Let's go ahead and call this meeting to order. Process of pulling up this information. I did not print
it out in advance. I apologize. Want an agenda? Oh, this would be fantastic. Thank you. All right, let's
let's take a roll. All right, I'll call the roll for the May 6th, 2026 Board of Zoning Appeals in Monroe
County. Margaret Clements. Skip daily.
Yeah, I'm with Davidson here. Guy Loftman here and Jeff Morris. Here and apologizing for my last minute
change in attendance. Alright, alright, so we have three in person which makes an in person quorum and
four total. Alright, could we please 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
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 hearing on tonight's
agenda. I would like to make a motion to introduce the evidence as just enumerated by you. Second. Great.
There's been a motion and a second to
I've got the items of evidence. Skip Daly? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Guy Hoffman? Yes. Jeff Morris?
Yes. Carries four to zero. All right, Assistant Director, it looks like we have a few changes to the
agenda as it was placed in the packets. Is the old business
being continued and not being shown tonight? Correct. Okay. And is the Campanella variance 26-6 withdrawn?
Is that correct? Correct. We have one, there will be one item at the very end of the agenda tonight,
I do believe.
And they may speak to it later when it comes up, but McWhorter VAR-26-14 is considering continuing part
A of that. Part A, but they will still want to be heard part B. Okay. All right. So we'll just deal
with that in order then. All right. Can we go ahead? Mr. Daly, maybe we should make clear to the public
that the Campanella item will not be heard. So if anybody is here,
for that item, you may leave or you may stay, but we won't be hearing that item. I just wanted to make
sure the public knew that that will not take place. Both the Donovan and the Campanella will not be
on tonight's agenda. With that being said, could we approve the agenda with the exclusion of the Donovan
and Campanella?
So moved. I get for that. Sorry. I didn't hear a second. Oh, I'll second it. Sure. Oh, sorry. All right.
So this is a motion and a second to approve the agenda for tonight's meeting. Pamela Davidson? Yes.
Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. And Skip Daly? Yes. Motion carries four to zero. All right.
Is there any administrative business that we have to deal with? It doesn't look like there's anything
on the packet, so let's... And let's look at variance 2611. Looks like... No, I think that's... You're
seeing one, maybe. On front... Oh, sorry, I apologize. Variance 25-72.
Golf Fisk Lake Monroe Setback Variants to Chapter 805. Mr. Chairman, if I can, I see that the recommendation
from the plan department is approval on this item. This being an approval item,
I'd like to inquire and then I may want to make a motion that we... There is a procedure we use if something
is unopposed that sometimes moves the meetings along, which is I would like to inquire whether anybody
either in or the chair will inquire as to when anyone here or do you want to go ahead and do that? Is
there anybody?
present or online that wishes to speak toward the Fisk Lake Monroe setback variance to chapter 805,
other than the petitioner? Anybody online? May I assume you wish to call the question? I like move to
call the question. Is it seconded? Did we verify that there was nobody online?
as well. Okay, great. Then I will second that. Second to call the question. Can we take a roll on calling
the question? That motion is based on staff's findings and recommendations. Well noted. We'll get to
that when we get to the approval. It has to be part of the motion. Right. And based on the recommendations
and report of the facts and findings of the
plan staff. I agree with the motion and second it. I will second that. Well, okay. Procedurally, we
have a motion on the table to call the question. Yes. If that's approved, at that point, you can motion
to approve the variance
based on the findings of that. Got it. So we're just voting on whether we're gonna vote. We could have
a roll call based on calling the question, please. Calling the question. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
All right. Now that the question has been called, do we have a motion either to approve or to deny?
I move to approve variance 2572G based on the recommendations and findings of the staff as reported
in our meeting package. I'll second that. Great. There's been a motion and a second to approve variance
VAR-25-72G, the Fisk Lake Monroe Setback from Chapter 805. The vote yes is a motion to approve.
Yes. Guy Loftman. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Motion carries 4-0. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
And thank you, Assistant Director. Let's move on to, my eyes. Okay, we'll move on to variance 26-11.
front yard setback variance to Chapter 805. Mr. Myers, if you would present for us, please. Thank you.
All right, this is VAR-26-11, the bone front yard setback variance to Chapter 804.
This is at 3985 South Knight Ridge Road. It is in Salt Creek Township, Section 20. It is zoned Conservation
Residential 2.5 and is also located in the Eco or Environmental Constraints Overlay Area 2. Positioners
requesting one development standard variance from the front yard setback requirement of Chapter 804
for a residential storage structure. This structure is going to measure 960 square feet.
It is a detached garage, 32 feet by 30. This detached garage will exhibit a new driveway entrance from
South Knight Ridge Road. The property is one 3.9 acre lot. That's zoned CVR as I stated previously.
And it currently contains a 1,968 square foot single family residence and an 80 square foot utility
shed. Mr. Bone is acting as the property owner's representative for this petition and is also the sales
manager of Coach House Garages.
Early conversations between Mr. Bone and the Planning Department regarding the proposed detached garage
resulted in staff clarifying that all three parcels of this subject property that you will see on a
map in a moment are considered one lot of record. Additionally, staff informed Mr. Bone that establishing
a new driveway would require a right of way activity permit from the Highway Department. Staff had originally
suggested that the new garage
utilize an existing southern driveway entrance on the property that would avoid the need for a new right
of way activity permit. However Mr. Bone stated that the owner only wants to build the detached garage
if the new driveway can be established. Mr. Bone went ahead and submitted two right of way activity
permit applications because there are actually two existing driveways on the property so this detached
garage would have created a third.
Upon review of the petition cites two existing driveway entrances and those respective highway activity
permits, the highway department denied both. Those were RW-26-45 as well as RW-26-66. Mr. Bone appealed
these two denials on behalf of the property owner and the appeal was heard by the Monroe County Board
of Commissioners on April 9th, 2026.
Ultimately approved one of those appeals to grant the new driveway entrance on the condition that the
existing second driveway which will is currently in the middle of the property and you'll see that on
a map in a moment. That second driveway be removed so as long as they remove that second driveway they
can they can build a new one for the new detached garage if that if this variance is approved for the
front yard setback.
Planning staff also informed Mr. Bone of the setback requirements and the buildable area constraints
on the property. Being in the eco area too, slopes greater than 15% are protected from any land disturbance
activity or the removal of vegetation in those sloped areas. Additionally, the petition site is located
in lot one of the September Hill subdivision, which has a dedicated 25 foot right of way from the center
line of South Knight Ridge Road.
and a 25 foot setback from that right of way. So that's a total of 50 feet from the center line that
they have to abide by for new structures. According to Mr. Bone and the property owners proposed location
for the new structure to avoid encroachment into the steep slopes, a front yard setback variance is
required in order to build the size of the structure and orientation of the structure that they want.
The side setback is 15 feet, so the property
the proposed structure will be meeting that setback. It's just only the front setback that can't be
met. And the structure's location will be 35 feet from the center line. So that's an encroachment of
20 feet, approximately 20 feet encroachment into the setback. And Mr. Bone attests that this location
was selected in order to utilize the existing buildable area on the site.
And any further back from the road would result in the structure encroaching into the steep slopes that
are greater than 15%. Here on the screen we have the letter from the petitioner as well as the plot
plan that was provided by the petitioner.
Now on the screen, we have the scaled plot plan that was drafted by staff. That black line that you
see there is the edge of the right-of-way dedication of the September Hill subdivision. So then an additional
25 feet from that line is where the structure is allowed to go based on the front setback. You can see
also on this map the location of the existing driveways. We have one to the far south and then one in
the middle.
The one in the middle is the one that will be removed per the appeal request. And the new driveway here
to the north will service the detached garage alone. Here we have the location map, Salt Creek Township.
We have South State Road 446 here, and then the road that accesses the property is South Knight Ridge.
Here is the site conditions map. On this screen, all the red is over 15% in slope.
Those are the protected slopes based on the eco area. This is just the same map just zoomed in a bit
more to show where those slopes are and the limited buildable area that we have between the edge of
the road and the beginning of the steep sloped areas. And now we have some aerial pictometry of the
site that reveals the two driveway entrances that are existing, the existing home as well. And then
just panning around here
showing different angles from different directions of the property. Now on the screen we have a street
view that shows the two existing driveway entrances. Again, the northern driveway or the one in the
middle as I like to call it. That one is the one that will be removed per the highway department's request
and approval of the appeal by the board of commissioners. Another image there of showing that driveway
entrance that will be removed.
And then now on the screen is the proposed location of the detached garage. If you were to look further
back into the background of this photo, you can see how the slope begins to fall off into that 15% and
more. All right. This brings me to staff's recommendation. Staff recommends denial of the front setback
variance, stating that practical difficulties have not been demonstrated.
The condition requiring the variance can be avoided through redesign, relocation, or reorientation of
the proposed detached garage structure. Staff has included additional language that if there is an approval
forwarded by this BZA, that staff recommend including a condition of approval, and that condition of
approval would be that the petitioner receive an approved right-of-way activity permit from the Highway
Department for the new driveway entrance.
They did win the appeal. However, a new right of way activity permit is still required to formally permit
the new driveway entrance if this front setback variance is approved. With respect to staff's recommendation,
we did work to see if there was somewhere else on the property the same size structure could fit. So
now on the screen is a map showing the steep slopes as well as measurements from property lines and
the center line of South Knight Ridge Road of a location that could
the same size of structure that they're wanting. It's just a lot closer to the existing residence and
would also utilize the existing driveway that comes in front of the existing residence rather than being
further away from the existing residence. And now I want to take any questions. We listen to the petitioner
first. If there's nothing imminent,
Let's move on to the petitioner. Is the petitioner or a representative here in person? If you could
come forward. And while you come forward, keep this in mind. Make sure that the microphone is appropriate
length from where you'll be speaking from. Correct. And we'll also need you to sign in, please. And
then state your name for the record.
My name is Brett Bone. I am a representative of Coach House Garages. All right. Thank you, Mr. Bone.
Now, if you could raise your right hand and swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth
as you know it. Absolutely. Yes. All right. Thank you. You will be given 15 minutes if you wish. You
can begin anytime. Thank you. Upon meeting Mr.
He explained to me his situation where he's in need of a new garage with the hail that happened about
a month ago. He said it'd be nice to get that garage up sooner and later. But with I've learned with
bidding being a new company in the Bloomington area, there are some difficulties and challenges I did
not face in Illinois and it's called Hills and I'm learning as I go here that
to keep things in the general area where we need to be, we're limited on what we can do, where we can
do it. So Mr. Richard asked if we can do the garage on the, I will call it the east end or the north
end of the property where the slope drop was not affected. But we worked that out. And originally when
I spoke with Drew, before we got the county involved, I was under the understanding the setback from
the side of the road to where the garage should start would be about 25 feet.
So I made it 26 feet. And there is a row of trees along the red end where the slope drop begins. So
we don't want to uproot those because of the root system. It affects erosion. We want to leave those
trees if all possible. So we move that back. Yes, right in there. We move that back as close as we could
to those trees, getting the setback off the road to meet the requirements. It's just we're not able
to get the 50 foot from the center of the road.
to where the building starts, there's a 15 foot difference is what it is. But there's still adequate
space with the county approving the driveway. It'll be a 12 foot wide driveway going up to the new garage,
which is plenty long. It'll be 12 by 25 feet from the edge of the road is what that new concrete driveway
would be. And then the building will sit behind that with your approval, of course.
I missed on that, Jeff? Okay, that's pretty much what I have. Right, thank you. Do we have any questions?
I do have a question. Yes, ma'am. The staff said that if the garage location could be moved closer to
the house and so on, then this won't be an issue or a problem. What is the, is that
not acceptable? No, thank you. I failed to mention one thing. One of the main reasons Jeff was wanting
to put it where he wanted to put it was he believes in solar power. And the way that the roof line has
to sit for the diameter of the building where we laid that out, it's going to get the most sunlight
to affect the charging stations that are going to be placed on his roof of that. So I don't know with
moving that closer if the trees
are gonna block that shade, I'm not sure, but with the sunshine, and he lives there, not me, but with
the sunshine in the afternoon, through morning through afternoon, that's where it gets the most sun
to properly juice, I guess, juice the solar-powered system that's gonna sit there. Interesting, thanks
for that answer. Yes, yes. Mr. Loughlin. The need for a driveway, we're not really
looking at the need for the driveway and the drive, okay. So I think that answers my question that,
you know, why are we, why don't we like the one that does comply? Mr. Morris, do you have any questions
for the petition or staff? No questions for me. Thank you, Skip. I have a question. Yes, sir.
and has two driveway curb cuts and they U. The petitioner's intention to once the middle driveway is
uprooted to connect the southern driveway through the yard to the new driveway. As of right now, the
main idea is to come in off of
night ridge with the driveway that goes into the overhead door of our garage door where the bay will
be in part there and as of right now there's no thought of continuing that. I can't speak for Jeff I
can't but that's not been discussed. I do have a question of staff. Mr. Myers was the was the intention
of solar and
rationale brought up to you during the process with the petitioner? Mr. Bone came in several times to
discuss the details of this petition, and I believe he did mention at one point or another that one
of the rationale pieces was to incorporate solar power into the garage structure. However, reading the
strict application of the ordinance, even if that was their rationale, the ordinance would say, well,
do you need to have solar power? And the answer would be,
most likely from the ordinance, no, you can adjust it and relocate it somewhere else and remove the
solar power and not need a variance. So just looking at a strict application, not an accommodation to
his desire for this. Correct, yeah, the ordinance does not take into account a property owner's preference
in architectural or other standards. This is why we're here. This is why we're here, yep. Absolutely.
My question for staff is,
If the garage were relocated to the site you like better, because it fits our criteria, would that require
cutting down trees for solar installation, do you think? Do you know? I don't know. I'd have to look
at that and do some analysis on that. I do have one question for staff. This is a platted lot.
and the plat specifies the setback. If it wasn't part of a subdivision, if it wasn't part of
that subdivision, if it didn't specify the setback, the normal county setback would go from the edge
of the road, not from the center of the road, or what's that rule?
Correct. When the phone first came in that was the conversation that I had with him because I was unsure
that the property was an implanted subdivision and typically the ordinance does state that if there
is no dedicated right-of-way then the setback is measured from the edge of right-of-way which in this
case would have been the edge of pavement which would have resulted in no need for a variance most likely.
Okay I'm ready to make a motion.
Before we do that, I would like to ask Mr. Villanueva to have a seat and we'll see if there's... I just
want to mention one more thing, if that's okay. On behalf of relocating it to another area, he did say
if they shifted over this way, there would be neighbors trees that would shadow and he didn't feel like
he would want to have the neighbors cut down the trees to get this overpowered. Thank you. Thank you.
And we may or may not call you back up based on folks responding. Is there anybody in the audience tonight
that wishes to speak on behalf of this petition? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak
in opposition to this petition? Is there anybody online or on a phone that wishes to speak
for this petition. Is there anybody online or on a phone that wishes to speak in opposition to this
petition? I see no one, is that correct? All right, we'll open it up to board discussion. Mr. Loppen,
you discussed a matter. I did, I did.
I think there's been substantial discussion and I'm comfortable moving that we approve variance 2611,
bone front yard setback at 3985 South Knight Ridge Road on the grounds that the, moving the driveway,
excuse me, moving the garage to the desired location
is consistent with the, my principles that solar power when available is a desirable thing for the property
owner and for the planet. And particularly in light of the fact that if it hadn't been, subdivision
hadn't set that setback, it would be perfectly legal. So down the road, this would be,
We wouldn't even need this in light of those I moved that we approved it. I'm going to I'm going to
ask you to clarify. I'm going to ask you to clarify that that have practical difficulties been met based
on the testimony. Yes, which can to me establishes practical difficulty difficulties. And this is subject
to the condition that the
petitioner receive an appropriate approved right away activity permit from the Highway Department for
the new driveway entrance off South Night Ridge Road before proceeding with construction. You did so
well with that guy. I'll second that. It's been moved and seconded. This is objective. May we have a
roll call on the vote?
a motion and a second to approve VAR-26-11 the bone front setback variance to chapter 804 and that is
with one condition of approval that the petitioner receive an approved right-of-way activity permit
from the highway department for the new driveway entrance off of South Knightridge Road. Guy Loftman?
Yes. John Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes.
and carries four to zero. Thank you. Congratulations on that. We're going to move along to variance
two six dash one two. That is the cook maximum in previous cover variance to chapter eight zero eight.
You have to forgive me. We just met and I don't have my glasses on your last name.
via the bar mister by thank you it's great to meet you for the second time uh... could you please go
ahead and present the case uh... excuse me mister chair president but uh... this is i'd believe another
approved case staff approved case conditions conditions well because if the petition or a cruise the
conditions which we can determine quickly
then you have the right as a board member to call the question at any point. And then we'll look into
the other details. Okay, I move we call the question, which doesn't mean we're approving it. It just
means that we're gonna proceed without the full presentation. If, okay. If no one opposes. No one opposes.
First we call the question, then we determine whether we want to proceed under the simplified provisions.
So this is just to say, are we going to consider going without the full staff report? And that depends
on public and petitioner. Is there anybody here tonight that wishes to speak on variance or online that
wishes to speak on variance 26-12?
Nobody in the room, anybody online or on the phone? No. And is there a representative, excuse me, a
petitioner of Cook available in the room or online? Okay, well, are you familiar with the staff recommendation?
You know, well, then if you determine at any point that you will agree to all those, we can we can maybe
move on to a quicker procedure. But first, let's see what the let's. Yes, so you will not be motioning
for a call to question. Or you will.
They aren't consenting, so I'm not going to move to... All right. Mr. Dubaya, could you please move
forward with your presentation? And thank you. Okay. Good evening, everyone. Hope everyone can hear
me all right. So this is the Cook Maximum Previous Cover Variance to Chapter 808. So the request is
to place eight new generators
on an area that is not currently impervious surface. The petitioner would like to add a generators with
equipment pads, which we utilize 2782 square feet of concrete and stone or about 0.06 acres. The property
zone light industrial, the lots are total of 12.29 acres are platted and a butt West constitution after
the South and South Curry Pike to the West. The lots are currently at 58.5% impervious cover
which is over by 13.5% of the max permitted for developments in zoning district L.I. within a critical
watershed. The petitioner was approved for rezone of the property from partially PUD to L.I. in 2022
to change the open space requirement. Under the PUD, which was 40% allowing 60% impervious, the property
was zoned to L.I. and under the prior zoning ordinance, which had an open space requirement of 20%,
which allowed for 80% impervious service.
The CDO added more stringent impervious cover requirements tied to locations in the critical watershed
area, which has impacted this petition site, now making it pre-existing nonconforming. So in summary,
the petitioner is requesting a percent increase rather than a square footage allowance to allow for
future space for more impervious cover on the site. They did undergo a site plan amendment in 2022 to
add additional parking, which put the site at even more impervious cover.
that was permitted at the time as they had received approval for that rezone in 2021.
The impervious service for both lots are included in the request for the impervious cover maximum petition
as the site plan submitted by the petitioner in 2022 included an integrated site plan outlining the
impervious cover for both lots and both lots have been determined to be one legal lot of record. The
petitioner states that the generators are too heavy as they are 16,000 pounds each so they feasibly
cannot be placed on top of the existing roof.
on the lot and the running engines would create too much noise and vibration. Petitioners added that
they do intend to fill and relocate some of the existing swells for the new generator pads and also
possibly install underground drainage piping.
just to ensure that stormwater is still carried to the same location as before. And if the variance
is granted, the petitioner will have to apply for a site plan review. So there will be steps that will
include stormwater as well to ensure that the flow is still adequate. If variance is denied, then any
permits related to this proposal will need to be redesigned to meet the development standards or be
denied. So here are the dimensional standards for the light industrial
Zoning district, as you can see, maximum pervious cover for development within a critical watershed
is 45%. Here's a location map. Here is the comprehensive plan, showing that it is in the MCUA employment
region. Zoning map, site condition map, and here is an aerial from Eagle View facing south, showing
where the proposed generators will be placed. Here is an aerial view
per EGLE view is again showing where the proposed generators will be placed. And here's a photo I took
on site showing where the proposed generators will be placed. And a picture of an existing swell that
was indicated will be relocated, or not swell, culvert, that will be relocated. Here's a letter to the
BZA included in the package for today.
Here's the site plan that was included in the packet. It's kind of hard to see on here, but it was included
in the packet for today's meeting. And what is the condition that you were specifying for approval?
The petitioner is limited to 3,000 square feet of imperfect surface to accommodate the current proposed
project. Thank you. Just here's the plot.
and here's the integrated site plan showing both plots. And here's my recommendation or staff's
recommendation. May I ask you a question about the 3,000 square feet? That includes the pad and the
generators themselves, the concrete pad. Do two generators and the concrete pad fit?
in that 3,000? Yeah, so they do. Yeah, they know that it will utilize 2782 square feet of concrete and
stone. So that's what they've outlined as the square footage they require. OK, thank you. So perhaps
we could appropriately require of the. Yeah, good point. Mr. By thank you for that is the petitioner
or representative here to speak.
All right, and the same procedure will take place. Please make sure you adjust the microphone so we
can hear you loudly and clearly, and sign your name. My name's Hogan Helms with Cornerstone Engineering
and Design.
Representing cook project. All right. Thank you. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear
that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth as you know it? Right I'm going to before we
start your clock. I know miss Lopman is wanting to know the answer to something and he is wanting to
know if I'm not mistaken if the condition that was read is
Um, then, uh, your acceptance. I understood it. I believe so. You're just, you're limiting the proposed
additional impervious to 3000 square feet, which would cover this project that we proposed, but not
necessarily a number. Cause I think in the original item, I'd asked for 60%, which would have allowed
like this project and maybe another 3000 or so. That is correct.
That's acceptable. All right. Well, at this point, we're going to go ahead and I'm going to ask based
on the presentation and the limited testimony of the petitioners representative, is there anybody now
wishing to speak from the audience or online either for or against this petition? Seeing and hearing no one.
Mr. Loppen, did you want to interject? Yes, I move we approve variance 2612. You'll have to call the
question first. With the condition that it be limited to 3,000, I move we call the question. Move to
call the question. All right, is there a second? Yes. All right, Assistant Director, could you call
a roll call on calling the question and ending the testimony at this point? Calling the question would
be Pamela Davidson. Yes. Jeff Morris.
Yes. Great. Guy Loftman? Yes. And Skip Daly? Yes. Carries 4 to 0. With that being said, Mr. Loftman,
would you like to add a motion? Yes. I move that we approve variance 26-12, 3,800 West Constitution
Avenue for Cooke, impervious cover variance,
on the condition that the maximum impervious cover increase is 3,000 square feet. I'll second that.
All right. There's been a motion and a second to approve variance VAR-26-12, the cook maximum impervious
cover variance to chapter 808.
And that is with one staff condition, which is that the petitioner is limited to 3000 square feet of
impervious surface to accommodate the curtain, the current proposed project. Jeff Morris. Yes. Kamala
Davidson. Yes. Guy Loftman. Yes. Skip Bailey. Yes. Motion carries four to zero. Thank you. Thank you.
Good luck. All right.
All of that being said and done, let's move on to the next variance application. It is variance 26-13,
up church, eco, area two, 15% slope encroachment, variance two, chapter eight, two, three. Vaya, is
this you again? It is me again. Fantastic, please carry on. All right, the purpose of the request is
to construct a deck addition
for the petitioner to construct the deck addition to a two-story storage barn. The petitioner's Western
variants allow for the construction of a 10-foot elevated deck to an accessory structure. The deck will
measure 42 feet along the north side and 30 feet along the east side of the structure and will require
eight six inches by six inches posts, joists, and decking. The petitioner stated he would like to instruct
the addition to the structure that has been on the property since at least 2006.
There is a play area immediately to the west which the applicant stated would inhibit construction in
the buildable area on the south and west portion of the storage barn. So, the petitioner selected a
location that encroaches into an area with a slope greater than 15% as identified by Beacon GIS as the
deck would be located around the northern and eastern portion of the storage barn. According to Chapter A23-5B1,
The maximum land slope upon which any land disturbance involving construction of buildings, driveways,
roads, parking lots, utilities can occur shall be 15% and you see a little snippet I have there outlining
those regulations. Eco area too.
developments that is if the slope encroachment variance is approved the petitioner will be able to continue
with the permitting process for the proposed deck if the 15% slope encroachment variance is denied the
petitioner will be unable to pursue the proposed deck in its current proposed location so this is a
snippet from Beacon GIS areas shown in blue and light green are buildable areas per chapter 823 this
is a picture of the
plot plan that the petitioner marked when he came into our office on March 24th. These are the site
conditions, as you can see. The area he's proposing building that deck addition is in the 25 plus percent
non-buildable area and steep slope. Location map. I'm sorry, comprehensive plan map.
zoning map zone residential one and you can see the little blue outline the almost at the very north
that displays the eco area too and the residence is just just barely in there the explanation of photos
submitted by the petitioner and these are the photos that the petitioner submitted showing where the proposed
stairs as well as the deck will be placed. These are included in the packet for today. And this is the
letter to the BCA by the petitioner, the site plan or plot plan that the petitioner created and the
deed. And the staff recommendation is denial
as the petitioner requests for the construction of the deck results from a preference that strays from
the intent of the county development warns rather than a necessity. I just have a very quick question.
There was an existing deck that they took down, correct? Is that true? I'm not aware of an existing
deck. Are you referring to? Maybe I'm just wondering, these pictures look familiar to me, and I thought
maybe there had been a deck there at one time.
and we're off. Okay, thanks. All right, let's carry on and bring up the petitioner or a representative
if they are available. Fantastic. In the same process we'll apply, please adjust the microphone to your
liking and sign in.
If I could have you state your name for the record, please. My name is Ken Upchurch. Mr. Upchurch, could
I have you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth as you know it for your testimony?
All right, fantastic. Mr. Upchurch, we're going to clock you at 15 minutes if it pleases, and you can
go. Well, we are adding on, would like to add on, a 10-foot
deck around this area and it's to help get all this organized. And it's also going to be where you can
have the second story with the deck and the bottom part will also be storage. It will just consist of
eight posts with the concrete piers that would be, I guess that's what it's called, to be placed for
the deck to be built on with a ledger board around the building. Well, it sounds to me like, right.
So Mr. Dubaya had mentioned
his rationale for the denial, which is letter of the code, is this does not meet the practical difficulties.
Would you like to address that aspect? Practical. Practical difficulties. That's the part of the code,
which is why it's not allowable and why you have to come to the board for approval. And it looks like
you've got some assistance coming in. Could you please
Sign in, and we'll continue your 15 minutes as soon as we get you sworn in. I'm Gwen Upchurch.
Gwen Upchurch. And do you swear the testimony you're about to provide is the truth as you know it? Yes.
All right. Now, go ahead. So the peer, there will be peers that just the few that need to be put in
by Eric Smith. We talked to a construction person.
this part by ourselves, even though Ken has built a lot of this all on his own. But the place where
the variance is, the concrete piers would just be for the posts, and then everything else is above onto
the barn, the existing barn, and the
place that is in the variance will just have those concrete posts to make sure that the deck is solid,
supported. What would involve these three? And the reason, the whole reason for this is because the,
when he built the barn, he
thought that he was going to be doing this so that underneath he was able to have storage area,
you know, for the tractor and that sort of thing. That is on the back side of our property and dog run
is on the other side that is concreted. And so that's, that the, it's, it's, it's difficult because the,
we're in that area just a little bit in that variance for those poles. I don't know if that's making
any sense. I believe I believe you've expressed
Your desire, yeah. So, Mr. Ruff Church, did you build that barn yourself? Is that what your wife just
said? I do. Oh, yeah. And it doesn't have storage, and now the deck is the solution to that on the backside.
So there's never been a deck because it's been a barn, not part of a house. OK, all right. OK. Yes,
my dad passed away, and we have a lot of things from his estate in there. Yeah. All right.
We'll call you up if we need you. I have a quick question for Mr. Baier before we move forward. The
petition looked to me like it was just for the posts and the raised deck, but the petitioner was talking
about storage. Did they talk about building a solid
surface? No, but the piers will still disturb the land in this deep. The piers? Correct. I understand
that. Right. But I was wondering if they had mentioned as any part of the plan also for disturbance
for to build a level surface to have storage.
Can I have one of you or both of you back up? I just want to understand the complete project. And from
what you were telling me versus what I'm seeing on this picture, appear to be two different things.
So when, I'm sorry. Excuse me for one moment. Could you bring up one of the pictures, maybe the one
that they took of where it would be? All right. Is this where posts will be going?
Mr. Mr. Mr. All right. Would you also have to do something to level land in order to put storage there?
Okay. When when when he's saying storage, it's you're thinking of something different than what he's
thinking. He's cleaning all that out, cleaning all of it out. But it still looks okay. All right.
And the storage would just be, where he got this idea is my father built a deck onto their house and
underneath there was a nice area and that's where Ken got the idea. I just want to make sure that the
project is what we're seeing and it doesn't, in your mind it's not something different from what
So it's not a poured floor. It's the ground floor with gravel or so on. Correct? No. All right. No.
Thank you. All right. Do we have questions for staff at this moment from the board? We'll start with
Mr. Morris. No questions for me.
We know if anyone wants to speak against this. Or just that we don't we don't we don't. We'll ask in
a moment here. If you guys had any questions before that. No staff question. At this time we'll ask
if there's anybody in the audience or online that wishes to speak for this petition.
Seeing, hearing, nothing. Anyone that wishes to speak against this petition, either in the room or online
or on a phone? Seeing, hearing, nothing. All right. By this photo, 10 feet out, how far, sir, do the
peers then violate? 8 feet would be OK, but not 10.
So based on this photograph showing the destruction, it looks like it would be that corner there would
be where the majority of that disturbance in the steep slope area is located. I believe he said it was
eight foot. Yeah, about 10 foot. 10 foot. 10 foot. Oh, 10 foot. I apologize. Okay.
That is quite a steep slope down that hill. I can see that. No, I don't have any questions. The following
construction of eight six-by-six posts by my arithmetic, that would be a total fine
disturbance of two square feet in the the prohibited area and That's that two square feet, but it's
not 200 or 2,000 Yeah, I I'm just waiting
if there's anyone else has discussion, I am not sure. While I don't necessarily disapprove, I don't
know that a testified address has been made to the practical difficulty statement that our staff has
It is somewhat of an optional choice to put a deck on a barn, particularly with that slope. And that's
not a very generous-sized deck. It's a modest-sized deck, 10 feet. I can understand the space underneath.
It's alluring. I can get that. But it's definitely not a necessity in some ways. That slope looks pretty
serious. I actually have a follow-up question for the petitioner.
Were these post holes going to be hand dug or were you bringing a machine back there to do that? What
was your plan to dig the holes? A hand operated auger, is that what you're thinking about? That answers
your question, assistant director.
And that's less disturbance is what you're talking about. If it was a machine, it would be quite destructive
to bring it on that slope. That's a good point. Well, is a hand auger considered hand dug? I was envisioning
something with tracks. If there was something that would have to drive back there, that might be confirming.
You guys are the planners. Let me ask you, does the fact that these are hand dug posts, does that satisfy
your planning expertise, satisfy the spirit of the 15 degree slope ordinance?
I have seen that made as a condition of approval on slope type variances. Which is what I'm thinking.
And also I was going to have you pull up the watershed image that we have where the site is in relation
to Lake Monroe. And I don't know if you can see that at the very top. No, it's a distance. Right on
the edge of the watershed.
It is at the very top middle of that. There it is. I see it. So are you suggesting that a potential
disturbance could be minimal compared to if it were somewhere else? Is that what I'm reading into this?
I mean, I'm just pointing out that that is a finding of fact. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, with that,
I'm going to make a motion that we approve.
that the- variance twenty six dash thirteen the up church eco area to fifteen percent slope encroachment
variance to. Chapter eight twenty three with the condition. That the appears be hand dog without any
and second seconded. So we have a motion and a second. The motion is to approve based on the findings
with one condition of approval and that is that the peers within the restricted slopes are hand dug
and that means without machinery such as tracks that are going to disturb the slopes. Right so I will
go ahead and call the roll.
That also means the size of the deck is also predetermined by what they submitted to the 10 feet. That's
part of their petition, so that also is there. It would be following the site plan that is in the staff
packet there. Thanks for confirming that. All right, I'll go ahead and call the roll. Jeff Morris? Yes.
Kamala Davidson? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Guy Loftman, sorry.
Skip daily. This guy. I lost my track. Skip daily. Was that it? Yeah. I need a... I'm not certain that
a practical difficulty is demonstrated, but I believe the
of the ordinance of which you would be in violation is covered. It's passed regardless, so I'll add
a yes. All right, motion carries four to zero. Thank you, you've been approved. Thank you.
one of these two. We will move on. We have a double bill. We've got variance 26-14 alpha and 26-14 bravo.
The corridor accessory dwelling unit, 1,000 square foot size limitation to chapter eight, 11, and the
mid-corridor cost conservancy
Area Setback Variance to Chapter 826. If you're following along at home, it's on page 78 in your books.
And we have Mr. Brown. Oh, thank you. Was this where they were looking for? All right. So, yes. Should
we call them up to make a plea for that? Is that the proper protocol in this? All right. Is the petitioner here?
We understand that you wish to request a continuance on 26-14 alpha. All right. If you could sign in,
please, and go through the same rigmarole. Thanks for your patience this evening.
Hey, no problem. Thank you. All right, if you could. There you go. Do you swear to tell the truth in
your testimony as you know it? Yes, sir. All right. Fantastic. We'll go ahead and give you a chance
to plea on this continuous request. OK, first of all, my name is Robert McCord Jr., homeowner of 1837
East Sanders Second Avenue. The reason why I want to potentially continue
The first variance is after I finally got a phone call back from the land surveyor and legal advice.
It has been brought to my attention that the determination of lot of record may not be correct. And
this would cause a big can of worms if we were to combine two dwellings on to the same property with.
not the correct determination, I believe. So I may have to apply for an appeal later. When are you thinking
you would like to continue this? I know the land surveyor told me that he could get me a site, a whole
property site plan in three weeks. That's three weeks. Yep, but I would probably, my intention is to
table or get rid of this variance
because I don't think it is gonna be needed. And I don't know how we proceed about discussing that,
Daniel. We would review any evidence that is brought to us and then make a determination that way. I
have a question. Has this variance proposal been paid for? It has, yes. Okay, so if he were to throw
it away and have to resubmit at some point, at that point he would have to
pay again. The fee to continue and you could continue this out two months, three months is $20. And
if you want to completely withdraw that part, then you would be paying that fee over again. I believe
I'm looking after your wallet. That's why I'm asking these questions. I appreciate that. I would I would
just like to can I go into depth a little bit of why I think based off of the
determination from the land surveyor? Do you want a time limit on this? I'm just asking. The matter
that's before us right now is whether or not we will approve you to continue. We can't make any decision
based on if it's a good idea for you to do that or not. My guess is coming before the board right now
and saying you've got some site plan stuff that's in question, my guess is you're not going to have
a problem.
being offered a continuance. That is my thought. Don't quote me on that, but that is my belief. So that
is the only matter. So we're not going to set a clock. We're just going to say ask for it or make it
known that you want it withdrawn. And if you want a continuance, just give us a, hey, today's May, let's
do it in September.
or let's do it in August or let's do it whenever. And then at that point, you can pay your $20 for the
continuance. And then if you wish a later date to make a decision based on the information that you
receive, you can make that decision. Is that fair? Yeah, that's fine. I would like to continue this
in post-market for June. That would be one month from now.
one month, so three weeks. So July, let's do July just to give me some time. Yeah. All right. And we
often have our calendar a little askew in July because of the 4th of July holiday. Assistant director,
could you pull up when July's meeting? It's often the last Wednesday of June. I'm not mistaken. As long
as I'm not on duty at the firehouse, that'll be fine.
It is July 8th. Oh, it's July 8th. Okay. So you're requesting a continuance on variance 26-14 alpha
until July 8th. Is that correct? Do we have room on the docket for that? We would. And so this is for
VAR-26-14A. Yes. Okay. And that is to continue.
I would note I will not be able to attend that meeting, which if there isn't a quorum, it just would
get continued automatically again. But hopefully everybody else will be able to be here, but I will
have to pay another $20. No, OK. It's 600 and all that. It's easy already there. Fair enough, alright.
Okay, so you've made an official request to continue this until the July 8th meeting. Do I hear any
motion on this? I'll move to continue variance 26-14A until the July 8th meeting, based on the introduction
of more evidence. All right, do I hear a second? Second. All right, it's been moved and seconded.
Assistant director, could you please call a roll. I think Pamela Davidson. Oh, sorry. Well, this is
a motion to continue to July 8th, 2026. Thank you. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Guy Loftman.
Yes. Skip Bailey. Yes.
Motion carries four to zero. So we will be focusing tonight then on VAR-26-14B, which deals with a karst
conservancy area variance. Absolutely. All right. And at this point, Ms. McCor, if I could ask you to
step down and we're going to provide Mr. Brown the floor and he will go through his presentation. You've
got it. Thank you.
So since we will be focusing on VAR-26-14B, I will say that the purpose of this variance is to establish
a 1,600 square foot residential accessory structure on the property. That is discussion about A, which
was continued. So Chapter 826-3 of the County Development Ordinance states that all Karst features must
have a Karst Conservancy area
that at minimum encompasses the entire karst and all area within 50 feet of said karst. However, the
petitioner's proposed garage would be located approximately five feet from the karst itself, so a variance
is required. The petitioner does argue that alternative locations for this garage other than the target
site are incredibly limited since there is steep slope on much of the property and it is in the environmental
constraints area two
as well as the fact that much of the buildable area is already taken up by septic systems as seen in
exhibit five. In particular, these are the standards for 826-3G. Would the board like me to go through
these? No, we've seen them, thank you. All right. So here are two images showing the Karst Conservancy
area. The image on the left shows the Karst as it is shown on
Beacon GIS, we mark this by noting closed contours that have elevation that goes down as you get further
inwards and measure from the furthest out closed contour. So that is the image on the left. The image
on the right shows the blue line that shows how much of the area of
1837 East 2nd Sanders Avenue is within the Cars Conservancy area based on our estimates. And here is
the location map and zoning map of the property, as well as comprehensive plan and site conditions map.
Here is a rough elevates view of, here's a rough eagle view
of the property. I apologize if this is inaccurate. I did have to somewhat draw this in because the
lines on Eagle View were glitching out and not providing an accurate view. Here is the view of the driveway
onto the property as well as several other properties off the driveway. The image on the right, it shows the
here is the image on the left is the home that is going to be the subject of VAR-2614A, but on the right
is roughly the area where the proposed garage is to be placed, roughly measuring from the picnic table
to the red pickup truck. Here is a admittedly not too good
This is a photo showing where the karst is on a property to the south. The karst and the karst conservancy
area kind of expand onto the subject lot. Here is a map the petitioner provided of septics that are
on the property. On the left, the leftmost black rectangle is the septic system for 1837 East Second Sanders.
Middlemost black rectangle is roughly the location of the septic for the home across the driveway at
1839 East Second Sanders, and the one on the right is the septic system for 1845 East Second Sanders.
There is one area that staff has identified as potentially where the garage could go without encroaching
into the car's conservancy area or encroaching into areas of steep slope and the environmental constraints
overlay area two, as shown here. It would be limited to areas pretty much within the blue and green
here. And this is more related to VR dash
So I will just kind of run through this. And so in regards to VAR-26-14B, staff recommends denial, as
practical difficulties have not been demonstrated, as petitioner could potentially relocate the proposed
garage to an area that is out of the Curse Conservancy area. However, if the Board of Zoning Appeals
does approve VAR-26-14B, the Drainage Board will need to review the project.
The review is tentatively at this time on the agenda for May 19th, 2026. And I will take any questions.
Do we have any questions for staff before we bring up the petitioner? I'd like to hear a petitioner.
All right, Mr. McQuarter, come on down. You're the next contestant. Now, please remember that you are
still under oath for your testimony.
And you're 15 minutes. Let's go ahead and reset that if you will. Let's let's start. OK. All righty,
so this afternoon I did take a couple of pictures of that location where Daniel was speaking, which
is on the north side there. If you can. That one there. So do I present these to you that I or?
You can request permission to approach and it's granted. Don't speak because it's not on the record,
but you can hand it to him and go back. And there are two pictures. Yes, and I'll look at them. He'll
explain them in front of the Mike. I look at the self and then I will hand them down to my what is he
looking at? OK, so there's two pictures. One is where the easement runs all the way north through that
property there for power lines. You can go back to that.
That square Daniel. Yep, that one. So there is a power pole that goes and then there's a drop that goes
from that power pole across the property, which that electrical would have to be moved, which Duke and
energy and all that would have to approve on getting that relocated. There is also a propane tank there
that has an underlying gas line to the house, so that would have to also be relocated if that was a
place to get moved. And there is a
waterway on a landscaping pond right in the front there. That is also there that would have to be relocated.
So in my eyes practical. What's that second difficulties difficulties that would be extremely difficult
to do moving and relocating all that stuff.
If we go to the one with all the skeptics on Daniel, if you would please. So yes, unfortunately, this
is how all these properties are set up. My septic is in my backyard for 1837, the home to the north
of me. It was approved by the county to put that septic system all the way down there. And therefore
I can't it's right in my front yard. It's my uncle septic system.
It's there. I can't build on top of it. Even the lines that the septic permit show go across the north
side of my house up to his storage tanks. So to build over the top of that on the north side of my house
to would not be very. I think it demonstrates practical difficulties and then the second location which
would be East.
On my father's property. If I continued with that first variance was going to be right over his septic
system and his front yard and can't do it there. So what I tried to do was map out based off of property
setbacks and lines a 40 by 40 spot that is right in front of my current garage that I have which
We are growing family. I have a 14 year old boy that's going to be starting to drive in two years. As
you can see, I can't even fit mine and my wife's car in our current garage because we also have kids
who have bicycles and I have a lawnmower and. Those Rogers are not built. Yeah, if you wouldn't mind
going with the red truck in 2001 that garage wasn't built for an SUV or a truck so.
We are out of space. Also, I have a recreational camper that I like to go to the state parks in. That's
what me and my family do for all the holidays. And it is outside underneath Tarp. You could go to the
aerial shot, just one of them. And that is another, yep, that one, my camp right here, which is towards
the end of the driveway.
And I want to put that inside to keep it protected as it's an investment for me and my family as well.
And that's one of the main reasons to build that garage there. I feel like it's clearly set back away
from the property lines on the south side of the property. I understand that the cars features there,
but as you can see, I honestly think that's the only place that I can put it. There's nowhere else that
I can. I also wanted to ask,
Or mention that within this car's conservatory area the KCA already, if you wouldn't mind going to the
yellow. You can see my neighbor to the south his corner of his house is already in it. The next neighbor
to the West, the corner of their property is on that slope and I believe in 2016 2017 they put a septic
system in that area which.
To my recollection, it was 2015 that this ordinance was adopted for KCAs, is that correct, for 50 feet?
It was 2024. 2024, but it was 25 feet prior, correct? That's correct. Okay, so even with the 25 foot
prior, I believe a variance would have had to have been approved for that septic system go inside the
KCA, because if I'm correct,
even set back away from it. It's inside of it. And so I think that's that's also good evidence. I'm
not going to be in it. I'm close to that rim that is designated. I understand that there's a setback
for the ordinance. I think it's right around 20 feet of what the garage is going to be within that 50
foot. Is that correct? It's basically half of it. And so that's
That's my difficulties, I guess I would say. Are you planning to leave the existing garage there and
build a second one in this other spot? So the garage will be there. Yes, that will stay there. As of
right now, that is going to be an accessory room onto our house.
I'm not even taking the garage door out. But yes, this garage will take that place. You will not be
able to get a vehicle in and out of there based on the property lines and my setbacks that I have to
stay from. There's no way I could build a garage on my property. That's as I've shown you that won't
be in front of that one, unfortunately. And that's why I need to make it bigger.
And I have a question for Mr. Brown. He has said that the site, the staff likes has the propane tanks,
the pool, the rock pool that we saw in the picture. And utilities. And what else? Utility line. And
the utility lines. So that is the spot that we're recommending, the staff is recommending.
Well, we weren't aware that a gas utility line was there. We were aware that there was an easement,
as shown on a survey that was done back in 1991. However, we believed that the area proposed was far
away enough from that easement to qualify. However, the utility line, such as the gas utility line,
that was not known to staff when we made this recommendation. With that being said,
can you confirm that that gas line is there at this point? We do not have that information at this time.
Okay, if it were confirmed, would that change your recommendation? Would that change your belief that
there would be another place on the property? I believe it might, yes. Okay, thank you. All right, Ms.
Loppen, you have something to say? Yeah, well, I have some
something to ask, some things to ask, four and a half things to say. I don't know whether staff or Mr.
McQuarter is better to answer that, Mr. Brown or Mr. McQuarter, but there's a 50-foot setback from the
rim. The proposed garage is in that setback. Here's what I'm gonna get at, so let me start there.
We had, as I recall, a sort of a similar thing not too long ago. And in that situation, they were able
to put gutters on the building they were talking about so that the water all discharged outside the
50-foot. The construction was inside, but the discharge was entirely outside.
Do you know whether that would be something you would be able to do? Actually, if you do have the 15%
grade map on here at all for. I can bring that up real quick. If you look at this picture here on the
left where it has the rim of the KCA right where I want to put the back of the garage is actually up
probably 6 or 7 feet.
from the back slope of the house. It actually shows up red, like those marks do, because I think it's
too steep of a grade to build on. And so the garage will actually go in front of that. And then as the
right side of it has to be built up, it would then slope towards the driveway. Yeah, so that yellow
marker there is where the back of the garage would meet.
And so this pad where we're currently parked, all slopes towards driveway this way. That make sense?
Yeah, it slopes away from the cars. Yes, it slopes away from the cars currently. And then for the garage
construction, this southern side of it will also have to be built up to get the garage square and flat,
right? And then slope towards that. So all the water would then run away from
Okay, so let me be real specific. If a condition of granting your request was that the drainage for
the building drained away from the karst area, would that be acceptable to you? It sounds like it's
plan A, and plan A is fine with you. Yeah, that is perfectly fine with me, yes.
Very good, that's my question. Mr. Morris, do you have anything to add before we ask for public comment?
Hearing nothing, is there anybody online that wishes to speak for or against this? Seeing nobody.
I did see Mr. Morris pop back up. Let's get his two cents real quick. Thank you, Mr. Daley. I had just
turned on my camera in case you called me. I didn't have any further comment. Yes, he was away from
the microphone. And let me summarize. The petitioner testified that the way he plans to build this
the drainage would all go away from the karst and would be where the water would discharge would be
outside the 50 foot area. And that he'd be happy to have that as a condition because it's what he plans
to do anyway. Fair summary? Yes, sir. Clarify, Mr. Morris. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Lawson. All right, is
there any other board discussion? Anyone want to ask questions or chat about the weather?
not at this point. All right. Anyone? You asked specific questions, and you seem to have... Oh, well,
do we have the public? We already asked. Nobody wanted to talk. Okay. That being the case, I move that
we approve
Various 2614B McWhorter-Karst Conservancy area setback at 1837 E Sanders Second Avenue and 1845 E Sanders
Second Avenue with the condition that any gutters and drainage from the construction go away from the
Karst area and discharge outside the 50-foot setback.
And should we add to that the practical difficulties have been made because met because of the utility
lines? Yes, practical difficulties have been made and when in terms of putting it at what might have
been a practical alternate location turns out to be impractical. Second that motion. We have a second
and can we have a roll call on that vote or do you have?
something else. We had a condition recommended in the staff packet that if the Board of Zonian Appeals
approves VAR-26-14B that the Drainage Board will need to review the project. The review is tentatively
set for the May 19th, 2026 meeting. Well, let me say this. That's a very important point.
If the, let me ask staff, if the- Would that not have to, I'm gonna interrupt you. Would that not already
have to be a condition? Oh, that's not a legal condition already if we were to approve this? I mean,
if you had denied it, it would not have to go to the board or to the drainage board. Okay. But because
it is being approved here, then it does need to go. And so I would add a condition that
it only proceed that the project only proceed if the drainage board approves it, or in accordance with
any conditions the drainage board sets. Is that language that you were seeking, Mr. Brown and Assistant
Director Berman? So you would want to switch the original condition that you had crafted about the gutters
and the drainage going out? I want to have both. You want to have both? Great. I can do both. And I
will second that.
It changed motion. Okay, that's been seconded There's been a motion and a second to approve VAR-26-14B
which is the McWhorter Karst Conservancy area setback to chapter 826 and there are two conditions one
is a condition in the staff report that reads that the drainage board will need to review the project and
and it is tentatively on the agenda for May 19th, 2026. And the second agenda crafted by the BCA was
that any gutters and drainage discharge should be away from the Karst Conservancy area and should be
discharged outside of the KCA, Karst Conservancy area. All right, so there was a motion and a second.
I'll go ahead and call the roll. Jeff Morris? Yes.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
The drainage board is held in the showers building on the first floor. If you contact the stormwater
department, they will be able to tell you when exactly, when at the exact time and place. All right,
Mr. Schilling, assistant director and Mr. Brown and Mr. Myers, Mr. DeVaya, thank you for your service
and your time. Board members, thank you. Can I hear someone call for an adjournment? I'll move to adjourn.
All right, adjourn.