WEBVTT 00:00:00.258 --> 00:00:07.523 - Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call to order the November meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. 00:00:07.523 --> 00:00:14.787 - Jackie, to get us started, would you please call the roll? Yes. Kyle Hoffman? Here. Jeff Morris? Here. 00:00:14.787 --> 00:00:22.052 - Margaret Clements? Here. Pamela Davidson? Here. Skip Daly? We have four members in person in a quorum. 00:00:22.052 --> 00:00:25.790 - Could you please introduce the evidence for tonight? 00:00:25.922 --> 00:00:31.946 - Sure. I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance 00:00:31.946 --> 00:00:37.689 - has adopted and amended. The Monroe County Land Use Plan has adopted and amended. The Board of Zoning 00:00:37.689 --> 00:00:43.319 - Appeals Rules and Procedures has adopted and amended and the case is advertised and scheduled for a 00:00:43.319 --> 00:00:49.118 - hearing on tonight's agenda. I'd like to move that we introduce the evidence as just outlined. Second. 00:00:49.118 --> 00:00:55.198 - Okay. It's been moved and seconded to introduce the evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Jeff Morris. 00:00:55.330 --> 00:01:01.862 - Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Motion carries, four to zero. OK. 00:01:01.862 --> 00:01:07.761 - I don't believe we have any changes to the agenda tonight, do we, Jackie? The only thing for 00:01:07.761 --> 00:01:14.229 - your consideration is whether you want to do the rules and procedure ahead of the cases tonight or if 00:01:14.229 --> 00:01:20.825 - you want to move that to the end. There's two cases. And then we will be hearing one case is requesting 00:01:20.825 --> 00:01:23.806 - a continuance, which is the Rominger case. OK. 00:01:24.130 --> 00:01:29.862 - I think we've got quite a few people in attendance. I think I would recommend that we wait until the 00:01:29.862 --> 00:01:35.934 - end to discuss the. I move we we put the rules discussion as the last item on the agenda. OK, second that. 00:01:36.418 --> 00:01:42.537 - All right, it's been moved and seconded to keep the agenda as published except for moving the rules 00:01:42.537 --> 00:01:48.902 - and procedure discussion under administrative business to be after the new business for tonight. A vote 00:01:48.902 --> 00:01:55.327 - yes is a vote to rearrange the agenda moving just the administrative business to the end of the meeting. 00:01:55.327 --> 00:02:01.630 - Margaret Clements? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Guy Laughman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Motion carries 4-0. 00:02:02.434 --> 00:02:09.857 - Okay, we have no minutes to approve tonight and no old business. So jumping straight into new business, 00:02:09.857 --> 00:02:17.137 - as Jackie mentioned, item number one, VAR-26-42 has been withdrawn by the petitioner. So we will jump 00:02:17.137 --> 00:02:24.417 - straight to items two, three, and four, which is VAR-26-43A, 43B, and 43C. This is the Hexma Eco Area 00:02:24.417 --> 00:02:32.126 - 2 15% slope variance to chapter 823. The Eco Area 2 one acre contiguous build area variance to chapter 823. 00:02:32.194 --> 00:02:42.106 - and the eco area to disturbance of natural visit vegetation various to Chapter 823. So, Mr. Dubai, I 00:02:42.106 --> 00:02:49.662 - will turn it over to you. Thank you. OK, so this is VAR 2643 A, B and C. So. 00:02:49.762 --> 00:02:56.790 - The requested variance is for the buildable area, 15 percent slope in the Eco Area 2, the one-acre contiguous 00:02:56.790 --> 00:03:03.307 - buildable area variance to Chapter 823, and the disturbance in natural vegetation variance to Chapter 00:03:03.307 --> 00:03:09.888 - 823. The purpose of these variance requests are for the petitioner to construct a new 3006 square foot 00:03:09.888 --> 00:03:16.406 - single-family residence in an area with slopes that are greater than 15 percent. The subject property 00:03:16.406 --> 00:03:19.728 - is zoned forest residential 5 or 4 for short and is 00:03:19.728 --> 00:03:25.613 - located in the Eco Area 2. The residence is proposed to be constructed in the steep slope area, and 00:03:25.613 --> 00:03:31.498 - the residence's construction will involve land disturbance of over 4,000 square feet, and that will 00:03:31.498 --> 00:03:37.560 - not take into account the septic tank and pump. So Chapter 823, which outlines the regulations for the 00:03:37.560 --> 00:03:43.445 - environmental constraint overlay area 1 and 2 states that slopes greater than 15 percent in the Eco 00:03:43.445 --> 00:03:48.094 - Area 2 are protected from any land disturbance activity, including the removal 00:03:48.322 --> 00:03:55.092 - vegetation. The first iteration of the environmental constraints overlay was adopted by the Monroe County 00:03:55.092 --> 00:04:01.735 - Board of Commissioners on January 23rd of 1992. So here's a little bit of discussion about the request. 00:04:01.735 --> 00:04:06.078 - So a pre-design for residential construction was submitted for this 00:04:06.242 --> 00:04:12.408 - residents in April of this year, staff determined in their review of the PILP that it would require 00:04:12.408 --> 00:04:18.697 - multiple variances as well as some accompanying documents that the petitioner was able to upload. The 00:04:18.697 --> 00:04:25.233 - petitioner had submitted for a septic permit that is on hold pending the board's decision as the location 00:04:25.233 --> 00:04:26.590 - of the tank and pumps 00:04:26.690 --> 00:04:33.611 - for the residents will be located in the non-buildable area, that is slopes greater than 15% in the 00:04:33.611 --> 00:04:40.531 - eco area too. A driveway permit for the property was approved in January of 1990. That was approved 00:04:40.531 --> 00:04:47.798 - by the Indiana Department of Transportation as State Road 446 is an Indiana Department of Transportation 00:04:47.798 --> 00:04:49.182 - maintained roadway. 00:04:49.506 --> 00:04:56.040 - I will add that it does appear, based on beacon GIS imagery, that some grading occurred on this property 00:04:56.040 --> 00:05:02.449 - prior to the permits that were required being issued. Based on the certified plot plan by Deckard Land 00:05:02.449 --> 00:05:08.672 - Survey, it does appear that the septic field itself is located in the buildable area, but the other 00:05:08.672 --> 00:05:10.974 - proposed structures, that's the pump 00:05:11.106 --> 00:05:18.099 - the tank and the proposed residence and garage are located in the steep slope area greater than 15%. 00:05:18.099 --> 00:05:25.507 - So due to the proposed location of the residence, the septic system and the layout of the subject property 00:05:25.507 --> 00:05:32.916 - itself, the petitioner requires the three aforementioned variances. So this is taken directly from chapter 00:05:32.916 --> 00:05:36.862 - 823. So I'm just gonna go ahead and read it for clarity. 00:05:36.994 --> 00:05:42.873 - The subject property does not meet three of the four requirements for properties in Area 2 of the ECO, 00:05:42.873 --> 00:05:48.694 - or just the Environmental Constraint Overlay Area 2, as listed in Chapter 823.5b. So the maximum land 00:05:48.694 --> 00:05:54.116 - slope upon which any land disturbance involved in construction of buildings, driveways, roads, 00:05:54.116 --> 00:05:59.823 - parking lots, and utilities can occur shall be 15 percent. The percent slope shall be measured as a 00:05:59.823 --> 00:06:05.588 - 7.5 foot fall in any 50 foot distance. The design should be suited to the lot to minimize the amount 00:06:05.588 --> 00:06:06.558 - of cut and fill. 00:06:07.138 --> 00:06:13.316 - So this subject property does not meet this standard. The construction of the residence will encroach 00:06:13.316 --> 00:06:19.494 - into areas of 15% slope or greater. The petitioner proposes to disturb over 4,000 square feet of land 00:06:19.494 --> 00:06:25.127 - area for the residence, not including the area for the septic tank. Number two, there should 00:06:25.127 --> 00:06:31.365 - be no disturbance of natural vegetation beyond the 15% slope line. It also does not meet the standard. 00:06:31.365 --> 00:06:33.182 - When the property was graded, 00:06:33.602 --> 00:06:38.870 - Natural vegetation was disturbed for the future construction of the residence. Additionally, the location 00:06:38.870 --> 00:06:43.988 - of the tank would require additional disturbance of natural vegetation. And number four, each dwelling 00:06:43.988 --> 00:06:49.305 - unit should have at least one acre of total contiguous, buddable area land. It does not meet this standard 00:06:49.305 --> 00:06:52.734 - as well as the legal acreage of the petition property is 9.31 acres. 00:06:52.866 --> 00:06:59.893 - much of the property is located in the 25 plus percent slope. The largest portion of the property that 00:06:59.893 --> 00:07:06.716 - is under 15 percent slopes measures .41 acres, with much of that being along the subject property's 00:07:06.716 --> 00:07:10.878 - frontage. So here is aerial imagery of the subject property. 00:07:11.074 --> 00:07:18.671 - that was gonna highlight the grading that occurred between 2022 and 2026. So on the left, you can see 00:07:18.671 --> 00:07:26.193 - that there's a driveway there, but there doesn't seem to appear to be any additional grading done on 00:07:26.193 --> 00:07:34.013 - the lot. If you look to the picture on the right, you start seeing that there's some structures or some, 00:07:34.013 --> 00:07:37.886 - I believe that's construction materials on the lot. 00:07:40.482 --> 00:07:47.153 - look at the picture on the left, taken in 2025, you can start seeing that there's obviously been some 00:07:47.153 --> 00:07:53.692 - grading done there. And if you look at the picture on the right, you can see the lot in its current 00:07:53.692 --> 00:08:00.428 - state. You can see that there's been grading done on the property and that there are some construction 00:08:00.428 --> 00:08:06.968 - materials on the property. So this picture is taken from the certified plot plan that was completed 00:08:06.968 --> 00:08:08.734 - by Deckard Land Surveying. 00:08:08.898 --> 00:08:17.778 - You can see on the picture on the left, that is the pump located to the north, and that is the tank 00:08:17.778 --> 00:08:26.747 - located to the west. So the picture to the right shows the septic field in orange, and it shows that 00:08:26.747 --> 00:08:35.006 - it appears to be in the buildable area per the certified plot plan. The structures in violet 00:08:35.714 --> 00:08:46.497 - are structures that are located in the non-buildable area. So that's a 15 plus percent steep slope area. 00:08:46.497 --> 00:08:56.870 - So this is something created by staff that shows possible alternative locations for the residents or 00:08:56.870 --> 00:09:00.670 - in garage along the gravel driveway. 00:09:00.930 --> 00:09:08.016 - There is a note there stating that the parcel lines are a bit skewed on GIS, but this is showing that 00:09:08.016 --> 00:09:15.033 - it is actually on the petitioner's property. Here are the site maps. Location map to the left and to 00:09:15.033 --> 00:09:22.119 - the right, we have the zoning map. The comprehensive plan map to the left and the site conditions map 00:09:22.119 --> 00:09:28.094 - to the right. Note the excessive 25 plus percent steep slope on the map to the right. 00:09:30.530 --> 00:09:38.277 - This is an eagle view picture of the property looking north to the on the left and on the right. It 00:09:38.277 --> 00:09:46.024 - is another picture that shows the driveway as well as that graded area for the residents. These are 00:09:46.024 --> 00:09:54.003 - site photos. This is the one to the left was taken from the driveway and the one to the right is taken 00:09:54.003 --> 00:10:00.510 - along the driveway showing some of the construction materials on the property. This 00:10:00.706 --> 00:10:07.317 - The picture to the left is showing the proposed location of the residence. The picture to the right 00:10:07.317 --> 00:10:13.994 - is also showing that as well. The picture to the left shows some of the terrain. You can see some of 00:10:13.994 --> 00:10:20.605 - the existing tree canopy as well as the stilt fence. The picture to the right just kind of shows or 00:10:20.605 --> 00:10:27.348 - highlights the steep slopes in the area and the overwhelming tree canopy. Some additional pictures of 00:10:27.348 --> 00:10:28.670 - the driveway there. 00:10:28.770 --> 00:10:37.030 - and the construction materials on site currently. Additional pictures of the steep slope. You can see 00:10:37.030 --> 00:10:45.451 - the existing tree canopy there in the stilt fence. And this is the petitioner's letter to the BZA. This 00:10:45.451 --> 00:10:53.873 - is the certified plot plan that was created by Decker Land Survey. This is the architectural sheet that 00:10:53.873 --> 00:10:57.598 - includes the floor plan, the foundation plan, 00:10:57.730 --> 00:11:09.071 - roof plan, et cetera. This is a basement foundation drawing that was submitted by the petitioner. This 00:11:09.071 --> 00:11:20.191 - is the driveway permit that was issued by the Indiana Department of Transportation for the property. 00:11:20.191 --> 00:11:27.678 - This is a septic capacity letter that was issued to the petitioner. 00:11:35.234 --> 00:11:47.207 - And this is a letter of remonstrance. I'll allow everyone to read that for a minute or so. And this 00:11:47.207 --> 00:11:51.038 - is the abstract recommendation. 00:11:51.778 --> 00:11:57.615 - Staff recommends denial of the ECO 15% slope encroachment as practical difficulties have not 00:11:57.615 --> 00:12:04.017 - been demonstrated as disturbance of slopes greater than 15% could have been partially avoided had the 00:12:04.017 --> 00:12:10.419 - petitioner built the residence closer to State Road 446. Staff recommends approval of VAR 2643B, that 00:12:10.419 --> 00:12:16.821 - is the one acre contiguous buildable area variance, citing Chapter 841 of 4F123, specifically A41 for 00:12:16.821 --> 00:12:21.214 - F3, practical difficulties have been demonstrated, no new development 00:12:21.314 --> 00:12:27.515 - may occur on the property without first acknowledging the property contains less than one acre of continuous 00:12:27.515 --> 00:12:33.545 - buildable area per Chapter 823. This variance would be needed for any development on the subject property 00:12:33.545 --> 00:12:37.982 - unless a plat amendment is pursued, and staff recommends denial of VA R2643C. 00:12:38.050 --> 00:12:44.612 - That is the ego disturbance of natural vegetation as practical difficulties have not been demonstrated 00:12:44.612 --> 00:12:50.982 - as the servants of natural vegetation would not have been as extensive had the petitioner built the 00:12:50.982 --> 00:12:57.544 - residents closer to State Road 446. I'll now take questions. Let's go ahead and turn to the petitioner 00:12:57.544 --> 00:13:03.915 - or the petitioner's representative. If there's someone here in the room that would like to speak to 00:13:03.915 --> 00:13:06.654 - this petition. Hi, are you the petitioner? 00:13:08.034 --> 00:13:37.342 - Okay. If you could sign in and then I'll swear you in. Could you raise your right hand and state your name? 00:13:38.594 --> 00:13:45.470 - Hi, Rebecca J. Haxman. And do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 00:13:45.470 --> 00:13:52.412 - I do. OK, you'll have 15 minutes to share anything you want to with us. Oh, my goodness. You don't have 00:13:52.412 --> 00:13:59.154 - to take the whole 15 minutes. Well, I purchased the property from an elderly couple that had already 00:13:59.154 --> 00:14:06.030 - obtained the septic permit and the driveway permit. There are guardrails there from the transportation 00:14:06.030 --> 00:14:07.966 - department for the driveway. 00:14:08.290 --> 00:14:17.599 - and I just want to build a house on it. I have been, I bought it about five years ago and was hoping 00:14:17.599 --> 00:14:27.461 - to be on the property and in the residence by now. I'm paying rent at a place and I'm also paying mortgage 00:14:27.461 --> 00:14:36.862 - on this property that I can't do anything with currently. So I'm just, I would very much like to have 00:14:37.314 --> 00:14:48.714 - my home built there on the property. May I ask you a question? Yes, please. The staff says the disturbance 00:14:48.714 --> 00:14:59.474 - to the slope would be less if the house were moved closer to 446. What is your opinion about that? I 00:14:59.474 --> 00:15:07.038 - feel like that's the only flat spot that there is. This is my builder. 00:15:07.394 --> 00:15:17.713 - With Hendrickson Construction, can he come up? Sure. I need to swear him in, though, if you could come 00:15:17.713 --> 00:15:28.332 - up to the podium. Where the driveway is from 446, it goes down into the driveway portion of the property. 00:15:28.332 --> 00:15:34.142 - And so then once it finally grades out, it is flat there. 00:15:34.466 --> 00:15:40.617 - In order to move it closer to 446, it would be part of that. And be sitting on the solid rock right 00:15:40.617 --> 00:15:46.830 - there. Sir, if you would please sign in and state your name before you speak, that helps us know who 00:15:46.830 --> 00:15:53.289 - you are. Let's just wait till he's done, so you'll have the mic when you're speaking. Could you go ahead 00:15:53.289 --> 00:15:59.441 - and state your name and raise your right hand, sir? David Hendrickson. OK, do you swear to tell the 00:15:59.441 --> 00:16:03.870 - truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. OK, thank you. 00:16:04.706 --> 00:16:12.104 - Yes, so the fact that we went further back, the reason for that was because of the flatness of the area. 00:16:12.104 --> 00:16:19.220 - That was the amount of space we could work with. And where they had to put the septic system. Right. 00:16:19.220 --> 00:16:26.407 - Because there's only one spot for it. Right. We had the septic guy out there twice. The first time he 00:16:26.407 --> 00:16:31.198 - was there, he really thought that we could get away with putting it 00:16:31.298 --> 00:16:39.911 - in one area, and then they had to come back and say, no, that's really not gonna work, so we're gonna 00:16:39.911 --> 00:16:48.525 - do it over here where it's a little bit higher and it's flatter. The place where we originally put it 00:16:48.525 --> 00:16:57.223 - was a 25% grade, so that's why we couldn't go there. May I ask staff a question before they step away? 00:16:57.223 --> 00:17:00.094 - How much off the 15% slope is the 00:17:00.354 --> 00:17:08.650 - plot they want to put their home on. Well, I guess we have a few sources of data here. One is our LIDAR 00:17:08.650 --> 00:17:16.867 - imagery, which Ray has on the screen, is from 2018. So it would have been before they graded the site, 00:17:16.867 --> 00:17:24.126 - which is why it's showing up as, I believe the legend on that, Ray, would that red be 25%? 00:17:24.354 --> 00:17:32.182 - Okay, and then on Eric Deckard's plan it is showing even with the grading He's not indicating that is 00:17:32.182 --> 00:17:39.166 - within 15 percent slope. So it's still over However, Eric Deckard did not show on his plan 00:17:39.554 --> 00:17:47.270 - exactly what percent that is. So Ray has in purple outline all the items that are outside of the 15% 00:17:47.270 --> 00:17:55.139 - slope, but it's unclear like if it's 18% or 20%, it's not given a delineated line, but there is a silt 00:17:55.139 --> 00:18:03.237 - fence delineation, kind of the grading area that has occurred. So I think that based on maybe the builder 00:18:03.237 --> 00:18:08.126 - getting involved, it might have been after the site was graded, 00:18:08.578 --> 00:18:15.545 - And that might be why the house is proposed where it is. Does that answer your question? Thank you. 00:18:15.545 --> 00:18:22.652 - That does. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other questions? So at the end of the driveway, it is 00:18:22.652 --> 00:18:29.689 - completely flat. There's like one spot that we talked about putting the roundabout and the house sit 00:18:29.689 --> 00:18:34.078 - right behind it. And really there's no nowhere else to put it. 00:18:34.850 --> 00:18:42.413 - Is the driveway already constructed? So it's already there and it's ready to be attached to the graded 00:18:42.413 --> 00:18:50.050 - area that you've prepared? Yep. Thanks. Are there any other questions for the petitioners while they're 00:18:50.050 --> 00:18:57.246 - at the podium? Okay, is there anything else you'd like to share before we turn to public comment? 00:18:58.178 --> 00:19:03.545 - Move into a house. Yes, thank you so much. Okay, you're welcome to have a seat and we'll take public 00:19:03.545 --> 00:19:08.966 - comment. If anybody speaks against this, you're welcome to come back up afterwards and share anything 00:19:08.966 --> 00:19:14.333 - else you'd like to share. Okay, let's go ahead and turn to public comment now. Is there anybody here 00:19:14.333 --> 00:19:19.647 - in the room who wishes to speak in favor of this petition? Please come to the podium. Anyone online 00:19:19.647 --> 00:19:22.942 - who wishes to speak in favor, please raise your virtual hand. 00:19:27.010 --> 00:19:35.732 - Anyone in the room that wishes to speak against this petition, please come to the podium. Anyone online 00:19:35.732 --> 00:19:44.370 - who wishes to speak against, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing no one, we will close public 00:19:44.370 --> 00:19:53.008 - comment and come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals for conversation. Well, it's hard to know how far 00:19:53.008 --> 00:19:56.446 - off that 15% slope they are particularly 00:19:56.578 --> 00:20:06.560 - It's already been graded and particularly since the driveway's already constructed to be attached to 00:20:06.560 --> 00:20:16.641 - that graded property. Those are factual concerns. Staff question. Is there a place staff feels could, 00:20:16.641 --> 00:20:19.902 - this property could be developed 00:20:20.738 --> 00:20:29.223 - I know you've indicated you are, but I just want to go over that again. Where do you feel like a residence 00:20:29.223 --> 00:20:37.311 - could reasonably be constructed? So what Ray has on the screen right now is moving the house from its 00:20:37.311 --> 00:20:45.558 - proposed location, turning it 90 degrees and moving it onto the driveway to shore up the driveway. What 00:20:45.558 --> 00:20:46.430 - that would 00:20:46.530 --> 00:20:53.662 - involved would be the garage would be first, so you would have a shorter driveway, and then you would 00:20:53.662 --> 00:21:00.025 - drive in, go to the garage, and then enter the house that way. That moves the construction 00:21:00.025 --> 00:21:07.157 - and the disturbance further east, and that location, according to the LIDAR, is flatter. It has blue, 00:21:07.157 --> 00:21:14.359 - so we have maximized the buildable area in this example and stayed away from some of the steeper areas 00:21:14.359 --> 00:21:15.198 - where it is 00:21:15.330 --> 00:21:24.110 - previously been disturbed. So it looks to me like the area in the picture at the left still has some 00:21:24.110 --> 00:21:33.324 - encroachment into steeper areas, but it's the least that could be done to develop this property according 00:21:33.324 --> 00:21:42.191 - to the LIDAR and the analysis from staff. Is that right? That is correct, yes. But you also said that 00:21:42.191 --> 00:21:44.190 - would rotate the house 00:21:44.706 --> 00:21:51.867 - This example rotates the house 90 degrees. So the entrance to the house is through the garage instead 00:21:51.867 --> 00:21:59.309 - of through a front door. Is that what you're saying to make that work? For a vehicle, yes. For a vehicle, 00:21:59.309 --> 00:22:04.926 - but you could presumably get a sidewalk that would go to a front door. Correct. 00:22:16.930 --> 00:22:27.162 - Can we bring petitioner and her builder back? Because now that I've got a better grasp on this difficult 00:22:27.162 --> 00:22:37.395 - question. So you had mentioned moving it closer. The problem with that is the driveway is already there, 00:22:37.395 --> 00:22:46.750 - obviously. But if we come closer to 446, the climb out of her driveway is going to be horrible. 00:22:47.362 --> 00:22:54.644 - because it's pretty good grade. But the grade comes down to a flat spot. So if I use the road that we 00:22:54.644 --> 00:23:02.140 - have, or the drive that we have, and build it up, as we go up, she won't have that grade. Is that level, 00:23:02.140 --> 00:23:09.422 - are you saying you're gonna be adding fill to the current driveway? Is that the plan? Building it up, 00:23:09.422 --> 00:23:16.062 - yes. To build it up, yes. Okay. Because I would think even Inda would want some kind of stop 00:23:16.354 --> 00:23:22.710 - right there at the top with the base, so that they can get out of that curve, because both directions 00:23:22.710 --> 00:23:29.315 - is horrible for traffic. So part of the variance request, we do have to be specific in the square footage 00:23:29.315 --> 00:23:35.422 - of additional disturbance that's going to be part of the construction. So I think on the original 00:23:35.422 --> 00:23:41.841 - application, we had about 4,200 square feet of disturbance. That basically covers the house, which you 00:23:41.841 --> 00:23:43.710 - have about 3,000 square feet. 00:23:43.810 --> 00:23:51.137 - and then just a little bit outside of that. But if you're going to be doing additional work to the driveway, 00:23:51.137 --> 00:23:57.859 - we'll need to know like how much square foot of fill you'll think that you'll need to have. I mean, 00:23:57.859 --> 00:24:04.984 - it could have steepness to it, but at the top is where I'm talking about. Like getting out of that curve, 00:24:04.984 --> 00:24:11.841 - coming up the driveway with a steep incline is always gonna be an issue. So it'd be best if the guard 00:24:11.841 --> 00:24:13.118 - rails were widened 00:24:13.442 --> 00:24:22.625 - like a flat spot there. Okay. And since this is a permit through in dot images, said maybe that one 00:24:22.625 --> 00:24:31.991 - by the guardrail and about where that truck is, that is where I'm talking about building it up so she 00:24:31.991 --> 00:24:38.878 - doesn't have a straight climb up the hill with doing something at the top. 00:24:39.170 --> 00:24:46.263 - Yeah. When you get to the top, you're still going to have a steep slope trying to get out on 446. Is 00:24:46.263 --> 00:24:53.849 - that right? Not necessarily. No, because there's such, if you look at the distance from where the guardrail 00:24:53.849 --> 00:25:01.223 - set to where that white truck is at, for instance, that's like 220 feet or something. So gradually build 00:25:01.223 --> 00:25:07.614 - it up and then come to a spot where it's feasible to get out of the driveway. You know, I, 00:25:08.994 --> 00:25:15.430 - There's a lot, it sounds like you're talking about, you need a lot of disturbance that's not before 00:25:15.430 --> 00:25:22.059 - us right now. The disturbance is already there. The road's already in there. You wouldn't have to make 00:25:22.059 --> 00:25:28.559 - any other change to the road. Possibly if NDOT wanted us to do something at the top, just because of 00:25:28.559 --> 00:25:35.059 - the curves right there is the only thing I was thinking. I'm wondering if we could get staff to pull 00:25:35.059 --> 00:25:37.054 - this up on Google Street View. 00:25:38.306 --> 00:25:41.502 - There's a pretty good image that I found here. 00:26:17.410 --> 00:26:35.507 - I had a little bit of trouble finding it too. Is it farther north? Yeah, I believe it's right there 00:26:35.507 --> 00:26:45.822 - on the left. To the left. Yep. That's going down. Right. 00:26:45.922 --> 00:26:52.513 - OK, you can kind of see where those guardrails are at and that kind of flat spot right there. But then 00:26:52.513 --> 00:26:59.040 - it drops dramatically down the hill to a big flat spot, which is solid rock. But do you feel that you 00:26:59.040 --> 00:27:05.439 - need to change the driveway from the flat spot at the bottom to the to the? I think the drive going 00:27:05.439 --> 00:27:12.414 - down is fine and getting back up it is fine in the winter and stuff. But the top, that's where I'm concerned 00:27:12.414 --> 00:27:13.950 - because of the traffic. 00:27:14.722 --> 00:27:23.681 - Yeah, where the guardrails are. You would like to do something there so that you can get, uh, 00:27:23.681 --> 00:27:33.212 - we won't be, you won't have the back of the car downhill when you're trying to get out on the road. 00:27:33.212 --> 00:27:41.790 - Yes. Okay. But so, so that's additional disturbance. You don't, from aside from the, the, 00:27:42.210 --> 00:27:51.952 - change you might need to make at the top, and that's gonna be back 30 feet that you may need, something 00:27:51.952 --> 00:28:01.600 - like that. Well, cars, what, 18 to 20, so yeah. Yeah, so that's why I'm guessing. That's a pretty good 00:28:01.600 --> 00:28:10.686 - guess. 25 at least, you know, and then the driveway down would be no further disturbance. Right. 00:28:10.914 --> 00:28:18.877 - when you bought the property, that disturbance was already there. So you come and look at it and say, 00:28:18.877 --> 00:28:26.918 - well, this looks pretty good without knowing that they had, uh, perhaps violated the, the, yeah. Well, 00:28:26.918 --> 00:28:34.803 - they had, they had driveway permit to do that, to put the driveway in. They also had a septic permit 00:28:34.803 --> 00:28:38.238 - on file when she bought it. Okay. Okay. Um, 00:28:39.170 --> 00:28:46.865 - I mean, you had to have some sort of permit for guardrails to be installed, right? Oh, those are a highway. 00:28:46.865 --> 00:28:54.418 - They're there regardless. OK, well. I have the permits when I purchase the property. We're on this Google 00:28:54.418 --> 00:29:01.543 - map. The image is the home to be located. Is it right there to the right down the hill? Straight go 00:29:01.543 --> 00:29:07.742 - back to that other picture like that's where you would come in right there at the top. 00:29:08.226 --> 00:29:17.854 - back past that blue. Yeah, past the blue. You see all that flat area right there. All that's flat. Okay. 00:29:17.854 --> 00:29:27.665 - So by the blue is that sort of toward the front and there looks like stuff is there's a piece of equipment 00:29:27.665 --> 00:29:36.926 - down here. That's where it's flat. Yes. And everything around this driveway does this everywhere. So 00:29:38.946 --> 00:29:49.515 - it's tricky. I have a question for staff. From time to time we come up with people that would have been 00:29:49.515 --> 00:29:59.983 - okay when they bought it, but then we've changed the rules. Is this one of those properties? Rules did 00:29:59.983 --> 00:30:08.926 - change us. Let me check with staff. So the only consideration is possibly that this was 00:30:09.122 --> 00:30:15.893 - of the area three, but this was still in the eco area. It would have not, we didn't add eco 00:30:15.893 --> 00:30:23.621 - area considerations around the lake. It's the same overall boundary, but some of the areas two and three 00:30:23.621 --> 00:30:31.422 - did get consolidated. So I'm not sure if this was probably part of area three, which would have been 18%. 00:30:31.714 --> 00:30:39.286 - and now it's 15% under the CDO. That's the only change. But when they purchased the property, we're 00:30:39.286 --> 00:30:47.161 - just going through the aerials, just as a reminder, the disturbance was not there yet. So it was really 00:30:47.161 --> 00:30:54.430 - in like 2025, 2026 that the disturbance has taken place, which is after the passage of the CDO. 00:30:55.650 --> 00:31:02.856 - I'm confused now that the driveway that we were just looking down on that street view, when was that 00:31:02.856 --> 00:31:10.276 - grading done? Way before us. Yeah, it was there when I purchased the property and is down at the bottom 00:31:10.276 --> 00:31:17.410 - is where she's talking about. That's been dirt has been moved a little bit, but the driveway itself 00:31:17.410 --> 00:31:20.478 - was not was was when you bought it in, uh, 00:31:20.578 --> 00:31:29.315 - Five years ago, that driveway was already in exactly the condition to see. So we have on the screen 00:31:29.315 --> 00:31:38.227 - the aerial. 2022 is on the left right now, which is within five years. 2024 is on the right. And then 00:31:38.227 --> 00:31:46.965 - Ray will keep going 2025 left, 2026 right. So based on the aerials, it's been significantly changed 00:31:46.965 --> 00:31:50.110 - since 2022. Let me go back to 2026. 00:31:51.170 --> 00:31:59.601 - Okay. Now is this the area of disturbance or is this the area of disturbance? You see what I mean? There's 00:31:59.601 --> 00:32:08.111 - one that's I'm calling lower here. And then there's. That's the neighbor to the north. This is the neighbor 00:32:08.111 --> 00:32:09.214 - to the north. 00:32:09.602 --> 00:32:19.027 - No, not that. OK, that is. Those structures. OK, so this is the disturbance we're talking about. Correct. 00:32:19.027 --> 00:32:28.008 - And in 2026, I can see this driveway is clearly disturbed. Now, this is 2025. And it doesn't look as 00:32:28.008 --> 00:32:36.900 - disturbed, but it looks like there's some disturbance. Is that right? Well, the Eagle View, I mean, 00:32:36.900 --> 00:32:39.390 - the Beacon Gise imagery was 00:32:39.842 --> 00:32:51.501 - The quality was pretty poor, so that was just the only picture I could get from 2025. OK, let's go back 00:32:51.501 --> 00:33:02.599 - a year, please. Now here is the road cut, is that right? But I don't see either in this one or in. 00:33:02.599 --> 00:33:09.662 - This one. Let's ask her what year she bought the property. 21. 00:33:10.146 --> 00:33:21.598 - 2021. So do you see what my concern is that this looks like looks like there's a driveway cut here that 00:33:21.598 --> 00:33:32.829 - you can see is looks like that something the highway department might have done. And then I don't see 00:33:32.829 --> 00:33:39.326 - that driveway coming down and it goes the other direction. 00:33:41.250 --> 00:33:51.759 - So you're going straight across, go at an angle. You can go ahead and... So you're saying that there's 00:33:51.759 --> 00:34:02.574 - a disturbance that goes from here to here? That's where they put the driveway in, yes. Okay. Yeah, that's 00:34:02.574 --> 00:34:10.430 - the cabin. Yeah. But is that your cabin? No, that's the other, the neighbor. 00:34:10.882 --> 00:34:26.156 - Okay, where's the building site? Is it down here? Right past the blue. Right in there. So this one is 00:34:26.156 --> 00:34:40.382 - 2025. This is 2025. And we go back to 2024. You see, to me, it looks like there's clearly been 00:34:40.578 --> 00:34:47.256 - additional disturbance from 2024 to 2026. From driving on the road and moving a little bit of dirt around. 00:34:47.256 --> 00:34:53.872 - Yeah, there's been some, but not built a road in there. The road's been there. There's been no... Digging 00:34:53.872 --> 00:35:00.176 - or anything like that? No, not on the road. No, just maybe a little gravel. Yep. But on the building 00:35:00.176 --> 00:35:06.418 - side, didn't I read that you took down 30 trees? Yeah. That's the difference. The disturbance could 00:35:06.418 --> 00:35:09.726 - be that. The trees were gone from the big flat area. 00:35:10.018 --> 00:35:16.838 - There we go. So that you can definitely see the difference on that. OK, so there's quite a few trees 00:35:16.838 --> 00:35:23.590 - came out. So and you Mr Hendrickson, you've been working on this for five years too. It sounds like 00:35:23.590 --> 00:35:30.612 - for several years. Yeah, trying so. How long? Trying to get it done right, but you've been working with 00:35:30.612 --> 00:35:37.027 - back surgery in the process and everything got delayed and it's just well, it's not the first, 00:35:37.027 --> 00:35:39.998 - isn't it? It's always that way with family. 00:35:40.130 --> 00:35:46.469 - But your testimony is that the driveway we're seeing in the 26 picture was not substantially changed 00:35:46.469 --> 00:35:53.060 - back to 24, it's just the pictures don't show the disturbance and that's partly because you put a little 00:35:53.060 --> 00:35:59.587 - gravel on it and you tried to make it usable, but there was no regrading, no change in the grade. There 00:35:59.587 --> 00:36:05.927 - were big runs in and stuff from where they put it in and there's been some done to it. I'm not going 00:36:05.927 --> 00:36:07.998 - to say there's not, but it's not 00:36:08.386 --> 00:36:17.261 - bigger or longer or anything like that. Or more or less steep. Right. Okay. Well, that's an important 00:36:17.261 --> 00:36:26.309 - thing for me to understand. And it's not clear from the pictures. Yeah. But I think... It's really not. 00:36:26.309 --> 00:36:35.358 - No. But I'm comfortable with your on-site inspection being more accurate than aerial photos. Thank you. 00:36:37.794 --> 00:36:45.583 - I'm not sure where it leads me. Well, I have concerns that as I look at property like this, this this 00:36:45.583 --> 00:36:53.218 - is part of the parcel of the terrain we live in. Where can you put your house? Because it has to be 00:36:53.218 --> 00:37:01.160 - usable and has to be buildable. I understand that. And I also understand the staff saying if we rotated 00:37:01.160 --> 00:37:05.054 - it so on and so forth, boy, that changes the whole 00:37:05.154 --> 00:37:13.599 - look in appearance and entry and everything else how it looks. That's a big steep climb when it comes 00:37:13.599 --> 00:37:22.043 - to your home. So I have sympathy that in the terrain we live in, the lack of perfect buildable space. 00:37:22.043 --> 00:37:30.405 - And I'm also concerned that we don't know if it's 15, if it's 18%, 20%, though the pictures, some of 00:37:30.405 --> 00:37:34.462 - them look like it's a slope, a meaningful slope. 00:37:34.562 --> 00:37:43.942 - But that's the terrain we live in all around us. So we also have our water supply to worry about The 00:37:43.942 --> 00:37:53.322 - watershed and this is in it and you know, we lose our water supply one cut at a time and I'm worried 00:37:53.322 --> 00:38:02.238 - about the the quality of the water It's not been so great lately, you know and our role in that 00:38:02.946 --> 00:38:13.884 - On the screen, I have the history of the Google Maps history of the property. So you can see from 2008, 00:38:13.884 --> 00:38:22.718 - 2015. And this is along that driveway. 2018, it's kind of hard to see. Sorry, 2022. 00:38:25.282 --> 00:38:33.708 - Okay. But I can clearly see there is addressed in that 2022. It does show that did show clearly that 00:38:33.708 --> 00:38:42.134 - the driveway was there in 2022, just like you said, but it was, that was a good view of that. That's 00:38:42.134 --> 00:38:50.644 - a really good view right there because you can see the flat spot where it opens up in the back. Yeah. 00:38:50.644 --> 00:38:54.398 - And this is 2022. Is that right? Yeah. Okay. 00:38:54.498 --> 00:39:05.783 - That's very helpful to have found those. I'll also note on the beacon GIS, the disturbed area, if I 00:39:05.783 --> 00:39:17.631 - can just share my screen right now. So the disturbed area that you see is 70 feet kind of north to south 00:39:17.631 --> 00:39:23.838 - where you can see like a clear rectangle and then it's 00:39:24.002 --> 00:39:36.058 - 48 feet kind of east to west, and they're stating it's going to be a basement construction on Eric Deckard's 00:39:36.058 --> 00:39:47.672 - plan. They're showing a 75 foot north to south and at least a 45 foot, if not more, the other direction. 00:39:47.672 --> 00:39:53.534 - So we've got maybe enough area east to west, but not 00:39:53.794 --> 00:40:01.556 - quite enough area north to south, so it is a very steep site. What I will say here is that in the code 00:40:01.556 --> 00:40:09.242 - we do have allowances for exceptions. Of course, we are not able to use those. If they grade the site 00:40:09.242 --> 00:40:17.079 - first, it is only for when someone comes to us with a permit at first. We can evaluate a site. But some 00:40:17.079 --> 00:40:21.374 - of the considerations for applying the exception is that 00:40:21.538 --> 00:40:31.777 - the house maximizes any buildable area existing on the site and that the house footprint doesn't exceed 00:40:31.777 --> 00:40:39.358 - 2,500 square feet. This is a 3,006 square foot home over a basement. So it's 00:40:39.874 --> 00:40:46.849 - a considerable footprint for the limited buildable area you have here. So one of the things that the 00:40:46.849 --> 00:40:53.824 - BCA does need to find if you're leaning towards approval is that they've met practical difficulties, 00:40:53.824 --> 00:41:01.075 - which means that the site cannot be redesigned or modified in a way that potentially could mean altering 00:41:01.075 --> 00:41:07.774 - the house footprint, rearranging its orientation to meet within the site constraints that exist. 00:41:09.122 --> 00:41:19.029 - What we just heard about 2,500 versus 3,006, what do you think about that? Can it be downsized? Is that 00:41:19.029 --> 00:41:28.745 - an option or a possibility? I mean, if it has to be, the worse it gets built, but it would be nice to 00:41:28.745 --> 00:41:38.270 - keep it the way it is. But I understand the problem with it, too. How many bedrooms is this? Three. 00:41:39.522 --> 00:41:53.127 - No, we can change that. Go down to the two bedroom. It's not the number of bedrooms for us. It's the 00:41:53.127 --> 00:42:06.867 - square footage. Yeah. Okay. Oh, I know what it was. Jackie, does the fact that it has a basement make 00:42:06.867 --> 00:42:09.022 - any difference? 00:42:09.570 --> 00:42:17.133 - So I think that the image you have here is kind of the construction plans we have. I didn't know if 00:42:17.133 --> 00:42:24.922 - it was, this is kind of a, just like a, I don't want to say AI generated, but just like the background 00:42:24.922 --> 00:42:32.636 - is just template, right? It's not fitting with the site. Is the basement a walkout basement or is it? 00:42:32.636 --> 00:42:37.854 - Okay. Is it going to be fitting within that kind of rectangle? Okay. 00:42:38.210 --> 00:42:48.806 - and then you'll just build up from there, and that's why the driveway's then gonna be built up. Yes. 00:42:48.806 --> 00:42:59.506 - Okay, so the first floor elevation on the certified plot plan, Ray, what was that again? I think it's 00:42:59.506 --> 00:43:06.430 - 779. Okay, and then on beacon, the existing kind of contours here 00:43:07.138 --> 00:43:17.014 - It's about 764. So you said, what was it? 779. 779. So you have probably a basement with a 10 foot and 00:43:17.014 --> 00:43:27.082 - then the first floor would be, so you'd be building up maybe five-ish more feet. Then the driveway would 00:43:27.082 --> 00:43:36.670 - kind of be five more. But it would be like starting where the flat spot's at all the way up to the, 00:43:36.770 --> 00:43:45.074 - flat spot. So is a plan to bring the house up higher to the profile 446 like the first floor of it? 00:43:45.074 --> 00:43:53.379 - Or is it too? It would be at the ground level where that openings at. OK. So you're not planning on 00:43:53.379 --> 00:44:01.683 - like specifically building the house up in order to grade the driveway starting at the house higher 00:44:01.683 --> 00:44:06.334 - to lessen that slope up to 446 in a way. OK, lessen it. 00:44:06.498 --> 00:44:14.037 - sure okay because the slope is dramatic I just don't want to because of the disturbance obviously the 00:44:14.037 --> 00:44:19.358 - more more dirt move the worse so we're not gonna put the house the same 00:44:19.842 --> 00:44:26.931 - height as 446. Is that what you're asking? No, I'm asking if you're just going to soften that. No. That's 00:44:26.931 --> 00:44:33.954 - the consideration for a basement, right, is that you just have to look at what the first floor elevation 00:44:33.954 --> 00:44:40.642 - is as compared to what the elevations are on the site. So that can kind of tell us, but really what 00:44:40.642 --> 00:44:47.397 - we'll need for construction if they're planning on altering the driveway grade is with fill, they'll 00:44:47.397 --> 00:44:49.470 - need to show us what that fill 00:44:49.730 --> 00:44:56.313 - elevation looks like. How many feet of fill will they be doing on the driveway, essentially? Are they 00:44:56.313 --> 00:45:02.897 - doing incremental, you know, six-inch grade changes to the driveway all the way up, or is it going to 00:45:02.897 --> 00:45:09.609 - be quite a bit different? Will NDOT require anything there at the top of that? We don't know that until 00:45:09.609 --> 00:45:15.934 - you ask. Well, the only reason I ask that is because the grade right now is doable the way it is. 00:45:16.258 --> 00:45:29.827 - on the road coming in, but the top is where we have the issue. I just worry about the traffic right 00:45:29.827 --> 00:45:43.395 - there. And you'll be paving this driveway, is that correct? Yeah. Okay. You know, we're struggling. 00:45:43.395 --> 00:45:45.566 - You're welcome. 00:45:47.170 --> 00:45:59.744 - We're struggling to try to find a way to yes here. And it's not easy because there's a lot of variables. 00:45:59.744 --> 00:46:12.677 - But the site does exist. And you didn't create the site. You bought the site. And you say, Mr. Hendrickson, 00:46:12.677 --> 00:46:16.030 - they had a driveway permit. 00:46:17.442 --> 00:46:27.244 - Well, I tell you what, we're going to try to shoehorn ourselves into an exception that doesn't exactly 00:46:27.244 --> 00:46:37.236 - apply, but we're going to ignore the fact that somebody else made the changes. But it seems like I don't 00:46:37.236 --> 00:46:47.038 - want to make any more exceptions than we need to. And if you can talk yourself into 2,500 square feet, 00:46:49.026 --> 00:46:56.823 - then I'm much more comfortable using that exception, because that's just one less change we need to 00:46:56.823 --> 00:47:04.620 - make, one less favor we have to do. And we'd be doing, I think you understand from our perspective, 00:47:04.620 --> 00:47:12.963 - some pretty good favors. But I don't want to say, well, I'm sorry you bought land that can't be developed. 00:47:12.963 --> 00:47:15.614 - And you're not too far from that. 00:47:16.866 --> 00:47:24.646 - And you're just one vote on the committee. Oh, of course I'm just one vote. I'm talking about me, I'm 00:47:24.646 --> 00:47:32.425 - not talking about anybody else. So for me to be, I said we when I should have said me, the difference 00:47:32.425 --> 00:47:40.052 - between me and we is a big difference. So you're comfortable making that 2,500 begrudgingly, but if 00:47:40.052 --> 00:47:45.086 - that's what it takes, you'll do it and you'll agree to the limit, 00:47:45.218 --> 00:47:53.857 - to design the house within that? Absolutely. Okay. Because my bank is saying, come May, it needs to 00:47:53.857 --> 00:48:02.582 - be up or you need to pay the full amount of the loan. And so I'm stuck. Something has to happen. And 00:48:02.582 --> 00:48:11.998 - nobody's going to buy it who can do any better than you. Exactly. Well, okay, I'll take the plunge. I'll say 00:48:12.258 --> 00:48:24.814 - given the commitment to redesigning it to 2,500 feet, I move we approve with the findings that shorn 00:48:24.814 --> 00:48:37.619 - this into the exception and disregard the fact that the disturbance was made prior to their ownership, 00:48:37.619 --> 00:48:40.478 - the major disturbance. 00:48:41.634 --> 00:48:48.215 - And do you want to add the practical difficulties have been shown? Do you want to add that? Extreme 00:48:48.215 --> 00:48:54.993 - practical difficulties have been shown because otherwise I don't see how anybody could make any change 00:48:54.993 --> 00:49:01.837 - or adjustment that would would make this a usable piece of property. I don't like the fact that changes 00:49:01.837 --> 00:49:08.418 - were made years ago and you bought it this way, but I don't want to say you bought something that's 00:49:08.418 --> 00:49:10.590 - useless. But not every property. 00:49:12.354 --> 00:49:22.864 - is required to be built on. It's not just a person can enjoy the property without building on it. And 00:49:22.864 --> 00:49:33.787 - that's been proven in the courts. So that's not a practical difficulty. If it's going to be a residential 00:49:33.787 --> 00:49:40.382 - property. That's the big if. That's the question. That's right. 00:49:40.546 --> 00:49:49.059 - I made my motion. If it fails, I will understand and be sympathetic with. And do you want to list the 00:49:49.059 --> 00:49:57.489 - number of the variances on that motion or not? Well, I think that the variance too is a sort of a no 00:49:57.489 --> 00:50:06.002 - brainer and that we're going to do that. So maybe I should separate the motion. No, you don't have to 00:50:06.002 --> 00:50:09.758 - do that. I just wondered if you want to take 00:50:10.466 --> 00:50:19.563 - read for the record what the number was. All three. And I can, can I have, yeah. There you go. 00:50:19.563 --> 00:50:29.426 - Thank you. That it's, um, um, then Hodgma, uh, uh, 43A, 43B, 43C all be, uh, approved. I'm gonna, with 00:50:29.426 --> 00:50:37.278 - the condition of the downsizing of the property, I'm going to second that motion. 00:50:43.330 --> 00:50:48.446 - and repeat that. Yeah, good. Thank you. 00:51:07.170 --> 00:51:17.922 - motion has been made to approve VAR-26-43A, which is the eco area to 15 percent slope variance. VAR-26-43B, 00:51:17.922 --> 00:51:28.176 - which is the eco area to one acre contiguous buildable area variance. And VAR-26-43C, which is the eco 00:51:28.176 --> 00:51:35.742 - area to natural disturbance vegetation or disturbance of natural vegetation 00:51:35.842 --> 00:51:45.622 - variance to chapter 823 with condition that the home size be no greater than 2,500 square feet total. 00:51:45.622 --> 00:51:55.019 - A vote yes is a vote to approve all three variances with the condition stated. Margaret Clements. 00:51:55.019 --> 00:52:04.703 - Unfortunately, I'm unable to support this petition. Guy Lofman. Yes. Jeff Morris. Unfortunately, I'm 00:52:04.703 --> 00:52:05.758 - a no also. 00:52:05.890 --> 00:52:12.563 - I want to explain why I want you to be able to build your house, but I also think there's some minor 00:52:12.563 --> 00:52:19.170 - modifications that could be made that would allow it to be built while we continue to preserve our, 00:52:19.170 --> 00:52:25.777 - our, you know, our, um, restrictions that we have in the CDO. And so, you know, while I want you to 00:52:25.777 --> 00:52:32.318 - build your house, I want to make sure we're, we're protecting our environment too. Emily Davidson. 00:52:32.578 --> 00:52:39.239 - I'm going to vote yes. Are you suggesting they come back and visit with staff to see if there's some 00:52:39.239 --> 00:52:46.296 - kind of accommodation could be made on that space? Is that what your suggestion is? Yeah, I think there's, 00:52:46.296 --> 00:52:53.024 - you know, reducing the square footage or potentially adding a room on a second floor or something. In 00:52:53.024 --> 00:52:58.366 - that case, I wonder if we should continue this case to give them an opportunity. 00:52:58.562 --> 00:53:05.389 - So the vote that vote fails for lack of majority. So it's two to two. So this would automatically be 00:53:05.389 --> 00:53:12.419 - continued to the next meeting for lack of majority vote. But it is a good suggestion to maybe come back 00:53:12.419 --> 00:53:19.652 - to staff and talk to us about the driveway plans. Get everything that you want on there. If you're willing 00:53:19.652 --> 00:53:26.682 - to shore up to 2500 square feet, show that to the board and see if that can be approved. Yeah. And work 00:53:26.682 --> 00:53:27.966 - with Mr. Tobiah to 00:53:28.962 --> 00:53:38.351 - So the 2500 feet includes the basement or we have to go up. I think that's a standard footprint, a footprint 00:53:38.351 --> 00:53:46.964 - 2500 square foot footprint. So we don't care how many you can go up two stories for all I care. You 00:53:46.964 --> 00:53:55.578 - then have a three story house. It's the footprint 2500 square foot of a footprint and in as much of 00:53:55.578 --> 00:53:58.334 - the buildable area as possible. 00:53:58.818 --> 00:54:06.110 - as staff has outlined. And that's why I voted no, because I think you could go up and maybe put a room 00:54:06.110 --> 00:54:13.401 - upstairs that you're going to put on the first floor and still fall within our guidelines that protect 00:54:13.401 --> 00:54:20.834 - the land around it. This has been automatically continued then to the next meeting, which is on December 00:54:20.834 --> 00:54:28.126 - 2nd at five thirty in this room. Thank you both for sharing all the details. Thank you. Appreciate it. 00:54:28.674 --> 00:54:39.712 - Moving on to the next item on the agenda, this is VAR-26-44A, 44B, 44C, 44D, 44E, 44F, 44G, 44H, 44I, 00:54:39.712 --> 00:54:48.478 - and 44J. Ms. Nestor-Gellin, do I need to read the descriptions on each of those? 00:54:50.882 --> 00:54:57.754 - That's OK. I do believe that the petitioner before us having a staff presentation, they would like to 00:54:57.754 --> 00:55:04.626 - request a continuance, but because that was made within seven days, the Board of Zoning Appeals rules 00:55:04.626 --> 00:55:11.430 - or procedures state that they have to present evidence for good cause to request the continuance and 00:55:11.430 --> 00:55:18.235 - you have to vote on it. OK, do we have the petitioner or representative here in the room? OK, if you 00:55:18.235 --> 00:55:19.582 - could come forward. 00:55:22.818 --> 00:55:32.042 - I'm Dan Sear. Sign in and state your name. I'll swear you in. Thank you. My name is Dan's here. Do you 00:55:32.042 --> 00:55:41.265 - swear to tell the truth? The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Okay. Could you explain 00:55:41.265 --> 00:55:49.504 - why you need the continuance? Yes. Um so I have recently received the staff report. Um it's 00:55:49.504 --> 00:55:52.638 - fairly complicated property. These 00:55:52.770 --> 00:55:59.658 - factual questions that need to be investigated in response to the staff report and recommendations provided 00:55:59.658 --> 00:56:06.611 - last Thursday in the span of time since last Thursday and my other workload and the additional investigation 00:56:06.611 --> 00:56:13.180 - that we feel would be appropriate. We would request a continuance. Carol and Michael Rominger are here 00:56:13.180 --> 00:56:19.367 - with their son and they have committed to working with me to providing a better, a more prepared 00:56:19.367 --> 00:56:21.918 - presentation. Although whoever, if you, 00:56:22.082 --> 00:56:28.230 - wish to, you know, we'll be here. We would rather have this continued to December or perhaps January 00:56:28.230 --> 00:56:34.317 - given we don't know your workload. So we have requested a continuance. We have the payment for that 00:56:34.317 --> 00:56:40.404 - and we've communicated with Drew Myers on Monday. Okay. Could you let us know whether you preferred 00:56:40.404 --> 00:56:46.674 - December or January? Would that be helpful for staff to know that? We would personally prefer January, 00:56:46.674 --> 00:56:51.422 - but I don't want to ask if that's not going to work for you. Okay. Thank you. 00:56:51.618 --> 00:56:59.960 - Are there any questions? Well, the petitioners are present. I move we grant the continuance to January. 00:56:59.960 --> 00:57:08.782 - And I second that. And thank you for wanting to be better factually prepared. That helps us all. I appreciate 00:57:08.782 --> 00:57:16.963 - that. OK, and so that date will be January 6th, 2027. So it's been moved and seconded to move this to 00:57:16.963 --> 00:57:21.054 - January 6th, 2027. A vote yes is a vote to approve 00:57:21.570 --> 00:57:29.532 - to that continuance. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. 00:57:29.532 --> 00:57:36.798 - Okay, that motion carries four to zero. Have a good evening. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:57:37.154 --> 00:57:45.621 - Okay, moving on to VAR-26-45A, 45B, 45C, 45D, and 45E. This is the Lahore Eco Area 1 deck and landscaping, 00:57:45.621 --> 00:57:53.534 - 12% slope, variance to chapter 823. The disturbance of natural vegetation, variance to chapter 823. 00:57:53.534 --> 00:58:02.238 - The residential density maximum, variance to chapter 823. The minimum lake frontage, variance to chapter 823. 00:58:02.306 --> 00:58:10.088 - and the one acre contiguous buildable area variance to chapter 823. So Mr. Brown, I will turn it over 00:58:10.088 --> 00:58:18.252 - to you. I just wanna make one announcement. I apologize. Mr. Skip Daly, our fifth board member is present. 00:58:18.252 --> 00:58:25.958 - He's virtual and he's on the screen. So sorry, Skip, we did not see you on the last roll call if you 00:58:25.958 --> 00:58:30.078 - were here before that. Was he here? Could we ask him? 00:58:30.210 --> 00:58:39.655 - skip what time did you enter the meeting I'm not sure I came in midway through that last hearing so 00:58:39.655 --> 00:58:47.966 - I was not eligible to vote on it okay okay so you just missed the continuance vote okay 00:58:53.730 --> 00:58:59.769 - This is a variance for the purpose of enclosing an existing patio, installing a garden and two retaining 00:58:59.769 --> 00:59:05.577 - walls, as well as laying down steps. The petitioner is proposing landscaping improvements, including 00:59:05.577 --> 00:59:11.386 - a retaining wall east of the home for drainage improvements to a lot, as well as a remodel of a home 00:59:11.386 --> 00:59:17.022 - that includes the replacement of an existing deck and enclosing of a concrete pad under the deck. 00:59:17.154 --> 00:59:23.965 - as well as rectifying were completed in 2019 under a foundation-only permit that required variances. 00:59:23.965 --> 00:59:30.912 - I did want to note that I think in the staff reports, it mentioned that the slab was installed without 00:59:30.912 --> 00:59:38.061 - a permit. And speaking with our zoning inspector, it turns out that it might have actually been permitted 00:59:38.061 --> 00:59:45.007 - under that. However, the variance is still split into two general categories, landscaping improvements 00:59:45.007 --> 00:59:46.558 - and deck improvements. 00:59:46.722 --> 00:59:52.791 - For the landscaping improvements, the petitioner is proposing the establishment of retaining wall generator 00:59:52.791 --> 00:59:58.635 - and propane tank placement with subsequent removal of four mature trees, as well as installing a garden 00:59:58.635 --> 01:00:04.310 - bed off the new deck. Per the petitioner letter, the four trees subject to removal are under 10-inch 01:00:04.310 --> 01:00:10.098 - in diameter. Additionally, they state that the retaining wall is meant to help with erosion and damage 01:00:10.098 --> 01:00:15.998 - control for the site. It's worth noting that the garden bed itself also includes a small retaining wall. 01:00:17.474 --> 01:00:24.561 - As for deck improvements, the deck is to be replaced, to be replaced was submitted under PILP-427. Part 01:00:24.561 --> 01:00:31.785 - of the remodel also includes enclosing a concrete slab existing below the current deck. During the review 01:00:31.785 --> 01:00:38.600 - of the residential construction predesign, it was for the deck and landscaping improvements, it was 01:00:38.600 --> 01:00:43.166 - found that this platted lot and most of the proposed modifications 01:00:43.298 --> 01:00:50.440 - would not be in compliance with the standards of the environmental constraints overlay area one, and 01:00:50.440 --> 01:00:57.582 - the work would first require variances. Furthermore, the existing elevated deck was expanded without 01:00:57.582 --> 01:01:04.725 - first obtaining a permit in approximately 2019. So the property does not meet any of the five listed 01:01:04.725 --> 01:01:12.574 - standards for the environmental constraints overlay area one as listed in chapter 823-5A, as you can see here. 01:01:20.450 --> 01:01:28.393 - It is worth noting that the property was present in its current dimensions in 1976. No, 1967, my fault. 01:01:28.393 --> 01:01:36.184 - And the ECO regulations were not put in place until 1992. Here's the location map as well as a zoning 01:01:36.184 --> 01:01:44.204 - map of the property. The reason why it is cut off in the map on the left, that map is cut off is because 01:01:44.204 --> 01:01:47.870 - it doesn't extend beyond the county boundaries. 01:01:50.018 --> 01:01:58.691 - And here is a comprehensive plan map and site conditions map. So the picture on the left shows the home 01:01:58.691 --> 01:02:07.031 - in question as well as the garden area where my mouse is. And here is the proposed extension of the 01:02:07.031 --> 01:02:15.621 - deck that was conducted without variances. The image on the right is an image of the proposed location 01:02:15.621 --> 01:02:18.206 - of the eastern retaining wall. 01:02:20.610 --> 01:02:29.816 - The image on the left here is where the proposed steps are going to go. And the image on the right is 01:02:29.816 --> 01:02:39.112 - a close up of the proposed garden area. And this is the certified plot plan showing condition existing 01:02:39.112 --> 01:02:48.318 - conditions as well as proposed site plans as updated and views of the existing home as it stands now. 01:02:50.754 --> 01:02:59.690 - and just zoom in, zoomed in photos of the same. And so for VAR-26-45, staff is recommending denial of 01:02:59.690 --> 01:03:08.977 - VAR-26-45A for the landscaping and deck. A, the after-the-fact variance for the deck, we recommend denial 01:03:08.977 --> 01:03:16.862 - based on the findings of fact and that practical difficulties have not been demonstrated. 01:03:16.962 --> 01:03:22.757 - As for retaining wall installation, we're recommending denial based on the finding that the installation 01:03:22.757 --> 01:03:28.496 - of the retaining wall will require the removal of formative trees, and the petitioner has not submitted 01:03:28.496 --> 01:03:34.014 - adequate evidence proving practical difficulties. For the stone steps, we recommend denial based on 01:03:34.014 --> 01:03:39.643 - the finding that the petitioner could retain that portion of the site in its current condition, which 01:03:39.643 --> 01:03:45.438 - would alleviate the need for variance, as well as the same for D, the garden, for the garden bed in this 01:03:45.698 --> 01:03:53.504 - That's for VAR-26-45A. For VAR-26-45B, for disturbance of natural vegetation for the landscaping, we 01:03:53.504 --> 01:04:01.387 - are recommending denial of the retaining wall installation based on the finding that the installation 01:04:01.387 --> 01:04:09.734 - of the retaining wall will, again, require removal of formature trees, and the petitioner has not submitted 01:04:09.734 --> 01:04:14.526 - adequate evidence proving practical difficulties. Conversely, 01:04:15.010 --> 01:04:23.073 - We are recommending approval for VR-26-45C, 45D, and 45E, the five-acre requirements for the deck and 01:04:23.073 --> 01:04:31.690 - landscaping, the 300-foot lake frontage requirement for deck and landscaping, and the one acre of contiguous 01:04:31.690 --> 01:04:39.833 - buildable area requirement for deck and landscaping, respectively. The reason for that is the same for 01:04:39.833 --> 01:04:44.734 - all three. The practical difficulties have been demonstrated. 01:04:44.994 --> 01:04:51.111 - As the lot cannot meet the residential area requirements, the variances would be needed for any new 01:04:51.111 --> 01:04:57.351 - development on the subject's property unless the Platt Amendment is pursued, as well as the fact that 01:04:57.351 --> 01:05:03.469 - the lot has existed in its current dimension since prior to 1967, and the eco-regulations came into 01:05:03.469 --> 01:05:09.831 - effect in approximately 1992. And I will take any questions. Let's go ahead and turn to the petitioner. 01:05:09.831 --> 01:05:14.174 - Is the petitioner here in the room? If you could come forward, please. 01:05:16.578 --> 01:05:28.273 - If you could sign in and then I'll swear you in. Are you all three representing the petitioner? Okay, 01:05:28.273 --> 01:05:40.313 - if you could all three sign in, I'll just swear you all in at the same time that way. Anybody can speak. 01:05:40.313 --> 01:05:44.670 - We have the entire team here tonight. 01:06:18.434 --> 01:06:24.256 - If you could, one at a time, state your name into the microphone so we have it on record. My name is 01:06:24.256 --> 01:06:30.137 - Ernesto Castaneda. OK, next. My name is David Watts. OK. Torrey Vaughn. OK, and then if you could all 01:06:30.137 --> 01:06:36.074 - raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? OK, 01:06:36.074 --> 01:06:42.012 - you'll all have a combined total of 15 minutes to share whatever you'd like to with us. Thank you. May 01:06:42.012 --> 01:06:44.318 - I approach and give you guys something? 01:06:52.066 --> 01:06:59.602 - would you make sure staff get a copy as well? Thank you. Thank you. Well, thank you. Good evening, 01:06:59.602 --> 01:07:07.290 - commissioners. My name is Ernesto Castaneda. I'm the design principal at Lauren Wood Builders. Thank 01:07:07.290 --> 01:07:14.903 - you for your time tonight. And I also want to thank the planning staff for recommending approval of 01:07:14.903 --> 01:07:21.982 - our variances. I would like to start with the house itself. The house was built around 1966. 01:07:22.530 --> 01:07:29.867 - In the same years, Bloomington started drawing its drinking water from Lake Monroe. Back then, nobody 01:07:29.867 --> 01:07:37.348 - had written the protections that we have today. The environmental constraints overlay didn't come along 01:07:37.348 --> 01:07:44.685 - until about 1992. The house was built the way houses were built at the time, on a hillside with water 01:07:44.685 --> 01:07:52.382 - running straight toward. Our clients bought this home a few years ago. They didn't buy it to tear it down, 01:07:52.738 --> 01:08:00.331 - or to build something bigger. They bought it because they loved it, and they wanted to take care of 01:08:00.331 --> 01:08:08.228 - it. Almost right away, they found the foundation was moving, so water remediation has to be done. Water 01:08:08.228 --> 01:08:16.505 - coming down the hill was pushing the house toward the slope. In 2019, Monroe County issued them a foundation 01:08:16.505 --> 01:08:19.390 - repair permit, and the work occurred. 01:08:20.610 --> 01:08:28.001 - You have the permit in the packet, has evidence of that, the inspection ticket, and the engineer's letter 01:08:28.001 --> 01:08:35.182 - in your packet. So what we're asking tonight is not about adding something or increasing the footprint 01:08:35.182 --> 01:08:42.155 - of the house. It's about making sure the work they already done holds. Laurinwood Builders supports 01:08:42.155 --> 01:08:49.406 - the eco standards. We work around the lake all the time. And we know what that means for our community. 01:08:49.858 --> 01:08:57.110 - When we look at this hillside, the problem we're trying to solve is the same one the ordinance is trying 01:08:57.110 --> 01:09:04.017 - to solve. Water and soil moving down the slope towards the house and toward the lake. The retaining 01:09:04.017 --> 01:09:10.993 - wall is erosion control. The stone aging on the existing garden bed is erosion control. None of this 01:09:10.993 --> 01:09:18.590 - is aesthetics or something. When I say to beautify the site, this is just a remediation to control the water, 01:09:19.074 --> 01:09:27.616 - of the project. We are also working on the construction of the tower's Lake erosion control. We've listened 01:09:27.616 --> 01:09:35.842 - to staff concerns and tonight we're making two commitments. First. We're removing the stone steps. From 01:09:35.842 --> 01:09:43.909 - the project entirely. Second building the retaining wall means we have to remove four trees. All four 01:09:43.909 --> 01:09:48.734 - are under 40 10 inches in diameter. And we will replace each 01:09:49.154 --> 01:09:56.955 - The slab and the deck were done before this variance. The clients didn't realize a variance was needed, 01:09:56.955 --> 01:10:04.605 - and we owned that. The old slab had deteriorated to the point where water was getting into the house, 01:10:04.605 --> 01:10:12.256 - so they replaced it on the same footprint, which you can see in the 2017 GIS image. The deck connects 01:10:12.256 --> 01:10:16.606 - two sides of the house, so it works as one for the house. 01:10:17.122 --> 01:10:24.567 - and he sits above the old gravel drive on a single new column. Pulling out that column and his footing 01:10:24.567 --> 01:10:31.795 - or the slab would disturb more ground and change more drainage than leaving them has there now. Uh, 01:10:31.795 --> 01:10:39.095 - commissioners, this family is just trying to do the right thing with the house that was built before 01:10:39.095 --> 01:10:46.974 - anyone knew better. We're asking for a chance to protect that house and the heel and the lake along with it. 01:10:47.362 --> 01:10:53.167 - Thank you very much, and we're happy to answer any questions I have here. The landscape architect and 01:10:53.167 --> 01:10:58.858 - the designers here with me for answering the questions. Thank you. I have one question. I think you 01:10:58.858 --> 01:11:04.607 - stated this, but I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. You said that the concrete slab was 01:11:04.607 --> 01:11:10.412 - already there, but you replaced it because it was deteriorating, and then the deck was built over the 01:11:10.412 --> 01:11:11.550 - top of it, correct? 01:11:11.970 --> 01:11:20.743 - So they removed the broken slab that was causing water to go under it and go into the foundation and 01:11:20.743 --> 01:11:29.689 - causing more water problems. So they removed that and replaced it with the exact same footprint. Okay. 01:11:29.689 --> 01:11:38.375 - Yes. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the petitioner? And are you saying that the 01:11:38.375 --> 01:11:39.678 - retaining wall 01:11:40.642 --> 01:11:48.956 - is necessary to control erosion? Correct. That's correct. And for us to be able to control the water 01:11:48.956 --> 01:11:57.187 - runoff, we have to build this retaining wall. But there are three, four trees that we would have to 01:11:57.187 --> 01:12:05.419 - remove in order for this retaining wall to happen. But we want to replace those trees with the same 01:12:05.419 --> 01:12:08.382 - number of trees for that to happen. 01:12:10.818 --> 01:12:17.379 - Can I heard you say that you are not going to install the stone steps? No, we're not. We're deleting 01:12:17.379 --> 01:12:24.070 - that as part of the scope. Okay. Staff, would that change any of the recommendations knowing the steps 01:12:24.070 --> 01:12:25.694 - are out of the equation? 01:12:47.394 --> 01:12:54.769 - Well, I will say that I think that the petitioner has done a great job of committing to planning the 01:12:54.769 --> 01:13:02.071 - four new trees and then removing the stone steps that does help. I think in the packet on page 115, 01:13:02.071 --> 01:13:09.957 - we have kind of showing like part of the concrete pad and the deck are under the 15% slope. And so removing 01:13:09.957 --> 01:13:16.894 - those stone steps on the south side does reduce that overall encroachment, but they're kind of 01:13:17.058 --> 01:13:25.795 - Tangled up as one but it does certainly help Okay, it doesn't remove a variance. I guess if that's what 01:13:25.795 --> 01:13:34.197 - you're asking, okay Thank you for clarifying any other questions for the petitioner before I turn a 01:13:34.197 --> 01:13:40.414 - public comment So the house was there soon after the lake was built and I 01:13:42.338 --> 01:13:51.873 - You couldn't have built it today, but it did get built. And you don't want to fall into the lake. And 01:13:51.873 --> 01:14:01.501 - you don't want to bulldoze it. And you just are trying to preserve. And each of these changes is going 01:14:01.501 --> 01:14:07.390 - to contribute to the stability of the property and the garden. 01:14:07.522 --> 01:14:14.409 - Change is not because it's going to be a beautiful garden, which you hope it will be, but because you 01:14:14.409 --> 01:14:21.161 - need to make this change to, again, protect erosion. Correct. These are just prevention measures to 01:14:21.161 --> 01:14:27.913 - control the runoff, the water runoff. Yes, it would look nice for sure, but this is just to prevent 01:14:27.913 --> 01:14:34.462 - more erosion and the houses sliding down the hill. You know, the house was built in the sixties. 01:14:35.202 --> 01:14:42.192 - fun times back then, you know, we didn't have these provisions to protect the environment. And, 01:14:42.192 --> 01:14:49.620 - you know, different times we're here today, and we're just trying to help this house to, to not slide 01:14:49.620 --> 01:14:57.120 - down the hill. Yes. I have no other questions myself. Thank you. Skip Daly has one. Oh yeah. Mr. Daly, 01:14:57.120 --> 01:15:02.654 - go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for staff, if I may. Does 01:15:05.378 --> 01:15:17.922 - Does the requirement for denial fall, or would a requirement to take down the deck fall on the petitioner 01:15:17.922 --> 01:15:29.875 - if this is denied? Yes, so part of the denial under VAR 2645A, if that part is not approved, the 12% 01:15:29.875 --> 01:15:32.478 - specific for the deck 01:15:32.578 --> 01:15:42.406 - encroachment, it would require them to take down those posts in the deck. My. For the expanded portion. 01:15:42.406 --> 01:15:52.328 - My other question, and perhaps this might be rhetorical, I did not hear the petitioners discuss anything 01:15:52.328 --> 01:16:01.022 - outside of the evidence that was already in the packet. And if. And if staff is saying that 01:16:01.282 --> 01:16:08.953 - practical difficulties has not been met with that evidence. What would it take for a practical difficulty 01:16:08.953 --> 01:16:16.044 - in this exact scenario in the eyes of staff? I don't know if you're allowed to answer that. Well, 01:16:16.044 --> 01:16:23.281 - I will say, Skip, that they did introduce a few items that they were committing to tonight. And one 01:16:23.281 --> 01:16:27.550 - of the things that they stated in their testimony was that 01:16:27.906 --> 01:16:34.349 - Their belief is that removing the posts and removing that expanded deck will cause more disturbance 01:16:34.349 --> 01:16:41.308 - of the natural vegetation and the steep slopes. So that's something that was not included in the petition's 01:16:41.308 --> 01:16:47.751 - application. I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you. I meant toward the practical difficulty side 01:16:47.751 --> 01:16:54.452 - of it. That was other evidence, but that doesn't apply to the practical difficulty, which is what staff 01:16:54.452 --> 01:16:55.934 - have the problem with. 01:16:57.186 --> 01:17:03.824 - Yeah, I think Ms. Clemens would like to say something as well. Yeah, Skip, you know, we miss you here 01:17:03.824 --> 01:17:10.723 - today, but they did introduce some evidence. It was an engineer's report on the house. And because you're 01:17:10.723 --> 01:17:16.190 - not here, you can't really see it. But one, I'll read to you a few of the highlight 01:17:16.386 --> 01:17:23.441 - items. Foundation settlement has occurred along the west rear wall and along the south wall of the home. 01:17:23.441 --> 01:17:30.563 - Elevation measurements determine that the left rear corner is two inches lower than the right rear corner 01:17:30.563 --> 01:17:37.349 - and two inches lower than the left front corner. It goes on like that. It's talking about structural 01:17:37.349 --> 01:17:39.902 - damage that's occurring due to water. 01:17:40.322 --> 01:17:48.462 - and water runoff down the driveway, causing erosion and shifting of the crushed stone and water coming 01:17:48.462 --> 01:17:56.523 - down the drive from across the road at the top of the drive. And so it's my interpretation that these 01:17:56.523 --> 01:18:04.583 - requests are to mitigate the water flow that is maybe causing damage to the structure. And we do have 01:18:04.583 --> 01:18:09.246 - it on the screen shared. Yeah, you can see that now. Skip. 01:18:10.242 --> 01:18:16.423 - Thank you. Yeah. Sorry about that, but thank you. Are there any other questions for the petitioners? 01:18:16.423 --> 01:18:22.727 - Okay, we'll turn out a public comment, so you're welcome to have a seat. If anybody speaks against the 01:18:22.727 --> 01:18:29.031 - petition, you're welcome to come back up and thank you. Okay, turning out a public comment. Do we have 01:18:29.031 --> 01:18:35.518 - anybody here in the room who wishes to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please come to the podium. 01:18:41.154 --> 01:18:46.180 - Do we have anybody online who wishes to speak in favor? Go ahead and raise your virtual hand and we'll 01:18:46.180 --> 01:18:51.109 - get to you after the in-person speaker. Sir, if you could sign in on the piece of paper there on the 01:18:51.109 --> 01:18:52.670 - podium, then I'll swear you in. 01:19:35.938 --> 01:19:43.250 - If you could state your name and then raise your right hand. Anthony Moore. OK. Do you swear to tell 01:19:43.250 --> 01:19:50.273 - the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. OK. You'll have three minutes. 01:19:50.273 --> 01:19:57.512 - Thank you. I live in the same subdivision, not very far from this house. I belong to the Homeowners 01:19:57.512 --> 01:20:02.942 - Association. I'm on the architectural review board. We look at everything. 01:20:03.778 --> 01:20:12.017 - that people plan and we give it the yay or the nay or tell them what has to be done, same as you folks. 01:20:12.017 --> 01:20:20.334 - I'm not intimately familiar with the property, but I have been to it and I have walked under that porch. 01:20:20.334 --> 01:20:28.335 - Everything that they want to do will improve a perfectly good house, provided it's kept up. We don't 01:20:28.335 --> 01:20:30.078 - want to waste houses. 01:20:34.370 --> 01:20:41.352 - I don't know what to say except it's it's an excellent they've got a well planned out and I'm sure that 01:20:41.352 --> 01:20:48.132 - we will okay it and I think that you should too. They're they're excellent builders they're doing it 01:20:48.132 --> 01:20:54.980 - right. That's just what I want to tell you. Okay thank you sir. Any questions? I believe so. I'm also 01:20:54.980 --> 01:21:01.760 - a builder so I know what what they're doing. Okay thank you. Thank you. Anyone else here in the room 01:21:01.760 --> 01:21:03.774 - who wishes to speak in favor? 01:21:06.274 --> 01:21:13.547 - Okay, anyone online who wishes to speak in favor of this petition, please raise your virtual hand. Anyone 01:21:13.547 --> 01:21:20.477 - here in the room who wishes to speak against this petition, please come to the podium. Anyone online 01:21:20.477 --> 01:21:27.545 - who wishes to speak against, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing no one, we will close public 01:21:27.545 --> 01:21:34.544 - comment and bring this back to the BZA for discussion. I have no problem approving, moving to approve 01:21:34.544 --> 01:21:35.710 - these variances. 01:21:36.002 --> 01:21:47.925 - with the factual change of the removal of the stone steps. So I'm moving to approve variances 26-45 01:21:47.925 --> 01:21:56.510 - A, B, C, D, E for the layer eco area one deck and landscaping projects. 01:21:58.018 --> 01:22:07.756 - Does that include the commitment to replant for new trees? Oh, yes. Thank you so much. Yes. And we appreciate 01:22:07.756 --> 01:22:16.698 - that commitment. If the four trees are removed to replant for substitute trees, thank you very much. 01:22:16.698 --> 01:22:25.374 - OK, do we have a second second? OK, it's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-26-45A 12% slope. 01:22:25.506 --> 01:22:33.669 - B, disturbance of natural vegetation. C, residential density maximum. D, minimum lake frontage. 01:22:33.669 --> 01:22:41.662 - And E, one acre contiguous buildable area requirements of Chapter 823 for the layer property. 01:22:41.762 --> 01:22:50.366 - with two conditions that the petitioner remove the stone steps from the south side as proposed on the 01:22:50.366 --> 01:22:58.885 - plans in the packet and that the petitioner commits to replant four new trees in return for removing 01:22:58.885 --> 01:23:07.574 - four trees on the plans. A vote yes is a vote to approve all variances. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret 01:23:07.574 --> 01:23:10.526 - Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Present. 01:23:12.450 --> 01:23:21.873 - Hoffman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Okay. Motion carries four to zero. Thank you to the petitioners and 01:23:21.873 --> 01:23:31.295 - thank you for coming prepared to suggest the trees. Thank you. Thank you. Have fun. So we will move 01:23:31.295 --> 01:23:38.174 - on now to administrative business. First item is BZA rules of procedure. 01:23:38.306 --> 01:23:47.174 - a working session on abbreviated conduct of hearings procedure and notice requirements. OK, so I'll 01:23:47.174 --> 01:23:56.130 - go ahead and go through some of the changes. But in the packet on starting on page seven, we do have 01:23:56.130 --> 01:24:05.086 - a red line version of the rules of procedure that will be changing. One overall change is that we're 01:24:05.474 --> 01:24:23.464 - and then the next page, the change is, uh, stating that the secretary shall be considered the planning 01:24:23.464 --> 01:24:35.166 - director for the planning department. Just since that was, uh, two 01:24:35.330 --> 01:24:43.344 - Two ways, it was office manager in some places and planning director in others. So we just made it concise 01:24:43.344 --> 01:24:51.359 - and made it the planning director. The next change, we did remove the reference to hearing officer because 01:24:51.359 --> 01:24:58.999 - that is no longer part of the CDO. And then we switched all indications from zoning ordinance to CDO, 01:24:58.999 --> 01:25:04.766 - county development ordinance, which has replaced the prior zoning ordinance. 01:25:04.866 --> 01:25:15.106 - And then we clarified improvement location permit instead of or occupancy permit. We removed that reference 01:25:15.106 --> 01:25:24.587 - since the occupancy certificate of occupancy is controlled by the building department. So we wanted 01:25:24.587 --> 01:25:33.310 - to make that clear. And then the next change that we want your opinions on is that, so the, 01:25:34.242 --> 01:25:42.752 - way that we do notice right now is that it's certified mail, which is when a petitioner pays certified 01:25:42.752 --> 01:25:51.757 - mail, they show proof of sent sending to the addresses that we're requiring. And it shows proof of delivery. 01:25:51.757 --> 01:25:54.814 - Well, right now, and since covid the 01:25:54.978 --> 01:26:04.898 - USPS doesn't actually get us back a signature of who received the mail. It just shows online that it 01:26:04.898 --> 01:26:14.720 - was delivered to the address. So it could be a tenant receiving it. It could be maybe someone under 01:26:14.720 --> 01:26:24.542 - the age of 18 receiving the mail. I'm not sure who they allow to say it's been delivered and that's 01:26:24.770 --> 01:26:32.999 - who gets it, but it doesn't necessarily show proof that it was delivered to the owner of the property. 01:26:32.999 --> 01:26:41.228 - So we're suggesting that we open this up a little bit to say certificate of mailing or certified mail. 01:26:41.228 --> 01:26:49.217 - Certificate of mailing still shows proof that the petitioner sent the letter to the address on file 01:26:49.217 --> 01:26:51.454 - as required in the timeline 01:26:51.714 --> 01:26:59.171 - required. The cost of that is about $1 per letter, whereas certified mail is running about $7 to $8 01:26:59.171 --> 01:27:06.852 - per letter these days. So it's a cost savings. But if we think that it's really important to know that 01:27:06.852 --> 01:27:14.384 - a letter was both sent and delivered, then we need to stick with certified mail. But if we only need 01:27:14.384 --> 01:27:20.574 - to show proof that it was sent, that would be moving it to certificate of mailing. 01:27:21.698 --> 01:27:29.109 - And then the next section we wanted to show was just to kind of elaborate on the list of the property 01:27:29.109 --> 01:27:36.447 - owners receiving the mail. We wanted to make sure that it was clear that it's the last known address 01:27:36.447 --> 01:27:43.930 - and that we will need that proof back at least two days prior to the hearing. Sometimes we have to get 01:27:43.930 --> 01:27:51.486 - people to get us to us, you know, in the last hour. So we really want to get that a little bit earlier. 01:27:51.714 --> 01:27:59.461 - And then we also wanted to make it clear that we want to have the property marker sign up not less than 01:27:59.461 --> 01:28:07.208 - 10 days. That's that red and white sign with the handwritten information. Those help notify the public. 01:28:07.208 --> 01:28:14.731 - And then the next changes I can go through, these are to clarify two different conducts of hearings, 01:28:14.731 --> 01:28:20.094 - which we're calling the regular conduct of hearing or the full hearing. 01:28:20.226 --> 01:28:27.837 - And then the other version is the abbreviated conduct of hearings. And so I've appreciated any feedback 01:28:27.837 --> 01:28:35.520 - that we've received so far. And I wanted to put this in writing so that we would actually have something 01:28:35.520 --> 01:28:43.277 - to point to in case there were questions later down the road about a hearing that received an abbreviated 01:28:43.277 --> 01:28:49.790 - hearing. That way we have it in the rules of procedure. So I'm happy to go through these 01:28:49.954 --> 01:29:01.882 - as well, if there are any questions. And let's see, beyond that, I think that was the main changes that 01:29:01.882 --> 01:29:13.351 - we have here, updating the chapter references to the CDO, and updating the chair to Jeff Morris. So 01:29:13.351 --> 01:29:18.398 - that's the summary, and if you wanna spend, 01:29:18.530 --> 01:29:26.849 - any time on the regular hearing versus the abbreviated hearing. I'm happy to do so. Um, I had one quick 01:29:26.849 --> 01:29:35.007 - question on page five. Do we have no time limit on rebuttal? It's five minutes. I thought it was five 01:29:35.007 --> 01:29:42.366 - minutes, but I thought it said check five. Okay. Thank you. In the upper right hand corner. 01:29:42.754 --> 01:29:49.028 - Page five, if anyone speaks in opposition to the relief sought, then the person seeking relief shall 01:29:49.028 --> 01:29:55.302 - receive five minutes for rebuttal unless extended by the board. All right. So there was some changes 01:29:55.302 --> 01:30:01.700 - that I made sure were still in there. Yes, super. I thought it was because we've always said that guy. 01:30:01.700 --> 01:30:08.098 - You tweak these a whole lot. What do you think? What's your sense? Well, my sense is that it's they're 01:30:08.098 --> 01:30:09.278 - all great updates. 01:30:09.762 --> 01:30:18.180 - I think the CDO and all those things, we shouldn't be wrong. And I think the abbreviated hearing, we've 01:30:18.180 --> 01:30:26.274 - adopted and used now for several months and it's been terrific. It saved the public and it saved us 01:30:26.274 --> 01:30:34.611 - pointless hours. But this, I think, gives complete protection. If any board member says, you know, I'm 01:30:34.611 --> 01:30:39.710 - not comfortable with this, then we go through the whole thing. 01:30:39.842 --> 01:30:47.989 - Or if the petitioner is not comfortable with any conditions, then we go through the whole thing. And 01:30:47.989 --> 01:30:56.378 - if anybody in the public says, wait a minute, we go through the whole thing. So all the people who have 01:30:56.378 --> 01:31:02.750 - the right to object, that right is preserved. And we don't go forth with this. 01:31:02.914 --> 01:31:10.309 - If any of those, and we determine early that all of those things are present. If they are, then there's 01:31:10.309 --> 01:31:17.563 - no reason I can see to go through a perfunctory, but sometimes extensive hearing process. And I would 01:31:17.563 --> 01:31:24.816 - add to your list that the staff has recommended approval of those. Of course. Of course. This is only 01:31:24.816 --> 01:31:32.638 - when staff has recommended approval, perhaps with conditions. That's right. Yes. Yes, that's the whole point. 01:31:33.954 --> 01:31:43.887 - So I'm good with these. I am. I have one concern about the certified mail. You know, I having been involved 01:31:43.887 --> 01:31:53.453 - with certified mail, you know, over thousands of people, you know, I heard reports that the post office 01:31:53.453 --> 01:32:03.294 - only had to show proof of delivery and that the efficacy of that proof of delivery was rather speculative. 01:32:03.426 --> 01:32:11.476 - And there were people who faced choices about their property and information about their property who 01:32:11.476 --> 01:32:19.841 - never received the notice. And I think it's because it's property and it may be their biggest investment. 01:32:19.841 --> 01:32:23.550 - I'm not eager to eliminate the certified mail. 01:32:24.514 --> 01:32:34.555 - I don't know how others feel. I don't know if there's an alternative like email certified receipt. It 01:32:34.555 --> 01:32:44.694 - seems as though the snail mail is taking a couple of weeks. So to have sent just a certified mail, the 01:32:44.694 --> 01:32:54.046 - proof of delivery is pretty important because I'm even hearing where it's possible for someone 01:32:54.338 --> 01:33:04.579 - to take out a mortgage on another person's house. I just feel that it's important to have a, would this 01:33:04.579 --> 01:33:14.919 - be a receipt of delivery? So certificate of mailing, it does not involve a receipt that it was received. 01:33:14.919 --> 01:33:22.206 - It's only clearly that they sent it. And if you will, I think I have one, 01:33:22.722 --> 01:33:31.186 - example where we can see what the post office gives us as a link. I'll just have to find it. But I hear 01:33:31.186 --> 01:33:39.650 - you. If you want proof of delivery, certified mail is your only option. And I'm old enough fashion that 01:33:39.650 --> 01:33:48.114 - I'm reluctant to give that away. And I don't know how others... I can't appreciate your comment on that 01:33:48.114 --> 01:33:51.614 - because it is property. Yes. I really can. 01:33:52.834 --> 01:34:02.521 - My concern is, is it real? That is, is certified mail return receipt requested, I think. Is that what 01:34:02.521 --> 01:34:12.779 - it's still called? That's what it did back when I practiced. And sometimes, I think we're, I think somebody 01:34:12.779 --> 01:34:19.902 - was saying, was it Jackie was saying, sometimes you don't, sometimes they, 01:34:21.186 --> 01:34:28.068 - That doesn't necessarily, does that mean Jackie, does that mean somebody has actually physically signed 01:34:28.068 --> 01:34:34.818 - for it? They do not sign for it anymore. So I'll show you an example. Sorry. I just have to find what 01:34:34.818 --> 01:34:41.567 - they give us now. So they give us a tracking number and then you go online and you click the tracking 01:34:41.567 --> 01:34:48.184 - number and then you can go from there to see it was delivered. They don't show the address. So they 01:34:48.184 --> 01:34:50.302 - have to have shown the address, 01:34:50.434 --> 01:34:59.413 - written in on the green card, and then you match it up to that tracking number. Wow. So it's not as 01:34:59.413 --> 01:35:08.392 - good as it once was. It's not as good as it once was. Yeah, so you don't really know. And the other 01:35:08.392 --> 01:35:12.702 - thing is, if somebody doesn't want it, they can 01:35:12.866 --> 01:35:22.237 - They can avoid the, you know, it's like serving process on somebody when you file suit, you know, you 01:35:22.237 --> 01:35:31.700 - need to prove it, but I don't think we need to go to that, demand that. So that's why if the certified 01:35:31.700 --> 01:35:41.438 - request for proof of delivery can be illusory, which it sounds to me like it can't, and in fact, it might 01:35:42.210 --> 01:35:51.467 - make it so something doesn't get delivered at all. They don't get anything. Right. So, you know. 01:35:51.467 --> 01:36:01.010 - I hear you. But I wonder, you know, it's been a while since I've been really active in this kind of 01:36:01.010 --> 01:36:09.694 - notification. Thank goodness. Yes. So I just wonder if it's possible or what we know about 01:36:10.498 --> 01:36:17.714 - delivering something by email where we at least get a notification of the receipt. But their email isn't 01:36:17.714 --> 01:36:24.861 - in the property records. That's what we go with to say, where do you send this is the property records. 01:36:24.861 --> 01:36:31.390 - And it's not, not with the tax, not with Judy Sharp's office. I'm saying no when I'm ignorant. 01:36:31.490 --> 01:36:37.678 - Yeah, because that's what my question was. What is the state of our information now? Our electronic 01:36:37.678 --> 01:36:43.989 - communications with property owners? Well, I tell you what, they're it's not unusual to have the real 01:36:43.989 --> 01:36:50.486 - estate address different from the owner's address. That's true. And but and this is supposed to be sent, 01:36:50.486 --> 01:36:56.797 - I think. Is that right, Jackie, to the owner owner? Correct. To the real estate address? Yes. This is 01:36:56.797 --> 01:37:01.438 - what we receive, like on the screen here. So you see this tracking number? 01:37:01.666 --> 01:37:08.766 - Yes, you would tie this up with the other portion that the petitioner would send a picture of. So we 01:37:08.766 --> 01:37:15.866 - would take this tracking number, for instance, on the screen here, type that into the USPS tool. And 01:37:15.866 --> 01:37:22.334 - this is what we get delivered left with individual Gossport, Indiana, September 12th, 2026. 01:37:22.466 --> 01:37:31.585 - 1 45 p.m. Whereas when back in the day used to receive the other half of the green card tear with the 01:37:31.585 --> 01:37:40.615 - signature and you would see who it was that received it. That's right. So now Jackie I recall it was 01:37:40.615 --> 01:37:47.678 - within it was within 10 years. So and if somebody in good faith nobody's home. 01:37:48.226 --> 01:37:55.484 - I mean, how many people are home when the mailman comes these days? When the mail delivery person comes 01:37:55.484 --> 01:38:02.462 - these days, not very many. And so, you know, then they don't leave it. I don't think they leave it. 01:38:02.462 --> 01:38:09.650 - They leave a note that says we're trying to deliver something to you. They leave a note, but you still 01:38:09.650 --> 01:38:16.350 - don't get it. And if you don't look at that note and follow up on it, which is very hard to do, 01:38:16.546 --> 01:38:25.538 - I have gotten these things just at my house. I'm convinced then. I'm persuaded. I didn't know that things 01:38:25.538 --> 01:38:34.021 - were at this level. I did not know that. This feels useless, even with Amazon looking at photos. If 01:38:34.021 --> 01:38:42.674 - the address or the person is no longer, like you can do return to sender, or if the address is not in 01:38:42.674 --> 01:38:45.982 - existence, then we will get that back. 01:38:46.210 --> 01:38:53.944 - And we will scan that in as part of the file to say undeliverable. So we do get the bounce backs back 01:38:53.944 --> 01:39:01.755 - to us. OK. OK, then if it comes back undeliverable, does that mean that the petitioner can't go forth? 01:39:01.755 --> 01:39:09.717 - I don't think so. They did. They tried to send notice. And if if it was undeliverable, I don't see where 01:39:09.717 --> 01:39:14.494 - we had to say, well, you you're stuck then you can't you can't 01:39:15.362 --> 01:39:23.333 - Just you can't you can't keep your house from falling down the the so I I think I Hardly see if they 01:39:23.333 --> 01:39:31.540 - want to use the certified mail I guess they can but I don't see who would and there's the red and white 01:39:31.540 --> 01:39:39.984 - sign and people The neighbors would see that and call whoever they know to be affiliated with the property 01:39:39.984 --> 01:39:43.614 - so we have doubled our attempt to communicate 01:39:43.778 --> 01:39:50.763 - the state of affairs, I wondered if we could think of a way to triple, you know, to triangulate that 01:39:50.763 --> 01:39:57.678 - to make sure that we've exhausted. But that's the subject for another day. I'm I'm comfortable with 01:39:57.678 --> 01:40:04.732 - with this. We see how it goes. If we have problems with delivery, I think we need to revisit that and 01:40:04.732 --> 01:40:12.062 - maybe work out something with the, um, with another department that might have more knowledge. Some other 01:40:12.962 --> 01:40:20.618 - My question is, and I haven't looked at one for a long time, is when you do properly, you've got the 01:40:20.618 --> 01:40:28.729 - disclosures. Each of you needs to say who it is. But I don't think, and it gives, I think, a phone number. 01:40:28.729 --> 01:40:29.790 - I just don't. 01:40:30.050 --> 01:40:37.157 - see that very clearly. The letter that was sent, is that what you're saying? No. I'm saying when I buy 01:40:37.157 --> 01:40:44.333 - or sell real estate, there's the property disclosure that tells you who the buyer is and who the seller 01:40:44.333 --> 01:40:51.302 - is and what the price was and all that information. And I don't know whether it gives anything other 01:40:51.302 --> 01:40:52.958 - than the address of the 01:40:53.122 --> 01:41:01.983 - of either party, of the buyer. We're using the assessor's records and the treasurer's records of last 01:41:01.983 --> 01:41:10.844 - known address, so we're sending it to the same address that your tax information would go to. I think 01:41:10.844 --> 01:41:19.358 - I'm comfortable with just making it the proof of mailing because there's almost an opportunity to 01:41:20.898 --> 01:41:30.475 - to keep somebody from getting it. That's true. Under certain circumstances, yeah. Yeah, Mr. Daley's 01:41:30.475 --> 01:41:40.148 - got his hand up and then I've got a comment also, but go ahead, Mr. Daley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One 01:41:40.148 --> 01:41:49.438 - of the things that I will repeat is that I would like to see something added to this that states 01:41:53.346 --> 01:42:04.919 - On the record, either in the packet somewhere in the packet toward the beginning or have the chair of 01:42:04.919 --> 01:42:16.606 - the meeting have confirmed on the record at the meeting. Either way, it doesn't matter to me, but that 01:42:16.606 --> 01:42:20.350 - all of the petitioners before us 01:42:21.090 --> 01:42:33.174 - at a particular meeting or within a particular packet have indeed taken care of their obligations that 01:42:33.174 --> 01:42:45.023 - are statutory and within us as well in terms of notification. So that's one comment I have. And then 01:42:45.023 --> 01:42:48.894 - another comment I will reiterate 01:42:49.154 --> 01:43:06.056 - that I believe I still have a two and a half year old open motion, I believe it was seconded, that called 01:43:06.056 --> 01:43:18.174 - for unanimous consent of meeting minutes and disregarding the roll call and 01:43:19.682 --> 01:43:29.161 - And so I'm going to have an objection to that. And that's all. Well, for now, I have a few other comments 01:43:29.161 --> 01:43:38.729 - on another section, but you guys can discuss. Do staff, regarding Mr. Daly's comments about notifications, 01:43:38.729 --> 01:43:47.134 - do staff follow up with the petitioners to ensure that they have sent their required notices? 01:43:48.418 --> 01:43:54.756 - Yeah, so it's actually on the workflow step of our variance petitions that we get. It's one thing that 01:43:54.756 --> 01:44:00.909 - we have to check off before they get to the BZA meeting is that all notice, all proof of notice has 01:44:00.909 --> 01:44:07.062 - been submitted. And if it's not, we just continue it. So it wouldn't even come to us if they hadn't 01:44:07.062 --> 01:44:13.399 - fulfilled that? That's correct. We're very diligent about that. But we can certainly add it like maybe 01:44:13.399 --> 01:44:18.014 - in the table or as a slide just to say that proof of notice has been sent. 01:44:18.114 --> 01:44:26.176 - Because I understand it's a, and the case that, you know, brought this to our attention again, of course, 01:44:26.176 --> 01:44:33.857 - in that case, they had done certificate of mailing and not certified mail. And that was the issue is 01:44:33.857 --> 01:44:41.538 - that we didn't have receipt of delivery. We only had receipt of it being sent. But if we changed the 01:44:41.538 --> 01:44:46.558 - rules of procedure, then we're in alignment with the CDO as well. 01:44:48.706 --> 01:44:56.088 - And then my comment was a little bit further down on page four here, Jackie, under 1C. Persons who want 01:44:56.088 --> 01:45:03.258 - to speak in favor who are not physically present at the meeting shall state and spell their name and 01:45:03.258 --> 01:45:10.640 - address. Two comments on that. One is we haven't historically asked for an address. And I was wondering 01:45:10.640 --> 01:45:16.958 - if this is a recommendation that we start doing that or, you know, where that came from. 01:45:17.602 --> 01:45:26.220 - Any sign-in here to the given address? It's on the sign-in sheet, yes, but to have somebody say it out 01:45:26.220 --> 01:45:35.006 - loud when they're online is another thing. Yes, so it does ask for their name and address on the sign-in 01:45:35.006 --> 01:45:43.625 - sheet, but we typically, in other meetings, I was just checking, making sure we were on the same page. 01:45:43.625 --> 01:45:47.390 - In other meetings, we usually just have them 01:45:47.650 --> 01:45:55.094 - write down their address and then state whether they're a county resident. That's something I've heard, 01:45:55.094 --> 01:46:02.466 - but we haven't heard people typically ask for the address to be said out loud, but we can. I do wonder 01:46:02.466 --> 01:46:09.767 - about the privacy concern of that. I just looking for consistency. If people who are here provide the 01:46:09.767 --> 01:46:16.638 - address, if they're speaking favor against, then it seems to me people who are speaking online. 01:46:16.770 --> 01:46:25.572 - should have the same requirement. Now, I do understand the distinction of having to say it, although 01:46:25.572 --> 01:46:34.373 - the sign in here is all public record. So anybody who wants to know where somebody lives could check 01:46:34.373 --> 01:46:43.262 - the item of right, could check those records. So it makes it more public, but more easily accessible. 01:46:43.490 --> 01:46:51.614 - but it doesn't change the fact that they would, and otherwise, I mean, I sort of, usually if somebody 01:46:51.614 --> 01:46:59.977 - talks, they say, and I live next door, and that's something I'm often concerned about, is does somebody, 01:46:59.977 --> 01:47:08.101 - how far away you live makes a difference to me. Not all the difference, but it's nice to know if it's 01:47:08.101 --> 01:47:13.278 - somebody nearby. So, and I think that was one of my suggestions, 01:47:13.794 --> 01:47:21.701 - everybody gives the same information. And I think everybody should spell their name because I'm sorry, 01:47:21.701 --> 01:47:29.379 - but the gentleman who spoke in favor of the last petitioner was a name that I couldn't guess how to 01:47:29.379 --> 01:47:37.056 - spell. And there's a lot of ways to spell a lot of words, of names. So I just think for the clarity 01:47:37.056 --> 01:47:42.046 - and completeness of the record, everybody should say their name, 01:47:43.074 --> 01:47:50.883 - spell their name, and state their address. You've convinced me on the address one. Hearing that people 01:47:50.883 --> 01:47:58.464 - are writing it up there does make it make sense for people online. When they sign in online, we get 01:47:58.464 --> 01:48:06.198 - their name. That's what I was going to go to next. Oh, sorry. No, that's fine. On the spelling of the 01:48:06.198 --> 01:48:10.974 - name online, Jackie, when you're creating the meeting minutes, 01:48:11.778 --> 01:48:19.007 - If somebody's speaking on Teams, are you able to see the name that they have signed in as? Okay. If 01:48:19.007 --> 01:48:26.453 - they're unverified and they don't, they can just come in as like Jay. Right. That's what I was getting 01:48:26.453 --> 01:48:33.899 - toward. I was wondering if maybe we could word it to use some discretion. If Jim Smith or Daniel Brown 01:48:33.899 --> 01:48:40.766 - is there and he states his name as Daniel Brown, I'm wondering if we could use that. But if DB 01:48:40.994 --> 01:48:49.533 - signs in if we could ask them to spell it out in that case. These are not love or die issues to me. 01:48:49.533 --> 01:48:58.243 - I'm just like consistency. So everybody know whether you're here in person or not is treated the same 01:48:58.243 --> 01:49:05.758 - way. I don't really care what way it is, nearly as much as I care that it's consistent. 01:49:06.306 --> 01:49:15.391 - I would be more comfortable if people spelled their names because sometimes Brown has an E and sometimes 01:49:15.391 --> 01:49:24.043 - it doesn't. It just seems to me more we get a better record. I agree with you. I'm just thinking of 01:49:24.043 --> 01:49:32.696 - it from a process perspective of sitting here asking people to spell Jim Smith or something that we 01:49:32.696 --> 01:49:34.686 - can clearly entertain. 01:49:34.946 --> 01:49:41.974 - but I don't want to have a stand. Well, if I can guess how your name, probably guess how your name is 01:49:41.974 --> 01:49:49.002 - spelled, you don't have to spell it, but it's anyway, I, I like it that way, but if somebody wants to 01:49:49.002 --> 01:49:56.237 - move to, you know, remove it, I, I will, I would consent if somebody doesn't, I just want it consistent. 01:49:56.237 --> 01:50:03.127 - That's what I care about the most. Mr. Daily, I see your hand raised again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I 01:50:03.127 --> 01:50:04.574 - agree with Guy that, 01:50:04.738 --> 01:50:15.484 - Consistency is important and saying and spelling the name of the person's legal name that is testifying 01:50:15.484 --> 01:50:26.127 - is important and perhaps just speaking the address. Speaking the address is what I suggested. Yes, and 01:50:26.127 --> 01:50:29.950 - I'm agreeing with that. I think that 01:50:31.586 --> 01:50:41.628 - speaking and spelling, first and last name, and speaking the address is important. Thanks. Any other 01:50:41.628 --> 01:50:51.770 - comments? I think we haven't made any actual changes to the document as you presented. That last one, 01:50:51.770 --> 01:51:00.222 - I can make the changes. Skip just mentioned. You know, now that I'm looking at this, 01:51:02.018 --> 01:51:09.956 - It doesn't really say that people in person will sign in, does it? It does. Okay. Approach the podium, 01:51:09.956 --> 01:51:17.740 - sign in with their name, address, state their name. So some of the changes, are you reading from the 01:51:17.740 --> 01:51:25.446 - packet guy? Yeah. Okay, it is. It's somewhat red and green if you're in color. I am. Where are you? 01:51:25.446 --> 01:51:28.606 - Under C, third line. This is- Page four. 01:51:29.474 --> 01:51:37.246 - page four of the BZA rules under article five. Persons who want to speak in favor who are physically 01:51:37.246 --> 01:51:45.326 - present at the meeting shall approach the podium, sign in with their name and address, state their name, 01:51:45.326 --> 01:51:53.406 - be sworn in by the chair, and make their statement for the record. Okay, I tell you what, I must have an 01:51:53.538 --> 01:52:03.750 - Earlier copy. I know you. Yes. And I didn't print this. Okay. It's already there. I'm sorry. I wasn't 01:52:03.750 --> 01:52:13.961 - up to date. Do we have a motion? Sorry, skip. Go ahead. Thank you. Whenever we get to discussing page 01:52:13.961 --> 01:52:21.470 - six, let me know because that's where my next comments are for. Thank you. 01:52:23.842 --> 01:52:36.713 - Yeah, I think we're discussing any part of this that you want to discuss. OK. So. Get there on my hand. 01:52:36.713 --> 01:52:49.337 - Here we go. Yeah, I am. I love what we're trying to do here with this and I love that it's being used 01:52:49.337 --> 01:52:52.926 - in practice and I love that. 01:52:53.634 --> 01:53:08.041 - it's being suggested that we add this in some capacity to the procedural book here. My problem is, is 01:53:08.041 --> 01:53:20.894 - that we've convoluted two things. We've not defined calling the question and we've in turn 01:53:21.474 --> 01:53:33.839 - associated it only with this abbreviated conduct of hearings as it's being called, which is not accurate. 01:53:33.839 --> 01:53:45.505 - And a call of the question is just a request to end debate. That can be done by any board member at 01:53:45.505 --> 01:53:51.454 - any point in time requesting to call the question. 01:53:51.874 --> 01:54:05.093 - What I would prefer to see in this is a definition of the procedural usage of call the question and 01:54:05.093 --> 01:54:18.312 - then a follow-up underneath that or defining it in terms. I don't see terms and definitions in this 01:54:18.312 --> 01:54:20.030 - packet here, 01:54:20.354 --> 01:54:30.028 - in some capacity, actually defining what calling the question is, as opposed to having it associated 01:54:30.028 --> 01:54:39.893 - solely with the use of this, because it can be used in, any one of us can use it in any other capacity 01:54:39.893 --> 01:54:50.046 - at any point in time during a meeting. And I don't want that to be shunned or convoluted. It's a, it's a, 01:54:50.882 --> 01:55:05.288 - board member right during these meetings to request that the debate be ended. And quite frankly, it 01:55:05.288 --> 01:55:18.686 - needs to be separated. Call the question procedural is this if we want to inform the public. 01:55:19.362 --> 01:55:32.245 - how that can be used in abbreviating. A hearing where. X, Y and Z has all taken place. Is this this 01:55:32.245 --> 01:55:45.643 - in this using that procedural device and we're not doing that here and it's imperative. And I will also 01:55:45.643 --> 01:55:48.606 - remind you guys that I 01:55:49.282 --> 01:56:05.440 - I still object to the second correction of the packet. In terms of Robert's rules, I think there may 01:56:05.440 --> 01:56:18.078 - be a better way to say this than call the question. In that way, we could say, 01:56:18.498 --> 01:56:28.789 - shall move for an immediate vote. Because that's what moving the previous question is. It doesn't use 01:56:28.789 --> 01:56:39.383 - Robert's Rules terms, but if we, and I don't care if we, then the board shall, I would say then a member 01:56:39.383 --> 01:56:47.454 - of the board shall ask for an immediate vote to be taken. If there is a second, 01:56:47.778 --> 01:56:56.589 - to the request that an immediate vote be taken, the secretary shall call the roll. Because that's what 01:56:56.589 --> 01:57:05.315 - we're saying. We want to have an immediate vote on the petition taken. And call the question. There's 01:57:05.315 --> 01:57:14.126 - nothing more routinely confused than call the question and move the previous question, whereas we just 01:57:14.126 --> 01:57:16.094 - call it what it means. 01:57:16.258 --> 01:57:25.604 - call for an immediate vote, then I think it's that can't be confused very easily. So I would suggest 01:57:25.604 --> 01:57:34.950 - that we and that we actually don't have to put in parentheses because it's just using common English 01:57:34.950 --> 01:57:44.574 - terms. That's right. Work. So would would that make you, Mr. More comfortable, Mr. Daly? Mission speak. 01:57:48.130 --> 01:58:06.718 - Yes, permission. Yes. Uh, I'll say perhaps because I'm not 100% clear as to what you were saying. I 01:58:06.718 --> 01:58:15.454 - like right now. Any one of you could request a 01:58:16.162 --> 01:58:27.708 - call the question and you could, and my discussing this and all of the rest of us discussing this, if 01:58:27.708 --> 01:58:39.481 - a percentage also, I don't know that we have defined a percentage of, I'm not seeing it here. Director, 01:58:39.481 --> 01:58:46.046 - am I missing a percentage of members that have to approve 01:58:46.626 --> 01:58:56.531 - the call, the motion to call, because typically it's a two-thirds situation. Has that been identified 01:58:56.531 --> 01:59:06.533 - in here? No, and it should. It does say under two, the last sentence, a majority vote must prevail for 01:59:06.533 --> 01:59:14.398 - the agenda item to be resolved as of right now. But I think that's the, I think, 01:59:14.562 --> 01:59:23.106 - She'll call the role is whether proceed with for if the call the question vote succeeds. I think that 01:59:23.106 --> 01:59:31.984 - should say succeeds by a two thirds by at least a two thirds vote. Because that's the standard. I thought 01:59:31.984 --> 01:59:40.612 - it was unanimous that we all if any one of us has reservation about truncating the deliberation, we've 01:59:40.612 --> 01:59:42.622 - already done that in a. 01:59:43.106 --> 01:59:50.199 - in one A, whether the board members consent to an abbreviated hearing. If all it takes is one board 01:59:50.199 --> 01:59:57.363 - member saying, no, I want a hearing and we have it. So I'm just trying to. You're right. I wasn't up 01:59:57.363 --> 02:00:04.669 - to speed. But I think it would be shocking if we didn't get unanimity since we've all consented to it. 02:00:04.669 --> 02:00:12.542 - But the vote should still be on the record that we're going to have the shortened hearing. But I think saying, 02:00:14.082 --> 02:00:20.829 - And again, oh, sorry, Mr. Walpole. If there's a second to call the concessionary rule as to whether 02:00:20.829 --> 02:00:27.913 - to proceed with a further call, if the request for an immediate vote is passed by a two-thirds majority, 02:00:27.913 --> 02:00:34.862 - by at least a two-thirds majority, then I think that should address your concern, Mr. Daley. Does that 02:00:34.862 --> 02:00:42.014 - seem appropriate? Well, right, that addresses part of it. And the other is, you know, and I don't want to 02:00:43.490 --> 02:00:52.272 - I don't want to run on semantics here, but because we're discussing procedural stuff, I think it's important 02:00:52.272 --> 02:01:00.491 - to make sure that we're using the right language in the right places and we're getting it done. Right 02:01:00.491 --> 02:01:08.548 - the first time and I do understand we can always come back to some of this stuff and revise things, 02:01:08.548 --> 02:01:12.254 - but I would. You know if the whole purpose of 02:01:12.898 --> 02:01:24.807 - having this procedure is to what's being called abbreviate conduct of hearings. Why are we specifying 02:01:24.807 --> 02:01:36.715 - that a vote has to happen and why can't we again, and I'm gonna go back to my soapbox about unanimous 02:01:36.715 --> 02:01:41.502 - consent, you know, with the exception of 02:01:42.658 --> 02:01:51.348 - vocal objection. One of the reasons is that the part I drafted, I drafted this way, is because that's 02:01:51.348 --> 02:02:00.550 - how we've been doing it. And I don't know that we have to do it that way, but I was just trying to reflect. 02:02:00.550 --> 02:02:09.496 - That's what we've been doing. Somebody moves the question, somebody calls the question, we vote on that, 02:02:09.496 --> 02:02:12.478 - and then we vote on the underlying 02:02:12.578 --> 02:02:21.051 - petition. Since that's what we've been doing, I was trying to mirror that. I think it would be just 02:02:21.051 --> 02:02:30.118 - as good, because we all know everybody consents to say something like, if A, B, and C are, and if nobody's 02:02:30.118 --> 02:02:38.676 - in a position, then the board shall move for an immediate, shall proceed to a vote on it, shall just 02:02:38.676 --> 02:02:40.286 - proceed to a vote. 02:02:40.994 --> 02:02:51.593 - Well, this will often I think what I'm what I'm trying to say might be different from what you're retorting. 02:02:51.593 --> 02:03:01.511 - What I'm suggesting is. When someone makes a motion for. Calling the question that the chair turn and 02:03:01.511 --> 02:03:08.318 - say, does anybody object? So are you familiar with unanimous consent? 02:03:08.738 --> 02:03:18.308 - The chair would turn and say, does anybody object to this motion? And if nobody objects, the chair can 02:03:18.308 --> 02:03:26.948 - approve based on unanimous consent that the call to question without having to call or roll. 02:03:26.948 --> 02:03:36.518 - That's all. Well, the 1A says that when all the board members consent to an abbreviated hearing is the 02:03:36.518 --> 02:03:37.726 - first issue, 02:03:37.922 --> 02:03:52.224 - And then if the answer day and there nobody is, so I would be perfectly comfortable if we said, if conditions 02:03:52.224 --> 02:04:04.446 - A, B, and C are met and nobody else opposes, then the board shall proceed directly to a vote. 02:04:05.410 --> 02:04:13.381 - I don't think we need this interim step, but that's the way we've been doing it. So, you know, and I 02:04:13.381 --> 02:04:21.431 - agree it's awkward, but we don't, and we could get rid of it just saying, then the board shall, okay, 02:04:21.431 --> 02:04:29.718 - so if the answer to A is above and no member of the public or president in person are in line to oppose, 02:04:29.718 --> 02:04:35.006 - then the board shall proceed to an immediate vote on the petition. 02:04:36.098 --> 02:04:45.302 - on the matter before it. That would be, I'd love that. I think it's good and succinct. I'll have to 02:04:45.302 --> 02:04:54.597 - be, because the way it's written, sorry. I'll have to say if the answer to A and B above are yes and 02:04:54.597 --> 02:05:03.893 - C is no, because it's whether there is anyone from the public who opposes. So you would want that to 02:05:03.893 --> 02:05:05.918 - say no and the answer 02:05:11.490 --> 02:05:21.664 - The board shall call for an immediate vote. Then the board shall proceed to an immediate vote. Yeah 02:05:21.664 --> 02:05:30.718 - we're essentially just going through the same process twice by voting on the same thing. 02:05:38.722 --> 02:05:48.401 - immediate vote and then we slip down to the bottom to approve the request with any condition 02:05:48.401 --> 02:05:59.121 - staff recommends. A majority vote must be present. There's a second to the call for an immediate vote. 02:05:59.121 --> 02:06:05.054 - The secretary shall call the roll for the petition. Yes. 02:06:10.562 --> 02:06:18.343 - and close the, well, I would just, yeah. And then we vote. If the call for immediate vote succeeds, 02:06:18.343 --> 02:06:26.125 - I'll take that. Process things are so important, but I have very little. Majority vote must prevail 02:06:26.125 --> 02:06:34.529 - for the agenda item to be resolved. That's still applicable. And then down to three, every person appearing 02:06:34.529 --> 02:06:39.742 - before the board shall abide by order and directions of the chair. 02:06:39.906 --> 02:06:46.623 - that's still there. But I want to go back to the one we were working on. I'm not sure you've got it 02:06:46.623 --> 02:06:53.339 - quite the way I was thinking. OK. So here's the edited version. So make changes. Yeah. As you're in 02:06:53.339 --> 02:07:00.123 - the end, then the board shall proceed to a meeting. Then we don't need to say if there's a second to 02:07:00.123 --> 02:07:07.646 - the call for the immediate vote. Then it just take out that sentence. Yes, take out that sentence now, I think. 02:07:07.906 --> 02:07:16.625 - It shall answer C, is then the board shall proceed to an immediate vote. The majority must prevail for 02:07:16.625 --> 02:07:25.344 - the agenda item to be approved, I would say, you know? Assuming it's always approved, yeah. Well, this 02:07:25.344 --> 02:07:34.910 - is because there's approval. Yeah, so let's just say approved. We may as well say approved. Oh, I love minutiae. 02:07:35.810 --> 02:08:05.758 - I think that was the only item outstanding that we haven't discussed. Um. 02:08:06.914 --> 02:08:17.322 - object to approving of minutes requiring a vote when it can be and should be and is done in every other 02:08:17.322 --> 02:08:27.329 - board that exists by unanimous consent. And I believe I have an outstanding. Motion and second from 02:08:27.329 --> 02:08:33.534 - two and a half years ago that was never addressed on this so. 02:08:33.858 --> 02:08:41.472 - I'm sorry for my failures. I'm just not good at that. And that's why I've been such a stickler for that 02:08:41.472 --> 02:08:48.867 - every single time voting presence. And when I run meetings, I run it with unanimous consent. And I'm 02:08:48.867 --> 02:08:56.847 - sure that's why it's being addressed now by staff. I think that we should talk about the merits of unanimous 02:08:56.847 --> 02:09:02.558 - consent versus voting. I think that that's something that is overdue and it's 02:09:02.722 --> 02:09:12.713 - was a weakness of mine that I never addressed it. And it was just, you know, an avoidance of confrontation, 02:09:12.713 --> 02:09:22.520 - you know, which is not, for which I apologize. So let's talk about the merits of unanimous consent versus 02:09:22.520 --> 02:09:30.846 - voting. Is that okay? Well, it shall require a vote unless unanimous consent is obtained. 02:09:32.002 --> 02:09:38.993 - So we just changed that sentence. Because if somebody says, no, I don't approve the minutes. I didn't 02:09:38.993 --> 02:09:45.984 - say anything like that, then they have the right to vote against it. And everybody says, well, we see 02:09:45.984 --> 02:09:53.249 - it right here. Staff, I think, likes to have in the record the actual votes on the minutes. Right, staff? 02:09:53.249 --> 02:09:59.966 - OK. Well, then I think, Mr. Daly, nothing personal, but I'd rather make the staff happy than you. 02:10:03.010 --> 02:10:17.404 - What does Mr. Daly feel about that? How unhappy does Mr. Daly feel about that? Can you hear us, Skip? 02:10:17.404 --> 02:10:32.222 - Oh, I can definitely hear you. Was that a rhetorical question? Yes, I asked how does that make you feel? 02:10:32.322 --> 02:10:45.139 - We have in two extremes, I guess, the staff feels a need to have in the record our per person vote on 02:10:45.139 --> 02:10:58.082 - the minutes. And you are requesting unanimous consent. And that's the hesitation is that the staff has 02:10:58.082 --> 02:11:01.726 - a practice and a belief that 02:11:01.954 --> 02:11:12.488 - especially for this quasi judicial process, that our votes on the minutes be registered individually. 02:11:12.488 --> 02:11:22.919 - Did I state that correctly? I can add to it. And that itself is my specific concern. I believe under 02:11:22.919 --> 02:11:30.974 - Indiana code is a requirement for board action. Official board action must be 02:11:31.970 --> 02:11:44.360 - This is the majority vote. And I think the last sentence should say shall require majority vote. Is 02:11:44.360 --> 02:11:56.873 - there any other discussion on this? On the screen I have the first change the majority vote and then 02:11:56.873 --> 02:12:01.086 - I added the change for the online 02:12:01.890 --> 02:12:13.170 - folks that they state and spell their first and last name and state their address. And then we went 02:12:13.170 --> 02:12:24.676 - over together the abbreviated conduct of hearings change. So I made those changes. I just really feel 02:12:24.676 --> 02:12:26.142 - that through 02:12:27.170 --> 02:12:35.583 - the deliberation and the thought that Skip and Guy and Jackie have given these rules of procedure. And 02:12:35.583 --> 02:12:43.914 - with your brilliant initiation of this calling the question, Skip, you know, you've saved the public, 02:12:43.914 --> 02:12:52.163 - you've saved us a lot of time, and I'm really grateful. And I feel like the right people are putting 02:12:52.163 --> 02:12:56.574 - the right thought into what makes our Board of Zoning 02:12:56.802 --> 02:13:08.862 - appeals, you know, a very good process. So I want to thank everybody here. Thank you to staff and everyone 02:13:08.862 --> 02:13:20.809 - who's put so much time into this. Yeah, Mr. Daily. I'd like to move that we get whatever has been updated 02:13:20.809 --> 02:13:26.782 - from the last thing that was sent sent out to us and 02:13:27.522 --> 02:13:34.175 - we discuss this and vote at our December meeting. I'm comfortable with that. I would love to see the 02:13:34.175 --> 02:13:41.091 - whole thing. What I'd like is to see it without no strikeouts or anything, just so I can read it without 02:13:41.091 --> 02:13:47.744 - having to go back and forth and saying, wait a minute, so that we get the whole thing as it would be 02:13:47.744 --> 02:13:54.462 - passed. So go ahead. How about this? I'll do a red line and then a clean copy. I'll do both. Perfect. 02:13:54.462 --> 02:13:55.582 - Okay, I like it. 02:13:56.994 --> 02:14:04.802 - I can do that. It's a plan. Was that a second, Mr. Lofman? It certainly was. It's been moved and seconded 02:14:04.802 --> 02:14:12.315 - to push this to the December meeting with the changes. I'll include both a red line and a clean copy. 02:14:12.315 --> 02:14:19.755 - And this will go to the December 2nd Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. And I suggest we put it as the 02:14:19.755 --> 02:14:26.974 - last item on the agenda for that if we can, because that's what we're going to do. I can do that. 02:14:27.362 --> 02:14:36.639 - Thank you. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daley? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris? 02:14:36.639 --> 02:14:45.562 - Yes. Okay. Motion carries five to zero. Okay. And I believe we still have the notice requirements to 02:14:45.562 --> 02:14:54.750 - discuss, right, Jackie? Um, then certified mail versus. That's in the rules of procedure. Oh, okay. So. 02:14:55.714 --> 02:15:02.312 - Yeah, perfect. I think we discussed it, but we I mean, I think at this point, we probably should just 02:15:02.312 --> 02:15:08.910 - discuss it next month. We were clear. I think that we understood the weaknesses of our mailing system 02:15:08.910 --> 02:15:15.767 - and our antiquated. I'm happy to give more examples and try and talk to the post office to see if there's 02:15:15.767 --> 02:15:19.390 - any. I've talked to him to an idea, you know, not about 02:15:20.098 --> 02:15:27.699 - county business, but when I want to send something certified, it seems like it's very difficult. And 02:15:27.699 --> 02:15:34.623 - also the level of security that it was delivered to the person intended is quite low. Well, 02:15:34.623 --> 02:15:42.450 - what is that? She says with a laugh. It's a lot of money for a little service. That's so true. Is there 02:15:42.450 --> 02:15:49.374 - a motion to adjourn? Let's move to adjourn. Yes. All right. Bye, Skip. Thank you, Mr. Daly.