WEBVTT 00:00:00.098 --> 00:00:06.663 - Good evening, everyone. I would like to call to order the July meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. 00:00:06.663 --> 00:00:12.718 - Tammy, to get us started, would you please call the roll? Sure thing. Margaret Clements? Here. 00:00:12.718 --> 00:00:19.283 - Skip Daly? Here. Pamela Davidson? Here. Guy Loftman? Jeff Morris? Here. We have four people in person, 00:00:19.283 --> 00:00:24.382 - and that's a quorum. Could you please introduce the evidence for tonight? Sure. 00:00:24.802 --> 00:00:31.202 - I would like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance 00:00:31.202 --> 00:00:37.480 - as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted and amended. The Monroe County 00:00:37.480 --> 00:00:43.576 - Board of Zoning Appeals, Rules of Procedure as adopted and amended. And the cases that were legally 00:00:43.576 --> 00:00:50.037 - advertised and scheduled for hearing on tonight's agenda. I move that we introduce the evidence as you've 00:00:50.037 --> 00:00:52.414 - just enumerated. Great. I will second. 00:00:53.154 --> 00:00:59.743 - Motion and a second to approve the introduction of evidence. Jeff Morris. Yes. Pamela Davidson. 00:00:59.743 --> 00:01:06.882 - Susan Donovan. Is now joining. Yes. Skip Daly. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Motion passes four to zero. 00:01:06.882 --> 00:01:13.815 - For our agenda tonight, we have approval of minutes from April and May of 2026, but those are not in 00:01:13.815 --> 00:01:21.022 - our SharePoint folder. So could I get approval of the agenda with the line approval of minutes stricken? 00:01:22.146 --> 00:01:30.759 - I would like to make such a motion that we approve tonight's agenda absent the approval of the minutes. 00:01:30.759 --> 00:01:39.124 - Second. I second that. All right, there's been a motion and a second to approve the agenda as listed 00:01:39.124 --> 00:01:47.737 - and noticed minus the approval of the minutes. Skip Daley? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. 00:01:47.737 --> 00:01:52.126 - Margaret Clements? Yes. Motion carries four to zero. 00:01:52.354 --> 00:02:01.158 - Moving on to administrative business, item number one is the court ordered findings for the Benford 00:02:01.158 --> 00:02:10.050 - Recycling CDU-21-3 under 53C06-2110-MI-002052. And is that Mr. Schilling's agenda item? That is 100% 00:02:10.050 --> 00:02:17.534 - Mr. Schilling's thing. And he was here a second ago. Stephen Donovan is now exiting. 00:02:17.922 --> 00:02:27.050 - I would like to move that we amend tonight's agenda and move Bedford Recycling CDU discussion to the 00:02:27.050 --> 00:02:36.360 - final item on the agenda. Second. Motion and a second. Motion and a second to amend the agenda to move 00:02:36.360 --> 00:02:45.759 - the Bedford Recycling Admin to the end of the agenda. Let's go. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. 00:02:45.759 --> 00:02:47.838 - Pam? Yes. Jeff Morris? 00:02:48.162 --> 00:02:55.378 - All right, motion carries four to zero. Okay, so the first item tonight under Old Business is VAR-25-52A. 00:02:55.378 --> 00:03:02.255 - This is the Donovan Buildable Area Special Floodplain Hazard Area, various to Chapter 813. So before 00:03:02.255 --> 00:03:05.182 - we get into this, I want to explain to the 00:03:05.570 --> 00:03:11.201 - the members of the public here how we've been handling these meetings. If there is a petition that staff 00:03:11.201 --> 00:03:16.724 - recommend approval for we will ask if there are any members of the public who are against the petition 00:03:16.724 --> 00:03:22.409 - and if there are not then we will expedite the conversation and move toward a motion to help speed things 00:03:22.409 --> 00:03:27.825 - up to get us through the agenda a little bit quicker. So the first item on the agenda has conditions 00:03:27.825 --> 00:03:33.188 - associated with the approval. So do we have the petitioner here in the room with us tonight for the 00:03:33.188 --> 00:03:34.046 - first petition? 00:03:35.170 --> 00:03:43.777 - or do we have them online? If so, please- They are online. Steven Donovan. Mr. Donovan, if you could 00:03:43.777 --> 00:03:52.470 - raise your virtual hand if tech services could unmute you. It looks like you're unmuted, Mr. Donovan. 00:03:52.470 --> 00:04:00.992 - Could you raise your right hand and do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 00:04:00.992 --> 00:04:02.782 - the truth? Yes, sir. 00:04:03.074 --> 00:04:11.098 - Okay, are you okay with the condition that staff is recommending in tonight's packet, which is to provide 00:04:11.098 --> 00:04:18.743 - as-built elevations of riprap gravel parking area to confirm the excavation of earth and replacement 00:04:18.743 --> 00:04:27.069 - of gravel following the submitted plans dated June 24th of 2026, or do you have concerns with that condition? 00:04:27.069 --> 00:04:31.838 - I have no concerns. I am in agreeance with the recommendations 00:04:33.218 --> 00:04:40.099 - Okay, and to clarify, you have no concerns? I have no concerns. Okay, thank you. So do any members of 00:04:40.099 --> 00:04:46.980 - the public wish to speak against this first petition? If so, please raise your hand if you're here in 00:04:46.980 --> 00:04:54.131 - the room or if you're online and wish to speak against this, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing 00:04:54.131 --> 00:05:00.945 - no one, I will come back to members of the Board of Zoning Appeals. We'll make a motion that we call 00:05:00.945 --> 00:05:01.822 - the question 00:05:02.018 --> 00:05:09.495 - on variance 25-52A for a directed verdict. I second that motion. Okay, so we have a motion to call the 00:05:09.495 --> 00:05:16.899 - question. This isn't a motion to approve. This is just to call the question. There's been a motion to 00:05:16.899 --> 00:05:24.666 - call the question and a second. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? 00:05:24.666 --> 00:05:27.134 - Yes. Motion carries four to zero. 00:05:27.330 --> 00:05:39.058 - I would like to motion at this point that we approve variance 25-52A with the stated conditions. I second 00:05:39.058 --> 00:05:50.122 - that motion. Right, there's been a motion and a second to approve VAR-25-52A, the Donovan buildable 00:05:50.122 --> 00:05:56.318 - area special flood hazard area variance to chapter 813. 00:05:56.898 --> 00:06:04.967 - This is to allow a 3,000 square foot gravel area to remain in the special flood hazard area with a specific 00:06:04.967 --> 00:06:13.035 - condition that they provide as built elevations of the riprap gravel parking area to confirm the excavation 00:06:13.035 --> 00:06:20.581 - of earth and replacement of gravel followed the submitted plans that are dated June 24th, 2026. I'll 00:06:20.581 --> 00:06:26.558 - go ahead and call the roll on that one. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. 00:06:26.690 --> 00:06:33.336 - Skip Daly? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. And that motion carries four to zero. Okay, thank you Mr. Donovan. 00:06:33.336 --> 00:06:39.671 - And Mr. Schilling, we were lonely without you, so we modified the agenda to move Bedford Recycling to 00:06:39.671 --> 00:06:42.590 - the end of the agenda tonight. You're welcome. 00:06:42.754 --> 00:06:48.939 - Okay, moving on to item number two, the McWhorter Accessory Dwelling Unit has been withdrawn by staff. 00:06:48.939 --> 00:06:55.065 - So that wraps up old business. So we'll move on to new business. The first item is VAR-26-19. This is 00:06:55.065 --> 00:07:01.490 - the Sullivan Maximum Impervious Cover Variance to Chapter 805. So this is another one that staff recommend 00:07:01.490 --> 00:07:07.676 - approval on and there are no conditions associated with the approval. So do we have anyone here in the 00:07:07.676 --> 00:07:10.558 - room who wishes to speak against this petition? 00:07:10.690 --> 00:07:18.209 - If you wish to speak against this petition, please raise your virtual hand. Seeing no one, we'll come 00:07:18.209 --> 00:07:25.948 - back to the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Should we ask the petitioner if they're in the room, 00:07:25.948 --> 00:07:33.614 - if they want to make any comment or anything? Should we just ask or not? There were no conditions. Yes. 00:07:33.614 --> 00:07:39.806 - I just wondered if they showed up if they were anxious to say something. Maybe not. 00:07:41.250 --> 00:07:52.679 - I will make a motion to call the question on variance 26-19 for a directed verdict. I'll second that. 00:07:52.679 --> 00:08:03.996 - All right, there's been a motion and a second to call the question. Correct? Correct. All right, for 00:08:03.996 --> 00:08:09.150 - VAR-26-19. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? 00:08:09.922 --> 00:08:19.553 - Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Motion carries four to zero. Chair, I would like to make 00:08:19.553 --> 00:08:29.657 - a motion based on staff's recommendation for approval and the fact that it meets the conditions to approve 00:08:29.657 --> 00:08:38.910 - variance 26-19. May I add that practical difficulties have been shown? May I add that? Please do. 00:08:39.650 --> 00:08:47.854 - and I would like to second that motion. All right, there's been a motion and a second to approve the 00:08:47.854 --> 00:08:56.139 - petition VAR-26-19, Sullivan maximum impervious cover chapter 805, based on the findings of fact, and 00:08:56.139 --> 00:09:03.774 - the fact that there are practical difficulties that have been demonstrated for this petition. 00:09:08.034 --> 00:09:15.086 - Go ahead and call the roll. Skip Daley? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? 00:09:15.086 --> 00:09:21.935 - Yes. Motion carries four to zero. OK. The next item on the agenda is VAR-26-21. This is the Chamness 00:09:21.935 --> 00:09:29.123 - Eco Area 2 15% slope encroachment to Chapter 823. And this one has a recommendation of denial from staff. 00:09:29.123 --> 00:09:35.294 - So we'll go ahead and turn to Mr. Brown to go through the presentation tonight. Thank you. 00:09:35.810 --> 00:09:41.993 - The purpose of this petition is that the petitioner is proposing to convert an existing residence on 00:09:41.993 --> 00:09:48.238 - the property into a detached accessory dwelling unit, as well as establish a new larger single-family 00:09:48.238 --> 00:09:54.176 - residence on the property. However, during the review of the residential construction predesign, 00:09:54.176 --> 00:10:00.543 - PILP 187, it was found that the petitioners had already begun to clear the area where the proposed home 00:10:00.543 --> 00:10:05.502 - will be located. This area is in the environmental constraints overlay area two, 00:10:05.826 --> 00:10:11.164 - and has sustained the removal of vegetarian vegetation in areas of 15% slope or greater. Hence, this 00:10:11.164 --> 00:10:16.555 - variance petition is required. The petitioner's representative has communicated via the letter to the 00:10:16.555 --> 00:10:22.051 - Board of Zoning Appeals, which is exhibit three in the packet, that the soil was not disturbed and that 00:10:22.051 --> 00:10:27.389 - the stumps were left in place for the trees that were removed. They have also communicated that they 00:10:27.389 --> 00:10:29.662 - are willing to restore the damaged forest. 00:10:31.458 --> 00:10:39.197 - And here is the discussion. The subject property does not meet one of the four requirements for properties 00:10:39.197 --> 00:10:46.502 - in area two of the environmental constraints overlay as listed in chapter 823-5A. And that is number 00:10:46.502 --> 00:10:53.880 - two, which is there shall be no disturbance of natural vegetation beyond the 15% slope line. And here 00:10:53.880 --> 00:11:00.606 - are just images of the property showing the location as well as the zoning map. It is on the 00:11:00.930 --> 00:11:07.929 - order of the county as well as the comprehensive plan and site conditions map which demonstrates slope 00:11:07.929 --> 00:11:14.929 - the latter of which demonstrates slope of over 15 percent and here are some images of the property the 00:11:14.929 --> 00:11:21.724 - image on the left shows the existing home that's proposed to be converted into a detached accessory 00:11:21.724 --> 00:11:28.587 - dwelling unit the image on the right shows a path leading to the clearing where the new home will be 00:11:28.587 --> 00:11:30.558 - placed and these images show 00:11:30.786 --> 00:11:41.049 - the site in question, as well as the stumps from the removed trees. The same, the pictures here show 00:11:41.049 --> 00:11:51.515 - the same. Here's a letter to the Board of Zoning Appeals from the petitioner. As well as the certified 00:11:51.515 --> 00:11:54.462 - plot plan that was provided. 00:12:01.570 --> 00:12:08.116 - So in regards to VAR-26-21, staff recommends denial of the forested tree, as the removal of the forested 00:12:08.116 --> 00:12:14.911 - tree canopy would be injurious to public health, safety, and general welfare of the community, and practical 00:12:14.911 --> 00:12:21.146 - difficulties have not been demonstrated by the petitioner. In order to become compliant, as this is 00:12:21.146 --> 00:12:27.006 - after the fact, staff recommends that the property owner be required to submit and follow one 00:12:27.234 --> 00:12:33.150 - A remediation plan designed by a professional utilizing the plant list in Chapter 816 of the County 00:12:33.150 --> 00:12:39.184 - Development Ordinance, which reflects the landscaping and approval list of plantings. Two, a licensed 00:12:39.184 --> 00:12:45.218 - professional is to delineate on-site the 15% slope line. And three, stabilize any slopes necessary to 00:12:45.218 --> 00:12:51.548 - prevent further erosion and sediment loss. If action is avoided by the property owner, then an enforcement 00:12:51.548 --> 00:12:55.038 - case will be opened, which may eventually allow the county 00:12:55.362 --> 00:13:03.028 - to pursue fines and or legal action. And I will take any questions. There's the Board of Zoning Appeals. 00:13:03.028 --> 00:13:10.475 - Now we're after the testimony. I think we could go ahead and turn to the petitioner and take comments 00:13:10.475 --> 00:13:17.849 - from the petitioner. After that. OK. Do we have a petitioner here in the room? Sir, if you'd like to 00:13:17.849 --> 00:13:25.150 - come to the podium and sign your name, I'll swear you in. And then you'll have 15 minutes to speak. 00:13:26.178 --> 00:13:31.416 - Thanks. Do you want to swear in too? Come on up. If you could go ahead and sign your name. Is there 00:13:31.416 --> 00:13:33.406 - a piece of paper on the podium there? 00:13:56.130 --> 00:14:01.708 - While she's signing in, if you could raise your right hand and state your name. And do you swear to 00:14:01.708 --> 00:14:07.621 - tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Charles Chamness. Thank you. Then ma'am, 00:14:07.621 --> 00:14:13.199 - if you could raise your right hand, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 00:14:13.199 --> 00:14:18.832 - the truth? I do. And your name is? Bridget. Okay, thank you. So thank you for having us here to talk 00:14:18.832 --> 00:14:24.466 - about this variance. My name is Chuck Chamness. And so my wife, Bridget, as you've just met, but I'm 00:14:24.466 --> 00:14:25.470 - from Bloomington. 00:14:25.602 --> 00:14:32.236 - I grew up here on the east side. My mom taught school at Rogers in third grade for decades. My dad was 00:14:32.236 --> 00:14:38.806 - a businessman. I graduated from Bloomington North, graduated from IU. We build our careers elsewhere, 00:14:38.806 --> 00:14:45.247 - but it's never changed that I've considered Bloomington a home. And this is our opportunity to move 00:14:45.247 --> 00:14:51.366 - back here. In 2019, we bought about 80 acres on Sewell Road. At the time, voters Morgan Monroe 00:14:51.366 --> 00:14:55.166 - and Yellowwoods, we'll talk about a little bit more later, 00:14:55.426 --> 00:15:02.095 - It had no utilities, no address. There was nothing on it. In 2020, we built a barn. You saw it in the 00:15:02.095 --> 00:15:08.829 - pictures. Then with a friend of mine who's a local carpenter, we finished one end of the barn into the 00:15:08.829 --> 00:15:15.760 - ADU. We talked about the one-bedroom apartment, which between Dave, the carpenter, and I, we went through 00:15:15.760 --> 00:15:22.494 - the zoning and not zoning. Well, I guess zoning, site approval, building process without any problems. 00:15:22.658 --> 00:15:28.763 - We also built a septic field, which was good for four bedrooms. So one bedroom counts as the barn. The 00:15:28.763 --> 00:15:35.045 - other three bedrooms will be the home we intend to build. So we'd like to build this home. We'll relocate 00:15:35.045 --> 00:15:41.091 - from Indianapolis, where we've lived for the last few decades. It'll be our home. It's not a vacation 00:15:41.091 --> 00:15:47.077 - property. It's not a rental. It's where we intend to live and be residents of Bloomington, be voters 00:15:47.077 --> 00:15:47.966 - and taxpayers. 00:15:48.450 --> 00:15:54.642 - As you've seen, we made a mistake as we were on top of this hill or we'd intended to build the home 00:15:54.642 --> 00:16:00.958 - close to the septic field because I didn't know. I knew that the slope restrictions were an important 00:16:00.958 --> 00:16:07.274 - factor in the building and we're, you know, putting in foundations and building structures, but I did 00:16:07.274 --> 00:16:13.652 - not know they applied to trees and vegetation. So we took out a handful of trees, as Bridget will talk 00:16:13.652 --> 00:16:18.110 - about a bit, and also some vegetation. That was our mistake. We own it. 00:16:18.306 --> 00:16:28.566 - our own ignorance of the rules. So with that, I think I'll introduce Bridget to give a little more context. 00:16:28.566 --> 00:16:38.352 - As Chuck said, we purchased this parcel in 2019, and it had previously been logged twice, I think most 00:16:38.352 --> 00:16:40.062 - recently in 2014. 00:16:40.354 --> 00:16:48.426 - As a consequence, improvements were needed. We worked with the state forester on a management plan that 00:16:48.426 --> 00:16:56.421 - we finalized in 2022, and we also retained a private forester in 2023 to give us a more detailed plan. 00:16:56.421 --> 00:17:04.183 - We enrolled 77 of the 80 acres in the Indiana Classified Forest Program. Both of the plans note the 00:17:04.183 --> 00:17:06.046 - damage from the logging 00:17:06.594 --> 00:17:15.309 - including lots of junk trees and invasives. We have been working to implement the plans currently focusing 00:17:15.309 --> 00:17:23.617 - on restoring the on timberland improvement and then removing invasives, multi-flora rows and the bush 00:17:23.617 --> 00:17:27.038 - honeysuckle being particularly prevalent. 00:17:28.706 --> 00:17:36.032 - One of the reasons we purchased the parcel in addition to its proximity to Bloomington is because of 00:17:36.032 --> 00:17:43.721 - its unique position in the corner of the two state forests, Yellowwood and Morgan Monroe. And we consider 00:17:43.721 --> 00:17:50.974 - ourselves to have an obligation to restore that land demonstrated by what we've done long before we 00:17:51.298 --> 00:17:58.900 - move you know trying to move forward with the house uh relocating to bloomington and our recent retirements 00:17:58.900 --> 00:18:06.291 - from full-time employment should give us even more time to dedicate to this project we removed the trees 00:18:06.291 --> 00:18:13.330 - responsibly even though we were not aware of the slope line restrictions the soil was not disturbed 00:18:13.330 --> 00:18:18.750 - we left all the stumps in place and the debris was mulched on site the trees 00:18:19.074 --> 00:18:27.642 - below the slope line were low value offsite pine species, were mostly low value offsite pine species 00:18:27.642 --> 00:18:36.635 - near the end of life. Several were storm damaged. As you can see, our proactive measures were successful. 00:18:36.635 --> 00:18:45.288 - There's been no erosion despite Bloomington having record precipitation this spring. Chuck and I want 00:18:45.288 --> 00:18:48.766 - to assure the board that we have respect 00:18:48.898 --> 00:18:57.136 - for the slope setback lines. And in my case, that awareness is in part due to my professional background, 00:18:57.136 --> 00:19:05.218 - having served as the general counsel of the US House of Representatives committee that has jurisdiction 00:19:05.218 --> 00:19:13.534 - over housing policy in Washington DC prior to moving to Indiana. We hope you will weigh an error committed 00:19:13.534 --> 00:19:14.622 - in good faith 00:19:14.722 --> 00:19:21.402 - and with lack of awareness against our stewardship record and future plans. And respectfully request 00:19:21.402 --> 00:19:28.480 - that you approve our requests for the variance. Our surveyor, Scott Pardo, is here to answer any technical 00:19:28.480 --> 00:19:33.374 - questions. And we just want to thank you for your time and consideration. 00:19:34.946 --> 00:19:41.278 - Thank you. Do any members of the Board of Zoning Appeals have questions for the petitioners? 00:19:41.278 --> 00:19:48.360 - Welcome to town. I'm unaware of the Indiana Classified Forest Program. What does that mean for the bulk 00:19:48.360 --> 00:19:55.237 - amount of your acreage? Basically, it's a program you opt into. As the president said, we have 77 of 00:19:55.237 --> 00:19:58.846 - the 80 acres in it. It gives certain tax advantages. 00:19:59.074 --> 00:20:05.490 - for it being a protected forest where no building can take place. So it sets it aside for nothing but 00:20:05.490 --> 00:20:11.781 - the forest for the entire period that you have the forest in the program. So to the extent it would 00:20:11.781 --> 00:20:18.511 - ever be some future owner might decide to take it out of the program, they would have to pay back property 00:20:18.511 --> 00:20:25.054 - taxes. You know, we've been spending it for five years. So whatever 20 years from now, 25 years of back 00:20:25.054 --> 00:20:28.702 - property taxes, which pretty much locks it up as a forest 00:20:28.802 --> 00:20:36.041 - that's where the home will be located permanently. Oh, sounds great. Thank you for doing that. My second 00:20:36.041 --> 00:20:43.280 - question is somewhere in the report, it said the area that is cleared is not where the primary residents 00:20:43.280 --> 00:20:50.381 - will be located. Is that true? Did I read that correctly? No, it's where the home will be located. OK, 00:20:50.381 --> 00:20:57.482 - that makes a lot more sense as to why you would clear that. Thank you so much. Any other questions for 00:20:57.482 --> 00:20:58.654 - the petitioners? 00:20:58.754 --> 00:21:04.288 - Thank you, you're welcome to have a seat and we'll turn to members of the public now. So is there anyone 00:21:04.288 --> 00:21:09.559 - in here in the room who wishes to speak in favor of this petition? If so, you're welcome to come to 00:21:09.559 --> 00:21:14.302 - the podium. Okay. If you could sign in and then raise your right hand, I'll swear you in. 00:21:30.722 --> 00:21:37.537 - state your name for us. Scott Harding. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 00:21:37.537 --> 00:21:44.352 - the truth? Okay, you'll have three minutes. And tech services, could we get a clock in Teams for three 00:21:44.352 --> 00:21:51.232 - minutes? Thank you. I'm also their neighbor. Just so happens that I'm lane servile to you. So I've been 00:21:51.232 --> 00:21:58.113 - trying to help them out as we go. But I met Chuck a couple years ago when we did the type E subdivision 00:21:58.113 --> 00:21:59.966 - on the lot line adjustment. 00:22:01.058 --> 00:22:08.214 - You know, when I went out there to meet with him about placement of the house, I saw the trees removed 00:22:08.214 --> 00:22:15.161 - and I thought he took good care of it. He used a forestry mulcher that put mulch back on the slope. 00:22:15.161 --> 00:22:22.456 - So I had no problem with what he did really. And then we staked the 15% line. And that's when I noticed, 00:22:22.456 --> 00:22:29.612 - you know, we need to move the house back. And I've always been told that you can remove the trees, but 00:22:29.612 --> 00:22:30.654 - not the stems. 00:22:31.074 --> 00:22:38.640 - And you know I've done this a long time here in Monroe County and that's always been the case that I 00:22:38.640 --> 00:22:46.281 - thought. But I didn't know about the vegetation removal over the 15% line either. I always thought it 00:22:46.281 --> 00:22:53.847 - was you can remove the trees but not the stems because they log all the time and leave the stems so. 00:22:53.847 --> 00:22:59.390 - And like I said, I've gotten the no check and his wife over the years and 00:23:00.738 --> 00:23:07.539 - I hope you approve the petition. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Do we have anybody else here in the room 00:23:07.539 --> 00:23:14.341 - who wishes to speak in favor? If so, please come to the podium. Anyone who wishes to speak in favor, 00:23:14.341 --> 00:23:21.411 - please raise your virtual hand. Do we have anyone in the room who wishes to speak against this petition? 00:23:21.411 --> 00:23:28.415 - If so, please come to the podium. Anyone online who wishes to speak against this petition, please raise 00:23:28.415 --> 00:23:29.694 - your virtual hand. 00:23:32.738 --> 00:23:41.090 - Seeing no one, we will close public comment then and come back to the members of the Board of Zoning 00:23:41.090 --> 00:23:50.021 - Appeals. Yeah, Mr. Daley. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for Mr. Brown. Our petitioners 00:23:50.021 --> 00:23:58.456 - spent their testimony time explaining, apologizing for the ignorance of mistake that they made of not 00:23:58.456 --> 00:24:01.598 - getting permission to cut those down. 00:24:01.762 --> 00:24:13.691 - describing how responsibly that they did remove that. But my question is, you have listed on here that 00:24:13.691 --> 00:24:26.430 - there are, there should be no disturbance of natural vegetation beyond the 15% slope line. Is there continued 00:24:28.738 --> 00:24:36.930 - Was it just the removal of those trees or is there a continuous issue with this 15 degree slope? So 00:24:36.930 --> 00:24:45.695 - in regards to the disturbance of natural vegetation, cutting down trees does count even though the stump's 00:24:45.695 --> 00:24:54.132 - storming. Okay, but does the building or any future construction violate that 15, in the plan, violate 00:24:54.132 --> 00:24:57.982 - that 15 degree slope? Is there any other issue 00:24:58.594 --> 00:25:07.087 - moving forward in addition to already having cut those trees down. The soil has remained undisturbed 00:25:07.087 --> 00:25:15.748 - as far as we can tell. Though I do believe that the petitioner said during their testimony, and please 00:25:15.748 --> 00:25:24.241 - feel free to correct me on this, that part of the building will not be in the 15% slope. Okay, so in 00:25:24.241 --> 00:25:28.446 - your opinion, will any of the future building for 00:25:28.738 --> 00:25:36.450 - that plan, are we talking about the only matter being something that's already happened? Yes, 00:25:36.450 --> 00:25:44.737 - that's correct. The matter is something that's already happened. This is an after-the-fact variance, 00:25:44.737 --> 00:25:53.351 - effectively. I just want to be clear on that fact. So the matter that we're deciding is something that's 00:25:53.351 --> 00:25:58.110 - already done. Correct. So it's an interesting one in that 00:25:58.530 --> 00:26:05.092 - If you approve it, it allows them to have this vista view that we don't let anybody else really get 00:26:05.092 --> 00:26:11.720 - to have in Monroe County that's in the Lake Shed watershed, right? So by denying it, you kind of are 00:26:11.720 --> 00:26:18.741 - requiring that they do this restoration plan and that they do restore the vegetation, which should include 00:26:18.741 --> 00:26:25.566 - shrubs, plants, trees. All of that is protected. And their certified plot plan, which is in the packet, 00:26:25.826 --> 00:26:33.072 - Um, we reviewed it, the zoning inspector reviewed it, and it does appear that it meets the slope criteria 00:26:33.072 --> 00:26:39.977 - and that the, there should not be any part of that structure within the restricted slopes, but we do 00:26:39.977 --> 00:26:47.018 - show, um, that there was vegetation that was preemptively removed prior to that submission. All right. 00:26:47.018 --> 00:26:54.264 - And assuming this were to get denied, there's no, we're not a sanctioning body. We don't, we can't impose 00:26:54.264 --> 00:26:55.358 - any penalty or, 00:26:55.970 --> 00:27:03.501 - fine, they would just have to make the trees repair. Correct. And I've definitely had a couple of other 00:27:03.501 --> 00:27:10.888 - these that have come before the BCA before, and I've had to do restoration plans. We don't have a set 00:27:10.888 --> 00:27:18.129 - set of specifications in there, but we do require that they follow a professional that that is gets 00:27:18.129 --> 00:27:25.950 - involved and can like make recommendations for that specific site. One quick follow up if I may, Mr. Chair. 00:27:26.146 --> 00:27:35.422 - Mr. Schilling, is there a precedent on this in terms of a similar situation where I was asking for a 00:27:35.422 --> 00:27:44.789 - mea culpa after the fact in terms of something that, if it's a building that was built, we've ordered 00:27:44.789 --> 00:27:53.973 - people to remove that building. In this case, it was something that was removed that can't, I mean, 00:27:53.973 --> 00:27:55.902 - is there a precedent 00:27:56.162 --> 00:28:05.139 - comes to mind? Okay, thank you. May I ask, I don't know how large the footprint of that house will be, 00:28:05.139 --> 00:28:14.202 - but I read that they removed nine trees and we can certainly readily understand that some of those were 00:28:14.202 --> 00:28:22.046 - undoubtedly storm damaged, which they just testified to that being so. So my question is, 00:28:22.242 --> 00:28:29.000 - Do they have enough available footprint with the house to do enough landscaping and tree replanting 00:28:29.000 --> 00:28:35.894 - to meet restoration so they can have both of those things? Does it need to be that particular plot or 00:28:35.894 --> 00:28:42.855 - can it be? So we're requesting that they delineate the 15% slope on site, which will then confirm that 00:28:42.855 --> 00:28:46.910 - their structure of their footprint, their house is going to 00:28:47.266 --> 00:28:54.392 - stay within that boundary. But then also, on the other side of that, that is where we are requesting 00:28:54.392 --> 00:29:01.517 - that a professional come out and propose a restoration plan for that slope, something that would fit 00:29:01.517 --> 00:29:08.925 - within that ecosystem there. So they could have the house that they are hoping to build and also achieve 00:29:08.925 --> 00:29:15.134 - restoration, which we seek. Correct. Which we are interested in studying, I should say. 00:29:15.298 --> 00:29:24.130 - the house at the moment, even though it meets all of our criteria, because there is an outstanding violation. 00:29:24.130 --> 00:29:32.400 - And it's this one right here. This one, yeah. Gotcha. OK, that's very helpful. I just am going to just 00:29:32.400 --> 00:29:40.590 - repeat something I heard in the testimony, which was that that land had been logged before. So it had 00:29:40.590 --> 00:29:44.926 - been previously logged. So that matters to me because 00:29:46.594 --> 00:29:55.460 - because this isn't the first time that land seems. And it probably also means it was not old growth. 00:29:55.460 --> 00:30:03.975 - That's right. It was younger than that. That's right. Probably. This is just a unique situation. 00:30:03.975 --> 00:30:12.929 - It is unique. Yes. Where the building doesn't violate the code, a previous act violates the code. And 00:30:12.929 --> 00:30:14.334 - I'm inclined to 00:30:14.946 --> 00:30:24.921 - trust the testimony, which displayed a great deal of integrity for the environment. So if someone were 00:30:24.921 --> 00:30:34.122 - to support this, I would gladly second it. Well, I'd like to make a motion then, if it's okay. 00:30:34.122 --> 00:30:36.446 - First of all, I find it 00:30:36.642 --> 00:30:44.748 - reassuring that so much of the land is being put into Forest Reserve and that you're also, according 00:30:44.748 --> 00:30:52.935 - to your testimony, you are taking care of invasive species, which is important to everyone throughout 00:30:52.935 --> 00:30:59.998 - the community and to the management of our forests. So with that in mind, on VAR-26-21, 00:31:00.322 --> 00:31:10.949 - for the environmental constraints overlay area two at a 15% slope encroachment request variance from 00:31:10.949 --> 00:31:21.471 - chapter 823 concerning a property at 1405 North Sewell Road. I would like to recommend approval and 00:31:21.471 --> 00:31:26.206 - move that we approve this and I believe that 00:31:26.658 --> 00:31:36.817 - they're making their own remediation plan by committing so much of their extra acreage to forest reserve 00:31:36.817 --> 00:31:46.879 - and that they will they already have consulted with licensed professionals to delineate what it is that 00:31:46.879 --> 00:31:55.006 - has been done on the property and and I know that according to their testimony that 00:31:55.138 --> 00:32:04.498 - further erosion has not taken place due to, I guess, their management plan, despite all these heavy 00:32:04.498 --> 00:32:13.858 - storms that we've had. So because of those reasons, I move approval on this request for a variance. 00:32:13.858 --> 00:32:19.006 - I would love to second that. Would you consider adding 00:32:19.746 --> 00:32:28.403 - the staff recommendation of the stabilizing the slopes necessary to prevent further erosion even though? 00:32:28.403 --> 00:32:36.647 - Sure. Yes. So in my motion, we request the petitioners to stabilize any slopes necessary to prevent 00:32:36.647 --> 00:32:41.182 - further erosion and sediment loss. I will second that. 00:32:46.658 --> 00:32:56.191 - We have a motion in a second. Ms. Biermann's finishing notes over there. Should we ask if that's acceptable 00:32:56.191 --> 00:33:05.283 - to them, if they're willing to do that? Or choice? Yeah. All right. There's been a motion and a second 00:33:05.283 --> 00:33:14.110 - to approve VAR-26-21, the Chamness Eco Area 2 15% slope encroachment for the removal of vegetation. 00:33:15.010 --> 00:33:22.073 - I'll go ahead and call the rule. Oh, and with the condition number three of the staff report that they 00:33:22.073 --> 00:33:28.999 - stabilize any slopes necessary to prevent further erosion and sediment loss. Margaret Clements? Yes. 00:33:28.999 --> 00:33:36.062 - Skip Daley? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Carries four to zero. Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. 00:33:36.062 --> 00:33:41.342 - Chamness for sharing your case with us tonight. Thanks again for the forest. 00:33:43.682 --> 00:33:51.256 - Moving on to the next four petitions, these are VAR-26-22A, B, C, and D. This is the upchurch maximum 00:33:51.256 --> 00:33:58.756 - height variance to chapter 805. The upchurch eco area two, one acre contiguous buildable area varies 00:33:58.756 --> 00:34:06.627 - to chapter 823. The upchurch eco area two, 15% slope encroachment varies to chapter 823. And the upchurch 00:34:06.627 --> 00:34:11.454 - eco area two, residential density maximum varies to chapter 823. 00:34:11.650 --> 00:34:18.909 - I believe that all four of these have a recommendation of approval from staff as well. So do we have 00:34:18.909 --> 00:34:26.169 - any members here in the room who wish to speak against this petition? If so, please raise your hand. 00:34:26.169 --> 00:34:32.853 - Or if you're online and wish to speak against this petition, please raise your virtual hand. 00:34:32.853 --> 00:34:40.184 - Seeing no one, we will come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Chair, at this time, I'd like to 00:34:40.184 --> 00:34:41.406 - make a motion to 00:34:41.634 --> 00:34:52.742 - call the question for objective verdict on this matter. Variance is 26-22, Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, 00:34:52.742 --> 00:35:04.417 - and Delta. All right, there's been a motion and a second to call the question. Margaret Clements? Yes. 00:35:04.417 --> 00:35:10.878 - Skip Haley? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. 00:35:11.426 --> 00:35:22.392 - Motion carries four to zero. Do we have a motion to approve these four variances? Yes, Mr. Chair, I 00:35:22.392 --> 00:35:33.468 - will make a motion based on staff approval recommendations and the finding of practical difficulties 00:35:33.468 --> 00:35:40.158 - being demonstrated and conditions in our code being met that 00:35:40.706 --> 00:35:56.390 - We approve with the recommended conditions in the packet for variances 26-22 alpha through delta. Do 00:35:56.390 --> 00:36:09.278 - we have a second? I'll second that. All right, there's been a motion and a second. 00:36:09.410 --> 00:36:17.870 - to approve VAR-26-22A, B, C, and D. This is the upchurch maximum height to chapter 805. The upchurch 00:36:17.870 --> 00:36:27.000 - eco area two variances to chapter 823 for the one acre contiguous buildable area, the 15% slope encroachment 00:36:27.000 --> 00:36:35.879 - and the residential density maximum. I'll go ahead and call the roll. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Haley? 00:36:35.879 --> 00:36:39.230 - Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? 00:36:39.330 --> 00:36:41.790 - Yes. Motion carries four to zero. 00:36:50.306 --> 00:36:57.053 - I'm going to excuse myself. You have a quorum to continue while I go down and feed the meter. I hope 00:36:57.053 --> 00:37:04.000 - I don't have a ticket on my car. But we'll see. Can you continue without the only right now? OK, moving 00:37:04.000 --> 00:37:10.079 - on to the next petition. This one's VAR-26-23. And this is the Olavarieta. And I apologize 00:37:10.079 --> 00:37:16.158 - if I'm mispronouncing that. Eco Area 2, residential density maximum varies to Chapter 823. 00:37:16.226 --> 00:37:24.640 - And again, we have staff recommendation for approval. So do we have anyone here in the room who wishes 00:37:24.640 --> 00:37:33.136 - to speak against this petition? If so, please come to the podium. Or if you're online and wish to speak 00:37:33.136 --> 00:37:41.387 - against this petition, please raise your virtual hand. Seeing no one, I'll come back to the board to 00:37:41.387 --> 00:37:43.838 - call the question. Mr. Chair. 00:37:44.770 --> 00:37:55.763 - If I may, I'd like to motion to call the question for a directed verdict on variance 26-23. Do we have 00:37:55.763 --> 00:38:07.397 - a second? That's a second. All right. There's been a motion and a second to call the question for BAR-26-23. 00:38:07.397 --> 00:38:13.374 - Pamela Davidson? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. 00:38:14.178 --> 00:38:24.002 - and Margaret Clements has stepped out, so she's unavailable. All right, that motion carries three to 00:38:24.002 --> 00:38:33.729 - zero. Do we have a motion? Mr. Chair, if I may, I wish to motion to approve variance 26-23 based on 00:38:33.729 --> 00:38:43.358 - the recommendation in diligent work done by staff and that practical difficulties are demonstrated 00:38:43.842 --> 00:38:55.050 - for this variance. I second that. All right, there's been a motion in a second to approve VAR-26-23. 00:38:55.050 --> 00:39:05.702 - This is the Ola Barrieta Eco Area 2 residential density maximum to Chapter 823. Skip Daly? Yes. 00:39:05.702 --> 00:39:13.470 - Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Motion carries three to zero. 00:39:14.818 --> 00:39:21.296 - Moving on to the last item on the agenda, VAR-26-24. This is the McBride front yard setback variance 00:39:21.296 --> 00:39:27.710 - to chapter 805. And again, we have a staff recommendation of approval. So do we have anyone here in 00:39:27.710 --> 00:39:34.124 - the room who wishes to speak against this petition? If so, please come to the podium. Anyone online 00:39:34.124 --> 00:39:40.923 - who wishes to speak against this petition? Seeing no one, I will come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals 00:39:40.923 --> 00:39:42.334 - to call the question. 00:39:44.866 --> 00:39:55.185 - absolutely love the opportunity to motion for objective verdict and to call the question on variance 00:39:55.185 --> 00:40:05.708 - 26-24. I will second that. Okay there's been a motion and a second to call the question for VAR-26-24. 00:40:05.708 --> 00:40:14.494 - Skip Daly? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Motion carries three to zero. 00:40:15.170 --> 00:40:26.362 - Hey, do we have a motion to approve? Mr. Chair, if I may, I would like to motion for approval on variance 00:40:26.362 --> 00:40:36.920 - 26-24, McBride front setback variance to chapter 804 based on the recommended approval of staff and 00:40:36.920 --> 00:40:42.622 - their diligent work as well as practical difficulties 00:40:42.914 --> 00:40:52.927 - being demonstrated in the evidence we have. I second that. All right. There's been a motion and a second. 00:40:52.927 --> 00:41:02.657 - And this is to variance VAR-26-24, the McBride front yard setback to chapter 805. So I'm going to make 00:41:02.657 --> 00:41:10.686 - a correction that it was 805. And I'll go ahead and call the roll. Jeff Morris? Yes. 00:41:11.010 --> 00:41:20.343 - Pamela Davidson? Yes. And Skip Daly? Yes. Motion carries three to zero. I hope Margaret isn't putting 00:41:20.343 --> 00:41:29.492 - too much time on the meter. We have a matter to go back to. Yes. Mr. Schelling, we've got the court 00:41:29.492 --> 00:41:36.446 - ordered findings for Bedford Recycling CDU-21-3 under 53C06-2110-MI-002052. 00:41:44.706 --> 00:41:51.837 - for sure working. Hello. Yeah, there we go. Yeah, we can hear you now. OK, I cannot recall. Did I pass 00:41:51.837 --> 00:41:58.759 - out copies of the court's order last time? And did everyone have a chance to look at that? You did, 00:41:58.759 --> 00:42:04.990 - and I did, yes. I wasn't here, so I didn't see that. OK. Let me circulate a few of those. 00:42:17.954 --> 00:42:45.150 - Thank you. Thank you. After the Supreme Court's decision. I don't think you're on the microphone. 00:42:47.266 --> 00:42:56.569 - After the Supreme Court's decision on the Bedford Recycling case, it went back to the trial court on 00:42:56.569 --> 00:43:06.241 - Bedford Republic Services petition for judicial review. And the court had conducted a hearing, and these 00:43:06.241 --> 00:43:15.729 - are the findings on that hearing. And if you turn to the last page, this is the only thing that really 00:43:15.729 --> 00:43:16.926 - concerns us. 00:43:17.218 --> 00:43:26.530 - that the court has remanded it to the Board of Zoning Appeals for findings on two issues. And so the 00:43:26.530 --> 00:43:36.026 - board will need to make findings on that based on its record from the September 1st, 2021 hearing. And 00:43:36.026 --> 00:43:45.246 - so I've outlined, well, that would be a certified record was submitted to the court as part of this 00:43:45.730 --> 00:43:57.497 - process and exhibits one through seven, 18 and 19 are part of the record of the September 1st, 00:43:57.497 --> 00:44:06.910 - 2021 hearing. So with respect to issue two that we're supposed to consider, 00:44:07.490 --> 00:44:14.150 - whether the Board of Zoning Appeals collected proofs that Bedford Recycling delivered to a 00:44:14.150 --> 00:44:21.616 - board administrator, a proof that the notice sent by certified mail were either delivered or returned 00:44:21.616 --> 00:44:29.228 - undeliverable. There's nothing in the record that satisfies that. And so that was not met. The question 00:44:29.228 --> 00:44:35.742 - then becomes, according to Judge Crotty, whether the property owned by Republic Services 00:44:36.290 --> 00:44:46.490 - was required, the property owners were required to be given notice by Bedford Recycling. Okay. And under 00:44:46.490 --> 00:44:56.399 - the rules, our rules, the ordinance and the board's rules and procedure, abutting property owners are 00:44:56.399 --> 00:45:05.822 - required to be given notice. And so the question is whether the Republic Services property abuts 00:45:06.018 --> 00:45:16.301 - Bedford Recycling's property. And I guess the legal department has looked at it, staff has looked at 00:45:16.301 --> 00:45:26.483 - it, and it is our belief, which you can disagree with, that there is not sufficient evidence in the 00:45:26.483 --> 00:45:30.046 - record to make that determination. 00:45:30.210 --> 00:45:39.440 - There are no meets and bounds legal descriptions which can be compared that are in the record. Bedford 00:45:39.440 --> 00:45:48.759 - Recycling submitted its deed, but it refers to lot one of a subdivision. So there's no meets and bounds 00:45:48.759 --> 00:45:55.390 - description on that. And there is nothing relating to Republic's property 00:45:55.554 --> 00:46:05.821 - there's no legal document relating to public property in the record whatsoever, because it simply wasn't 00:46:05.821 --> 00:46:15.599 - an issue that was raised. And there are a few GIS printouts in the record, probably two or three of 00:46:15.599 --> 00:46:25.182 - them. And on one of them, it looks like there's a little gap. But the question is, do you rely on 00:46:25.730 --> 00:46:38.082 - the county's GIS records as being accurate enough to establish connection. The county has switched since 00:46:38.082 --> 00:46:50.081 - that time from elevate to beacon. So even if we were to look at something now, just that it would not 00:46:50.081 --> 00:46:53.022 - necessarily be the same. 00:46:53.378 --> 00:47:02.355 - But are we or are we not allowed to look at anything now? Is it just what was presented then? That is 00:47:02.355 --> 00:47:11.332 - our belief that we have to base our decision on the record. I don't believe that the board is allowed 00:47:11.332 --> 00:47:20.310 - to conduct another hearing on this, but we believe that the trial court can accept new evidence under 00:47:20.310 --> 00:47:22.334 - limited circumstances. 00:47:22.434 --> 00:47:30.516 - We feel, I mean, it's the legal department's position that we would need to compare legal descriptions, 00:47:30.516 --> 00:47:39.065 - meets and bounds, legal descriptions of these two properties to determine whether they abut. From information 00:47:39.065 --> 00:47:46.914 - that was in the record at that time in September of 21. Well, that information is not in the record. 00:47:46.914 --> 00:47:51.422 - So we believe that a court, the trial court would need to 00:47:51.618 --> 00:47:59.787 - ask for that submission of that and evidence gis website says if i'm not mistaken not to be used for 00:47:59.787 --> 00:48:08.198 - legal purposes it's a disclaimer on the website isn't it correct yeah so what yours it wouldn't be used 00:48:08.198 --> 00:48:16.771 - for legal purposes it would with the legal purpose we would well much like many things that are presented 00:48:16.771 --> 00:48:17.822 - to us or not 00:48:17.986 --> 00:48:26.229 - used for legal purpose but we make decisions based on testimony that's presented and evidence that's 00:48:26.229 --> 00:48:34.472 - placed into the record. So what you're saying to us is the issue is did they get notice which no one 00:48:34.472 --> 00:48:42.715 - really knows because it's not in the record and number two were did they deserve notice because they 00:48:42.715 --> 00:48:44.510 - abutted and that also 00:48:44.642 --> 00:48:54.663 - is up for interpretation. So it sounds like a zero for two in terms of certainty. Yeah, the I think 00:48:54.663 --> 00:49:04.785 - it's my understanding that staff's position was if the petitioner is required to send out notices to 00:49:04.785 --> 00:49:12.702 - interested parties who are abutting property owners. So Bedford Recycling sent 00:49:13.218 --> 00:49:22.759 - republic a notice okay there's there's evidence in the record to support that the notice was sent okay 00:49:22.759 --> 00:49:31.929 - there isn't any evidence in the record to support the the finding that it was received or returned 00:49:31.929 --> 00:49:37.950 - undelivered so the question is bedford's recycling sent republic 00:49:38.370 --> 00:49:48.028 - a notice and as far as the bza is concerned if they did that it's clear that that it's not an issue 00:49:48.028 --> 00:49:57.782 - okay it but um there was never any testimony or evidence introduced on the issue of whether republic 00:49:57.782 --> 00:50:04.446 - was in the budding property owner because they were just notified so 00:50:04.610 --> 00:50:12.872 - to the BZA, it didn't make that much difference at that time because they were sent notice. What the 00:50:12.872 --> 00:50:21.379 - problem was, was that Bedford didn't submit the proof of notice. Yes. So what do you seek from us? What 00:50:21.379 --> 00:50:29.558 - do we need to decide and do? And when do you seek it? Well, that's up to you. There was no timeline 00:50:29.558 --> 00:50:31.358 - on the court's order. 00:50:32.994 --> 00:50:41.886 - really just sort of asking you how you want to proceed, what kind of documents would you want to look 00:50:41.886 --> 00:50:50.692 - at and consider? And we have proposed findings, but whether you want to see those now or whether you 00:50:50.692 --> 00:50:59.584 - want to wait until you've had a chance to study the record yourself, it's up to you. May I? Yeah. I'd 00:50:59.584 --> 00:51:01.502 - like to look through. 00:51:01.826 --> 00:51:12.404 - what you hear today. And then I would like to kind of take what you said tonight and kind of stood over 00:51:12.404 --> 00:51:22.880 - for a few days and over the weekend draft an email with some questions that I have and I I'm proposing 00:51:22.880 --> 00:51:30.814 - to send that out to the group and kind of start from there and see where that 00:51:31.362 --> 00:51:43.096 - takes us in terms of timeline and if anyone else has any follow-up questions or requests for information? 00:51:43.096 --> 00:51:54.166 - Well, I would prefer if any questions that the board has or members directed to staff only and then 00:51:54.166 --> 00:52:00.254 - staff can circulate questions. We really have to avoid 00:52:00.418 --> 00:52:09.361 - the appearance that the board is conducting an email conversation on this issue. So, yeah. Fair enough. 00:52:09.361 --> 00:52:18.304 - And that makes sense in this matter, I guess. All right. I will send you an email on Monday. Then maybe 00:52:18.304 --> 00:52:26.902 - that can be a starting point. And then you guys can distribute what you wish through the in the way 00:52:26.902 --> 00:52:29.310 - that upholds the integrity. 00:52:33.538 --> 00:52:42.042 - Do you intend to have this resolved by next month's meeting or? I personally feel like if I looked it 00:52:42.042 --> 00:52:50.795 - over, I could be ready to vote on it next month. Okay. Would that be acceptable timeline wise? Alrighty. 00:52:50.795 --> 00:52:59.132 - I'll get you copies of the record exhibits that are applicable to the September 1st hearing. And so 00:52:59.132 --> 00:53:03.134 - the only thing we're being asked to certify are 00:53:03.554 --> 00:53:15.465 - items number one and two on page 26. Yeah, to prepare findings on those two issues. Prepare findings 00:53:15.465 --> 00:53:27.611 - on that. So the findings could be, for example, it's not possible to determine whether or not Republic 00:53:27.611 --> 00:53:32.446 - Services abuts the property in question. 00:53:32.962 --> 00:53:45.632 - And, um, you know, with item number two, do we always collect proof that, um, that the, this is a specific 00:53:45.632 --> 00:53:57.591 - requirement for conditional uses. I see. So you've also told us that there's proof it got mailed. It 00:53:57.591 --> 00:54:01.854 - just is unknown if it was received. 00:54:02.626 --> 00:54:12.175 - correct? Yes. And that's all part of the evidence entered into the record that we approve at the beginning 00:54:12.175 --> 00:54:21.903 - of. I think we have a big problem with item one, the abutment issue. If the staff have perused it carefully, 00:54:21.903 --> 00:54:31.006 - if we cannot meet that requirement, then we probably have factual problems succeeding, I would think. 00:54:31.298 --> 00:54:41.843 - One of the matters that I'm seeing is I'm interested in knowing Does the statute require receipt or 00:54:41.843 --> 00:54:52.809 - does the statute require? Mailing the ordinance requires that before the hearing the petitioners submit 00:54:52.809 --> 00:55:00.190 - certified mail receipts proving that it was received or received on a 00:55:00.770 --> 00:55:10.625 - deliverable. Okay. So there's no question that that record notices were mailed out. Those were mailed 00:55:10.625 --> 00:55:20.577 - out and you have the receipts that it was either received on deliverable. We do not or it was not. Oh, 00:55:20.577 --> 00:55:30.142 - you do not. So this could really hinge on whether or not the property is contiguous. That's right. 00:55:31.234 --> 00:55:39.670 - Because otherwise the obligation falls by the wayside. That's right. One, two doesn't matter. 00:55:39.670 --> 00:55:48.644 - That's right. That's it. That's it. It's like a dance. Yeah. All right. OK. Would you like a motion 00:55:48.644 --> 00:55:57.708 - to continue this to the August meeting? Yes, please. OK. Can we get a motion? I will. Oh, sorry. No, 00:55:57.708 --> 00:56:01.118 - go right ahead. I will motion that we 00:56:02.370 --> 00:56:14.520 - that we table this evening and come back for a vote on this at our next regularly scheduled meeting 00:56:14.520 --> 00:56:27.034 - in the month of August. We have a second. I second that. All right, there's been a motion and a second 00:56:27.034 --> 00:56:29.950 - to forward and continue 00:56:30.082 --> 00:56:39.993 - the court ordered findings for Bedford Recycling, CDU-21-3 under a very long state code to the next 00:56:39.993 --> 00:56:50.301 - meeting. Do you want me to read that code? You do. And that would be for, I believe, August 5th to that 00:56:50.301 --> 00:56:59.518 - meeting. All right, I'll go ahead and call the roll. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. 00:56:59.650 --> 00:57:08.511 - Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Motion carries four to zero. Do we have any legal reports tonight? 00:57:08.511 --> 00:57:16.792 - No, but would you like for me to email you copies of the record exhibits that need to be looked at? 00:57:16.792 --> 00:57:25.570 - I think that would be helpful. Yeah. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Schilling. Do we have any staff reports tonight, 00:57:25.570 --> 00:57:27.806 - Tammy? None from planning. 00:57:28.258 --> 00:57:34.366 - Do we have a motion for adjournment? I move to adjourn. Second that. Margaret's put money into me.