WEBVTT 00:00:00.418 --> 00:00:10.101 - Good evening. Thanks for being here. Tonight is the August 5th, 2026th meeting of the Monroe County 00:00:10.101 --> 00:00:20.560 - Board of Zoning and Appeals. I would like to call that to order. Can we go ahead with a roll call director? 00:00:20.560 --> 00:00:29.662 - Yes, Margaret Clements here. Skip daily. Pamela Davidson here. Guy Loftman here. Jeff Morris. 00:00:30.466 --> 00:00:41.422 - So we have four members in person in a quorum. And Director, in the absence of Chairman Morris, I will 00:00:41.422 --> 00:00:50.782 - be chairing tonight's proceedings. All right. Let's introduce the evidence, please. OK. 00:00:50.914 --> 00:00:56.684 - I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance 00:00:56.684 --> 00:01:02.625 - as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Control Ordinance as adopted 00:01:02.625 --> 00:01:08.396 - and amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Board of 00:01:08.396 --> 00:01:14.223 - Zoning Appeals Rules and Procedure as adopted and amended. And the cases that were legally advertised 00:01:14.223 --> 00:01:17.022 - and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's agenda. 00:01:17.922 --> 00:01:25.700 - I'd like to move to introduce the evidence as just enumerated. Second. It's been moved and seconded 00:01:25.700 --> 00:01:33.944 - to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is about to approve. Skip Daly? Yes. Pamela Davidson? 00:01:33.944 --> 00:01:42.188 - Yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Motion carries four to zero. And with regard to the agenda, 00:01:42.188 --> 00:01:47.710 - I'd like to request that we approve the agenda with the change that we 00:01:47.842 --> 00:01:55.440 - move administrative business to the end of the meeting. There's also been one withdrawal of the new 00:01:55.440 --> 00:02:03.721 - business case. First case V a R dash 25 dash 49. So Blackwell on South Old State Road, 37 general contractor 00:02:03.721 --> 00:02:11.471 - use variants that has been withdrawn. Okay, so I'd like to move approval of the agenda with those two 00:02:11.471 --> 00:02:16.030 - changes. Administrative business at the end of the meeting. 00:02:16.418 --> 00:02:26.451 - and with the VAR-25-49 withdrawn. Before we call a roll on that, could I just seek advice from staff 00:02:26.451 --> 00:02:37.080 - to see if you are amenable prior to the board making that decision? Oh, yeah. All right. Carry on, please. 00:02:37.080 --> 00:02:41.054 - This needs to be seconded. Yep. Second. 00:02:42.018 --> 00:02:50.396 - Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve tonight's agenda with two modifications as enumerated 00:02:50.396 --> 00:02:58.858 - by Miss Margaret Clements. A vote yes is a vote to approve the amended agenda. Pamela Davidson? Yes. 00:02:58.858 --> 00:03:08.158 - Guy Loftman? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daley? Yes. Motion is approved four to zero. There are minutes. 00:03:08.546 --> 00:03:18.710 - I would like to ask the board if anybody has not had the opportunity to review the minutes for April 00:03:18.710 --> 00:03:28.874 - the 1st, May the 6th, and June the 3rd, all of 2026. Hearing nobody, does anybody have any requested 00:03:28.874 --> 00:03:38.334 - amendments or changes to those three for said minutes? All right, those minutes are approved. 00:03:43.490 --> 00:03:55.508 - Let's move on to new business, variance 26-14 Charlie and 14 Delta. Oh, are those part? No, those are 00:03:55.508 --> 00:04:07.762 - separate. All right, variance 26-14 Charlie and variance 26-14 Delta. Mr. Brown, could you move forward 00:04:07.762 --> 00:04:10.590 - with your presentation? 00:04:11.042 --> 00:04:20.950 - May I ask the point of information? Is this one that recommends approval? It is indeed. Approval is 00:04:20.950 --> 00:04:31.156 - recommended for both variances. That being the case, I suggest that we use the simplified plan we have 00:04:31.156 --> 00:04:38.686 - in situations like this, which would first I would ask if any board members 00:04:38.946 --> 00:04:48.519 - object to proceeding toward a decision on this without discussion, without presentation? I believe let's, 00:04:48.519 --> 00:04:57.550 - before we jump to that conclusion, let me pull that up real quick if you don't mind. All right, let 00:04:57.550 --> 00:05:06.942 - me ask in advance if there's any members of the audience or any members online that have any opposition 00:05:07.042 --> 00:05:15.334 - to variances 26-14 Charlie and 14 Delta. Seeing no one, would you like to continue with your motion? 00:05:15.334 --> 00:05:23.543 - Yes, is there a representative petitioner? Would the petitioner have any objection to the, although 00:05:23.543 --> 00:05:31.917 - there are no conditions, so it's hard to imagine the petitioner would have any objections. That being 00:05:31.917 --> 00:05:34.462 - the case, I move the question. 00:05:34.562 --> 00:05:44.071 - and suggest we proceed direct. There's a motion to call the question on the first order of the new business. 00:05:44.071 --> 00:05:53.057 - Is there a second? I second that. Director, could you please call a roll on calling the question? It's 00:05:53.057 --> 00:06:00.734 - been moved and seconded to go ahead and follow the staff recommendation for VAR-26-14C. 00:06:00.898 --> 00:06:08.737 - which is the eco area one acre contiguous buildable area of variance to chapter 823. And VAR-26-14D, 00:06:08.737 --> 00:06:15.955 - which is the karst conservancy area setback to chapter 826. A vote yes is a vote to approve. 00:06:15.955 --> 00:06:23.794 - Point of order. I'm sorry. We actually are just motioning for our ability to call the question. Then 00:06:23.794 --> 00:06:28.606 - there'll be a motion for approval or denial after. I'm sorry. 00:06:28.898 --> 00:06:37.836 - No, that's okay. Thank you for the clarification. So this is a motion to call to order by the board 00:06:37.836 --> 00:06:47.041 - on bar-26-14C and 14D. A vote yes is a vote to call to order. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? 00:06:47.041 --> 00:06:53.566 - Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Is there a motion from the board? 00:06:54.274 --> 00:07:03.908 - I move to approve variances 26, 14C and D and adopt the recommendations and conclusions of the report 00:07:03.908 --> 00:07:13.541 - in support of that. And may I add, and practical difficulties have been shown? Practical difficulties 00:07:13.541 --> 00:07:21.758 - have been shown through the report. Okay, thank you. Is there a second? I second that. 00:07:23.234 --> 00:07:33.109 - Okay, it's been moved and seconded now to approve both VAR-26-14C and VAR-26-14D, which is the Eco Area 00:07:33.109 --> 00:07:43.175 - 1 and the Kars Conservancy Area Setback variances. A vote yes is a vote to approve both variances without 00:07:43.175 --> 00:07:52.670 - any required conditions. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daley? Yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Pamela Davidson? 00:07:52.802 --> 00:08:06.043 - Yes. Motion is approved, 4 to 0. Thank you, Director, and thank you, Mr. Brown. You're good. Congratulations. 00:08:06.043 --> 00:08:18.322 - Absolutely not. I'm teasing. I believe that is correct, and Mr. Brown will answer any of your further 00:08:18.322 --> 00:08:19.646 - questions. 00:08:25.026 --> 00:08:36.127 - With that being said, let's move to page 39 in our books, variance 26-25. And you have the floor. Good 00:08:36.127 --> 00:08:46.906 - evening. This is the Crow Crone front yard setback variance. The address is 3880 East Door Road and 00:08:46.906 --> 00:08:54.558 - the property is zoned residential one in agricultural residential 2.5. 00:08:57.346 --> 00:09:05.033 - So the request is a front yard setback from chapter 805. The purpose is for replacement of a garage 00:09:05.033 --> 00:09:12.797 - that will encroach into the front yard setback and is located on neighboring lot. The structure is a 00:09:12.797 --> 00:09:20.485 - 576 square foot garage that the petitioner is proposing to place 11.2 to 11.9 feet back from center 00:09:20.485 --> 00:09:26.942 - line of East Door Road. That is a local road according to the Monroe County, sorry. 00:09:27.170 --> 00:09:34.912 - there's a thoroughfare plan. They're required for a yard setback for the subject property, which the 00:09:34.912 --> 00:09:42.731 - garage will be located is 25 feet from edge of pavement or edge of right away. The garage is supposed 00:09:42.731 --> 00:09:50.396 - to be placed west of the driveway, the existing driveway that is, and it will be facing east. There 00:09:50.396 --> 00:09:56.222 - is a gravel drive that will, the petitioner has stated will connect to that 00:09:56.642 --> 00:10:03.736 - structure. The petitioner was informed that the setback request applies only to the structure and not 00:10:03.736 --> 00:10:10.691 - to the entirety of the lot for any future development, so they've been made aware. And the boundary 00:10:10.691 --> 00:10:17.855 - survey that was conducted by Bynum-Fanio Associates identifies the parcel as 5.0 acres. The petitioner 00:10:17.855 --> 00:10:24.809 - states that the area east of the driveway contains a septic field and two mature historic trees are 00:10:24.809 --> 00:10:26.270 - located to the south 00:10:26.626 --> 00:10:35.714 - of the lot, which constrains viable locations for the structure. The structure will not be located on 00:10:35.714 --> 00:10:44.623 - the petitioner's current lot and type E administrative subdivision will have to be pursued to amend 00:10:44.623 --> 00:10:51.038 - the lot line so that the garage will be insured to be not only on their 00:10:51.682 --> 00:10:58.067 - property, but also be able to meet all applicable setbacks. Should this variance be approved, the petitioner 00:10:58.067 --> 00:11:03.984 - will have to pursue the type B administrative subdivision application to amend the lot lines. Like I 00:11:03.984 --> 00:11:09.901 - stated before, if the variance request is denied, the petitioner will have to relocate the structure 00:11:09.901 --> 00:11:15.994 - to an area that meets the zoning designation development standards for that zoning district. Other than 00:11:15.994 --> 00:11:20.446 - that, the property meets all standards of the county development ordinance. 00:11:22.178 --> 00:11:31.462 - These are comments from the highway department, project manager Ben Ayers. Would you go back to read 00:11:31.462 --> 00:11:41.758 - this? I can't read that. Okay, I'll just go ahead and read it. Thank you stated other than routine maintenance. 00:11:41.922 --> 00:11:48.388 - We do not have any plans to widen or make any improvements to East Door Road at this time. The proposed 00:11:48.388 --> 00:11:54.730 - encroachment should not impact sight lines for ingress slash egress or motorists along East Door Road 00:11:54.730 --> 00:12:01.072 - per the applicant. I do not have any issues or comments with this petition at the time. Thank you. So 00:12:01.072 --> 00:12:07.414 - here is a snippet from Beacon GIS showing the location of the proposed garage and showing the acreage 00:12:07.414 --> 00:12:08.222 - for both the 00:12:08.514 --> 00:12:15.815 - subject property and the neighboring property. As you can see, the little yellow line is based on the 00:12:15.815 --> 00:12:23.259 - boundary survey conducted by Bynum-Fano Associates, and that is what the actual property boundary lines 00:12:23.259 --> 00:12:30.703 - look like. Here's the location map and the zoning map. As you can see, the configuration looks a little 00:12:30.703 --> 00:12:36.286 - bit different than what we see here. We believe that's due to a section line. 00:12:37.186 --> 00:12:45.726 - why that property is zoned Residential 1. Here's the comprehensive plan map, the site condition map. 00:12:45.726 --> 00:12:54.689 - As you can see in the site condition map, east of the property has pretty steep slopes of 25 plus percent 00:12:54.689 --> 00:13:03.651 - on the majority of the eastern portion of the property. And there is a lot of existing tree canopy there. 00:13:03.651 --> 00:13:06.526 - Here's a snippet from Eagle View. 00:13:06.882 --> 00:13:15.623 - showing the subject property on the east. That is where the garage is proposed to be located. You can 00:13:15.623 --> 00:13:24.192 - see the gravel drive east of it. And that is what will connect to the proposed garage. So this is a 00:13:24.192 --> 00:13:33.361 - photo I snapped of the existing tree canopy east of the lot. And the photo to the right shows the historic 00:13:33.361 --> 00:13:36.446 - trees. To the south that is, sorry. 00:13:37.986 --> 00:13:46.179 - The arrows indicate the location of the septic, where the petitioner believes the septic system is located, 00:13:46.179 --> 00:13:53.918 - and that's in front of the residence. And the picture to the right is another picture in front of the 00:13:53.918 --> 00:14:01.808 - residence showing that same proposed septic location. Here's a letter from petitioner's representatives 00:14:01.808 --> 00:14:02.718 - to the BZA. 00:14:04.898 --> 00:14:13.336 - Here's the boundary survey that was conducted by Bonifacio associates showing that those property boundary 00:14:13.336 --> 00:14:21.300 - lines that I showed earlier. And here's the proposed location that the barrage, as you can see, it's 00:14:21.300 --> 00:14:29.264 - just west of where their boundary line ends. So they hope to create that with amending the lot lines 00:14:29.264 --> 00:14:32.734 - with the type B administrative subdivision. 00:14:35.010 --> 00:14:43.028 - Here's a letter of support that we received. And here's staff's recommendation. Staff recommends denial 00:14:43.028 --> 00:14:51.277 - as practical difficulties have not been demonstrated. The petitioner could relocate the proposed structure 00:14:51.277 --> 00:14:59.449 - to meet the required front setback. I'll now answer any questions. Well, I think we'll hold on questions, 00:14:59.449 --> 00:15:02.302 - but I want to preempt that with one, 00:15:02.818 --> 00:15:10.473 - I didn't see in the package. Do you have confirmation that proper notice was sent out to neighbors for 00:15:10.473 --> 00:15:18.351 - the record? Yes. All right. Thank you. All right. Is the petitioner or a representative of the petitioner 00:15:18.351 --> 00:15:25.784 - either here or online? Looks like here. All right. The things I'm going to ask you guys to do is to 00:15:25.784 --> 00:15:31.358 - come up and individually sign in on the book that should be on the podium. 00:15:33.250 --> 00:15:42.849 - And then whoever is going to speak first, you will have a collective 15 minutes. That's one five. I 00:15:42.849 --> 00:15:53.023 - ask a couple of things. One, that you adjust the microphone appropriately so we can get you on the record 00:15:53.023 --> 00:16:02.910 - and we can all hear what you have to say. And two, I will ask that you both swear in at the same time. 00:16:04.194 --> 00:16:18.300 - Raise your right hand when you're finished signing the book. You both attest that the testimony you're 00:16:18.300 --> 00:16:31.996 - about to provide is the truth as you know it. All right, thank you. Your 15 minutes will begin when 00:16:31.996 --> 00:16:33.502 - you speak. 00:16:33.986 --> 00:16:40.159 - Hi, my name's Lynn Cron. I'm the petitioner. What we're trying to do is build a pole barn. Graver Post 00:16:40.159 --> 00:16:46.332 - is going to build it. It's going to look beautiful. It needs to be closer to the road to avoid the two 00:16:46.332 --> 00:16:52.744 - large trees. They're gorgeous trees. You wouldn't want to take them down, but they would be an obstruction 00:16:52.744 --> 00:16:58.857 - for the building. So we're asking that we can move that building a little closer to the road to avoid 00:16:58.857 --> 00:17:01.374 - the trees and avoid taking the trees out. 00:17:02.050 --> 00:17:08.414 - We have purchased the land through an agreement with Ron Crow. It's a 40 by 40 square foot small spot 00:17:08.414 --> 00:17:14.778 - at the end of our driveway. We've been neighbors of his since 1994. And so he gave us a good neighbor 00:17:14.778 --> 00:17:21.204 - discount on the property. Everyone in our neighborhood that I know of is in support of this. I haven't 00:17:21.204 --> 00:17:27.693 - heard any complaints, including from the neighbors across the road. The barn was designed by my husband 00:17:27.693 --> 00:17:30.750 - who has passed while we've been waiting on this. 00:17:31.586 --> 00:17:38.527 - So I'd like to see it built in his memory. And I'd like you to consider it. We've been a long time in 00:17:38.527 --> 00:17:45.468 - Rowe County residents. My husband lived here his whole life. So the point of the barn is to store his 00:17:45.468 --> 00:17:52.477 - tractor and our gator and other farm equipment that we have on the property to get them out from under 00:17:52.477 --> 00:17:58.942 - tarp and in a decent building where he could work on them. So I appreciate your consideration. 00:18:01.570 --> 00:18:28.350 - question. Can we can we hold off until the 15 until they completely. Yes. Any members of the board? My 00:18:28.994 --> 00:18:35.749 - for 3880 East Door Road. We're requesting a front setback variance for the 24 by 24 structure. While 00:18:35.749 --> 00:18:42.303 - staff recommends denial based on location options, a closer look at the physical site constraints 00:18:42.303 --> 00:18:49.058 - demonstrates that the specific location is the only site logical choice that protects the property's 00:18:49.058 --> 00:18:55.746 - infrastructure and natural environment. First, regarding the public safety and road maintenance, as 00:18:55.746 --> 00:18:58.622 - Ben Ayers said, you guys saw that comment, 00:18:59.010 --> 00:19:05.466 - I also have a copy of our survey printed out a little bit bigger if you guys want to see that. There 00:19:05.466 --> 00:19:12.050 - were zero sightline issues for drivers, no road, no impact on road operations and no highway concerns. 00:19:12.050 --> 00:19:18.506 - East door road is a quiet local road with no future widening plan. Furthermore, the garage will face 00:19:18.506 --> 00:19:25.409 - east towards the existing gravel drive, maintain the rural character of the neighborhood without negatively 00:19:25.409 --> 00:19:28.158 - affecting the surrounding property values. 00:19:29.154 --> 00:19:34.906 - The staff report suggests that the structure could simply be shifted back, however, doing so forces 00:19:34.906 --> 00:19:40.773 - into three severe site site conflicts. The area east of the drive is where the existing septic is for 00:19:40.773 --> 00:19:46.927 - the house. Moving south or east pushes the structure directly into the 25% slopes and moving the footprint 00:19:46.927 --> 00:19:52.679 - back to simply comply with the 25 foot setback would require clear cutting the landmark trees and a 00:19:52.679 --> 00:19:54.462 - white oak and a sycamore tree. 00:19:55.842 --> 00:20:01.641 - We fully acknowledge that this variance will only take effect following the completion of our type E 00:20:01.641 --> 00:20:07.383 - subdivision to clean up the lot lines. This project represents the absolute minimum variance needed 00:20:07.383 --> 00:20:13.527 - to allow a functional garage while honoring the natural topography and assets of the land. We respectfully 00:20:13.527 --> 00:20:19.499 - request your approval tonight. Thank you. Well, thank you for addressing the slope issue because I read 00:20:19.499 --> 00:20:21.566 - that in the report. My question is, 00:20:21.794 --> 00:20:31.139 - the building. How far off is your building from the 25 ft setback? How much of an intrusion would go 00:20:31.139 --> 00:20:40.483 - up to 12 ft. 12 ft. So half of it? Yes. And I have another paper print out of kind of that. PDF that 00:20:40.483 --> 00:20:49.920 - Ray showed if you guys would like to see that as well, you can approach. Hand it to will give it back 00:20:49.920 --> 00:20:51.678 - to you at the end. 00:20:53.858 --> 00:21:00.947 - That's key. If you can, sir, if you can step back there, I think to the to the mic so that gets on the 00:21:00.947 --> 00:21:07.829 - record. And I think we've got the same thing here, but we've got a bigger picture. Absolutely. It's 00:21:07.829 --> 00:21:15.055 - the same exact thing. The yellow building is the proposed area. And can you see where my laser is? Yeah, 00:21:15.055 --> 00:21:22.143 - that's that's what we're talking about. Correct. I just have a question. And that is, Mr. Mauer, would 00:21:22.143 --> 00:21:23.038 - you describe 00:21:23.138 --> 00:21:30.158 - the existing septic field and the trees then as a practical difficulty that would justify this, um, 00:21:30.158 --> 00:21:37.530 - in approach mint into the 25 foot step back. Absolutely. Okay. As Lynn had mentioned, Michael had passed 00:21:37.530 --> 00:21:44.761 - during this time of the project and his is very adamant about protecting these trees as they have been 00:21:44.761 --> 00:21:52.062 - historic in this area and have been very mature trees. I know in the picture you can tell that they are 00:21:52.706 --> 00:22:00.096 - substantial. So despite trying to just protect them, the cost of clearing them and grinding the stumps 00:22:00.096 --> 00:22:07.272 - and such would be our practical difficulty in that aspect. And then obviously, we cannot build over 00:22:07.272 --> 00:22:14.447 - the septic, and it would be very expensive to relocate the septic to be able to place the garage on 00:22:14.447 --> 00:22:16.958 - that side of the drive. Thank you. 00:22:18.402 --> 00:22:27.361 - And we are mindful in our county about tree canopy. We often talk about the importance of trees. I want 00:22:27.361 --> 00:22:36.061 - to express my condolences on your loss. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. I have no further questions. Ms. 00:22:36.061 --> 00:22:45.537 - Lough. I have a quick question for Mr. D'Vaya. He mentioned that there's no viable option without encroaching 00:22:45.537 --> 00:22:47.518 - on the 25 foot setback 00:22:47.618 --> 00:22:57.811 - You offered in your lack of practical difficulties that there was another place is the two of you in 00:22:57.811 --> 00:23:09.214 - conflict of that point or. So the lack of we'll start with the first part the lack of practical difficulties so. 00:23:09.410 --> 00:23:16.931 - currently there exists an existing home and an existing garage on the property. So it functions and 00:23:16.931 --> 00:23:24.902 - is used as a single family residence. The request to place a second garage is addressed by the petitioner 00:23:24.902 --> 00:23:32.498 - and their request and their burden to provide those findings. They could push the garage back or put 00:23:32.498 --> 00:23:38.590 - those in another location. They do own five acres. I think that behind the home, 00:23:38.914 --> 00:23:47.139 - could be a possibility if they're entertaining a type B at this time. But they have their reasonings 00:23:47.139 --> 00:23:55.690 - for why they want to place it where they're placing it. OK, so you're suggesting there could be a viable 00:23:55.690 --> 00:24:04.077 - option without environmental intrusiveness? I think based on the slope map, if you would pull that up, 00:24:04.077 --> 00:24:07.742 - Ray. The orange line on the right hand side, 00:24:07.874 --> 00:24:13.514 - going through the home. That's actually a section line. So there is space, I think, to the south of 00:24:13.514 --> 00:24:19.605 - the home that potentially could host a garage. Although I don't know if the petition or the representatives 00:24:19.605 --> 00:24:25.414 - are stating that there's not a way to do that. I would disagree with that. I can't use the mic to have 00:24:25.414 --> 00:24:31.167 - you in the mic. Sorry. I'm sorry. I would disagree with that only because in the back of the house or 00:24:31.167 --> 00:24:32.126 - even more trees. 00:24:32.386 --> 00:24:39.953 - And there is a slope from our vegetable garden at the fence row all the way down to the woods that feeds 00:24:39.953 --> 00:24:47.376 - a stream. But on top of that, the property line that Ron has with us is so narrow from our garage that 00:24:47.376 --> 00:24:54.727 - trucks couldn't get back there to build it. Just the practical aspect of getting vehicles to the back 00:24:54.727 --> 00:25:02.366 - of that to build it wouldn't work either. May I ask, if you built it at an alternate location, would that 00:25:03.586 --> 00:25:11.067 - be farther from the road? Yes. Yes. So you'd have to put in additional. It would be behind the house 00:25:11.067 --> 00:25:18.473 - then. Correct. Additional impervious surface would be required, not beyond your limit, but still it 00:25:18.473 --> 00:25:26.546 - would be that. Well, let me ask staff, is the reason that the encroachment, is the reason it's not practical 00:25:26.546 --> 00:25:32.990 - to move the trees? That is, if they took out the trees, would they be able to move it? 00:25:33.218 --> 00:25:43.490 - matter of practicality, if I may interject, from what I understand is there's not a demonstrated need 00:25:43.490 --> 00:25:53.661 - to have this. Therefore, placing it here requires an automatic denial because staff cannot determine 00:25:53.661 --> 00:25:57.790 - that practical difficulty. Am I correct? 00:26:01.794 --> 00:26:13.163 - So that's why it's in front of the board. Right. And the staff is concerned about the location. If they 00:26:13.163 --> 00:26:24.204 - moved it back so that it would comply with the setback, would that require removal of the trees? Are 00:26:24.204 --> 00:26:28.030 - you talking about behind the home? 00:26:28.322 --> 00:26:35.261 - No, where are the trees in front of the... I'm confused about what trees would have to be removed. Those 00:26:35.261 --> 00:26:42.002 - trees there to the right of the barn, between the existing garage and the barn, those old trees would 00:26:42.002 --> 00:26:48.743 - be the ones that would have to be removed. Is that right? To place the garage in that area, yes, that 00:26:48.743 --> 00:26:55.351 - tree would have to be removed on the screen to be placed right there. Just wanted to make sure that 00:26:55.351 --> 00:26:57.598 - removing the trees was the reason 00:26:57.826 --> 00:27:05.601 - Uh, it staff maintains that it would be practical to remove the trees and and the petitioner maintains 00:27:05.601 --> 00:27:13.452 - that under their circumstances, it's not practical. Okay, great. Just wanted to make sure I had a grasp 00:27:13.452 --> 00:27:21.982 - on what the issue is. The other issue is the one is can they move in the back and the other is the trees. So the 00:27:22.370 --> 00:27:29.013 - the practicality of moving into the back would be the added cost of the driveway. Again, you're facing 00:27:29.013 --> 00:27:35.721 - the steep slopes. I would like to say that this is an accurate representation of the 25% slopes without 00:27:35.721 --> 00:27:42.235 - doing an actual topo survey on that. I can't speak to that. I know I've been out there, I've been on 00:27:42.235 --> 00:27:48.750 - the property, and it is significant on the slopes. As for, like Guy mentioned, if we were to cut the 00:27:48.750 --> 00:27:50.878 - trees, yes, we could get it back 00:27:50.978 --> 00:28:00.344 - off of the 25% setback, but the existing garage that is built there is over the setback as is on the 00:28:00.344 --> 00:28:10.359 - side yard. That would be corrected in doing the type E. As for the reason for the garage, as Len mentioned, 00:28:10.359 --> 00:28:18.334 - is to store the equipment necessary to operate five acres and maintain it. That's the 00:28:18.690 --> 00:28:26.804 - That's the reason on why we're trying to get the structure put in. Yes. May I ask a question of staff? 00:28:26.804 --> 00:28:34.998 - Somewhere in the notes, it said petitioner believes the septic field is here. Do they check that before 00:28:34.998 --> 00:28:41.694 - a structure? So someone else is checking that it really is where it's thought to be? 00:28:41.922 --> 00:28:48.790 - That wasn't included on the survey or any documents that we've received, but the petitioner said that's 00:28:48.790 --> 00:28:55.394 - where she believes that the septic system is located. We do require the septic system to be located 00:28:55.394 --> 00:29:02.065 - on the plot plan when they go for construction. You can either certify that or verify that way going 00:29:02.065 --> 00:29:08.801 - to the health department and reviewing the construction documents on file, or you can hire someone to 00:29:08.801 --> 00:29:10.782 - probe and find it physically. 00:29:11.266 --> 00:29:18.213 - but nobody disputes that the septic system is where they're saying it is. That's accepted. Yeah, we 00:29:18.213 --> 00:29:25.300 - don't have information to prove otherwise. I'll also say that typically where the grass is very green 00:29:25.300 --> 00:29:32.456 - on the aerials does usually coincide with the septic. That would be the petitioner's next step, should 00:29:32.456 --> 00:29:39.750 - they get approval, is to get all those building permits, and they will have to be determined for certain 00:29:39.750 --> 00:29:40.862 - of where it is. 00:29:40.962 --> 00:29:46.580 - And that would all come. We are in the process of doing a type E, which is dependent on the approval 00:29:46.580 --> 00:29:52.533 - of this. And then from the next steps from there, once that gets approved, we will go forward with getting 00:29:52.533 --> 00:29:58.262 - the approved site plans and get the correct building permits for this. We have any other questions for 00:29:58.262 --> 00:30:03.102 - the petitioners at this point? All right. Any other questions for staff at this point? 00:30:03.362 --> 00:30:12.830 - All right, I would like to call anybody that I'm sorry, you guys can have a seat if you'd like. I'd 00:30:12.830 --> 00:30:22.487 - like to call anybody either in person or online that wishes to speak for this petition. Seeing nobody 00:30:22.487 --> 00:30:28.830 - in person. I don't see any hands online, but can you confirm that? 00:30:29.762 --> 00:30:37.938 - Okay. Is there anybody that wishes to speak against this petition, either in the audience or online? 00:30:37.938 --> 00:30:46.034 - Please make yourself known. I suppose on the phone as well. All right, I see nothing. Board, do you 00:30:46.034 --> 00:30:53.886 - have any discussion you'd like to commence? I think there are practical difficulties, the slope. 00:30:53.986 --> 00:31:02.931 - issue. The fact that the sideline is not affected. The highway department has no issue about that. The 00:31:02.931 --> 00:31:11.615 - neighbors seem to not have issues about that. And it would be terrible to take down two magnificent 00:31:11.615 --> 00:31:18.302 - trees like that. The property has a scarcity of flat ground. And what really 00:31:18.722 --> 00:31:27.926 - I think what seals the deal for me is that to relocate it would raise slope issues. So one issue for 00:31:27.926 --> 00:31:37.313 - another. So I am comfortable recommending we approve variance 26-25, the Crow Crone front yard setback 00:31:37.313 --> 00:31:46.609 - variance to chapter 805 for property located at 3880 East Dora Road. I believe practical difficulties 00:31:46.609 --> 00:31:48.158 - have been shown. 00:31:50.626 --> 00:31:58.776 - It's been moved and seconded. It's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-26-25, the crow crone front 00:31:58.776 --> 00:32:07.005 - yard setback variance to chapter 805. A vote yes is a vote to approve the setback and this would allow 00:32:07.005 --> 00:32:15.235 - the petitioner to encroach up to 14 feet into that front setback as shown in this staff report and the 00:32:15.235 --> 00:32:18.750 - site plan. A vote yes is a vote to approve. 00:32:19.170 --> 00:32:39.955 - Yes. Skip daily. You have your votes. I have to say no, as I believe. There could be practical difficulties, 00:32:39.955 --> 00:32:47.582 - but. I'm not. It was not testified. No. 00:32:49.218 --> 00:33:04.733 - Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Okay, the motion is approved three to one. Right. Thank you. Congratulations. 00:33:04.733 --> 00:33:16.702 - Good luck on the building. And again, not condolences. Let's move on to our next 00:33:18.690 --> 00:33:34.517 - piece of business. Page 59 in your packets, variance 26-26 alpha and variance 26-26 Bravo. And Mr. Myers. 00:33:34.517 --> 00:33:46.014 - The floor is yours. All right. Pull up in the page here that I want to have. 00:34:00.290 --> 00:34:08.628 - So this is the Hurst front yard setback variance to chapter 805. This is at 5320 West Orchard Drive. 00:34:08.628 --> 00:34:16.883 - We're in Van Buren Township, section 14. And this is page 59 of the packet. It is zoned residential 00:34:16.883 --> 00:34:25.304 - one. And the request, as I stated, is a front yard setback variance in order to construct a new 1,024 00:34:25.304 --> 00:34:28.606 - square foot or 768 square foot attached 00:34:28.770 --> 00:34:35.678 - or detached accessory structure. The petitioner has yet to decide on the final size and the final design 00:34:35.678 --> 00:34:42.586 - with respect to it being attached or detached to the existing residents there. Chapter 805 of the Monroe 00:34:42.586 --> 00:34:49.297 - County Development Ordinance requires a front yard setback of 25 feet measured from the edge of right 00:34:49.297 --> 00:34:54.494 - of way for property in the residential zone and along a local designated road. 00:34:55.458 --> 00:35:02.749 - This property is also listed in the Carmichael First Edition. It's lot number 20. And that subdivision 00:35:02.749 --> 00:35:10.110 - plat shows a 25-foot front setback as well as a 60-foot right of way along South Davis Drive. Measuring 00:35:10.110 --> 00:35:17.542 - 30 feet from the right of way going west towards the residence plus the 25-foot setback means that we're 00:35:17.542 --> 00:35:23.134 - measuring 55 feet from the center line of South Davis Drive for this property. 00:35:23.874 --> 00:35:31.101 - The existing residence sits approximately 48 feet from the center line, which results in an encroachment 00:35:31.101 --> 00:35:37.983 - of about seven feet. This existing residence is considered legal pre-existing non-conforming as the 00:35:37.983 --> 00:35:44.934 - property report card indicates that the residence was built in 1968 and the Carmichael first edition 00:35:44.934 --> 00:35:48.926 - was recorded in May 1973. So evidence is showing that the 00:35:49.186 --> 00:35:57.574 - property was built and developed before the plat was recorded, which kind of makes sense why the residence 00:35:57.574 --> 00:36:06.197 - is sitting a bit into this front setback towards South Davis Drive. On the screen now we have the definitions 00:36:06.197 --> 00:36:14.115 - for practical difficulties. This is used in the evaluation of variances and it's one of the criteria 00:36:14.115 --> 00:36:18.270 - that we look at when making recommendations as well. 00:36:19.266 --> 00:36:26.624 - So we can come back to this if needed. Here we have the table from Chapter 805 for the Residential One 00:36:26.624 --> 00:36:33.839 - District. Highlighted in the top right corner is the front yard setback for the local roads being 25 00:36:33.839 --> 00:36:41.125 - feet. And that's also the same front setback as platted in the Carmichael First Edition. Here we have 00:36:41.125 --> 00:36:45.054 - the location map. And here is the site conditions map. 00:36:46.242 --> 00:36:55.125 - No slopes greater than 25%. We are not in the environmental constraints overlay, nor the Lake Lemon 00:36:55.125 --> 00:37:04.008 - overlay. There are no known karst or sinkhole features, and it is not in a critical watershed. This 00:37:04.008 --> 00:37:12.891 - is the Carmichael first edition plot, lot number 20, showing those setbacks there as well. And here 00:37:12.891 --> 00:37:14.046 - we have some 00:37:14.306 --> 00:37:22.644 - imagery from a site visit conducted by staff. So this is the residence here in the pictures. And then 00:37:22.644 --> 00:37:31.227 - this is the looking from South Davis Drive into the backyard of the property. That is where the proposed 00:37:31.227 --> 00:37:40.382 - structure will be built, whether it is attached or detached. More pictures here as we come around the property. 00:37:45.186 --> 00:37:53.911 - Now on the screen, we have the letter from the petitioner stating their request. And this is also included 00:37:53.911 --> 00:38:02.637 - in the packet. Here we have the petitioner submitted conceptual plot plan. This shows the 32 by 32 design, 00:38:02.637 --> 00:38:10.302 - which is the 1,024 square foot option. You can also see there that this is a detached version 00:38:10.594 --> 00:38:17.609 - The petitioner had multiple different ideas and is still seeking the front setback, constructing the 00:38:17.609 --> 00:38:25.179 - building in line with the existing residence rather than offset. So regardless of the size of the structure, 00:38:25.179 --> 00:38:32.124 - being in line with the residence would require a front yard setback variance. And if it is attached 00:38:32.124 --> 00:38:36.222 - to the structure, no matter where the addition is located, 00:38:36.418 --> 00:38:44.692 - It must require a front yard setback variance because the existing structure is currently nonconforming. 00:38:44.692 --> 00:38:52.808 - So anytime we see an expansion to a nonconforming structure, it does require that variance first, even 00:38:52.808 --> 00:39:00.767 - if the addition is not creating more of an encroachment itself. Now we have a couple images from the 00:39:00.767 --> 00:39:06.046 - petitioner showing those two design options. This is the 32 by 32. 00:39:07.266 --> 00:39:15.722 - And this is the 24 by 32, kind of giving you an idea of their deliberations between the two options. 00:39:15.722 --> 00:39:24.430 - And I'm sure they will speak more on their options as well. Before we move forward, Mr. Mayor, so thank 00:39:24.430 --> 00:39:33.053 - you for that. Did the petitioner demonstrate evidence that they reached out to neighbors? Yes, we have 00:39:33.053 --> 00:39:35.230 - proof of neighbor notice. 00:39:35.362 --> 00:39:42.606 - So continuing with my presentation here, we have a couple figures next. So this is a staff generated 00:39:42.606 --> 00:39:49.922 - plot plan using the Eagle View mapping. The yellow is the 1024 square foot option, that 32 by 32. And 00:39:49.922 --> 00:39:57.095 - then the blue is the 768 square foot option, which is the 24 by 32. Both of those are shown here in 00:39:57.095 --> 00:40:03.550 - line with the current residence. And you can see this figure is showing them as attached. 00:40:04.130 --> 00:40:11.018 - And then we have that measurement there confirming that 48 feet from the center line of South Davis 00:40:11.018 --> 00:40:18.045 - Drive. Figure two shows an alternative location generated by staff that meets the front setback of 55 00:40:18.045 --> 00:40:25.278 - feet. This one is attached. So a front setback variance would still be required with this option because 00:40:25.278 --> 00:40:32.304 - it is attached to a non-conforming structure, as I mentioned before. And this is showing the 32 by 24 00:40:32.304 --> 00:40:33.406 - option in size. 00:40:34.754 --> 00:40:41.706 - And then figure three here is showing that same 768 square foot option except detached. And this one 00:40:41.706 --> 00:40:48.796 - would require would not require the front setback variance because again, it's it's for farther enough 00:40:48.796 --> 00:40:55.749 - away from the center line of South Davis Drive. So this measurement is showing 56 feet. So these are 00:40:55.749 --> 00:41:01.118 - some alternatives that planning staff generated. These came about through the 00:41:01.922 --> 00:41:09.267 - publishing of the packet. So the petitioner reviewed these at the time that they reviewed the packet. 00:41:09.267 --> 00:41:16.972 - So these were not discussed during the initial meetings with the petitioner. The petitioner in the initial 00:41:16.972 --> 00:41:24.245 - meetings was pretty adamant about wanting it to be in line with the existing residents, hence why we 00:41:24.245 --> 00:41:30.366 - are here for the variance request. Okay, that brings us to the staff recommendation. 00:41:30.882 --> 00:41:39.138 - So we broke this out into two distinct variance numbers in order to facilitate a good discussion, but 00:41:39.138 --> 00:41:47.556 - also provide the opportunity to vote on them separately. So VAR-26-26A is related to the non-conforming 00:41:47.556 --> 00:41:55.974 - residence as it sits currently in the front setback. So staff recommends approval of VAR-26-26A, seeing 00:41:55.974 --> 00:41:59.454 - that practical difficulties have been met. 00:41:59.586 --> 00:42:05.823 - Evidence indicates that the residence was built prior to the recording of the Carmichael first edition 00:42:05.823 --> 00:42:11.999 - and prior to setbacks under the county development ordinance. Any expansion to the existing residence 00:42:11.999 --> 00:42:18.054 - will first require a front yard setback variance. And then staff is recommending denial of variance 00:42:18.054 --> 00:42:24.108 - BAR-26-26B. This is for the addition or accessory structure that's proposed, stating that practical 00:42:24.108 --> 00:42:26.046 - difficulties have not been met. 00:42:26.210 --> 00:42:34.053 - The proposed structure can meet the front setback through redesign or relocation. The petitioner can 00:42:34.053 --> 00:42:41.819 - utilize the 32 by 24 design option and align the structure with the sliding glass doors in the rear 00:42:41.819 --> 00:42:49.740 - of the residence and still meet the 25 foot front setback. Read that as 55 feet from the center line. 00:42:49.740 --> 00:42:56.030 - I will now take any questions. Let's bring the petitioner up and hear from them. 00:42:56.610 --> 00:43:09.407 - petitioner in the room. Come on up, sir. And when you approach, if you could please go ahead and sign 00:43:09.407 --> 00:43:11.038 - yourself in. 00:43:47.682 --> 00:43:54.206 - please just make sure that the microphone is set appropriately. Could you please speak your name for 00:43:54.206 --> 00:44:00.923 - the record? Yes, my name is Paul Hurst. Mr. Hurst, could you raise your right hand and attest that your 00:44:00.923 --> 00:44:07.382 - testimony that you're about to provide is the truth as you know it? Yes. All right. You're going to 00:44:07.382 --> 00:44:13.841 - have 15 minutes and then we might call you back based on some questions or whatnot. Yeah, I request 00:44:13.841 --> 00:44:15.262 - a front side setback. 00:44:15.714 --> 00:44:24.345 - to align with the east side of my house. I know it's over the line, but that was a mistake that was 00:44:24.345 --> 00:44:32.802 - made 60 years ago. I don't know whether you have the drawings that look at the side of the house, 00:44:32.802 --> 00:44:41.692 - the 24. So if I move it over to where it's out of the setback, then it lines up with the sliding glass 00:44:41.692 --> 00:44:45.662 - door, which is a problem. If it's unattached, 00:44:46.050 --> 00:44:53.463 - just cosmetic more than anything. But if it's a test, then it's not going to work. The same way with 00:44:53.463 --> 00:45:00.950 - the 32, it falls right in between. The sliding glass door would become a hallway somehow. Since I had 00:45:00.950 --> 00:45:08.583 - to come here and get it, I kind of just stopped looking at talking to contractors because I didn't know 00:45:08.583 --> 00:45:15.262 - what I was going to get anywhere. So the whole thing is about whether I move it in or out. 00:45:15.490 --> 00:45:22.791 - It's just, and I know according to the ordinance, I've got room on the other side, but this is a hobby 00:45:22.791 --> 00:45:30.235 - room for my lawn equipment and storage, and it's just more convenient to have it attached to the garage. 00:45:30.235 --> 00:45:37.819 - If I were to build onto the west side of the house where I have more property, it'd be okay for additional 00:45:37.819 --> 00:45:43.774 - rooms, bedrooms, or maybe a rec room or something, but it just doesn't functionally 00:45:44.962 --> 00:45:52.643 - convenient to have it on the west side. So this is more of a utility type setup. So that's kind of why 00:45:52.643 --> 00:46:00.174 - I want it where it is. And it's just plus getting the electricity and the natural gas is going to be 00:46:00.174 --> 00:46:07.631 - right there on that corner. So it'll be a lot easier because if I have to run the natural gas line, 00:46:07.631 --> 00:46:12.478 - electricity will be a lot more expensive. And the 32 by 32s, I'm 00:46:13.026 --> 00:46:19.979 - not leaning that way as much as I was because it's just so big. But the 32, if I had to move it over 00:46:19.979 --> 00:46:26.933 - to where it's out of the setback, it's going to be right on top of my septic tank, which is going to 00:46:26.933 --> 00:46:33.817 - be almost impossible to put that in there the way it is. Plus, I was trying to figure out how to do 00:46:33.817 --> 00:46:40.702 - the patio. If I move that, the five to eight feet doesn't sound like much, but it makes it just not 00:46:41.474 --> 00:46:48.392 - common sense way that I would have, you know, common sense says just move straight back and everything 00:46:48.392 --> 00:46:55.311 - will be fine. So that's, I don't really have any more to add than that. That I do have, even if I come 00:46:55.311 --> 00:47:02.296 - out 12 feet from the house, it still leaves me 18 feet to the north property line where I've got enough 00:47:02.296 --> 00:47:09.416 - room to get it graded properly because they built this house one block too low. So half of my yard drains 00:47:09.416 --> 00:47:10.558 - back toward the, 00:47:10.786 --> 00:47:17.477 - I don't know why the what they were thinking in 68, but I wish they would have graded the property more 00:47:17.477 --> 00:47:24.168 - better, but half the water runs back towards the house. So I got to make sure that I can get the water. 00:47:24.168 --> 00:47:30.859 - I've had a couple guys out there and said, yeah, we can get this graded and make a swell to get it back 00:47:30.859 --> 00:47:37.614 - out to the road because the last thing I want is more water problems. I don't want to add any more water 00:47:37.614 --> 00:47:40.638 - onto the septic field the way it is. So that's 00:47:40.738 --> 00:47:49.978 - a paramount too, but other than that, I don't have anything other than that. It's just. So Mr. Myers, 00:47:49.978 --> 00:47:59.037 - could you go back to the picture that you had? Tell us once again on the record here what this is a 00:47:59.037 --> 00:48:08.458 - view of. This is a view of the rear of the property as it exists as it exists and the measurements here 00:48:08.458 --> 00:48:10.270 - are the petitioners 00:48:10.434 --> 00:48:21.490 - for a proposed addition or detached structure. Let me go ahead. Excuse me. No, go ahead, Mr. Loughlin. 00:48:21.490 --> 00:48:32.224 - Well, it's sort of a staff. I see in this picture, am I looking through the open door of the garage 00:48:32.224 --> 00:48:40.382 - and the garage doors open at the neighbor across the street? Correct. Okay. 00:48:40.706 --> 00:48:49.889 - That I see at the left side of that photo that the eve of the house goes farther out. Is the eve considered 00:48:49.889 --> 00:48:58.392 - part of the encroachment? Well, we measure from the top of the building with the aerial imagery. So 00:48:58.392 --> 00:49:05.534 - there is a possibility that instead of being what was the distance that we measured 00:49:12.738 --> 00:49:20.173 - Instead of being 48 feet, it's possible that it might be 50 feet from the center line, which is still 00:49:20.173 --> 00:49:27.462 - a violation of the front setback, if that's what you're asking. Well, I hadn't gotten quite to that 00:49:27.462 --> 00:49:34.897 - point. But yes, that's what I'm asking. Yes. So based on the aerial imagery, we measure from where we 00:49:34.897 --> 00:49:40.510 - see the edge of the home. And looking at the on the ground photograph there, 00:49:40.770 --> 00:49:49.071 - There is quite a bit of an eave, which looks like it could be a few feet. But incorporating that into 00:49:49.071 --> 00:49:57.291 - the measurement, there is still a front setback variance for South Davis Drive. But there's slightly 00:49:57.291 --> 00:50:05.918 - less, maybe three feet. It looks to me like maybe three feet less intrusion than the eave has. Thank you. 00:50:10.978 --> 00:50:21.620 - So with what you're proposing, offsetting it, where would that structure be on this image that I'm looking 00:50:21.620 --> 00:50:31.864 - at now? Based on staff's alternative locations, the white polygon would shift to the right and capture 00:50:31.864 --> 00:50:40.318 - in front of the patio and capture a portion or its entirety, the sliding glass door. 00:50:40.578 --> 00:50:49.899 - So instead of aligning with the existing garage, as I believe it would be a skew and half patio, 00:50:49.899 --> 00:50:59.509 - half garage. Correct. OK. Thanks. Does anyone else have any questions of the petitioner or of staff 00:50:59.509 --> 00:51:08.926 - at this point? Well, let me just make it looks to me like this picture, you do encroach with your 00:51:09.186 --> 00:51:18.084 - 24-foot plan into the patio a little bit. Yeah, that's going to all be jackhammered up. I got to redo 00:51:18.084 --> 00:51:26.982 - the whole patio. Depending on the outcome this evening, I've got to come up. The building is the easy 00:51:26.982 --> 00:51:35.793 - part. It's getting the attachment between the house is the more difficult thing to do because it may 00:51:35.793 --> 00:51:38.846 - require conventional construction. 00:51:39.394 --> 00:51:47.806 - as opposed to just a Graber Post building being put in and getting the grade right. I've got a very 00:51:47.806 --> 00:51:56.387 - delicate, I want to get the water away from the house as good as I can possibly get it, but that's to 00:51:56.387 --> 00:52:04.968 - be determined. Thank you. All right, go ahead and have a quick seat and we'll see if there is anybody 00:52:04.968 --> 00:52:09.342 - in the room or online that wishes to speak in favor 00:52:09.442 --> 00:52:21.395 - of this petitioner. I see nobody in the room. I don't see any activity online. All right. Is there anybody 00:52:21.395 --> 00:52:33.013 - that wishes to speak in opposition to this petition, either in the room or online? Again, I see nobody. 00:52:33.013 --> 00:52:35.806 - Correct me if I'm wrong. 00:52:39.010 --> 00:52:48.011 - Let's bring it to a board discussion. I'd like to offer something. I think the biggest practical difficulty 00:52:48.011 --> 00:52:56.428 - on this property is that it's pre-existing non-compliant in the first place. And the gentleman wants 00:52:56.428 --> 00:53:04.845 - to add on to it. And he, I think, is correct to want it to be in line with his house, because that's 00:53:04.845 --> 00:53:07.262 - more practical for his uses. 00:53:07.586 --> 00:53:20.316 - and for the land. And it seems to me that it would be... Obviously, the property is well maintained 00:53:20.316 --> 00:53:33.682 - and aesthetically, there's kind of a mandate for keeping the addition in line with the current property. 00:53:33.682 --> 00:53:37.374 - And I don't see how it would 00:53:37.986 --> 00:53:48.837 - cause any detriment to any of the adjacent properties because this is on a corner and the home is in 00:53:48.837 --> 00:53:59.794 - a setback that was created after the home was built. And so the sight lines aren't going to be harmed 00:53:59.794 --> 00:54:05.918 - any further with the new addition because on the corner, 00:54:06.818 --> 00:54:14.426 - Uh, you know, the sight lines are what they are and people don't go so fast on those streets anyway. 00:54:14.426 --> 00:54:22.335 - So I feel that practical difficulties have been met and I'm going to support this petition. I, I'm going 00:54:22.335 --> 00:54:30.320 - to agree that the petitioner has stated, I'm going to second it. I think it was that it was not a motion. 00:54:30.320 --> 00:54:36.798 - There's no motion. I beg your pardon. I believe that the petitioner has demonstrated. 00:54:37.122 --> 00:54:50.168 - a solid argument for practical difficulty, perhaps mostly with his desire to keep water out of the foundation 00:54:50.168 --> 00:55:02.622 - with where I believe the ease would be in line with the garage as opposed to dealing with the structural 00:55:02.622 --> 00:55:06.654 - remodeling of the door, etc. So I 00:55:07.202 --> 00:55:15.574 - probably also support this should my colleagues present a motion. I'm going to move that we approve 00:55:15.574 --> 00:55:22.942 - variance 26-26A, the Hearst front yard setback variance, because as Margaret just said, 00:55:23.202 --> 00:55:33.085 - was a nonconforming situation in 1968 when the house was built before it was subdivided in 73. And I 00:55:33.085 --> 00:55:43.750 - also want to move that we approve variance 26-26B, the Hearst front yard setback variance addition accessory 00:55:43.750 --> 00:55:45.022 - structure to 00:55:45.282 --> 00:55:54.643 - property located at 5320 West Orchard Drive for exactly what my colleague has said, that practical 00:55:54.643 --> 00:56:04.099 - difficulties have been met because the alliance, the symmetry of the building really has to is what 00:56:04.099 --> 00:56:13.838 - is the preferred venue. Could I ask a question of everyone? Because I, you know, what has been brought 00:56:13.838 --> 00:56:14.878 - up here is 00:56:15.042 --> 00:56:23.892 - I'm sorry to interject because it might be a friendly amendment. The gentleman, Mr. Hurst, has stated 00:56:23.892 --> 00:56:32.655 - that he has drainage problems on his property that he's going to try to address those. I don't think 00:56:32.655 --> 00:56:41.852 - I would be satisfied putting any limitation on the EVE overhang. I think that it should match the current 00:56:41.852 --> 00:56:44.542 - property if that's suitable to 00:56:45.058 --> 00:56:54.518 - the solution of the water movement on the property. So I'd like to make that part of the record that 00:56:54.518 --> 00:57:04.353 - the motion would include no limitation that would require the overhang to be shorter than what currently 00:57:04.353 --> 00:57:13.438 - exists on the home structure. But I would also want it clear, and it is clear from the drawings, 00:57:13.762 --> 00:57:21.811 - that the physical structure, not the roof, not the eaves, but the physical structure, must be in line 00:57:21.811 --> 00:57:29.702 - with the existing physical structure, and that that would be a condition. Do you accept those? Yes, 00:57:29.702 --> 00:57:37.830 - I accept those, and good luck rephrasing those. Good luck. So I would second that. Yeah. Yeah. I don't 00:57:37.830 --> 00:57:43.038 - think eaves are... I don't know if all of that is in our purview. 00:57:43.202 --> 00:57:51.930 - I'm not, we'll find out from the director once she comes out of huddle. I would just like that, 00:57:51.930 --> 00:58:01.385 - because I too, I mean, it has to align. It would be wrong. I'll do that anyway. I don't know if there's 00:58:01.385 --> 00:58:11.294 - a- I'll do that anyway for aesthetics. Yes, and that's practical. And the line is cheaper. Exactly, exactly. 00:58:14.754 --> 00:58:28.606 - Trying to figure out what we've said. There's an overhang. I don't think an overhang. Some other condition. 00:58:28.606 --> 00:58:42.202 - I'm getting old. And to too many VCA meetings. Haven't been through enough. OK. Drew has up on the screen 00:58:42.202 --> 00:58:44.126 - that the house 00:58:44.802 --> 00:58:53.748 - currently sits 48 feet from the center line. It's required to be 55. But if we give them an encroachment 00:58:53.748 --> 00:59:02.353 - allowance of seven feet, even though that's the eve, we could say encroachment up to seven feet also 00:59:02.353 --> 00:59:11.299 - in line with the foundation wall of the existing home or something. So then that way it's at worst seven 00:59:11.299 --> 00:59:14.622 - at best could be five feet encroached. 00:59:14.946 --> 00:59:24.245 - Okay, so what I don't want is for there to be a corner where the water is all coming off the house and 00:59:24.245 --> 00:59:33.635 - the addition into a corner that we've required to be manufactured. Right, fine, flush. Yes. Okay. Okay. 00:59:33.635 --> 00:59:42.844 - Right, so the structure, the exterior wall of the structure will be in line with the current exterior 00:59:42.844 --> 00:59:44.830 - wall of the structure 00:59:45.154 --> 00:59:56.267 - the eve of the new structure can extend as far as the eve of the existing structure. Yeah. Yes. Yes. 00:59:56.267 --> 01:00:07.379 - Yeah. So I second that. OK, so it's been moved and seconded to approve both VAR-26-26A, which is for 01:00:07.379 --> 01:00:11.230 - the existing home, and VAR-26-26B, 01:00:11.330 --> 01:00:19.450 - which is for a front yard setback for the addition or an accessory structure to Chapter 805, allowing 01:00:19.450 --> 01:00:27.730 - the petitioner up to a seven foot front yard setback on the Eastern property line, but also noting that 01:00:27.730 --> 01:00:35.930 - the recommendation is to have any addition flush with the wall of the existing single family residence 01:00:35.930 --> 01:00:38.398 - on the property. Okay, a vote. 01:00:38.530 --> 01:00:47.634 - Yes is a vote to approve both variances. Guy Lofman. Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. 01:00:47.634 --> 01:00:56.912 - Skip Daly. Yes. Okay. Motion is approved four to zero. Yes. First, congratulations. I hope you understand 01:00:56.912 --> 01:01:03.390 - all of that. I'm sure Mr Myers will work with you on moving that forward. 01:01:06.594 --> 01:01:16.344 - not at this time, but I'll coordinate with you for next steps. Thanks for presenting. All right, 01:01:16.344 --> 01:01:26.496 - moving along. Page 81 for those of you following along in the packets. Number seven and number eight 01:01:26.496 --> 01:01:29.310 - on the agenda, the variance 01:01:29.474 --> 01:01:37.756 - 2, 6, dash 2, 7, alpha and 2, 6, dash 2, 7, Bravo. Morro front yard setback variance to chapter 8, 0, 01:01:37.756 --> 01:01:45.875 - 5, and the side yard. Mr. Myers, is this you again? Yes. All right. Please, if you will. Thank you. 01:01:45.875 --> 01:01:54.156 - So this is located at 3207 South Rogers Street. It's a one acre parcel in Perry Township, section 17, 01:01:54.156 --> 01:01:58.622 - and it's a zone to high development residential or HD. 01:02:01.122 --> 01:02:07.264 - The petitioner is requesting two development standards variances from Chapter 805 of the County Development 01:02:07.264 --> 01:02:12.951 - Ordinance to construct a 720 square foot carport, which will have solar panels on the roof, as well 01:02:12.951 --> 01:02:18.809 - as permit an after the fact expansion of a residential accessory structure that encroached into a five 01:02:18.809 --> 01:02:24.667 - foot side yard setback on the north property line. The petition site, as I stated, is high development 01:02:24.667 --> 01:02:25.406 - residential. 01:02:25.762 --> 01:02:32.453 - The front setback, according to the County Development Ordinance, is 35 feet from the edge of pavement 01:02:32.453 --> 01:02:39.079 - along a major slash minor collector roadway. The proposed carport structure will sit 30 feet from the 01:02:39.079 --> 01:02:45.835 - edge of pavement, which is a five-foot encroachment into that required setback. According to the County 01:02:45.835 --> 01:02:51.486 - Development Ordinance, the side yard setback for property in the HD zone is five feet. 01:02:51.938 --> 01:02:58.836 - The residential accessory structure on the north side of the property was expanded in a northerly direction, 01:02:58.836 --> 01:03:05.291 - which created the current encroachment of almost five feet, which is nearly a zero foot setback. That 01:03:05.291 --> 01:03:11.746 - occurred at some point between 2017 and 2020 without an improvement location permit from the planning 01:03:11.746 --> 01:03:18.074 - department. This created that encroachment and this came about during the review of the property in 01:03:18.074 --> 01:03:20.542 - early coordination with the petitioner 01:03:20.674 --> 01:03:27.230 - when they came in to discuss the carport location on the property. During that review, planning staff 01:03:27.230 --> 01:03:33.721 - indicated that an after-the-fact improvement location permit will be required for that addition, and 01:03:33.721 --> 01:03:40.148 - that because it is extending into the required side setback, that a after-the-fact variance will be 01:03:40.148 --> 01:03:46.896 - required as well. Here we have the definitions for practical difficulties, similar to the previous case, 01:03:46.896 --> 01:03:50.174 - so we can come back and reference these if needed. 01:03:52.162 --> 01:03:59.380 - Now on the screen, we have the table for the HD zone, stating the front setback variances. So that yellow 01:03:59.380 --> 01:04:06.802 - should be actually in the front yard minor major collector showing 35 feet instead of the 25 feet. Apologies 01:04:06.802 --> 01:04:13.680 - for that. But then on the bottom here, we have the side yard setback listed as five feet. Here's the 01:04:13.680 --> 01:04:20.830 - location map along South Roger Street in Perry Township. And here we have the site conditions map, staff 01:04:21.058 --> 01:04:28.492 - provided some indicators here on the map showing the proposed carport in blue. And the structure that 01:04:28.492 --> 01:04:36.363 - was expanded upon in the northerly direction is identified with the yellow arrow. These are not necessarily 01:04:36.363 --> 01:04:43.870 - drawn to scale. Here we have pictures on the ground. So this is the driveway entrance to the property. 01:04:44.386 --> 01:04:50.940 - We have the existing residence here in the lower lower right hand corner. You can see a bit of gravel 01:04:50.940 --> 01:04:57.558 - in the lower right hand corner as well. That's the location of the proposed carport. Here we have more 01:04:57.558 --> 01:05:04.176 - pictures of that particular area. You can see the stakes that are shown here of the potential location 01:05:04.176 --> 01:05:07.774 - for that carport structure. Some more photographs here. 01:05:08.290 --> 01:05:14.967 - The lower right-hand photograph kind of giving you an idea of that distance from South Rogers Street 01:05:14.967 --> 01:05:21.777 - to the pole of the or stake of the proposed carport structure. Now on the screen we have some property 01:05:21.777 --> 01:05:28.388 - line indicators that the petitioner kindly indicated to staff during the site visit. So on the left 01:05:28.388 --> 01:05:34.206 - side of the screen showing with the yellow arrow you can see a rebar cap that shows the 01:05:34.338 --> 01:05:41.386 - property line between the existing property and the property adjacent to the north. Now on the right 01:05:41.386 --> 01:05:48.922 - side of the screen, we are looking west towards South Roger Street. We are in the backyard of the property. 01:05:48.922 --> 01:05:55.970 - And you can see a couple rebar stakes there as well that indicate the existing property line. And if 01:05:55.970 --> 01:06:03.646 - you were to follow those up the property towards the road, you can see where this overhang from the shed here 01:06:03.746 --> 01:06:10.308 - extends and gets really close to that property line. Some more photographs of the after the fact structure. 01:06:10.308 --> 01:06:16.384 - You can see the addition that was made. So two additions actually were made to this barn structure. 01:06:16.384 --> 01:06:22.885 - You can see the addition that was made on the left side of the screen, which is in the northerly direction 01:06:22.885 --> 01:06:29.386 - that violates the front or the side setback, excuse me. And then you can see that greenhouse type addition 01:06:29.386 --> 01:06:32.606 - that was made to the south of the structure as well. 01:06:33.250 --> 01:06:40.247 - On the right side of the screen, we have a picture of the fence, existing fence on the property. You 01:06:40.247 --> 01:06:47.520 - can see the telephone pole there. According to the petitioner, the telephone pole is approximately where 01:06:47.520 --> 01:06:54.794 - the property line resides. So just giving you some context and some images to look at for this petition. 01:06:54.794 --> 01:07:02.206 - More photographs here of that existing after the fact expansion being close to the existing property line. 01:07:05.794 --> 01:07:14.028 - Now on the screen, we have the letter from the petitioner stating their request for the setback for 01:07:14.028 --> 01:07:22.839 - the carport. On the right, we have the petitioner submitted site plan. That site plan specifically denotes 01:07:22.839 --> 01:07:31.074 - the carport structure as stated previously through conversation with the petitioner and full review 01:07:31.074 --> 01:07:32.062 - of the site 01:07:32.834 --> 01:07:41.974 - The need for the after the fact variance was indicated to the petitioner after they generated this site 01:07:41.974 --> 01:07:50.762 - plan for us. All right. I think that covers everything that I wanted to speak on for this petition. 01:07:50.762 --> 01:08:00.254 - So that brings us to our recommendation from staff. So overall, staff is recommending denial of VAR-26-27A. 01:08:00.578 --> 01:08:06.867 - stating that practical difficulties have not been met for the carport structure. The petitioner could 01:08:06.867 --> 01:08:13.032 - reduce the size of the carport to meet the 35 foot front setback or keep the same size and relocate 01:08:13.032 --> 01:08:19.197 - the structure closer to the existing residence or place the carport over the existing driveway. And 01:08:19.197 --> 01:08:25.424 - then staff recommends denial of VAR-26-27B stating that practical difficulties have not been met per 01:08:25.424 --> 01:08:30.110 - the ordinance. Had the petitioner followed the proper permitting procedures 01:08:30.210 --> 01:08:37.615 - the planning department would have informed the petitioner of the side setback requirement, and this 01:08:37.615 --> 01:08:45.239 - expansion could have been made elsewhere on the structure or not at all. I will now take any questions. 01:08:45.239 --> 01:08:52.571 - First and foremost, Mr. Myers, thank you for that. Did the petitioner, do you have evidence that he 01:08:52.571 --> 01:08:59.902 - reached out to neighbors? Yes. Thank you. I have one question. Please. Mr. Myers, could you go over 01:09:00.994 --> 01:09:10.348 - when carports are considered permanent structures and not, I mean, is this considered a permanent structure 01:09:10.348 --> 01:09:19.097 - requiring such a setback? Yes, any structure over 200 square feet, whether it's built on a permanent 01:09:19.097 --> 01:09:27.845 - foundation or not, requires a permit through the planning department and building department. Right. 01:09:27.845 --> 01:09:30.270 - Let's go ahead and bring up 01:09:30.466 --> 01:09:41.660 - the petitioner or his representative. And the same overdeal will apply to you. Please sign. I'm hearing 01:09:41.660 --> 01:09:52.423 - impaired. Okay. And the acoustics and the white noise. I can appreciate. Okay. All right. I'm going 01:09:52.423 --> 01:09:56.190 - to ask you to sign the book. Okay. 01:10:19.522 --> 01:10:27.702 - The next thing I'm going to do is ask you to speak your name into the microphone. William Morrow. 01:10:27.702 --> 01:10:36.800 - Thank you, Mr. Morrow. The next thing I will do is ask you to raise your hand and attest that your testimony 01:10:36.800 --> 01:10:45.982 - is the truth as you know it. Before we get going, you will have 15 minutes. Would you prefer that I spin this 01:10:46.402 --> 01:10:55.626 - television around so you can read the questions. Yes. Yes. Can we? Should we? Will this one? I understand 01:10:55.626 --> 01:11:04.415 - most of what you guys are saying, but I gotta do is miss order to for to miss me. Will this one spin 01:11:04.415 --> 01:11:13.639 - skip? Yes, that one on the TV can you can move that yeah that or I can. This one would probably be easier 01:11:13.639 --> 01:11:15.902 - just because it's closer. 01:11:16.066 --> 01:11:30.616 - Okay. All right. Yeah. All right. 15 minutes. Okay. Um, well on the carport structure out front, um, 01:11:30.616 --> 01:11:45.598 - I'm wanting to bill that's that parking pads been there 12, 15 years, three cars usually park in there. 01:11:45.826 --> 01:11:56.030 - The size of that structure, 30 by 24, I think is what it is, matches my requirement needs for square 01:11:56.030 --> 01:12:06.234 - footage of solar panels to supply the house, but basically take care of all the electrical load. And 01:12:06.234 --> 01:12:15.326 - I can't really relocate it anywhere else on the property and serve the purpose of parking 01:12:15.554 --> 01:12:25.416 - as well, so I'm trying to get both purposes fulfilled. I'm concerned if I move it five feet farther, 01:12:25.416 --> 01:12:35.181 - one whole side will be off the pad, which I will dig out and put road base in and compact back, but 01:12:35.181 --> 01:12:43.774 - I'm still concerned about that side settling. It also puts it almost on top of the walk 01:12:43.970 --> 01:12:53.086 - going up to the house, which I think creates a odd flow and aesthetics too. It's just more evenly spaced 01:12:53.086 --> 01:13:01.768 - if it's where it's at now. There's also three incidences of people backing, people park in front of 01:13:01.768 --> 01:13:04.894 - the garage and putting it five foot 01:13:05.026 --> 01:13:12.642 - farther back, and it doesn't sound like it should be issued. But there's been three little fender benders 01:13:12.642 --> 01:13:20.330 - where people parked there have backed out and hit people in front of the garage. So that's just tightening 01:13:20.330 --> 01:13:27.514 - up that space that much more. So practical reasons and aesthetics is why I like to move it. Plus, I 01:13:27.514 --> 01:13:33.406 - really don't want to reduce the size of it due to getting enough panels on there. 01:13:33.538 --> 01:13:41.897 - As far as I know, it's not in any of the right of ways. Won't impede your field of vision anymore going 01:13:41.897 --> 01:13:50.578 - down. You have plenty of room to see up and down Roger Street there getting in and out. So that's basically 01:13:50.578 --> 01:13:56.606 - my appeal there. I'd like to keep it on the pad where it is now. And back. 01:13:57.058 --> 01:14:04.592 - that my folks bought the place, I think, in 68. And dad built that little barn out there and within 01:14:04.592 --> 01:14:12.426 - a few years, early 70s, he built it was a dog run is what he called it. It's basically a deck. And it's 01:14:12.426 --> 01:14:20.111 - pretty close to the property line, but I don't think it's on property line. And I'm saying this, Drew 01:14:20.111 --> 01:14:24.254 - had the pictures of the stakes coming down, which is a 01:14:25.058 --> 01:14:31.564 - fence, the Haley's probably put up back in the 50s or 60s. And if you site, it's kind of hard because 01:14:31.564 --> 01:14:38.070 - there's trays and stuff, but if you stand on them and site down, it looks like I'm going to say that. 01:14:38.070 --> 01:14:44.703 - And also you can see the telephone pole there. I'm going to say that structures, I believe, really like 01:14:44.703 --> 01:14:51.400 - three or four feet. I don't think it's five feet, but I think it's three or four feet off property line. 01:14:51.400 --> 01:14:54.398 - If those stakes are correct. I know that's not 01:14:55.170 --> 01:15:04.532 - a survey or anything, but I also doubt the Haley's gave me any property when they drove the, you know, 01:15:04.532 --> 01:15:13.621 - set that fence up in the 50s. So anyway, that's basically my reasoning for asking for the petition. 01:15:13.621 --> 01:15:21.438 - Do we have any questions for either the petitioner or staff? I have a question. Sure. 01:15:21.570 --> 01:15:29.632 - So if I understand correctly, how long has that existing pad been there and what material is the pad? 01:15:29.632 --> 01:15:37.695 - Is it gravel or? It's gravel. Gravel. How long has it been there? Did you put that in? At least 12 or 01:15:37.695 --> 01:15:45.757 - 15 years. 12 or 15 years. I don't know. It's been there a while. So your petition is that the carport 01:15:45.757 --> 01:15:50.974 - match the size of that gravel pad that's been there for 15 years. 01:15:51.298 --> 01:15:59.252 - Yes, yeah, and that's and that's 5 foot closer to the road 35 feet and again I am really seriously concerned 01:15:59.252 --> 01:16:06.768 - the structure is not going to have walls on it's just going to be the steel structure with a roof. And 01:16:06.768 --> 01:16:08.446 - I'm concerned that if. 01:16:08.610 --> 01:16:15.151 - One side of it is on a compacted gravel drive and the other side is on newly excavated. Even if you 01:16:15.151 --> 01:16:21.757 - compact it, I'm worried about that structure settling a little off on that side. And that's the side 01:16:21.757 --> 01:16:28.624 - where the inverter and eventually batteries will be. And I don't, even if it only settles a couple three 01:16:28.624 --> 01:16:33.726 - inches, I'm worried about it affecting the functionality of the solar system. 01:16:33.922 --> 01:16:42.261 - So it may not, but that's just a concern of mine. Like I said, it makes it tighter for pulling out. 01:16:42.261 --> 01:16:50.934 - So, and again, to reduce, I'm right at the size I need to get enough panels to meet my electrical needs 01:16:50.934 --> 01:16:54.270 - for the house. Right. And you also said 01:16:54.658 --> 01:17:02.770 - that to move it, the setback is 35 feet, and this encroaches by five feet, is what it does. So to move 01:17:02.770 --> 01:17:10.804 - it, to not encroach, would be right next to the walkway to the house, you said? It would be literally 01:17:10.804 --> 01:17:18.679 - about that far off the walkway. Thank you for that. That's going to look funky, and it just creates 01:17:18.679 --> 01:17:24.350 - a weird, right now there's a bed that's about seven or eight feet wide. 01:17:25.890 --> 01:17:34.275 - just, I think that's really going to look funky to have that building right there. The drawing there 01:17:34.275 --> 01:17:42.743 - has an arrow, yellow arrow, and that, if I understand it, points to the side yard encroachment, where 01:17:42.743 --> 01:17:51.211 - it should be five feet back, and it's closer to that. The yellow arrow. Yeah. When was that structure 01:17:51.211 --> 01:17:54.366 - built, to the best of your knowledge? 01:17:54.914 --> 01:18:02.360 - When was that structure built? Early 70s. It's been there over 50 years. Well, that's pre-existing. 01:18:02.360 --> 01:18:10.179 - Would that be pre-existing? It's hard to tell with the aerial imagery with respect to the original green 01:18:10.179 --> 01:18:18.221 - shed and then the dog run as the petitioner has stated. But based on my analysis to the best of my ability, 01:18:18.221 --> 01:18:23.806 - it looks like an expansion was made at some point. Looking at the imagery, 01:18:23.938 --> 01:18:31.899 - And that's what triggers the review and the requirement for a improvement location permit when you're 01:18:31.899 --> 01:18:40.016 - expanding onto a structure. And because it was expanded in a direction that violated the front setback, 01:18:40.016 --> 01:18:48.288 - then that was what required the setback variance. Mr. Morrow? I'm sorry. Quick question. So the structure 01:18:48.288 --> 01:18:50.942 - on the side was built in the 70s. 01:18:51.714 --> 01:18:58.750 - Have you expanded it in recent years? No, my dad. My dad built the original. I'm going to call it a 01:18:58.750 --> 01:19:05.926 - barn. It's I think it's 12 by 16. It's built like a barn. It's barn shaped and then I'm going to say. 01:19:05.926 --> 01:19:13.103 - My sister said they bought the house in 68 within a short period of time, say through four years they 01:19:13.103 --> 01:19:19.998 - built the barn and within another year or two. So I'm going to say five years, six years from 68. 01:19:20.578 --> 01:19:32.522 - is when they built the dog room. So thank you. Yeah. And what would be the pre-existing? Have an ordinance 01:19:32.522 --> 01:19:44.020 - until the 90s. Right. So assuming that the testimony is correct, which he sworn and I think we should, 01:19:44.020 --> 01:19:50.494 - I'm willing to accept if that is pre-existing, would that 01:19:50.818 --> 01:19:58.898 - mean that he wouldn't need the variance would be automatic or he wouldn't need it? I think he needs 01:19:58.898 --> 01:20:07.300 - it because we can't determine that it's pre-existing and staff has already brought it forward that this 01:20:07.300 --> 01:20:16.107 - new construction permit would require that setback be in place unless if he can determine it's pre-existing. 01:20:16.107 --> 01:20:18.046 - If we deny the carport, 01:20:18.274 --> 01:20:25.476 - then he wouldn't really need the variance, because nothing's changing. If we grant the carport, on the 01:20:25.476 --> 01:20:32.747 - other hand, if we're here and we're considering it, it's certainly sensible, so nobody else has to deal 01:20:32.747 --> 01:20:39.739 - with this again. Yes, while we're at it. While we're at it, yes. Yes, and I will add that, based on 01:20:39.739 --> 01:20:42.046 - aerial imagery, at least between 01:20:42.754 --> 01:20:51.144 - 16 and 2019, it looks like the addition on the south end of the barn was added, which would have been 01:20:51.144 --> 01:20:59.782 - an addition to a pre-existing non-conforming structure, similar to the past variance case, where because 01:20:59.782 --> 01:21:08.830 - the dog run section was violating the front setback by adding an addition to the barn in the south direction, 01:21:09.058 --> 01:21:16.044 - it would still trigger the variance requirement because it's a pre-existing non-conforming structure. 01:21:16.044 --> 01:21:23.029 - Thank you. Not understanding that. You're saying when I added the greenhouse, which is the south side 01:21:23.029 --> 01:21:30.220 - of the bar? Yes. So for a structure, if it violates a setback, even if it's pre-existing, because you're 01:21:30.220 --> 01:21:37.822 - adding on to a pre-existing non-conforming structure, even if you're not further expanding in a direction that 01:21:38.082 --> 01:21:47.082 - the front setback issue. You're still adding on to a nonconforming structure, and by the ordinances 01:21:47.082 --> 01:21:56.622 - language, it says you need a variance in order to do that. Okay. All right. Are there any other questions 01:21:56.622 --> 01:22:05.892 - for the petitioner or? All right. At this time, sir, you can have a seat and we'll work it out for you 01:22:05.892 --> 01:22:07.422 - here. All right. 01:22:08.770 --> 01:22:20.671 - Well, there's nobody in the room. Is there anybody online that wishes to speak for this petition? I 01:22:20.671 --> 01:22:32.810 - see no one. Is there anybody online that wishes to speak against this petition? Again, seeing nobody. 01:22:32.810 --> 01:22:38.046 - Let's commiserate. I'm sympathetic to this. 01:22:38.146 --> 01:22:47.617 - that it's been a parking spot for many, many, many years. The compacted nature of the fact that moving 01:22:47.617 --> 01:22:57.179 - it five feet would impede the walk. And I understand about those fender benders, three different fender 01:22:57.179 --> 01:23:05.822 - benders for that kind of distance. So five feet into a 35-foot setback, I'm very sympathetic. 01:23:05.922 --> 01:23:15.340 - to this case, so I'm going to recommend unless anybody wants to make any other comments. I'm going to 01:23:15.340 --> 01:23:25.035 - recommend we accept variance 26-27A and also variance 26-27B. Oh, the Morrow front yard setback variance 01:23:25.035 --> 01:23:33.438 - to chapter 805 is the A and the B is the Morrow side yard setback variance to chapter 805. 01:23:33.922 --> 01:23:42.119 - I'm compelled by it could be a pre-existing condition. It's been in this situation for a long, 01:23:42.119 --> 01:23:50.833 - long time, and I think to move it would have practical difficulties. May I ask you a quick question? 01:23:50.833 --> 01:23:59.806 - Is your recommendation an official motion? Yes, it was an official motion. Thank you. I'll second that. 01:24:01.346 --> 01:24:12.363 - we have a motion and a second if you will director yes so it's been moved and seconded to approve var-26-27a 01:24:12.363 --> 01:24:22.470 - the front yard setback to chapter 805 and var-26-27b the side yard setback to chapter 805 these are 01:24:22.470 --> 01:24:25.502 - for the site plan as shown so 01:24:25.634 --> 01:24:34.040 - those are specific setback variances as shown in the packet. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Margaret 01:24:34.040 --> 01:24:42.609 - Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes, and I also appreciate your telling 01:24:42.609 --> 01:24:50.852 - us about the solar panels and how they will fit dimensionally because that is also a good attribute. 01:24:50.852 --> 01:24:53.790 - It doesn't have to do with my vote, 01:24:54.146 --> 01:25:05.393 - I just wanted to comment on that. Yes. All right. Motion is approved. Four to zero. All right. Mr. Morrow, 01:25:05.393 --> 01:25:16.114 - you are approved. Congratulations. Please make sure you connect with Mr. Myers on next steps. And off 01:25:16.114 --> 01:25:22.526 - the record, would your middle name happen to be Thomas? Yes. 01:25:23.938 --> 01:25:43.204 - All right, so unofficially, your name is Bill Tomorrow. Oh, that's funny. Thank you. Thank you. Have 01:25:43.204 --> 01:25:53.886 - a good evening. And that concludes the petition part of 01:25:54.114 --> 01:26:05.493 - our meeting in record time, mind you. Good job, Skip. Good job. It wasn't me. And thank you, staff, 01:26:05.493 --> 01:26:17.441 - on all of that. Well, I guess he left. Now that brings us to the administrative business. And I am going 01:26:17.441 --> 01:26:23.358 - to yield the floor to Attorney Schilling to discuss 01:26:24.898 --> 01:26:35.117 - what he will at his leisure. Thank you very much. This relates to the Bedford recycling case that has 01:26:35.117 --> 01:26:45.135 - been through the Court of Appeals into the Supreme Court. And it was back into the trial court. And 01:26:45.135 --> 01:26:53.150 - the issue in front of the trial court at this time is whether Bedford recycling 01:26:53.506 --> 01:27:04.694 - complied with the notification requirements and gave Republic Services sufficient notice and the court 01:27:04.694 --> 01:27:16.207 - considered that and said that the court wants the board to and here's the order is remanded to the Monroe 01:27:16.207 --> 01:27:22.398 - County Board of Zoning Appeals to issue findings of fact 01:27:22.786 --> 01:27:30.162 - on the following issues. Whether the real property owned by Republic Services of Indiana LP abuts the 01:27:30.162 --> 01:27:37.611 - real property subject to the conditional use order, and two, whether the Monroe County Board of Zoning 01:27:37.611 --> 01:27:45.059 - and Appeals collected proof that Bedford Recycling delivered to a board administrator a proof that the 01:27:45.059 --> 01:27:47.518 - notice was sent by certified mail 01:27:48.290 --> 01:27:57.654 - were either delivered or returned undeliverable. So there were two issues that the court wants the BZA 01:27:57.654 --> 01:28:07.017 - to address. And I guess we have proposed findings in front of you. And it has three options of whether 01:28:07.017 --> 01:28:16.926 - you can look at the record and see whether the property abuts, whether it doesn't abut, or whether you can't 01:28:17.058 --> 01:28:28.924 - of the record as to whether the property abuts. The other thing that's kind of confusing and might be 01:28:28.924 --> 01:28:40.790 - another approach at this point is that seek clarification from the court as to what they exactly want 01:28:40.790 --> 01:28:43.582 - the board to do because 01:28:45.602 --> 01:28:55.415 - The record is closed on this, but there is a statute that says that the court may receive evidence in 01:28:55.415 --> 01:29:05.325 - addition to that contained in the board record for judicial review only if the evidence relates to the 01:29:05.325 --> 01:29:13.022 - validity of the zoning decision at the time the decision was made and is needed 01:29:13.762 --> 01:29:22.522 - to decide disputed issues regarding two things. And one of them is the unlawfulness of procedure or 01:29:22.522 --> 01:29:31.545 - the decision-making process. This subsection applies only if the additional evidence could not, by due 01:29:31.545 --> 01:29:41.006 - diligence, have been discovered and raised in the board proceeding giving rise to a proceeding for judicial 01:29:41.006 --> 01:29:42.846 - review. And it says, 01:29:42.978 --> 01:29:49.809 - The court may remand the matter to the board before final disposition of a petition for review with 01:29:49.809 --> 01:29:56.709 - directions that the board conduct further fact finding or that the board prepare an adequate record. 01:29:56.709 --> 01:30:03.950 - If the board failed to prepare or preserve an adequate record, the record improperly excluded or admitted 01:30:03.950 --> 01:30:09.278 - evidence from the record or a relevant law changed after the zoning decision. 01:30:14.018 --> 01:30:23.685 - So it's not clear to me from the wording of the court's order that they wanted the board to do additional 01:30:23.685 --> 01:30:32.896 - fact finding, to gather additional facts. But if you want us to seek clarification from the court on 01:30:32.896 --> 01:30:42.654 - that point as to whether the court wanted us to do that, then we can do that, or you can make the decision 01:30:43.106 --> 01:30:54.028 - based on the findings that you have in front of you, proposed findings. Anything else you'd like to 01:30:54.028 --> 01:31:02.110 - add before I make a few comments? I've done a little bit of work on this. 01:31:16.130 --> 01:31:30.268 - What I just showed you is in the record. It is found at the third hour, 19 minutes and 13 seconds on 01:31:30.268 --> 01:31:45.246 - the CATS television recording of this. The top picture is on the record, and this is also confirmed in our 01:31:46.082 --> 01:31:57.016 - that we received. The top picture. The top picture. There's a picture on the left and a picture on the 01:31:57.016 --> 01:32:08.055 - right. The top picture on the left. Thank you. Which is also found on page one. Anyway, it's also found 01:32:08.055 --> 01:32:15.486 - on the second to last page in your legal document. It's very similar. 01:32:19.202 --> 01:32:30.233 - looks like it's within a few seconds of where I took a freeze frame of this at again, our three minute 01:32:30.233 --> 01:32:41.478 - 19 second 13. And the property in question is the the one with the acute angle on the bottom right going 01:32:41.478 --> 01:32:47.582 - at the 45 degree going up circled or perimeter in white. 01:32:49.858 --> 01:33:06.650 - that is the petitioner's property. And you'll see below that, below that there's a triangle property 01:33:06.650 --> 01:33:16.958 - that there's a line between the acute angle going down to the 01:33:17.954 --> 01:33:31.024 - triangle of the neighbor's property in question. Now, it was pretty clear to me looking at that, that 01:33:31.024 --> 01:33:43.710 - there was a gap. So I blew it up and I will show you that. This is the exact image just magnified. 01:33:47.842 --> 01:33:59.152 - little protractor to show that the angles did not line up, therefore there was obviously a gap. And 01:33:59.152 --> 01:34:10.915 - I was determined at that point that the properties do not abut definition in a legal sense is to border 01:34:10.915 --> 01:34:15.326 - touching an edge. There's not touching 01:34:15.714 --> 01:34:31.552 - going between those two properties. Now, I was curious as what today's, I did not weigh in my decision, 01:34:31.552 --> 01:34:42.974 - I was curious as what today's GIS imagery shows and today's GIS imagery as 01:34:43.618 --> 01:34:52.794 - shown in the picture on bottom confirms that there is no change from what we were shown till today. 01:34:52.794 --> 01:35:02.062 - That did not weigh in any decision as I was already set, but I just wanted confirmation that today's 01:35:02.062 --> 01:35:11.422 - GIS was showing the same. That's the bottom picture where you show the Republic property in blue, the 01:35:11.938 --> 01:35:26.445 - red property above it to the left with the designation Perry showing the township would be the Bedford 01:35:26.445 --> 01:35:39.966 - property. So with that acute angle not lining up and the definition of a budding being touching 01:35:41.634 --> 01:35:54.315 - I do not see any reason to move forward and with any other aspect of responsibility of notification 01:35:54.315 --> 01:36:07.377 - because it is clear to me from the evidence that was presented in that meeting upon review of the Cats 01:36:07.377 --> 01:36:09.406 - television that 01:36:11.650 --> 01:36:22.574 - it is a black or white decision that it does not abut and the responsibility did not fall on the petitioner 01:36:22.574 --> 01:36:32.892 - for that notification. Are you therefore saying that you think the sensible thing is to choose option 01:36:32.892 --> 01:36:40.478 - one? I will allow more discussion from the board, but it is my belief that 01:36:41.058 --> 01:36:50.450 - Option one is the correct decision. Very good. I just wanted to make sure that I understood where you 01:36:50.450 --> 01:36:59.841 - were going and I did. I have a question for counsel. You read a statute and my ears perked up on some 01:36:59.841 --> 01:37:09.325 - of the words that were something like, we might be able to consider evidence if it could not have been 01:37:09.325 --> 01:37:10.430 - discovered. 01:37:10.722 --> 01:37:21.618 - at the time of the hearing. Would you mind repeating that? Well, there's two sections to this statute. 01:37:21.618 --> 01:37:32.513 - One is 36741612A. The court may receive evidence in addition to that contained in the board record for 01:37:32.513 --> 01:37:34.206 - judicial review 01:37:34.306 --> 01:37:41.686 - only if the evidence relates to the validity of the zoning decision at the time the decision was made 01:37:41.686 --> 01:37:49.138 - and is needed to decide disputing issues regarding one or both of the following. And one of those will 01:37:49.138 --> 01:37:56.663 - be unlawful as of procedure. Then it says this subsection applies only if the additional evidence could 01:37:56.663 --> 01:38:03.102 - not by due diligence have been discovered and raised in the board proceeding giving rise 01:38:03.298 --> 01:38:11.675 - to a proceeding for judicial review. The second subsection B states, the court may remand the matter 01:38:11.675 --> 01:38:20.134 - to the board before final disposition of a petition for review with directions that the board conduct 01:38:20.134 --> 01:38:28.428 - further fact finding or that the board prepare an adequate record if the board failed to prepare or 01:38:28.428 --> 01:38:30.750 - preserve an adequate record 01:38:31.298 --> 01:38:40.250 - the board improperly excluded or admitted evidence from the record or a relevant law changed after the 01:38:40.250 --> 01:38:49.028 - zoning decision and the court determines that the new provision of law may control the outcome. That 01:38:49.028 --> 01:38:57.980 - one obviously doesn't apply. So that's what the statute says. And the court's ordered the BZA to issue 01:38:57.980 --> 01:39:01.022 - findings of fact and it didn't say 01:39:01.314 --> 01:39:13.024 - the board conduct further fact finding, in other words, additional facts? Well, if I interpret these 01:39:13.024 --> 01:39:25.313 - statutes, neither of which I've read in detail myself and studied, but it sounds like, I mean, basically, 01:39:25.313 --> 01:39:30.878 - I agree with Mr. Daley. Our record shows a gap. 01:39:33.250 --> 01:39:41.455 - If there's something that would have shown they were touching, it could have been in the record. No, 01:39:41.455 --> 01:39:49.823 - it didn't make it in the record, but there's nothing in our record. Anything that would clarify it now 01:39:49.823 --> 01:39:58.110 - would have clarified it then. There certainly would be ample. If somebody would come in with a survey 01:39:58.690 --> 01:40:09.237 - Bynum Fanyo had shown that this, if you take these legal descriptions, but that didn't happen. It could 01:40:09.237 --> 01:40:19.581 - have happened. I think our record is sufficient based on the analysis that has been made by Mr. Daley 01:40:19.581 --> 01:40:27.390 - for us to proceed to choose option one. Now, I'm asking you, as our counsel, 01:40:28.354 --> 01:40:36.923 - do you have reservations about that decision? Or is that going to have consequences that I haven't thought 01:40:36.923 --> 01:40:45.652 - of? The only thing you need to think about is whether there's evidence in the record as sufficient evidence. 01:40:45.652 --> 01:40:53.660 - And so as long as there is a scintilla of evidence in the record supporting your decision, then the 01:40:53.660 --> 01:40:55.742 - court has to accept that. 01:40:55.906 --> 01:41:04.675 - the board also has the authority to judge the credibility of evidence. And so that's why option three 01:41:04.675 --> 01:41:13.530 - was provided. If you think these are GIS drawings, if you think that our GIS drawings are accurate and 01:41:13.530 --> 01:41:22.471 - sufficient to rely on and credible, then what Skip is talking about makes sense. But if you don't think 01:41:22.471 --> 01:41:25.566 - it's credible and that's your call, 01:41:25.890 --> 01:41:33.607 - then you could choose another option. Well, my perspective on that is we assume, we presume basically, 01:41:33.607 --> 01:41:41.399 - we assume that the GIS documents we have are credible unless there's some reason to question them. That 01:41:41.399 --> 01:41:49.416 - reason should have been shown at the time of the hearing. Yeah. And I find then the sufficiently credible, 01:41:49.416 --> 01:41:52.638 - certainly at least an iota of credibility, 01:41:52.962 --> 01:42:02.750 - to feel comfortable with. Just the reason there was nothing put in the record about this is because 01:42:02.750 --> 01:42:12.734 - they did send notice to Republic, okay? So whether they had to or not was never an issue because they 01:42:12.734 --> 01:42:22.718 - did. But there was no reply from Republic. Yeah, they did not submit proof that Republic received it. 01:42:23.202 --> 01:42:43.550 - That's the issue. But I'm suggesting it's moot. And I want to clarify my comments as to stating what 01:42:43.550 --> 01:42:48.990 - we're considering evidence 01:42:51.394 --> 01:42:59.439 - It's not our determination whether or not that evidence was admitted properly or not. We're just reviewing 01:42:59.439 --> 01:43:06.957 - the evidence, correct? Yeah, this evidence was presented to the board during the meeting. Presented 01:43:06.957 --> 01:43:14.626 - to the board, correct. So the board received this as evidence. This is the record that all the courts 01:43:14.626 --> 01:43:20.190 - have relied on and that the board can rely on tonight. According to that, 01:43:20.930 --> 01:43:33.921 - My finding for colleague discussion is that the petitioner is relieved of the responsibility to demonstrate 01:43:33.921 --> 01:43:46.311 - that notice was provided because the properties do not abut. I agree with that, and I was there at the 01:43:46.311 --> 01:43:49.438 - hearings here at the VCA. 01:43:49.794 --> 01:43:59.193 - on the board at that time. So I would agree with that. Unfortunately, I was actually online, present 01:43:59.193 --> 01:44:08.779 - for the meeting. I was kicked offline for a good part of that. So I've relived this several times over 01:44:08.779 --> 01:44:13.246 - the last month on Katz TV. That is unfortunate. 01:44:14.754 --> 01:44:24.968 - I do want to thank Mr. Daly for the outstanding homework he has brought to this topic. Yes, absolutely. 01:44:24.968 --> 01:44:35.183 - Which is not the first time he's done that. That's exactly right. Someone needs to motion on a decision 01:44:35.183 --> 01:44:42.942 - if they wish or continue discussing. Well, and if I move and the board accepts 01:44:43.042 --> 01:44:51.467 - Mr. Schelling, that option one, you have, I hear no legal reservations about that. No, absolutely not. 01:44:51.467 --> 01:44:59.647 - And if you do decide to go with option one, I can run down, take out option two and three and print 01:44:59.647 --> 01:45:07.909 - up a new findings of fact for you to sign tonight if you would like that. Let's get that done. Let's 01:45:07.909 --> 01:45:09.790 - get that done. I move. 01:45:10.882 --> 01:45:24.868 - that the board accept option one as presented by council as our response to the court order. And that 01:45:24.868 --> 01:45:37.758 - we do not choose either number two or option two or option three. Second that. Do we need to? 01:45:38.850 --> 01:45:50.628 - motion carries, then the second issue is moot. But, uh, I don't know if you want to address that. 01:45:50.628 --> 01:46:02.767 - We will. Let's let's see if this motion carries, and then I will recommend a course of action. Yeah. 01:46:02.767 --> 01:46:06.974 - All right. We've had a motion in a 01:46:07.106 --> 01:46:14.570 - because only we are looking at this document. It's in the record. Is it in the record? Well, you can 01:46:14.570 --> 01:46:22.033 - read option one. Yeah, I would just read option one. Yes, you should put that in there. Okay, I will 01:46:22.033 --> 01:46:30.088 - read that the board in response to the court's order determines that the depictions of the Bedford Recycling 01:46:30.088 --> 01:46:33.118 - Inc. property and the Republican service 01:46:33.314 --> 01:46:42.792 - Republic Services of Indiana LP property included in record exhibit five demonstrate that those properties 01:46:42.792 --> 01:46:51.030 - are not abutting properties for purposes of the interested parties notification requirement. 01:46:51.030 --> 01:46:59.888 - I second that. Okay, the motion has been moved and seconded as noted by board member Mr. Guy Lofman 01:46:59.888 --> 01:47:00.862 - and stated 01:47:01.026 --> 01:47:12.548 - a vote yes is a vote to approve the option one as stated. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. 01:47:12.548 --> 01:47:24.071 - Skip Daly. Yes. Guy Laughman. Yes. Okay. The motion is approved four to zero. All right. At this point, 01:47:24.071 --> 01:47:30.718 - I would like to request from a colleague that they consider 01:47:31.106 --> 01:47:40.803 - moving to remove options two and three from the documents in question. I would like to move that we 01:47:40.803 --> 01:47:50.693 - remove options two and three from our findings on remand and I'd can I talk about remand issue number 01:47:50.693 --> 01:47:59.614 - two or not yet? No let's get this done first. Okay so I yes we remove options two and three 01:47:59.906 --> 01:48:10.006 - from our findings on remand. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to remove options two and three 01:48:10.006 --> 01:48:19.717 - from issue number one. A vote yes is a vote to remove options two and three. Barbara Clements? Yes. 01:48:19.717 --> 01:48:24.670 - Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Pamela Davidson? 01:48:24.962 --> 01:48:32.238 - Well, I'm confused why that would even be needed if we're going to sign off on option one, the other 01:48:32.238 --> 01:48:39.657 - two die on the vine. I don't really understand the purpose of this. Because it's been presented as one 01:48:39.657 --> 01:48:47.221 - complete document, just because we're accepting this, we're going to remove it and we just need consent. 01:48:47.221 --> 01:48:49.886 - This was an actual court filing? No. 01:48:50.146 --> 01:49:01.991 - It wasn't a court file. This is just for your use. It's for us. So it's a working paper. But it's in 01:49:01.991 --> 01:49:14.070 - our record of this meeting. I agree, Pam. I agree, but I'll say present. Present. Here's three to zero 01:49:14.070 --> 01:49:19.230 - on that. Another page from Mr. Daly's book. 01:49:19.586 --> 01:49:28.580 - I'm sorry. Miss Clements. You have something to say on findings on remand issue, too. Yes that remand 01:49:28.580 --> 01:49:37.486 - issue number two no longer applies, having decided remand issue number one. So I'd like to move that 01:49:37.486 --> 01:49:46.745 - we remove or eliminate remand issue number two. Yeah, I mean, and you can certainly do that, but. Remand 01:49:46.745 --> 01:49:49.214 - issue number two is a fact. 01:49:49.954 --> 01:50:00.454 - And it's your choice, but you could just leave it up to the judge to determine whether it's moot or 01:50:00.454 --> 01:50:11.163 - not. I would say that we collected testimony that Bedford Recycling had delivered to Republic. No. We 01:50:11.163 --> 01:50:19.038 - say that through option one. Yeah. Well, we have evidence that they mailed 01:50:20.066 --> 01:50:28.868 - whether it was actually received or delivered or not, we don't have the proof, right? Okay, so if somebody 01:50:28.868 --> 01:50:37.505 - else would like to make an appropriate motion. I mean, that was fine if you wanted to proceed with that. 01:50:37.505 --> 01:50:45.896 - I'm a little bit lost, so I'd like it to be correct for the legal plug. Is there now an inconsistency 01:50:45.896 --> 01:50:49.022 - in our record because our record says 01:50:50.722 --> 01:51:06.678 - that it was mailed, but no proof of receipt. How about this, if I may? Yeah, I move that on findings 01:51:06.678 --> 01:51:18.526 - on remand issue number two, we confirm evidence that notification was sent 01:51:20.450 --> 01:51:36.712 - although we find it moot. Moot is a technical term I don't think we should use. It's a technical issue. 01:51:36.712 --> 01:51:49.534 - I can't go with moot. Unnecessary. Unnecessary is very different to me than moot. 01:51:49.890 --> 01:51:59.776 - The question number two is, did Bedford Recycling submit proof of delivery? And I tried to state, yes, 01:51:59.776 --> 01:52:09.375 - we have evidence that they presented notification. They presented evidence of mailing. They did not 01:52:09.375 --> 01:52:14.174 - present evidence of delivery. They're supposed to 01:52:14.370 --> 01:52:21.698 - to provide us with receipts showing that the documents had been delivered. But since the properties 01:52:21.698 --> 01:52:29.172 - don't abut, that wasn't necessary. It wasn't necessary, but the actual answer to the question is they 01:52:29.172 --> 01:52:36.500 - did not present evidence that it was delivered. Right. OK, I got it. I got it. OK, are you going to 01:52:36.500 --> 01:52:42.142 - move? Skip that fact. That fact doesn't change. You're correct. Correct. OK. 01:52:43.362 --> 01:52:51.435 - but it answers the question that the court asked us. Delivery and receipt, shipment, delivery, and receipt 01:52:51.435 --> 01:52:59.056 - are three things. Delivery and receipt are separate, and delivery and shipment are separate. But how 01:52:59.056 --> 01:53:06.601 - about this? Proof is another thing altogether. Proof of delivery is another thing altogether. Well, 01:53:06.601 --> 01:53:08.638 - evidence is, and proof is. 01:53:08.770 --> 01:53:21.844 - This is a conditional use requirement. And I can read that to you here. And this is from the conditional 01:53:21.844 --> 01:53:32.926 - use requirement. Could you speak into the mic? Sorry. Conditional use requirement 8133E. 01:53:33.666 --> 01:53:41.191 - At least 10 days prior to the board's hearing on the application for conditional use approval, the applicant 01:53:41.191 --> 01:53:48.301 - in the manner prescribed in the board's rules of procedures shall notify all interested persons of the 01:53:48.301 --> 01:53:55.343 - public hearing by certified mail. Prior to the hearing, the applicant shall provide the administrator 01:53:55.343 --> 01:54:03.006 - with certified mail receipts demonstrating that the required notices were delivered or returned undeliverable. 01:54:03.106 --> 01:54:12.294 - I'm not trying to play semantics here. I believe the evidence you have shows it was delivered. I don't 01:54:12.294 --> 01:54:21.303 - believe the evidence you have shows it was received. It was mailed. You don't know it was delivered. 01:54:21.303 --> 01:54:30.313 - The UPS has not told us they delivered it. You don't know that. Whatever you guys want. Is this even 01:54:30.313 --> 01:54:31.294 - necessary? 01:54:31.490 --> 01:54:39.476 - Um, didn't we've weren't our findings a fact that we could not say it was delivered. That is correct. 01:54:39.476 --> 01:54:47.383 - So we've already addressed that in our finding. No, no. The first finding was it wasn't necessary to 01:54:47.383 --> 01:54:55.447 - send notice to them. Okay. So if the judge wants to send it back based on remand issue number two, the 01:54:55.447 --> 01:54:59.518 - judge could do that, but the judge will likely not. 01:54:59.746 --> 01:55:07.682 - The judge just asked us, did you guys receive any receipts? The answer is no. When she gets your findings, 01:55:07.682 --> 01:55:15.247 - she'll say, it doesn't matter that they didn't receive receipts because it wasn't necessary to notify 01:55:15.247 --> 01:55:22.886 - them in the first place. They don't abide. OK. I mean, the main question on number one, you've already 01:55:22.886 --> 01:55:25.630 - answered, and that takes care of it. 01:55:25.762 --> 01:55:32.513 - as far as the court's concerned. So we don't have to do anything else? We don't. Well, we do what the 01:55:32.513 --> 01:55:39.264 - court asked us to do, and that is we address this question. But remand issue number two, does it help 01:55:39.264 --> 01:55:46.147 - if we certify that? I don't think so. It doesn't help one way or the other. So let's just, if you don't 01:55:46.147 --> 01:55:50.846 - mind, you could go down and print that up. Well, I'm still, I'm still, 01:55:51.266 --> 01:56:00.088 - The ordinance that requires that they be notified and that we receive proof that it was delivered or 01:56:00.088 --> 01:56:08.997 - returned as undeliverable. Was it returned as undeliverable? We received nothing on that that I could 01:56:08.997 --> 01:56:18.430 - find in the record. We showed that it was sent, but nothing about whether it was returned as undeliverable. 01:56:18.658 --> 01:56:31.333 - I got it. I was missing that fact. I'm now comfortable with that fact. So would it be appropriate for 01:56:31.333 --> 01:56:44.007 - me to move, would it create, if we passed a motion that said we adopt findings and recommend issue as 01:56:44.007 --> 01:56:45.374 - set forth, 01:56:45.666 --> 01:56:54.646 - in your document, that this is what it says, and does not include receiving that they received it, and 01:56:54.646 --> 01:57:03.539 - does not include certificate that written notice was undeliverable. It seems to me that those are all 01:57:03.539 --> 01:57:12.257 - facts. I'm perfectly comfortable re-establishing those facts. And would that be appropriate at this 01:57:12.257 --> 01:57:15.134 - point? Yes. OK. Those are facts. 01:57:15.522 --> 01:57:27.445 - Therefore, I move that on remand issue two, we adopt the suggested findings in the document presented 01:57:27.445 --> 01:57:39.485 - to us by council. And under the circumstances, they would be numbered 15, 16, and 17. And shall I read 01:57:39.485 --> 01:57:44.862 - those? Would that be appropriate? Sure. Okay. 01:57:45.026 --> 01:57:52.451 - The finding on remand issue number 15 is subsection 18.3-3e of the zoning ordinance states in part that, 01:57:52.451 --> 01:57:59.806 - quote, prior to the hearing, the applicant shall provide the administrator with certified mail receipts 01:57:59.806 --> 01:58:06.878 - demonstrating that the required notices were delivered or returned as undeliverable, end quote. 16. 01:58:07.298 --> 01:58:15.294 - The record does not include a certified mail receipt demonstrating that Republic Services of Indiana 01:58:15.294 --> 01:58:23.290 - LP received notice of the board's September 1st, 2021 hearing on CDU 21.3. 17, number 17. The record 01:58:23.290 --> 01:58:31.524 - does not include a certified mail receipt demonstrating that a written notice sent to Republic Services 01:58:31.524 --> 01:58:35.166 - of Indiana LP of the board September 1st, 21. 01:58:35.394 --> 01:58:46.833 - 2021 hearing on CDU was returned as undeliverable. That was a motion. Yes. Do we have a second? You're 01:58:46.833 --> 01:58:58.494 - basically restating findings of facts that per the statute we did not have. Okay, then I'll second that. 01:59:00.098 --> 01:59:10.544 - Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve the findings as put together by Council and restated by 01:59:10.544 --> 01:59:21.092 - board member Guy Lofman. A vote yes is a vote to approve the three findings as stated. Skip Daly. Yes. 01:59:21.092 --> 01:59:29.694 - Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Motion is approved four to zero. 01:59:30.306 --> 01:59:41.246 - Well, certainly showing takes care of getting papers for us to sign. I would like to add a couple of 01:59:41.246 --> 01:59:51.970 - things. I have some notes here. I believe. The busy a needs to presume. That the onus of statutory 01:59:51.970 --> 02:00:00.094 - requirement to present to the BZ a has been met prior to the meeting. This 02:00:00.386 --> 02:00:08.832 - to be confirmed for the record during the staff presentation, the board should insist on knowing that 02:00:08.832 --> 02:00:17.112 - this requirement is taken care of moving forward. I noticed this evening you've been asking on each 02:00:17.112 --> 02:00:25.640 - case. I have been asking on each case. I'm not objecting, I'm trying to, I just wondered. But the onus 02:00:25.640 --> 02:00:29.118 - should be that before it comes to us that 02:00:30.114 --> 02:00:41.997 - it should be confirmed by staff that has been taken care of. And if there is a question as to whether 02:00:41.997 --> 02:00:53.647 - a property has or has not been in receipt of the proper notification, or if the property's a but or 02:00:53.647 --> 02:00:59.006 - not, those matters should be handled prior to 02:00:59.554 --> 02:01:10.409 - a petition happening in front of the board. So I'm just looking at one of these. I've got it. I've got 02:01:10.409 --> 02:01:21.159 - our BZA agenda from the packet. And I happen to be looking at the morrow, because that's the last one 02:01:21.159 --> 02:01:27.166 - we discussed. So are you suggesting that under exhibits, 02:01:27.842 --> 02:01:37.631 - We should always request that we have proof of mailing to these people and is that what you're suggesting? 02:01:37.631 --> 02:01:47.329 - Yes, I'm suggesting we should not hear a case. We should not allow a case to be heard by the board unless 02:01:47.329 --> 02:01:57.758 - if we have somewhere, it might be there and I don't realize where it is, but unless if we know and it's confirmed 02:01:58.018 --> 02:02:06.630 - during the presentation or prior to the presentation that notice, because we should never have to have 02:02:06.630 --> 02:02:15.075 - this matter before us again. I think that in the introduction of evidence, that it's covered because 02:02:15.075 --> 02:02:23.687 - Jackie says that everything has, and when we approve the agenda, everything has been properly noticed. 02:02:23.687 --> 02:02:25.694 - And that is included in 02:02:25.890 --> 02:02:32.103 - and then we move approval of that. I think she's saying that the notice has been properly, that the 02:02:32.103 --> 02:02:38.441 - meeting has been properly noticed in the newspapers. I don't. I agree with what Mr. Loffman has said. 02:02:38.441 --> 02:02:44.654 - I see. Well, then would it satisfy everyone if staff merely, instead of giving us proof of it, made 02:02:44.654 --> 02:02:51.054 - a statement in each case. Confirmation, I'm not looking for proof. And I'm not suggesting staff is not 02:02:51.054 --> 02:02:54.782 - doing their job in any way, shape or form. I'm just saying, 02:02:55.106 --> 02:03:04.735 - we should have confirmation on the record moving forward so that a matter like this doesn't happen again 02:03:04.735 --> 02:03:13.906 - and making the courts make decisions or having the courts send something back to us to make another 02:03:13.906 --> 02:03:23.902 - decision. So just a statement like in our rules and at the opening of our meetings, a certification by staff 02:03:24.162 --> 02:03:32.396 - cover us that they have received. But that would be on each case as it comes up. I would do it for the 02:03:32.396 --> 02:03:40.390 - whole evening once. Okay. Now, let me, since we've got to head west here and wait for Mr. Schilling 02:03:40.390 --> 02:03:48.704 - anyway, it's a great time to have this conversation. If we had done that in the Republic case, it would 02:03:48.704 --> 02:03:51.582 - have showed that they didn't notify 02:03:52.034 --> 02:04:01.468 - the non-abutting property owner. It would have showed they sent it, but they didn't get anything back. 02:04:01.468 --> 02:04:10.719 - That was in the record. Yeah. What I'm saying is it would have shown that this property did not have 02:04:10.719 --> 02:04:20.062 - a red receipt for this notification that was sent out, but then staff would have said, oh, hey, look, 02:04:20.642 --> 02:04:28.385 - it doesn't apply anyhow because it doesn't have bought and it would have been on the record. Or if they 02:04:28.385 --> 02:04:36.128 - said, oh, it didn't come back here, it didn't come back, sorry, you are not allowed to present in front 02:04:36.128 --> 02:04:43.796 - of the board because boom, done, shut down. Well, I think this case is an anomaly in every single way. 02:04:43.796 --> 02:04:47.742 - We have not had an issue and I'm never in favor of a 02:04:47.874 --> 02:04:59.061 - solution in search of a problem. So if we've had problems with inadequate notice or lack of proper notice, 02:04:59.061 --> 02:05:09.829 - it'd be one thing. How many percentages of our cases go to a court stage? One at the most. Pardon? One 02:05:09.829 --> 02:05:17.566 - percent at the most. Right. So I think suggesting that we're in search of 02:05:17.794 --> 02:05:25.885 - a solution to something that's not a problem. It is a problem because this is a ploy by somebody that 02:05:25.885 --> 02:05:34.134 - doesn't like a decision that was made to come back and say, well, we didn't receive it. They're looking 02:05:34.134 --> 02:05:36.990 - for a loophole. I want to eliminate 02:05:37.186 --> 02:05:44.665 - the loophole from the future and by requiring the evidence that somebody did what they had to do statutorily 02:05:44.665 --> 02:05:51.731 - before they come to us to require that confirmation by staff, I think it's a no-brainer. I don't think 02:05:51.731 --> 02:05:59.141 - it's us going out looking for anything. I think this broad attention, I think it's a bell that we shouldn't 02:05:59.141 --> 02:06:02.366 - unring at this point. I think it's an anomaly. 02:06:03.490 --> 02:06:09.499 - But because of the way the properties were set up and so on. Because we just have not had this situation. 02:06:09.499 --> 02:06:15.395 - Is this the only case like this that we've had in the whole time? That's why I'm saying it's a solution 02:06:15.395 --> 02:06:21.347 - in search of a problem. And that's fine. Because factually, if there's a problem, one of the petitioners 02:06:21.347 --> 02:06:26.506 - or the parties will bring it up. And it's up to them to say, wait a minute, wait a minute, 02:06:26.506 --> 02:06:32.174 - wait the flag, I didn't get the notice. So it's like anything. Sure. It's like anything. But I also 02:06:32.174 --> 02:06:32.798 - think that 02:06:33.634 --> 02:06:42.209 - having that confirmation from staff prior to would be less of a time constraint than the amount of challenge 02:06:42.209 --> 02:06:49.604 - and resistance you're putting up right now. Oh, my. I don't agree with you, Skip. Is that OK? 02:06:49.604 --> 02:06:57.628 - Is that OK? They're not agreeing with me? It's absolutely OK. I'm glad. It's OK. Because it just has- 02:06:57.628 --> 02:07:02.270 - That's why there's five of us. That's right. It's just not 02:07:02.370 --> 02:07:10.045 - I trust the staff professionally to do notice, err on the side of the fact that we didn't have the proof. 02:07:10.045 --> 02:07:17.358 - I wouldn't have said to somebody, you're out. You can't pursue it anymore because they can always go 02:07:17.358 --> 02:07:25.032 - to court and pursue it and say, was it germane? Was it not germane? I mean, there's another avenue beyond 02:07:25.032 --> 02:07:26.046 - us, for sure. 02:07:26.498 --> 02:07:36.655 - assume the staff is so professional. It does such an amazing job with everything to impute that maybe 02:07:36.655 --> 02:07:47.011 - they're not doing an important aspect. Well, notices or I just, I'm just searching for why it's in your 02:07:47.011 --> 02:07:55.774 - brain. I'm searching for that. Let me ask another question that's notices are sent out. 02:07:56.738 --> 02:08:06.772 - And in this case, notice was sent to Republican. I'm, you know, you read the statute again, you say, 02:08:06.772 --> 02:08:17.105 - wait a minute, if a neighbor doesn't respond, the post office, I guess the question, how was the notice 02:08:17.105 --> 02:08:26.046 - sent? Was it sent by, do we know whether? May I ask you, Director, a question real quick? 02:08:26.146 --> 02:08:33.947 - certified mail okay was sent by certified we may ask you a question real quick does staff when they're 02:08:33.947 --> 02:08:41.521 - doing this work already have to get confirmation that these notices have been sent out and received 02:08:41.521 --> 02:08:49.550 - and all of that so i'll answer in the case of the republic services case so they uh the bed for recycling 02:08:49.550 --> 02:08:50.686 - case they sent 02:08:50.882 --> 02:09:00.105 - a certificate of mailing, which is slightly different than certified mail. Certificate of mailing is 02:09:00.105 --> 02:09:09.237 - when you prove that you sent the letters, but you do not have proof that they were received. But in 02:09:09.237 --> 02:09:18.551 - order to be heard before the board, does the staff need proof of receipt? And is that what's normally 02:09:18.551 --> 02:09:20.286 - provided to staff? 02:09:20.962 --> 02:09:28.651 - in the specific prior ordinance on conditional uses. What Mr Schilling quoted was not the CDO. It's 02:09:28.651 --> 02:09:36.571 - the prior ordinance there. He quoted that they needed to show that it was either delivered or returned 02:09:36.571 --> 02:09:44.567 - as undeliverable. That would not occur with just the certificate of mailing process because that's only 02:09:44.567 --> 02:09:50.334 - a notice that the USPS had the letters in their hands and that it was sent 02:09:50.466 --> 02:09:58.509 - not that it was received. But what does our so are the current ordinance states what the current county 02:09:58.509 --> 02:10:06.629 - ordinance states that somebody has to provide staff. Red receipts or. There's two different things here, 02:10:06.629 --> 02:10:15.059 - but I don't want to conflate the issues because we're still on the record. So there's the rules of procedure 02:10:15.059 --> 02:10:17.534 - and then there's the ordinance. 02:10:18.754 --> 02:10:30.599 - So the rules of procedure do state how notice should be given in the Bedford recycling case though. 02:10:30.599 --> 02:10:39.838 - They also were in the ordinance itself, not just the rules of procedure. Yes. 02:10:52.162 --> 02:11:01.006 - But to your point, skip by the next meeting. I want to make sure I'm clear with what has happened with 02:11:01.006 --> 02:11:09.763 - this case and make sure we don't have this happen again. We do check that notice is sent every single 02:11:09.763 --> 02:11:18.350 - time. Absolutely. And this was by no means a slap in the face. It seems like it was turned as if my 02:11:18.350 --> 02:11:19.294 - words were 02:11:19.682 --> 02:11:26.856 - derogatory towards staff which in no way shape or form was it all I'm suggesting is you've already done 02:11:26.856 --> 02:11:34.099 - the work let's get it on the record that it's confirmed during the hearing or before it's even presented 02:11:34.099 --> 02:11:40.997 - to us that's that's my only suggestion okay does that make sense or yeah we can we can do something 02:11:40.997 --> 02:11:44.446 - like that I mean I mean this this got turned into 02:11:44.738 --> 02:11:54.941 - Meet me against the staff. That's absolutely not what I'm saying. I'm saying you're already doing the 02:11:54.941 --> 02:12:05.244 - work. Let's just get it on the record that it's done and hopefully that will curtail this problem from 02:12:05.244 --> 02:12:10.846 - happening again. Okay, excellent. Good work. Good work. 02:12:11.106 --> 02:12:20.171 - Skip, I didn't look at it that way. I just said the staff is very professional and I trust them to do, 02:12:20.171 --> 02:12:29.061 - they're professional in everything that they do. So it's just not something that I would worry about 02:12:29.061 --> 02:12:38.126 - at all because I... Being professional is not a question here. What is on question is the board should 02:12:38.126 --> 02:12:39.710 - have confirmation 02:12:40.066 --> 02:12:48.355 - that everything is, all the boxes are checked. All the other boxes are getting checked. We're making 02:12:48.355 --> 02:12:56.727 - sure folks are signing their name. We're making sure folks are getting sworn in. We're making sure A, 02:12:56.727 --> 02:13:05.098 - B, C, D, E, F, and G. Why skip H? Let's just make sure everything is on the record in order for us to 02:13:05.098 --> 02:13:09.694 - hear the testimony. Well, I'm glad we've had this chat. 02:13:10.082 --> 02:13:21.029 - While we're waiting, we aren't going to finish it tonight. I'm going to look at the ordinance and the 02:13:21.029 --> 02:13:31.868 - rules myself. And I had no idea it was a different rule if it's a conditional use. I mean, there's a 02:13:31.868 --> 02:13:39.166 - trap for the unwary, as we like to say, in ordinances and statutes. 02:13:39.266 --> 02:13:48.515 - We've had a lot done tonight and including discussion of this tough stuff. And that's right. Thank you, 02:13:48.515 --> 02:13:57.586 - Mr. Schelling for a very helpful, useful presentation of our choices and walking us through it. Dave, 02:13:57.586 --> 02:14:06.746 - do you need one side copy? And is it all there? You can throw those away. OK, all right. Yeah, I would 02:14:06.746 --> 02:14:07.902 - just like to 02:14:08.162 --> 02:14:17.548 - go back to something that was said earlier, and that was how grateful I was that you investigated so 02:14:17.548 --> 02:14:27.398 - thoroughly that abutment and you presented evidence into the record that was important, and I just really 02:14:27.398 --> 02:14:37.342 - appreciated that skill. Every board like this needs a stickler, and we're glad it's you. Just to be clear, 02:14:37.538 --> 02:14:45.259 - No new evidence presented tonight. No new evidence. The eight times in the existing evidence, the critical. 02:14:45.259 --> 02:14:52.407 - That's right. I stated that three times on the record. Yeah. I just muddled it up. Yeah, but aren't 02:14:52.407 --> 02:14:59.628 - we adjourned? All right. Let's go ahead and put this meeting to arrest. All right. Thanks, everyone. 02:14:59.628 --> 02:15:00.414 - Thank you.