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.