that there is an economic
- hardship or unnecessary hardship which is defined as a significant economic injury that deprives the
- parcel owner of all
- reasonable economic use. So the fact that it's not being sold for its highest use is really not relevant.
- That is not the question. Also not the question is whether Electric Plus is a good company. You are
- not proving Electric Plus. You are proving a general contractor use. As you noted, that runs with the
- land. And there's no assurance that the next contractor will not be of a different nature. It would
- be good to refer to the definition of a general contractor. It includes
- construction work or providing supplies, including on a large scale, including plumbing, landscaping,
- electrical, framing, concrete, masonry, roofing, pest control, and the dreaded word, et cetera. And
- so the use has the potential to significantly interfere with the value of the property. And this is
- another element, which the staff made a finding on, which I would disagree. The value of the adjacent
- area will not be affected in an adverse manner.
- The staff actually said that it would be, quote, difficult to determine the effect on the value of the
- property. In my view, if it's difficult to determine the effect on the value of the property, you can't
- say it won't have a negative effect. The application has to demonstrate that it meets the criteria,
- and the application does not do so. In fact, the application uses this best and highest used language,
- which is just not the question before you.
- That is not the definition of unnecessary hardship. And so it doesn't really the application doesn't
- facially satisfy the requirement for the use variance. And I'm sorry to cut you off but you're three
- minutes up. I want to be fair to everyone. Thank you sir. You're welcome. If the next speaker could
- come to the podium and sign in and I'll swear you in. I do have a spare sign in sheet on the table to
- the side if there's a list of people that want to sign in.
- Can I get a show of hands real quick how many other people wish to speak? If you could go ahead and
- start to sign in as the next person is going, that may save a little bit of time. Okay, if you could
- state your name. My name is Brian Booze. Okay, and raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth,
- the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, you'll have three minutes. All right, thank you.
- I'm a member also or a resident of Windsor private and tonight I'm actually representing the Windsor
- private homeowners association Which is 38 homes in the area Some of this is a little bit of a repeat
- of what we've heard before but the the comments that I want to make sure that come from homeowners
- Association first is this county went through the CEO process over the last several years and I think
- what a year ago December it was enacted and I think the
- main purpose behind all that was getting away from managing by exception. And here we are one year later,
- starting around and saying, hey, we're going to just go right back to managing by exception. To me kind
- of trashes the whole purpose of what the CDO and all the time. I know many of you, I attended a lot
- of the meetings, a lot of time and money went into that process for this county. And we just turn right
- around and say, okay, we're going right back to manage by exception and look at things like this. So
- I think this this
- goes against what the intent and the execution of the CDO really was. This property, we heard, has come
- up several times as rezones, variances, and all that.
- Those were for this property were rejected and again to that point what has changed that would flip
- that The properties are the same the neighborhoods the same everything around there is the same from
- those rejections So, you know, what is the new reason now to suddenly go the other way and approve a
- general contractor variance? This isn't about electric plus this is about a variance to general contractor
- for a property so if
- It goes through. General Plus is there. Two months later, they sell out. It's wide open for whatever
- the next person and the general contractor zoning is pretty broad compared to what it is now. It's not
- about this company. It's about that property and what it could be instantly after this. We're worried
- about the next one and the next one just as much as we are, you know, tomorrow. And putting this zoning
- against the property, the general contractor opens that wide up, presumably forever. We heard that another buyer
- potential buyer and I have no idea if this would go through or not there's no way for any of us in here
- to know but it
- would be able to accept the property as is, as it's zoned. It described the business that was going
- to go in there. I believe they even reached out to staff to check and make sure that would be, that
- was in the packet, that they verified, hey, if we do this thing, we don't need any rezones or anything.
- To me, that shows that the market is out there. There are people, and they're coming out of the woodwork
- to say, hey, and it's not just a phone call, it's letters to staff starting the process. The idea that
- it's not marketable without a rezone like this
- me doesn't hold water. And I will say one thing that when the question came up a minute ago, because
- I've been doing this with this issue for five years, the decision of selling Wormsway and moving it
- to Indianapolis or wherever it went was the owner, Martin Heights, business decision. He made a decision
- to sell the business but not the properties.
- He knew the zoning at the time. He knew everything about the properties. He only sold the business,
- and he kept the properties. That wasn't a happenstance. That was a conscious business decision. And
- if the results of it are positive, great. And if they're negative for him, it was still his decision
- to do that. And I'm sorry to cut you off, but your time is up. Thank you, sir. Let me ask a question
- I could have asked anybody. So are you suggesting it seems
- substantial financial hardship that has been... Point of order. This is not a precedent that we should
- probably establish. Has the chair recognized that we can ask questions of... My impression is we have
- asked questions of the public before. I believe we can if it helps clarify our stance. So, are you objecting?
- No, okay. No, I just don't know that this is a precedent that we'd like to get into. I'd like to be
- able to have the perspective of the person opposing it to a question. So yeah, I think this is a precedent
- we've already established and I'd like to indulge it. It seems to me that the owner of this property
- has experienced financial hardship. He's been maintaining it for
- many years now without anybody offering to buy it for an agricultural purpose. Do you agree that he's
- experienced financial hardship? No, I do not. I think he has experienced the results of his own business
- decisions. He sets the price. He sets whatever that attracts certain people. He advertises it a certain
- way. He avoids advertising it another way. Those are all personal business decisions that he's put in
- place and the results that come with them.
- Come with him. I don't think that's a hardship that came out of left field and hit him. No, I don't.
- Thank you. I'll ride. When did you move into your house? 1999. Was there a business there when you moved
- in? There was. But it was not the big, this property, this warehouse was not. But you moved in and there
- was a business there.
- You moved in as a result of your own decision, correct? I did. Thank you. Thank you. The business was
- very small. That's the big building we're talking about now and property A was not there. You've answered
- my question. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. Let's go now to the next member of the public. The next
- person that signed in.
- I want to make sure we're going in the order that everybody signed into, so we can match the minutes
- to the recording. Important for our department secretary. Hi, my name is Mark Byers. OK, could you raise
- your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. OK,
- you have three minutes. All right, thank you. So my name is Mark Byers. I own Byers Scientific Manufacturing
- Company here in Bloomington. I own commercial property, both in Brown County and Monroe County.
- I am the, quote, other buyer.
- So, I just need to establish some of the facts real quick with respect to Mr. Cochran, I hope I'm pronouncing
- that correctly. Let me just give you quick background. Building A, the other parcel that Winkler Properties
- bought, they were my tenant at one of my properties upon a visit out there.
- Too long ago in September, I was made aware of the other two buildings. I went over, looked in, I saw
- the cavernous size of this building and I realized quickly, this is custom built for indoor farming.
- And I pursued that immediately. I went to the planning department. Let me step back for a minute. I
- got in contact with Mr. Height. He's been gracious to give me the keys. I've been in there a number of times.
- We did a lot of thorough study. I have agricultural consultants that I already work with on other projects.
- We're looking at this. And so I proposed everything to Mr. Hite, said I'm very interested in buying
- your property. And by the way, I completely understand and respect Electric Plus's desire to own that
- property. It's a magnificent property. My use is, in fact, a better use, a more applicable use.
- Then asked Martin, well, let's do a purchase agreement. And I respect his answer was, well, you need
- to get a zoning determination letter first. That's going to be a challenge. So I went in, worked with
- staff, and did my submittal, and was granted. We checked all the boxes. Our proposed use is controlled
- environmental agriculture. I will note that 44
- to the peak is very unique in this county. This building, if it's not used as it was before, it is meant
- to be used for indoor farming. Upon receipt of the positive zoning verification or determination, I
- called Martin and said, I got it, let's do a purchase agreement. He said, well, actually I can't. I
- have an agreement right now with Electric Plus and they have a hearing with the BZA February 4th
- If they are unsuccessful, then we can proceed with the purchase agreement. So I did pursue trying to
- get a purchase agreement. I respect Martin's approach. He's got to give the first one up to bat their
- shot. So the project we do have in mind will be as equally low impact as any other proposed on the docket
- at the moment.
- Additionally, you know, we will have outreach to Purdue University, locally to IU. To a degree, this
- will be a teaching farm where we are able to bring people in. We're actually concentrating on functional
- medicine, primarily functional mushrooms. And I'm sorry to interrupt, but your three minutes are up.
- OK. Thank you, sir. Thank you. OK, could we get the next speaker to step forward, please? Could you
- state your name?
- Lauren Aubin. OK, could you 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. So for the record, that clock is
- 10 minutes fast relative to its dinging. So if that could be fixed the next time. So Lauren Aubin, I
- live in Windsor private. And if you put up the map, I can show you exactly where. And I stood at my
- front porch Sunday, took a picture. I can see the buildings from my house.
- it is very relevant and very concerning when you go to flip the switch to general contractor.
- And in 2019, we went through this process and someone on the board asked me a question. If you, and
- we moved in 21 years ago, asked me a question, if it was a general contract, you know, some kind of
- commercial, would you have moved in? And the answer to that is no, I would not have. That today is no.
- I knew that it was zoned residential, Worms Way was a great neighbor. He decided to sell the business
- to the ESOP and then eventually to a private equity, I believe in 2019. It's unclear what his continual
- revenue source from those sources are, so we can't make an assessment as to what his true
- financial hardship is. We don't know. We have no idea. We know what he pays in taxes. But we don't know
- what the true long-term financial aspect is. When that building was approved for the variance, he came
- to the neighborhood. The neighborhood said, yeah, we would love to have you do that. So for him to say,
- we're restrictive, we're the ones that gave him the ability to grow that business and develop it to
- what it was. And now all we're asking is that,
- you respect the current zoning and leave it where it is. And with that gentleman saying that he's got
- a business that fits right into it, I think it's a pretty hard argument. They're great neighbors,
- but again, thank you. Any questions? Thank you, sir. If Mr. Lofman will stay after, I'll climb up on
- his shoulders and fix the clock. Okay, can we get the next speaker, please?
- My name is Julia Booze. If you could raise your right hand, please. Do you swear to tell the truth,
- the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You'll have three minutes. Okay. I am a
- homeowner in Windsor private as well. We have been a good neighbor to Wormsway. Wormsway was a good
- neighbor to us. We bought all our plants from them, our mulch and everything. And we helped them by
- giving them a letter so that they could build
- the big building, and so we did support him. Now that he doesn't need it anymore, he doesn't want to
- support us. Mr. Wyatt Hyatt said that a change in zoning need to be made for the property to be marketable.
- And I have some documentation. The way that he did advertise this property
- And he did so by stating it was an industrial property. I've shown this documents before, but I'd like
- to bring them up to you so you can see them if that's okay. Yeah. We'll need you to speak into the microphone
- though so everybody online can hear.
- notes on it and you can see that Mr. I'm sorry is what the chair had said is any testimony you provide
- has to be into the microphone okay well I'm going to leave these here with you because this is the new
- listing and that since he sold the building and you can see as mr. Hawkins stated loop net with is the
- company but if you look on page
- on the very first one for A, B, and C, you can see it's circled. He only listed it as industrial property.
- If you do that, that's what you get your buyers are going to be looking for industrial. He didn't do
- it for ag. The second document that I gave to you is a current one, and it only shows B and C. And if
- you look on page three, you'll see it still states that it is industrial.
- The other building sold five months ago, and he updated that other one, and he still says industrial.
- Well, it's hard for you to advertise something falsely like that, that it doesn't, you're not gonna
- get the same buyer. So yeah, he's been doing this for years. I have documentation back from the very
- first time that we came here, and it stayed,
- industrial on it. So I think that stating that he has advertised it over and over and this is a hardship
- on him. He has been told several times by us coming here and showing this documentation that he has
- consistently advertised it as an industrial property when he knows there's no way. So what happens?
- Somebody like this nice company comes along.
- they want to buy it first thing you tell them well you're going to have to get a rezone and we're back
- here and we've been back here and I'm sorry to interrupt but your three minutes are up so thank you
- for speaking if we could get the next speaker to come forward and just to confirm you have signed in
- on the paper correct okay if you could state your name and then raise your right hand Dave gent do you
- swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth you'll have three minutes like we've
- lived in Windsor private for going on 20
- 23 years now. And my concern really is around what Ms. Davidson said about, you know, the zoning goes
- with the property. And as much as any company wants to be in existence forever, most are not. And if
- the current, if the electric company, you know, something changes, they want to get bigger, need to
- get smaller and move on, then
- anything can happen in that property, including things that you guys have already denied multiple times.
- And that's a concern my family has is that we have clear view to the property from our backyard. And,
- you know, we don't want things to happen there that, again, you guys have denied things we can think
- about, worst case scenario. It's not about the electric company moving in. It's about what happens in
- five or ten years when things just change. And we don't want to see that happen. Thank you.
- Thank you. Do we have anybody else here in the room that wishes to speak against this petition?
- Seeing no one, do we have anyone online who wishes to speak against this petition? If so, please raise
- your virtual hand. Seeing no one, Mr. Cockrum, you'll have five minutes to come back for a rebuttal.
- Great like I want to thank the neighbors for your comments because those are important to hear. I mean
- these are your homes and we completely respect that a couple of things I do want to address the when
- it comes to selling of I sell businesses to many businesses sell without the real estate. In fact I
- almost think I can't.
- I think Oliver Winery sold to a private equity, and I believe Bill and Kathleen still own the real estate.
- So that happens all the time. So with Martin selling the business and keeping the real estate, that's
- not uncommon. A lot of times, businesses can't afford, a buyer can't afford the business and the real
- estate, so they just buy the real estate and then lease the building. Their hope is to buy both, but
- sometimes they just can't get the numbers to work. I do want to address Mrs. Boo's comment on LoopNet.
- Loopnet determines the use when you advertise it. And I double checked that again today. I went through.
- There is not an agricultural use you put in there. When you enter a building, it's an industrial use.
- So it was by no intent by Martin to mislead anyone. And I think anyone who would come in, I mean, I
- think Martin would sell to an agricultural use.
- if you know I mean again he's already giving a 70 percent discount on the building if they could come
- to terms on numbers. Now Mr. Byers respect his company to death they still have not come to numbers
- on buyer you know with it with an offer so we're not even sure it takes a long time to get through a
- buying process so as much as he might have a great business plan by no means are we
- close to him opening up a business there because there's not even an agreement yet for one reason or
- another. I guess the other question that I have is, and I respectfully understand the thought of real
- estate, of the use going with the property. I guess our question is, again, this buyer wants to
- do what's right. I mean, are there ways to work around that? Are there ways that we can overcome some
- of these concerns to where they can occupy the building? So that's all I have. Tim, do you have any
- comments? No? Again, we ask that you approve the use variance, and again, we can fill this building.
- So thank you again for your time. Thank you, Mr. Cockrum. Did anybody else have questions for Mr. Cockrum?
- Sorry, the public comment period is over now. I apologize. I'm sorry, it's not on the public record.
- We can't take any comments. Yeah, sorry. When public comment is closed, we no longer take comments.
- So we will come now back to the BZA for further discussion or a motion. Good question, Mr. Chair.
- Does any BZA member want to look this over again, or could I turn it in? If there's a... Okay, it has
- to get turned in to the director. I won't keep it. Yep. Just need one copy. Thank you. Well, no, it
- is one copy. There's three documents and one copy. I'll need the handout from Chris Cockrum, too. Okay.
- We'll get you squared away. Thank you. But you can wait.
- Do any members of the BZA have further comment? There's a lot going on here. An absolute lot. A lot
- of genuine concern. One thing I'm curious about is having my notes that the petitioner reached out
- and to the association and to the neighbors and asked for a couple of follow-up questions, it says,
- but he didn't hear all this concern. So I'm wondering as to why the neighbors didn't seem to voice these
- directly to the petitioner when they were asked.
- Sorry, public comment time is over. I appreciate that you have something to say. Okay. Thank you. Did
- you have any other comments? No, I'm going to yield to whoever right now. It sounds to me, you know,
- owning a property for seven years
- and expending over $350,000 to keep it looking nice outside. Hey, that's a gift to all of us who drive
- up and down that road and look over because it could be pretty trashy because we've seen abandoned buildings.
- So I think without question there's financial hardship, whether it's a business decision gone wrong
- or right. Really, that's not here or there.
- It seems like the neighborhood is objecting to the use of the electrical business and would not object
- to the use of it as an agricultural enterprise. Both of those are commercial uses. That building has
- been there for decades, so all of us who moved into Bloomington, here, there, or whatever, it was there,
- it was existing, it was operating, and whoever made the commentary that when it was Worms Way, it had
- far more traffic and activity. We all know that to be true. So whatever this ultimate use is going to
- be, whether it's the contractor use or the agricultural use, it's still going to be used, but it's going
- to be used less than it was when it was first erected and built and operated. So I think factually,
- that kind of
- is apparent to me. But it seems like it's the use that the neighborhood is upset about, not that it
- is used. And people have different opinions about financial hardship. But to me, $350,000 and no offers
- in seven years, ooh, I think that's pretty rough. Pretty rough. I've got a couple of concerns that are
- different from that.
- One is it's consistently been offered, been advertised as an industrial property. And if it's advertised
- as an industrial property, it's not going to invite agricultural purposes. And it's a zone for agriculture.
- It seems to me it should be advertised as what it's a permitted use, not a use that's not permitted.
- But we just heard them say that's the way the listing service treats it with a building. That's what
- we heard in testimony. The building is an industrial building. I don't dispute that. But the building
- can't be used for a non-agricultural purpose under the current zoning. And the Mr. Byers
- is talking about using it for what is in fact an agricultural industrial purpose. And I think that Mr.
- Cochran said that the owner said, let's not try to get a deal because we've got something else pending
- and we have to see what the BZA does. I mean, what I heard
- was if the BZA passes this, then they don't need to worry about dealing with the agriculture. If the
- BZA doesn't, then they'll deal with the agriculture. I hear your train of thought, and it's a fair way
- to approach it as an outsider. To ask a further question on yours is,
- You said, well, if you're advertising it one particular way, and while our colleague said Mr. Cockrum
- addressed that, that that's how the industry handles that, how would the current person that is coming
- to the table saying that they might have an interest in the property, how did they find it if it is
- only being marketed this way? So my guess is that folks
- in the ag business, the scope of search is much broader than this one word that we're seeing on this
- printout. That's my guess. I just have a problem because the categorization of agriculture versus industrial
- is one thing, but the description is another. And from what I can see in the description,
- It's not being marketed for its approved use from what I can see, as Ms. Booz had shared with us in
- these listings. Now, I don't know. I mean, I see that and I recognize that, and I'm listening to it,
- especially since that's its approved use, and if it's not even being
- attempted to be sold for what it's currently approved for and it should be no surprise that the hardship
- exists you know so I just don't know you know that I you know for and also I'm concerned about the use
- like other like the neighbors have pointed out and as we well know the use goes with the property and
- And it's possible that the current electrical use could go in and sell within six months to another
- use that we've already denied. Now, if we do approve the electrical or the general contractor use, I
- just wonder what limitations we can put on the approval. Great question for Mr. Schilling, perhaps.
- And so I have that question, but I'm also encouraged because because there is somebody who is interested
- in the agricultural use for what what it is currently approved to do. You know, I think that's kind
- of that's the elegant solution. That's the elegant solution. But to put a use into the property that
- is currently approved for.
- But Mr. Schilling, could you tell us how we could limit, put limitations on approvals for general contractor?
- Well, there are two things you can do. Yes. If you find that there are shortcomings with the petition,
- in other words, it doesn't quite meet the standards, you could impose conditions that would bring the petition
- up to the standards to say, like if you're concerned about the impact on the neighborhood on noise,
- imposed conditions relating to odors, hours of operation, lighting, things like that, outdoor storage,
- and so forth, the other option would be to accept a commitment from the petitioner as to the nature
- of the use, including some of those things about outdoor storage, hours of operation,
- odor, noise, the type of activities that would be conducted. They can limit themselves in that regard,
- but we haven't had any offers on the commitment side. I think that one thing that we all agree upon
- is that we would like to see that property put into use and that we would like for there to be a viable
- business there.
- that partners with our community to employ people and to bring in revenue and tax dollars to our community
- and that we all care about that and we certainly appreciate the electric business that we currently
- have on 17th Street. We appreciate all that you do for our community. We appreciate the people you employ.
- We appreciate all the business that you do for our community. This is just about
- zoning piece of land that has been in contention for a long time, and part of the original sin is to
- have allowed for a use variance in the first place. But it seems as though there's a viable
- I don't know. Of course, it's speculative because we don't have a firm agreement, but we do have a sworn
- testimony from a gentleman who thinks that it's perfect for an agricultural business, that he wants
- to create the property in coordination with some of our assets, which is IU and Purdue, and that it could
- be an innovative use for the property. So I'm, I'm kind of torn on this, you know? Yes. If I, if I may
- pawn off of what you're talking about, you know, what's before us is the matter of the economic hardship
- specifically. That was, that is, that is the, that is the condition
- that staff specifically mentioned in their cause for the denial. And while all of the conditions need
- to be met, I think the focus obviously is the economic hardship. And I appreciate specifically the gentleman
- that spoke first and said, hey, there's been nothing that's
- changed here from the last time. And I've been thinking about that. And is he right? And then I thought,
- no. The overwhelming concern was the environmental aspect in the last time this was brought to the board.
- That's not an issue now. And there's two additional years
- of economic deterioration happening for the county, losing tax revenue for the owner,
- And quite frankly, I saw a vacant property on the side of the road. It's a hardship for our county in
- terms of future economic development as well. You mentioned, well, there's somebody here that has testified
- that they have interest in the property. And that's fantastic. They've had seven years to step to the plate.
- Um, and in addition to that, sorry, public comment is over. This is a discussion amongst us.
- So thank you. And somebody stepping to the table and saying they have an interest in something is fantastic,
- but that's not a business deal by any stretch of the imagination. And I've been thinking about that
- as well, you know,
- How does that help that gentleman's negotiation power? Coming to a meeting, objecting to a zoning use,
- all of a sudden he becomes the only person that's applicable. So that is a concern with that comment,
- that three-minute comment as well. There's a lot going on here. The economic hardship is...
- the focal point in terms of the denial for the staff. That seems to have been demonstrated through the
- testimony of our petitioner. I have a staff question. I remember the asphalt business, but would that
- have been qualified as a general contractor?
- Yes. Okay. My experience is it's very routine to have backup offers. That if this offer falls through,
- then you've got another offer. I mean, that's pretty routine. And what I think I heard Mr. Cochran say,
- was they said, no, don't make an offer yet. We want to get, see what the board does. And to me that's,
- it doesn't, that offer could have been explored and they chose not to. And an offer on, somebody saying
- I'm willing to put an offer on the table and saying, well, don't do it because we want to see if we
- get this other. I don't doubt that the property is worth more
- for an industrial purpose than it is in a general contracting purpose than it is for an agricultural
- purpose. You already stated they're asking 40 cents on the dollar in terms of the market value
- for industrial. In terms of if it was zoned differently. But zoning affects the value of property every
- single day. Absolutely. Absolutely. But the purchaser in mind is
- looking at this here and the price is competitive. Competitive for a commercial purpose. I think this
- seems like an excellent contractor. If this was zoned commercial, you couldn't ask for a better buyer
- than this.
- this buyer could turn around and sell it for a profit to the asphalt company if they wanted to and turn
- a pretty pretty. I don't know what the asphalt company was offering, but we do expose these neighbors
- to a substantial risk of what comes next. And I would frankly feel
- different about it if it not were the fact that Mr. Byers, an individual who's come up with ties to
- the community, who's looked at the property and says he was told, don't make an offer. I mean, that's
- very different from no offers, and it's very different when they only advertise it as industrial without
- pointing out that industrial is not a permitted use.
- I'm not comfortable with the way they've tried to get me to go to yes because it's general contractor.
- Having this excellent business doesn't mean the next one will be excellent or they wouldn't flip it.
- You know, it's often when I look at a package, it sounds one way, and then when I hear the public and
- the evidence, it's the other. I'm not, I guess, you know, I would, at this time, I'm gonna vote no,
- but if they want to continue this,
- For 30 or 60 days to see if something else can actually be arranged, I might look at it differently.
- But right now, I'm not comfortable reversing the commercial saying the agriculture could be practical.
- It's never been advertised for that.
- We have no reason to believe it's ever been advertised for anything it might be sold for. If I recall
- correctly from the prior petitions, that is kind of an ongoing complaint of the neighbors that it hasn't
- been advertised or marketed for the purpose that it's actually authorized for, that that is
- been a continuous complaint of the neighbors. So I'm also, I think that I can understand the point of
- view of the property owner trying to get the highest dollar and trying to change yet again, the zoning
- for it in order to achieve that highest dollar. But at the same time, the neighbors approved the agriculture business.
- And actually there's no guarantee that an incoming agricultural business would be any more pleasant
- to have around than the proposed electrical contractor. That being said, it's an approved use in our zoning.
- And so I would like to see an agricultural business go in there. I mean, I do know that in Bloomington,
- Indiana, off of Harmony Road, there's a mushroom grower who's growing mushrooms in his barn, and that
- there's a hydroponics down on South Walnut near Dillman Road. There is a market for agricultural business,
- Mr. Byers testified under oath and I've looked up his business and his credentials here online. You
- know he seems to know what he's talking about he says that's perfect for that that use that building
- is perfect for that use. I'd like to give that a chance.
- I'd like to give it a chance and have some innovation. If it comes through, I know that there's no guarantee,
- but I'd like to give the purpose for which the building was built and the variance was originally granted,
- I'd like to give it a chance and see what exciting things could come out of that property. So I intend
- on this to...
- Unfortunately, because I really, really think that Electric Plus has done such a great job and they're
- a great asset in our community. I feel very reluctant and sorry to vote no for this particular property,
- but this property is zoned agricultural and there seems to be a viable, elegant solution. So, you know,
- that being said, I'd, I intend to vote no
- I have a comment and then a question for staff. My comment is, to me, the buyer in this conversation
- is irrelevant. I think Electric Plus would be a great tenant for the building in comparison to some
- of the past conversations or petitions we've heard at the Planning Commission, but as we've said tonight,
- we're voting on the use, not on Electric Plus.
- The question that I have for staff is that, you know, we have heard this at the Plan Commission several
- times, and my understanding is that Wormsway was granted a variance in the beginning to build this in
- this location. And so this was a risk that the owner took decades ago when they built this, knowing
- that this was creating a very limited use for this property. So my question is, am I accurate
- and remembering that. It's a special exception is what it was approved as. And yes, it's similar to
- a use variance, but they did have that and then construct the use here. Thank you. So the special exception
- that they were granted to me was a hardship that the owner created for themselves by doing this, knowing
- that this could create a problem down the road if it ever came to selling it.
- You know, to me, that's the only hardship that we're considering tonight. So I'm not sure if anybody
- else has comments or thoughts. I go back to what I said a little while ago. It seems like the use, the
- commercial use of the property, it matters a lot to the neighborhood if it's agricultural use.
- Frankly, the electrical company could have fewer employees and fewer activities and talk about odors
- and smells and fertilizers and manure, all those things. It's hard to say how that really works. We've
- already heard the case. You know, we all seem to
- be leaning towards, gee, we wish it were agricultural, but we all seem to be believing, too, that this
- is a property that needs to be turned over and used, that we're definitely of agreement about that.
- So let me ask you this esoteric question because of what Mr. Lofman said. If we vote no on this, they
- go back and now there may be two potential buyers at the table, even though, in general, the electric
- company's not going to
- put money on the table if they can't use the building for what they want to use it for. But if that
- doesn't happen, if the agricultural purpose falls through, can they come back and request another conditional
- use? Because selling the building, it is a big hardship to manage that building. It's a huge hardship.
- To have it empty on the outskirts of town for so long is not good for any of us either. So can they
- revisit it if that other offer goes poof? It's a good question. So under the rules of procedure that
- was amended around the time of this and another use variant, an appeal or petition which has been decided
- against the petitioner shall not again be placed on the docket for consideration
- by the board within a period of 12 months from the date of the decision unless an amended application
- letter is requested by the petitioner to planning staff moved by a board member to be placed on a BZA
- agenda and adopted by unanimous vote of all members present. In determining whether to approve docketing
- of the matter, the board will give consideration to, and then it goes on to have those findings. That's
- on page 189.
- Dave also might want to comment. And of course, they could apply for a different type of use, a variance
- for a different type of use. And since 2023, the code has changed. So we do have different uses to pick
- from. The other thing that is big picture to me here is Mr. Schilling has, in response to our questions,
- not out of the question that if the petitioner is not electric plus, the petitioner I think is the owner,
- says we will limit any use to somebody that doesn't have more than so many vehicles a day, doesn't have
- more than so many employees, doesn't have anything on site that creates lots of noise or lots of odor,
- which they need
- it might be that it would get around a lot of the scary things. The neighborhood's not objecting to
- electric pluses uses. They're objecting to something that might be worse, as I hear it, if it could
- be made so it wasn't worse. That would require, as I suggested earlier, that the petitioner say,
- We'll take a continuance. They can look at it. And of course, the agricultural buyer is probably not
- going to pay what an industrial buyer would pay. But they might come up with a list of conditions. They
- might talk them over with the neighbors. They might be able to come up with something. But if they want
- to say, no, we want an up or down vote tonight, then we'll see what the vote is.
- I feel uncomfortable with the continuance because it would be like we're interfering with a purchase
- agreement, the sale and purchase of a piece of property, and I feel that that places us in some point
- of interference with what Mr. Height and whoever the buyer actually would become, that that would place
- us in conflict with
- with the process. I'm sorry. Skip has a. I have. Concern isn't necessarily the word but it's that direction
- with some of the direction of the comments that I've heard from from the board. I heard saying we would
- like perhaps future
- things like that. This is a tough job. And we hear folks that are at odds, at odds with members of the
- community, at odds with the planning staff or the local government. But the votes that we cast are not
- necessarily
- the votes that we want, but we have an obligation to review the petition and look at the criteria
- specifically that's outlined and has or has not the petitioner met their burden
- And if we look at this in any other way, well, potentially XYZ, that's fine and dandy, but potentially
- is not in front of us right now. What's in front of us right now is the petitioner. To that extent,
- then if we're going to talk about economic hardship,
- Which is what I think that you're doing staff has put here. I have a problem frankly with the fact that
- the parcel does not seem to have been marketed for its intended use or its approved use and so economic hardship
- Point B has not been proven that it's effectively deprived the parcel owner of all reasonable economic
- use of the parcel because it hasn't been attempted to be used for an agricultural purpose according
- to the testimony that we received tonight, the evidence that we received from Ms. Booz and from prior
- testimony that I was witness to here on the Board of Zoning Appeals.
- I just feel that that's, I can't get there with the economic hardship, although we've heard the dollar
- amount and it stuns us and we drive by that property and we see that it's vacant. The question is, has
- it been properly marketed? Has every attempt been made in order to abide by the zoning? And when I ask
- myself that question,
- I have to say no. Even though I appreciated Worms Way, I went there, I was a customer, I loved it. And
- one other thing that I appreciate is the rapport that the neighborhood has with the owner of the property.
- They seem to have an ongoing good rapport with Mr. Height. And I think that that's something good. I
- just think that a good attempt has to be
- made, and the neighbors have been asking for this for a while, to market it for what it's currently
- approved for. I think that that should be done. I would add that the standard for use variance approval
- number two is the use and value of the area adjacent to the property, including the variance, will not
- be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
- I think we've heard a great deal of neighborhood perspective that their property will be damaged not
- by this electric company, but by having general contractor without any limitations. And that means that
- it could be the asphalt plant. It could be all sorts of things that are not as benign.
- as this user. We're not voting on the user. We're voting on the general contractor. And the general
- contractor is so general that, in my mind, it creates a negative impact on the value of the neighboring
- property. By asphalt plant, you probably meant asphalt company. Yes.
- Yeah, it depends on, yes, certainly an asphalt company. Completely different categorization. I take
- your word for it. We won't have to check with staff on that. Yes, asphalt company. Are there? I'm going
- to make a motion. So on VAR-26-3, general contractor use variance to Chapter 811 concerning a property
- at 7854 North Wayport Road.
- And this is the petitioner's Tom Whitaker, electric plus, care of Mr. Chris Cockerham. I am going to
- move that we deny the petition. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to deny VAR-26-3, which is
- a use variance for a general contractor for
- the property on Wayport Road, a vote yes is a vote to deny the variance for a use variance. Jeff Morse?
- Yes. Pamela Davidson? This one's really hard because if it doesn't sell, I am going to suffer mightily
- because that's a big piece of property not to sell. I'm going to vote yes, but it's a tough one. Margaret
- Clements? I agree with my colleague here. It's a tough one, but I am voting yes.
- Skip Daly. Petitioner met their burden. No. Guy Loftman. Yes. The vote is to deny the variance passed
- by four to one. Thank you Mr. Cochran and to all the neighbors who came out and spoke tonight. So it
- is now past nine o'clock so our rules of procedure require us to have a conversation about whether we're
- going to continue with the final
- Yes, we are going to continue. Yes. Until next time. I can make it to 930 at least. Yes. I don't want
- to just be here for one. So we will continue with VAR-26-4A, 4B.
- and 4C. These are the Stone Ridge Church Max Impervious Cover variants to Chapter 805, the Stone Ridge
- Church Max Height variants to Chapter 805, and the Stone Ridge Church Max Height Airport Overlay variants
- to Chapter 821. Mr. Myers, is this one yours? Yes, this one's mine.
- Yeah, so this is VAR-26-4A, 4B, and 4C. So I believe it was picked up on the microphone, so I'm not
- going to repeat the exact petition, but I'll turn it over to Mr. Myers. Thank you. This is the Stone
- Ridge Church maximum impervious cover variance, the Stone Ridge Church maximum height variance, and
- the Stone Ridge Church maximum height airport overlay variance.
- This is located at 5510 and 5560 West State Road 48 is unplatted and it totals 8.65 acres across three
- individual parcels. One of those three parcels is zoned residential one. The other two parcels are zoned
- agricultural residential 2.5 adjacent zoning includes residential one agricultural residential 2.5 and
- the PUD fieldstone.
- The comp plan designates the area as Makua Suburban Residential, or also known as the Monroe County
- Urbanizing Area, as well as the Monroe County Urbanizing Area Conservation Residential. The use is currently
- residential and vacant. And these are development standards variances for commercial use. All right,
- so this petitioner is requesting three development standard variances, excuse me, from chapter 805.
- and one development standard variance from Chapter 821. I'm sorry, that's two development standard variances
- from Chapter 805 and one from Chapter 821. In June 2025, planning staff completed a pre-filing request
- for the petitioner's representative, BRCJ, for the development of the three subject parcels into the
- new location of the Stone Ridge Baptist Church. The petitioner intends to combine the three subject
- parcels into one lot of record and construct the new Stone Ridge Baptist Church
- And upon review of the petitioner's conceptual site plan, planning staff informed the petitioner that
- several variances will be necessary. This includes the maximum impervious cover variance, the maximum
- height variance, and a second maximum height variance due to the petition site's location within the
- airport noise and height overlay. If any of the three variances are denied, the petitioner will need
- to redesign the conceptual site plan prior to submitting a commercial site plan filing with the
- planning department, which will be reviewed administratively by staff to ensure all compliance with
- the county development ordinance. Upon submittal and review of the official commercial site plan, the
- need for additional development standard variances may arise, and the petitioner is aware of this.
- If all three variances are approved, the petitioner can maintain their current conceptual design and
- proceed with filing commercial site plan with the planning department. And the same review will occur
- administratively by staff. And again, additional variances through that review may arise based on full
- review of the petition site. So a few things to consider here.
- during this petition. The development does include an approximate area of 82,000 square feet of impervious
- cover, extending across the three parcels. The entire petition site is located in the Cave Creek Critical
- Watershed, which does, in certain zoning districts, decrease the amount of impervious cover that you're
- allowed to have. Parcels that are involved are split zoned, as I stated before. The southwest parcel
- is zoned residential.
- one, and the other two are zoned agricultural residential 2.5. The split zoning means different development
- standards apply. In other words, the development within the residential zoned district, those development
- standards apply on that portion of the development, while the development standards of the agricultural
- residential 2.5 zone apply elsewhere in their own zone.
- As you will see in a minute when I show you the site plan, you will see that a lot of the development
- is kind of focused around the intersection of these existing parcel lines, the shared parcel lines,
- and a good chunk of the development is located in the residential one parcel. The maximum impervious
- cover allowed in a residential zone that is part of a critical watershed is 30% of the lot size or 11,500
- square feet, whichever is less. In the case of this particular parcel,
- The 11,500 square feet is less. So that is what applies.
- cover in the agricultural residential zone is 35,000 square feet for lots containing 2.51 to five acres.
- And that is the acreage that applies for the other two parcels in the agricultural residential zone.
- So if you were to total all of that up across the different districts, you would still be short of the
- approximate 82,000 square feet of impervious cover that's proposed currently under the conceptual design.
- Moving on to the height variance, the maximum height in the residential zone is 35 feet, and the maximum
- height in the agricultural residential zone is 40 feet for primary structures. The conceptual site plan
- shows a steeple at 68 feet, 10 and 3 quarter inches, and the main building at 36 feet, 10 inches. The
- county development ordinance does include some exceptions to the height limitations under Chapter 813-2A1.
- However, steeple is not specifically listed.
- Those specific things that are listed are silos, chimneys, mechanicals, derricks, radio and television
- antenna, and towers, wind turbines, wireless communication facilities, its port structures,
- power transmission towers, and water towers. Please note that the prior zoning ordinance from 1997 to
- 2024 did include the word spire as a structure that was eligible for the height exceptions. So that is just
- and pertinent information for the discussion this evening. Now on the screen, you have staff's analysis
- of the impervious cover. So this was an overlay that we performed on the conceptual site plan. And all
- of that yellow area is what would classify as impervious cover. And there on the screen, you see the
- approximately 82,000 square feet of impervious cover calculated there.
- Now on the screen is the design, conceptual design that the petitioner provided us that shows the height
- of the steeple as well as the height of the primary building with those measurements listed there as
- I stated before. The third aspect of this variance petition is the airport noise and height overlay or ANHO.
- Staff contacted the airport director, Carlos Laverde, to inform him of the proposed height of the steeple,
- church steeple, at 68 feet 10 and 3 quarter inches. And he reached out to a development firm, or engineering
- firm, I should say, to perform an analysis that was done by Wolpert with respect to the ANHO as well as the
- FAA guidelines for being in an airport area. So this particular property is located in what's called
- the horizontal zone, which is established as the area within a circle with its center at the airport
- reference point and having a radius of 7,000 feet. The horizontal zone does not include the instrument
- and non-instrument approach zones and transition zones, which that is a key
- clarification with respect to some of the standards that are required and regulations that are required
- with respect to the different zones in the ANHO. So as I stated, there was an analysis performed by
- Wolpert that is included in the staff report.
- However, the analysis did conclude that the petitioner should reach out to the Indiana Department of
- Transportation Office of Aviation to clarify if a state permit will be required. You will see in their
- analysis that they do not foresee any issues with the height of the steeple, but they are not 100% confirmed
- that there will not be additional permitting or issues from the state office. So that is a factor that
- goes into our eventual
- recommendation. Here on the screen is those different zones that I was mentioning regarding the airport
- overlay. We have the conical zone, horizontal zone in the blue, instrument approach zone, and transition
- zone. So as you can see clearly, this property is located in the horizontal zone. Now on the screen,
- some exhibits. We have the location map. The property has frontage on West State Road 48.
- The zoning map you can see on the right side of the screen has those split zones, as I mentioned before,
- the southwest parcel being zoned residential one, and the remaining ones being agricultural residential
- 2.5. Site conditions, there are no apparent karst features on the property. I know that being on the
- west side of town, we do typically see some karst activity, but based on the contours that are available,
- we do not see any apparent
- karst on the property, although a full-scale commercial site plan will reveal if there are any other
- karst or sinkhole features on the property. They will be addressed appropriately. On the right side
- of the screen is the map that shows the location within the Cave Creek Critical Watershed. Now some
- site photos. These are taken along West State Road 48. This is looking at one of the driveway entrances.
- There are two, being that it was three separate parcels that the petitioner plans to combine. There
- is an existing residence on the residential one zoned parcel, which is that southwest parcel. You can
- see that there in the right photograph. You can see just on the left photograph now, just the eastern
- portion of the property being vacant. And then on the right photograph, you can see the existing residence.
- So I'm just going to keep clicking through these.
- Photos. In that right photograph, you can see the edge, the western edge of the subject property marked
- with that survey marker. And then this is the rear of the property. And the property extends further
- north as you go onto the property. I did not extend all the way back there, but you can kind of get
- a good look of the lay of the land, if you will.
- Okay, so now we have the letter from the petitioner's representative from BRCJ indicating their requests.
- This is also included in the packet. We do have two consent letters from the current owners. PIPJ properties
- owns the two larger parcels that are zoned agricultural residential. And then David Gray, we have his
- consent letter as well regarding the residential one zone lot.
- Now on the screen we have one of the conceptual site plans that was provided by the petitioner to staff.
- This is what was used to determine the proposed impervious cover. And then on the screen now you have
- a email thread between the airport director as well as a representative from Wolpert based on their
- analysis for the airport noise and height overlay. This is also included in the packet.
- And then following this are a few exhibits that were provided by that firm during their analysis of
- the steeple location, its height, and its respect to the NHO. Let me add that here as well. So that
- brings us to staff's recommendation.
- Staff does recommend denial of all three variances, specifically for VAR-26-4A. Practical difficulties
- have not been met. The petitioner can choose to locate the proposed development in the agricultural
- residential zone parcels and reduce the total impervious cover down to meet the maximum regulation.
- Alternatively, the petitioner can seek a rezone to a zoning district that permits religious facilities
- and allows for a larger amount of impervious cover. For example, general business allows for a larger
- impervious cover and does permit religious facilities. Specifically to VAR-26-4B, we're recommending
- denial, citing that practical difficulties have not been met. The proposed development, again, can be
- relocated to portions of the property zoned agricultural residential and reduce the height of the steeple
- down to satisfy the 40-foot height regulation. And then finally, recommending denial of VAR-26-4C,
- Again, practical difficulties have not been met. The proposed development can relocate, as I've stated
- before, and they can reduce the height of the steeple down to satisfy the 40-foot height regulation.
- In addition, the location of a steeple that measures 68 feet could make planned air transportation more
- difficult or dangerous in accordance with finding in section 841-4F1B.
- and we don't have final confirmation from the Office of Aviation about further permitting or concerns
- from that office. So I will now take any questions. Thank you, Drew. Let's go ahead and turn to the
- petitioner or the petitioner's representative if you'd like to come to the podium. If you could sign
- in and state your name, then I'll swear you in. Andy Gasky. Okay. Do you swear to tell the truth, the
- whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do.
- You'll have a combined total of 15 minutes if you both wish to speak. Sounds good. We have a number
- of folks from our church here, too, that are also able to support. First of all, I just want to say
- thank you so much. This is a very late night. I realize all of you worked. You took our last case on.
- I realize it's been a little contentious here right at the end. So we just really appreciate your service
- to the community very much. So our church started 15 years ago. We purchased First Health Choice when
- the doctor retired. And so we've been there 11, 12 years.
- The entire property measures 0.6 of an acre, which is quite small. So we have maxed that out and started
- looking at purchasing some property. And so we are looking at the eight acres here as a capacity for
- potentially a 300-seat auditorium. Unlike a restaurant where you can have people in from 11, 12, 1,
- 2, and you keep turning over with a church, you kind of meet together like a body like this, and then
- people go home. So the building has to be sufficient to meet the folks to come together.
- We're a part of all the major life issues that people have, their weddings, their funerals. We help
- a lot of disadvantaged children, people that may not have parents, people who are being raised by a
- guardian. We offer free English classes to multiple internationals and immigrants. And so our calling
- in the community is to serve the community. So basically, you've got the economic side of a city that's
- growing. You've got the health side of a city. You've got infrastructure. But then there's the service sector.
- And the service sector is very important because it has to do with meeting the needs that are oftentimes
- invisible behind the scenes. And so our people here give generously to allow us to even be able to start
- moving forward with this. It's taken a lot of sacrifice to get to this point. We don't have the funding
- of a corporation or something to do this. These are just freewill offerings. But our desire is to try
- to express why we feel like our three variances are actually reasonable.
- My client here, Mr. Knust, is going to come and he'll be able to share some of the specifics and then
- I'll speak after him as well. Thank you, sir. Did you sign in on the paper? I did, thank you. Okay,
- thank you. Sir, if you could step forward, did you sign in as well? Yes, I have also signed in. Okay,
- if you could state your name and then raise your right hand. Andy Knust. Do you swear to tell the truth,
- the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, you'll have the remainder of the 15 minutes.
- Thank you.
- Yes, I'm Andy can used with blood so rigor Cooper James civil engineer working with the Stone Ridge
- Baptist Church on the project and And the proposal is to build this church facility on on yes a residential
- zoned parcel and two parcels that are agricultural residential and both of those zonings allow
- a religious facility as an accepted use, an accepted structure to be built within those zonings. However,
- the restriction on the impervious area kind of functionally eliminates that possibility. Like 11,500
- square feet is a really very small amount of impervious area for a facility like a church.
- where they're currently located, they have 0.6 acres. That's like 25,000 square feet. And they're bursting
- at the seams on that site that they currently have. So their proposal is to move to a larger property,
- have more room to expand and grow, and for a facility to serve
- 300 parishioners in the auditorium and they'd have a fellowship hall and adequate parking to serve the
- facility like we're looking at 82,000 square feet. Now Drew gave an excellent analysis and summary of
- the petition and one important point in there is that if these three parcels were to be developed
- individually, so if somebody built
- something new on the residential zone parcel and separately built something on each of the two agricultural
- zone parcels, the total amount of square footage, impervious area, would be 81,500 square feet. That
- is almost exactly what we need to build the proposed church here, if three different projects were built
- on those same three parcels.
- What we're asking is for, you know, that impervious area to be kind of combined into one facility here,
- a church, which is a great use for the property, and it would be really a reasonable thing. Like, complies
- with the zoning, does not really adversely affect the neighborhood here. Like, if you look at surrounding
- uses and facilities in the area, like directly across,
- The state road there is a health campus which has a lot of impervious area. It's a big commercial kind
- of enterprise, a lot of coming and going just directly across the state road. Also, you know, within
- a half mile is Ivy Tech and about three quarters of a mile away there's another church with a tall steeple.
- So it's not like this would, it's not like this church would not fit within this community.
- I would like to say is that the suggestion that the like the practical difficulty here Suggested in
- that pushing the church, you know on to you know, so that it doesn't impact the residentially zoned
- parcel and that would that would require the whole project to be pushed further north on the on within
- those three parcels and that would
- really increase the impact of the property. It'd be pushed further from the state road, and so you'd
- need a much longer driveway to get back there. The buildable site further north on the properties is
- like a thousand feet back from the state road. And so you'd have a thousand foot long driveway, and
- that would be 20,000 square feet right there of your allowable 45,000 square feet. That would leave
- the church with
- 25,000 square feet to actually build their parking lot and their church facility. And that's exactly
- what they have right now at their current location. So that really wouldn't allow a beneficial project
- for the Stone Ridge Baptist Church to move forward. So I think there is a demonstrable practical difficulty
- there because it's just not feasible to
- build this project where it wouldn't impact the residential piece of the properties there that's closer
- to the state road. Also, an important note is that a steeple is like the most recognizable component
- of a church, right? So part of the mission of the church here is to reach out to the public, like make
- themselves available and make the public aware that here's this church available for
- everyone who wants to be a part of it. And the steeple is the most recognizable way for people to see
- a church and know what it is. So having a tall steeple is just an important component of church architecture.
- And the findings about the airport zoning, there's no, within this horizontal zone around the airport,
- there's really no
- specific, at least not that I've been able to find, or that the Wolpert engineer was able to identify.
- There's no specific height restriction within that zone that we've been able to identify at this point.
- Through some additional clarification, we'll go to NDOT and we'll talk to their aviation group and determine
- what permits might be needed and certainly comply with whatever height restrictions NDOT would have.
- I don't think that that is any reason for this body to deny the variance request for the height of the
- steeple because certainly you know whatever restrictions in that might apply that that that doesn't
- bear necessarily on the county zoning decision. So I think that's what I have to say. And you have anything
- else to add.
- We have a few minutes remaining here. I didn't know if you had any follow-up questions. If not, then
- we'd have some of our parishioners here who just like to speak a word of support. So however you want
- to use the time best, we defer to you on how we want us to spend it. Yeah, if you're done speaking,
- we'll come back to the BZA to see if there's any questions for you before we turn to public comment
- and let everybody else speak. I was just going to say regarding the steeple, it's almost like the exit
- sign. Every building I've been a part of, we always have an exit sign. I know where I came in, I know
- where I left, but the exit sign's like,
- That's where you're going to leave in an emergency. When it comes to a church, the steeple is, whether
- it's in Europe or whether it's in North America, that is the way people say, that's a church. That's
- where I can get spiritual help. And it has beautiful architecture, too. And so we don't want to just
- have flat buildings. We want to have something that looks nice. Thank you both. Any questions from members
- of the BCA? Oh, yeah. Go ahead. It's good that you're here. And I didn't catch your name. Andy Gaschke.
- Mr. Gaschke? Gaschke.
- Perfect segue, you talked about the steeple. My question is, what is the difference from your perspective
- between a 40 foot steeple or a steeple that raises to 40 feet versus a steeple that raises to 60, what
- is this, two, 67?
- in terms of, your colleague mentioned, the marketing aspect of the church. And you represented the sense
- of continuity of churches throughout Europe and whatnot. So what is the difference, other than 28 feet,
- between a steeple that is raised to 40 within current code
- and a steeple that would be raised to your proposal? That's an excellent question. So it's just the
- idea of having it above the roof line. So if we stand there in that property, or you look at any of
- the properties around, all the trees are 80 feet to 100 feet. And nobody's proposing that we go in there
- and chainsaw them down. But now when we're talking about the one structure there, so you get the roof
- line, let's say, at 40 feet, and then you put the steeple above that, that's what gives it the silhouette,
- like in a skyline. You can say, OK.
- there's the church, versus planting it in a pavement and then having it come up to the same level as
- the roof line. So that's where we're coming from with that extra height. Okay. So you're suggesting
- that the roof lines are 40 feet tall in the area? Am I correct on that? I think we have the roof line
- at 36. Can you speak in front of the microphone? I think the architect has designed the roof line at
- about 36 right now.
- So a differential of four feet would really not be quite enough to make that kind of skyline. Fair enough.
- OK. I see it now that you've mentioned 36. OK. Absolutely. It's a great question. Can I follow up my
- question with one of Mr. Myers? Earlier, I believe it was to the beginning of the presentation, you
- mentioned a list
- of items that were exceptions within this scope. Could you repeat those for me? Yes, in Chapter 813-2,
- general exceptions to the development standards requirements, item A says height requirements, and then
- number one, exceptions to the development standards height limitations, silos, chimneys, mechanicals,
- Derrick's radio and television antenna and towers, wind turbines, wireless communication facilities
- and support structures, power transmission towers, and water towers. Okay, so if the church were transmitting
- something from the top of that steeple, it would be approved, but if they're not transmitting something,
- in essence, it's not approved.
- I would defer to legal for that. Rhetorical question with John. Thank you. Appreciate that. Are there
- any other questions? I just wanted to make a quick comment. The house that I grew up in was next to
- a church and I wasn't sure what to think of the church because
- We liked our community the way it was, but as the church was going up, they ended up being our best
- neighbors. So from the age of 12 to the age of 22, I grew up next to a church, not that I attended,
- it was a Lutheran church, but the staff was great, and it was just a wonderful experience. So whenever
- there's a change, there's always a little suspicion like, uh-oh, we like things the way they are, but
- I just wanted to say I've experienced it, and it was a very positive experience. A church can be a wonderful
- addition to a particular neighborhood, and that's the kind of neighbors we definitely want to be.
- Okay, thank you both for your comments. We can turn now to our public comment portion. So if there's
- anybody here in the room who wishes to speak in favor of this petition, you're welcome to come to the
- podium. Or if you want to raise your hand in support, that would give us an idea too. Okay. Okay, two,
- four, six, eight, nine.
- There are 13 people here who raised their hands in support of this petition. Because of the late hour,
- I presume they're not speaking, for which we thank you. Do we have anybody online who wishes to speak
- in favor of this petition? If so, please raise your virtual hand. If we have anybody here in the room
- who wishes to speak against this petition, you're welcome to come to the podium. If you could please sign in.
- There's one person online as well. Okay. Thank you, Jackie. My count goes down to 11. 11 in favor in
- this room. Sorry. Including the petitioner.
- Okay, if you could state your name and raise your right hand. Celia Peacock. Do you swear to tell the
- truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, you'll have three minutes. So I have some
- photos for you guys to look at as I talk. You'll have to stay at the podium to speak, but you're welcome
- to drop the photos off. Oh, it is not easy to speak.
- in opposition to what a church wants to do. Of course, I've been involved with raising money to build
- a new church. You know, you get the little thermometer and you build and you build and it takes years
- and I know it means so much to them. The issue I have, my property lines up on the
- eastern part of the property that they're talking about. So I'm on La Crosse Drive on the cul-de-sac
- that's on the eastern side of that property. We already have massive drainage issues back there, as
- you can see. That is from a typical rainstorm, just a normal rainstorm. And what you don't see there
- is the flowing.
- That is rushing. Those are photos that I took from a video. There is rushing water, and it's all coming
- off of that agricultural part of the land. It rushes down into my yard in two different areas.
- verges in one spot and then it flows onto my neighbor's property. He's online. He plans to speak as
- well. We have issues, big ones, and that all of that dirt back there, it's all clay. So that's another
- drainage issue. These are things that even with good mitigation, I'm not sure could really be addressed
- properly. I think it would really, especially once they break ground to build and then
- I am horrified at the idea of that much impervious cover. I would drown, quite literally. I would be
- overwhelmed. My property would be overwhelmed with the runoff, both from when they developed the property
- and then with that much of a parking lot, we would just be overwhelmed.
- And so as much as I would love to have a church as a neighbor, truly, I've had some really bad neighbors.
- And so I would love to have a church as a neighbor. I am terrified of what this would do to our properties.
- At the moment, it is a problem, but it's a headache. But it's not a problem.
- neighborhood was built in 1977. I just now had to redo this past year my foundation, get it resealed,
- because we were getting a little bit of water into the basement. But it's not overwhelming us. I'm afraid
- that this would, not to mention people's septics. So thank you for hearing me. Thank you. Sir, did you
- wish to speak against as well?
- Have you signed in already? OK. If you could state your name and raise your right hand. My name is Daniel
- Bradley Luttrell. OK. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
- I do. First off, I'd like to thank you all for sticking it out. I really appreciate it. And I'd like
- to congratulate Stone Ridge Baptist Church on a very bustling congregation. God bless you guys. I myself
- understand that. I go to Reform Presbyterian Church on First Street in town, in the very middle of town.
- Same thing.
- same exact thing, so I totally understand. Yes, I am the previous speaker's son. I have habitated this
- property off and on since 2013, so I'm just here to give testimony to the fact that this has been an
- ongoing issue with the water flowing in from the exact property that they were looking at the whole
- time that I have been there.
- The only thing that we take issue with whatsoever is the maximum of hervious coverage. Having you know
- this is my first zoning board meeting. Having heard some of the other solutions and things that have
- been come up with like I wouldn't you know I would think that maybe there could be some sort of middle
- ground come up with. I don't know if there's been any like land surveying of the grading of that site
- or anything or if there could be some sort of
- you know, retaining wall drainage structure, something like that that could be added into the plans
- that could, you know, make everybody happy here. But it is definitely an issue, especially with the
- amount shown on the on the screen of the maximum approvals cover. I 100 percent if there is not any
- grading done, then the entire neighborhood will be. And the thing is, it's like we probably wouldn't
- be here if it was a once a year thing.
- But this is like 20, 30 minutes of rain, moderate rain. We get a river in the backyard. So it really
- is an issue. And yeah, like I said, it is just the impervious cover that is the issue that we have.
- I can understand with construction,
- extremely difficult, but I don't know if there hasn't been any land surveying done, if there's
- no topographical maps that have been looked at. Our specific property at 55362 West La Crosse Drive
- has a direct line of this water, and if the entire hill up there was covered, we would be in a flood.
- Thank you for your time. I really appreciate you guys sticking it out. Thank you, sir. We have one person
- online who wishes to speak. So tech services, if you could allow the person with the initials JH to
- unmute themselves. Hello. This is Joshua Houston. Hi there. If you could raise your right hand. Do you
- swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You'll have three
- minutes. Awesome.
- Thank you. Hello, neighbors. I am the homeowner of 5373 West La Crosse, just down the hill from CC and
- just down the hill from this proposed development. Just wanted to voice my concern. I have no concern
- against this being a church going in, no concern against the variance number with the letter 4B and
- 4C, specifically just thinking about the watershed.
- between my house or my house sits between this property and a culvert that was put in at some point
- probably when the neighborhood was put in to help with drainage from the watershed of this property.
- The whole slope comes down from the northwest side of the parcel being discussed down through our subdivision
- and then just basically through our backyards. So like Cece said,
- Anytime there's a big storm, we've had three major flooding events in the past six years. I moved in
- and bought the home in 2020 in the spring. We've had to completely gut the basement three times. And
- basically, my concern is if the construction goes through and the impervious cover is added, that we'll
- be dealing with more and more flooding just
- you know, with less and less of a serious storm. So I'm not sure exactly what the solution is, but I'm
- open to the middle ground ideas. But yeah, I just wanted to reiterate, having been at the, we're at
- the bottom of the hill with my property, everything that comes off of that hill already is running through
- our backyards. And it takes just about over an inch and a half of rain in a 24 hour period for there
- to be like a flowing,
- A river is the wrong word, but creek bed that forms in our just normal grass yards. So I think that's
- all I have to say. I appreciate again, everybody staying late and hearing us out. And yeah, I look forward
- to seeing what sort of solutions are proposed to help with this, if anything. Is there anyone else who
- wishes to speak on this petition? If you're online, raise your virtual hand.
- Okay, seeing no one, we will close public comment portion of the petition and come back to the BZA for
- conversation. Well, I think the petitioners. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Laughman. Yeah, you get five
- minutes for a rebuttal since there were a few people that spoke out against. So since he's a civil engineer,
- I'm gonna have him address the technical side of it. That's a specialty. Yes, thank you. So the county
- development ordinance has in the stormwater department,
- has some very specific and important requirements about drainage and runoff. So we would certainly be
- subject to a county stormwater permit, and we would be required to do stormwater detention for all the
- impervious runoff from the site. So I definitely hear the concerns of the neighbors and acknowledge
- that. That's an important concern, and we haven't
- done the full commercial site plan development yet because we wanted to come to this meeting and just
- make sure that, you know, this was going to be a viable project on the property through getting these
- variances. But in the process of developing the commercial site plan, we will certainly have, like we
- already on the conceptual site plan, if you look closely along the east edge there where the neighbors are
- are joining. We have some areas already set aside for storm detention. We haven't done all the calculations
- to size those up to meet the county requirements yet, but we'll certainly do so. We are in a critical
- watershed area here, so we would actually be ... The requirements are for ... There's a specified release
- rate per acre.
- So regardless of how much drainage is actually moving through that property right now, we would actually
- end up reducing it. So there's a very good likelihood that through the development of the project, we'd
- be putting in enough storm detention here to actually reduce the amount of runoff that's impacting the
- neighbors. So that's in the stormwater regulations.
- And Andy since it's primarily like a grass area is it your understanding that you would have to be even
- you'd have to capture more than just the water that's there now. So just to reconvey what you said even
- with 80,000 square feet of impervious you're actually held to the standard of it being like grass right
- now and detaining even more than that. Yeah. Yeah. Actually the way the storm water regulations read
- it doesn't
- matter what's there now. The requirement is like here's your the anchorage of your parking of your project.
- Like if it I think for a critical watershed area it's point two five CFS per acre of development in
- the 10 year event and point four or five cubic feet per second per acre of development in the 100 year
- event. So we would be designing the
- detention systems to meet those requirements. In my experience from analyzing existing pre-project conditions
- and post-project conditions, it's typical that those release rates, especially in critical watershed
- areas, are typically less than the pre-developed runoff rates.
- Well, they would be like dried detention ponds. Sorry, could you repeat her question into the microphone?
- Yeah, the question was, are they cisterns? And sort of. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by a cistern,
- but it'd be like a dried detention pond is what we'd call it. So probably a pond is not the right word,
- a dry detention basin. So it would fill up with storm water during a runoff event and drain out over
- a period of like
- 24 to 72 hours afterwards. But then during dry periods in between storm events, it'd be dry in the bottom
- and you could maintain it by mowing. Or, well, I think the requirements require native plantings to
- go in there. So we have a seed mix that includes a lot of native shrubs and, well, forbs and grasses
- and flowering perennials probably.
- Thank you, sir. Do any members of the BZA have questions for the petitioner's representative?
- Thank you, sir. We will now come back to the BZA for conversation. I have a question for staff first.
- That story about the water pooling and the caller who said his
- Basements have been gutted three times from normal rains. We've had hard rains. Yes, we've had very
- hard rains. You can see Kirkwood flooded. There are times, definitely so. But that, with impervious
- cover, if that is already a huge problem, how does the neighborhood have any protection that this remedy
- of the retention
- basins would even work, because I would think it would be aggravated versus bare ground versus hard
- surfaces, a building and that much parking lot. I can't imagine if it's already such a problem now,
- how do we protect that neighborhood from that?
- The storm water permit is designed to basically do no harm. So I think one of the standards is you can't
- have more runoff post development than you had before. And I think they even try to reduce that.
- The detention basin's like a hole, a dip in the ground, and the size of it is based on the anticipated
- runoff from the impervious areas so that they size those so that they hold the water on site until they
- flow out over time. So in other words, scientifically, it can be addressed. That's what you're telling
- me, right? Yes.
- I think it depends to where the water's coming from, because on the very north side where they're not
- doing any development, there's obvious water that's going to be coming across, which they would not
- have to detain. It's not that this would be for covering their development areas, what they're proposing,
- but maybe the civil engineer has other ideas to put something further north or vegetation to
- If the water is not coming through the church's property and still impacting these neighbors obviously
- the church cannot help them. Thank you. I'm sorry I just have a few questions just because there's a
- lot involved here and one of them is the height requirement in the airport district. And I wonder if
- it's possible to
- If we do approve this, if we, in addition to making an approval of the Spire Staple subject to NDOT's
- approval, if we could also ask again of Mr. Laverty in coordination with Crane, whether or not that
- has any interference with
- proposed operations. Is that possible to do that? I think it's the FAA that has that concern. So any
- variance you could grant would be subject to any limitations imposed by the FAA. But the NDOT administers
- that, I believe, here. But if it's an NDOT has that as a horizontal
- Well, my question is, it seemed as though Mr. Laverty's letter was not really specific or determinative.
- And my question is, can that be doubled back as a condition if we do approve it? Just because I thought
- I thought it deserved more scrutiny just because you know that airport is a huge economic vitality possible
- engine for our community and we want to make sure that we don't hinder any potential economic development
- there. That's one thing. The second thing that I have a question about is you know as you said Jackie
- the north part of the
- property is it possible to stipulate that Water Storm water remediation also take place on the north
- end of the property or is that not possible because it's not their problem the church's problem
- I'll start with number one. I'll start with the Carlos conversation. So I did get the same information
- in the packet that you all received and I actually just called Carlos and I said Carlos this is not
- telling me whether you would be against
- Yes. Approving the project. Yes. And he said that he was not against an approval of the project subject
- to them getting the end up permit necessary. But if you would like more information from Carlos I don't
- know how to condition that. I'd like him to coordinate with crane. OK. That's exactly what I'd like.
- OK. So that might be something that we need to push like that particular variance. You could just ask
- that see get continued.
- for that piece of information. Your second part of your question about asking them to address the drainage
- on the north side, if that's going to go over to the neighbors and then go south. I think that that's
- something that if they were amenable to doing additional, you know, swales or some sort of method, I
- don't think they would have to do like additional
- detention but just to kind of redirect water all along that east line down to their detention. I don't
- know if that was planned but you know again if you're disturbing existing vegetation or or something
- that you know could also have impact. So I don't know on the fly like is it possible possible that this
- project could improve the neighbors complaints. That's what Andy.
- was attesting to that he said that actually based on the location on their site plan just visually
- conceptually where they're placing the stormwater detention is right against those neighbors backyards
- and because that
- Subdivision is a little bit older. It doesn't have you know What we would require today in terms of
- detention or or swales even so as people make changes to their own yards It impacts everybody else's
- yard. So having a detention along the back could potentially help but Can that take place during construction
- too because they're concerned the construction will
- you temporarily make this much worse. So those retention issues can be taken care of during construction
- too. So during the construction phase, the storm water team does require, you know, those to be used
- as sediment basins during the duration of construction and then they get completed with as built and
- landscaping. So there's, we have a very good pulse and our storm water team does a really great job
- of being out there a lot. Super. Mr. Morris, Mr. Kashki had
- indicated that he might want to say something, but you're the chair, so. I think it would be helpful
- if you could come forward and speak to the comment about providing additional stormwater remediation
- on the east side of the property. I think the comments that Mrs. Jelen made were perfect as far as just
- recognizing that as things are updated, we learn more things about a community and development. And
- I think any of us that have been a homeowner, we recognize that some things could have been done better
- as far as water. When we look to our west, that
- we get a lot of water from that neighbor too. So at what point do I as a client say, do I fix the water
- that potentially could come to our west and then I'm responsible for that as it's passing across before
- it reaches them. So that's kind of what I feel like when we start talking about the north area, if there
- is a slight elevation to our neighbor and it just visually looks like that to me, then am I responsible to try to
- mitigate his water, because I'm going to do mine, of course. I want to. But then it can be cost prohibitive
- if I'm supposed to do the whole neighborhood. That neighbor, mine, and of course, downstream is a given.
- That's not even a conversation. That's the reason for those dry pits there. But that's my concern with
- addressing the north is some of that could potentially have been coming from beside, but that's just
- an undeveloped field. So then who do I talk to to say, hey, you address your water?
- It gets pretty complicated. So to me, I'm like, let's just keep it simple, and we'll catch all of our
- water and not allow that to go into the neighbors so that they're like, no, we can get testimony. It
- is better than it was. That's our desire, of course. And so that's the kind of neighbor we want to be.
- Thank you, sir. My feeling is we don't have to say, I'm prone to grant the steeple because
- If the FAA, if the NDOT on behalf of the FAA says it's OK with us, it's OK with me. If NDOT says no,
- then our approval doesn't make any difference. We can do no harm by saying yes. And silos and chimneys
- and towers and transmission towers and lots of other things are permitted in this district. And spires
- used to be, it seems to me,
- I can't worry about it because if there's any hazard, INDOT will take care of it. Would you also be
- willing to make it subject to going back to Mr. Laverty who runs the airport in his coordination with
- Crane? Why is it Crane? There's some economic development initiatives underway. That the steeple might
- affect? Yes.
- Subject to our, can we, is there any reason we can't condition our approval, assuming that all other
- approvals needed are received? You can do the required approvals, so like an FAA approval through NDOT,
- but I don't think you can essentially delegate your approval to
- to Carlos to say, well, gee, I don't know if that might or might not. So things that have criteria,
- like an FAA license where it's not subjective, I think that's fine. But I would be uncomfortable putting
- that on Carlos. OK. Yeah. OK. And the, you know,
- I think it's a little unfortunate the architect drew the building a foot and a half taller or whatever
- it is than the standard is, but it's only a foot and a half and it's a big building and you got to have
- some extra height to get the drainage. So I'm not worried about that. I am worried about the neighbors
- and the drainage, but...
- I'm sufficiently familiar with development that the neighbors are pretty much guaranteed it won't make
- it worse. They're not guaranteed it will make it better. My guess is the church is going to look in
- the back where the river runs through it and talk with the engineers.
- a practical, not too expensive way for them to make that work a little better that way. Hopefully they
- will. I'm convinced they'd like to be good neighbors, but I'd understand them saying, we don't want
- to make a promise, especially since it only runs through our property from here to here, and we're not
- going to make it worse.
- I think I'm comfortable that they will meet development standards because they have no choice. That
- means their thousands of square feet aren't going to make any more water come through yours even,
- you know, except, you know, I think the standard is the 100 year, you know, the 10 year flood and the
- 100 year flood. And, you know, if no one needs to build another arc, we're all in trouble.
- You know, I'm always concerned about flooding, but to me this feels like a bit of a technicality, because
- if I'm reading this correctly, if these remain three individual lots of record, then the three individual
- property owners could have up to 81,500 square feet of impervious cover, and they're asking for 82,000.
- But by combining these is drastically reducing the amount of impervious cover they're allowed. So,
- you know, it's right there. What happens if the properties are separated and sold?
- 81,500 square feet of impervious cover. So why is the concern not congruent to let's say previous board
- concern of flipping the property and having a whole new problem because we've allowed zoning change
- The use is approved. The use is approved. But the impervious could improve the property value of this
- property. Sorry, I'll remove my statement. Okay, great. I'm not sure I'm following you, but it's 10
- o'clock. I move we approve variance 26 for A, for B, and for C.
- Stone Ridge Church variances at 5510 and 5548 set forth on the grounds that there's all of these are
- reasonable and would provide undue hardship to not allow them to Is it subject to in dots approval in
- the airport
- They can't do it if in dot doesn't approve it. Yes subject to in dot approval. Sure Yeah, subject to
- in dot approval. Yeah. Hey, do we have a second? Second motion in a second Jackie. Okay, it's been moved
- and seconded to approve var-26 for a for B and for C being a
- Approved with one condition that it's the steeple height is subject to the in dot tall structure height
- approval process About yes is a vote to approve all three variances with the last approved with one
- condition, but
- And before we take the vote, do we need to amend that at all to talk about the drainage? The drainage
- is standard. The storm water people will do their work. All that stuff. We don't need to say anything
- about that. Do we specifically in honor of what the neighbors have expressed concern? So with it being
- in a critical watershed, if they do not meet those critical release rates, which Andy
- was stating that they are willing to do. They would actually have to go to another public meeting called
- the Drainage Board. And that's where we could get the contact information of these neighbors. I also
- think we should get their contact anyways and maybe propose a collective grading plan that maybe could
- work for the neighborhood. But I do think where they've placed the stormwater conceptually, the detention
- where you all were speaking from those parcels, it's
- going to be right where the issue is. So I do think that will help. That's just a lovely response. That
- is lovely. That was lovely. Yeah. Hope. Hope. It fixes everything. Yeah. Yes, indeed. OK. So I'll go
- ahead and so there's no condition on the stormwater, but it does have another board if they do not meet
- the critical release rates. Does that answer your question? It does. It does. All right. I'll go ahead
- and call the roll. Pamela Davidson? Yes.
- Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? As empathetic as I am to flooding, I believe this approval will actually
- bring some attention to help the problem. I will say yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. OK, the
- motion is approved five to zero. I'd just like to say that Bledsoe, Rigert, Cooper, you guys
- build beautiful churches, it's going to be a beautiful result. And I think that your dreams will be
- more than realized. So, yeah. Thank you. Thank you all for sticking with us on a late night. Are there
- any legal reports or any reports from staff tonight? No legal reports.
- No, I'll just put on the record, I did make an announcement beforehand, but there was a scam email that
- went around asking for a wire transfer ahead of tonight's meeting that was spoofed as my name in the
- amount of $7,000 to one of our petitioners. Luckily, they called us and did not pay the wire transfer.
- But if anyone receives a request for a wire transfer, please do not pay it. It does not approve your
- BZA petition.
- It was very real looking, very real looking with an itemized receipt for why it added up to over $7,000
- including environmental assessment, utilities, connections. It looked very realistic. Can IT track that?
- They are working on that from the county's network, but where it goes to outside, it was not from a
- county email address, but it looked very similar. Did you lose work on your computer? Yet to be determined
- on that. So sorry. Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn.