Good evening, everyone. I will call to order the April 1st meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms.
Nestor-Gellin, would you start us off by calling the roll? Sure. Mayor Clements here. Yeah. Tech Services,
could you turn up the audio, please? Is that any better? Okay. Okay. Good. Ms. Nestor-Gellin. Skip Daly.
present. Pamela Davidson? Here. Guy Loftman? Here. Jeff Morris? Here. Okay, five members in person in
a quorum. Could you please introduce the evidence for tonight? Sure.
I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance
as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Zoning and Subdivision Control Ordinance as adopted and amended.
The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Board of Zoning and Appeals
Rules of Procedure as adopted and amended. And the cases that were legally advertised and scheduled
for a hearing on tonight's agenda.
Sorry. No, go ahead. I will motion to approve the evidence. I will second that. It's been moved and
seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Skip Daly? Yes. Pamela
Davidson? Yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Motion is approved, five to zero.
Okay, and for our agenda tonight, we've had a recommendation from staff that we move item number four
under new business up to item number one under new business due to the petitioner coming forward to
request a continuation tonight. So could we get a motion to approve that change to the agenda? So moved.
You have a second? I will second that. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve tonight's agenda.
with one change, which is item number four, VAR-26-6, which is the Companelle residential storage structure
variance to chapter 811 on West Williams Road. That will be moved up to the first item under new business.
And since the other item under old business is continued, it will be the first thing that is heard.
A vote yes is a vote to approve the amended agenda as stated. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes.
Jeff Morris. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Skilly. Yes. Motion is approved, five to zero. I'd like to
move that we approve the minutes from the February 4th and the March 4th meetings of the Board of Zoning
Appeals. I'll second that. It's been moved and seconded to approve the February 4th and March 4th, 2026
meeting minutes. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Guy Loftman. Yes.
Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Present. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Motion is approved,
four to zero.
Okay, we have no administrative business tonight and the only item under old business VAR-25-52A has
been continued to May 6th, 2026. So we'll move on to new business and the first item has been continued,
which is VAR-25-49 has been continued to August 5th of 2026. So we will move on to the
Next item that we approved to go first, which is VAR-26-6. This is the Campanella residential storage
structure varies to Chapter 811. So my understanding is the petitioner would like to make their case
for us to extend this to a future meeting. Tech Services, if you could unmute Bethany Robinson.
My name is Robinson. Tech Services is going to promote you so you can unmute. Okay, can you hear me?
Yeah, if you could raise your right hand, state your name and then. Do I need to turn my? Nothing about
the truth. Do you want my camera on? If you're able to, yes, please. Okay, yeah, hang on just a second.
Okay, hang on.
Oh my gosh, sorry. Okay, is that working? Yes, can you raise your right hand and. The truth. To tell
the whole truth, the truth, I'm sorry, I was cutting out. The whole truth. Do you swear to tell the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth.
as to why you would like to continue your petition. Yes and I apologize for not being there in person
and I have some lovely shingles going on so anyhow we would like to continue. We just got the staff
report back recently and have been in discussion with the staff and with that we're discussing all of
our options before I would present in May to decide exactly what we're going to
Do we're discussing moving the property line, combining lot one and lot two to satisfy staff's request
before we present. OK, thank you. Do you have a date in mind or a month in mind that you wish to continue
this too? As soon as possible, I don't see any reason that we couldn't do it in May unless you all see
a reason. OK, Mr. Jelen, will the May agenda work for this?
Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you, ma'am, and I hope you feel better soon. All right. Thank you. Turning back
now to members of the BZA, do we have a motion to continue this to the May board zoning appeals meeting?
I move we continue variance 26-6, the Campanella residential storage structure variance to chapter 811,
hopefully to the May 2026 meeting. Second.
It's been moved and seconded to continue case VAR-26-6, the Campanella residential storage structure
variance to May 6th, 2026, the next Board of Zoning Appeals meeting here in this room at 5.30 PM. A
vote yes is a vote to approve the continuance. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daley? Yes. Guy Loftman?
Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes.
Thank you. Thank you. Pamela Davidson. Yes and I want to thank them for working with staff to accommodate
and work things out and bring us a more finished product. I really appreciate that. Thank you. Motion
is approved five to zero to continue. Thank you. Okay so moving on to the next item on the agenda. This
is CDU dash 25-10. This is the Holloway Homes LLC Agricultural
I just interrupt for just one minute. If there are people here who are attending either for the Donovan
buildable area on Rockport Road or for Blackwell on South Old State Road 37 or the Campanella residential
storage unit on
Williams Road, those cases will not be heard tonight. So you're free to leave or you're welcome to stay
to hear the other cases that maybe you're not interested in. But I just wanted to make sure that we
were clear about that. Yeah. Thank you for clarifying that. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Brown. And as to Holloway
Homes, am I correct that this is the staff recommends approval with conditions? With conditions. Yeah. Yes.
That being the case, I'm considering moving... Because it's conditions, I would... Well, I think if
the petitioners accept the conditions, then I think we have a history of saying if they accept
the conditions, then we can proceed with the shortened version.
Go ahead and find out if there's numbers of the public here for comment. We have a procedure we sometimes
do where I'll move the previous question and we'll do a dispose of this case relatively quickly if there
is nobody in the public who is opposed to the petition and if the petitioner is willing to agree to
the conditions that the staff has set forth.
And can I add one more thing, number three, if the petitioner wishes to state something about their
case, because then it's on the public record. So maybe that is a number three reason they might choose
to do that. If they want to, that would be sensible too. So if there's no objection, I would. Yes. Yes, it is.
Okay, you have you you have objection to it. Okay, very good. Well, we will proceed without a the trunk
without the shortened and thank you for bringing this to our attention and we'll we'll listen to the
staff now. Thank you. So the petitioner is proposing to establish a wedding and event venue here in
25th and 2025. The petitioner filed a use determination with the county under USC 2541. During review,
it was found that
One of the proposals the petitioner had for this property was an agricultural event center large, and
under the CDO, an agricultural event center is a conditional use, so this approval is required for that
to be permitted. Chapter 850 defines agricultural event center as follows, an event center located on
a lot that is primarily used for agricultural purposes.
includes areas where indoor and or outdoor activities such as weddings, receptions, banquets, corporate
events and other such gatherings are hosted in return for compensation. The use does must be accessory
to a primary agricultural use and per the petitioner the primary agricultural use will be a Christmas
tree farm and a flower farm. And the discussion portion follow
goes through the findings of facts that were present in the staff report. Would the board like me to
go through them? I don't believe you need to. I'm familiar with them. All right. And here are maps of
the areas, such as the location area and as well as the zoning map, as well as the comprehensive plan
map and the site conditions map.
This is a map that I want to bring to the board's attention because it reserves an area that is marked
as prime agricultural land. Specifically, the area where my mouse is is roughly where the petitioner
is proposing to locate the event center, and that is considered prime agricultural land per the county
development ordinance.
I apologize, I'm trying to find it. Yes, here we go. An event center in the AGR zone and its associated
areas such as parking, decks, and patios shall not occur within current agricultural production areas
on a parcel designated as prime farmland in the Web Soil Survey National Resources Conservation Service
and United States Department of Agriculture unless otherwise specified in the conditional use permit.
And it is based on the wording in the county development ordinance. We believe that the Board of Zoning
Appeals has the authority to waive this requirement.
It is noted that while there is area on the property where the petitioner could relocate the proposed
structure so that they are not in prime farmland, said areas would not let him meet the required 200
foot setbacks for any of the structures and parking areas. And here are just some photos of the property.
As it stands right now, there is an existing home and some accessory structures on the property.
Those are intended to stay because at some point in the future, the petitioner is proposing a sliding
scale subdivision to create three additional lots, one of which will be exclusively for the event center,
and the other three will be residential lots, though that has yet to be heard. And this is the petitioner's
site plan showing the proposed location of the Christmas tree farm, the flower farm, as well as the
parking and event center.
And so staff recommends approval of, as the petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated, that they will
be able to fulfill all the use-specific standards under Chapter 811 with the following conditions. One,
the petitioner's ability to obtain a right of way activity permit for commercial use. Should the right
of way activity permit be denied, the use shall not be permitted. And two, the petitioner can be permitted
to utilize gravel for parking areas, except that all required
ADA spaces and access to the event center structures shall be paved to provide for proper ADA access.
And the Board of Zoning Appeals also has the ability to waive the requirements for the proposed event
center and parking lot to not be relocated on prime farmland as indicated in the packet by findings
of fact and exhibit number six. Is that everything you have to share, Daniel?
Yes, I'll take any questions. Okay. Let's go ahead and turn to the petitioner or petitioner's representative.
Do we have somebody representing this petition? Sir, if you could come forward and sign in. Yeah, if
you could come to the podium. If you could sign in and then I'll swear you in.
Okay, if you could raise your right hand and state your name. Tyler Holloway. Okay, and do you swear
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, thank you. You'll have 15
minutes. I guess I don't have much to say other than I do agree to the conditions that have been set
by the planning department. Plan not to be any hindrance, follow all the rules and guidelines, noise
ordinance, all that stuff. Don't have much to say outside of that.
Thank you, sir. Do any members of the BZA have questions for Mr. Holloway while he's at the podium?
When, if this is allowed, when will this construction happen and the event space open? If everything
goes perfectly, I'd hope to break ground this fall and hopefully be up and running by the spring. Wow,
fast. That's in a perfect world. Perfect world.
Okay, thank you, sir. You're welcome to have a seat. If anybody speaks out against the petition, you're
welcome to come back up for a five minute rebuttal at the end. Thank you. Okay. We can turn now to members
of the public. So if there's anyone here in the audience who wishes to speak again, let's start with
against this petition first. We'll start with anybody who's against this petition. Yeah, if you could
sign in and then I'll swear you in.
Okay, could you pull the microphone down so it's right in front of your face? Thank you. Raise your
right hand and state your name. Bill Hayes, William Hayes III. Okay, do you swear to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, you'll have three minutes. My 22 acres, which
is Sycamore Land Trust Conservation Easement, abuts this property. And it is a wildlife animal refuge,
obviously. There's a pond there. There's a 200-year-old white oak tree.
I bought the property from the Sylvester family in 1977 and live in a 1915 built home on the property.
And the last thing I want is construction noise at the top of the, it's west of my home. There's a stand
of trees that is a wonderful
Because I'm on the highway, there's a stand of trees there. There's a fence. I have a horse and a donkey.
There's an area fenced in. Beyond the fence, which is still my property, is a line of trees. And it's
a wonderful sound barrier from the trucks and things that pass on 37. And by the way,
If you've been on this stretch of Smithville Road, there are two blind spots on the road. You literally
can't see traffic coming. One to the west, one to the east. It's just a dangerous stretch of the road.
And I simply value the privacy. The last thing I want is a wedding venue with loud noise, and not to
mention construction of homes, and how disturbing that will be
to my property. Sycamore Land Trust will own it at my death. It's now a conservation easement. Okay,
thank you, sir. Welcome. Is there anyone else here in the room who wishes to speak against this petition?
And if you do speak, please make sure you just sign in. Yeah. Steve Kinzer and I'm a neighbor. Okay.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. OK. If you could
sign in, and then you'll have three minutes. Yes, I will. Well, after Jerry passed away, the previous
owner and stuff, I went and helped and mowed all this property, bush hogged it a couple of times a year,
because I'm the neighbor next to them.
Part of that property had had a, when they built 37 there had a big stripper pit all the way through
it. So it had been dumped in for a lot of years, drywall, just different things and off and on. But
probably some of the drywall was probably good fill and everything else. But I don't know, it's a real
narrow, real narrow strip that goes back through there. And I just don't know. Actually, when I first
started doing it when Jerry was still alive, I took my tractor,
to go through his driveway and just about got ran over from somebody heading back there. So I went and
cut a hole in the back of my fence for I could go back there and mow. And so there's a lot of danger
pulling them now there. I don't know if anybody's familiar with Smithville Road, but they drive way
too fast down there. And I'm a race driver. And I think there was a race driver. And it's unbelievable
the speeds they run up and down through there. And there's an awful narrow strip.
The only other thing I know is when I was mowing it all the time on top of the hill, it was always really
a soft spot. I mean, my tractor just bogged down. So I think there might be a spring right up on the
tops. It's something you might want to check into. Other than that, I just think the more vehicles going
out, it's pretty dangerous. And it's a beautiful place. There's a lot of eagles nesting those trees
and stuff back in there. But it's not my property. But I just wanted to let you know what I felt like.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir. If we could have the next person come forward that wishes to speak against this. If
you could sign in and then raise your right hand, I'll swear you in.
Anthony Permisi, and I live at, oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, could you, do you swear to tell the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, thank you. You'll have three minutes. Yeah, I'm Anthony
Permisi, otherwise known as Tony Permisi. I live at 270 Smithville Road. I'm on one of Steve's properties
there. And the only comments I have on it is the accessibility to the place because we came up here and
You can't even see where you turn in there, too. There's like a hill there and you can't see that to
turn into your right there. So somebody's pulling out of there and going toward the highway. It's very
dangerous. And the other thing I wanted to mention that Steve didn't mention on Smithville Road, we
don't have much water pressure. Water pressure is real low on that road. We have southern Monroe water.
And it's always been a problem, which Steve can attest to. And I'm afraid if they put more housing and
other things in there, we're going to have less pressure. So I don't know what else to add other than
the danger, dangerous area where you have to pull in and out and the water pressure. Like I say, he
said about the spring at the top of the hill there. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir.
If we could have the next person in the audience who wishes to speak against us come forward.
You can sign in, I'll swear you in after that.
Okay, could you state your name? Robert Billingham. Okay, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, you have three minutes. I have basically two comments to
make. I live at 380 East Smithville Road. When I moved with my family into that property, one of the
things that was brought to my attention, and I think it was mentioned earlier, is there is a dump area back
either on the kinders or over on the property that's been used for probably what would now be considered
toxic substances like diesel fuel or motor oil, those kinds of things. And so at the very least, I think
that needs to be examined in some way to determine whether that exists or not and to what degree of
toxicity there may or may not be.
The second thing is a more personal thing. We all have five-acre lots that we live on. And this idea
of an event area is very concerning. And so one of the questions that I would have is how large of an
event or how many people would that event center be designed to hold? Are we talking 20, 40, 50? Are
we talking hundreds?
It says wedding venue, so that sounds to me as if it's going to be very large. Sounds like there's going
to be a lot of band or music that will be very loud. We know how those things work. And there will be,
in some situations, inappropriate alcohol or drug consumption. And so on top of the danger of them coming out,
onto Smithville Road and either trying to get to 37 or up the hill, I think we can predict unless there
are major modifications to Smithville Road and traffic redesign for the in and out, there will be many,
many accidents in the future. And so I think that really needs to be considered seriously because if
you have not seen it,
My friends are not exaggerating. It's an extraordinarily dangerous turning off of 37 onto Smithville
Road. You're going up to a hill you cannot see over, and it's very short, and there will be people coming
that way. At the end of these events, there'll be people turning right, turning left in a very, very
dangerous situation, and the road just is not designed to handle that at this point.
I would speak against this. I don't like the noise. I live where I live because it's quiet. There are
a lot of animals, and this public event thing just really seems to go against everything that we have
back there right now, which is basically peace and quiet in a very natural environment. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Do we have anybody else here in the room who wishes to speak against this petition?
If not, we can turn to our community members on Teams. If there's anyone on Teams who wishes to speak
against this petition, please raise your virtual hand. I was asking for anyone on Teams on the virtual
platform who wishes to speak against this to raise their hand. Seeing no one, we will come back to the
room. 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 now.
Okay, seeing no one, we'll turn to teams. If there's anyone on teams who wishes to speak in favor of
this petition, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, not seeing anyone, we can turn back now to Mr.
Holloway. If you wish to speak in rebuttal to any of the comments you heard against the petition, you're
welcome to come back forward for five more minutes. You're not obligated to, but you're welcome to.
Pardon me, Mr. Chair. If I could be recognized prior to his speaking,
quick question of clarification that will, for staff, for me to process his rebuttal, if that's okay.
Mr. Brown, I'm hearing largely from those that have spoken in opposition to this proposal, three major
things that, for me, summarizing are the potential water issue, the noise issue, and
traffic. And then I'm also hearing about houses. Seeing and hear that this approval is for the agricultural
event center, not for the flower farm or for the Christmas tree or for a potential sliding scale subdivision.
Am I correct in thinking the decision that we're weighing tonight is
only the event center on this property? That's my understanding, yes. Okay. That is correct, but I would
ask the petitioner if they're interested or willing to put in the flower farm or Christmas tree farm
if they do not get the agricultural event center. So I think that there is a requirement that there's
a primary agricultural activity on the property to do the event center. So if they do not have that,
then they may not do the other things.
but it's zoned appropriately for the farm activity, correct? That's correct. Okay, I'm just trying to
make sure I understand. Thanks. Okay, thank you. Yeah, let's turn to the petitioner now. I want to make
sure we're following procedure here, but thank you.
you'll have five minutes to speak to any of the comments that you heard. Okay. So I think the first
thing I just want to make clear is we are no longer planning to build houses. We are just wanting to
build the event center and do the farming activities. I think as far as the traffic, we're going to
make sure we can make it as safe as possible. The water is something we've looked into. I live on Zikes
Road, have the same water and I seem to have plenty fine pressure. So as far as that,
I just wanted it to be clear, we're not attempting to build houses anymore, just the event center. So
I think that's it. Okay. While you're up there, do any members of the BZA have questions for Mr. Holloway?
I have one. Is there a cap on the number of people who would be attending your events? Based on the
land we own, the max we could do is 300.
We plan to obviously abide by that. And then I guess the other thing I'll address is the noise. We plan
to be plenty far away from any of the neighbors. Obviously we have the ordinance of inside or less than
60 decibels by 10 p.m. at night. We plan to follow that very strictly and make sure everything's shut
down or inside at a quiet level by that time. I have a question. Noise was
Obviously a large concern for a recurring theme. The location that you chose versus what planning staff
said, there were potentially some other options on there. Do you feel that the choice that you've made
for where you're proposing to build this offers less or more opportunity to buffer
I believe, because we're doing it in that very last track, the land, which is the only one that's wide
enough with our 200 foot setbacks to be able to build. But that also gets us as far as possible away
from any neighbors. It's the farthest backtrack. So it'll be as far possible away from any of the neighbors.
And a follow up question. Traffic would be another recurring theme here, obviously, with concerns for
neighbors. And we take these concerns pretty seriously. Yeah.
What have you done to, have you spoken with folks involving traffic, whether that be the Monroe County
Highway Department or whether it be, and I don't know exactly where, have you had the traffic studies
take done and assessed? I haven't dove too deep into the traffic yet, just because without the approval,
I didn't know how much I needed to do. I've spoke with Ben from the highway department plenty of times
about obviously having a commercial driveway, two lanes, a possible shoulder
So people aren't in the middle of the road waiting for people to get in and out. But that's about the
extent of that so far. And could you share with us his reaction when you talked about the project as
a whole? Did he share any thoughts? The initial was when we were attempting to build houses. So we were
going to try and put a second driveway in. That was not approved because of the location. But he said
so far that where the driveway is now is
in a good location. Thank you. Any additional questions for Mr. Holloway? I have one. And I'm going
to ask staff about this, but one of the conditions, let me see, is that you'd be permitted to utilize
gravel for parking areas except for ADA. Correct.
We spend an amazing amount of time talking about gravel in this board. And usually, and I want to check
with staff about the basis for this exception. If you had to pave, well, okay. So, and let me, if you
don't mind, why don't you, Mr. Brown, would you
address why we would have, what would the normal standard be and is gravel lower than that standard?
So under our parking chapter, we do require asphalt typically for parking lots. Gravel can be an exception
to that for certain situations. One is if you have like temporary or overflow parking,
Or if you're not in an urban area and it's under 10 parking spaces. Or I think there's another exception
in the ordinance about like private storage.
vehicles or of equipment but under the Conditions for this conditional use it does state very specifically
if Daniel can go to that condition That the BZA has the ability to approve the drop the parking lot
as gravel So keep going
Okay, so it says under 1A, parking. It says that parking areas shall follow the requirements of chapter
814, which would require paving. But then it says, however, the surfacing requirements for driveways
and parking lots may be able to utilize gravel or crushed stone if deemed appropriate by the border
zoning appeals and is directly requested by the petitioner during the meeting. All ADA spaces must comply
with federal standards
including surfacing requirements. And the reason that the CDO is written this way is that the purpose
of this use is to support an existing, hopefully, or to be existing, primary agricultural use. And so
if you have pavement and you're running your equipment back and forth over it to, say, do hay
Or in his case, he's going to be doing a flower farm and Christmas tree farm. We've heard complaints
that pavement over ag land is not a good situation. So we've allowed a gravel component, if approved
by you all. In this scenario, though, he is kind of in a very long, skinny parcel.
So you may say that he could pave it without any problems associated with still doing the Christmas
tree farm or the flower farm. So if you think dust might be a complaint or an issue, you could say I
don't agree with the gravel and make it paved. I additionally want to mention that once he gets to the
site plan stage, we will be evaluating maximum impervious cover. And if it's over, which we assume it might be,
He may be back for future variances if this use is granted. So I don't know if that was something you
were also getting out with the gravel versus asphalt. Thank you. Mr. Damon. I have one more question
for the petitioner, if you don't mind. There was also a couple of folks that mentioned event center.
They're not. I might. Capacity.
What are we talking about with the capacity, and could you go into a little bit about the type of events
and the numbers that you're expecting? I mean, obviously, like I said, the maximum would be 300 that
we can do. I don't foresee a ton of events having 300, but we have a minimum, or the minimum for 300
people is 15 acres. We have 23.
We're gonna have a building that's big enough for that. Like I said, I don't know how often that'll
be achieved, but yeah, so 300 would be the max. Maximum 300, okay. And the parking situation for the
300, even with the farm being present on there? Yeah, I believe the requirement is one space for every
two and a half people, so we're planning for 150 parking spaces, which well exceeds that. And another question.
Your events are one day events as to what I understand, and you're not expecting overnight guests for
this. Is that correct? Correct. It'll mainly be weddings, bridal showers, baby showers, corporate events,
lunches, dinners, whatever, those kind of things. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from members
of the BZA?
I have some for the staff. OK. I think that's all the questions for you. You're welcome to sit down.
Thank you, sir. The concerns about the road access, we really, our job is not the houses, not
the subdivision. It's the event space period. So is part of that decision based on
highway accessibility. It's not up to us. I am ever so confident to worry over that. But is there somebody
looking at that concern? Because every one of them mentioned that. And I'm sure it's true. There's so
many blind spots in this county. So many hairpin curves all the time. It's just part and parcel of living
here. But does somebody address that for these concerns?
I would say that the border zoning appeals can definitely weigh in on the location of this agricultural
event center as it relates to road frontage and turning access. We do have a condition of approval saying
as long as they can get a right of way activity permit, this use will be permitted. As the petitioner
stated, he was denied the first
permit, but that was for a second driveway. We feel pretty confident based on the highway department's
comments that there is a location that could accommodate this, but they're also required to give one
driveway per lot. So it's not that it's an ideal location for a driveway, it's that it's the best situation
that the parcel frontage has.
Okay, my second question. So we can take it into consideration. And if they get the right of way permit
that assumes that the traffic can be accommodated is kind of what you're implying. And they're not the
highway department. I don't think at this point has an active application. And so they could ask for
a traffic study. We do not have one at this point. They could ask for that. Okay. Well, that's good
to know. The concern about toxic
dumping. I know there's an entity here to report that to you. I know it's not in our purview for this,
but is that also addressable because the neighbors are concerned about that? And we should all be concerned
if that is so. Yeah, I wasn't sure exactly what they were referring to in terms of the future use being
having possible or that there were prior uses. OK, and that they needed to clean that.
Yes, there are different departments that deal with some of that. While we do the site plan review,
we can note it for our stormwater team to go out, especially since this use will require detention or
other things like that because of the maximum impervious that we're discussing. I do think that they
will have to accommodate stormwater, make sure that the site is clean, things like that.
And if we can talk with the neighbors about where they think that dumping has occurred. So that can
be addressed. And the water pressure, my last question, the water pressure, when something this large,
300 people, that's a lot of flushing, a lot of hand washing, a lot of cleaning up dishes. Will some
entity here say this is a plus or a minus because it'll affect other residents, or is that also
not our concern, not anyone's concern. Is it anyone's concern? So Southern Monroe has stated to us that
until they get a booster station, they do not have adequate water pressure in several parts of their
serving area. They are working on a booster station. I don't know if it directly impacts this location,
but my guess is the petitioner has not gotten a capacity letter at this stage.
The building department is going to require, if this is a new build, for this to be reviewed as a commercial
building. And to my knowledge, it will require a sprinkler system. So if they don't have the capacity
for water to do a sprinkler system, they won't meet the code. They cannot build the center. So we're
trying not to tell.
We try not to bring this all up at the BZA because there are different steps in this and we can't predict
whether there will be water pressure or we can't at the time that they go to build. We can't predict
if they pursue a variance to that requirement and get it from the state, which would be very unlikely
but possible.
So there's just different factors and people are looking into those different things. I'm reassured
by that because the neighbors are very consistent in their drumbeat of the issues and if their process
and procedures to address those were all well served. So thank you for your good answer. I just want
to point out that
If I'm correct here, am I up to date, the one I've got printed 841.3e, standard of conditional use approval,
is that what we're working on here? Yes. As well as the use specific standards. So there's use specific
standards for agricultural event centers plus 84.1-34, general conditional use standards. So you can
take all of those standards and apply those here. Well, the one I'm, there are two I'm looking at particularly.
the conditional use property can be served with adequate utilities. And it sounds like right now, we
can't be confident that it would be served with adequate facilities. And 300 people in the kitchen and
the bathrooms is going to be more people than the rest of the road put together, I'm assuming.
So I think we have a duty to take into consideration utilities. And number nine, the conditional use
shall organize vehicular access and parking to minimize traffic congestion in the neighborhood. And
we have grave concerns expressed by the neighborhood that this is going to create serious traffic congestion
and danger problems. So I'm pointing out that it is within our
purview to take these factors, to consider these factors. The other question, Jackie, is right now there's
no flower farm and no tree farm. Flower farms and tree farms are expensive things to set up and get
rolling. What happens if five years from now there isn't a flower farm or a Christmas tree farm?
What happens then? Well, I think that they'd be in violation of the conditional use granted tonight
if they state that their primary agricultural use will be established. They will have to have some sort
of primary agricultural use to keep this conditional use because that's the definition of the Agricultural
Event Center. Otherwise, it's just an event center, which is a general business zone and allows for
the same things.
It'll be typically in a more urban area with a lot more services. But what that would mean to me is
they build an event center, all that investment, and then the flower farm after four years of trying
to get it to work doesn't work, and the Christmas tree farmer gets a bad year and it doesn't work and
they stop having it.
It's very easy for it to be a freestanding event center because there isn't an existing agricultural
use. Do you get my drift? I do. The petitioner recently purchased the property, so I do think that typically
when we have seen maybe two past cases of attempts to get this use, there's already been an established
owner with an established agricultural use, and typically it's row crops.
to be honest, and so the whole goal of this agricultural center was to be able to offer farmers, another
economic option to keep the farm and to keep farming the property in some way or shape or form.
Position we're in as staff is that they're saying well, I just bought it I promise and we will check
that there's a Christmas tree farm and flower farm established at the time of the commencement of the
agricultural event center, so we will require to see proof that it is At least established now if it's
not if it's not
pulling in more money than the event center, that's not information that we would have. But if they
altogether just stop doing the flower farm and the Christmas tree farm, we would be able to take in
as an enforcement case and potentially revoke the approval. Yeah, but that would mean the 300-person
event center would have to be not used for that purpose anymore.
Or another agricultural use. Okay, thank you. I appreciate your help on that. I just have a question
about the harmonious use of the buildings and grounds and the relationship to the neighbors. You know,
we've heard tonight from the neighbors that there's sick, is it already donated Sycamore Land Trust property?
Or is it to be donated? I believe it was stated as an easement. A conservation easement. With ownership
after the donor's death. I see. And that's undersworn testimony. Yes. So it seems to me that that sets
some kind of standard for the agricultural area that
kind of mandates, given that generosity, that it kind of mandates that we give a higher standard of
review for this idea of harmoniousness to the surrounding properties. And, you know, harmoniousness
with the conservation goals that have been established and explicated and also
that's just something that I think is important to do. Are there any more
I can understand that sentiment. That came up with Connor Prairie in a big lawsuit when there was commercial
establishment around the perimeter, big lights that would have intruded. So it became a statewide case
about boundary. And I don't know the outcome of that case, but it's kind of very relevant in terms of
the direction because it was pursued
based on Conner Prairie. I wonder what, do you remember what that decision was? Well, Dave Schilling
is online. Perhaps Dave Schilling could weigh in on that question. I wonder if he knows. Tech Services,
could Mr. Schilling be promoted to be a presenter? He's our county attorney. He's looking at his computer
right now as we speak. You know he is. Mr. Schilling, are you able to weigh in on the question that
Ms. Davidson brought up? Brought up.
Yes, I am not familiar with that case, but I can look into that as you talk and discuss. Thank you,
Mr. Schilling. Thank you, Mr. Schilling. Any other comments from members of the BZA for discussion?
We'd just like Mr. Schilling to weigh in if he reviews anything. Yeah, I mean, I have a couple of thoughts
while we wait and give Mr. Schilling a few minutes too. You know, I agree with the
the concerns that have been raised by the BZA and some of the neighbors tonight. But as I'm looking
at the map, the only possible entrance and exit would be very close to State Road 37. So that's not
a safe intersection anyway. And then to add, you know, the possibility of a group of traffic or a large
number of cars leaving an event center at one time, I think would create some issues we should be concerned
about. I'm also concerned about
a large gravel parking lot, because if we go a few days in the summertime without rain and you get several
hundred cars pulling into a parking lot, then I think that creates a cloud of dust that then travels
whichever way the wind is blowing and kind of coats the neighborhood. So I want to bring up those two
additional things. I think they're limited to 150 cars. And you said a couple hundred. I just want to
make sure. I think the problem's the same, but I don't want the record to reflect
a couple hundred when 150 would presumably be the maximum. Yeah, thank you for pointing that out. I
do think even a few dozen cars would present the same problem, but thank you for clarifying that. And
factually, as someone who goes to events, you all go to events, for events like that, people trickle
in and trickle out. They don't come all at one time, and they don't leave all at one time. It's here
and there. So congestion, yes, it can happen,
It isn't a huge dilemma just because people are on such different timetables for attendance, I think.
At the same time, it goes on for hours. It does go on for hours. For people for way more traffic than
there is when there is an event going in and going out for hours of... You can't put a rent-a-cop out
there and have him direct
traffic unless he's out there for a long time in a situation like, yeah, you can if you put him out
there for a long time. But yeah, I certainly want to hear what Mr. Schilling has to say. But while we're
waiting, I'm prepared to move to deny. I think that we have utility concerns which have not been addressed.
The environment consistent with the environment of its surrounding neighborhood, which is five acre
lots and easement for a conservation easement and then conservation ownership, and there's no way
minimize traffic congestion in the neighborhood. There are, traffic congestion is basically an insurmountable
problem to me. And I'm very interested in what Mr. Schelling has to say, but what building pattern,
I'm just going to put myself out there. Thank you, Mr. Laughman. Mr. Schelling, have we given you enough
time or would you like us to continue discussing?
Yeah, I could not find a case involving Conrad, other than a superior court case that was dismissed
by the parties. But I can continue to keep looking. Maybe it just became a big matter of controversy
and they worked it out, dismissed it. So who knows, but it was a hot topic.
Okay, thank you, Mr. Schelling. Okay, thank you, Mr. Schelling. Tech Services, we're getting a really
loud echo down here. I'm not sure if there's anything that could be done about that. Any other conversation
for members of the VCA before we call for a motion? I do have some information that was shared from
the Southern Monroe Water Corporation last year about their areas of not being able to serve.
And I can share that with the group if you would like. I actually don't know that this site in particular
is part of that moratorium area, but it is part of their service area. I think it would be helpful if
you could share a little bit more information about that. Okay. I'd like to ask Mr. Laflute a question.
The green area is the Southern Monroe service area. And then the area in pink was the area where they're
stating that they're not able to currently give new water service to. But I believe that are the petitioner
tonight is located outside of the pink and is located in this area here.
which is not part of the moratorium, but that's not to say that they're within the pressure zone boundary
area, which we were not discussing too much on that. They actually cannot issue more service lines for
water in the pink, but the pressure service boundary I don't think will be
maybe immediately address with that proposed booster I was discussing, which is all the way over here
on the screen. So like I said, the petitioners in the outside of the moratorium, but it looks like they're
in a pressure zone boundary area. So hopefully that helps. Yeah. Thank you, Jackie. That's helpful.
And sir, sorry, I see your hand, but we're past the public comment period. So we can't take your testimony.
So I apologize. Mr. Daley, did you have a question?
Mr. Lofman, you mentioned earlier, I don't know verbatim, but you said utility issues. Yes. I don't
see our board weighing a utility issue. We have concern from neighbors
Those concerns are not, as far as I'm concerned, part of my decision-making process because the process
is set up with the experts that determine whether there is a problem or not is after us. As the director
pointed out,
The utility company will specific or the the fire safety for the sprinkler systems, etc. The permitting
process of that building once it's built, if it gets to that point, they will then make that determination
and then that would be a challenge. If it is a problem or not would be one down the road, not for
this decision for this board? I hear you, and I think there's wisdom in what you're saying. I don't
dispute what you're saying. On the other hand, I'm looking at the factors I'm supposed to take into
consideration, and the neighbors say, who are right next to this, they have very low water pressure.
And when 300 people are there doing that, they're going to have a lot less water pressure.
even if there's enough water pressure to run the operation, I still think it's going to bound to have
a negative effect on the neighborhood. And that's one of the factors I look at is the neighborhood.
I just want to make a comment among us.
I'm very appreciative of that. It sounds like a marvelous area. But I don't know that that
can be determinative of how a neighbor uses their property. I'm just not sure. Boy, I wish everybody
in that area would give. So I don't think that is a factor that we should
take into consideration. The statute, the rules, you're right, Mr. Lofman, all that is true. And I'm
totally sympathetic to that because that would be disturbing. You're absolutely right. And someone said
there are bald eagles nesting in that area, so it must be just gorgeous. But I just want to caution
us not to let an adjacent neighborhood neighbor's decision govern your choices if it fits within
rules and permissions. I disagree because if it was general, it wouldn't be before us if it met compliance.
It means that they need special permission for this conditional use. If they didn't need the conditional
use, it wouldn't matter. We wouldn't worry about impact on the neighbours. But when I look at conditional
I do look at the impact on the neighbors. Well, all I'm saying is that the fact that there's 20 acres
going to Sycamore Land Trust, the neighbors then are the animals in that situation. That's who it is
in that 20 acres because it's going to be used for wildlife. Yeah, with the environment of its surrounding
neighborhood includes the environment to me. We're required to look at the neighboring properties. We're required.
We are required. Any further comments for members of the VCA before we move to a motion? Seeing none,
do we have a motion? I move to deny. Yes. Yeah. Holloway.
Homes LLC Agricultural Event Center, CDU-25-10 at 98 East Smithville Road. On the grounds that I did
not find that the standards for conditional use approval have been met, there's
evidence that there is inadequate water pressure. A 300-person event is going to greatly hurt the water
pressure in that area. The environmental concerns are very important here, where you're going to have
a 300-person event center. And until 10 o'clock at night, you're probably going to have bands and loud
music, which can disturb the environment.
the traffic is with 300 people going in and out in 150 cars over the period of the event is a serious
congestion problem to me. In light of that, I've made my motion. Do we have a second? I'll second that
for the reasons that Mr. Loftman stated, but also because the request does not meet
items number five and six under 84-3E or items one and two under 84, 841-4E. Okay, Ms. Nestergellen,
we have a motion and a second. Could you call the roll for us? Sure. The motion is to deny CDU-25-10.
A vote yes is a vote to deny the conditional use for an agricultural event center large at this location.
Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? This is a really hard vote for me, because I can see it both ways,
but I know the way the vote's going to go on this. I'm going to vote yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly?
No. Guy Laughman. Yes. Okay. So the motion is denied. The denial does proceed. So four to one denial.
Okay. I want to thank all the neighbors for coming out and speaking tonight and also thank you to Mr.
Holloway for coming out and sharing your case with us and apologies that did not go the way you had
hoped. So thank you all.
Moving on now to case VAR-26-5. This is the Mellencamp Eco Area 1, one acre contiguous build area to
Chapter 823. Mr. Loftman, it looks like this one is recommended for approval. Yes. Did you want to do
that, Mr. Neal? It was your invention. Permission to address? Yeah, go ahead. At this point, I would like
to find out from the audience both online or in person if there are any members of the public that wish
to speak either way on this matter. If you're online and wish to speak on this matter, please raise
your virtual hand.
I see no one at this point. I would like to make a motion to call the question. And I would note that
staff has recommended approval. That's why we're doing this, yeah. Second. We have a motion and a second
to call the question to move this toward. Okay. I'll go ahead and just share the screen really quickly
with the packet. So this is a case VAR-26.
There's a motion and a second to approve the Mellon Camp Eco Area 1 maximum residential density variance
to chapter 823. And the staff recommendation was to approve based on it meeting all the criteria, including
practical difficulties. A vote yes is a vote to approve this variance. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret
Clements? Yes. Skip Daly?
Yes, and sorry, Mr. Myers. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Motion is approved, five to zero. Okay,
so moving on to the last three cases of the night. This is VAR-26-7A, VAR-26-7B and 7C. This is the
cost eco area to residential density maximum variance to chapter 823, the cost
side yard setback varies to chapter 804 and the cost minimum lot size variance to chapter 8. Sir, I
will turn it over to you for your first BZA case. Thank you. I appreciate the introduction. So the case
number is VAR267 or VAR-26-7. The request is a variance to chapter 823 for the residential
density maximum in eco area too, and variances to chapter 804 for the side yard setback and the minimum
lot size. So the purpose is to permit a residential storage structure, a carport, and an off-grid cabin
in the future. The property zone conservation residential 2.5, the lot is two acres, it's unplanted
in a butt stay road 446. There is a little bit of a discrepancy about the acreage of the lot.
and I'll get to that in a little bit. The lot does not meet the minimum lot size requirement of 2.5
acres per chapter 804 in the Monroe County Development Ordinance. The lot also does not meet the residential
density maximum of 2.5 acres for Eco Area 2 per chapter 823 in the CDO. The petitioner is requesting
to place a 20 foot by 30 foot carport structure on the property. It's a total of 600 square feet. There
exists a primary residence on the property
that the petitioner has already submitted a demolition permit for, and the record numbers there, that
has been partially demolished, the primary structure that is, that's exhibit three in the staff report
that was posted online, due to the petitioner's intent to remove the primary residential structure,
the property is now classified as vacant. With the property now classified as vacant,
The new proposed structure will be deemed a residential storage structure, which is defined in the county
development ordinance as a structure to be used for private non-commercial storage by the property owner.
Does not require the presence of a primary use on the same lot. If there is a presence of a primary
use on the same lot, the structure can instead follow the standards for an accessory structure. So as
the proposed structure no longer meets the criteria of an accessory structure due to the
Lack of a primary residence. It doesn't qualify for the reduced setbacks setback standards for an accessory
structure which have permitted the proposed structure up to five feet from the side yard per chapter
8 11 To be as the proposed structure is less than 15 feet in height per their petitioner so
There's a little bit of a snippet that outlines that specific item and accessory building or structure
equal to or less than 15 feet in building height shall be permitted within five feet of rear and side
property lines. Staff has proposed alternative structure locations that meet setbacks and are located
in the buildable area. It's outlined in Exhibit 9 in the staff report.
This is the location map. As you can see in this location map, you see kind of that little sliver toward
the bottom of the lot there. And these are the site conditions. This is the site conditions map. So
moving forward. So here's the survey for the property. In this survey, it seems to reflect that the
property is 1.80 acres. Yeah. And this is the deed for the property, which
seems to reflect that the property is two acres. So that's where that kind of confusion about the acreage
of the lot is. But nonetheless, it's still under the 2.5 acre minimum requirement for both the minimum
lot size for the zoning district as well as for the residential density maximum of 2.5 acres. So here
are the CVR standards or dimensional standards. As you can see, the minimum lot size is 2.5 acres. And then for
The setbacks, the side yard for residential use is 15 feet. Here are the eco two area residential density
maximum standards. He cannot, the petitioner cannot meet item three, which states the maximum residential
density that shall be allowed shall be one unit per 2.5 acres. The petitioner's deed states that the
total acreage is two
acres in contrast the 2025 survey of the petition site shows that the total acreage is 1.8 give or take
acres therefore the lot requires a variance from this provision prior to any further development but
he can meet all other items outlined in this section here's here's the plot plan submitted by the petitioner
and you can see on the bottom
left portion or bottom left side of the property that he is planning on placing that carport structure
or the residential storage structure seven feet from the side yard there. Here is an aerial photograph
of the property per Eagle View. Another aerial photograph of the property per Eagle View. You can see
the primary residence right there, not far from the side yard as well.
So here are some alternative locations recommended by or proposed by staff that are compliant with these
setbacks and also are not located in the non-buildable area. Here's a photo of the primary residence
that is being, I guess it's in process of being demolished. This picture was taken on March 20th.
Here is a picture of a camper on the property. And here are a few pictures I'm gonna show of areas that
could be considered compliant that were kind of noted in the alternative placement locations. Here's
a photo of the gravel pad that staff believes may be where the applicant is proposing to place the carport
structure.
Another photo of the camper as well as compliant areas that the carport may be placed. Here's a 1976
plat from the auditor. The lot is reflected as lot 15 in this plat. Here is a letter of opposition from
the neighbor located to the south.
Some of the items that he's addressed have been adequately addressed already though, but this was included
in the staff report as well as an exhibit. And here's another photo that the neighbor to the south claims
that you can see an outhouse on the property as of March 20th, but you can't really see it in this picture.
So staff recommendations, approve the cost
eco area to residential density maximum variance as practical difficulties have been demonstrated as
the lot does not meet the maximum residential density acreage of 2.5 acres per one unit. And this variance
is the minimum needed to do any further development work on this property and to be able to grant a
permit for said work. Deny the side yard setback variance.
Practical difficulties have not been demonstrated by the petitioner as there are areas on the petitioner's
property where the carport can be located that would not require variance and approve the minimum lot
size variance as practical difficulties have been demonstrated as the property cannot meet the 2.5 acre
minimum lot size requirement without acquiring 0.7 acres or 0.5 acres for 10% deviation permitted under
the county development ordinance.
from an adjacent neighbor via administrative type E subdivision or rezoning to a zone with a smaller
lot size. This would be the minimum variance necessary for any new development on the property. Okay,
thank you Ray for the excellent job walking us through that presentation. So we can turn now to the
petitioner or petitioner's representative. Do we have petitioner sir, if you would come forward and
sign in, I'll swear you in.
Could you state your name and then raise your right hand? Joel Koss. Okay. Do you swear to tell the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. You have 15 minutes to present your case
to us. So we bought this property simply off the fact that we wanted to kind of like a hunting camp
because we deer hunt a lot. And behind the property is all public land, Hoosier National Forest. We
don't really want to do much. We just want a small cabin that we can go to in the fall.
kind of get away and camp and then go behind the property and hunt. The way that the property is set
up right behind the trailer, it does slope down so that we really don't have much building room up top,
especially since we had to remove a driveway because of the DOT. So the carport was going to be set
to the side away from like on the south side. So when you pull in, there's plenty of room to turn around
and pull back out.
Mainly, that's just for storage. There's not gonna be much stuff going in there other than maybe firewood,
log splitter, a couple of camping gear. Other than that, that's basically it. We're wanting to build
a cabin, not this year, and it probably won't even be next year, because of funds. But eventually, we're
gonna probably build like a 30 by 30 cabin. And I don't even believe we're gonna be hooking to utilities.
We're gonna go solar and rainwater. But yeah, that's basically all I got. Okay, thank you, sir.
Any members of the VCA have questions for Mr. Cos? Yeah, sir. Sir, could you come back up so we can
hear you on the microphone when we ask questions? The concern is you're too close to the property line
with where you want to build this. Why can't you build it back when you wouldn't need a variance? Well,
because of the way the land grades slopes down.
We would have to bring in more dirt, which would cost us more money in the end. Plus, we don't really
want to disturb too much of the land. I mean, behind the trailer, it's kind of grown up naturally, and
it's returning to nature. And we don't really want to mess with any of that if we can help it. So that's
basically why we want to put it off to the side out of the way. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Koss?
Okay, you're welcome to have a seat. We'll turn to public comment next, and if anybody speaks against
this, you'll have five minutes to come back up to address their concerns. Okay, so let's turn now to
members of the public. Is there anyone here in the room who wishes to speak for this petition? Okay,
and then I'll turn online to see if there's anybody online who wishes to speak in favor of this petition
first. Raise your virtual hand, please.
Okay, seeing no one will turn back to the people in the room here who wish to speak against the petition.
If you could sign in, then I'll swear you in.
Okay, could you state your name and then raise your right hand? Catherine Greenman. Okay, do you swear
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, thank you. You'll have three
minutes. I am the tenant of 8370 South 446. My father is the owner of the property he sent in the
The information to you, the pictures of the outhouse. I guess that's our major concern is they seem
to have a lack of regard for local health code, building code, and zoning code. They moved in, they
built an outhouse less than a foot away from our property line.
that is still there. I have a picture that's a much better picture than the one I was able to get the
other day. If I could approach and... Yeah, if you could approach and hit it to this. Sorry, if you
want to hand us the picture and then go back to the microphone, we need to keep your comments on record.
Thank you. Okay. You see the outhouse with the circle window and then the white
steak with the white tip. I know my color died in my printer, unfortunately, but you can clearly see
that it is directly on the property line. It's not even two feet over. I have concerns about that because
it's an outhouse. I have children. We use our yard. We use the woods behind our house. I'm not sure
exactly what outhouse
Where if that's being contained if that's draining into the creek behind the house what's happening
there? So that's certainly a concern This previous fall they I guess as he stated wanted to use it as
a deer camp and That meant for several weeks this fall there were 10 to 20 people roughly there at any
given time with multiple tents fires every night and
deer carcasses hanging roughly on the property line. I don't have a problem with them building there.
I don't have a problem with them having a carport. I do not want it against our property line. I'd like
as much buffer as the zoning gives for that, just to keep as much of that away from the property as possible.
I feel like it could be a liability with my children, with people that they have coming to the property,
being so close to our property, having that many people on the property at a time, drinking, fires,
loud music, that kind of thing. So we're asking that you did variance for the side yard setback and
Do you have any other questions about the location of the buildings that have already been put on the
property without permitting or zoning or any? We typically don't have back and forth conversation with
commoners that are coming up to speak, but thank you. No, that's fine. They've moved in and they immediately
started building. They previously had their camper less than three feet from
446 and had built a shed on 446 like less than three feet back. I just feel if the variance is allowed
that they will take liberties with that variance and with the property and I don't I don't think it
should be allowed.
Okay, thank you for sharing your comments. Do we have anybody else who wishes to speak against this?
If you're in the room, you're welcome to come to the podium. If you're online, please raise your virtual
hand. Okay, not seeing anyone, we will close public comment. Mr. Koss, if you wish to come forward and
speak to the concerns you've heard, you have five minutes. To address the outhouse, temporary.
We plan on having somebody come out. There is a septic tank on the property. We cannot use it until
we can have it inspected. Until then, I built it temporarily to use while I demolished the trailer.
And as far as deer season, it's just our family, roughly 10 to about 15. And we usually go home during
the week. Other than that, I don't have a problem moving the carport. It just cuts back on the room
that we have.
up on the top of that hill. So that would be all. Okay, thank you, sir. So we will come back now to
members of the BZA for conversation. Yeah, just as a matter of clarification for staff, an outhouse
doesn't have the rule. I mean, he's just told us that he's going to hook into a septic system, which
that's a legitimate concern. I can understand that. Are there any rules for outhouses or none? I don't
even know.
So we did learn recently, I think there's been some state law changes that there is a way to permit.
I think it's called a private privy that is directly over top of a septic system. But we were made aware
of the outhouse concern based on this remonstrance letter. And we were planning on just following up
with the health department separately.
Is the implication that you can't just put a privy up on your property unless you have a septic system?
You can't just dump your... Correct. Yeah, there's not a way forward for just an outhouse or compost
toilet typically. That's not really... Right. Thank you. Any other thoughts from members of the BCA?
Well, I don't see any compelling reason not to apply the normal.
ordinance here. It's inconvenient, but these ordinances are almost always inconvenient for people who
wish they weren't in this way. But especially where we have neighbors who are right up against it with
kids, and I think it's appropriate to say we're going to require you to meet the standard requirements.
So that's what I would vote.
I'm prepared to make a motion on approving variance 26-7A and variance 26-7C, that's 7 alpha and 7 Charlie,
based on practical difficulties being demonstrated. Second that.
We have a motion to approve 7A and 7C. Okay, I'll go ahead and call the roll on just 7A, which is the
eco area to residential density maximum, and 7C, which is the minimum lot size variance to chapter 804.
A vote yes is a vote to approve 7A and 7C. Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
I can't even believe that was called a primary residence, but it's got to be delightful to have that
being removed. It's just got to be. So it's all about the placement of the carport. And the one thing
I have forgotten is in terms of the setback variance, how far off are they from where they want to place
it versus if it got moved and it wouldn't be a problem?
How many feet or is it? From the side yard, it's eight feet short of meeting the minimum restriction
of 15 feet. So it's about half of it? Yeah, a little over half, yeah. Okay. Any other comments? Do we
have a motion? Maybe I'm missing the size of the overall size of the carport that's being recommended.
Yeah, it's 20 by 30, so 600 square feet. 600. And so it's a 20 by 30, and it pushed seven feet one direction.
Yeah, it's encroaching on the side yard. Well, it would be encroaching on the side yard. And it's current
placement's seven feet from the south property line, which is the side yard. The property line, OK. Thanks.
Mr. Cost, I saw your hand, but sorry, we're past the point of speaking with the petitioner. We're at
BZA conversation now. Thank you. There's just one thing that is compelling me to speak, and it's just
about kind of this idea of community. You know, of course we're here in an official proceeding, and
you are neighbors. And there's nothing that we can do that just promotes good relationships with people
surrounding us. And although
We're making decisions that impact you both. One thing that we do try to strive for and stress is just
like consideration of neighbors because we're all in this together. So that's one thing that kind of
doesn't need to be said, but I know that I'll sleep better having said it. We just encourage everybody
to just try to be considerate and work with the neighbors because
That's who we are, you know, so that's one thing I wanted to say. Thank you for indulging me.
Thank you, Ms. Clements. Hey, do we have a motion? I move to, I've got a little tiny writing here. I
move to deny variance 27,
6-7B cost side yard setback variance to Chapter 804 because there's no compelling need to move from
the variance. I do want to say to Mr. Cross, I think it's great your family comes down and stays together.
I know that they say the family that hunts together stays together, but I think that it's a
It's good that your family is caring about these things and preserving the land here, but I think there's
no reason not to comply with our zoning ordinances, and especially where you do have a nearby neighbor.
Say, you know, if there was nobody for the next 20 acres, I might be more sympathetic, but you do have
an adjacent neighbor, so I move no. 59. Do we have a second? I'll second that.
Okay, it's been moved and seconded to deny VAR-26-7B, which is the side yard setback variance to Chapter
804. A vote yes is a vote to deny the variance. Skip Daly.
I don't know that the practical difficulty was met. I don't know that I have a problem with it personally,
but as a board member, I think I had to say yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson?
I'm going to vote no because the neighbor said she was not concerned about the placement of the carport.
She was concerned about the outhouse, which got
dealt with. But technically you're right Mr. Glofman, the ordinance says what the ordinance says, but
I'm going to vote now. Margaret Clements. Yes. Yes. Okay. So the motion to deny the AR-26-7B, the side
yard setback, does proceed by a vote of four to one. So that means that the petitioner will be required
to meet the 15 foot side setback
for the residential storage structure. Okay, thank you, Mr. Kossin, to the neighbor who came out and
spoke. Thank you, we appreciate it. So I believe that takes us to the end of our agenda. May I? Sure.
And just for references for the community, if there are enforcement questions that community members
have, do they contact the Planning Department? They can start with us.
a lot of complaints and direct them in the right place. So we do try to offer that service to all community
members. Mr. Koss, I'd like to say that I have a herd of 36 deer that come through my property. They're
annoying to me. So if your family is looking for a prosperous place to hunt. I just wanted to put that
out there. Thank you.
I think that brings us to the end of the agenda, so we have a motion for adjournment. I move to adjourn.
Thank you all. Thank you.