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.