- Okay, it's five thirty, so I'll call to order the June Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Ms. Behrman,
- would you call the roll? Margaret Clements? Here. Daley? Pamela Davidson? Guy Loftman? Here. Jeff Morris?
- Here. We have three members in person and that does constitute a quorum. Okay, could you please introduce
- the evidence for tonight?
- I would like to introduce for the Board of Zoning Appeals the following items into evidence, the Monroe
- County Development Ordinance as adopted and amended, 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'd like to move approval
- of the evidence. Second.
- There's been a motion and a second. Guy Loftman? Yes, I'm sorry. I did try to second. I'll move my microphone
- closer and see if that helps. A second. All right, and I'll go ahead and call the roll. Guy Loftman?
- Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Clemens? Yes. Motion carried.
- Okay, for our agenda tonight, staff has informed me that the minutes to approve from April 1st, 2026
- are not ready. So as we approve the agenda, if we could remove the approval of minutes. I would like
- to move that the agenda be approved with that modification. Did Mr. Schilling have something he wanted
- to put on our agenda this evening? I can do that under the legal department report if
- We're still on there, but if not, we can add a legal department report at the end. I'd like to move
- approval of the agenda with the amendment that the minutes are not included from the April 1st meeting
- and that we will have a report from the legal department at the end of our meeting.
- There's been a motion and a second to approve the agenda with the minutes removed and to add a legal
- department report at the end. Jeff Morris? Yes. Guy Hoffman? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Motion carries
- three to zero.
- Hey, we have no administrative business tonight. And the first item under old business, the Donovan
- buildable area has been continued by the petitioner to July 8th. So we will not hear that tonight. So
- we will jump straight into new business. And the first item is VAR-26-16. This is the French accessory
- dwelling unit, 1,000 square foot size limit, various to chapter 811. So Mr. Myers. Thank you.
- All right, this is located at 8616 North Mount Tabor Road in Bean Blossom Township, section 15. It is
- part of a platted subdivision. It's lot one of the White Hawk Farm LLC type E administrative subdivision
- and the petition site measures 22.27 acres. It's zoned agricultural residential. It's the comprehensive
- plan designated as farm and forest and its current use is residential and agricultural.
- The petitioner is requesting one development standards variance to the detached accessory dwelling unit
- standards of Chapter 811. The petitioner proposes to construct a new detached accessory dwelling unit,
- also known as a DADU, consisting of 1,493.33 square feet of living space. The dwelling unit will also
- include an attached garage which will not be heated or cooled and therefore does not count towards the
- total residential living space of the dwelling.
- The petition site currently contains an existing 2,061 square foot single family residence, a 1,536
- square foot pole barn, and several utility sheds measuring approximately 80 square foot each. According
- to the petitioner, the purpose of the proposed accessory dwelling unit is to provide a place for their
- parents to live nearby. The petitioner has acquired a minimum specifications document from the Monroe
- County Health Department for the installation of a new septic system for this proposed detached accessory
- dwelling unit.
- All the detached accessory dwelling unit is subject to Chapter 811-4C, which outlines multiple conditions
- that must be met in order for this particular use to be granted for the property. There is one particular
- standard of that set that cannot be met, and that is the limitation to 1,000 square feet of livable
- residential space under the AGR zoning district. So because the
- proposal is 1,493.33 square feet of living space. It exceeds the 1,000 square foot limitation by a total
- of 493.33 square feet. That is the only condition of the Chapter 811-4C conditions that cannot be met,
- and all other development standards for the AGR zone, according to the County Development Ordinance,
- will be met by this proposal.
- On the screen, I have definitions, including the accessory dwelling unit definition, as well as a definition
- for livable residential space. These are both included in the packet as well. Do have some outcomes
- for this particular petition. If denied, the petitioner will be limited to 1,000 square feet of living
- space for the detached accessory dwelling unit. The petitioner could potentially pursue a partial plat
- vacation of the Whitehawk
- a two lot sliding scale subdivision that would create a separate lot for the proposed dwelling unit.
- The proposed dwelling unit would then become the primary single family residence on the new lot and
- thereby avoid the need for this variance. If approved, the petitioner can continue with the permitting
- process for the detached accessory dwelling unit. Residential construction planning pre-design or PILP
- will be required followed by an improvement location permit
- And then, finally, a residential building permit from the building department. A certified plot plan
- is required in order to receive an ILP and an affidavit satisfying Chapter 811-4C1 will be required
- and recorded at the Monroe County Recorder's Office before a certificate of occupancy is issued.
- That affidavit refers to either the property owner, excuse me, it refers to the property owner living
- in either the accessory dwelling unit or the primary residence. And according to statements from the
- petitioner, the property owner will be residing in the single-family residence. Here we have the location
- map. We're in Bean Blossom Township. The zoning map here shows agricultural residential along with the
- properties in its vicinity.
- Here we have the site conditions map. The red on the map indicates slope greater than 25%. We are outside
- of the Lake Monroe watershed and the Lake Lemon watershed. See the different contours on the property
- on this map. We also have a summary of improvements listed here as well that details the existing structures
- on the property.
- Now we have some aerial imagery here. The proposed detached accessory dwelling unit will be occurring
- right about here where my cursor is. That would be just northwest of the bend in the driveway as you
- go towards the existing pole barn and existing single family residence. So it will be utilizing a shared
- driveway as required by chapter 811-4C. Some other pictures here of the site.
- Then we have some pictures on the ground. This is the driveway entrance to the petition site off of
- North Mount Tabor Road driveway going onto the property. And the lower right-hand photograph is the
- site for the proposed detached accessory dwelling unit. It may be hard to see, but there are a few white
- stakes in the background there, and that is the proposed site for the new dwelling unit. Same with these
- photographs. It's hard to see, but there are white
- flags as well indicating here where the septic system will go for the proposed dwelling unit. Then,
- of course, here we have the existing single family residence and the pole barn you can see there. In
- the lower right hand photograph, we are exiting the property back down the existing driveway. So in
- that lower right hand photograph, the proposed dwelling unit would be to the right or north of that driveway.
- All right, so now on the screen, we have the letter from the petitioner to the Board of Zoning Appeals
- stating their request and their rationale as to why they are requesting having more square footage than
- the thousand square foot limitation. On the right, we have the petitioners provided a conceptual site
- plan that shows the location of the accessory dwelling unit as well as the septic and other measurements
- for the project. Of course.
- A certified plot plan will be required through the permitting process that will provide a high level
- of detail for the accessory dwelling unit and other features on the site, including property lines,
- setbacks, septic system, et cetera. Now on the screen, I included a copy of the White Hawk LLC, or excuse
- me, White Hawk Farm LLC type E administrative subdivision plat
- We are located in lot one, which is in the corner here in the northwest corner of the subdivision. And
- this is just a zoom in version of where we are at with respect to that subdivision as well. All right,
- that brings me to staff's recommendation. Staff recommends denial of VAR-26-16 indicating that practical
- difficulties have not been met.
- The strict application of the county development ordinance indicates that the proposed detached accessory
- dwelling unit can be reasonably redesigned to meet the thousand square foot maximum of residential living
- space. And I've also included here the definitions for practical difficulties. I will now take any questions.
- to speak. Did you raise your right hand and state your name? Andy French. Do you swear to tell the truth,
- the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. You have 15 minutes. So pretty much covered it. When
- we went to start this process and started looking at houses, the amount of
- houses under a thousand square foot is pretty limited. We originally went with one company that wasn't
- working out well. We hopped over to Clear Creek Homes and they've got very limited. The one they have
- on the lot I think is 950 square feet and it was not set up well at all for two people let alone two
- people later in life.
- when they have mobility issues and stuff like that. So that was one of our main concerns is just making
- the house as livable as possible once all that goes down. So that's the big thing. Also, I really just
- wanted to keep the property whole.
- You know, everybody's splitting properties and subdividing and making every lot size smaller and smaller
- and smaller. So we really just wanted to keep it the whole 22 acre property. My mom is also here. That's
- what this house is for is for my parents to move down. They live in northern Indiana and would like
- to be down here closer to the grandkids. And so she has some things to say. I don't know if we do that
- now or wait till public comment, but
- She can speak now and use part of your 15 minutes if you would like, or she can take her own three minutes.
- That's fine. OK. If she would like to come, is she online or here? Yeah. OK. Yeah. If you could raise,
- well, let's have tech services unmute her. So if you could raise your virtual hand so tech services
- knows who to unmute. Judy French. Yeah, tech services, could you? Thank you.
- Good evening, can you hear me? Yeah, could you raise your right hand and state whether you swear to
- tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You'll have the remainder
- of the 15 minutes. All right, I won't take long. Good evening, I'd like to thank you for your time and
- consideration this evening.
- My name is Judy French. My husband is unable to be here tonight because of his work schedule. But along
- with my husband, Andy, Megan and I have looked at homes and building companies for about a year and
- a half. And we've come to the conclusion that Clear Creek Homes as our builder and the floor plan that
- we've chosen would be a good fit for our housing needs and for the timeline that we feel would work for us.
- Our experience with Clear Creek Homes so far has been very positive and we look forward to working with
- them. We currently live in a very small log cabin that's less than 900 square feet. So we understand
- the restrictions of a small living space. It has been a challenge to be functional with only one bathroom
- and one bedroom and no storage.
- Living in this small home has made us realize that we are going to need something different as we age
- and need help. My health considerations have made it pretty difficult in this small space. We've provided
- elder care over a 20 year period to both of our parents and an aging uncle and fully understand what
- it takes to take care of someone and the needs that come with that.
- Walkers, wheelchairs, bed requirements, toileting aids, having the extra space to accommodate both our
- needs and someone to help us with our care would be a great benefit to all of us. Andy is an IU grad
- and has been down there for over 20 years, so we know what a beautiful place it is.
- Andy, his wife, her family are all deeply rooted in the area and we look forward to joining them and
- to be a contributing member of the community. We feel so blessed that they've asked us to join them
- on their property where we will be able to help one another as life gets more difficult. We are excited
- that we'll get to see our family on a daily basis, especially those little grandchildren.
- So again, I thank you for your time and your consideration this evening. Thank you, Miss French. Mr.
- French, did you have anything else to add? You've got about 11 minutes. I think that about covered it.
- Unless you have any more questions. I don't have any questions. All right. All right. Thank you.
- Thank you. We can turn now to public comment. Is there anybody here in the room who wishes to speak
- in favor of this petition? If so, you're welcome to come to the podium.
- Anyone online who wishes to speak in favor? You're welcome to raise your virtual hand. No one will come
- back in the room. If there's anybody here who wishes to speak against this petition, please come to
- the podium. Or if you're online and wish to speak against it, please raise your virtual hand.
- Seeing no one, we will close public comment and bring this back to the BZA for discussion and or a motion.
- I find the argument compelling that they want to keep
- this large parcel of 22 acres together and not subdivided. And I think that there are practical difficulties
- in terms of what is needed by the family to have an accessory dwelling unit on the property. And I found
- the testimony to be convincing. So if my colleagues don't object, I'd like to move approval.
- of this petition. Well, before we make a motion, I want to express some thoughts. Yes. OK? Yes. I did
- a little. This is a recurrent issue. Yes. We've again and again had somebody as they don't come before
- us if they make it 1,000 square feet. So we only get one side of the coin. But this has come up again
- and again. And we've been sympathetic, I think.
- generally sympathetic. In this case, we've got specific testimony that they lived in a thousand square
- feet, almost a thousand square feet dwelling. And given their condition and their needs, I think there's
- sufficient evidence that that's not practical for them and practical difficulties have been. But I also,
- checked how big is a two-bedroom apartment. And a two-bedroom apartment tends to be under 1,000
- feet or, you know, 800, 900 to 1,100, 1,200 square feet. And Dr. Google, Professor Google, who also
- says that a typical two-bedroom house is around 1,000 square feet.
- I've got a split between what people are telling me and what the web is telling me. Maybe if somebody
- comes in and makes a case that they need as much space as is designed here.
- Or that they simply can't find a building plan that suits their needs, which we've heard testimony to.
- So when it's time to make a motion, I'm glad to have the motion. I'm glad to have it to pass this because
- of what they've shown. But I wonder at some level whether we want to talk with the commissioners, suggest
- that we're having trouble with this 1,000-foot limitation and what people are saying to us again and
- again. And that for an actual couple in there as they're aging to live in 1,000 square feet is probably
- not practical, and we might suggest 1,500 feet maximum. Now, that's not business we're handling right now.
- But this has been on my mind since this petition came up. Yes. And my thoughts on that is it's one thing
- to put extra square footage like 1,500 square feet or 1,400 square feet on a 2.5-acre property than
- a 22-acre property. And there's a matter of scale that
- that if we are going to ask the commissioners to change our guidelines, that certainly for a two and
- a half acre property, 1,000 square feet makes sense as a limitation. But on anything larger than 10
- acres, I think that more leeway should be afforded to the requester up to 1,500 square feet
- All right, I tell you what, I think that's very sensible suggestion, and that we will continue to look
- as to whether anybody who wants a large dwelling can establish to our satisfaction to a majority satisfaction
- that practical difficulties are present in their individual case. Yes.
- I think that we have that record in this case. So if you want to make your motion, I am now ready to
- second it. Okay. With regard to VAR-26-16 for a property at 8660 North Mount Tabor Road, I believe that
- practical difficulties have been expressed and met
- that there are conditions on the property and there's a value for keeping the large tract of land together.
- And that it doesn't seem to inhibit the enjoyment of other properties in the nearby vicinity. And the
- petitioner has also expressed that they've already looked at other designs and the designs
- are not satisfactory to the projection of their life going forward and their needs. And so I don't think
- that the petitioner can reasonably overcome the restrictions without an excessive cost. So I'd like
- to move approval of this
- petition the French accessory dwelling unit on the 1000 square foot size limitation. Second. There's
- been a motion and a second to approve the French accessory dwelling unit size limitations chapter 811.
- This is for petition AR dash 26 dash 16. Margaret Clements? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes.
- Motion carries three to zero.
- Thank you, health and happiness to your family. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Moving on to the
- second item on the agenda. This is VAR-26-17. This is the Washington Township sidewalk various to chapter
- 818. And Mr. Loftman, it appears that staff are recommending approval with no conditions. I'm wondering.
- In light of that circumstance, I call the question.
- and suggest that you inquire as to whether they're the buddy who would oppose this petition. Okay, is
- there anyone here in the room who opposes this petition? If so, could you raise your hand? Seeing no
- one, is there anyone online who opposes this petition? If so, could you raise your virtual hand? Okay,
- seeing no one, we will come back to the Board of Zoning.
- I move that we approve variance 26-17 Washington Township sidewalk variance to chapter 818, 505 West
- Simpson Chapel Road in Washington Township. I second that, sorry. And for all the reasons set forth
- in the report. I second that.
- There's been a motion and a second to approve the washington township sidewalk variants to chapter Eight
- in petition number var-26-17. I will call the roll Jeff morris. Yes By lofman. Yes Margaret clements.
- Yes motion carries three to zero and is approved
- Item number three is CDU-26-1. This is the Turner wireless communication facility conditional use to
- chapter 812. And again, we have staff recommendation for approval. No, I think it's with conditions.
- Am I wrong? Let me. My note to myself says with conditions. Staff, did you have conditions on this?
- I think it's conditional use. I got tricked by conditional use from seeking
- Conditions. Yeah, there are no careful reading is always an important part of this job So that being
- the case I moved I call the question Hey, do we have anyone here in the room who wishes to speak against
- this petition if you could raise your hand to let us know that Seeing no one do we have anyone online
- who wishes to speak against this petition if you could raise your virtual hand to let us know and
- Seeing no one, I will bring this back to the meeting. I move we approve item three on our agenda, CDU-26-1,
- Turner Wireless Communication Facility Conditional Use on one acre parcel in Richland Township at 7721
- Reeves Road for the reason set forth in the staff report.
- I second. I'd like to say that the presentation in the packet was very thorough and very well documented
- and so we appreciate them coming to our community and so I definitely second this. We hope they won't
- be disappointed by not getting to give an oral presentation. On this beautiful day. On this excellent riddle.
- All right, there's been a motion and a second for petition CDU-26-1. This is the Turner Wireless
- Communication Facility conditional use to Chapter 812. Yes, there's a vote to approve the conditional
- use. Margaret Clements? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Motion carried. Three to zero.
- Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for your very quick presentation. Thank you.
- Okay, moving on to item number four. This is ADR-26-1. This is the McWhorter Administrative Appeal to
- Lot of Record Determination.
- screen here.
- really expanded coverage, you know, with that tower. That's really going to be good. Residents.
- All right. I don't know if this microphone is picking me up.
- Sean leave or is he coming back? I'm not sure. Sorry, technical difficulties.
- I'm going to try one more time to share a different way. I don't know why.
- won't let me share the whole screen. Okay. There it is. I learned something new. Old tab I didn't know
- existed. All right. So this is case number ADR dash
- 26-1, it's an appeal of the director's issuance of a lot of record determination. There is a recommended
- motion to affirm the administrator's determination. I have included the rules of procedure for the Board
- of Zoning Appeals as reference, because there are a few things in there that are relevant to an appeal.
- We don't see these that often, so I gave those to you just
- in case you wanted to review. And then the County Development Ordinance discusses the applicability,
- the appeal procedure, and the fact that you do have powers and duties to hear and determine appeals
- from any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official or staff
- member under this ordinance.
- There are eight exhibits within the packet, so I'm hoping that you had a chance to familiarize several
- of these. I will be kind of going over each of these for the presentation and just mostly scrolling
- through the packet. The petitioner here is Lacey R. McWhorter and Robert W. McWhorter Jr. There are
- two residences on the parcel or lot of record at hand.
- 1837 East Sanders 2nd Avenue and 1845 East Sanders 2nd Avenue. I put both parcel numbers there. And
- we call this platted because we do have evidence that the McWhorter minor subdivision was approved back
- in the 90s, I believe.
- So summary, you guys heard this last month, but from a different context entirely. So the petitioner
- residing at 183070 Sanders Second Avenue applied for residential construction planning redesign, the
- PILP-124 to construct a detached accessory structure. The property associated with the application was
- made up of two non-contiguous parcels, which is an unusual scenario.
- This lot layout required planning department staff to conduct more research as it did not directly align
- to our definition of lot of record within the CDO In the process of said research staff found that this
- parcel was involved in the McWhorter minor subdivision and approved in 1990 and subsequently recorded
- in February 20th of 1991 said subdivision depicted the parcels of 1837 East and
- Sanders 2nd Avenue and 1845 East Sanders 2nd. One legal 10.41 acre property per a lot of record definition
- under the CDO. Keep the proposed construction project moving forward, the petitioner acquired a variance
- from the Karst Conservancy area standards from the Board of Zoning Appeals last month, May 6, 2026.
- But they continued their request to convert the home at 1837 East Sanders Second Avenue to a detached
- accessory dwelling unit in order to appeal the lot of record determination. If the lot of record staff
- determination is affirmed, the petitioner may continue forward with the daddy request in order to keep
- the second residence and construct the accessory structure
- Or they may seek another planning process that would allow two residences on the same lot of record.
- Right, so in the background section, we have the definition for lot of record under Chapter 850. And
- it's the very first sentence that staff hung their hat on, that a lot, which was created by a subdivision,
- the plat of which has been approved and
- as required by applicable county, city, and state law recorded in the office of the Monroe County recorder
- or parcel of land, the bounds which have been legally established by separate deed fully recorded by
- the office of Monroe County recorder. We believe that that 10.41 acre lot fit that description. Then
- when staff re-reviewed the McWhorter minor subdivision file,
- There were some early references using a 7.14 acre parcel to be used for the subdivision as shown in
- the agenda and legal notices in exhibit 13, or sorry, exhibit three. These documents, just from experience,
- they would have been created early on in the review process by staff because you have to have your agenda
- laid out in order to send out public notices. So we do that kind of first.
- But then later on in the file, the staff report, the meeting minutes, there's a deed to the 2.19 acre
- lot that was recorded in 1990. Those, following that subdivision approval, all reference the 10.41 acre
- property on the survey. So Fishner's residence, I say it's built around 2003. That's when the assessor's
- office picked it up to be
- taxed. I don't know exactly when that was built. We don't have any records of them obtaining an improvement
- location permit. Oftentimes people will claim a log cabin request for building a structure, but that
- doesn't necessarily exempt them from an improvement location permit to make sure they're not building
- in a floodplain. We also kind of like to confirm that there's a lot of record there as well. So the
- staff lot of record determination letter, which is exhibit
- Six explains that an amendment to the recorded minor subdivision, with that 10.41 acres, that would
- have had to occur in order to allow an additional lot for the home at 1837 East Sanders Avenue. And
- because they never applied for permits, I think we didn't catch it during that time. So I imagine that
- we'll look at this diagram here quite a bit this evening. A little bit solid.
- So what we currently have is lot one is a five acre parcel. And we did have addresses that switched.
- So if you're really paying close attention to the minor subdivision file folder versus permits versus
- what we see today, there are some address shifts in time. We had, I think it was in 2017 that we kind
- of did an overhaul of this area for addressing and road names.
- have to list both of them. But there's a five acre lot listed under the blue number one. And we believe
- that during that minor subdivision process, it combined with the 3A and three portions to make that
- 10.41 acre lot. The green number two, that is the one that we have as the 2.19 acre lot. And that seems
- like a very legitimate subdivision lot that was created. A few other things to note.
- If you are at 3 and 3A, they both list under the assessor's office, the auditor's property report card
- is 5.26 acres total. And then also those parcel numbers are the same. And so we just don't usually see
- that split. Usually if someone has several parcels making up a lot of record, they're contiguous. In
- this case, they weren't. You had to take a deeper dive into why.
- my own kind of clarity and trying to organize the report. I kind of listed off all of the deeds that
- are referenced and kind of listed them in order and gave them the acreage to the side there. I also
- kind of included a few other major things that occurred out here, mostly specifically with the minor
- subdivisions such as the fourth line down. We have a septic permit that was issued in August of 1990.
- I do have that, you know,
- We have the survey that's in the packets, the original with the surveyors stamp. It was not recorded
- yet. It doesn't get recorded until February. And then the items in purple are also associated with that
- McWhorter file for the subdivision. So we have the application, a driveway permit, the plan commission
- approval. There's a letter from plan commission and the staff.
- that allow the 2.19 acre to be recorded in November 2nd of 1990, that is just shortly after it was approved.
- And this would then allow that person to record the deed and start their building permits getting in
- order. And I will say that that deed from November 2nd, 1990, it references the 10.41 acre survey
- has what we believe a lot of record. And there's an easement that's within that also. Minutes that were
- shared with the McWarders. And then we finally, in February, see Tract 1 survey and Tract 1A survey
- recorded. And then we kind of get into some very interesting. So we have the house built on the 2.19
- acre lot in 1991.
- And then we start seeing deeds that don't fully make sense to us. One of them was from 1999. This deed
- in order to create the lot that was taken out of a seven acre parcel would have needed a subdivision
- process. And they did not come to the planning department to do that. And then we have a corrected deed
- that's after that. We then see in the aerials that the house has been built sometime
- or at least the property report card says 2003, and then two more instruments. The most current deed
- doesn't even list the acreage. And then in exhibit four, as I was reviewing the staff file from 1990,
- I did see those discrepancies where sometimes it was mentioned at 7.14. So basically that 7.14
- makes up the 2.19.
- 5.26 acres combined and leaves out the five acres, which is to the east. But then as time progresses,
- everything then references that whole surveyed parcel 10.41 and 2.19. Exhibit five are things that were
- found in the 1990 file for the McWarner Minor subdivision. We have the subject permit.
- We also have this, this is the survey with the original stamps in red ink from Lee Oot. And thank you.
- And then we have the tract one legal description of 10.41 acres. And we have the tract one A description
- of 2.19 acres. Here we have the survey itself.
- And then also, I hadn't seen this before, but we have the, this property in the staff report was noted
- as being in the Lake Monroe watershed. It's also depicted that there's a karst feature in this. That's
- the depressed area right here. And so this was what you guys granted that variance from for the garage
- month. This is the letter from
- for the specific request for making this subdivision. And then we have a driveway permit that was later
- submitted, references the address, old address before it was changed. And this is the staff report,
- where the staff report mentions the 12.60 acres and they're doing in order to create the 2.1 acre lot.
- They mentioned the non-exclusive easement, which we do see in deeds. Those easements always reference
- the 10.41 acre lot. And I did find it interesting that, yeah, they do mention that the permit was, that
- this was the most desirable area to develop both topographically and aesthetically for their son's home.
- So that's the one on the 2.19 acre lot. And then the staff's,
- location map references the entire 12 plus acres. We have the letter from November 2nd, 1990 that basically
- escorts a deed to go be recorded for the 2.19 acres that occurred for the two lot subdivision date that
- was approved on October 16th. And then I didn't include the deed here because it does show up
- later on in the exhibit eight from John Bethel title. So I did not include that deed again. Didn't want
- to be too redundant. These are the minutes and the minutes reference minor subdivision and the 2.19
- acre being created from 12.6. We have a letter, a copy of the letter that was sent to the McWarders
- with enclosed minutes.
- In the file, I found reference here to this area that my cursor is over. I'm not sure if you can see
- that, but they circled basically the seven acre portion, not the entirety with the added five. And then
- also the legal notices, which reference the 7.14. So that's a discrepancy. And a little note
- in the file and I can't tell you if this was purposely scribbled out or not but it talks about the existing
- house on the adjacent five acre properties on a separate five acres got crossed out I'm not sure exactly
- if that means it's not a separate five acre lot or if they were going to keep it together yet that was
- just something I wanted to present as a finding. I didn't want to bury any of this information and then
- just planning staff we have a card catalog for petitions
- prior to 1997. It's a great catalog that we use a lot for reference, and that does reference here the
- 12.6 acres. So then we have this planning lot of record determination. Would you want me to read it?
- I think about four pages. I have to request just a minute or two break. I think I forgot to pay the meter.
- And so I better run down there and pay my parking meter. I'm sorry. And since we'll break quorum, let's
- just take a quick break. Yep. Well, it's easier if I do it because it's with a credit card. Okay, I'll
- give it to Drew. See if I can give you change. Can you use my credit card?
- this. Yeah, it's about three quarters in there. So you're an Acapulco. Sorry about that. Sorry.
- Thank you. Sorry about that. I obviously I'm not hitting on all cylinders. Thank you.
- Okay, so we have three more exhibits to go over. This one is the staff's letter of determination.
- Kind of in, I believe, two parts. This was done by Director Gellin prior to her absence. So this is
- what she had sent April 15th to the petitioner. There's a portion from
- April 18th that references the April 2nd letter. And then we have also then the April 2nd letter, which
- is where we kind of had reviewed the minor subdivision file, had reviewed the lot of record determination,
- or legal, the description, sorry, the definition of lot of record. And then we also kind of
- them what we thought was the relevant information at the time to say that we thought it was a lot of
- record. We gave them the ability to appeal and gave them a very specific date which they did meet and
- that's why they're here this evening. And I think really it was that the re-separation of the 1999 deed
- would have required an amendment to the recorded minor subdivision that was
- originally in 1990, and we do not have a record of this occurring. The title company that submits information
- for exhibit eight also was unable to find something like that as well. So for the CDO, only one primary
- structure can be placed on a legal lot of record. And since there are two established homes on the property,
- we need to address first the legal lot of record question before we can proceed with the ILP.
- They're here basically, they could convert to the DADU and continue next month with that petition. Or
- they're doing the appeal here to see if the evidence that's being supplied by staff and then also their
- exhibits will make a different outcome and that you think there are two legal lots of record here. But
- then the John Bethel Title Company submitted
- a lot of information. Would you want me to read their letter or were you able to take time to do that?
- I have looked at it again and again. Okay. Yeah, this was a tricky report for me to write. We have it.
- I think we all have
- Thank you. All right. So then, and then the John Bethel title company has a lot of basically that spreadsheet
- that I made earlier for exhibit two, the timeline. It goes over each one of these deeds and these were
- ones that we had reviewed as staff as well. And so it was helpful that they were able to supply these
- as well and kind of
- what we had been seeing, but they also then went above and beyond and kind of made matches to the different
- parcel numbers and the different acreages for each of these deeds. So I'm just gonna kind of scroll
- through here. And a lot of these should be matching that Excel spreadsheet that I did for exhibit three.
- And then this is the survey.
- description for the 10.41 acres for Track 1, Track 1A. I did include those. This is the survey that
- was also included in the file. And then this is the deed here from 1999, where it does say, they highlight
- here the grantor represents that he is the widower of Estella Louise McWhorter, deceased, who died a
- resident of Monroe County on the 26th day of August, 1998. So it looks like they were sort of settling
- A state in this quick claim deed and then shortly thereafter. This one is the one that in 2000 where
- they are correcting this to correct the legal description. From the 1999 deed.
- And then finally, then we still have a few more deeds that staff just disagrees that they weren't really
- executed properly at the recorder's office. The 1999 deed really should have gone through that subdivision
- process to break it from that 10.41 acres, provided a vesting deed as well, which doesn't contain the
- I think that the acreage is not listed here, but it does accept the 2.19 acres. The 2.19 acres was accepted
- in the minor subdivision from the original 12 acres. And then finally, we have exhibit nine, which is
- from Deckard land survey. And I'm hoping that you were able to read through this. They just kind of
- summarized and looked at
- the instrument numbers for the different deeds to these properties and did their own analysis.
- And I will say, you know, planning staff, we were using our definition of lot of record. We were referring
- to the minor subdivision files and they came to some findings, which I could read those three findings
- if you want me to.
- The beginning of the packet, I believe staff is recommending that you would uphold the lot of record
- determination, affirm the director's issuance of the lot of record determination. I will take questions.
- Do any members of the BCA have questions or do we want to go ahead and turn to the petitioner? Let's
- hear the petitioner, thank you. I assume you're Mr. McWhorter.
- If you could raise your right hand, first of all, sign in and then raise your right. Is there a structure?
- You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes.
- Thank you. If you can state your name for the record, then you'll have 15 minutes to share your story
- with us. Robert McQuarter Jr. And then I apologize if my radio goes off. I am on duty. So my battalion
- chief here in the cities allowed me to be here tonight. But if there is a fire, I will have to abruptly
- go ahead and leave. We fully understand. Thank you for your service to the community.
- lot of information there a lot I've learned a lot through this whole process it's been stressful I can
- tell you that much it's been. A lot of dollars that I wasn't planning on but ultimately I'm glad that
- we found some of these things so it could potentially get fixed and so I guess my story and.
- What my proof is to this is basically what john Bethel title company is saying in the letter also paired
- with Eric Deckard land surveying. And it took me a few weeks, I know I was on a timeline to get on the
- bza's approval for the variances that's why I went ahead and started with director jellings recommendation
- I thought that was my only option at that time.
- And hadn't been able to speak with air Decker the land surveyor who is actually the great grandson of
- Leah. Right. And has a lot of his documents and stuff inside of their office. And it was unfortunate
- because his father was actually in the hospital. So it was like to the day before I came for the variance
- meeting. He actually called me.
- back and he was like do not go through with the daddy he was very very stern with me was like do not
- go down that just yet I don't think that's the smart way to go with this. Let me pull my records and
- do a deed exhibit and which again this money out of my pocket I had to pay for them to do that.
- And basically what his information was was that, yes, there was a survey done in 1990 and it did go
- to the recorder's office, but it was never formalized and it was never needed properly. And it never
- went through the correct functions to actually turn into the deed for the 10.41 acres.
- Also, as well, we met with Director Gellin, my father and my grandfather, and kind of explained to her
- at the time what my grandfather was doing. It wasn't the process of combining the 10.41 acres because
- he never wanted it all to be his anyways. He wanted the east portion right there, one, to go to my dad,
- the 3A portion to go to his youngest son, and what they completed in number two was to his middle-aged son.
- And then he was to live in the three with my now late grandmother is where the plan was supposed to
- be. So all three boys and then him were on the same acreage and lots that he had purchased from his
- father and his uncle, which is my great grandfather and my great uncle, which if you go back before
- 1990, it was split up into two 14 or it was one 14 acre parcel.
- that those two brothers bought off of boy what is that guy's name brain fart he's a really really rich
- guy and he owned a lot of property in Monroe County and I can't think of his last name right now but
- they bought it so seven acres on each side of the driveway there and then it got subdivided that one
- property to the south below one is my great uncle's so it's our whole family back there and
- When I started to apply to build my garage, I found out that they found this discrepancy with the 10.41
- 2.19 and all that and to me. I see the discrepancies, but I can tell you from my grandfather's sake
- and what he was trying to accomplish and he's on vacation or he'd be here with me was.
- there was no malicious activity there whatsoever to try to get anything through the county. His house
- was built in 2001 to. I believe which is three, which is my house now and they did 90% of the work he
- built it. So I believe at that point in time there was no as long as you did 90% of the work there was
- no building permit or anything needed at that time. There was already a septic permit for that whole
- section. That was actually there on three.
- under my great uncle's there was a septic permit already there so all he had to do was. Just re change
- that which there is records of him adding more to that septic system there at that time and then the
- only determination at that point I believe was why was it disconnected. And that law in the top or northwest
- corner was supposed to be for my youngest uncle at that point in time and it is connected at that easement but
- due to my grandpa retiring from Yellow Freight a long time ago and they were threatening his pension,
- he needed to sell the house and I wanted to keep it in the family. So me and my family bought that off
- of him and he actually bought my house on South Fairfax Road. And I believe at some point in time that
- if the title company did searches on that property,
- they would have found if there was a recorded document somewhere when they did the title search that
- they would have told me I was buying ten point four one acres that included my father's house. And I
- think that's what John Bethel title companies emails also describing is that through me buying my house
- refinancing it again to get a home equity line in my father also since ninety nine refinancing a couple
- times this is never come up. And if we have to go through the daddy process.
- that is going to be a very regular process on our side because then we'll have to go to the auditor's
- office and everything to say okay who pays property taxes now on the one property. Because if you look
- at G I S it clearly do you have that. This is Berman the G I S pulled up. All I mean this these parts
- are from the G I S okay yeah so three and three a when you highlighted it shows up as one
- property and property taxes and everything since 2000 have aligned with that and same thing with one
- you click on that one and ever since that one has been. On there the property taxes has always aligned
- with five acres as separate parcels and all the way back to when they weren't even known by my father
- and my grandfather.
- which were been my great grandfather and great uncle, they were separated. They had separate separate
- permits and they had separate driveway permits, I believe, at that time. And the only thing that ever
- changed between there was the 2.19 acres for my uncle. And what Eric Deckard, the land survey stated,
- is that he feels like that was just a formal idea that his grandfather possibly came up with.
- But it never got completed and never came to fruition when it came to the deeds. And so I feel like
- if I have to move forward with the dad do that, that would be a very tricky subject to go through. And
- if my father decides, since he's now retired from the fire department for serving Monroe County, that
- he would have to
- we'd have to basically get permission to sell this house right if it was underneath 110.41 acre lot
- and then the next option I was told would to be then come to you guys about what you were talking about
- earlier right the whole dad do accessory dwelling situation because that house is over 1500 square feet
- or over the 1000 square feet so that's what that other variances that I continued but then also we would have to
- I would have to try to convince you guys to no longer have two 10 acre lots to subdivide that we would
- have to do five acre lots. And then that would get into the commissioners and everything else right
- later on next year, and a long drawn out process. So I hope to find grace, I think that we can move
- forward and just keep these as two separate lots like they have been for the last. I don't know as far
- as I know.
- And I can then apply for a building permit to build my garage right where we talked about during the
- last variance with the cars feature. So thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Any members of the
- BZA have concern Mr McWhorter. If if. We.
- want to put the new the new house on 3a is that right no no I want to put the new garage on three on
- three yes okay on the south side of three which there was a we didn't include the site plan in this
- one right okay well let me let me follow up there's there's going to be two residences
- there's never going to be two residents. I'm asking you guys to accept my appeal so we don't put two
- residences on the same 10.41 acre lot. OK, but do you want to build a second residence someplace? No,
- no, I want to build a garage. On my three and three a property and keep my dad's one separate. On his
- property. That's that's what I'm seeking, OK?
- I guess what I'm confused is if there's a garage and nobody's gonna live in the garage. Can somebody
- help me on this? If there's a garage, if it's not a separate dwelling unit. So what we see here in a
- survey, so this is the survey here that we're looking at. Track one is 10.41
- acres. There's a note on here that there's an existing home. This is 1990, so this is the existing home.
- This is the 2.19 acre that was created for another home, and there is a deed, the deed references this lot, and
- The home that we're talking about is down here on that portion three that I have in that one diagram.
- So this is the home. Currently then, according to this survey and according to the subdivision and staff's
- determination, there are two homes on this 10.41 acres. And we are just now becoming aware that this
- is what we would consider one lot of record because they applied for a permit for the garage.
- They got the garage a variance to be in the car's conservancy area. They are unable to pull a permit
- until we either deem that these are two separate lots of record and you go against staff's determination,
- or he continues next month and is able to get a dadu determination to turn that existing home into an
- accessory dwelling unit.
- So there is a home on what's, let's go back to the color, to the EPS, okay. There is a home on one.
- Yes, that was in the survey and it's a little picture. And there's a home on three. Correct,
- that we know. Are those the two homes that are on one lot of record? Correct, yes.
- Is everything in yellow the one lot of record? So we have different parcel numbers that show up. So
- the 3 and the 3A have the same parcel number, which was curious to staff. We don't see that very often.
- And then we found the file for the McWhorter subdivision, which shows that 3A, the 1, and the 3
- were all tied together as one lot of record during that subdivision, and then the number two green lot
- was created in that subdivision. So it was a two-lot subdivision. Could you show me with your cursor
- where the garage is going? The garage, I believe, is going... The parcel lines are just a little bit
- off here, but I think it's gonna be going roughly just south of this house.
- and it was going to be encroaching into the Karsh Conservancy area. But it got a variance. But we won't
- allow that to be built and have a permit pulled until we either remedy the situation that these two
- houses are on the same lot of record or one of these houses is converted basically into a detached accessory
- dwelling unit.
- from my perspective, lots that are called one and three have been different lots by people on the ground.
- They- Like I said- Mr. Schilling, can you edify us? Yeah, the answer is yes and no. I mean, we had a
- situation where I think
- There was probably 14 acres or so in this area. This was off, leaving about 12 in the yellow, 12 point
- some acres, okay? In 1990, by this chunk out, and so they got a subdivision approval that when they
- went before the plan commission, they said,
- that they were taking 2.19 acres out of this 12 acres. Okay, so there was 2.19 in point for one acre
- track now previously. It was as as Mister reporter state this track right here in 89 is that correct.
- in in 89 yes so and then this was a separate track but reason for Jackie's opinion is was within 1990
- when they came in for this he described this as a single track of 12 they were taking 2.19 out after
- the subdivision was approved with the they filed a deed for this which the
- because of the subdivision, so they got her permission to do this. This deed was recorded, and when
- it was recorded, it referenced an easement to the 10.41 acre tract, okay? And then subsequently, the
- survey that you've seen shows this as a 10.41 acre tract was recorded.
- No deeds were ever made of the 10.41 acre tract, but the legal description of that was recorded as a
- survey. Subsequently, subsequent deeds have treated this as two different tracts. So when the McQuarters
- went forward and started deeding off property afterwards, this was treated as a different tract.
- They regarded this as one tract, and this is a tract, and this is a tract. And so I guess the thinking
- is that the combined legal descriptions into one lot through a survey, it's a combination of tracts,
- that doesn't necessarily combine them from tax purposes.
- If you wanna combine lots for tax purposes, you have to go to the auditor's office and file a separate
- form. So the fact that they were taxed differently, not necessarily mean that they were always intended
- to be, but it's one of those things where at one point they thought it was one track,
- And then subsequently, they've treated it as multiple tracks. And so that's why Jackie looked back at
- her records and said, hey, there was a subdivision here, these tracks together. And that's why she gave
- her determination and said, this is all one track according to that survey, then you can only treat
- these two dwellings as daddos. And if you do that,
- This one's too large for the dad-do, so you need a variance for the size, and it makes the
- lots non-conforming, which I'm gonna get a variance for the other stuff. So it's, if you just say, hey,
- you know, planning, this is a separate lot, then it's done. Which seems like the practical solution
- for the McWhorter family. Yes.
- Yes. And not inconsistent with past behavior, the more recent past behavior, truly inconsistent with
- the 1990 action. But since then, there have been a number of deeds. Let me, I'll ask Mr. McQuarter and
- I'd like you to listen to Mr. Shelley. If we give you what you're asking,
- then what deeds are going to be, this is for land conveyancing. As far as I'm concerned, if you guys
- accept my appeal, they will continue to be two separate lots. They will continue to have their two separate
- deeds as what John Bethel sent you guys in the letter. And they will be continued to be taxed as two
- separate parcels. And so that would then give,
- the planning department, an actual true lot of record definition for me to then move forward with building
- my garage on my property. Would that answer your question? Yeah. Okay. I'm ready to hear what anybody
- else has to say or ask. We haven't heard from the public yet.
- I think that's a very mandatory step. I didn't mean that you want to move toward vote, but I did mean
- any other questions. I have one. You know, your family who own lots, right? They're not here.
- And do they, we don't know if they object.
- They've been notified, they've been served notice that this hearing is taking place, right? Yes. And
- they have chosen not to be here or to attend remotely. I can answer that for you. Yes. Is that they
- are highly, I would say aggravated and irritated with the situation and I'm much more calmer
- than the rest of my family. And so with my communications with them is they were perfectly fine with
- me showing up here and talking because they weren't so positive that they could just talk and not be rude.
- we're not going to be sued by them for taking their land, you know, making no, you know. It would be
- the other way around. If we went to the dad dude and then I would think there would be a problem and
- then yeah, my dad would probably show up here and OK, not me. You know, because we have to think about
- their interest and they're not here to express it and you're representing it, but it's still then I.
- Everybody in the family wants.
- to have it stay separated as what it shows on ZGIS and tax numbers and our deeds. Everybody's in agreement
- with that for sure. And people have been paying taxes all along as though it is as represented here.
- Okay. Okay, so I don't have any questions for you, but I don't know about my other colleagues.
- I don't yet, no. We might call you back. Yeah, if you'd like to have a seat.
- there's nobody in the room. We've never seen if there's anybody online. I've been on this board for
- about seven years and I've never heard anything like this. That's what I kept hearing and I apologize
- for, you know, all of this really. I mean, it's, you know,
- as time goes on and rules change and that there's a clash between the old and the new way of doing things.
- And it's all manifest right here. So it looks kind of interesting and thank you for coming here.
- But Jeff, full. Yeah, let's go ahead and turn to public comments. So if there's anybody online who wishes
- to speak in favor of this petition, please raise your virtual hand.
- Seeing no one, if there's anyone online who wishes to speak against this petition, please raise your
- virtual hand. Seeing no one for the record, I'll also mention that there's nobody here in the room to
- speak on this petition. So we'll go ahead and close public comment and come back to the meeting. I know
- I'm a woman, but I like to clean things up. This looks like something we could clean up, doesn't it?
- I'm sorry. I think Mr. Schilling's description really helped me. And it sounds to me like prior to 1990,
- lot one on the map was a single lot of record and lots 3A, two and three were all single lot of records
- for a total of two. And then lot two was subdivided out. It was correctly assumed at that time that
- 3A, one and three
- for all one lot of record when in reality, they were actually two separate lots of records. So to me,
- that was saying that those were separate and that move to bring lot two out didn't bring 3A1.
- That's right. A mess was made and we can clean up that mess by leaving it pretty messy.
- clean up the mess by saying, you win. I move that we overrule the determination of the administrator
- that there's one lot of record on which both parcels of both residences are built.
- Yes. Is that enough? Do we need to add anything else to that? There are separate lots. Your home shall
- not be considered a detached accessory dwelling unit because you have your own lot of record. As you
- proceeded with your understanding and you've paid
- taxes according to that understanding. And the title seems to be in concurrence with that. So I think
- we get a chance to clean up this. And I think our director, correct to point out that it's a mess. Yes.
- But she doesn't have the authority to clean it up. We have the authority to clean it up. That's right. And yes.
- And we also have given a chance to every other property owner to express himself or herself. Well, I
- understood that your father was on vacation or otherwise would have been here. My grandfather. Your
- grandfather. Yeah. He is supportive. Yes. Oh, yeah. Right, so. So it seems that nobody is hurt. Everybody
- is helped. Yes. And I think I made my motion. OK. Is that clear enough? OK, I second it.
- There's been a motion and a second to not affirm the director's issuance of the lot of record determination.
- Good? Say overturn. Overturn? Thank you. I was waiting for a better word. Overturn, yes. Good. So motion
- and a second to overturn the director's lot of record determination.
- for the McWhorter Administrative Appeal, ADR-26-1. Margaret Clements? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris?
- Yes. Motion carries three to zero. Can I say something on the thought of cleaning up messes and hopefully
- preventing some? Robert mentioned that the structure out there was built by
- owner without a building permit. Yes. Under the log cabin rule, if you build your own residence, you
- don't need a building permit, but you'll need an improvement location permit from planning. Those are
- two separate things. And when did that take place? What year was that? It was always that way. It was
- always that way? Yes. I'm sorry.
- I'm learning. Yeah, there's a lot to learn. And you mentioned how upset your father is, and we understand
- there are two generations of firefighters in your family, at least. More than that. Well, we just want
- to thank you for your service. And my grandfather also, he actually is. He is 78 years old, and he still
- works 24-hour shifts for Mineral Fire Protection District. Wow. Yeah. Thank them for us. Thank them
- for keeping us safe.
- And we're glad that you weren't disrupted because I'm glad we got this done tonight. Yes, thank you.
- Yes, very much so. Sounds like it was perfect timing. Thank you, Mr. Reporter. Thank you. Okay, that
- finishes it. And I do want to say that Mr. Schilling was very helpful how he pointed and helped us grasp
- this very complicated situation. Hey, that takes us to our
- legal report, Mr. Schilling, the moment you've been waiting for. Yes, thank you very much. And this
- relates to the Republic Service of Indiana versus Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals. And this is
- the Bedford recycling decision that has been up and down the court system. It is back before Judge Crowthy,
- and she has requested
- the Board of Zoning Appeals to make findings of fact on two issues. One, whether the real property owned
- by Republic Services of Indiana LP abuts the real property subject to the conditional use order, which
- was September 1st of, I think, 2022.
- And to whether the Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals collected proof that Bedford recycling incorporated
- delivered to a board administrator proof that the notice sent by certified mail was either delivered
- or returned and deliverable.
- The first issue relates to whether Bedford Recycling or whether Republic Services was required to be
- notified. The second issue is if they were required to be notified, was it done correctly? Was it done
- according to our rules? We will look into this and try to determine whether we're going to be working
- from our record or whether additional testimony would need to be taken.
- Um, so we will, uh, report back and then we will proceed, uh, accordingly. Hey, well, I, um, just don't
- feel that that information, you know, but we'll find out from you. Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you, Mr.
- Schilling. Any other reports? No other reports.
- Jamie, any other reports from planning? I do one thing to note, and that is planner Sean Smith, he has
- accepted a position at the city of Bloomington and he'll be starting there in August. Don't say it's
- true, don't say that. He was thinking this was gonna be his last time to present at the Board of Zoning
- Appeals, but then both of his petitions were approved. I guess that was the last time. That's going
- away in the present.
- Congratulations, Sean. Thanks for all you've done for the planning department. Thank you. We'll miss
- you. We would like you to stay with us. And if there's a chance for you to come back, we'd love you
- to come back. Congratulations. We're happy for you. Yes. Have a motion for adjournment. Move to adjourn.
- Second that. Good job, Tammy and Drew and Sean. Thank you.