Let's call to order the August 26th, 2026 meeting of the Monroe County Board of Zoning and Appeals meeting.
I will be filling in for the chairman who could not make it to our meeting this evening. Inspector,
if you could go ahead and call the roll. Sure. Margaret Clements. Here. Skip Daly.
Yes. Guy Laughman. Yes. Jeff Morris. Pamela Davidson. Yes. We have four members in person in a quorum.
Okay, fantastic. Let's go ahead and introduce the evidence, please.
I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance
as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Control Ordinance as adopted
and amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Board of
Zoning Appeals Rules or Procedure as adopted and amended. And the cases that were legally advertised
and scheduled for hearing on tonight's agenda.
I move that to introduce the evidence for tonight as you've just enumerated so well. I second the motion
to approve. It's been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is about
to approve. Skip Daly. Yes. Guy Lofman. Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Motion is
approved four to zero.
All right, before we approve the agenda, I understand there's a motion that's going to be made. Yes,
I'd like to move that we approve tonight's agenda as advertised except that we move the administrative
business to the end of the meeting. I second that motion.
Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as presented with the motion to move administrative
business to the end of new business, and otherwise the cases will go in order as advertised. A vote
yes is a vote to approve the agenda with that one amendment. Guy Laughman? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes.
Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Motion is approved, four to zero.
All right. Board members, is there anybody going to ask a question in the negative? Is there anybody
that has not had the opportunity to review the April, May or June 2026 meeting minutes? Hearing no one.
Is there anybody on the board that recommends any amendments to those?
Hearing nobody, I approve the minutes for April, May, and June of 2026. Let's see, no old business.
Let's go ahead and start with our new business. The Brown Eco Area 2 Variants 26-1.
Mr. Myers, before you get into your presentation, for the record, has the petitioner complied with notice
to everybody that is statutorily required? Yes. All right. Thank you. Please proceed. All right. So
this is at 3701 East Maples Way.
This is one 5.03 acre parcel in Bloomington Township section 26. It's zone conservation residential
and it's in the environmental constraint overlay area two. The petitioner is requesting one residential
development standards variance from the environmental constraints overlay area two related to the 15%
slope regulation. The petitioner is proposing to construct a new 1,250 square foot two-story residential
accessory structure.
each floor will measure 25 by 25 feet for a 625 square foot footprint with an additional seven feet
on one side to accommodate stairs. The total height of the structure will be just under 30 feet which
is the maximum height for accessory structures in this zoning district. The proposed structure will
contain a bathroom but no bedrooms or kitchen facilities. Because of the proposed bathroom a separate
septic system connection will be installed for this structure. There is a mistake in the
Report that states a separate septic system as in a brand new septic system will be installed, but upon
the site visit and conversations with the petitioner, a connection to the existing septic system will
be acquired for this structure. The proposed accessory structure will sit approximately 65 feet from
the rear of the house and encroach approximately 20 feet into an area with slope greater than 15%.
The position site is listed as Lot 9 of the Lanham Ridge Estates Section 2 subdivision, which was recorded
on August 23, 1997. And for the record, the first iteration of the environmental constraints overlay
was adopted by the Monroe County Board of Commissioners on January 23, 1992. The Chapter 823 of the
Monroe County Development Ordinance regulates
the Eco Area 2, which states that the maximum land slope upon which any land disturbance activity, which
includes the removal of vegetation involved in construction of buildings, driveways, roads,
parking lots, and utilities shall be 15%. Therefore, any land disturbance activity to slopes greater
than 15% is prohibited by Chapter 823 for property in this Area 2. On the screen, you have the purpose
statement from the environmental constraints overlay in that chapter.
Now on the screen you have the provisions for Area 2 with respect to the Chapter 823-5b which provides
regulations for Area 2. There are four items here and we're concentrating on item number one and item
number two. Item number one I just referenced with respect to any land disturbance activity is prohibited
on slopes greater than 15% and item number two is states that no land disturbance of natural vegetation
beyond the 15% slope line.
So due to the nature of this request on this petition with respect to constructing a new residential
accessory structure, both of those standards require a variance in order to proceed with the building
permit process. The other items three and four will be met.
Now on the screen is definitions for practical difficulties, and this is one of the important pieces
to the puzzle of the variance process for the board zoning appeals to consider, so I have that here
on the screens also included in the packet and we can come back to these definitions, if necessary.
Here we have the location map Bloomington township.
We're fairly close to the city of Bloomington's jurisdiction. And interestingly, we are in the Lake
Griffey watershed, which is also regulated by the environmental constraints overlay. It's not just Lake
Monroe watershed. On the right, we have the site conditions map. All of the red areas are sloped greater
than 15%, which are the areas of regulation. This is just a zoomed in version of the site conditions map here.
And here we have the eco area map as presented. So all of the red hatching areas are area two and the
blue hatching is area one. You can see the area one as you get closer to Lake Griffey and we are far
enough away from Lake Monroe that you won't see the blue with respect to area one for that reservoir.
Now on the screen we have a series of aerial pictometry showing different angles of the property and
the existing conditions. So we have the primary residence as well as a detached structure existing on
the property. The proposed location of the accessory structure will be in the tree line here a bit.
I'll show you some more imagery and site plans that give you a better idea of where that will be located. So just
spinning around, looking at the different angles of the property with some contour lines shown here
as well. Now we have some on the ground photos of the site. On the left-hand side, we have a few
Minor items on the ground, those kind of identify where the existing septic tank is. On the right, we
have a tree in the background. That is a tree that the petitioner has stated that is likely having to
be removed due to its condition and health, as well as it's affecting the location, the eventual location
of the proposed structure. Some more photographs here as we traverse the site.
On the right, we see the wood planks here or branches on the ground. And the petitioner stated during
the site visit that that's approximately where the front of the structure will go. So it will extend
further into the tree line there, extending into the woods as it goes into the 15% slope. More photographs here.
Bottom right photograph. Behind me, taking this picture, is where the septic field is. So there is quite
a bit of a distance from the septic tank to the septic field. And I can show you on some other maps
the location of that field. Now on the screen, we have the letter from the petitioner stating their
request and their rationale as to why they want the structure on the proposed location. This is included
in the packet.
Here we have the site conditions map prepared by the petitioner. So the dark rectangle on the right
side or eastern side of the property is the existing septic field. The small square that is located
to the north of the existing home is the existing septic tank. And then this smaller dark rectangle
is where the proposed structure will be approximately placed. So you can see there.
that it is showing as extending into the protected slope areas. Down the screen is an exhibit produced
by the petitioner that indicates trees in the immediate vicinity that will need to be removed with respect
to the construction of the residential accessory structure. And here we have the original
subdivision plant that has lot number nine shown here, as well as a delineation of its building envelope
that was detailed back when this was recorded in 1996. Now on the screen are a couple of figures, this
slide and the next.
Staff did a little bit of analysis with respect to the available buildable area on the property with
respect to the existing septic tank and other structures on the property. So this is figure one showing
an approximate alternate location of the proposed structure within buildable area and with enough distance
away from the septic tank. And then this is another figure showing another alternative location for
the proposed structure that meets buildable area away from the septic tank.
existing structures, as well as the existing septic field. All right, so that brings us to
staff's recommendation. Overall, staff recommends denial of VAR-26-28, stating that practical difficulties
have not been demonstrated. Per the strict application of the county development ordinance, there are
other areas on the property suitable for the construction of the proposed residential accessory structure
that do meet buildable area. I'll now take any questions.
By this time, unless if there are any imminent clarification questions for staff, which I'm seeing none,
let's just go ahead and bring up the petitioner. Thank you. While you approach, please keep in mind
that the microphone, we need to hear what you have to say, so adjust that as needed. If you could sign in.
And after signing in, if you could speak your name for the record. My name is Kevin Brown. Kevin Brown? Yes.
Mr. Brown, before you begin, if you could raise your right hand for me. Do you swear that the testimony
you're about to provide is the truth as you know it? It certainly is. We're going to offer you 15 minutes.
Okay, okay. I also have a bit of a presentation, but I also have copies, hard copies that may help you
guys follow along. You can approach and hand them, but you can't speak because it's not on the record.
if staff could make sure that that's entered into evidence. First off, thank you for giving me this
opportunity to talk to you. And I thought Drew's presentation was pretty much right on point. Let me
tell you just a little about our background for this. My wife and I bought this property and built the
house in 2005. If you look at the lot, there's an absolutely gorgeous ravine that's part of it.
We really wanted to build something so we could see the ravine when we originally did it, but didn't
have the money. So now that I've finished teaching, so I was a law professor here for 35 years.
Thank you. The last four years, I was in South Carolina teaching there. And indeed, part of teaching
there was to get the money to build this structure here.
I know that there's some concern about the potential water runoff into Lake Griffey. And I also go to
Lake Griffey, so I really care about Lake Griffey. It's about a 45-minute walk from my house. I just
have to know how to actually get there. But there is a way to get there. So this, for us, is the project
we're doing, because now I am retired. So I'm spending a lot more time at the house. And we now have
the money to actually
build this structure. And I only got one. Thank you. That's to show you that the structure itself will
mimic the front of the house. So it'll be very much a building that looks like it's part of the property.
As I understand
The primary problem here is that there are potentially other locations where I could build it. And that's
what I want to address, those other locations. And this is where, I don't know, is there some way we
can advance? Yes, so just go to the first picture. So this is where
I want to build the structure. And I'll quickly talk about why I want to build it there. And then I'll
address the two alternatives. When we originally were going to do this, we were going to push it closer
to one of the alternative sites. But it turns out, and this is literally in the last three weeks, we've
got the largest oak tree on our property that has clearly died or is in the process of dying.
So we brought out two different tree people, as well as an arborist, Matt Baldwin, to take a look at
the tree to see if it could be saved. All of them agree that the tree has to come down. So since there's
a tree that's going to have to come down, we decided that would be the perfect place to put it because
we will have already disturbed the soil and we're going to have to go through the whole process of taking
it down. So that's why that's the favorite site for us.
it's also directly closest to the house, which means, and this is a supplemental property that is intended
to be connected to the house by a walkway. So putting it there, the walkway is not very large. And we
know that one big tree has to come down
We're not sure if we'll have to take down other trees. It's possible that we'll have to take down another
one, maybe three, but I think only another one. But that's not even certain. So that's one of the real
reasons that we want to do it there, connect it to the house closer through the walkway that we'll have,
which will be elevated by 10 feet. So it's not on the ground. It's actually coming 10 feet off.
The reason we have to connect it with the walkway is because we do have coyotes on our property, and
we have a ton of those possums on there. So there's a little danger about walking there at night, and
we do also get an occasional skunk. My wife, if she were here, she would tell you there's absolutely
no way she would let me go there if there wasn't a walkway. So from the standpoint of mitigation efforts,
we're willing to do whatever it takes.
Our contractor, which is Josh Walcott, is going to put a silk screen, as I understand it, standard of
silk fence. But indeed, we'll actually put two to make sure that we minimize any runoff of the water.
If we do have to take down other trees, we would take them down only to the stump. So we wouldn't dig
up the roots. We'd leave the roots there in order to keep the soil compacted there.
And we have recently had Nature's Link redirect some of the water that was standing in our backyard
into one of the spaces where it's one of the alternative sites. And I'm going to show you that in just
a minute, too. But that's why we want to build it there. Now, if you could go to the next slide for me. OK.
This is the first alternative site. And then if you could go to the next slide. This is the
second alternative slide. And then if you can go to the next slide. And this is the one I want to talk
about. Well, OK. So let me start here.
you're pointing at the tree that has to come out. And if we do one of the alternative sites, I think
that other tree has got to come out. And that other tree is the third largest tree that we have. So
we're losing our largest tree, which means if we end up having to pull that tree down, then that's losing
our two of our tallest three trees. But let me go into, so
Go to the next slide. Okay. This is my rendering of the proposed place we want to do it, which is in
the middle. And then there are the other two. And this is the slide I think I'll use to try to explain
why I think the two alternative sites don't work nearly as well as the first one. The first alternative site
You can see how far away it is from our house. So we would be building a walkway that's got to go all
the way there, which is quite a distance. Now I'm actually going to turn 70 in October. My wife is 65.
So one of the things we're worried about is a long distance that we'll have to walk as we get older.
A second problem that we have with that site there
Let's see. Oh yeah. Is to build a walkway there is gonna compromise a lot of my backyard because the
walkway would have to come from the main house all the way there so you can see how much of the backyard
is gonna be compromised by the walkway. And then that won't actually give us nearly as good of a view
of the ravine, right? The whole purpose of this is a tree house to get a better view of the ravine.
So the reason we're against that site is, number one, it would be a long walkway. That means it'll cost
more to build it. But then, as I said, we're worried about, as we get older, the difficulty of getting
out there. And then it doesn't give us nearly as good of a view of the ravine as what we're trying to
get with the other property or with the other location.
With respect to the second location, it is closest to the house, so it reduces the issue of the walkway.
And this may be my fault, but I am certain that if I put it there, it will compromise my septic tank
because I have the septic tank
means from the septic tank to the septic field has to run right through there. So it would mean we'd
have to completely move the septic field or septic connector. Of course, I don't know exactly how expensive
that's going to be, but it would clearly have to be done. The other problem with this one
As I said before, it's going to require me taking down my third largest tree on my property. So it actually
will disturb more soil than if we put it where we already have to take down the biggest tree. Oh, and
a sprinkler system. We just put in a sprinkler system literally six weeks ago. And locating it there
would clearly
require us to move the sprinkler system because part of it. So that's the reasons that we're kind of
against number one and number two, I'm sorry, the two alternative proposed sites as opposed to our preferred
one. Now, if you go forward to the next slide,
I thought this was a better picture in the sense that this shows you the one tree that we'd have to
take down. That's the tree that has to come down anyway. So that's the tree where we're really trying
to locate this at. Next slide. Oh, come back, come back to the tree, to the tree. That's the tree.
So you can see how that tree is dying. It has to come down. I mean, under any circumstance, we've got
to take that tree down. In the next slide. Okay. Then it just shows you the outside of the structure.
The next slide. That's all of the slides that I have. I understand that the packet that we received
has more pages, but the attachments that I received, that was the end of it.
All right, okay, so screwed up my presentation there. Although you should have gotten, I actually sent
three different emails. Yes, two of them, I believe, were of the same materials. And then the third
one was this one here. We have additional pictures of the tree in the packet you provided us on page
12. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, let's do it that way. That'll help. So I guess I was smarter than I
thought I was
in terms of preparing this packet. Can I take you then to? And to be forthcoming here, looks like your
time is down to three plus minutes. Oh, yeah, you know, I'm almost done. I'm almost done. That won't
be a problem. So if I can take you to page 15 in the packet. Page 15 is to give you a view of where
proposed site number one would be.
And then page 16 is really just an effort to show you how long of a walkway I would have to build from
our house to that location for the first alternative site that was suggested. So I'm really just trying
to display that's going to require a very long walkway, much longer than the one that we want to put
it would have to build for the proposed site.
And then the next one would be page 18. And 18, this shows you the area where the second alternative
site is at. And it's also trying to show you it's got to cut that two that's taking the refuse from
the septic tank
to the septic field, because it just has to be there. And in page 19, what I'm trying to show you there,
page 19, that tree, that's the tree that would have to come down if it's that second alternative site.
And you can see that's a very healthy tree. You can also see the tree that we're going to have to take
down anyway. So the core I'm really saying here is our proposed
site means less of a walkway to get there, less disturbance of the property itself. It actually preserves
a number of trees for us, and it doesn't create a septic problem for us. And as I said, we're very interested
in protecting Lake Griffey. So we're willing to do any additional mitigation measures that you think
would be helpful. And with that, I think that's the end of my presentation.
Thank you. Yes, I have questions. Can we go back to the slide with the three boxes showing the three
sites? Out of those three, you know, left, middle, right, your proposed site is the middle.
Because that's where the tree that's got to come down is at. I see. OK, great. I have another question,
but I forgot, and I'll think of it as you ask yours. I'm still thinking of mine. As I recall, you're
saying that this condition, that this structure is going to be elevated? It would be a two-story tree house.
I mean, I call it a tree south, but it's really just a two story structure. So you mean, so it's ground
level going up. Okay. It's not that you have pillars that go up and then you get to the tree. No, no,
no, no, no. This is built directly on the ground. My second question is for staff. We're worried about
the 15% slope and I'm very much
appreciate your service as a law professor, oh my, for all those years. But also coming with such good
information about tree loss, because we do care about tree loss and disturbance of soil, as you do as
well. We're worried also about the 15% slope. This proposed structure, did I read in the notes that
it takes us to the 25% slope? Is that the differential or?
Can you clarify that for me? It seemed to me that it was 20 feet into the 15. Yes, I don't believe that
it encroaches into the 25%, but let me see if I can verify that one second. The slope also matters,
particularly to some of my colleagues. And while he's checking that, Mr. Brown, is the foundation a slab?
there's nothing underneath it. There's no basement or anything like that. Now, because there is some
slope to the ground, I guess there's got to be... Or the impartial crawl. Yeah. Yeah. So there's got
to be, I guess, some gravel that goes. Okay. Yep. Okay. I can answer Pamela's question now. It does
not encroach into 25% slope. It's only the 15% that's in violation. And is Mr. Talley right?
20 feet into the 15%. 20 feet out of a total footprint of what? 25. The footprint of the structure is
25 by 25. Although something there said 32. Right. I do 32 because there's got to be a stairway to get
you from the first floor to the second floor. But that would be, we haven't quite figured out. I'm to
meet with the architect tomorrow to figure out
how he does that. So that's why I went with 32 feet instead of 25. But that's width. That's not depth.
So the 32 feet doesn't go into. Can I confirm with Mr. Myers that what we're seeing here is what he
submitted to 32 by 25 then? What was submitted was 25 by 25 with the addition of a six to seven foot
stairwell on the side. And he communicated that there was still some deliberations about architectural
standards.
And that stairwell wouldn't be impacted by the code, would it? The structure encroaches back into the
slope area. So it goes into the slope and then out into the slope. And so, yeah. Out of curiosity, from
the picture that was shown. I don't want the stairs. That's the whole notion. I want the stairs to go
up part of the way and then come back.
not go all the way back, because I don't want it encroaching into, yeah, I don't want it going up, because
that would start to block the view of the second floor windows. So I want it to go up and then come
back, if that helps. My question is, from the picture that you had of those three sites, the two that
staff said
could work, and you suggested otherwise. Why couldn't that third structure, or maybe it could, be brought
closer in to have less of an impact? Oh, the answer to that simple is it's a septic tank. I've got to
say 10 feet away from the septic tank. OK, so the tank is there. Yeah, yeah. You sort of see the satellite antenna.
the septic tanks just right on the ground. Yeah. Yes. It was just blown my mind there. Believe me, I
would have. But as I said, I'm trying to stay 10 feet away from the septic tank. Anywhere in your packet
here, I have just quickly thumbed through. Is there anything you've had a lot of professionals out there?
Have they put on pen to paper?
on the trade-off, the environmental trade-off versus encroaching on that 15-degree slope versus what
you're offering, which could have a less detrimental impact on the environment? Only in the sense that
they talked about how much damage is going to be done to the soil to take down that one big tree.
I mean, that's what's driven our selection of that spot was, if you had to take that anywhere, anyway,
that's the place to put it. All right. Do we have any other questions? I just have a question about
this would be contingent upon the building department issuing augmentation to the septic, the current
septic field. I mean, I imagine there would be a bathroom inside. This would be subject to
the building department and health department's approval of additional bathroom. So the health department
issues septic permits based on bedroom count. So I'm not sure how they would address another connection
to the existing septic tank. I don't know of the septic tank's current capacity, how many bedrooms it's
rated for.
So the petitioner, as part of those standard building permit process, would need to go to the health
department to make sure that a new connection to that system is feasible and is documented as part of
the process. So he says he might have one bed in the. No, no, I won't have a bed in there. I'm sorry.
Our house is a five bedroom house. And when we built it, I had two minor kids with me and two kids in
college. They're all gone.
So we have four vacant bedrooms. So we don't need another bedroom. I mean, the drawings don't depict
it like a bathroom or... No, there is a bathroom. Yeah, there will be a bathroom. Okay, that's an or
a kitchen? No, just a bathroom. Okay, that clarifies one question I had. Do we have any other questions?
Yeah, I'm struggling. Okay, let me be...
I'm struggling with this, okay? I'm not... Can I see the pictures of the front of the house? Yeah, that's...
Okay. Now is that... This is the proposed front of the tree house, the new building, yes. And so you
walk out your door and walk down the walkway,
You walked out your back door, I assume, and down the walkway, and then you go in the door here. OK,
I hear what you're saying. The answer to your question is no. First off, I would say, this is me on
AI. OK, so this is me putting it in an artificial intelligence, pushing it out. This is not an architectural
drawing. But what that would be is more or less the front
So you'd have maybe three or four feet that extend from the building for the two pillars. But the walkway
will have to come in, I would suspect, up there at the second level, not the first level. So what's
on the first level? What's in the first level? Yeah. Well, the purpose of the front level is just a
great room. So it would be a room.
that would have granite on the walls and pillars in the corners. OK, let me tell you one of my... Sometimes
we've had structures that encroach that were elevated. They were built on poles, on pillars, on stilts.
OK. So that each stilt only has a final disturbance of like one square foot.
as opposed to being built on a foundation. If you build this on a foundation, it's going to have a lot
of disturbance of this slope. But a room that's not critical to your treehouse. If you mean the first,
The first floor. It's absolutely critical because otherwise I'm at the ground level and I'm not going
to be able to see. No, I'm saying if you if instead of a full structure, you put lift this up and I'm
I'm not an engineer and I'm not an architect. But if instead of having a ground floor and a second floor,
you just put the second floor on stilts. Eliminate the first floor.
And eliminate, but lift it. Lift the floor. If I lift the first floor, and hence the second floor, because
you're telling me I can't go higher than 30 feet. What I'm saying is that instead of these being pillars
that you walk in the front door here, these are because you don't walk in the front door. You're going
to walk in the front door. No, no. You can't walk in the front door.
walk over the grass as opposed to the walkway. OK, so what I'm suggesting is if instead of this being
a solid structure, this is just pillars so that the whole thing is elevated. Well, what about the first
floor? You wouldn't have a first floor. You would just have the second floor, which would have a beautiful
view. The first floor is, OK, I'm sorry. Let me describe the first floor then.
because the first floor is to me as important as the second floor. So the point of the first floor is
to create a room that is just a fantastic room to be in. So it would have along each wall, granite slabs,
and those have already been picked out. The floor of it would be a gold tile floor.
And then the ceiling would be a coffered ceiling with specially designed towels in the middle. So the
point of the first floor is really to bring people into a space where they go, wow, this is an incredible
space to be in. I understand that. I understand that. I'm just not comfortable with this much encroachment
into 15 square, into a 15% slope. It's one of my...
touchstones. And in terms of taking down the tree, I mean, a tree can be taken down with minimal disturbance
of the soil. You don't have to dig out the root system. If you need to get rid of the tree, you can
get rid of the tree so it's not a hazard without actually disturbing much soil. And I'm just not comfortable
It's just one of my things. It's one of the things I care about particularly and I care about it in
Lake Monroe and I care about it in Lake Griffey is that there's no particular reason that this is not
the most convenient place to build. Number one is a practical place to build, but it means you got a
longer walk. But. Well, it's but it's. You mean as opposed to the
other one that's further away. Yeah, yeah. Number, if they're one, two, and three, I understand three
is impractical because it would be over your pipe from your septic system to your septic field. And
that's not a practical solution. That's not a solution. Number two, the preferred site is a, your preferred
site, it's got several advantages.
But it's got one big disadvantage, and that is it encroaches a substantial distance into the 15% slope.
Site one. Can you at least say in response, part of the reason it has to encroach is because I have
to say 10 feet away from the septic system. The encroaching is required. OK.
To put it in number two, to put it in your preferred location, it has to be as far back as it is. It
has to encroach that much. But if you put it in number one, it doesn't have to encroach at all. You've
got a longer walk. And you don't care about the trees? I do care about the trees. I do care about trees.
back more quickly, you know, the house is going to be there for a very, very, it's not a house, but
this structure is going to be there for a very long time, many, you know, for decades or a century or
whatever. And you want to put a
Our ordinance doesn't say you can't cut down trees. We care about cutting down trees, but you don't
need a variance to cut down the trees. You need a variance to extend into the 25 foot, 15% slope. And
that's the decision I'm presented with. Is it impractical? I know it cuts down.
And I'm sorry it cuts down trees, but you don't need any variance for that. You're allowed to do that.
You're not allowed to do this unless we decide there's something impractical about the other solution.
And frankly, I hate to say it. I'd love to say yes. I mean, one of the things we do is try to get to
yes, but I don't see how I can get to yes.
because this also makes it a longer walk for me as I start to approach 80. I mean, I'm 70 now, but that
doesn't move you. OK, OK. May I ask a question? Between the site on the left and the middle one, the
recommended and the preferred, in between those two, because there's a patch of ground, would that
would it ameliorate having to take the trees down? And would it make the walk from the house any shorter
if it were in between? So this is where I will have to take down the lead. It's conceivable. I don't
want to say for certain, but it's conceivable. The only tree that has come down is the tree that's got
to come down.
If I do move it, I'm still got to stay away from the septic field, septic tank, which is going to push
me into taking down more trees. I personally don't have a problem pushing it further to the left.
As I said, we really are siding it this way because we've got to take away the tree. And the second,
of course, is the length of the walkway is shorter with number two than pushing it further.
For the benefit of my colleagues, I think some of the issue is here, it's that 15 degree slope is not
a straight line, right? It's beyond page five of his handout, it jigs and jags and part of the house
is within the 15 degree slope. The entire septic field is in the 15 degrees. I mean, there's, it's just,
waving in and out, and there's just a very small portion. And that happens to be the portion where his
septic tank is, and he's got a legal perimeter around there that needs to be refrained. And so I would,
regardless of how you're leaning, just please keep that in mind. I'm going to ask for
calling the public up at this time. Good idea. And we'll see what anyone may or may not have to say.
Thank you. Thank you very much for your time. Now, if somebody does have a disagreement, you'll have
the opportunity to read about that. All right. Is there anybody in the room that wishes to speak on
behalf of this presentation and petition?
Is there anybody online that wishes to speak on behalf of this petition? All right. Is there anybody
in the room that wishes to speak against this petition? Is there anybody online that wishes to speak
against this petition? Seeing no one. Let's go ahead and have some dialogue here and see if there's
a motion to be had.
a piece of clarification with respect to tree removal on property. Tree removal does not require a permit
or a variance as long as it's not in the 15% slope when it's in area two. So the trees on the property
that are outside of slope greater than 15% are not protected. But if you are a tree and you're in the
15% slope area, it is protected. So I just wanted to offer that clarification. OK.
So does that apply to the tree he's having removed? It's hard. Yes, I believe the tree that is planning
to be removed due to its health is in the 15% slope. But the other trees that he mentioned that would
have to be removed from option two from staff, I believe maybe outside of the slope area. So those would
not require a variance if you just
chose to remove those, but he's saying that he does not want to remove those with respect to his decision.
Could you put back the three? So you're saying with this one, which is the one on the left, would that
require, do you think that would require a variance for tree removal?
It's hard to see on this map without showing the shading of the sloped areas. The 15% is a seven and
a half foot fall over a 50 foot distance. So if this location that he's depicted is true that it's not
in any 15% slope area and it is located exactly where staff had
delineated, then those trees would not be protected. So he would theoretically be able to build there
without a variance and eliminate those trees without a variance, because it's all outside of the slope.
Could I ask? OK. I'm looking at the house. And is it in compliance?
Or was a variance issued previously so that this could be built within the slope, the home? The existing
house? Yes. So oftentimes we see with older properties, we will see LIDAR data and the contours shown
here. Sometimes that is contour data that was taken maybe before construction occurred, or it is actually
taken into account the slope of the property. So those slopes that are shown in red
right where the home is may have been manmade. And then the LIDAR data depicted them as steep slope,
but it was manmade. Okay, thank you. I do find it compelling that the amount of land that they have
to choose to build on is quite modest in size. And thank you, Mr. Daley, for commenting that the slope
undulates, goes in and out. It is not a straight line. Undulate, that is a good word. And it's not a
straight line. And so the property could not precisely fit any perfect scenario. The preferred site.
Yes. Any comments?
I just was thinking about it in totality, you know, and I understand the constraints of the septic field
and the septic tank and then the pipe connecting the two and the irrigation system, et cetera, but then
there's the 15% slope restriction into which you're significantly wishing to build.
Um, it's 32 feet by 25 feet, including the staircase. So that's, uh, causing me a little consternation,
um, more than a little consternation, you know, um, I understand the desire. And I believe while it's
32, there's only 20 feet.
that is being impacted by this. There's only 20 feet that's impacting the 15 degrees. I see. I see.
Is there any thought about reducing the size of the structure so the slope is not impacted? Or is the
size of the structure deeply in your heart? And believe me, I understand about winning a first floor
and a second floor. I get that completely.
I hadn't even thought about doing it smaller. It's got to be big enough to make it worthwhile to do.
I mean, that would be a completely different project. Yeah. That's what I'd have to, I don't know. Just
had to ask. Yeah. Well, I'll say, because part of it
And I'll say one of my real concerns about that is because we do need a bathroom on that second floor.
That means the first eight feet of that second floor is taken up by the bathroom. And then there would
be the utility closet in just a little small space. So I've only got 17 feet plus 25. So it'd be 17
by 25, which I could put windows in.
all of a sudden I gotta pull that in five by five, for example, then it's 15 by 12. That would be.
That would, yeah. So that's why I'd have to do a lot of thinking. I'm gonna just remind my colleagues
here, I had Mr. Myers put up the,
definition of practical difficulties rises from conditions of the property that do not generally exist
in the area. You know, this ungulation is pretty unique. Precludes the development or use of property
in a manner enjoyed by other conforming properties. Yeah, I mean, he made the case of the distance and
the consistency with the design.
I think the petitioner made a reasonable claim for letter C, which is really in here. I'm tending to
this could be a coin flip. I'm tending to think that by the letter of our definition of practical
difficulties, I think he made his case.
There's also the impairment and stability of a natural or scenic area. The one that seems to. The standards
for design variance approval. Well, that's not in question here.
bring that to us to determine. What was the question? I'm sorry. Design standards variance, the rationale
for design standards variance, whether or not the condition has been met. You brought this forward to
us to define whether or not practical difficulties have been met. Is that correct?
Yes, so in the findings of fact for the petition, there was a finding that practical difficulties have
not been demonstrated. And then there was a finding that it could impair the stability of a natural
or scenic area based on the encroachment to the slope area. And that's item number one as stated in
841-4F, standards for design variance approval.
So there were two conditions, if you will, that triggered staff's recommendation. And I may remind the
board that staff is recommending denial and oftentimes if we are recommending approval, we also may
offer conditions of approval. So if the board finds that there are specific conditions of approval that
they would like to add to a motion, then they are welcome to do so. Thank you.
have any other discussion or feel compelled to motion. I'm not sure how popular this will be but I'm
going to recommend we approve variance 26-28 brown eco area to 15% slope encroachment variance to chapter
823 because in my estimation practical difficulties in terms of the
land site have been demonstrated. I'll second. It's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-26-28, which
is the brown eco area to 15% slope encroachment variance to chapter 823. A vote yes is a vote to approve.
I'll remind everyone that since we have four members tonight, we still need a vote of at least three
members for it to pass. Guy Lofman? No. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Mark? This gives me a lot of consternation.
It really does. I've been thinking about this and I drove by the property and I don't think I've really seen
proposal with this amount of disturbance, you know, 20 feet into the 15% slope. And that's
pretty significant. You know, I would kind of prefer to see if this could be continued to see if any
kind of redesign could be done or if the other conditions can be met. My suspicion is
that it's not going to meet the septic approval. And I'd like to make sure that it meets the septic
approval. But right now, as it is, it's a significant encroachment into the 15% slope. And I feel you
have a great vision for this. And you want that treehouse. You have the opportunity with the tree coming down.
but my vote is going to have to be no. I'm sorry. Skip daily. Yes. Okay. Set motion does fail by a vote
of two to two options are to put another motion to vote on, or this automatically is continued to our
next meeting, which isn't until October, October 7th.
So in other words, it's not an outright rejection. It is a continuance because we neither approved nor
denied the proposal. So this gives an opportunity to go back to the drawing board and figure out whether
those stairs are inside or outside the building, whether or not there's any accommodation that can be made to
move the structure slightly more into, you know, without encroaching as much into the 15% slope. And
then there's also going to be a third person here in October that could change the vote, so to speak, right?
if I could have found a better spot for it. Mr. Brown, I'm gonna ask you to hold off one moment. I'll
give my colleagues the opportunity for another motion. I don't know if they'll take that opportunity.
My guess is no. All right, at this point,
do we have to motion to continue with this? It's automatically. I'm going to go ahead and close this.
And with that, as Ms. Clements mentioned, there are five members of the BZA. Tonight there's only four.
You had a stalemate tonight. You'll have the opportunity to reschedule and to come back. I think you'll
probably have the
option of October or perhaps November, but you can work that out with your person at staff. I would
recommend you listen through and go on to CATS TV and watch this a couple times and hear whatever concerns
that were mentioned and sit down with your engineering team and sit down and see if you can
come a little closer to where the comments are, and maybe you'll find the votes. Maybe you won't. I'm
not sure, but we'll welcome you back in October or your soonest convenience. Thank you. Thank you very
much for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Your outstanding presentation. Outstanding. And thank
you, Mr. Myers and director. All right. Next up,
Number two and number three altogether. Variants 26-29 alpha and 29 Bravo. The Rocky Side Yard setback
variance to chapter 804 and the Rocky Riparian area setback variance to chapter 813. Mr. Brown, before
you go forward with your presentation, has the petitioner complied with the statutory requirements of
notification?
yes fantastic if you could continue with your presentation thank you the purpose of this petition is
that the petitioner is planning planning to construct a 1200 square foot measuring 30 feet by 40 feet
detached garage on this property the petition site is zoned agricultural residential 2.5 agr and contains
2.5 acres by deed more or less according to the
To chapter 804 of the CDO, the side yard setback for a property in the agricultural residential 2.5
zone is 15 feet from the property line. The proposed detached garage will sit three feet from the property
line instead, which is a 12-foot encroachment. In addition, a riparian area is present on the side and
rear of the property, which has a required setback of 50 feet from the center line. According to observations
made by staff
the detached garage will encroach seven feet into the required riparian area setback, which is demonstrated
in exhibits six and seven in the staff report. So a bit of background. Supplying staff was contacted
by the builder, Nick Rocky, in July of 2026 about the permit process. We informed him of the details,
and a pre-design was applied for PILP-364
During that review, the zoning inspector discovered that based on the location of the proposed garage,
a side yard setback, rear yard setback, and a riparian area setback would be required. But the planning
director communicated with a petitioner who agreed to move the proposed garage forward slightly in order
to avoid requiring a rear yard setback in addition to the other two variances you're hearing tonight.
The petitioner's property is practically bisected by a riparian area.
with the existing single Hamley family home and driveway access all on the eastern side of the riparian
area. There is an existing shed in the same general area as the proposed garage, which would be demolished
if this variance is approved. And we do acknowledge that there is some challenging topography as well
that the petitioner is trying to work with in placing the structure in their proposed location.
Here's the location map and zoning map of the property and surrounding area, as well as the comprehensive
plan and site conditions map. Here are some images of the property. The image on the left is a partial
view of a mobile home, as well as the existing home on the property. By mobile home, I just
mean a recreational vehicle. I apologize. The image on the right is a closer look at the existing home.
These two images show the proposed location, as indicated by some snakes that were put out. As I said,
the shed, as well as I believe the playground equipment, would be demolished or perhaps relocated in
the case of the latter. Here's a view of the area just west of the proposed location, showing a sharp D
a sharp decline in slope near the riparian area. And the images on these next two slides show the riparian
area itself. This is a certified plot plan that was done by a surveyor with an after the fact marking
showing the proposed location of the garage near where my mouse is on screen.
There is also an aerial of the property showing the riparian areas in question as well as the proposed
location of the garage. And so staff recommends denial of VAR-26-29A and VAR-26-29B. We feel that the
petitioner could redesign or relocate the structure to be 15 feet in height or less.
which under the standards of the county development ordinance would make it only require a five foot
side yard setback or even move it to another location to meet a riparian area setback. The petition
site also functions as a single family residential lot without the addition of a pole structure or garage.
And these petitioner has not submitted findings to support all of the criteria for practical difficulties.
And I will take any questions. Do we have anything imminent for Mr. Brown?
All right, let's go ahead and call up the petitioner and or a representative. If you could adjust the
mic to your liking and sign in your name. Sure. And when you're done with that, if you could go ahead
and speak your name into the microphone for us.
That's a reminder that anything that you say that needs to be on the record needs to be spoken into
the microphone. Nick Rocky. Nick Rocky. Rocky, could you raise your right hand? And do you swear that
the testimony you're about to give is the truth as you know it? It is. All right. We're going to set
15 minutes on that timer and you're good.
OK, if you could go back to the plot map that shows the location of everything. This one on screen?
That works. I can work with that. OK. So with the property shaped the way that it is, the driveway comes
in right here, as you can see. This is the fence line right here. This is the riparian right away right here.
There really is nowhere else to build. This is it. Literally, this is it. There's nowhere else to go.
With this being the riparian right here, this was also called riparian right here, but it's not. I still
don't understand why it is, other than the fact that it's stormwater drain off. This is dry 99% of the time.
The only time there's water right here is when everything washes down. But there's no set stream. There's
no spring. I understand it's called riparian, but there's no water back here. No problem. We can move
it up. And I agreed to move it up. And the three-foot setback on the side, we can go to five. That's
not a problem. What we can't do is shrink the height of it.
The height is so we can store a boat and other vehicles. If we shrink the height, we can't put the boat
in there, which defeats the whole purpose of this. So I feel like I've done everything I can to try
and make this work. There is no other way to make it work. The photos that were shown of the riparian
over here, I don't really know how those are even relevant.
because it's not within 50 feet. It's not within 100 feet of what we're doing. So those right there,
I don't even understand why those were taken. But there it is if you want to see it. Like I said,
the back, there's no water. You're welcome to come and look. That's all I've asked for all along is
people to communicate and come and look and see what's actually happening. It's hard to see on a photo.
A photo's worth 1,000 words, but
your eyes see a lot more. I don't know what else we can do, but I'm game to listen if anybody has any
suggestions. Thank you.
I would like to start by saying, Mr. Rocky, of all the witnesses we've had, you're the only one who
ever figured if you carry the microphone with you, you can get up close to the. It just seemed a lot
easier. And I'm going to suggest it to witnesses in the future. And I would appreciate your figuring
out that little solution to our conundrum. That's what I do. I solve problems. My question for staff
is we've just heard the petitioners say they can move
the structure to comply more with the setback and with another issue, but the height is his question.
The documents we have that you denied, the petition that you denied, was it plan A or plan B with the
changes he agreed to?
So I will say that the petitioner and the representative has been very communicative. At first application,
we identified three variances. They moved it. We went down to two variances. And now they're stating
that they will try to maybe make it one variance. So if they move it seven feet, if you have seven feet
more, because you already moved it two feet, if you move it seven more feet north and stay out of that
that would make one of the variances no longer necessary. Now your request to move it over to meet a
five foot setback as sort of a moot point if the structure is more than 15 feet in height. So that's
just if you would like to make that as a
to the BZA since that is a standard in the county if something's accessory to a residence and it's 15
feet or higher or less, 15 feet high or less, it can be five feet from the setback. So right now what
he's proposing is three feet on the side. So if that helps.
What you're saying is that if we move the structure a few feet, then they can have the height they want.
If they move the structure seven feet north, they get out of the riparian setback and they no longer
need the VAR-26-29B and they only need the side yard setback. Right. Can we go back to the slide that
was just up?
Now, the red is the proposed structure. Yes. And we're saying move it a little farther away up here
toward where I've put my laser. Correct. OK. Mr. Rocky, are you saying that that's acceptable? That's
acceptable. We can do that. It's the height. I can't come down. But the height's OK if it's moved that
much. Is that right?
So he's exceeding the 15 feet. So he's exceeding the height structure of 15 feet. So his side setback
is 15 feet. So if he moves at seven feet, it will only be the side setback that we're talking about.
In terms of what you would need our approval for. Right. I just want to know in this photo right here,
if I may, this is taller than 15 feet, this barn. In fact,
all of the accessories around here are taller. They're all barns. Once again, Mr. Brown, on the side
setback, was that six feet that we were talking about? What's the side setback problem? The side setback
is supposed to be 15 feet for structures that are 15 feet or higher in height. So what is the deficit
that we're
experiencing. We are looking at a 12 foot encroachment into a 15 foot setback. So he's got a three foot
setback and he needs 15. That's correct. So assuming you move that seven feet north, that's all we're
looking at right now.
does not have 15 feet for the record. You don't have 15 feet to meet the side setback. You'd run into
the house. Right. So, so instead of it being a three foot, I could do five foot, but that's like my
limit. I can't at that point. We got you. We got you. We got you. We're just trying to understand if
and then statements. Okay. So other questions?
So as I understand it, you're saying you could move it a few feet north and a few feet. Absolutely.
Yes. And that would minimize the non-compliance. Yes. OK. Well, we'll see what the public has to say
and all that, but that's important concessions to me. Any other questions for staff or the petitioner
at this time?
All right, seeing nothing, we're gonna ask you to take a seat real quick and we may or may not bring
you back up. Is there anybody in the room or online that wishes to speak in favor of this petition?
Seeing nobody. Anybody in the room or online that wishes to speak in opposition to this petition? Seeing
no one. All right, colleagues, what do you have?
I want to fight back to that one again, one that we were looking at with the red. Yeah. From this, it
looks like there is nobody nearby who would be affected by this side yard setback. It's rural country.
We're looking at agricultural buildings, adjoining it.
I think we've gotten important concessions to minimize this. So I am going to be comfortable supporting
this petition with the conditions that I think he's agreed to moving. All right. I would like to, before
we get into this, I would like to motion to separate and
motion to continue variance 26-29 Bravo. Therefore that would give the petitioner the opportunity to
either come back or make the decision for to change the plan to seven feet making this move. That make
sense. Yes. All right. I would like to make the
If I can. If if he's comfortable making the changes where. Get out of here tonight and he can proceed
with his project, right? That's fine, but continuing this gives him the option to review something and
make the decision to dismiss and withdraw or to come back and plead that case again for us. Well,
If he's, it seems to me he is, my intuition, my instinct is that he is comfortable making those as a
condition of granting the, and he has people close to him who may be actual owners of this property,
who just might be nodding their heads in approval. So I think they'd like to get on with it rather than
come back. So. All right, so I hear no second to my motion.
What else do we have? Well, if any, I'll make a motion. I move that we approve variances 26,
29A and 6, 29B, the sandifer. Now, wait a minute. No? That we're, that we,
How can I? Should I help you with that? Help me with that. Okay, great. You've made a motion to approve
those two, the Rockne side yard setback variance to chapter 804 and the Rockne riparian area setbacks
variance to chapter 813, subject to the condition as we just heard the petitioner
Uh, uh, say under oath that they will move the structure seven feet to the north. And what was the other
seven feet to the north? Three feet, five, five feet, five feet to the west and five feet to the west.
Subject to that condition. I just would like to ask staff one question. Would they move it to the north?
Is the side yard setback still necessary? Yes.
Okay and we have the option to either request that he move it or to grant his variance correct. So you
could deny the riparian area setback which forces them to move at seven feet you could continue it to
the October meeting in which case if he goes back to the drawing board tries to move at seven feet cannot
he doesn't have to pay to reapply for the variance. What I was trying to protect
But if you approve it, he doesn't have to move it. He could keep it. Because if you're saying approval
and then conditioning, he move at seven feet, he doesn't need that variance. Right. So that's why I'm
going to move that we grant 29A on the condition that they move at five feet west that we deny.
29A move five feet to the west. We deny 29B because. Those are separate motions. Deal with one. OK.
Deal with one. Separate motion. I move we grant 629A on the condition that they move the structure five
feet west away from the property line. And also seven feet north? No. We're just looking at A, which
is side yard only. I'll second that. OK.
If I may, what's putting moving the structure five feet to the West would probably move it to the house.
What's I think the petitioner was saying is that he could move it an additional two feet to the West
for a total site. It's like a five feet. That's right. Is that correct? Yeah. OK, then then then I move.
So that thank you.
That was an important misunderstanding. For the record, the defendant was affirmative with that question.
Yes, we've been a little informal here. First, I withdraw my motion, and you withdraw your last one,
because you're going to change it, correct? We're starting anew. Starting anew. Starting anew. I withdraw
mine, you withdraw yours. That's true. All right, good. You want to try? No. OK.
grant variance 26 29 a on the condition that the total setback permitted the total encroachment permitted
is how many feet. The encroachment permit is is 10 feet. Yes. I'll second that one. Okay it's been moved
and seconded to approve
VAR-26-29A, which is the rocky side yard setback variance to chapter 804, with the condition of moving
the structure to only allow an encroachment of 10 feet on the eastern property line. A vote yes is a
vote to approve. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Motion
is approved.
four to zero. If I understand it, if we simply deny 2629B, that's an acceptable outcome to the petitioners
because they can move the structure seven feet and then they don't need a variance. Well, we're not
here for their acceptance. We're here to make a decision.
but given that this will, that they don't really, they've acknowledged they don't really need this variance
and move to deny 26-29B, the riparian variance. I mean, Daniel, you've been working with this case and
this case, does this achieve the objectives of the landowner? I believe as stated during the
Petitioner's testimony that this would meet those standards. There's no movement north of nine feet.
Is that correct? That's necessary anymore. It's that the petitioner has agreed that they can move it
seven feet directly to the north through a redesign of the. OK, thank you. Then they won't need a variance.
Yes, yeah.
and and I'm just you know because I don't want them we keep it open if they run into problems they can
come back in and right I am not going to support that motion of denial straightforward because it does
not protect the petitioners right to come back and plead a case
should he go back to the drawing board and review this it's just it just just makes no sense it does
the same exact thing but protects the petitioner so i mean he can still go ahead with his um design
but if he gets into problems we still have the case open in case he needs to come back in and appear
before us so we're trying to help you out okay so you you're able to go ahead i also uh would vote
Well I'd like to make a motion that we continue. There's an open motion on the table. Is there a second
anywhere? It sounds like a no. I don't hear a second. All right you have the floor. I'd like to continue
VAR-26-29B. Second. Okay it's been moved and seconded to continue VAR-26-29B which is the riparian area
setback variance to chapter 813.
this would be continued to the October 7th meeting, but if the petitioner moves the structure so as
to not require this variance, then we will withdraw it from that agenda and they can receive a permit
sooner than that date. So a vote yes is a vote to continue this to October 7th, 2026, just in case.
Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes.
Margaret Clements yes okay motion is approved four to zero thank you beautiful property that's a beautiful
property and good luck with everything that you're doing there my suggestion is you continue to work
closely with staff and get the outcomes that you want and if you need you can come back hopefully we
won't see you all right let's let's move forward
Looking at number four on your scorecard, if you're following along, variance 26-30, the Quintana automotive
sales and or rental use variance to chapter 811. Mr. Brown, you've got the call on this as well before
you get into your presentation. Could you please confirm that the petitioner
withheld all of their statutory requirements on communication with neighbors? Yeah. Fantastic. You got
the floor. Thank you. So the purpose of this is that the petitioner is seeking to renew a discontinued
use of an automotive sales and or rental use on the property that taking the form specifically of a
used car dealership.
The petitioner intends to purchase the property and utilize it as their primary business location, according
to the use petitioner's use determination application, quote, used to showcase cars for sale will not
have any cars worked on at this location used for pickup and delivery of cars. Currently, the petition
site is vacant in terms of use, though there is a structure on site and retains the ability to operate
any uses in a limited business zoning district.
Prior to the adoption of the county development ordinance, and it's a map changes on December 18th,
2024, this property was owned pre-existing business, which was defined as, quote, pre-existing business district
The pre-existing business PB district is defined as that which is primarily intended to accommodate
commercial and business service uses that were in operation prior to the adoption of this 1997 zoning
ordinance. The intent of the PB district is to identify locations of commercial activity that are not
supported by the comprehensive land use plan, but where commercial and service operations continue to exist."
This district has identified further purposes of maintaining commercial activities with business zoning,
while at the same time not allowing for the expansion of new business activity proximate to the location
of the PV district. Expansion of the business is permitted within the lot of record, however. The type
of business may be changed to one of equal or lower intensity as identified in table 2-1 permitted land
uses, unquote.
During the adoption of the CDO, all PV properties were rezoned to another more clearly defined zoning
district as staff and the commissioner saw it. Further, the prior planning director conducted research
and determined that the site was used as a residential site until 2011, and then an automotive sales
business called Morgan Auto Services moved into the property at that point. Since automotive boats
Automative slash boat repair shop was a high intensity use under the prior code. It was determined that
the automotive abuse was not legal as shown in exhibit eight on the staff report and a planning process
would be first be required to resume the use.
Now, the use of automotive sales and or rental is defined as establishments primarily engaged in the
retail sale of new and used automobiles, noncommercial trucks, motorhomes or recreational vehicles,
including incidental storage, maintenance and servicing. In addition, establishments involved in renting
passenger cars, noncommercial trucks, motorhomes or recreational vehicles, including incidents till
parking and servicing of vehicles available for rent.
This use includes but is not limited to airport transportation service, automotive rentals, automotive
sales, automotive supply, and motorcycle sales. The particularly important one is just automotive sales.
Here are the location and zoning maps of the property, as well as the site conditions map.
This is a potometry view of the property and the existing structure and photos of the same. Here's what
the petitioner has proposed so far as a preliminary plan for the property measuring the setbacks from
the sides rear as well as the length as the width of the property.
And here is a table of permitted land uses. As you can see from this automotive sales and a rental is
permitted in the general business and airport zoning districts. And the image on the right is a list
of currently permittable uses in the limited business zoning district as shown in chapter 807 of the
county development ordinance. So in regards to this case, staff recommends denial per chapter eight
District application of terms of the ordinance will not constitute unnecessary hardship when applied
to subject property. The petitioner or the owner have supplied new information under this use variance
request regarding why the use variance constitutes unnecessary hardship. And I will take any questions.
Let's go ahead and bring the petitioner or a representative up. I'm going to trust you've been paying
attention and now to speak into the mic and sign your name and then speak your name. My name is Christopher Quintana.
Mr. Quintana, could you raise your right hand? And do you swear that the testimony you're about to provide
is the truth as you know it? Yes. Fantastic. You're going to have 15 minutes. You've got it. Thank you.
So my objective here is to get my used car dealer license. In order to get that, I have to have a building
that can support up to 10 vehicles. And it has to be zoned accordingly. Right now, we're at limited business.
and we need to get to a general business zoning variance. So my idea with this dealership, we are looking
to do mainly online sales. The purpose of the location is going to be just for showcase for me. We are
going to do appointment only. It's not going to be ran every single day, but any time that I have an
appointment available due to state standards, I will be available.
I am sorry. I do want to minimize any impact on any of the neighbors. There's a couple areas on here
that I do not wish to utilize. We have already cleared up pretty much all this area. I got that boat
out of there. I'm not planning on storing any vehicles that aren't running here.
The area on the north side of the building up against this neighbor, I do not wish to really use most
of that. I don't want to impact any of their values. That is not our intentions. Mainly the south of
the building is the area that we are trying to utilize any kind of customer parking in the front. Maybe
vehicles right up in the front area also where that grass patches. In the future, I do wish
to do improvements to any of the
outside areas where the grass is maybe add gravel or asphalt on the sides. And then, yeah. Questions?
You have any questions for the positioner? I do want to reiterate, no mechanical work will be done here.
I mean, possibly
interior detail on the inside of the building, but nothing exterior is shown to the public. So I have
an offsite building at my home that I do all the mechanical work to. Any kind of deliveries will be
done at my house, like any kind of transports. So nothing is going to be used for this building other
than just a showcase. Mr. Brown, could you flip back to the picture you had prior to this? I believe
it showed the neighbor. Yeah, is that
Is the folks across the street, is that a commercial building? It looks like a commercial parking lot.
I believe that's a residential or agricultural use. At the very least, according to the zoning map,
it is zoned agricultural residential 2.5. That one is it's used as a motorcycle repair shop. This one
straight across down here.
I apologize, I thought Mr. Daley was referring to the property directly to the north here where my mouse
is indicated. But yes, the property directly across the street is currently used as a motorcycle repair
shop. Is that within proper code? That, I believe, might be in a similar state to the proposal that
the petitioner is doing. And as you can see from this map, it is also zoned limited business.
difference here between this property and the one across the street is the sales I believe automotive
sales and or rental am I correct that repair would be allowed in the agricultural if conditionally and
service in limited business would be permitted with standards it's the sales that is
the motorcycle business to across the street is long zoned limited business and repair is different
than sales so there's a little bit of difference there that we could look into now you mentioned something
about a desire to asphalt the driveway as well yes in the future if i am a permanent tenant here also
would that be
So if the use variance is approved by the board, what we would require is a site plan, a commercial
site plan, where we would go through the standards for parking, surfacing, landscaping, any detention
required, things like that. Multiple steps. The problem with turning it to general business is the other
uses that could take place on that property, because of course his intention is motor vehicle
repair and sales and just sales repair. Yes, he repairs him on another facility. So right now the request
before the board is under the CDOs defined use of automotive sales and or rental use. So if the petitioner
would like to optionally commit
under a written commitment to narrowing that use. That's something that we could hear from them tonight
and get recorded.
the meeting, but I'll also note Miss Clemens point just to clarify. So he's zone limited business and
this is a use variance. So what he's asking for and what he's saying is that there's no other appropriate
use on this property. Therefore, I would like to be granted this automotive sales and or rental. It
doesn't give him any other uses under the general business zoning district. OK, thank you. Thank you,
Jackie. That variance to just stay with me, correct?
So if I were to leave- It runs with the land. Sails with the property. Yes. Okay. Was there a pre-existing
use of auto sales? In 2011, as Daniel Brown mentioned in the beginning part of the presentation, there
was an automotive use, but there was a break in that use, and then it restarted, and then there was
an enforcement issue which required it to close.
So there was a break, then it was no longer a pre-existing business. They tried to use it and they weren't
allowed to.
Based on the prior director's research, there was a residential use there from 1997 to 2011. So I don't
know if there was an error in zoning it pre-existing business at the time, but their determination was
that it shouldn't have even been zoned pre-existing business. And if it was, it was a low intensity
use and it couldn't be transferred to the automotive repair or sales. Would have this worked in 2023?
No, at that time, we would have still required the same process as what we were mentioning. So it's
not like it was closed for six weeks or six months. It was closed. The prior auto sale place was closed
for a long time before now. So I don't know. What I heard from the owners is that they had a repair
shop there and there was a lot of vehicles around and a lot of waste around the building.
And whenever they had a complaint against them, they decided to just move out of that location completely
without filing any kind of zoning variance for themselves. But from what the owner told me is that they
kind of disappeared and everything was moved out and everything was gone after that. But as a repair
facility with a lot of waste. And about how long ago was that? Do you have any idea?
I do not. She didn't give me any specifics on that. I did see some aerial shots of some of these areas
back in the day, and I believe it was around the 2014 time era, right around there, just according to
aerial shots because you can see the mess that was on the property.
Okay, that's helpful. I was wondering whether I can talk myself into doing pre-existing business,
but I can't. That's too much for me to hang my hat on that. So we're back to this simple, straightforward
question. I understand we could say the general, put into car,
sales without without authorizer repairs or any other business uses is that correct? So repair is a
different use so they would not be able to do repairs in in addition to the sales. Right we could say
limited to car sales used car sales only if we wanted to be very strict.
Okay, thank you. Do we have any other questions for the petitioner? All right, seeing done, why don't
you go ahead and have a seat and we'll call you up if need be. Thank you. At this time, do we have anybody
present that wishes to speak in support of this petition? We have anybody online that wishes to speak
in support of this petition?
Do we have anybody present in the courthouse that wishes to speak against this petition? Come forward.
Same rules are going to apply except you're going to get a limited amount of time. If you're speaking
into the microphone and sign in and state your name for us as well.
here at Rutherford. What's your last name? Rutherford. Rutherford? Yeah. Okay. Mr. Rutherford, could
you please raise your right hand and do you attest that the testimony you are about to provide us is
the truth as you know it? Yeah. You can have three minutes. Sure. Go ahead. I live across the street
and there's been several businesses over the last several years come and go constantly. No gas there.
They just saved about one year because there's no gas. They can't eat. I kind of oppose this because
a business they had a few years ago was kind of a trashy place and a lot of people hung out over there
constantly in the evening and made noise and mischief. And I've been there going on 35 years and I'm
getting too old for that crap. There was an automotive repair shop there
About three years ago, before, after that, there was a guy who prepared equipment there. There was a
stencil equipment vehicles there and just recently a screen printer there. It used to be a gas station
years and years and years and years ago. And my understanding was that the gas tanks are still underground and the
person who bought this ground years ago, powered off with a pump set and buried it in black top concrete,
black top, I'm sorry. So I don't know if there's tanks to sit there, I have no idea. But I have,
you know, my concern is mischief at night and commotion and the motorcycle shop, he has problems at
nighttime, people were allowing him using stuff too. So I'm getting too old to listen to that kind of stuff.
But other than that, I haven't got a problem with business or anything, but it's just people come and
go constantly. Why? I don't know. There's a problem somewhere along the line. Is that all you have for
us? OK. Well, thank you. I have a question for Mr. Rutherford.
That sounds like it's been very you had a long series of bad neighbors and I that you don't want another
bad neighbor and I don't blame you. And I'm I don't know what staff would say, but we. We have some.
Assuming that you know if everybody agreed and it was binding that it could only be used car sales.
There'd be no shop work
they would only be in operation, that no operations would take place after 8 p.m. Would that make you
more comfortable? Yeah, it'd make me more comfortable, but like I say, people come there at nighttime
and I'm sure there's a drink going on, I have no idea, but I'd say this mischief goes on. Yeah, right.
I haven't got problems with auto sale, I mean, like that,
as long as it's not going to be repairs and stuff like that. Like I say, business comes and goes here
for some reason, constantly. Why? I don't know. It's got a history that you don't trust a bit. It's
nothing to do with Mr. Cantana, but it's got to do with the history of this property. It seems to draw
problems. It's out in the country and when people come by, there's people going back and forth, north
and south. So they know it's empty or it's not empty.
Okay, thank you. Thanks. All right, is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to oppose this
petition and be heard? Seeing nobody online that wishes to oppose this, I see a hand. Could our tech
crew please allow Deb
Can you unmute Deb, please, or Deb, can you please unmute yourself? Deb, you will have to unmute from
your screen. I think I got it figured out. All right. Hi, Deb. And I apologize, I don't know how to
get my camera going. Deb, can you hear me? Yes.
All right, can you please state your name? My name is Deb Tamaro, T-O-M-A-R-O. All right, Tamaro, could
you please raise your right hand and attest that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth
as you know it? Yes, it is. All right, we're going to set a clock with three minutes, and that's the
time that you're going to have
to share your thoughts. Go ahead. Thank you. I also live across the street. I joined properties with
Gary who just spoke. Our biggest concern, I want to echo and support Gary, but I also have questions
about lighting. I know a lot of car dealerships have very bright lights. And as Gary said, we live out
in the country. We love to see the stars. We already have some pretty bright lights from their motorcycle
repair shop.
Um, and I'm just curious as to what the lighting situation might be over there and how that might impact
because they're completely surrounded by residential, you know, we're all residential around them.
Thank you. All right. Well, thank you for your thoughts. Is there anybody else online that wishes to
speak in opposition of this position? Please go ahead and click your hand raise.
I don't see any of that. We're going to offer you five minutes to address the two concerns that were
brought to you. If you could remember that you're still under our oath in that we expect your truthful
testimony. Yes, of course. Five minutes, please. All right. So for the lighting, I did not really think
into adding any additional lighting. Can we go to one of those pictures from the front of the building?
Because I believe there's some sort of light outside already. But no, I did not think that I'm going
to be adding any additional lighting. If anything, my business hours were going to be before 5 p.m.
I wasn't trying to stay there later than that so lighting shouldn't really be an issue since everything's
going to be during the day. I do know that I can't operate on Sundays too so nobody will be there on
Sundays showing any cars. Honestly I shouldn't be there on Sundays either unless I'm inside of the building
itself. I can always show vehicles inside the building for additional lighting but there was no plans
on adding any additional lighting to the exterior of
property. I do not want to operate late either, so you did mention 8 p.m. being maybe like a rule, but
I wasn't expecting to stay there that late anyways, especially it's by appointment also. What were the
concerns that Gary would like me to answer? Mr. Rutherford.
I think generally maybe speaking to the security of the property, how you will secure it after hours.
OK. I was going to add security cameras. I can't answer to the mischief that they've had in the past.
That's all going to be me and maybe one other person that operates, me and my partner. But for the most
part, I wasn't planning on having big groups around.
Everything's by appointment. I doubt I would have several people at once. It's not like a typical used
car dealership. A lot of the stuff will be online. Some vehicles may be sold before they even reach
my house or this location. I don't believe there'd be any mischief being caused by me. I am fairly new
to the city. I've lived here for four years. I came from Las Vegas, Nevada.
So I don't really have a big crowd around me. So that's pretty much it. All right. You addressed the
question I was going to ask. It's going to be you and one other colleague. And so two total. Yes, exactly.
That will be employee staff. OK, good. I wanted to know that too. Thank you. I just have a question.
Please. Mr. Kingana.
would you accept that if you had to add or replace any lighting that you would make it dark sky compliant?
Of course. Okay. That's helpful to the neighbor across the street. Thank you. I have a question regarding
the operation of business. It will help me better understand and to weigh in the concerns of your neighbors.
to use car lot, but your appointment only if folks are, I guess the operation of the business is not
clear to me. Will folks be able to drive by and go, oh, hey, I wanna go check out these vehicles and
be able to stop and get out of their vehicle and look around and,
kick the tire and look at a sticker on the windshield. Yeah. So I guess it's mainly for purchases at
that point where I'd have to make an appointment with them. It is required by the state to be available
at certain times. But in the very beginning, I know there's going to be a lot of inventory that I have
to research, research how to do finances with certain customers and like
offering financing. At the very beginning, I only want to do vehicles that are just paid by cash right
away. So I guess it's mainly, I need time to figure everything else out on that end, especially like
trying to figure out how to get to auctions, purchasing vehicles, how to get them to my place. I won't
be at the location very much. And then just doing sales online through CarGurus, Facebook Marketplace,
things like that, scheduling appointments that way.
Have you considered, and I'm saying this only because it was one of the concerns of the folks opposing
this, is have you considered some kind of lot security to shut down folks from even being able to approach
when you or your partner is not there, like some kind of
chain or some kind of fence or something to that liking? Have you considered that? Oh, yeah. We thought
about adding bollards and having chains between both driveways. I don't want to impact anything up against
the north property over there. It's right where that yellow 50 foot setback is, but mainly right over
here in the front. But I believe we were just going to apply bollards and then just a chain that goes
straight across.
between both of those driveways whenever we're not there. And then we're going to have security cameras
too. Have you had the opportunity to knock on the door of the motorcycle repair shop and discuss and
get his or her feedback on best practices or some of the concerns of the traffic or mischief that's
being described?
any other questions of the petition or of staff? All right, thank you. Why don't you go ahead and have
a seat and we'll figure things out. Thank you. Lopman, I have a feeling you have some thoughts. Well,
the I'm very, very concerned about neighbors.
But these concerns are not universal to, not specific to this business, but generic. It seems to me
if we approve this with the conditions that there would be no commercial activity after 7 p.m., that
would minimize or eliminate the risk.
there after 7 p.m. doesn't have the reason right to be there because there's there's it's there no commercial
activities and there's no other reason for people to be there so I'm leaning toward approving it with
with that condition you also add the condition of the light yes and that if any lighting is added
that it would be dark sky compliant. I added or replaced. And or replaced. Yes. Well, I could second
that. We have other thoughts to be shared before a motion. That was that was consideration, but now
I'll make a motion. And the motion is that I move we approve
variance 26-30 with the conditions that there be no commercial activities after 7 p.m. on, and that
any lighting addition or replacement be dark sky compliant. And do you want to add that it's limited
to auto sales only? Limited to auto sales only, not auto repair. Second that.
Well, we have a motion and a second before you call role director. Could you clarify something quickly
for me? Their precedent of. The BZ a. Approving something with a condition of time restraints of business
operating hours. We have done that in the past.
Okay, so there's been a motion and a second to approve VAR-26-30 with three. I'm sorry, but it probably
should say 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. We don't want it opening, after seven is just, I think seven, all business
commercial activity between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Okay, do we have a second on that? I would second the
amendment. The amended amendment.
the amended motion has been seconded okay so it's been moved and seconded to approve var-26-30 which
is the quintana automotive sales and or rental use variance to chapter 8 11 with three conditions commercial
activity be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. all lighting that is added or replaced on the site shall be
in compliance with the Dark Sky organization, and that the use variance is limited only to automotive
sales. A vote yes is a vote to approve the use variance with the conditions as stated. Margaret Clements?
Yes. Skip Daly?
I'm going to explain myself. I'm going to vote no, because I'm not comfortable putting a governmental
restriction on business operating hours without a pathway for enforcement. So no. Guy Lofman?
That was a yes. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yes. Pamela Davidson?
yes okay the motion is approved three to one all right well congratulations you still have a pathway
to get there and being a good neighbor is always recommended
All right, let's move forward. We have numbers five, six, and seven. Mr. Myers, you're back up to the
table. Variance is 26-32, Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie. Turning point, Apostolic Church. Side yard, yeah,
yeah, I know. I'm not working well today, but thank you. Side yard, set back.
Max and previous cover variants and this another side yard setback variance to chapter eight oh four.
Mr. Myers, is the petitioner compliant with the statutory requirements for notification? Yes.
Thank you. Please proceed with your presentation. Thank you. So this is the turning point apostolic
church side yard setback variance to chapter eight oh four.
for a primary structure, a maximum previous cover variance chapter 804 for the entire site, and a second
site yard setback variance chapter 804 for an accessory structure. This property is located at 2633
North Smith Pike. It's a zoned agricultural residential, and we're in Richland Township section 24.
petitioners requesting three non residential development standards variances in order to redevelop the
petition site as a religious facility petition site is zoned agricultural residential and currently
contains a 676 square foot single family residence 480 square feet of a detached garage and a 984 square
foot pole barn
Proposed religious facility will consist of an 11,667 square foot primary building, a 2,251 square foot
accessory structure, new driveways, parking lot, sidewalks, landscaping and rain gardens, including
stormwater infrastructure. A future playground area is also proposed with the petition, but is listed
as a future possible future development.
Two variance requests are from the non-residential side yard setback requirement of the agricultural
residential zone, which is 50 feet for non-residential structures. That is for the proposed primary
building, which will be the residential, excuse me, the religious facility on the north side of the
property. And the relocated accessory structure, which is currently on the property, proposed to be
relocated to an area that will be along the south
of the property, and both of those will be in violation of the 50-foot non-residential side yard setback.
The primary structure will encroach 31.67 feet into the side yard setback along the north property line,
and the accessory structure will encroach 16.17 feet into the side yard setback along the south property
line. Please note that both structures will still maintain what would have been the normal side yard
setback for residential structures
which is a minimum of 15 feet. The maximum impervious cover of the property in this zoning district,
which is the AGR zone, is 35,000 square feet for a lot with 2.51 to 5 acres. Normally, a property that's
in a critical watershed like this one has a more restrictive impervious cover
requirements with respect to square footage. However, when a lot has a certain amount of acreage, it
is outside of that threshold for additional regulations. So this property is in the Jax DeFe critical
watershed, which is important in consideration of impervious cover. But like I stated, its acreage is
higher than what we would normally see with respect to additional restrictions regarding impervious cover.
So the proposed religious facility will result in 67,500 square feet of impervious cover. That includes
all of the structures, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, et cetera, which is 32,500 square feet over
the current limit. Here on the screen, I have the definitions relevant to this petition. We have a definition
for religious facility, as well as a definition for impervious cover.
We have a page dedicated to practical difficulties if we need to come back to these with respect to
the petitions discussion. This slide is with regard to parking and impervious cover. So table 6-1 in
the county development ordinance requires that a religious facility have at least one space for every
four seats within the building.
The proposed development includes a total of 113 parking spaces, which is the minimum required for a
proposed capacity of 450 seats, which is what is proposed with this facility. Chapter 14-11 of the County
Development Ordinance provides an opportunity to modify that parking minimum as it relates to a violation
of the maximum impervious cover.
So specifically, chapter 814-11B1C reads, planning staff may approve a reduction of the number of required
spaces if the minimum required parking conflicts with the maximum impervious coverage permitted for
the site or tree canopy preservation area. Therefore, staff has the ability to reduce the minimum required
parking spaces from 113 down to 57 spaces per this chapter provision.
Reducing overall parking area could allow for future expansions on the property, such as the playground,
and also avoid needing another maximum impervious cover variance in the future if the structure, the
primary structure needs expanding or other expansions of impervious cover are warranted.
So part of the discussion this evening is staff will be curious to hear from the petitioner and stating
what maximum previous cover they need at the moment and what they might need in the future as to limit
the number of times that they may be coming back to this board for further variances with respect to
that regulation.
Here on the screen we have the location map again we're in richland township this is north smith pike
running north south and we have to the south west wood yard road the petition site has road frontage
only on north smith pike. Here we have the site conditions map you'll note that there are no slopes
greater than 25% which is the only percentage that's of regulation in this area.
I will note, with the contour lines here, too, you can kind of see a natural drainage swale cutting
through the property, running from the east to the west. And that will come up as an important fact
later on in the presentation. Now on the screen, we have a map of the critical watersheds. So you can
see the property is clearly identified in the Jax Defeat Creek critical watershed.
And also on the screen we have a map that indicates the property is located in the county development
ordinance urban area boundary, which is one of the triggers for the construction of sidewalks. So the
petitioner will be constructing sidewalks and they are not requesting a variance to that standard. On
the screen now we have table 2-804.
for the Agricultural Residential Zoning District, which details the maximum impervious cover value,
as well as the side yard setback value for non-residential use. Now we have a series of photographs
from aerial imagery showing the petition site in its current state, showing the existing residents,
the small detached garage, and the accessory pole barn.
Here we have some street view imagery showing the property in question. This view is shown from the
property immediately to the south, and it's zoomed in a little bit so you can kind of see the backyard
beyond the chain link fence, which is the petition site.
On the screen we have the letter from the petitioner's representative stating their requests with respect
to the side yard setback as well as the impervious cover variance and their rationale as to why they
believe the variances should be approved. We have a consent letter from the owners of the property for
the petitioner's representative to submit the variance application and operate on their behalf.
And we have a boundary retracement survey that shows the current conditions of the property. I will
note that the current pole barn on the property is meeting that 15-foot residential side yard setback.
And that pole barn structure is the one that's going to be relocated elsewhere on the property to the
south and west. On the screen, we have the conceptual site plan provided by the petitioner's representative.
showing the new structures as well as all the new hardscape or impervious cover. This page shows it
a little bit more zoomed in to give a bit more detail showing all the parking sidewalks. The accessory
structure is located to the south here along the south property line and the new building is here along
the north property line and then of course that future playground area as mentioned before. You can
see in the middle of the
page here, these oval shapes. Those are proposed rain gardens. I believe they are terraced as you go
down in elevation. And one of the rationale points provided by the petitioner is that they are wanting
to keep the side yards or encroach into the side yard setbacks so that they are able to utilize the
existing topography of that area for drainage purposes.
You will also note that the driveway entrance will also be slightly shifting towards the south instead
of being where it currently is, which is right along the north property line in the corner. We do have
one letter from the public. This comes from the neighbor to the north, which interestingly is also a church.
And that church actually received a special exception from the Monroe County Plan Commission in 1995.
Back then the zoning regulations were different and the church facility needed a special exception from
the Plan Commission. We don't do special exceptions anymore and churches are permitted in almost every
zoning district now and just must follow the standard site plan procedures. So
The petitioner provided some information as well as some dates that the staff was able to verify with
respect to the planned commission meeting minutes back then that their church did receive that special
exception and was discussed having two phases. They've only completed the first phase, and they are
hoping to initiate the second phase in the future. So as stated in the letter,
And I have physical copies as well for any members of the public, as well as members of the board that
talks about their concerns with respect to the development of their neighbor's property to the south.
OK, that brings me to staff's recommendation. So breaking this out into three different ones, staff
recommends approval of the side yard setback variance of Chapter 804, citing the findings of fact and
practical difficulties have been demonstrated.
That is for the side yard setback for the primary structure. Staff recommends denial of VAR-26-32B,
which is the maximum impervious cover variance to chapter 804, citing findings of fact, specifically
number 1C and number 3. Practical difficulties have not been demonstrated. And finally, VAR-26-32C.
Staff is recommending approval, which is the side yard setback variance to the accessory structure.
citing the findings of fact and that practical difficulties have been demonstrated. I will not take
any questions. Are there any imminent concerns that need to be asked of staff at this time? Seeing nothing,
let's go ahead and bring up the petitioner and or representatives.
If you could just be reminded to adjust your microphone as needed. Go ahead and sign in and then speak
your name. We'll apply that oath.
Are you going to be sharing your 15 minutes? I will be sharing my 15 minutes, so I'm having you go ahead
and sign in. We're going to need you both to sign in. And while that's happening, can you go ahead and
speak your name at least? Yes. My name is Chelsea Moss with Abramoss Design Group. Thank you, Chelsea.
and perhaps a few. Just to make sure it's picked up, your name? My name is Ron Hawkins. Ron? Pastor,
the church. Okay, pastor. If the two of you could please raise your right hand. Is the testimony you're
about to provide the truth as you know it? Yes. Yes. Fantastic. We're gonna set 15 shared minutes for you guys.
And you can go ahead. Okay. It's great to be here. I am the site engineer for this project and I'm mostly
going to address the impervious area as that is the portion that is most concerning from staff's perspective.
that's a great perspective. So I want to give you a little bit of a history and some insight into where
this church currently sits. This church is in the downtown Ellitsville area. It is right on Jax DeFeek
Creek. They have expanded the church in the past, and in an effort to meet their growing congregational
needs, they have actually applied and had plans designed and everything for another expansion. FEMA
turned them down.
right now. Part of the church is elevated. There is a portion of the church that is no longer usable
because of flood inundation and that they can't get it operational. Congregation keeps growing and they
are out of space. Their current seating capacity is 240 and their average attendance right now is 220.
That's over 90% capacity and the recommendation typically in church building is you shouldn't be exceeding
80% capacity. They're well beyond that. So if they have visitors come, there's almost no seating. Ron
will talk a little bit more to that in the future or once I'm done. But from an engineering standpoint,
they can't expand where they currently are.
with their current capacity in their current site we are looking at about they currently have I believe
I wrote down 45,000 square feet of impervious area at their existing site just to give you a perspective
of where the impervious area we're talking about at 67.5 we're talking about doubling the size of the building
But we're not doubling the size of their existing impervious area. So this new site would be a better
use, a less impactful use per seat as far as impervious area goes. It is zoned agricultural, but this
is in the urbanizing area.
on Smith Pike, so it backs up against traditional agricultural area, but it's highly residential and
it does already have several church and childcare child development facilities in your proximity. Grace
Baptist is probably the largest church, Grace Church, which is just south of them. They are about 1200
feet south of this site and Grace has
about 61,000 square foot of a pervious area. Then we also have the Head Start and the villages just
south of us as well. So this isn't a unique type of development along Smith Pike. We're not talking
about putting a big church in the middle of nowhere. The church has been very thoughtful and mindful
in what they're developing. They're not going extravagant.
This has not got tons of wings and everything. It is a square building. It has a second story. They
are trying to use their space efficiently. We have designed this parking lot to be 113 spaces, which
is the minimum required by the ordinance. There are allowances for administrative reductions in that.
I know Drew mentions that.
in places in the report and the findings of fact my concern is and in talking with the church staff
that if we go much below that that is one seat for one car for every four people if we start pushing
below that we're not going to have enough parking for people when they get there that's that's going
to be your average family size coming to church and so
parking layout. 1 to 4 is actually more strict than the old ordinance, which was 1 to 3. So we. Got
on parking in my opinion to begin with. Um. The parking layout looks a little wonky. I'll give you. Um I know
the eastern most open space that is to allow for a front section addition somewhere down the line.
Right now, the expansion is going to be good for them for their foreseeable future. And although in
an ideal scenario, we would try to get full variance upfront. We understand that we're asking for a
substantial variance right now. And
the parking. They are looking for other options, and I have even brought up other options if they do
the addition in the future, but to plan for that right now, we feel is a little too far out. Um. So
at this point, all we've done is made sure our parking is laid out so that we're minimizing the disruption
to that while still providing.
I'm going to go to the next slide. Let's see. So from their current position, they bought this property
in 2024. They did buy it before the new ordinance was put into effect. But my clients did their due
due diligence. They did have a member of their trustees call and talk to planning. We're not sure exactly
who they talked to at the time, but they did do some research into it
As with many churches though, through planning and funding, we're just now getting to where we're getting
boots on the ground, wanting to actually get design documents for everything. And so that's where the
impervious area has kind of come up and become a bit of a sticking point. My concern with any of the
mitigations that Drew has recommended in reducing parking or reducing the size of the building
is that's not going to meet their purpose and what they're needing to do with this property. The longer
they're stuck on the property in the flood zone, the riskier it gets for them. There are certain limits
in flood ways, particular that if a large enough storm comes through and you get enough damage, rebuilding is
they're not going to be able to move to the site. And that can be prohibitive or prohibited by FEMA
if a certain percentage of a building is damaged. And so they are going to have harder and harder issues
the longer they stay in that building, not only because of capacity, but also just staying there. They
put a lot of time and effort in trying to get moved to the site. And at this point,
living waters did mention keeping a buffer. From the survey, the existing wood line buffers appears
to be completely on living waters property on that side of the parcel. We are not required to have a
buffer yard, but because our parking is along there, we will have very intense parking lot landscaping
with the trees, the shrubs, all the standards. We are not requesting any variances from landscaping.
So that will all be along there and be an incredible buffer between the Living Waters and this church.
So. I'm a preacher, I need to ask how much time I have. You have six and a half minutes. Six and a half
minutes? Okay, well, I won't take all of that. But I want to, first of all, I want to say that we appreciate
the opportunity to address
board and thank you for your consideration in this variance. I am, as I said, I'm the pastor. I've been
the pastor at Turning Point for 28 years. My predecessor, my mentor, my pastor was there for 34 years.
The church was founded in 1960 at 210 West Vine Street in Ellisville. They built alongside Jax DeFeat
Creek and we have been fighting Jax
Defeat Creek for years. We have experienced flooding. We have a fellowship building on our property
that we finally just gave up on because we had to keep going in and repairing it. And we decided our
money was better spent building a building fund and moving. We did try, as Chelsea alluded to, we did
try to build where we are now a few years ago.
FEMA said, the codes have changed in the last 20 years, obviously. No building, can't build anything
there, as far as FEMA said. Go back just a few years after I became the pastor, so 25-ish years ago,
our congregation grew from about 40 to about 80 within about a year or two. And we were in our current,
the building then seated about
90 people 70 comfortably but we were pushing 70 8090 the shoe telling the foot how big to grow we kept
bouncing 70 to 90 and we wanted to move then had some trouble finding property then we decided to
by a home that was adjacent to our church property and demolished that. We were able to build, again,
that's been 20 some years ago, we were able to build a pretty interesting building elevated up out of
the flood zone. We built a sanctuary that seats 230, 240 tight. And we built the sanctuary, restrooms, office,
We still have our original building that is at ground level. That part of the church has taken on water
a couple of times, but we've been able to repair it. We started the building for children and youth,
but we've outgrown that. We have 20 babies in our church right now that are getting ready to go into
nursery class. We don't know where to put them. We have a lot of young adults. We're a multi-generational
church. In the last few years,
attendance has gone from about 160 to we're pushing 220 and more on our main Sunday service. So we have
tried for the last seven years to find property. We had an offer
on the land right across from Arby's in Ellitsville where they've got the apartments now. We had an
accepted offer and we're pursuing financing when COVID hit and the bank pulled out on us. So we were
disappointed about that. We've looked for land, I mean constantly, it's either way overpriced or there's
just not enough acreage
put a church. So we were ecstatic when we saw this property up for sale. We were on our way to Pichetto's
one night and my wife said that's for sale. So the next morning we met with our realtor. We had some
people in the church call the county, find out if there were any codes that we needed to be aware of.
We felt like we did our due diligence then and made an offer
purchased the land two years ago and as Chelsea said we've been working towards our financing towards
our planning and we're very disappointed to hear that this has come up because we were just so excited
about this this new property. I will tell you that I feel like we've done we're trying our best anyway
to build the building as she said in a square box we are going to use the main sanctuary for worship
slash recreation slash dinners that's what we're doing right now so we we've built as small as we feel
like we can we have 220 right now and we are i really feel like building a 450 seat auditorium is what
we need to do and i feel like we'll grow into that fairly quickly
Everything I'm telling you tonight is based on our history of growth and what I feel like is our projected
trends. And again, I say thank you for considering us tonight. Appreciate that. Go under six and a half
minutes. I want you to hang on and receive questions. My question is,
I read the materials and I've heard you both. Your attendance right now, 240 would be capacity, and
you're at 220. This new facility is 450, so it's not quite doubled, not quite doubled. And the parking
spots, which really infect impervious cover,
is 113 parking spots for 450. That's a lot of growth from 240 to 450 with those immutable parking spots.
So any insight onto that?
So they had a growth of 50 attendance in the last three years, and that is with a cramped space. And
your rate of growth is going to decline with a cramped space. People just will come and visit and not
feel like they have the space to stay. So with still getting a growth of 50 over the past three years,
the, I think the number that you guys were talking is within the next four years, five years, you could
easily see 360 and possibly more. And so growing into that, getting to that 80% is there. I mean, that's
potentially reaching that 80% in five years. They feel that the growth is there and that's in talking
both with the church, but also
their consultants, that's where this looks to be going. And so by putting in double the capacity, that's
what they're planning for. And the impervious cover, the playground is maybe potential. But that would
also affect impervious ground, I think, at some point, depending on what the surface matter was. Yeah,
Drew, I left you a voicemail on that.
If it's a mulch or something, my understanding was that that did not fall under impervious.
Is that incorrect? We understand if there's a concrete or a mat. Assholes. Yeah. But with a typical
more of a mulch playground scenario, which is what you guys are considering, we're not looking at anything
crazy fancy, that would be pervious, correct?
So on the screen, we have the definition for impervious cover. And it gives some examples. It says,
impervious services shall include without limitation rooftops, gravel areas, excluding landscape
applications, pervious pavers, asphalt or concrete, private access roads, driveways, and parking lots,
decks, patio areas, swimming pools, and tennis courts. So it's my understanding that if it's truly mulch,
which would be similar to a landscaping
feature that that would not count as impervious cover, but we would want to consult the stormwater program.
Yeah, I know on other projects I've had that that has been the determination. We've only counted the
concrete areas in a playground, but I just wanted to kind of confirm that. Thank you. As you stated,
the neighboring church or the church a quarter mile down the way. Yes. You said they currently have.
1,000 square feet of impervious. That would be Grace Church. And they are about 1,200 feet south of
us, I believe. Yeah, yes, measurements quickly, so. Yes. I just have a question. You know, Ms. Moss,
it's good to see you again. Have you given much consideration to
pervious pavers. So for the ordinance, they don't help us. They don't give us any extra credit, and
that's why we've not pursued that. I see. So. I have a staff question. When they started looking at
this property, was the ordinance different so that they would have been able to proceed? So back before
December 18th, 2024, which is when the county development
ordinance was adopted. The ordinance regulated sites by building coverage in most cases.
know what the stormwater program ordinance was like at that time in its specific detail. But we do have
record of someone calling the office and inquiring whether or not a church would be permitted on this
property. And back then, the zoning was agricultural residential, which was very similar to what it
is zoned now. And the basis of the conversation was, yes, the use of a religious facility is permitted.
but please submit a pre-design for more information about the commercial development process of that.
And we have no record of any pre-design being submitted after that conversation, but we did not have
the maximum impervious cover regulations as they are today, as strict as they are today back then in
2024. Let me ask the staff another question.
If the building has that footprint, and I know we can fudge around a little bit with parking spots,
not optimal, but we could. The impervious ground, I mean, that's kind of, just those two things have
really set them above the number they need, just the building itself and the
parking lot, correct, before the sidewalks, before everything else you need, just because of the footprint
of that building? I don't have a line item calculation of what the percentage of impervious cover is
of the sidewalks, what is of the hardscape, meaning parking and driveways. And we can look at the structure
and tell what its square footage is, along with the accessory structure. So I can't give you an example
of percentages,
A lot of the impervious cover, looking plainly at the site plan, does come from the structures as well
as the parking area and driveways. I'll allow you to respond to that after you allow me the answer to
what is the material of your little island there? So the kind of big, weird island in the middle? Well,
obviously it's meant to expand the parking and then expand the building.
What's the material of it? It'll be grass. At this time, the intent is that that will be grass. Now
you wanted to comment on that last? Yes. So I do have some quick calculations. So we have just under
14,000 square feet is allocated to the buildings. So that is the main building and the accessory.
structure and then 47.5 is parking just the asphalt on the parking not even including the curbs the
remaining 6100 is your curbs and sidewalks and we've gone pretty minimal on on sidewalks and stuff we're
not going crazy on that but 6100 is that kind of remaining so the parking is our biggest but as i said the
we're concerned about reducing that number as of the size of families that they have. And connecting
to the existing sidewalk structure of the neighborhood is not going to be an issue? No, so we have a
connecting sidewalk. There is intermittent neighborhood sidewalks right now, but we do connect the sidewalk
along the north side of the parking all the way out to a new sidewalk along the road.
of course, been in and out of style. Any other questions for staff or the petitioner? All right. Depending
on what we have, we might invite you back up. Pardon me. At this time, is there anybody in the audience
that wishes to speak in favor of this petition? Please come on up. Been here for a while. You know the drill.
Please. If you could say your name for us. Justin Honeycutt.
Mr. Could you please raise your hand. Do you attest that the testimony you're about to provide is the
truth as you know it. Three minutes for your comments. Okay, I won't need that just I wanted to.
talk on a couple of things. So I am a board member of the church and some of the things I wanted to
address the attendance question. And so I didn't want to say we do have the numbers they said were spot
on, but we do actually have more members to our church.
than just that we have several quite a few of our older residents who don't like the crowds and they
say you know we'll join us or we'll come to the service as soon as you know we have more room to that
so we do have closer I don't know the exact number but it is closer to 300 ish members of our church
as opposed to just what the attendance is on the average so I wanted to add that
Also, there's a lot of ministries that we used to do or want to do that we're not able to do at this
time because of our building in. We don't have the space for that at this time, so we don't have the
kitchen anymore. We used to do some dinners and things like that for the community for the homeless.
We want to be able to do that and serve the community at our new building, which we're not able to do
at this time. So and we just we want to be good neighbors and and serve the community and just looking
for the opportunity to do that.
Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this
petition? Seeing no one. Is there anybody online that would like to speak in favor? Raise that Zoom
platform in his hand. All right. Seeing no one. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition of
this petition? Anybody online wish to speak in opposition?
Fantastic. Let's go ahead and have some discussion. Well, to me, the only real concern is the impervious
cover. The staff has recommended approval on the side yard setback, both of those, and I'm good with
that. The impervious service, I'm concerned about that. I mean, look at the weather out right now. The
rain is so hard. Where does it all go?
I have a lot of concerns about that. And I don't know how to address it because the physical footprint
of the building and 450 versus 113 spots. I mean, we could say, gee whiz, you could have fewer spots,
but that may be a problem going into the future. Well, my soft spot is people who start
one set of plans and then we move the goal posts. I'd like where we put the goal posts. I think the
impervious rules we have are very sensible and I don't like varying them, but they searched and searched
and searched and found a piece of property which would meet their goals. And I understand not then going
down with a set of plans because that's,
You gotta get the money. You gotta make sure you're gonna be able to pay. I've done building projects
at my church. I'm sympathetic with them having inquired saying it was looking positive. I'm certainly
comfortable with the recommended approvals, but I'm also comfortable with going ahead and saying that
started their planning and I'm willing to let them proceed on their original understanding. I'd like
to ask Mr. Myers, at the beginning or the middle of your presentation, you mentioned some curiosity
about a few subjects. Did the petitioner relieve any of your curiosity?
Let me get back to that one second. So I believe in most cases, yes, because the playground was communicated
as mulching rather than another type of surface that may be considered impervious.
It did not mention any additional expansion currently in their plans other than the playground. But
it is maximum curve is cover variances are not a blanket variance. They are determined with respect
to a certain request, just like buildable area and slope variances. So if they are.
If the variance for impervious cover is approved this evening, it's approved for the square footage
that they are proposing. And if that they need to expand in the future, then they will have to come
back to this board for further evaluation and another variance. Thank you. I have one question of staff.
In the back of the church, there were some
rain gardens that were established. Is there anything that they could do with regard to the planting
area in the back that could mitigate rainwater runoff?
Although I do have an environmental science background, I don't know all the particular options available
to them with respect to the topography of the site. The terraced rain gardens sound like a very nice
design, and I'm sure that their engineering firm has done their calculations or their math on the amount
of rainwater that
those areas are supposed to accommodate. But I'm sure that there are other opportunities for further
expanding the conservation efforts. The general idea for stormwater flow is to spread it out and slow
it down. So I'm not sure if they've entertained that idea for that back portion of the property. They
have not mentioned anything about
for future use of that area, whether it be for picnics or what you have. So I've invited you back to
help clarify some of that reminder that the oath is held. Yes. Yes. Thank you. So the intent is those
rain gardens will do some detent, like they will detain back and spread that flow out some. They will
also be the bulk end of our treatment.
getting any of the impurities out of that stormwater in order to meet the stormwater ordinance. But
then I have also, and we have not gone through and fully sized anything on purpose because this is so
critical to how this moves forward, but we have tons of space to work with. And so that very back corner,
mostly towards the north end, is where water is currently exiting the site.
it does make for a good area to put in additional detention, traditional dry detention in addition to
those bioretention areas because this is in a critical watershed it does have more stringent detention
requirements anyways so it will have kind of the most stringent in the county within those critical
watersheds
stormwater ordinance has gone to a set discharge per acre. And I believe the critical watersheds are
half of what the rest of the county is. It's pretty extensive, so. Let me assume that your client is
committed to every possible avenue, should we bang the gavel on approval. You know,
that area from the water runoff. Yeah, so we have already had the discussions about maintenance of these
items. I'll be providing them with full maintenance. So this will all be, you know, it'll go through
stormwater review. We'll have to put that in just as part of the normal design for this. They won't
get approved plans before stormwater approves it.
And in addition to that, I have had preliminary conversations with them about what the maintenance on
that looks like. Maintenance for stormwater management in the county now has to be recorded. So we put
together the maintenance manual and they have to sign an agreement that is then a recorded at the courthouse
for perpetuity of the project. So. I appreciate you coming back. Thanks. All right.
We have any other discussion here? Are we ready to move forward? We're ready to make a motion to approve
variances 26-32A, B, and C for the turning point church side yard setback variance to chapter 804 and
also the impervious cover variance to chapter 804. Based on? Based on practical difficulties, would you say?
would say. Would you? Yes, yes. Motion. I'll second it. Okay, it's been motioned and seconded to approve
VAR-26-32A, 32B, and 32C. That's the side yard for the primary structure, the impervious cover, and
the side yard for the accessory structure.
A vote yes is a vote to approve all three variances with no required conditions. Guy Lofman? Yes. Pamela
Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daley? Yes. Okay, the motion is approved four to zero. Here
you go. I think we should run away. I know
We had decided to move the rural change to the end. But may I suggest we move? Is there any impaired?
May we do that next time for those of us who left windows down on our car? Sure. Yes. And are very stressed
about it. We're going to officially hear
adjourn the meeting suspending the administrative business until our next scheduled meeting. Thank you,
good luck, please continue to work well with staff and we'll see you guys down the road.