Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call the order the October meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Ms. Nestor, Joe, and to get us started, would you call the roll? Sure. Margaret Clements, Skip Daly
here. Guy Loftman here. Jeff Morris here. Pamela Davidson here. OK, so we have four members in person
and a quorum. OK, could you please introduce the evidence for tonight? I'd like to introduce the following
items into the evidence of Monroe County Development Ordinance as adopted and amended.
The Monroe County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Control Ordinances is failing. And I lost it. Chris
Johnson, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. OK, we have four members and is now joining the Monroe
County Comprehensive Plan is adopted and amended. The Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals rules of
procedure as adopted and amended in the cases that were legally advertised and scheduled for hearing
on tonight's agenda.
Kate, do we have a motion to approve the evidence as introduced? I move to approve the evidence
as introduced. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote
yes is a vote to approve. Skip Daly. Yes. Guy Loftman. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes.
Motion is approved. Four to zero.
Hey, for the approval of the agenda, I would like to recommend that we make a motion to move
the administrative business to the end of the agenda for tonight so that we can have a longer discussion
without holding everybody up here in the room that's come to hear their petitions. Second.
OK, just for clarity, for everyone's sake, the only administrative business was the BZA rules of procedure.
And so there's a motion and a second to move the administrative business below the new business and
start with old business. A vote yes is about to move administrative business to the end of tonight's
agenda. Guy Laughman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Motion is approved
four to zero.
We have three sets of minutes to approve tonight, April 1st, May 6th and June 3rd, 2026. If we could
get a motion for approval. I move that we approve both. Is it three or two? Three. Three. The minutes
of April 1st, 2026 of May 6th, 2026 and also of June 3rd, 2026. Second.
OK, it's been moved and seconded to approve the April 1, May 6 and June 3rd, 2026 meeting minutes. About
yes is a vote to approve Pamela Davidson. Yes. Skip Daley. Present. God. Yes. Hey, Jeff Morris. Yes.
OK, motion is approved three to zero.
Okay, under old business, we will start with VAR-26-28. This is the Brown Eco Area 2 15% slope encroachment
variance to chapter 823. Mr. Myers. Thank you. Several of you have already heard this case as it is
old business. We heard it in our last meeting on August 26th. But I will be giving a short presentation
because we do have one board member who was absent during that last meeting.
So this is VAR-26-28, the Brown Eco Area 2, 15% slope encroachment variance to Chapter 823.
It's one 5.03 acre parcel in Bloomington Township, Section 26. And we're at 3701 East Mables Way. The
request is a buildable area variance, 15% slope in the Eco Area 2. The purpose is to construct a new
986 square foot residential accessory structure with two floors in an area with slope greater than 15%.
This property is zoned conservation residential and located in eco area two as part of the Lake Griffey
watershed. Chapter 823 says slope greater than 15% on property in eco area two is protected from any
land disturbance activity. That includes the removal of vegetation. The proposed structure will not
exceed the maximum height of 30 feet for residential accessory structures in the CVR zone. The proposed
structure will contain a bathroom, but no bedroom or kitchen facilities, therefore it does not classify
as a dwelling.
The petition site is located as lot number nine of the Lanham Ridge Estates Section Two, which was recorded
on August 23rd, 1997. And the first iteration of the environmental constraints overlay was adopted by
the Monroe County Board of Commissioners on January 23rd, 1992. So on the screen, we have a screen snip
of an updated site plan provided by the petitioner. So on the screen is a staff calculation using the scale
function of the site plan, just to confirm the square footage of the structure. So we have seen a bit
larger of a structure as more details have come through for the proposal from the last time. I believe
it was around 600 square feet when we last heard this, but showing the site plan here, we have a 730
square foot structure and then these two rectangles on either side, both totaling 128 square feet. So
approximately a total of 986 square feet.
for the structure. Staff also utilized the site plan to calculate distances just for the record and
for your reference. We are 44 feet from the edge of the deck of the existing residence and we are about
17 feet on the north side encroaching into the 15% slope regulation and then we're about 27 feet into the slope
a 15% slope on the south side of this structure as seen on the screen. On the screen now we have a snippet
from the county development ordinance. This is chapter 823, given the purpose statement of the environmental
constraints overlay. And we can come back to this, it's also included in the packet. Chapter 823-5B
is the specific standards related to this request.
It has several different regulations for area two in the eco areas. Number one and number two are the
ones that are being addressed this evening through this variance request. And that is related to the
disturbance of slope greater than 15% for structures, as well as the inevitable removal of vegetation
within that same slope area for the structures location.
We also have a page dedicated to the definitions of practical difficulties for the terms of the variance.
We can come back to this if we need to reference it. It's also included in the packet. This is the location
map and the site conditions map on the right showing the 15% slope in red. This is the site conditions
map on its own screen to give you a little bit more detail and it's zoomed in to
the existing residents, the existing detached structure. And here we have the eco area outlined in the
hatching. This is all area two. And then just some aerial pictometry here of the petition site and the
existing structures there. You can see a few small structures here on the ground. That is the approximate
location of the existing septic system.
photographs here, and then on the ground photographs of the site itself. And you can kind of see where
the tree line begins, the slope starts to taper down in degrees. So on the screen now we have the original
letter provided by the petitioner. This was seen in the last petition hearing as well as in the packet.
And here we have the new site plan that was authored by a licensed land surveyor showing that proposed
location of the structure. And here on the next page we have a zoom in showing that structure and the
delineation of the 15% slope lines here to better identify exactly how much of an encroachment we're
seeing with this structure. And then of course we have the original plat that indicates lot number nine.
in this Lennon Ridge Estates Section 2 subdivision. These last two pages are staff's original attempt
to locate alternative locations on the property that would not encroach into the 15% slope.
So these are a bit outdated now because the structure has increased a bit in size and there's also been
a little bit more information provided regarding the septic location as well as the alternative septic
location that can be seen on the new site plan provided by the land surveying company. So we also received
letters of support. So I'm gonna leave this one on the screen while I give you some hard copies that
we received after the packet publishing. And while you're doing that, Mr. Chair,
Point of order. Just a reminder that all of the testimony and the presentation provided in the last
time that the board heard this is still in play for being on the record.
We're also going to put some hard copies over there on the side table for the public to look at as well,
but they will all be shown on the screen at least for a moment.
So that brings us to staff's recommendation, and this was the same recommendation we held at the last
hearing. Staff recommends denial of VAR-26-28, citing practical difficulties have not been demonstrated.
For 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. And I'll take any questions.
like there's any questions so let's go ahead and turn to the petitioner or petitioner's representative.
Hi there. If you could sign in and then I'll swear you in. Okay. If you could raise your right hand
and state your name.
Okay. Thank you. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay.
You'll have 15 minutes to share your petition with us. Let me first start with the issue about the size
because it's really the same as what I was talking about before. It might relate to the stairs because
we've got, it's basically 25 by 25 square feet, two stories, but the stairs.
or on either wing. So that might've had something to do with it, but it's really basically the same
structure that I talked about when I was here on August 26th. As I said, on August 26th, the location
that we're trying to put it in is where the largest tree in our property died, literally unexpectedly.
So by putting it there, we only have to take out one other tree
The alternative location that we're talking about, which is closer to that shed, would require us to
take out at least four very healthy trees, although obviously it's not in the 15-degree area. So we're
concerned about taking out healthy trees, and that's one benefit for us, but of course the other benefit
is that it's much closer to the house. And I'm 70, my wife is 65.
And as we get older, we're really concerned about the distance that we'll have to go in order to get
there. But what I've added this time that I didn't have last time is the survey that was done by Eric
Deckard. So he shows exactly where it is at. And I do at least want to point out that at least for the
left side, the slope is only 16 degrees. So it's not like it's,
terribly far off from the 15 degree, although certainly on the right side it is, I think, 21 degrees.
The other thing which I added is I have a letter from our architectural review committee. We're in Lanham
Ridge Estates and we have very detailed covenants and restrictions. I don't know if you know Frank Pruitt
But Frank Pruitt was a geology professor. He was the one that plotted out our entire neighborhood. He
was extraordinarily concerned about the very thing that you're concerned about, sedimentation and soil
going downhill. So they had to go through all of those requirements to make sure that our facility fit
what effectively was Frank Pruitt's design way back
when he did it 30 years ago. And of course there were five members on the architectural review committee
who also thought that the project was fine from their standpoint. I gave you a letter from one neighbor
and the only reason I did that neighbor is our house is the second to the last house in the neighborhood.
So that's the only neighbor who will go
past our house because our house is actually on a private drive. So only our house and our neighbor's
house are the only two on the private drive. So of course they didn't have any problem with it at all.
And then the third letter I gave you and this is really because of the concern about sedimentation and
erosion and admittedly I don't know anything about that at all.
So one of my goals when I left here yesterday was to find an expert who would help to make sure that
we minimize any kind of erosion. And let me just say, I spend time in Lake Griffey too. I can actually
walk to Lake Griffey from my house and it takes about 45 minutes, but there is a path. So I appreciate
your concern about Lake Griffey because it's certainly one that I share. So the third letter that you have,
from Art Trinidad. He used to be the director of planning in St. Louis, Obispo County, California. His
job was really to deal with people who were building homes on hillsides like you see in California all
the time. He's done this quite a bit, so he's going to help
me work with my builder to make sure that we have appropriate sedimentation and erosion control. I think
you can see on the survey which we got from Eric Decker where the silt fence would go, but I guess this
is a long way of saying, yeah, I understand the concern. For us, this does make sense to put it there.
It means we'll have to take down fewer trees and we too are committed to disturbing the soil as little
as possible. The alternative location just simply doesn't provide the same views because the whole purpose
of this is to get it far enough so that you can take advantage of really a very incredible ravine that
we have in the back of our property. And that's a real problem with the alternative view compared to
this view.
So with that, I'll ask my wife if she wants to say anything. If you could come to the podium, I'll swear
you in. If you could state your name. Yeah, and sign in. Diane Brown. Hey, can you raise your right
hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes.
Thank you. You'll have the remainder of it. You can move the microphone down so it's pointing. I know.
Thank you. What tippy toes. I just wanted to, he's written pretty thorough on what he added, but I just
wanted to say I was the president of Lanham Ridge neighborhood there for almost 20 years.
And I was a stickler on everything. So it's like he didn't get away with anything even. So I just want
to let you know that he's been in lock stop. I've stocked everything. I mean, he's had so many surveyors
coming out and everything else. So it's like he's done his due diligence. I will say that. And we are really
pretty anal about preserving the whole neighborhood and how it is, you know, and property values and
everything, as well as the topography and all of that. So I just want to add that we're not somebody,
or he's not somebody who's just like, oh, and build this pretty thing. We have been anal for 20-some
years since we built in there. So I just want to let you guys know that a little bit about the background
and how much we safeguard what is going on there. And last, please just give him a little case so he
can get out of the house.
Did you sign? Did you sign it? I don't think she. Mr. Brown, you've got eight minutes left. Was there
anything else you wanted to add? No, otherwise, because I just was going back over what we did before.
And as I said,
The location, our preferred location is really driven by the fact that the biggest tree on our property
literally showed signs of dying in August. But then it was almost like Providence says, look, this is
a great place to put it. We're going to get out of your way. Because it only means I got to take down
one. It is a big tree. But it's not bigger. Well, it is bigger than the other four, but not
bigger than any individual for, you know what I'm saying, is it's a lot less damage to a lot fewer trees.
And just, you know, I gotta say for me, I mean, those trees have been there way before me, and they'll
be there way after me, and I don't really wanna take out any more than I have to, so. And I am, I mean,
you know, I like Lake Griffey, so I will do whatever I can to prevent erosion and sedimentation from
getting to it.
Other than that, no, I guess I'm done because it looks to me like you've got a lot to do. So unless
you have questions. Yeah. OK, thank you. Before you sit down, do any members of the board have any questions
for Mr. Brown? Do you have a larger surveyors plan of this? Is that what you're holding? Probably.
Let me. Yeah. If you don't mind, I just would like to see it in this bigger format.
There seem to be several. Hopefully two copies. But there's actually a second page. Do you want to ask
questions on that, Mr. Loeffner? Or do you want me to go ahead and to public comment while you're in
here? Go ahead to public comment. I'll come back if I want to. OK. If you want to go ahead and have
a seat, Mr. Brown, we'll turn to public comment and then bring you back up if there's any questions.
I'm good. I've looked. I've seen it.
Do any members of the public here in the room wish to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please
come up to the podium. Anyone online who wish to speak in favor of this, please raise your virtual hand.
Anyone here in the room who wishes to speak against this petition, please come to the podium. Or anyone
online who wishes to speak against, please raise your virtual hand.
They see no one. We will close public comment and come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals for conversation
and a motion. Well, I've had a chance to look at this larger drawing and it doesn't cause me to want
to ask Mr. Brown any more questions. OK, so we had reserved the opportunity to do that. But this is
very helpful because it's a lot bigger. I want to say I appreciate your attention to detail and seeking so much.
expert advice and 20 years the homeowner president I can understand. It's a child. I can get that as
well. And tree removal, we care about all those things. But I really appreciate your scientific approach
to the whole decision making. I want to say that quickly. Do you have any comments? Sure. I'll renew
my assertion from a pair of months ago that
based on the previous testimony that practical difficulties, I was swayed, have been met. Mr. Lofman,
any comments from you? Well, I'm sorry, but I don't think practical difficulties have been met. I think
preserving trees is an admirable goal, but
This basically entirely encroaches, and well, so maybe I would ask Mr. Brown a question just to make
sure I'm understanding that the square area of the house, which I think I can you, that area is 25 by
25. Yeah, the big part. And then there are steps on both sides.
Well, effectively, it's just to balance it out. So the steps are only on the right, not on the left.
But I'm sorry. OK, so I didn't want it to look unbalanced. Yeah, you want it symmetrical. Right, so
the stairs are on the right. On the left is just additional space, which we'll put a bathroom in. OK,
well, so will the room on that side, one side will be
Will the steps be inside or outside? Inside. Inside. Inside. Inside. So there will be a roof on both
sides. Yes. Yes. Yes. Correct. So it will be 25 by 25 plus the roofs on both sides. Correct. And how
big are the roofs on both sides about? Do you know? Well, each is 6 feet 4 inches. So 12 feet 8 inches.
And then I guess whatever the roof should be.
The total square foot that was presented to us subtract 625. But that's 25 times 25. Right. It's a 25
by 25 structure plus the extra. So whatever number he gave, Mr. Myers gave us in the beginning. 986.
Okay, 986. I missed that number. It's just a lot of encroachment in 15% slope.
Trees live and die and a tree dying doesn't disturb the slope. Taking out a dying tree doesn't disturb
the slope. Putting a new building that's almost a thousand square feet is. And I don't, people want
to do that a lot. People come to us.
fairly often because they want the building where they want the building, because it makes it a much
more appealing property. It makes it a much more useful property. But that doesn't get me over
my responsibility to not allow almost 1,000 square feet of disturbance of 15 degree and above slopes,
some of which is over 20%.
So I am not convinced that, so I find I cannot support the petition. May I ask staff, how far of that
building again encroaches on the 15% slope? I just heard Mr. Lofgren say the entire structure, is that so?
So I will go back to a page on the slideshow and it's also in the packet here on the screen. We have
some additional measurements that staff calculated utilizing the scale on the certified plan provided
by the land surveyor. On the top of the structure, which would be to the left if you're looking straight
at it, you can see that I estimate a measurement from the 15% slope line where it begins
to back towards the edge of the rear of the structure. And that measures about 17.10 feet encroaching
into the 15% slope on the north side or the left side of the structure. Looking to the south or the
right side of the structure, right where the 15% slope line begins back to the rear of the structure,
we're looking at about 27.8 feet of encroachment into the 15% slope.
Thanks. I hadn't seen that detail, and I'm incorrect to say there were 925 feet. Have you calculated
the square feet of encroachment? So I did not calculate the total square feet of encroachment, per se,
but we did calculate the square footage of the structure itself showing on the screen here, showing
about 128 square feet for each. I'll refer to them as the stairwell
sections and then 730 approximately for the structure itself, the middle. Right. And of that 986 square
feet, it looks like something maybe 80 percent is in 15 degree or greater slope. Would that be a 65
percent looks from the wave? That's actually that's that's what Eric Decker said was 65 percent.
Okay, 65% of the 900. Give or take, give or take from. Yeah, I know we're not talking. Some of that's
only 16% slope. I mean, it's not. Some of that 16% slope and some of it is 21. True. And we're looking
at, Mr. Daley, are you saying 65%, was that your estimate? About 65%.
is in 15 or greater, I would estimate a very small portion, but I'm not looking at anything you don't
have access to. I would say a smaller portion is beyond that 20. Right, and if, you know, I'm not good
at fractions, much less on the fly, but maybe something like 600 feet.
of encroachment and at least 15% slope would be my rough estimate. Do we have a, does that sound about
right? You're not the math. Six to 700, six to 700. Arithmetic in your head than I am. I'm not. I'm
interested that some of that is 16% and some of it is 21% and you're saying
The smaller percentage is the 21% from what you're seeing. Would you agree with that, dear staff?
I'm sorry, we used to repeat that. Out of the 65%, now we've decided that some of it is 16% slope and
some is 21%, but the smaller portion is the 21%. More of the slope disturbance is on the 16% end. Is
that correct?
I can't confidently give you 100% answer on that without showing actual calculations on the plan set,
but that sounds approximate. Thank you, Mr. Myers. Thank you. Mr. Brown, are you building this on a
foundation, or are you building it up on pillars like you would see when you think of a treehouse?
I'm sorry. It would be on a foundation. OK. Thank you. Any further questions? Because pillars would
be higher than your 30 feet.
Any further questions for Mr. Brown? No, thank you for helping clarify that. Thank you. Well, I do appreciate
finding out, getting, oh, here, this drawing is, thank you for making it available. We still have something
like 600 feet of encroachment in,
in protected land above a major lake in Monroe County. And I'm glad that I'm not exaggerating the problem,
but I think the problem is still substantial and I'm not prepared to support the petition.
Any other comments or? Someone expecting me to speak? I was convinced after the last presentation, and
nothing has changed my mind, that the challenge to the environment would be much greater with his other options.
Mr. Chairman, although it looks as if he can't, that he could just shift it to the left, there's challenges
with the septic, thank you, with the septic and whatnot. So there was really no option and when he was
showing, when the pictures were being shown last presentation of the trees
where they exist, the removal of the other trees would be more detrimental to the earth than to locate
it elsewhere than the plan that they had to build the foundation. So that's where I'm coming from. May
I ask another question of staff, and I know they're conferring, so maybe I would.
Mr. Lofman is quite rightly concerned about erosion and Griffey and so on, and so are these good people.
Is it standard erosion, the silt fence, all the procedures? What do we know about that? Is there a standard
protocol or is there an extraordinary protocol? Or can we
impose any conditions based on that or is it what the county requires done and done? I don't know the
answer to that. Well, I'll say that probably would not advise to require them to get a local permit
through stormwater because the state made some changes that we cannot be more strict than the state.
So because they're not going to disturb more than an acre, they're likely not going to meet the threshold
of needing a stormwater permit. However, we can just ask them to show erosion control on their plans
for building permit and improvement location permit and make sure that they meet beyond what the minimal
requirements would be in any area for steep slope, but additional requirements as
you know, recommended by stormwater staff or something. I don't know. That's that's an excellent answer.
Would you be amenable to that if if of course that were required to be on the plan as she's just recited?
Yes. That's good to know. I know that there are erosion control requirements during construction. Are
there erosion control requirements that would
that would come into play. So after construction is done and it's all built and that there would still
be additional erosion control or is that only during construction usually? I would say probably for
this scope of work, it would just be during construction. But I mean, their contractor shouldn't put
it in a way such that it would erode away after construction. That wouldn't be good for the building
foundation or the land.
I think the construction certainly should prevent, should protect the building from erosion. And everybody
would want that. But the post construction doesn't have any particular erosion control features other
than protecting the building that would be in play as I understand it. Is that right?
Right. I mean, they would have to typically on any site you want to see vegetation growth within a certain
number of days starting to come up. So we don't want it like bare soil after they're finished. They
need to final grade seed, straw, et cetera. But that would all be on the construction plans.
I would imagine. Thank you.
And I also want to know, you know, as the BZA considers cases, I know we have a very long docket for
tonight, but there is a little bit of a difference as we draft reports to the BZA when you're considering
a vacant lot for an initial use versus a lot that has a single family residence and maybe some accessory
structures already. And then they're proposing additional accessory structures. I guess I just want to
Differentiate between the idea that we always have to the onus is on the BZ air staff to always find
an alternate location whereas you could say like functionally the site is a Single-family residence.
This is not a taking to deny them an accessory structure by any means So I just want to put that out
there that I think sometimes we get stuck in this like well There's no other place to put this
It's just a denial, and it doesn't go on the site. You know what I mean? So I know that no one likes
to think about that, but that's just something I want to put out there since it's always discussed.
There may not be an alternate site, and that's not dispositive. Because if the answer for this site
is no, then the answer for this site is no. And it would make us feel better if we could say, move it
over here.
but we can't say that in this case because the Browns are convinced it wouldn't work and they've convinced
me that wouldn't work. They can't build it any other place. I'd like to ask Mr. Brown a couple of questions.
This is this is something that has come up. That that in because we have a new zoning ordinance. And
we've had many people come before us who bought the land and built and had a plan for it, which they
didn't come down and get approved, but it would have been consistent with the plan.
And then the ordinance changes and they suddenly couldn't do it. And they'd begin construction, they'd
put in a driveway or they'd, you know, they were... And we say we aren't gonna change the rules in the
middle of your game, okay? So I guess really a question to staff is, does our new development ordinance
affect whether this could be built?
We did have, so before the adoption of the county development ordinance that occurred on December 18th,
2024, the eco chapter actually had three areas. Area three contained regulation for slopes greater than
18%. So it was a little bit less restrictive. If you were in area three, you could build up through
15% all the way till you got to the 18% threshold.
I don't have the data immediately available to me to verify if this property was located in area three
or if it's always been an area two. But given its proximity from Lake Griffey, it is possible that it
was an area three. But it's hard to say because I don't have that data in front of me. So if it was
an area three, they would have had up to 18% until they hit that threshold where they need a variance.
And if it was 18%, we would be talking about a much smaller encroachment into a steeper than 18%. It
would be 10 or 15%. It'd be 150 feet, not 600. I'm just making up numbers, but something much smaller. Hmm.
Interesting. Interesting. Anybody going to make a motion? I keep going back to the fact that they could
build this in a different spot, but they would have to take out more trees. Yes. And that concerns me.
So does it also, with the alternate spot suggested, mean you'd had to move your septic or couldn't tell?
No, no, that's the whole, no, no, because remember there were two alternative spots. The one we excluded
because of that. So no, the other one would not. Right. Okay. Thank you.
And the patch they're looking at is the side of a felled tree, which I can absolutely understand the
symmetry of that as well. Do we have a motion? I'm going to move variance 26-28, the brown eco area
to 15% slow encroachment variance to chapter 823.
I should say as I make this motion, staff is completely right. A treehouse is a completely optional
choice. It need not be there. I can understand the beauty. I live on a wooded ravine myself. So I'm
mindful that it's a very optional kind of arrangement in every single way. But I'm also compelled by
what we just heard that under the former requirements, only a very small area of the structure
much smaller than we feared would have been subject to the old rules? We don't know, because Mr. Myers
doesn't know whether it would have been subject to that regime or not. I assume it's not something you
can figure out on the fly that would take some research. So if we've changed the rules,
That affects my thinking. But we don't know if we've changed the rules. There's a possibility that we've
changed the rules, but we haven't. Based on the record before me, I can't assume that we've changed
the rules. And if there's anything in the world Mr. and Mrs. Brown don't want, it's putting this off
another month to
to look into that, but it might affect my vote. I don't want to say it would affect my vote, but it
certainly might, because that makes it a much, much smaller encroachment. Does your motion still hold?
Yes, but I want to amend it just slightly to say and with very strict erosion control measures that
the petitioner has just agreed to, including vegetation at all. I want to just amend it. Still okay?
I'm going to ask our director to repeat that.
Just subject to the condition of the extraordinary erosion control measures. Our director has a wondrous
way of taking what we say and making it sound good. You're right. Give me just one second.
I found some language in the stormwater ordinance that makes me feel better about conditioning this.
So the motion is to approve
VAR-26-28, the brown eco area to 15% slope encroachment variance to Chapter 823 with the condition that
the petitioner show redundant erosion control measures on the application for an improvement location
permit to be reviewed and approved by stormwater and planning staff. Second. OK.
It's been moved and seconded with the approval and condition. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Guy Loftman?
No. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Okay. Motion is approved three to one.
Thank you. Okay.
Item number two on the agenda, VAR-26-29B has been withdrawn by the petitioners, so we'll go ahead and
move on to new business. The first three items are grouped together. That's VAR-26-31A, 31B, and 31C.
This is the Pendleton East State Road 46 front yard setback various to Chapter 805. The riparian area
setback to Chapter 823 and the buildable area special flood hazard area to Chapter 813. So permission
to speak. Yes. Before I ask, I have a couple of questions. One first is a staff assistant director is
Have all the conditions been met for this petitioner in terms of notification? Yes. Okay. Second question.
Is there anybody in the audience or online here to object to this petition? If you're here in the room,
could you raise your hand? Or if you're online, please raise your virtual hand if you object to this petition.
Seeing none and considering the recommendation for approval and the due diligence of staff, I'm going
to make a motion to call the question and eliminate the debate on variances 26-31 alpha through Charlie.
Second. Okay. The first motion on the table is for a call to question to VAR dash
26-31A, a vote yes, is a vote to call to question, and then a subsequent vote will be needed with a
motion for either approval, denial, or even continuance. And that's A, B, and C. And B and C, sorry.
Yes. Thank you. Call to question is for VAR-26-31A, B and C. A vote yes is a vote to call to question.
Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes.
Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Motion is approved four to zero. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to motion
based on the staff's recommendation and due diligence of conditions being met that variances 26-31 alpha
through Charlie be approved.
It's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-26-31A which is the front yard setback variance at Chapter
805. B, the riparian area setback to Chapter 823 and 31C which is the buildable area special flood hazard
area to Chapter 813. A vote yes is a vote to approve all three variances. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson?
Yes. And I just want to say to the petitioner, I'm very sorry that a tree destroyed your home. That
is an epidemic in our county, is it not? And I just feel bad for you. I just want to say that. Yes.
The answer is yes. Skip Daley. Yes. Guy Hoffman. Yes. OK. Motion is approved. Four to zero.
OK, moving on to item number four, which is also recommended for approval. This is VAR-26-33 Johnson
on North Shore side yard setback various to Chapter 805. Mr. Chair, may I have the floor? Yep. Mr. Myers,
can you please confirm that? Notification in accordance to the code has been sent out by the petitioner. Yes.
All right, with that being said, is there anybody in the room or online which is here to contest this
petition, variance 26-33? Please make yourself known. Okay, we do have one person online who wishes
to speak against this petition, so let's go ahead to Mr. Myers then to run through the full presentation.
This is VAR-26-33, the Johnson on North Shore Side Yard Setback Variance, Chapter 805. It's a one acre
parcel in Benton North Township. It's in Section 35. It's located at 9550 East North Shore Drive. The
property is requesting a side yard setback from Chapter 805. This setback
variance is required in order to construct an eight foot privacy fence stretching 285 feet. The fence
will be constructed along the south property line, which is shared with the Lake Lemon Marina. Fences
over six feet in height typically require a improvement location permit from the planning department
and a permit from the building department as well. The petition site is zoned residential one and is
listed as lot three A of the North Shore subdivision amendment two.
The requirement for a side yard setback in this plat and this zoning district is 15 feet. According
to the county development ordinance, property owners may utilize either the setbacks on a plat
and subdivision or the setbacks provided by the zoning district. Because the fence requires an ILP,
the structure must abide by the property setbacks and buildable area. On the screen you can see figure
one that shows the elevation difference between the
existing residents on the petition site, which is on the north side of the white line surrounded by
the yellow lines for the approximate property line and the Lake Lemon Marina activity on the south side
where you can see the boats being stored and other things related to the marinas activity.
According to the petitioner, the fence needs to be taller than six feet in order to adequately provide
separation from the commercial activity of the neighboring marina. Additionally, the existing residence
on the petition site sits at an elevation of approximately 658 feet, while structures and boat storage
on the marina property sit at an elevation of 652 feet and less. There is an existing chain leak fence
that staff believes is owned by the Lake Lemon Marina that is on the
same property line but on the marina side that according to the petitioner provides no real screening
and privacy between the two uses. On the screen now we have table two from chapter 805 that shows the
side yard setback from the residential zone.
So that's shown as 10 feet. But then again, on the plat itself, it shows as 15 feet. So the petitioner
can use utilize either one, but their setback is required nonetheless because the request is to place
the eight foot privacy fence right on the property line on the petition site side. Here we have a couple
of regulations from this county development ordinance. This is where we pull information
with respect to fences and the threshold of six feet. We can come back to that if we need to. It's also
in the packet. Now on the screen we have the location map as well as the zoning map. And then now on
the screen we have the comprehensive plan map as well as the site conditions map. Photographs.
A few street view images here showing the existing driveway that provides access to the property as
well as the you can see the marina and the chain link fence off to the south or left in the photographs
here. Now on the screen you see an aerial pictometry showing the distance between the marina's activity
as well as the single family residence and you can see the chain link fence there as well.
This is an image taken from the Marina property, looking back towards the existing residence on the
petition site. You can see the chain link fence there in the background a little bit. And then now on
the screen you can see most recent staff visit photographs showing the chain link fence. You can see
the property marker stakes there as well with the pink flags that show along the property line.
and you can kind of see the elevation difference with respect to these photographs as well between the
petition site being the residential use and the marina to the south. Now on the screen we have the letter
from the petitioner stating the request. This is also included in the packet. And now on the screen
we have the site conditions, or excuse me, the proposed or conceptual site plan that shows the length
and location of the proposed eight-foot privacy fence. All right, that brings me to staff's recommendations.
Staff recommends approval of VAR-26-33, seeing that practical difficulties have been met. Neither a
six-foot privacy fence at the property line nor an eight-foot fence that meets the side yard setback
requirement will provide the same level of privacy as an eight-foot fence at the property line.
The eight foot fence at the property line provides separation from commercial activity of the neighboring
Marina, and the additional two feet in height of the fence is required due to the change in elevation
between the two properties. Practical difficulties have been met in that the same fence, if two feet
shorter, would meet the code requirements. Increasing the fence height to eight feet does not contradict
other CDO requirements, except that it requires a permit and it must meet setbacks. I don't know if
I'll take any questions.
Go ahead and turn to the petitioner. Thank you, Mr. Myers. Is there a petitioner here in the room who
wishes to speak or if you're online? Mr. Rieck, I see your hand raised. You were speaking in opposition,
I believe. That is not the petitioner, correct? The petitioner is Chris Johnson. Okay. Is he online?
He is online, but I don't see a hand raised. And there's also two of them.
Okay. Mr. Johnson, if you wish to speak, please raise your virtual hand and we'll have tech services
make you a presenter. Okay, there we go. Tech services, if you could allow Chris Johnson to speak. Drew,
are you able to promote Chris or do we need tech services to do that?
Yes, I believe he is now able to unmute. Okay, Mr. Johnson, you should be able to unmute and you'll
have 15 minutes to present your case to us. Oh, I'm sorry, I need to swear you in first. If you could
raise your right hand and state your name, please. It's like you're still muted.
Yeah, there's an echo, but I think that's here in the room. So Mr. Johnson, if you could raise your
right hand and state your name. Okay, do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? We have
four members and is now exiting. Mr. Johnson, do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Okay, you'll have 15 minutes to present your case to us. Well, yeah, we're basically trying to
put a privacy fence in from all the debris that is on the Marina side. The reason we did that is just
for privacy. It dips down on that side. So that's why I went with the eight foot fence. Because if you
see from the paperwork that Mr. Myers showed, I think it's probably about a four foot drop from there.
to where Mr. Reek's house is. So I think there's gonna be like a four foot difference. And it makes
a, I'd gone out there and put up some paneling to see the difference between a six and an eight foot
privacy fence. And it made a significant difference. That's why we went through the process to move
forward with the eight foot fence. I mean, that's, I don't know if there's additional information that
would be helpful to make Mr. Reek
We're willing to work with them and show him, because he's the neighbor that bought the property adjacent
to this unit. And we'd be happy to show him what it would look like. I assume he's probably worried
about the view. But after we put the panels up and looked, it didn't block the view, it just blocked
all the items going on at the marina.
Okay, thank you, Mr. Johnson. We will turn to public comment now, and if anybody speaks against this
petition, you'll have five minutes to come back and offer a rebuttal if you choose to do so. All right,
thank you. Thank you. Do we have anybody here in the room who wishes to speak in favor of this petition?
Anyone online who wishes to speak in favor of this petition, please raise your virtual hand. Anyone
here in the room who wishes to speak against this petition, please come to the podium.
online who wishes to speak against this petition, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, tech services,
if you could promote Mr. Rick to presenter. Hey, Mr. Rick, if you could unmute now, I will swear you
in. Okay, there we go. Good evening, everyone. Can you hear me? Yeah, can you raise your right hand
and state your name? I can. Eric Greek.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, you'll have three
minutes to talk to us. Yeah, I think the challenge here or the issue from my perspective is just the
impact to the sideline, right? So as the neighbor to the north, the value of the property is dominated
by the view of the lake. By their own admission, right? A six to an eight foot fence creates
some substantially addition
additional privacy, or at least some screening to the activities in the marina, but it also substantially
impacts my view. And just the differential two feet, the impact to me versus the benefit to the neighbor
in terms of shielding, I guess is not not square in with me in terms of the impact and what a person
is able to actually not see when the view of lots of the marina from
The property there that's in front of me doing the shielding is you can see over a six foot fence or
see over an eight foot fence when you're on the deck and enjoying the lake, the view of the lake. So
that's my fundamental objection is just the impact to the sight line, that incremental two feet, the
fence that you're looking at there is about five feet. So we're talking about three feet over the top of that.
And does that substantially materially impact any privacy gain over impact to my view and property
diminishment for which I bought the property just this spring? So my analogy is essentially going on
a cruise and buying a balcony view, but only getting a porthole view, right? As folks started to try
and erect things to impact the view, right?
quite a benefit for me to be able to see the activity in the marina. I feel like I have a marina environment,
be able to see the activity at the pump in the lighthouse, as well as be able to see the slip activity
for which I'll have a boat in, and also be able to see people come and go, they may be trying to connect
with. So that's my view in opposition to the variance as requested.
Thank you, Mr. Reek. Mr. Johnson, since there was... Can I ask Mr. Reek a question first? May I? Mr.
Reek, are you still there? I am. May I ask this question? We heard Mr. Johnson right before you say
that he would be happy to hold up panels of the eight feet to see how that does impact your view. Are
you open to that experiment?
Or has he suggested that to you? No, not to me. I wonder if that might then you would know for sure
how that impacts you because there is a slope down where that fence is. So I can see the commercial
activity in a very significant way. I just wondered if that would ameliorate your concern and maybe
continue this if
That's a way to have neighbors who are going to live next to each other decide if it really is an issue,
if what they feared is true. Mr. Johnson, you'll have five minutes if you choose to offer a rebuttal
to Mr. Reek. Feel free to unmute.
Mr. Johnson, did you wish to offer a rebuttal? Okay, it looks like you're unmuted now. You'll have five
minutes. Thank you. Yeah, I guess I'm going back to what the lady just spoke of is that there's a four
foot difference. So it's really not an eight foot fence. A blockage is gonna be a four foot from his
vantage point. And I am willing to work with him to take a look at it.
And that was a concern of ours when we did it, but we felt that it wouldn't block the view of the lake
for him to see anything. And just because of all the items that are against the fence and just the noise,
it would definitely give some privacy for the owners of this house. So that's what we're looking for.
And I'm happy, like I said, to have a conversation. And like I have four panels I could bring out there,
I can show them the fence that it's going to be a really nice custom fence that's going to be installed
and just give that privacy that lake owners covet.
Mr. Johnson, would you be open to the idea of continuing this petition to next month so you could have
a conversation with Mr. Rieck and try to work something out before then? The problem with that is we
haven't scheduled to put the fence in. I guess my other question is if we did this six-foot fence and
we pushed it back off of the land where it should be, I mean, I guess we would push it up against the
fence to drop it down
So if we pushed it back, it would still be two foot up in the air and it would be a six foot fence which
would have the same blockage for him. Is that correct? Are you following me? Based on the maps that
Mr. Myers showed, it goes from, right. And I don't know if he can kind of talk about that. Right, I
think that was a question for staff and the question was a six foot fence
would be permitted, correct? That's right. A six foot fence at the property line would not require a
variance. A six foot fence up the slope away from the property line would also not require a variance
because a six foot fence does not require a permit. So you can place it anywhere on your property. Okay.
And if I may, Mr. Chair. Yeah. I believe the point of what
the petitioner is saying is the view while he would like to work something out, it's within his legal
right already to essentially have that view blocked by having the legal sized fence or the permitted
sized fence rather at a higher elevation up that slope. So it's almost a moot
point. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I'm going to close public comment and bring this back to the BZA
for discussion. I appreciate it. I think I'm in agreement that if you could do it, if you don't need
a permit to block the view the same way, moving it down to the property line doesn't affect Mr. Reek.
Do we have a picture that shows, I don't know where Mr. Reek's property is. I think you had one that
showed the neighbors a little farther out than this one.
So on the screen now we have aerial pictometry of the two properties in question, along with the marina
to the south. So immediately to the north of the marina, just north of the chain link fence, which is
where my cursor is, is the petition site. Mr. Johnson is the representative for that. And then to the
north of that is Mr. Rieck's property. I can also show you
a different map as well that shows both properties. That's sufficient. That's what I wanted to understand.
This is a deception of my vision, but is Mr. Rieck's property sitting higher than Mr. Johnson's property?
It looks like from that photo. Is that true? According to the
contour data that's now shown on the screen. It looks like the south edge of Mr. Rieck's residence sits
at 662 elevation and on the looks like the south side of the property that Mr. Johnson is representing
is at about 658. That's
you know, with the caveat that these contour lines are exactly accurate after the construction of these
residences and such. It's amazing technology, Mr. Myers. Any other comments from members of the BCA?
Well, I think I'm redundant with perhaps with Mr. Daley, but if you could build a fence 10 feet off
your property line,
creates a terrible maintenance problem for that stretch in between, but they could do it. If they could
do that, it would mean there's no difference for Mr. Reek if he does something he doesn't need a permit
for or if he does this. This is a much more practical solution for Mr. Johnson that I don't see has any
actual impact on Mr. Reek's property. So I'm comfortable with approving that petition. I move to approve
variance 2633 Johnson
on North Shore side yard setback variance to Chapter 805 9550 East North Shore Drive. I second it. OK,
it's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-26-33, which is the Johnson on North Shore side yard setback
variance to Chapter 805. A vote yes.
is a vote to approve the side yard setback petition for an eight foot fence along the property line.
Pamela Davidson. Yes. Skip Daley. My vote is yes, but I hope that the petitioner will engage with further
communication with the individual that that has some challenges. Right here here. Guy Lofman. Yes.
Jeff Morris? Yes. Motion is approved four to zero. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. We will move on now to items
number five and six on the agenda. That's VAR-26-34A and B. This is the Pritchard front yard setback
variance to Chapter 805 and the Pritchard minimum lot size variance to Chapter 805. So it looks like
there is one of these that has a recommendation for denial. So we'll go ahead, Mr. Brown, with your
presentation. Thank you.
The purpose of this is to build a 25 by 26 residential carport on the property. The subject property
has frontage along South Harmony Road which is considered a major collector road according
to the thoroughfare plan. Chapter 805 states that the front yard setback for a major collector road
shall be 35 feet from the edge of road pavement as right of way has not been dedicated on this property.
So the residential carport is proposed to be placed
27 feet back from the edge of pavement, thus has an encroachment of eight feet into the front yard setback.
Furthermore, the property is zoned residential one, which has a minimum lot size of one acre, which
this property does not meet. Now chapter 805 does state that if all other development standards are
met, including setbacks, then a rezoned lot can be under that one acre minimum lot size. However, due
to the aforementioned front yard setback,
this condition is not required and thus this variance is required. So here is a image that was created
showing the setback as well as showing a proposed redesign of the carport that might result in it not
encroaching into the front yard setback in question. Here is the location and zoning map of the property.
as well as the comprehensive plan map and site conditions map. And the images shown here show the lot
itself as well as the area of the proposed carport where the covered boat and RV are located. And this
image shows its distance back from the road in question. And here is the proposed
And here is the site plan that the petitioner has stated. You'll note that it says the distance to the
road center is 37 feet. However, due to the right of way not being dedicated, we do measure back from
the edge of pavement for setbacks rather than from the center line. As well as images of the carport
itself. And so staff recommends denial of the front yard setback
As practical difficulties have not been demonstrated, the petitioner could simply relocate or redesign
the proposed structure to meet the required front setback. However, we do recommend approval of the
minimum lot size variance as practical difficulties have been demonstrated. The subject property just
cannot be enlarged without undergoing an administrative type E subdivision with a neighboring property
to undergo a lot line shift. And I will take any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Brown. Let's go ahead and turn to the petitioner then, since there aren't any questions.
Do we have a petitioner here in the room who wishes to speak? Okay, I see Mr. Pritchard online. Can
we make Mr. Pritchard a presenter? Okay, Mr. Pritchard, you should be able to unmute your microphone.
There you go. So if you could state your name and raise your right hand, I'll swear you in.
Brad Pritchard. Okay. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do.
Okay. Present your case to us. Okay. Uh, the first comment I have is, um, if you could go back to where
you showed the property lines, not my drawings, but your drawings. Uh, so the property line shown there
is incorrect. Um,
property line and is off by about 15 feet. See the small shed there? That's actually about 10 feet inside
my neighbor's yard. My property line starts about the tree and extends straight back. So the proposed
relocation that you showed does not work because then that encroaches on my offset from my neighbor's property.
Beyond that, this is a structure. If it was needed, it could easily be removed since it's a simple carport.
And already I'm parking vehicles there all the time. Those reside there consistently, except for when
we're out using them. So all I'm really proposing is to put a cover over them.
Okay, thank you, Mr. Pritchard. Any questions from members of the BZA for Mr. Pritchard? I have a question
for staff. As I look at that picture from the side where you can, right, that one, it is very close
to the road. Safety concerns? Are there accidents in that area? Is there a lot of traffic? Because it
looks, from the long shot, pretty close to the roadside.
which is the reason for the setback variance. That one right there looks very close. Do we ever find
out about things like that, traffic safety? We do have a traffic report. I can check and just see if
there's any instances of wrecks on this road. I just wondered. Okay, I'll look.
Thank you. If I could speak up to that. I've lived here since 1989 and I've never had a vehicle in my
front yard. We've had several across the road where people run over my mailbox, but never one that encroached
in my property. I think I'm happy for you. Any other questions for Mr. Pritchard?
Let's close public comment then. I'm sorry, let's open public comment and see if there's anybody here
in the room who wishes to speak in favor of this petition. If so, please come to the podium. Anyone
online who wishes to speak in favor? Heidi Owens, how are you? Former member of the BZA.
I'm good, thank you. I'm good. Yes, I have a comment in favor. Okay, could you raise your right hand
and state whether you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? I do. Okay,
thank you, Dee. You'll have three minutes. All right. I live out farther past this property on Harmony,
so I drive, I drive past it a lot. And I stopped in and I looked around because
It seems to me to be a very reasonable request to put a carport over those two vehicles, which are always
there, as we have said. This particular picture looks a bunch more, really, when you're standing on
the property, it is not all that, it doesn't feel all that close. I think that a carport there is quite
appropriate. Having heard then the commentary about in the back,
having this shed already is encroaching upon the neighbors property. It sounds to me like there isn't
really anywhere else to go. And if you look at it, at that front hip strip from the property, there
really isn't anywhere else to go. It is under an acre. So I would not have any problems with them putting
a carport there as they propose being a neighbor. Okay. Thank you, Dee. Thank you for joining and sharing
your opinion. Thank you, Dee.
Do we have anybody here in the room who is against this petition? If so, please come to the podium.
Seeing no one, if there's anyone online who wishes to speak against, please raise your virtual hand.
Okay, let's close public comment and come back to the BZA for questions or to Ms. Minister Joe and if
you have an answer to the accident question. I mean, I would definitely trust the petitioner's statement. Yes.
Crash report is only by total roadway. So I do have just like an average crash rating for the prior
year. So this is a crash summary or traffic crash summary from 2022 to 2024. So the average for those
years is four. And that's along the entire stretch of harmony. So there's not too many.
And I found the call-in supporter's testimony supportive of what we heard from the petitioner as well.
Any comments? Comments? Yeah. The carport, two questions. One, the carport, there's a garage. Can we
have that one picture we've looked at several times? Yeah, that picture. Is that a garage?
that's next to the RV. Yes, that is a garage that is currently next to the RV. So this is for a carport
in addition to a garage. And would they be connected to each other or they'd be completely separate?
According to the petitioner site plan, they will be separate. But I think maybe the petitioner themselves
can speak to that. Is Mr. Pritchard still online?
Mr. Pritchard, you should be able to unmute now. Yeah, they will be separate, but they will be setting
fairly close together. I was trying to get as far off the road as possible. Do you know what you can
you give me about a foot apart or three feet apart? I was going for a foot. Thank you. And the and the
second question is,
Can a park carport be enclosed? Would this be an enclosed building or would this be open walls? The
side facing the road and the side facing my neighbor to the north would be enclosed. The front side
would be open and the side facing the garage would be open. Got it. Makes sense. Um, well, the,
And back to the picture of the garage with the vehicles, if we could. It seems to me, my taste is having
those big boat and the big camper right out there in the road isn't any less of a visual problem than
having a carport, which is probably nicer, nicer to look at.
And the encroachment is not gonna be substantially altered because they're already, you know, if the
car's gonna go off the road and hit the carport, it's gonna hit the boat. So I don't see that this is
a problem. I'm prepared to support it.
With that said, I'm going to move, we approve variance 26-34A, Pritchard front yard setback variance
to chapter 805 and also variance 26-34B, the Pritchard minima blot size variance to chapter 805. Second.
Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve BAR-2.
26-34A and 34B, which is the front yard setback and middle and lot size variance. A vote yes is a vote
to approve both. Kip Daly? Yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Okay. Motion
is approved. Four to zero. There we go.
Thank you, Mr. Pritchard. Moving on to item seven, eight, nine, 10, and 11. This is VAR-26-35A, 35B,
35C, 35D, and 35E, all titled U-Haul Total Sign Allocation Variance to Chapter 817. Mr. Chair? Yes.
May I have the floor? Real quick question, Mr. Baya.
Did the petitioner go ahead and take care of all of the requirements in terms of notification? He did.
OK, great. Is there anybody in the room or online that wishes to contest this petition? Please make
yourself known in person by we'll say do a jumping jack. And we'll say online by waving your virtual hand. OK.
Thank you. You don't have to do jumping jack, it was a joke. Okay, since we have someone against it,
Mr. Devalle, let's go ahead with the presentation. Okay. So this is petition VR 2635A through E. The
purpose of the petition is to permit signage on the petition site that exceeds the maximum permitted
on a legal lot of record that's 600 square feet and for individual variances to permit
individual signs that exceed the total signage area permitted for individual signs and that's 285 square
feet on the site. So the petitioner submitted a sign permit application that was ISO or ISO 26-16 and
in the review of the application staff determined that the proposed signage for this business would
require multiple variances and instructed the petitioners to submit the variances for this petition.
The site is the location of a U-Haul storage moving business that is currently under construction. The
petitioner is proposing placing nine signs at the site for the business. The site had previously undergone
a rezone to allow the use and a site plan approval to allow for commercial building permits to be issued.
The petition site used to be made up of two legal lots of record, but due to the size of the operation,
the lots were combined for planning and zoning purposes. So if they still had,
The two lots, they would be permitted 1,200 total square feet, but because they combined the lots, they
are only permitted 600 total square feet of signage area. Additionally, the petitioner is proposing
wall signs and the buildings are set back from the road, so the view of the signage from the roads does
appear smaller than the signs themselves. Now, this is a quote taken from Chapter 817 pertaining to signage.
And I'm going to read this directly. Now, withstanding other provisions of these regulations, no premises
within any business or industrial zone may be restricted to less than 75 square feet of sign area, nor
shall any premises be permitted to display more than 600 square feet of sign area per zoning legal lot
of record, except as provided under the relocation of a pole sign under Chapter 817 to 7F. No individual
sign shall be
than 285 square feet except as provided under the relocation of a pole sign under Chapter 817.7f. One
ground sign with a maximum permitted sign surface area of 60 square feet shall be permitted for each
street frontage subject to the total allocation. So this is outlining the variances that the petitioner
is requesting. As you can see, the 600 square feet per lot of record and the 285 square feet for the
individual signs.
Purpose from the sign chapter and the warnings for the sign size limitation is to encourage sign types
that preserve the county's rural character, including buildings, signs, monument signs, and wall signs.
So, C, states, maintaining and enhancing the aesthetic environment and the county's ability to attract
tourism and other sources of economic development and growth. And D, states, improving pedestrian and
traffic movement and safety.
ergo maintaining appropriate site distances at intersections and reducing distractions. So the signs
do meet the purpose statements of maintaining an aesthetic environment by being wall-mounted signs that
are sized appropriately to scale the site and vantage points from the roadway for the safety of motorists
and pedestrians. So the foremost variance request is to allow for the total signage area on the site
to exceed the total onsite signage permitted, for one leave a lot of record
that I quoted earlier, as the petitioners requesting total signage area of around 3,420 square feet,
denial of this variance, the first variance, that's VR2635A, could impact the subsequent variance request
for individual signage as a denial will limit the total signage permitted on the lot to 600 square feet.
This 600 square feet would also apply to other signage that did not trigger the variance request for
individual signs as they were smaller than the 285 square feet individual sign allocation. Since a single
sign can exceed this total, the BZA's decision for this request may vastly affect what signs the petitioner
would have to prioritize. If all variances are denied, the petitioner will have to reduce the total
signage area
for the site as well as the signage area for the individual signs on the site to be compliant with the
county development ordinance. It talks a little bit about the infrastructure in the area. So the subject
property is located at the corner of West Pro Fall Parkway and North Sunrise Grading Court with a roundabout
intersecting the two roads, which are local roads according to the Monroe County Therefore Plan.
Most of the property is adjacent to the subject property. Arizona Heavy Industrial argues for industrial
or commercial purposes. Motorists approaching the property southbound from North Sunrise Greetings Court
will be traveling along an overpass with the subject property located immediately to the right, which
with smaller signage may make visibility of the business a little bit more difficult. Motorists traveling
north from North Gates Drive to where the roundabout may also have difficulty seeing signage given the
distance from the site to the roundabout.
And now I will present the individual signs themselves from the staff report. So this is the first individual
sign and where it's proposed.
It'll be affixed to the south of the one story 17,000 square foot building that faces West Profile Parkway.
It measures 624 square feet, which is exceeding the total limit for individual signs by 339 square feet.
And you can see this arrow is pointing exactly where it is located on this structure. This is what the
sign looks like. And this is the view from the right of way in the rendering that the petitioner uploaded.
This is the second sign, this is VAR 2635C. It's to the side of the building that faces North Sunrise
Greetings Court. It's the same sign as the first one and it is located adjacent to the first sign on
the same structure. This is the location of the third sign. It is located on the building
that is on the west side of the lot. The building itself is 40,000 square feet and the sign measures
1,417 square feet and it exceeds the maximum by 1,132 square feet. There's an arrow showing where the
sign is and that is where the sign is located in the rendering and that is what the sign looks like.
And this is the last sign or sorry, this is the measurements for that sign calculated by staff. Staff
calculated the measurement for all signs that did not already have the square footage included. And
this is the last sign here, and it's on the same building as this sign. And all these signs are either
affixed to the building or incorporated into the building. So these signs will not be pole signs, they
will not be freestanding signs. So that is also consistent with what the Monroe County Comprehensive
Plan recommends for signage. Now I'll go into the exhibits. Location map. This is the zoning map showing
that the property zone, general business, as you see all the properties located in the vicinity are either
heavy industrial or their zone plan unit development. These two are, or these properties are in the
PUD. Comprehensive plan map. And these are site photos that I took on the 29th. This is from the sidewalk,
the right away there showing the building that's almost finished with construction showing where the
sign will be located.
or where they're proposing locating those signs. Another picture. The structure hasn't been built yet,
but that is the location of the other two signs where they'll be located. This is the view from the
right-of-way showing the, well, showing West Profile Parkway. I think, I believe this is westbound.
This is a view of the property from the, close to the roundabout. As you can see, it's a considerable
distance from the roundabout, or from the right of way to the sign, or to the structure, so it's a little
difficult to see signage from the right of way there. This is the nearest, the overpass showing the
two structures, well the one structure and the structure currently being constructed from the, from
North Sunrise Green's Court.
Additional photo there. An additional photo showing the structure being constructed that has not yet
been constructed yet. And this is a picture of the site from the walkway nearest to the roundabout.
This is the plot. Petitioner's letter. This is the site permit map.
showing those renderings that I had shown earlier. And this is the comprehensive plan mixed use designation.
As you see where it outlines private signs, it states signs should be sized and designed to effectively
communicate to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic without becoming a visual distraction. Wall-mounted
and monument signs are appropriate, pole signs and rooftop billboards should be prohibited.
This is the petitioners preliminary site plan. This is the completed site plan. And I will now go back
to the. And this is staff's recommendation. Staff recommends approval.
with two conditions. The petitioner is limited to a total sign area of 3,420 square feet. Any additional
signage will require the petitioner to seek additional variances. That's the first condition. And the
second condition is the variances apply only to the site plan as presented to the BZA. Any change in
sign type from what is on the site plan, such as from a wall sign to a pole sign, will first require
a BZA approval. Thank you, Mr. DeValle. Yeah, Mr. DeValle.
To understand this better, this construction is south of the new bridge that was built? Yes, so it's
like the overpass is directly to the west of that bridge. So this is on the poles side of the new bridge, right?
Correct, yeah. Thank you. Okay. Okay, let's go ahead and turn now to the petitioner if you'd like to
come forward. If there's anything you'd like to say. The shirts gave you away a little bit. Okay.
Okay, thanks. Okay, if you could go ahead and sign in. If you're both gonna speak, if you could both
sign in. Copy the public on that table, thank you. If you could both state your names individually and
then raise your right hands. Bethany Mosher. And Jonathan Kirschner.
Okay, do you both swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Okay, you'll have
a combined 15 minutes to share your presentation with us. We just wanted to introduce ourselves. We're
U-Haul Company of South Central Indiana. I'm Bethany Moser, the marketing company president. It's my
owner's rep for this project. You know, when U-Haul is one of the first businesses that any resident
coming into the community is going to encounter. So we try to make it as clean as inviting and
as noticeable, easy to get to as possible. Essentially, we are the gateway into the community because
we're one of the first businesses that they interact with. So for that, the signage is going to help
us to give clear direction to our customers, be able to easily find us and help them transition into
the community. So that's why we're asking for these variances. A couple of things about the signage.
I know when you see on the one
building that's already constructed. You have the brown, what's that called? It's more of an architectural
feature and I believe the square footage in those is actually including that architectural feature.
It's just a coloring background. If you actually take just the sign, the U box, what's going to be on
it, the square footage is actually much smaller.
But when you take those architectural features, same with that, the one that says your storage place
with the waves, the gray background is also just an architectural feature color. It's actually not part
of this sign. So the square footage of that would be much less as well if we weren't taking that background
or back feature. So if that makes sense.
square footage of the actual signage is a lot less than than that. Want to add anything? I don't know.
Thanks for your time. OK, thank you. Do any members of the board have questions for the petitioners?
Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes, please feel free to ask some questions. This is my first meeting. I
apologize. No problem. I'm doing fine. When I first saw this,
U-Haul means you're getting a trailer or you're getting a truck. This is not where people get trailers
or trucks. This is where people store their stuff. Is that right? It's both. We have our truck and trailer
sharing as well as a storage for the area. There's quite a demand for a climate controlled inside storage.
So it is both. OK. And so if I want to get a
You haul trailer and put it in my car. This is the place I might come. Okay. So just for context.
There's going to be a lot of traffic in and out of here. That's what you want. Yes, it could potentially,
yes. A lot of traffic. People are going to be bringing their stuff in sometimes in a U-Haul trailer,
sometimes in the back of their van and sticking it in the units and renting. And OK, I was having a
little trouble making sure I understood the nature of the business. And I've got it now. Thank you.
Any other questions for the petitioners?
Thank you. That site is a fairly industrial site. It's not really residential. Am I correct about that?
Yes, many other businesses. Large, the cat business is right there, the Caterpillar. Bloomington Transit
just bought a lot just on the other side during that. You're now testifying and I don't think you've
identified yourself or signed in. Yeah, he did.
He signed in, but if you could move to the microphone. I was just saying that pardon me, that Bloomington
Transit actually bought just that lot down just the west direction that Mr. Tobias showed on the picture.
All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. If anyone speaks against the petition, you'll have five minutes
to come back up and speak to their comments. OK, let's open public comment now. If there's anyone here
in the room who wishes to speak in favor
Sorry, false start. Anyone online who wishes to speak in favor of this petition, please raise your virtual
hand. Okay, now you can come forward. If anybody wishes to speak against this petition, please go ahead
and come to the podium. If you could sign in, raise your right hand and state your name. Cheryl Langdon.
Okay, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay, you'll
have three minutes. All right, so you guys are all wrong. Everyone's wrong.
about talking about it being industrial and commercial. And oh, there's no one here that lives nearby.
It's residential as well. So Sunrise Greetings is right behind my house. I'm not happy about that being
open. Number one. But I didn't get a notification. I didn't live there when I had my opportunity to
say no. I live on Logan Road. So the strip of residential there is
It's rural, it's county, it's Richland. It is not the blue from the annexation. Then you have the trailer
courts, the trailer parks, residential that is right across from there, the railroad tracks. We've got
north and we've got east spaces where people live. I live. I live right behind commercial services.
I literally can throw a rock, I wouldn't do it, at one of the businesses, L&W, that has the drywall.
I get woke up a lot whenever they're running their forklift. Yeah, it's a lot of fun. Shakes my house
sometimes. And they're very nice whenever I let them know that they've broken a noise ordinance or whatever,
because they do. That's a whole other subject. Sunrise greetings.
doesn't have a really big light pollution issue because those businesses, those commercial businesses,
they do have small signs. They do keep their light pollution down a little bit, because I make sure
of that, because we live there. We have to go to sleep there. We have to raise families there. We do
everything there. And these people that have these businesses,
you come in and you buy that space that's next to the roundabout, you're perfectly aware and know what
the topography is, who is there, and it's not industrial. And I'm not happy about Bloomington Transit
buying the other property either. The noise pollution has already started since the opening of
and bringing in the overpass, the bridge, and all that. The noise pollution's already ratcheted up.
Accidents have already happened on Vernal and Sunrise. And then that's sirens. And then air pollution,
more traffic. I mean, it has become so invasive and urbanized. And we live still, we are considered
in the county. We're still considered living in a rural space where we are.
and we're right next to commercial buildings. And if those businesses that have existed for the past
20 years, some less than that, right behind my house, if they can manage to not be intrusive to all
the people that live there, have to sleep there, wake up there,
I think that someone who knows that they just bought two sections of property on profile parkway and
sunrise greetings knows exactly what they're doing, what they were starting, what location they were
picking out, all the different things they were gonna do, design aesthetics for the building and all
that. You can't sit there and tell me that you did all this stuff. And it was like, well, we weren't
being considerate
It was business. You knew what you were doing. You wanted to make sure that you were doing business
and making money, but you didn't care. And I'm sorry to cut you about anyone that lives there. Sorry
to cut you off, but you're three minutes. Sorry. But thank you. I could talk about this all day. Sorry.
No problem. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in the room who wishes to speak against this petition?
Anyone online who wishes to speak against this petition, please raise your virtual hand.
Okay, seeing no one, I will close public comment and come back to the board for discussion. Mr. Chair?
Yeah. Can I request the petitioner to come back real quick? Yeah, actually, the petitioner gets five
minutes in rebuttal if there's anything he'd like to speak to. Let me ask a quick question, if I may,
first. Sure. You're, unless if I'm misunderstanding something here, your signs, and these are questions,
Your signs are not elevated, correct? Yes, I don't. They're they're on the building, but they're not
above the buildings. And are your signs illuminated? They're not the ones on the one. There's one illuminated
is that or three, but it's on. It's not facing any of the. That's the small one I'm looking at here
is illuminated. I'm which one? The one on the front right here, just showing these ones.
This one right here. We take we take residential, you know, challenges, objections seriously. We want
I just want to better understand what you're doing here versus you. You may. You can't speak because
the microphone. Here, could you speak? Yeah, the two above our center are going to be illuminated. They're
45 square feet each.
And then the one on sunrise grading court. They're internally illuminated, following the standard. These
guys here. And lastly, forgive me. And what are your hours of operation? Seven to seven. And then nine
to five. Would your, and you can head back, thank you.
Do you plan to leave your signs illuminated after your hours of operation? Only for a portion of hours,
but then they go off usually about an hour after we close. And that's allowing time for workers to close
up and leave. And then about an hour before we open. So about by eight o'clock at night, your sign should
be off right after sunset. And they come on right about right before sunset. And then we put them back
on. But it's usually we
They cut off, yes, during the night. I apologize. So there's nothing obstructing any view and the lights
will be consistent with the sunlight. Right. OK. Thank you. And what what street? I couldn't tell the
first two that were illuminated. What street do those face on towards the residential or towards the
business street side? They're on profile parkway on profile parkway. It'll view right on the
The bridge. Yeah. Yeah. OK. So they're not illuminated towards the residential areas. I apologize. Logan
Street, if that's where the modular home park is across that, we don't have any illuminated that way.
It's facing. So on the screen, it's northeast of the site across sunrise greetings. It's over. OK. On
the other side of the bridge. Correct. OK.
I believe ours is going to be almost blocked by the bridge. But once again, it will go off after certain
hours. We don't cause any kind of noise other than just normal people talking. I mean, you might get
a horn honk if someone's backing up and they honk the horn. And we do take the safety and the residents
As soon as I purchased that property, as soon as the lawn got extremely, I brought someone in to maintain
it, to take care of it. We had a homeless encampment there that we had to make it not want them. We
didn't remove them ourselves, but they left when we started just maintaining and all that. And so we
made sure to ensure that it was safe.
for the people, even residential and everything, because we don't want blight. We don't want anything,
and we're determined to help grow the community and beautify it. Would the hours where people can come
in and out of the storage be limited? No more hours are from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m., so it is limited.
That would be fairly brightly lit. That area would be fairly brightly lit. The entrances are. But in
the storage areas, is that not got? That's inside. Oh, inside storage? We have very few drive up, but
those have right on the building and they don't illuminate outward. So there's a lot of doors.
There are. I see. And those doors, but you don't have a lot of parking lot lighted
lighting in there? I believe we're only allowed so many pole lights and those would be on a timer. Could
you make those so that they illuminate down and minimize? That's what we do. We actually do to illuminate
down because we're not trying to illuminate the whole neighborhood. I don't know that.
any lights or anything else is before us other than just the signage specifically? But illumination
is a concern. But that's not before us. Well, in considering additional illumination, the existing
illumination is important to me.
I'm glad to hear you've taken all that to consideration, because it costs you money to light unnecessarily,
and we like dark skies here, so I'm glad to hear that you've taken that in. They're timers, and they
won't be running all the time, and you're no noise level. All right. Thank you for commenting on all
that. And I have a staff question that's going to be related to you, too. Okay.
What are the conditions? Do you recommend approval with conditions? And would you run through the conditions?
Yeah, so there are two conditions. The first condition is to limit the total sign area to 3,420 square
feet, and any additional signage that they request will need to seek additional variances. And the second
condition basically states that what is presented is what they will be
installing on the site and anything that differs from that will need approval from the board. Very good,
thank you. And we can meet those conditions, so yes. Those are acceptable. Thank you. Okay, thank you.
I will say just as a note, we do review lighting as part of the site plan review process, and if they
didn't meet the lighting standard, it would be a variance. So they are meeting the ordinance for that.
Okay, thank you, Jackie.
We will come back now to the Board of Zoning Appeals for conversation and or a motion. I just want to
make a comment to the respondee who is very concerned about the commercial activity in the neighborhood.
This matter before us is really about the signs on the building. That's zoning, planning, other issues
that are beyond our purview, not what we're looking at. I understand frustrating.
I am familiar with this area, I know about this. So I just want to say that our focus is very, very
limited in scope. The signs on the building, I also know from that area, it's hard to see signage that
isn't somewhat oversized. And I appreciate the fact that they're putting architectural features in it
so it isn't just an ugly sign with
So I appreciate that you're thinking about that because artistic touches matter a lot to us in this
community. So other comments? Comments? I'm going to recommend we approve variances 26 through 35 ABCDE,
the sign allocation variances to chapter
817 with the two conditions that we just heard staff enumerate. Second. OK, it's been a motion to approve
VAR-26-35A total sign allocation, B, C,
D and E, which are all individual sign allocation variances, all to chapter eight, 17 with the two conditions
stated in the staff report. A vote yes is a vote to approve with the two conditions as shown in the
staff report. Jeff Morris. Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Skip Daly. Yes. Guy Laughman. I do want to comment that I'm
Very sympathetic. But there's only so much we can do. These signs themselves will be facing away from
the areas which you have concern with about lighting. So I don't think they're going to impact that.
So I don't think what's before us would be will have any substantial impact on the neighborhood. So
I'm voting yes. Motion is approved four to zero. OK. We are.
Two hours in, does anybody on the board want to break? Let's review where we are on the agenda. You
want this back? Thanks for pretty pictures. Thank you. We are done with, we have 11. We have seven more
petitions on the list. Of which one, two,
for our approvals, two are denials and one is mixed. So, okay. Oh, it's just 7.30. Oh, wow. Yeah, I
was just asking if anybody wanted a quick break before we continue. No, I'll tell you if I do. Okay,
thank you. Okay, let's move on then to, I think I turned the page.
too soon here. Number 12, CDU-26-2. This is the Parker Home-Based Business and this one is recommended
for approval by staff. Mr. Chair, may I? Yes. Permission to speak? Mr. Myers, real quick, did this petitioner
satisfy the requirements of notification? Yes. Great.
Is there anybody in the room or online that wishes to contest or object to this petition? Raise your
virtual hand if you're online and object to case number CDU26-2.
Mr. Chair, I see nobody objecting and after diligent efforts by planning staff, they have found a motion,
they have found the standards being met and they recommend approval and I would like to motion to call
the question.
about that. OK, it's been moved and seconded to call to question a vote. Yes, is a vote to call to question
and then seek a motion by the board for a decision. Jeff Morris, yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Skip Daley.
Yes. Guy Loftman. Yes. OK, that motion is approved for zero. OK, before we continue, I think Miss Davidson
had a question, so we'll allow you to ask.
Oh, no, about the next one. Oh, the next one. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair, finding
that the conditions have been met and recommended approval by staff, I after looking through the evidence,
I would like to motion that we approve case number C D U two six dash
I do have a second. I second that. It's been moved and seconded to approve CDU-26-2 Parker Home-Based
Business, and this is to approve based on the findings with no required conditions. A vote yes is a
vote to approve. Skip Daly? Yes. Nye Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Okay, motion
is approved, four to zero.
Okay, moving on to number 13, VAR-26-36. This is the Walcott-Riperian area setback various to chapter
805. And again, this one is recommended for approval by staff. Mr. Chair, may I have the floor? Mr.
Myers, have the requirements for notification been met by this petitioner? Yes.
Next question, is there anybody here online or in person that wishes to object or contest to variance
26-36 tonight? Anyone online, please put up that little yellow flag. Mr. Chair, I don't see anybody,
do you? All right, with that being said,
After reviewing the evidence in the packet and seeing that staff has found that the petitioner has met
the conditions and recommended approval, I would like to motion and move to call the question. Second.
It's been moved and seconded to call to question a vote
Yes is a vote to call to question and then a subsequent motion is needed for the variance petition.
Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Skip Daley. Yes. OK. That motion does pass four to zero.
And Mr. Daley, before you make the second motion, may I have staff a question about something I saw
in the materials? I see the petitioners online, but I saw
that this is for a garage at the end of a driveway. I live very close to this. This is how I know. It
says that it's a 600 square foot garage. I happen to know there's a dump truck parked in that driveway
as well. And my question, and maybe petitioners should answer this, is the garage size for cars or for
a dump truck?
Because I think the dimensions might be different, but is 600 square foot very standard that fits in
that? Because it's a small property down there at the end of their driveway. I saw it in the notes,
but I didn't see it from the petitioner's side. And I just want assurance about that factually.
A typical parking space dimension is nine by 18. So 20 feet wide is I'd say typical to small for width
of a two car garage, but 30 feet long is a bit longer, but I don't know if the petitioner has stated
anything to Drew or. I don't know where in the notes I read it was 600 square foot, but I didn't read
it from the petitioner. And I guess I want to ask that question.
It's a worthy question. Which is it? Do we have the petitioner online who could answer this question?
If you could just a second. If you could unmute yourself and state your name and raise your right hand,
I'll swear you in.
should be able to unmute Mr. DeGroote. If you're not able to unmute, you may need to leave the meeting
and rejoin. Mr. Chair, in procedural
matter at this point, I'm going to have to motion that we reopen discussion on this matter. Just for
a factual question. I think that's a question for Mr. Schilling. If we're going to ask the petitioner
a question. We had a debate with our last vote. So at this point, I'm going to ask to, I'm moving to
reopen discussion. So we'll have to have someone second and vote and roll call.
Sorry. No, that's OK. We're going to. There's been a motion second to reopen this for discussion about
yes is a vote to reopen for discussion. Paola Davidson. Yes, and I apologize. I thought we could take
care of it in the second motion. I apologize for that. Skip Daley. Yes. Guy Laughman. Yes. Jeff Morris.
Yes. OK, so it's back open to discussion. OK, let's.
promote Mr DeGroat to a presenter again. Okay, now you can unmute. If you could state your name and
raise your right hand. Gavin DeGroat. Okay, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth? Yes. Okay, were you clear on the question for Ms Davidson? Yes, sorry, I tried to unmute
myself and it left the meeting somehow. But yes, it's just for
one car and we have a small shed here now with like the mower and some other stuff that we just need
to store so that's why it's a little bigger to fit her car and then just stuff to store and it's it's
only nine feet tall so yeah it's not for the dump truck perfect that's exactly what I wanted you to
say and I know that shed is in tough shape so that'll be ripped down and
You'll have yes as well. The only other thing I wanted to add since you're online right now and you've
answered my question just appropriately is the creek, the riparian issue. I live along this too. It
does flash flood. That's exactly right. It comes up and comes down. And I would just say be aware when
you construct your garage that that will be an issue because it is across heart straight with that owner.
And so that's where your creek goes. So just be aware as you design that, that you should take that
into account if and when that happens, even though it's intermittently. That's all I wanted to say.
Yes, thank you. Thank you. Is there any other comment or do we want to move to call the question again?
I'm well satisfied with that response. Thank you. Thank you. Yep, thank you. Hi. Mr. Daly, would you like to?
I like to take the floor. Sure. Is there anybody here at this point that wishes to object to in person
or online? I don't see anybody, Mr. Chair, do you? Okay. At this point, finding
that practical difficulties have been met with the evidence that has been provided to us in
the recommendation of approval by staff. I would like to eliminate debate at this point and call the
question. Second. OK, it's been moved and seconded to call again to question about. Yes, is about to
call to question skip daily. Yes. Guy Loftman. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes.
Pamela Davidson? Yes. Okay, that motion carries four to zero. Mr. Chair, may I have the floor? Yes.
Thank you. At this point, I would like to move that variance 26-36 be approved based on practical
difficulties being met in the evidence that we have before us. Second.
It's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-26-36, which is the Walcott riparian area setback variance
to chapter 805. A vote yes is a vote to approve the variance without any required conditions.
Pamela Davidson? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Lofman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Motion is approved four to zero.
OK, moving on to item number 14, this is VAR-26-37. This is the Smith West State Road 46 Dadu variance
to Chapter 805. So, Mr. Myers, I will turn it over to you. Thank you. So this property is located at
9168 West State Road 46. It's one 4.72 acre parcel in Bean Blossom Township, Section 30.
The petitioner is requesting one development standard variance to the detached accessory dwelling unit
standards of chapter 811. The petitioner proposes to construct a new detached accessory dwelling unit
with approximately 850 to 950 square feet of livable residential space. The petition site currently
contains an existing 4,236 square foot single family residence, a 768 square foot detached garage, which
will ultimately be replaced by the proposed detached accessory dwelling unit, according to the petitioner's
site plan.
a 720 square foot car shed and several other small accessory structures. Additionally, a building permit
was issued earlier this year for a new 3000 square foot pole barn, which is not and was never intended
to be utilized as an accessory dwelling unit. According to the petitioner, the purpose of the newly
proposed accessory dwelling unit is to provide a place for their mother to live nearby.
The petitioner has not secured a minimum specifications document from the Monroe County Health Department
at this point regarding the installation of a new septic system for the proposed detached accessory
dwelling unit. It is unclear to planning staff at this time if the petitioner intends to install a new
septic system or connect to the existing single family residence septic system should it have enough
capacity to add an additional bedroom. On the screen we have the definition or excuse me, the chapter
from which the regulations come for
detached accessory dwelling units, chapter 811-4C. There are 13 specific requirements for these type
of land use classifications, and the one before you this evening is number two, and it states,
for the FOR, AGR, and CBR zoning districts, the minimum lot size is required to be five acres, and the
size of the accessory dwelling unit slash detached accessory dwelling unit is limited to 1,000 square
feet of livable residential space,
the minimum lot size requirement for residential, et cetera, et cetera. You can see that on the screen.
Of the 13 conditions, all of them have been met other than number two, which relates to the lot size
requirement. Here on the screen, we have the definition for accessory dwelling units, attached or detached.
This is included in the packet. Now on the screen, we have a brief outline of outcomes
So if the variance is denied, the petitioner will be unable to construct the proposed detached accessory
dwelling unit without first obtaining additional acreage. That would be at least 0.54 acres from the
neighboring property because the petition site does not have the five acres total. By showing on the
petition site's subdivision plat, it shows as having 4.4 acres
So I guess that that should read .56 acres gaining in order to reach that five acre requirement. If
the variance is approved, the petitioner can continue with the standard permitting process for the
proposed detached accessory dwelling unit. And the bullets there show the outline of the process to
do so, including the standard permitting process, as well as getting documentation from the health department
related to the septic system, whether that be a new system or a connection to the existing system, a
certified plot plan for the new construction of a residence on the property, and also an affidavit satisfying
chapter 811-4C number one,
which is required and to be recorded at the American Recorder's Office certifying that the property
owner will reside in one of the units, that being the single family residence currently existing on
the property or the detached accessory dwelling unit. Here's the location map as well as the zoning
map showing the zone of agricultural residential. And we have the comprehensive plan map as well as
the site conditions map.
Now you have the aerial pictometry showing the parcel in question and the existing structures on that
parcel. And then we have a couple of pictures showing the entrance off of State Road 46 and the driveway
going back into the property. Now on the screen we have the letter to the Board of Zoning Appeals that
was provided by the petitioner. This is included in the packet and it details their request, their purpose,
and their rationale as to why the petition should be approved.
Now, a couple of exhibits that were provided by the petitioner. So they are listed as lot number two
A in the Janell subdivision amendment two, which shows it as having 4.44 acres. And it is also on the
screen showing you the approximate location of where the structure will be placed. Again, it is going
to be replacing that existing garage there.
gone ahead and located the approximate location of that newly approved pole barn structure. That brings
me to staff's recommendation. Staff recommends denial of VAR-26-37 indicating that practical difficulties
have not been met.
The strict application of the county development ordinance indicates that a property must contain at
least five acres to allow for the development of an accessory dwelling unit. The petitioner could work
to obtain an additional 0.56 acres from a neighboring property to meet the five acre requirement. I
will now take any questions. Any questions for Mr. Myers? Well, let's hear the public. We will turn
now to the petitioner. If there's anything you'd like to share, you're welcome to come to the podium.
you're both going to speak if you could both sign in and then I'll swear you both in.
If you could both state your names. I'm Cheryl Smith. James Smith. OK. And do you both swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? OK, you'll have 15 minutes combined to share whatever
you'd like to with us. OK, our property is four point seven four acres. And so we are point to five
short from doing this ADU.
It's an accessory dwelling unit. It will be on a cement slab. There will be a new septic system put
in and we had the soil scientists come out and the construction guy who puts it in and verified that
the area was okay. The new, this ADU came to fruition after us already committing to building this barn.
It's due to my mother who's
recently diagnosed with Alzheimer's, and she's in the third stage early. So her short-term memory is
pretty much shot or leaving, but her long-term memory is there. So the purpose of putting the ADU there
is temporary. She's 83. It will replace, there's an old garage right there now that we use to store
all kinds of stuff from us renovating our home.
the onset of my mother's illness came after all of this other planning had taken place. So our best
option was to allow her to keep her independence because she is still able to do finances and things
like that on her own, but to bring her closer to us so that we can monitor, because we don't know how
quickly this is going to take place. So we're just trying to put stuff in place.
In regards to the acreage, we are 4.74, which is like 72, which is the barn or the garage that there
that's there now is like 800 square feet. And so the ADU unit would be maybe 100 square feet more. And
I think the big thing is the installation of the septic tank is where we could. Like I said, this the
scientist lady said it was fine where we were planning on doing it.
or we can consider a mound septic also. So I guess I'm not quite clear on what the denial is, why it
would be denied. It's all about that five acre requirement. That's it in a nutshell. Am I right about
that staff? I'm right. Yes, the strict application of the ordinance indicates that staff is obligated
to recommend denial for certain situations.
regards to that we've talked to one of our other neighbors that has a lot of property beside us he's
not willing to sell any people behind us won't sell any and our immediate neighbor right there in lot
B is restricted to the size of that because of those five acre requirements when they subdivide that
she got I don't even know what it is two point something four point something it's pretty small it's
it's considerably smaller than ours but she's the other half of that subdivision
And they subdivided it originally for the guy's daughter who owned the whole piece of property to begin
with. So why that lot got so small, don't know. It's kind of an odd cut-up shape right there. But for
such a minimal requirement of land for what we're trying to do, we're basically replacing the garage
that's there. We're just turning it into a small home. And it's not visible to the road. We know all
of our neighbors in there. The garage is where it's going to be. It's not visible to anybody.
So it's not intrusive to anybody. It doesn't go over property lines. It's like dead center of the acreage
we have. So. Whatever works. And this is really for the ADU, not the garage. This is correct. Really
the ADU from home. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. We'll turn to public comment now. If anybody
speaks against this, you'll be able to come back up. Mr. Chuck, can I ask the staff a quick question?
Angela Stevens is now joining.
There was a little discretion, and I don't know that it matters a whole lot, but the petitioner claims
4.74, and your presentation had .56 shy of five, which would mean 4.44, which would mean there's 3 tenths
of an acre differential between what they said and what you're saying. Do you have any reply to that?
Yes. So on Beacon GIS, there is a
a legal acreage that's provided on the documentation there that says 4.72, I believe. And that is usually
tied to a deed record. The petition site recently went through an amendment to the subdivision, which
was recorded in January of 2026. And on that, which is also displayed on the screen, you can see that
1A is shown as 4.44 acres. So typically staff goes with a recorded survey document. Fair enough.
Thank you. That's all I have. OK, let's turn now to public comment. Is there anybody here in the room
who wishes to speak in favor of this petition? One online who wishes to speak in favor, please raise
your virtual hand. Anyone here in the room who is opposed to this petition, please come to the podium.
or anyone online who is opposed, please raise your virtual hand. Public comment and bring this back
to the BZA for discussion.
We've encountered this a number of times, this five acre requirement. And in this situation, the dad
who is under the 1,000 square feet requirement, which alone is an achievement. That's hard to find one
that is of that very modest size that fits that. So I'm very sympathetic to this. We've had many occasions
where people are bringing their parents closer home. Good for you. I'm so sorry about your mom. Loving
daughter, she's lucky.
Um, so I, I am very sympathetic to this because they are very close to the five acres. I watch a lot
of PBS and the density there is cats and dogs, soups to nuts for what we have here in the States because
they have so much less land. So it, it's, it's our heritage, I suppose, but it makes me very sympathetic
to this petition. If anybody else wants to say anything.
I appreciate that Mr. Smith did talk to his neighbors and made an effort to do that because sometimes
people aren't quite as diligent as that and it makes it much easier for me to be supportive and thank
you for your homework. And I want to add a P.S. to that. I don't think as a government body we can say
to people, hey, go out and buy more land so you fit our
requirement that just seems a road too far for me in many ways that's asking a lot and that even it's
nice that neighbors take that well instead of taking that hostily because property law neighbors my
word the law is pretty extreme there so I just don't think that that's anything we as a government entity
can ever ask anyone to do.
Noticing here in the staff's recommendation, they outline that practical difficulties have not been
met, but then it's followed up stating that the petitioner could work with neighbors to see if they
could purchase the rest. Well, we found that he did approach the neighbors, so that's gonna satisfy
practical difficulties for me.
I'm gonna move that we approve Variance 26-37 the Smith West State Road 46 Dadu variants to chapter
805 because we find practical difficulties have been met second Okay, it's been moved and seconded to
motion approval for VAR-26-37
the daddy variance to chapter eight or five, specifically not meeting the five acre minimum requirement.
About yes is a vote to approve the variance with no conditions. Jeff Morris. Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes.
Skip Daley. Yes. Guy Laughman. Yes. Motion carries four to zero. Thank you, Sherrilyn James. And thank
you for taking such good care of your mom. That's right. Moving on to
Item number 15, this is VAR-26-38. This is the McManus minimum lot width variance to chapter 804. This
one looks like it has an approval recommendation as well. Approval recommendation. On page 167. Yeah,
I'm just making sure there's no. Mr. Chair, may I have the floor?
Yes. Mr. Brown, a real quick question for you before we proceed. Do you have the evidence that our petitioner
has done their work to notify, according to the statute, notify their neighbors? I believe they have.
Wonderful, thank you. Mr. Chair, I'm gonna continue if you don't mind. Is there anybody in the audience
or online that wishes to contest or oppose this petition? We're about to hear variance 26-38. See nobody
in the audience. Do you see any yellow flags on there? Nope. Give anyone a second chance here?
All right, seeing no one. Mr. Chair, based on the due diligence of our staff and the recommendation
of approval saying that the standards set forth have been met, I would like to move to call the question
before us. I second that. It's been moved and seconded to call to question BAR-26-38.
A vote yes is a vote to call to question. Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes.
Pamela Davidson? Yes. Okay, that motion carries four to zero. Every time I hear those bells, it's Monty
Python going off in my head.
Mr. Chair, if I may have the floor, I have a motion that we approve variance 26-38 based on the evidence
found in the packet demonstrating that standards conditions have been met. And moved and seconded to
approve VAR-26-38.
the McManus minimum lot with variance to Chapter 804. A vote yes is a vote to approve without conditions.
Guy Loftman. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Pamela Davidson. I just want to say I'm so terribly sorry a tornado
destroyed your pole barn and house. I mean, it's the weather night, isn't it? The weather night. Yes,
I vote yes. I'm just sorry about it. Skip Daley. Yes. OK, motion is approved. Four to zero.
Okay, moving on to item 16 and 17. This is VAR-26-39A and 39B. This is the Blue Tip Use Variance to
Add Entertainment Center to Heavy Industrial, Chapter 808, and the Blue Tip Use Variance to Add Restaurant
Sit Down to Heavy Industrial, Chapter 808. So Mr. Dabai, I will turn it over to you. Thank you.
1.19-acre parcel located in Perry Township, Section 29, and the location is 5120 South Commercial Street.
The petitioners are Christina and Thomas LaRotte, but the owners are Rockport Investment Group, LLC.
The property is owned by Heavy Industrial.
The petitioners are requesting two use variances to pursue a billiards business at the subject property.
The petitioners submitted a use determination, and that is use 2641 in July of this year to see if this
site could be used for a proposed billiards business. The use determination that was issued
to the petitioners by staff classifies the uses for the proposed business as an entertainment center
use and restaurant sit-down use, with the entertainment center being the primary use and the restaurant
sit-down use being the accessory use.
The issue to the petitioners specified that neither use is permitted in the heavy industrial zoning
district and informed the petitioners that they could either pursue a rezone or a use variance to pursue
this use. The petitioners chose to pursue the use variance.
Currently, the existing structure proposed for this business is vacant and was formerly used and permitted
for an automotive slash boat repair shop. This structure was constructed sometime in 2020 and retains
the ability to operate uses permitted in the heavy industrial zoning district under the county development
ordinance as an automotive and or boat service and repair major.
So prior to the adoption of the County Development Ordinance on December 18th of 2024, the property
was zoned Light Industrial or LI. The definition for LI is shown on the slide there. After the adoption
of the County Development Ordinance, the zoning designation for this property was updated to Heavy Industrial
or HI. And the definition for the Heavy Industrial District is on the slide there.
So here are the definitions for both the entertainment center and restaurant sit down. These are the
uses that are in line with what the petitioners are pursuing for the billiards use. Here's some information
on the infrastructure. There's a passing blister at the intersection on South Victor Street and South
Production, and a lot of heavy equipment traffic does come and go from this intersection daily.
There's not a concern that the area could handle the traffic. However, this requested use would be shifted
towards more evening hours as opposed to business hours. There have been some parking constraints in
the area and there's only an allowance for parking on one side of Commercial Street per signs marked
along the roadway. If both variances are approved, the petitioner will then have to submit for a site
plan review, which will have to meet all applicable requirements to proceed with the use.
If the entertainment center use variance is approved, but the restaurant sit-down use variance is denied,
the petitioner will have the option to continue to pursue the billiard use, albeit without the restaurant
sit-down aspect as defined in the definition from the previous slide. If the restaurant sit-down use
variance is approved, but the entertainment center use variance is denied, the billiard use will not
be permitted. Here are the exhibits. To the left is the location map. To the right is the zoning map.
comprehensive plan map to the left and the site conditions map to the right. Here is an aerial picture
of the property facing, I believe that's to the west per Eagle View imagery. Here are site photos. This
photo to the left I took from the driveway and the photo to the right I took from the right away facing
the front of the building.
Here are some pictures of the parking for the site. Photos of the parking on the site. Here's the use
table from the Monroe County Development Ordinance highlighting that entertainment center use and the
restaurant sit-down use. As you can see, HI shown here does not permit either of those uses. Here's
the two-pager for the heavy
industrial zoning district that both outlines the character intent and intent of the zoning district
as well as the permitted uses and the dimensional standards on the right. And here's the use determination
that was issued to the petitioner. Here's a 2D layout of the interior of the site that the petitioner
is proposing.
Here is the petitioner's letter to the BZA. Here are letters of support that were uploaded to the application.
staff's recommendation. So staff recommends denial per the county development ordinance. The intent
of the heavy industrial zoning district does not permit the commercial use that the petitioners are
requesting. Furthermore, adding a more intense use like the proposed use does not meet the character
of the zoning district. Lastly, the petitioner did not provide evidence of an unnecessary hardship as
a subject property is currently permitted for automotive boat slash or automotive slash boat repair
shops. And that's for VAR.
and VR, or sorry, VR-2639A and B. I will now take questions. Okay, thank you, Mr. De Baia. Let's turn
to the petitioner. Do we have a petitioner or petitioner's representative here in the room? Thank you.
If you could come to the podium and sign in, and then I'll swear you in.
your patience and waiting two and a half hours for your petition? Absolutely. If you could state your
name and raise your right hand. My name is Tim Aldrich. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. You and anyone else representing this petition will have 15 minutes
to speak. Thank you.
Good evening again, my name is Tim Aldrich. We are a service-disabled veteran owned small business registered
here in Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. I'm here to talk about our billiards community and our request
to occupy the building located at 5120 South Commerce Street. We have two variances to be considered
today and I would ask that these uses be
not be separated. As we look at this, the proposed business is a billiards center that includes food
and beverage under a single structure. As you read that, the definitions that we put inside of entertainment
and restaurant use, there is no nature, the nature of the businesses require that the competitive billiards
center provide food and beverage.
There's no separation of the billiards and a designation of a sit-down food and beverage area isn't
that. Therefore, strictly applying the zoning ordinance to the property for this use is where we see
the hardship for not only our billiards center, but for the league's owners of the APA, the BCA, and
our landowner himself. With the zoning variances 39A and B,
The finding of facts and section E where we see the conclusion of a hardship and interference with the
comprehensive plan. What we're asking here today is under the uses of exhibit seven. And as you look at the.
the general purpose or the primary uses and you see the use of a fitness center as a primary use and
the conditional uses of like an indoor range are accepted for that heavy industrial zoning. I would
ask that the Billiard Center be looked at in the same light. The uses of equipment of a fitness center
mirror the space needed in a Billiard Center. As you saw, that
space that was on the exhibits was 22 tables, 20 tables, and that represents the community here as a
whole. The tables consume most of the space and the refreshments and food are offered as they're doing
these regional events or these league nights that can also be looked to as a community event.
Indoor range needs the same consumption of space and also serve refreshments and food at their place.
I recognize the conditional label on an indoor range and the use that we're talking about. When I look
at the alignment is really what I'm looking to show you as far as the equipment and the space that is
needed just to run a billiards and the beverage that would be there at that same time.
As we looked at the areas for the reporting, Section A, we see that the proposed we would not do any
harm for the public health or safety. Section B, the area already includes commercial and industrial
uses, and as we see in the report, those neighboring businesses have submitted those letters of support
placed in the variances. When I looked at
what we needed to do and what we needed to say in this support. I felt like we needed to stay the way
that we were trying to be. We started this business in 2013 in a garage, kind of like Amazon, but not
like Amazon. And as you see, the space that is required is immense. For a little bit of people congregating,
The space is just enormous. As you looked at our support letters in the areas, you'd saw things like
the landowner himself seeing that this would bring the community, the businesses, the people into that
area a little bit more. As you looked at the community of where we are with the Billiards community,
you'd see that we bring these communities together. We bring them in a place where they have a place
to hone their skills and what they do in this great game of billiards. In page 192 in exhibit four,
I wanted to talk about our history and why we're relocating. As you know,
Blue Tips was located in Seminary Square and was lost as a result of that redevelopment that is happening
and associated with the Bloomington Convention Center. The building is scheduled to be demolished next
month, and lease of Blue Tips space was only extended until that August 31st. As a result, the business
couldn't continue to operate in an appropriate new location, couldn't be secured in time. So with that,
my partners and I,
purchased the equipment and the tables. And we went on a hunt to find a place that would fit the needs
of a billiard hall and also the parking that's associated with that. If you look at one of our bigger
parts of what we do, as I've already alluded to, and that is space, typically when you see a billiards
area or a fitness center,
associated with a warehouse or a big building unless you can afford those areas that are not there.
So if you take a look at the overall alignment of how long it's taken us to even get to this point last
year, and I'm sure that Mr. Smith will talk about
blue tip before we took over. It is extremely hard. This process has been over a year. When we finally
got to the point where we had a building, that's when we found out that this variance or that it was
in heavy industrial. We immediately got with Ray and worked how we could get these variances in place.
So with that, I would
Really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you all. And I hope that this this variance is approved.
Thank you, Mr. Eldridge. Do any members of the BZA have questions, Mr. Daly? Like to ask a question.
You said is and. Snacks, you know, I'm sorry, I misspoke and that's my fault. We are serving food full
kitchen. Is this?
Pizza, finger foods, paninis. Everything that you were offering at the second street location? Yes.
Yes. Okay. So you'll have a one-way license as well? Yes. When you say one-way license, is that just
beer and spirits? Yes. So one-way being beer, two-way being beer and wine, and three-way being liquor. Yeah.
Liquor? No, not liquor. Beer and wine, yes. All right, I guess that's all I have. Yeah, I just want
to understand it a little better. The food area won't be in any way separated from the billiards area.
Is that right? I mean, there won't be a wall.
The kitchen will be separated, obviously, but yeah, no, the food is served in the same areas that the
pool tables are. And that's so when the league play is going on, they don't have to go somewhere to
eat. There'll be a kind of like this or... It's not a dining area, if I may interject. It's not a dining
area. You walk in, you pay for your pool or your
whatever else they have. And then you can also order your food right there. And then when you get it,
they might have one or two tables, but it's not, there's no dining area. You eat around where you're
shooting pool. The room's gonna be filled with pool tables. And there'll be little shelving around the
edges, I imagine, to put your sodas and whatever you're drinking in your pizza. Nothing on the tables.
Okay, I hadn't figured that out. I appreciate the clarifications. Thank you. I did want to read this
letter because I didn't have it in time to put in the package from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of
Commerce, if that's okay. Sure, you still have seven and a half minutes left. Okay. The Greater Bloomington
Chapter of Commerce supports Blue Tips use variance requests for its proposed relocation at 5120 South
commercial street. Blue Tip is an established local business facing unusual circumstance. Its long-time
location was acquired for the convention center expansion, requiring the business to find a new home
on a timeline that allows it to maintain customers, league play, and continuity of operations. After
an extensive property search, Blue Tip has identified an existing commercial industrial building that
can accommodate its operations.
We recognize the concerns raised by planning staff regarding the heavy industrial zoning designation
and required findings for a use variance. However, the staff report also concludes that the proposed
use would not be injurious to public health, safety, or general welfare and would not substantially
adversely affect surrounding properties.
The surrounding areas already include commercial and industrial uses, and the neighbors' business have
submitted letters of support that are located in the packet. From the Chamber's perspective, this is
a business retention and adaptive reuse of Blue Tip. It's not proposing a new commercial development
in an undeveloped area. It is attempting to reuse an existing building and remain in Monroe County after
being displaced by a significant public
project. While recognizing the general business may provide another path, the additional time required
has real consequences for an operating business. We believe our land use process should provide reasonable
flexibility when an established local business can reuse an existing property without creating a demonstrated
adverse impact on the neighbor or the community.
Thank you. I have a couple of questions while you're still up there. One is, how late do you anticipate
being open? So the current hours would be 11 or 12 o'clock. As soon as league play would end, we would
be out of there. At 11 or 12 o'clock, roughly? Yes, sir. OK. And then my second question is, do you
plan to have any kind of outdoor patio or any kind of outdoor area for customers to gather?
So right now, that's not a plan in what we're doing. We are going to look at having like a gazebo because
there are smokers and it does get cold. And so having something like that is in the future,
but not for today. We would just request that we get through this process because we've been closed
for a long time and it's taken a toll. Okay.
Thank you, sir. I have a question. I read in one of the letters that you've been searching for an alternate
property for over a year and you've had some that have been rejected because of parking limitations
and other things. Can you tell us something about that fruitless search? Yeah, I could absolutely hand
that over to Mr. Smith when he comes up here. But we've either had like on the
SR 46 spot right outside in Ellisville where the golfing place is. Yes. Imagine it would have been a
nice place. Unfortunately, you have to get those tables in there and you have to have the space to be
able to move around as a fire hazard. So we couldn't use that space. When you look at the stall, the
old stalls furniture building, we were
ready to do that also. It did have limited marketing, but when we talked to the owner, they didn't want
to separate the 7,000 square feet that we needed. They wanted us to have the entire thing at that price.
And it's not feasible with the ability to open that business.
So those are the two places you've looked at. It must be hard to find a property that fits your needs
because pool tables, billiards tables are so large. Yes. And you need space around them too. So it can't
be easy to find that spot. No, ma'am. The last question is who are the other businesses on commercial
drive? I don't drive on commercial drive. Are they all heavy industrial or are they a variety of things?
Maybe that's better staff question. I don't know.
There's quite a few automotive repair uses. I don't know if some built rentals is directly on that street,
but there's a transmission or automotive repair. A lot of, you know, service based industries. There's
not any businesses that are typically like retail oriented or inviting the general public
out for a long extension of time. It's usually go drop off what you need to get dropped off for service
or pick up what you need to get and then leave. Yes. Thank you. I just wondered what else was in the
heavy industrial size project and it sounds like automotive. Heavy repair, that's what it sounds like.
Rumkey is also at the end.
Sunbelt rentals, I think is there, right? Yes. At the end of the cul-de-sac, which is a big change and
as a significant amount of traffic at a lot of different hours is rumpkey. Yeah, they're pretty big.
And they did. They were required to do some improvements to that intersection as you enter the site.
So it has been improved. And we did talk to the highway department. They said it's pretty well.
suited for and does it for traffic essentially. So we could accommodate traffic people in and out. That's
what you're telling me. Yes, I think the only thing that was mentioned was Commercial Street has seen
some uptake of people trying to park on the road and there is some no parking on the road sign. So knowing
that this parking would accommodate their customers, they should just be aware that they cannot overflow
into the road. Yes, ma'am.
Okay, thank you. You've answered my questions. Was there someone else who was wishing to speak on behalf
of the petition here? Okay, are you together? So no, no, he was he is for the variance. He's he had
blue tip before us. And I wanted you know, if there was any more thoughts or comments, I wanted to make
sure that he had an opportunity. Okay, we'll turn to you then when we open it up for
for public comment, but let me first make sure that nobody on the board has any additional questions
for the petitioner. Okay, thank you, sir. If anybody speaks in opposition to this, you'll be able to
come back up for five minutes afterwards to address any concerns. I just wanted to add one more thing
about the properties that are adjacent to us, behind us.
As you look out the doors of the garage, all of that is is owned by Mr. George Shermer. And we do have
his letter with those properties really wanting us to get in there. OK, and it looks like he's got his
hand raised online. So we'll take his comment. And last question, how long has that property been vacant
before you have found it? It looks newish.
I would have to defer that to Mr. Schermer. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Let's turn now to public comment.
If there's anybody here in the room who wishes to speak in favor, sir, you're welcome to come back up.
If you can sign in and then state your name, I'll swear you in.
Smith hey can you raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes I do okay you'll have three minutes so previous owner of blue tip so I'm the one who had
the business winners of 426 South College I sold the business 21st of August to Tim Aldridge and his
partners I have been looking for over two and a half years for a new location no one that
the possibility of the convention center taking over the property there at seminary point was very possible.
So through my two and a half years of searching for a location, it is very difficult to find a space
big enough with enough parking at the right price point because I'd say the billiards business is a
low margin business. There's not much money to be made there.
There's money to be made, but it's not enough. I'm sorry. I guess I'm saying it wrong. It's very difficult
to move to your big commercial areas like College College Mall Road or Third Street where Kroger's and.
Is all that because that is prime read a prime commercial retail. You're looking at $1820 square foot,
if not higher.
So Bluetooth just can't command that type of pricing when we pass it along to the customers because
you're looking at charging $3, $4 a game of pool or $15, $20 for an hour on a pool table. I'd also like
to submit that as Billiards Hall, we are more of a service type of business and we are a product oriented
business because we rent the pool tables, we don't sell pool tables. We do offer
food and drink to our customers as an add-on, but the primary portion of that business is billiards.
People come in there and play billiards. They don't come in there to order food. They don't come in
there to get beer. They come in there primarily to shoot pool and get with buddies and have a good time.
A good, clean, fun time. If you were to go and look back for the last five years while I've owned it,
blue tip that
I believe the police have only been called out once or twice in five years. And that was because one
person in ambulance, because we had a heart attack. And then we've had two run ins with homeless people
from Seminary Park. Other than that, I can't recall any fights we had. So I mean, a lot of the customers
who do in the pool community here at Bloomington are very well respected and keep
I guess a good, a good attitude and aren't looking for trouble. They just want to come out, shoot full
and have fun. That's pretty much my school. Perfect timing. Thank you, sir. Anyone else here in the
room who wishes to speak in favor? Come on up. You can sign in and then state your name. I'll swear
you in. I'm Greg Adamson. Okay. If you could go ahead and sign in.
Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth? Yes, I do. OK, thank you. I'll have three minutes. So I tell you, I came back to this town after
being gone for 20 years, six years ago. Looking for some way to socialize, some way to meet people in
this town, some way to have fun, where I can meet people that's not at a bar, that's doing something
competitive. That was just what I wanted to do.
I had a hard time finding things like that. And one night I went to the pool hall. I'd played a long
time ago, hadn't done it in a long time. Then I found out they got elite there, plays every week. So
I wanted to spend a night of my week doing that, something that I could meet people, have good conversations,
good camaraderie, make a lot of friends in a very accepting place. That's what I found.
Last six years, I've created a great group of friends by doing this. And I probably wouldn't have that
if I didn't have the pool hall, if I didn't have that stuff. And I'm one of several hundred in this
town that has been in that same place, that that's the way they've made friends, that's the way they've
connected. And if we don't have this, that's gonna probably go away because it's very hard to find a
place to even put a place like this. Before we had these leagues,
They were in the bars here in town. Nobody wants us, nobody wants to play in the bars. We don't want
the excessive drinking, the nonsense that goes on. We just want to play pool and do it in a competitive
way. We need a dedicated place to do that. It can't be that kind of environment. So we found that where
we're at. We've been very dedicated to that. We've had a large group of people come and help. We moved
the entire pool hall in a day.
with all the help that we had. We just want to continue that. We don't want to go away. Because we don't
want to have to go back to bars. It's going to go away. We've done so well to our teams here have regularly
went to Vegas and placed in the top 16, top 32 in the world because of this environment we've played
in and the league we've been in. That is very hard to do.
I just want you guys to consider this is a community thing where all these people from the community
come around. If we can't find a place to put this, it's probably gonna go away and we're gonna lose
all this. All these people are gonna lose all these connections and all this camaraderie we get. It's
just gonna be a loss, loss to the community. So I wanna make sure that we do something. Thank you, sir.
Anyone else here in the room who wishes to speak in favor of this petition?
to online, anyone who wishes to speak in favor, please raise your virtual hand if we could promote Mr.
Shermer to a presenter. Mr. Shermer, you should be able to unmute now. If you could state your name.
Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. If you could state your name. Oh, great. Raise your right hand. Do
you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I sure will. Okay, you'll have
three minutes. All right.
Just first of all, I want to. Clear up a couple of things, just just some clarification for the for
the board there. The property to the East and the property to the West. Are both owned by myself and.
We do. Park a couple of people on the street that work for us, mainly because they drive to Indianapolis.
to work construction work. But what makes this piece of property unique is that it has over 40 parking
spots to go along with the 7,000 plus square feet. And I know the BZA is aware when this industrial
park first was built, and when I say first built, I was the first building in there
Um, in 2001, the first building on the right, uh, when it was a cornfield and, um, we didn't have the
ability at that time to even bring three phase into the industrial park. So we always struggled to even
have it be a light industrial.
Well, when Rumpke decided that they needed a new place and the county needed more places to dump and,
you know, they needed heavy industrial. Well, Rumpke was the very last thing that was put in the industrial
park. And in order to do that, they had to change it to heavy industrial.
Well, all the buildings that you're talking about, the ones that I'm in, the ones that the pool hall
wants to go in, the one across the street, even Sunbelt, we all originally built under the variance
of light industrial. You couldn't put heavy industrial anything in there because you don't have power
to do it. There's no three phase power anywhere in there.
So we've been kind of backed into this corner a little bit by the county that they've rezoned us. And
said you go find hot heavy industrial people to fill it well. This the buildings in there are all very
much the same. They're you know, steel buildings. Most have very limited parking. This piece of property
doesn't 42 parking spots.
And you should give these guys an opportunity. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else online who wishes
to speak in favor of this petition? Seeing no one, is there anyone here in the room who wishes to speak
against this petition? If so, you're welcome to come to the podium. Anyone who wishes to speak against
this petition, please raise your virtual hand.
Seeing no one, we'll close the public comment and come back to the BCA for discussion. May I ask one
question to the owner of the petitioner? Yeah, could you come forward to the podium so we can hear you?
Yes, sir. You proposed 40 tables for this. What was the? Is it 2020? 20 tables? Yes, sir. That's all
we have right now. And is that the most you would ever want in this location? There's room for an additional four.
that could be growth, but this would bring regionals to Bloomington. And right now when we get to the
regional areas, whether it's BCA or APA, these people
have to go to Fort Wayne or to Indianapolis at John Wayne's which is another billiards hall and that
revenue leaves here and it doesn't come here. With this kind of facility where we have the facility
to do it we would be able to bring those regionals here we would have more events like the weekend
Chip tournaments that bring everyone around in the first in the five counties, but I Wanted to say this
and I apologize for not saying it during my 15 minutes You know currently we have a nine ball team that
placed 17th in the world in Vegas just this last
go around in August. And that's only been because of blue tip and the ability to have diamond tables
with great Simona cloth on them to play like you play in the pros. When you go to Vegas, you get that
kind of table. And that's what we offer. And, you know, that that team, I'm selfishly going to say this,
it was my team. And Craig was on that team also. But that's only from the great opportunities that a good
Billiard Hall does. And how many, is that the same number of tables you had at the prior location? No,
no sir. How many did you have at the prior location? Fourteen. Fourteen. The older, well I don't want
to speak out of turn, but there was fourteen, there was the oldest snooker table. That's okay, I don't
need that level of detail, but that's good. Thank you for helping me understand the scope, that you're
increasing your size some.
Great, thank you. I'll offer some comment. I've been to the business when it was on Second Street. Both
sides responsible in terms of the drinking, the food was surprisingly good. The atmosphere is fantastic.
The folks that go there are lovely. The business is
run well, but more importantly in terms of what we have in front of us, I recall several exceptions,
a precedent of exception to this specifically. Businesses like the VFW, businesses like Upland West,
businesses like Bloomington Brewing Company that were all in a very similar situation
received some exceptions. So I think we have a precedent of this being before us. So I just wanted to
offer that. I have one staff question. Mr. Devalle, did you say at the start that under the light in
the prior zoning that this would have been permitted? No, no, it wouldn't have been permitted under
the current or prior zoning.
No, it's not permitted under either. OK, great. I that would be an important factor. I wanted to make
sure I understood. Thank you. And I should clarify to the witnesses that we have our our concern always
is that variance goes with the property, not with this particular owner. So it affects it for all times.
And that is a very important consideration we always take into account.
All of that said, it seems to me that this is a very appropriate use of a structure that's been vacant.
And while we don't know who's going to be there next, we do know that this is an appropriate use that
starts it off on a good foot.
So I'm supportive of this. I do live in the neighborhood, but I don't think it's going to degrade the
neighborhood. And I also can appreciate that the farmer owner looked for two and a half years for other
space, and now you've been looking for quite a while, the number of parking spaces and the size of it.
You do have very unique needs for that. So I'm very sympathetic. Do we have any more comments? I have
a question for staff.
That is, there's a property adjacent to this and a couple on commercial drive or production drive that
are zoned general business. And would the entertainment center and restaurant be permitted under general
business? Yes, actually. So.
As stated in the third building, there is a property adjoining the sub-department that is on general
business. The petitioner could instead request the rezone or seek out the adjoining property building
facility for this purpose on the GB zoned property. Okay, thank you. It's literally like where Steve's
roofing is, it's like right there. Right, so if we denied this, they could buy the property next door
and build it without. Conceptually. Conceptually, right, which influences my opinion, I think. And the
zoning map is on the right there for you all. Thank you.
Well, I'm going to recommend that we approve variance 26-39A. Blue tip used variance to add entertainment
center to heavy industrial chapter 808 and also variance 26-39B. The blue tip used variance to add restaurant
sit down because
It really isn't, it's more like a snack bar plus plus. Sit down to heavy industrial chapter 808. And
the reason I'm making that motion is I'm very compelled by the argument that business would leave town.
There's no other place to play except the bars, except maybe the union. Maybe there's but it's got to
be small. So I can really understand how difficult it is to find appropriate space for this. And that
has everything to do with my making that motion. And I will second based on that and the fact that this
board has been up against this exact situation in the past. We want business to stay in town. And I'm
going to add the notes.
already been seconded. I really didn't know anything about this, having such a community and being such
an important part of the community and us having nationally ranked, you know, we don't have that many
nationally ranked teams sometimes in Monroe County, so I'm glad to have another. I did notice one thing.
They misspelled Hoosiers on your hat. Oh, we're not in here.
Okay, we have a motion and a second. Could you call the roll Jackie? Sure. The motion on the floor is
to VAR-26-39A and 39B. The first is a use variance to entertainment center to the heavy industrial district
to chapter 808. And 39B is a use variance to add restaurant sit down use to heavy industrial to chapter
808. A vote yes is a vote to approve both use variances at the same time without conditions. Jeff Morris? Yes.
Pamela Davidson? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Skye Lofman? Yes. Motion is approved four to zero. Hey,
thank you all. Good luck. Moving on to item number 18, this is VAR-26-40. This is the Childress Buildable
Area Special Flood Hazard Area to Chapter 813. And Mr. Daly, this one looks like it has a recognition.
Angela Steven is now exiting
I don't know who our narrator is tonight, but I don't know what's going on there. Yes, may I have the
floor? Yes. Well, thanks. Assistant Director, I've got a quick question for you. Can you confirm for
me that the petitioner has done their statutory requirement for notification?
Correct. Great. I'm going to ask a question of the audience and the folks online. Is there anybody here
that is intending to object or contest variance 26-40? I don't see anybody in the room. Do you see anybody
online, Sherman? No. No? All right. Well, with that being said, based on the
The approval for the application for design standards variance here that is the conditions seem to be
met based on the evidence found in our packet and the recommendation of due diligence of staff says
approval. I'm going to request that we end the debate and call the question.
Moved and seconded to call to question on BAR-26-40. A vote yes is a vote to call to question. Pamela
Davidson? Yes. Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Okay, that motion carries four to
zero. Mr. Chair, may I have the floor again? Yes. Well, thank you. I would like to move that variance 26-40.
be approved based on staff recommendations that the conditions here are being met based on chapter 825
and the flood damage prevention. Yeah, that's all I have. Is that chapter 813 or 825?
Which is that? It'll be to 813. 813. But it's saying that the staff is recognizing that the plans meet
Chapter 825's flood damage prevention standards. Right, they need to apply for, well, they're in the
process of permit review for the floodplain, and mostly I just need a few more details about the utilities, but,
the structure that you're looking at for this one, which is the driveway itself, that's what the variance
is for. So we're just making sure that once this is, variance is approved, we're gonna continue the
review of the flood damage prevention permit. Well, thank you for that clarification. In Chapter 825.
I misread this, I apologize. All right. I will,
move that we approve variance 26-40 based on the recommended motion of approval by staff. Second. Okay,
it's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-26-40, the Childress Buildable Area Special Flood Hazard
Area to Chapter 813. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Skip Daly? Yes. Guy Loftman?
Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Motion is approved four to zero.
Okay, moving on to items 19, 20, and 21 on the agenda. These are VAR-26-41A, 41B, 41C. This is the Ballard
front yard setback, various to chapter 805. The Ballard Eco Area 2 residential density maximum, various
to chapter 823. And the Ballard Eco Area 2 one acre contiguous buildable area, various to chapter 823.
So Mr. Brown, I'll turn it over to you.
Thank you. So the purpose of this petition is to extend a porch on an existing house. In 2022, the property
owner was issued a residential building permit for the construction of a 90 by 32 square foot single
family residence. However, during construction and alteration to the approved plan was made in the form
of a front porch measuring eight feet by 12 feet. The planning department staff was not notified of
this deviation from the approved plot plan.
said porch also encroaches into the front yards of back of the property. In August of 2026, the petitioner
came to the planning department office wanting to extend the front porch and gabled roof. Furthermore,
the subject property does not meet two of these standards in chapter 823 regarding the environmental
constraints overlay area two. It's also worth noting that at the time of the building construction,
the property was in the now defunct eco area three.
So regarding the front yard setback, this subject property has road furniture along North Viking Ridge
Road, which is a local road according to the Monroe County thoroughfare development plan. Chapter 805
of the county development ordinance and the subdivision plat that this property is located in states
that a front yard setback for a local road shall be 25 feet from the edge of right of way. The subdivision
shows that they did previously dedicate 25 feet of right-of-way, which means their total front setback
is 50 feet from the center line of North Viking Ridge Road. The existing home is only approximately
58 feet back from the center line of the road, so the existing porch is encroaching approximately six
and a half feet. Furthermore, it does not meet proper eco standards
three and four shown on this list here. The legal acreage of this petition is 0.66 acres. However, the
proposed use does not change the residential density of this lot as it's not adding any new residential
units. The lot still requires a variance from this provision prior to any further development. The lot
dimensions have existed in their current dimensions since at least 1970, which was before the environmental
constraints overlay was adopted.
as well as the one acre of continuous buildable area. Staff has measured that the property has an estimated
0.18 acres of area under 15% slope. And here is the structure in question. The plan is for the petitioner
to extend this roof and porch out an additional, I believe 12 feet. And here's just some,
area showing the slope behind the house. Here is the site plan that has been submitted, as well as the
original certified plot plan. As you can see, there is no porch present on that certified plot plan.
And so staff recommends denial of VR-26-41A as practical difficulties have not been demonstrated.
The petitioner could remove the existing porch to meet the required front step back and not install
the extension portion of the new porch or relocate the porch to elsewhere on the site such as the back.
Approval of VR-26-44B, we're recommending approval as practical difficulties have been demonstrated.
More specifically, the lot cannot meet the residential area requirements. This variance would be needed
for any new development on the property
on less supply of them and is pursued. It's also worth noting that the lot has existed in its present
dimensions since 1970, and the eco-regulations were not put in place until 1992. And staff recommends
approval of VAR-26-41C for the same reasons as VAR-26-41B. And I will take any questions. Thank you,
Mr. Brown. Let's go ahead and turn to the petitioner. If the petitioner's here in the room and would
like to speak, please come forward.
You can sign in and then I'll swear you in. Could you state your name and raise your right hand?
Dave Weaver. Okay, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do.
Okay, you have 15 minutes. Okay, so thank you very much for your time and certainly your dedication
to this whole process. It's been very enlightening watching
going on this evening. So a couple of clarifications. First of all, while this was new construction,
when purchased, we did not build this or design it. Our understanding is a gentleman was building it
for his father, their plans changed, so he finished it and sold it. So we had nothing to do with the
design. So over the past year, year and a half, we started talking about how could we change the porch
to give us a more space
so we can enjoy the outside. That's a great road. There's kids riding bikes and people walking dogs.
It's very pleasant. So how could we do that? And at the same time, thought that the slope of that roof
is really nondescript. The whole neighborhood has all sorts of cool little cottages and some ranches
and some A-frames. It's a neat, how could we fit in better to the neighborhood? So we started talking
about it and the idea was,
a little unclear in the description because the idea is not to extend any further into the lawn. It's
simply to make it that width again and then put a gable over the top so it's not just a shed roof. So
we think it would look really nice and give us a little bit more space to sit around and hang out. So
that's the upshot of what we're trying to do. The door, that is the entrance to the house.
Um, it's, it's at least two and more like three steps from the ground. So removing it and taking that
roof off would be very difficult. Um, and, and, and moving the entrance to around back would also be
very difficult. It slopes off very quickly in the back. So I don't know how practically that would be done. So.
That's about all I had to say on the matter. May I ask you a question? Go back to that picture you were
just showing, please, Mr. Brown. So you're saying that porch is very modest size. I wonder if you can
get two chairs on that. That looks pretty cozy. Is it going to go left or right and hug the house is
what you're really saying? Yeah, toward the right. Towards the right. Yeah. So it'll still the one entrance
door will stay the same and the
The porch will basically be doubled in size hugging that house. Yeah, because the door in the center,
you can't really sit there because the door is in the center. So this would give you a place to sit
and walk past the chairs. That makes sense. I don't see a walkway from the parking area. Is that the
way you get into the house or is that not the way you get into your house? You just can't see it in
the picture, but there's a...
A flat, it's just a board, it's a boardwalk that hugs the house very closely. Oh, I see that now.
And again, not our design decision. Yes. But that's how you get into your house from the parking area.
Yeah. OK, thanks very much. Thank you. Yeah, Mr. Walker. So you're going to extend this to the right.
Will it cover the window? I'm just curious, just to make sure I understand. The gate, the porch will
come under the window and then the gable would cover. So the gable will be slightly off center.
Um, and cover that right hand window and the exist. So won't the porch or the gable won't extend further
that way. It'll start where that, that porch is and then come up and over. Um, thank you to the right.
Yep. Any further questions for the position? Uh, position. Okay. Thank you, sir. We'll take public comment.
If anybody speaks against, you'll be welcome to come back up. Appreciate it.
five minutes. Okay, let's turn now to public comment. Is there anybody here in the room who wishes to
speak in favor of this petition? Anyone online? Please raise your virtual hand if you'd like to speak
in favor of this petition. Any speak against this petition? Anyone online who would like to speak against
this petition? Please raise your virtual hand.
Seeing no one, we will close public comment and come back to the BZA for conversation into our motion.
It's not getting closer to the road, which I wasn't clear about. There's not much room in that front
porch, and I'm pretty sympathetic with that.
So I think it's a reasonable request. We'll improve the, and it'll make the neighborhood a nicer place,
because it's more easier to sit down and watch the kids riding their bikes go by, and that's good for
the kids and everybody else. I appreciate anybody who likes to sit on a porch and watch the world go
by, because I spend a lot of time myself doing that. I think that's pretty darn pleasant. Any comments,
Mr. Daly? I have a question of staff, if I may, Mr. Chair.
The way I understand this is the previous owner built something out of code without permit and permission
and then sold the house to this guy and he inherited the problem. Is that what I'm hearing? Let me look
up the history of
transfer of ownership. I'm just curious, is there not an inspection done and an approval from the county
on a sale? So the final inspection by the building department, typically what they're doing is reviewing
what was constructed is meeting code. They don't necessarily see to the differences from what was proposed,
such as a small modification. They will point it out to us at times, but that would be
I would also like to add that the building permit that according to our records, the building permit
was issued in twenty twenty two. The current owners purchased the property two years later in twenty
twenty four. So there was a permit issued for the work done that without the porch. Yes, we were not
made aware of the porch. Oh, OK. Fair enough. All right. I'm good.
Okay, do we have a motion? I'm going to recommend we approve the variance 26-41A, the Ballard front
yard setback variance to 805. We're sympathetic to that board issue.
And also variance 26-41B, the Ballard Eco Area 2 residential density maximum. Variance to chapter 823,
as the staff has also recommended approval on that one. And last but not least, variance 26-41C, the
Ballard Eco Area 2, one acre contiguous building area variance to chapter 823, also recommended approval
by the staff.
It's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-26-41A, B and C as enumerated by BZA member Pamela Davidson.
A vote yes is a vote to approve A, B and C without conditions. Skip Daly. Yes, I think there's practical
difficulties. I don't think you have to remove your porch. Yes.
Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. OK, the motion approves all three variances. Thank you, Mr.
Weaver. Thanks for spending time with us. Hopefully your porch is more relaxing than sitting in a room
for three hours. Thank you for all the staff members tonight. So the staff, you are so amazing. And
it's Daniel's birthday. Daniel's birthday. Should we sing?
We do before we adjourn, we do have to come back to administrative business. So if you want to continue
that to a future meeting, that's fine. Yeah. So yeah, before we break here, we do have the administrative
business still on the agenda. Jackie, do you know what the November agenda is looking like? Yeah,
we're not. We don't have too many. So four or five. It could be better heard. OK. And Guy wants to tweak
as lawyers
can't help themselves doing, he wants to tweak on the language. Didn't you say that? Well, I actually
haven't studied it as much as I want, because it's a little complicated. But I do think what we're doing
is formalizing something that's become our practice. And I think it's wonderful that it's become our
practice. We'd only be halfway through. It's working.
So may we continue it? Do we need a motion to continue it? Do we have a motion? I'll move that we continue
the procedural rules matter until our next November meeting. OK. So November 4th. All right. It's been
moved and seconded to move the rules of procedure change to our November 4th BZA meeting. A vote yes
is a vote to approve. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Oh, yes. Skip Daley? Yes.
All right. We will see you on November 4th. Thank you. Thank you all.
I feel remarkably chipper. I didn't think we'd be out of here until 930 at the earliest. Thank you.