Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call to order the November meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Jackie, to get us started, would you please call the roll? Yes. Kyle Hoffman? Here. Jeff Morris? Here.
Margaret Clements? Here. Pamela Davidson? Here. Skip Daly? We have four members in person in a quorum.
Could you please introduce the evidence for tonight?
Sure. I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance
has adopted and amended. The Monroe County Land Use Plan has adopted and amended. The Board of Zoning
Appeals Rules and Procedures has adopted and amended and the case is advertised and scheduled for a
hearing on tonight's agenda. I'd like to move that we introduce the evidence as just outlined. Second.
Okay. It's been moved and seconded to introduce the evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Jeff Morris.
Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Motion carries, four to zero. OK.
I don't believe we have any changes to the agenda tonight, do we, Jackie? The only thing for
your consideration is whether you want to do the rules and procedure ahead of the cases tonight or if
you want to move that to the end. There's two cases. And then we will be hearing one case is requesting
a continuance, which is the Rominger case. OK.
I think we've got quite a few people in attendance. I think I would recommend that we wait until the
end to discuss the. I move we we put the rules discussion as the last item on the agenda. OK, second that.
All right, it's been moved and seconded to keep the agenda as published except for moving the rules
and procedure discussion under administrative business to be after the new business for tonight. A vote
yes is a vote to rearrange the agenda moving just the administrative business to the end of the meeting.
Margaret Clements? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Guy Laughman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Motion carries 4-0.
Okay, we have no minutes to approve tonight and no old business. So jumping straight into new business,
as Jackie mentioned, item number one, VAR-26-42 has been withdrawn by the petitioner. So we will jump
straight to items two, three, and four, which is VAR-26-43A, 43B, and 43C. This is the Hexma Eco Area
2 15% slope variance to chapter 823. The Eco Area 2 one acre contiguous build area variance to chapter 823.
and the eco area to disturbance of natural visit vegetation various to Chapter 823. So, Mr. Dubai, I
will turn it over to you. Thank you. OK, so this is VAR 2643 A, B and C. So.
The requested variance is for the buildable area, 15 percent slope in the Eco Area 2, the one-acre contiguous
buildable area variance to Chapter 823, and the disturbance in natural vegetation variance to Chapter
823. The purpose of these variance requests are for the petitioner to construct a new 3006 square foot
single-family residence in an area with slopes that are greater than 15 percent. The subject property
is zoned forest residential 5 or 4 for short and is
located in the Eco Area 2. The residence is proposed to be constructed in the steep slope area, and
the residence's construction will involve land disturbance of over 4,000 square feet, and that will
not take into account the septic tank and pump. So Chapter 823, which outlines the regulations for the
environmental constraint overlay area 1 and 2 states that slopes greater than 15 percent in the Eco
Area 2 are protected from any land disturbance activity, including the removal
vegetation. The first iteration of the environmental constraints overlay was adopted by the Monroe County
Board of Commissioners on January 23rd of 1992. So here's a little bit of discussion about the request.
So a pre-design for residential construction was submitted for this
residents in April of this year, staff determined in their review of the PILP that it would require
multiple variances as well as some accompanying documents that the petitioner was able to upload. The
petitioner had submitted for a septic permit that is on hold pending the board's decision as the location
of the tank and pumps
for the residents will be located in the non-buildable area, that is slopes greater than 15% in the
eco area too. A driveway permit for the property was approved in January of 1990. That was approved
by the Indiana Department of Transportation as State Road 446 is an Indiana Department of Transportation
maintained roadway.
I will add that it does appear, based on beacon GIS imagery, that some grading occurred on this property
prior to the permits that were required being issued. Based on the certified plot plan by Deckard Land
Survey, it does appear that the septic field itself is located in the buildable area, but the other
proposed structures, that's the pump
the tank and the proposed residence and garage are located in the steep slope area greater than 15%.
So due to the proposed location of the residence, the septic system and the layout of the subject property
itself, the petitioner requires the three aforementioned variances. So this is taken directly from chapter
823. So I'm just gonna go ahead and read it for clarity.
The subject property does not meet three of the four requirements for properties in Area 2 of the ECO,
or just the Environmental Constraint Overlay Area 2, as listed in Chapter 823.5b. So the maximum land
slope upon which any land disturbance involved in construction of buildings, driveways, roads,
parking lots, and utilities can occur shall be 15 percent. The percent slope shall be measured as a
7.5 foot fall in any 50 foot distance. The design should be suited to the lot to minimize the amount
of cut and fill.
So this subject property does not meet this standard. The construction of the residence will encroach
into areas of 15% slope or greater. The petitioner proposes to disturb over 4,000 square feet of land
area for the residence, not including the area for the septic tank. Number two, there should
be no disturbance of natural vegetation beyond the 15% slope line. It also does not meet the standard.
When the property was graded,
Natural vegetation was disturbed for the future construction of the residence. Additionally, the location
of the tank would require additional disturbance of natural vegetation. And number four, each dwelling
unit should have at least one acre of total contiguous, buddable area land. It does not meet this standard
as well as the legal acreage of the petition property is 9.31 acres.
much of the property is located in the 25 plus percent slope. The largest portion of the property that
is under 15 percent slopes measures .41 acres, with much of that being along the subject property's
frontage. So here is aerial imagery of the subject property.
that was gonna highlight the grading that occurred between 2022 and 2026. So on the left, you can see
that there's a driveway there, but there doesn't seem to appear to be any additional grading done on
the lot. If you look to the picture on the right, you start seeing that there's some structures or some,
I believe that's construction materials on the lot.
look at the picture on the left, taken in 2025, you can start seeing that there's obviously been some
grading done there. And if you look at the picture on the right, you can see the lot in its current
state. You can see that there's been grading done on the property and that there are some construction
materials on the property. So this picture is taken from the certified plot plan that was completed
by Deckard Land Surveying.
You can see on the picture on the left, that is the pump located to the north, and that is the tank
located to the west. So the picture to the right shows the septic field in orange, and it shows that
it appears to be in the buildable area per the certified plot plan. The structures in violet
are structures that are located in the non-buildable area. So that's a 15 plus percent steep slope area.
So this is something created by staff that shows possible alternative locations for the residents or
in garage along the gravel driveway.
There is a note there stating that the parcel lines are a bit skewed on GIS, but this is showing that
it is actually on the petitioner's property. Here are the site maps. Location map to the left and to
the right, we have the zoning map. The comprehensive plan map to the left and the site conditions map
to the right. Note the excessive 25 plus percent steep slope on the map to the right.
This is an eagle view picture of the property looking north to the on the left and on the right. It
is another picture that shows the driveway as well as that graded area for the residents. These are
site photos. This is the one to the left was taken from the driveway and the one to the right is taken
along the driveway showing some of the construction materials on the property. This
The picture to the left is showing the proposed location of the residence. The picture to the right
is also showing that as well. The picture to the left shows some of the terrain. You can see some of
the existing tree canopy as well as the stilt fence. The picture to the right just kind of shows or
highlights the steep slopes in the area and the overwhelming tree canopy. Some additional pictures of
the driveway there.
and the construction materials on site currently. Additional pictures of the steep slope. You can see
the existing tree canopy there in the stilt fence. And this is the petitioner's letter to the BZA. This
is the certified plot plan that was created by Decker Land Survey. This is the architectural sheet that
includes the floor plan, the foundation plan,
roof plan, et cetera. This is a basement foundation drawing that was submitted by the petitioner. This
is the driveway permit that was issued by the Indiana Department of Transportation for the property.
This is a septic capacity letter that was issued to the petitioner.
And this is a letter of remonstrance. I'll allow everyone to read that for a minute or so. And this
is the abstract recommendation.
Staff recommends denial of the ECO 15% slope encroachment as practical difficulties have not
been demonstrated as disturbance of slopes greater than 15% could have been partially avoided had the
petitioner built the residence closer to State Road 446. Staff recommends approval of VAR 2643B, that
is the one acre contiguous buildable area variance, citing Chapter 841 of 4F123, specifically A41 for
F3, practical difficulties have been demonstrated, no new development
may occur on the property without first acknowledging the property contains less than one acre of continuous
buildable area per Chapter 823. This variance would be needed for any development on the subject property
unless a plat amendment is pursued, and staff recommends denial of VA R2643C.
That is the ego disturbance of natural vegetation as practical difficulties have not been demonstrated
as the servants of natural vegetation would not have been as extensive had the petitioner built the
residents closer to State Road 446. I'll now take questions. Let's go ahead and turn to the petitioner
or the petitioner's representative. If there's someone here in the room that would like to speak to
this petition. Hi, are you the petitioner?
Okay. If you could sign in and then I'll swear you in. Could you raise your right hand and state your name?
Hi, Rebecca J. Haxman. And do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. OK, you'll have 15 minutes to share anything you want to with us. Oh, my goodness. You don't have
to take the whole 15 minutes. Well, I purchased the property from an elderly couple that had already
obtained the septic permit and the driveway permit. There are guardrails there from the transportation
department for the driveway.
and I just want to build a house on it. I have been, I bought it about five years ago and was hoping
to be on the property and in the residence by now. I'm paying rent at a place and I'm also paying mortgage
on this property that I can't do anything with currently. So I'm just, I would very much like to have
my home built there on the property. May I ask you a question? Yes, please. The staff says the disturbance
to the slope would be less if the house were moved closer to 446. What is your opinion about that? I
feel like that's the only flat spot that there is. This is my builder.
With Hendrickson Construction, can he come up? Sure. I need to swear him in, though, if you could come
up to the podium. Where the driveway is from 446, it goes down into the driveway portion of the property.
And so then once it finally grades out, it is flat there.
In order to move it closer to 446, it would be part of that. And be sitting on the solid rock right
there. Sir, if you would please sign in and state your name before you speak, that helps us know who
you are. Let's just wait till he's done, so you'll have the mic when you're speaking. Could you go ahead
and state your name and raise your right hand, sir? David Hendrickson. OK, do you swear to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. OK, thank you.
Yes, so the fact that we went further back, the reason for that was because of the flatness of the area.
That was the amount of space we could work with. And where they had to put the septic system. Right.
Because there's only one spot for it. Right. We had the septic guy out there twice. The first time he
was there, he really thought that we could get away with putting it
in one area, and then they had to come back and say, no, that's really not gonna work, so we're gonna
do it over here where it's a little bit higher and it's flatter. The place where we originally put it
was a 25% grade, so that's why we couldn't go there. May I ask staff a question before they step away?
How much off the 15% slope is the
plot they want to put their home on. Well, I guess we have a few sources of data here. One is our LIDAR
imagery, which Ray has on the screen, is from 2018. So it would have been before they graded the site,
which is why it's showing up as, I believe the legend on that, Ray, would that red be 25%?
Okay, and then on Eric Deckard's plan it is showing even with the grading He's not indicating that is
within 15 percent slope. So it's still over However, Eric Deckard did not show on his plan
exactly what percent that is. So Ray has in purple outline all the items that are outside of the 15%
slope, but it's unclear like if it's 18% or 20%, it's not given a delineated line, but there is a silt
fence delineation, kind of the grading area that has occurred. So I think that based on maybe the builder
getting involved, it might have been after the site was graded,
And that might be why the house is proposed where it is. Does that answer your question? Thank you.
That does. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other questions? So at the end of the driveway, it is
completely flat. There's like one spot that we talked about putting the roundabout and the house sit
right behind it. And really there's no nowhere else to put it.
Is the driveway already constructed? So it's already there and it's ready to be attached to the graded
area that you've prepared? Yep. Thanks. Are there any other questions for the petitioners while they're
at the podium? Okay, is there anything else you'd like to share before we turn to public comment?
Move into a house. Yes, thank you so much. Okay, you're welcome to have a seat and we'll take public
comment. If anybody speaks against this, you're welcome to come back up afterwards and share anything
else you'd like to share. Okay, let's go ahead and turn to public comment now. Is there anybody here
in the room who wishes to speak in favor of this petition? Please come to the podium. Anyone online
who wishes to speak in favor, please raise your virtual hand.
Anyone in the room that wishes to speak against this petition, please come to the podium. Anyone online
who wishes to speak against, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing no one, we will close public
comment and come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals for conversation. Well, it's hard to know how far
off that 15% slope they are particularly
It's already been graded and particularly since the driveway's already constructed to be attached to
that graded property. Those are factual concerns. Staff question. Is there a place staff feels could,
this property could be developed
I know you've indicated you are, but I just want to go over that again. Where do you feel like a residence
could reasonably be constructed? So what Ray has on the screen right now is moving the house from its
proposed location, turning it 90 degrees and moving it onto the driveway to shore up the driveway. What
that would
involved would be the garage would be first, so you would have a shorter driveway, and then you would
drive in, go to the garage, and then enter the house that way. That moves the construction
and the disturbance further east, and that location, according to the LIDAR, is flatter. It has blue,
so we have maximized the buildable area in this example and stayed away from some of the steeper areas
where it is
previously been disturbed. So it looks to me like the area in the picture at the left still has some
encroachment into steeper areas, but it's the least that could be done to develop this property according
to the LIDAR and the analysis from staff. Is that right? That is correct, yes. But you also said that
would rotate the house
This example rotates the house 90 degrees. So the entrance to the house is through the garage instead
of through a front door. Is that what you're saying to make that work? For a vehicle, yes. For a vehicle,
but you could presumably get a sidewalk that would go to a front door. Correct.
Can we bring petitioner and her builder back? Because now that I've got a better grasp on this difficult
question. So you had mentioned moving it closer. The problem with that is the driveway is already there,
obviously. But if we come closer to 446, the climb out of her driveway is going to be horrible.
because it's pretty good grade. But the grade comes down to a flat spot. So if I use the road that we
have, or the drive that we have, and build it up, as we go up, she won't have that grade. Is that level,
are you saying you're gonna be adding fill to the current driveway? Is that the plan? Building it up,
yes. To build it up, yes. Okay. Because I would think even Inda would want some kind of stop
right there at the top with the base, so that they can get out of that curve, because both directions
is horrible for traffic. So part of the variance request, we do have to be specific in the square footage
of additional disturbance that's going to be part of the construction. So I think on the original
application, we had about 4,200 square feet of disturbance. That basically covers the house, which you
have about 3,000 square feet.
and then just a little bit outside of that. But if you're going to be doing additional work to the driveway,
we'll need to know like how much square foot of fill you'll think that you'll need to have. I mean,
it could have steepness to it, but at the top is where I'm talking about. Like getting out of that curve,
coming up the driveway with a steep incline is always gonna be an issue. So it'd be best if the guard
rails were widened
like a flat spot there. Okay. And since this is a permit through in dot images, said maybe that one
by the guardrail and about where that truck is, that is where I'm talking about building it up so she
doesn't have a straight climb up the hill with doing something at the top.
Yeah. When you get to the top, you're still going to have a steep slope trying to get out on 446. Is
that right? Not necessarily. No, because there's such, if you look at the distance from where the guardrail
set to where that white truck is at, for instance, that's like 220 feet or something. So gradually build
it up and then come to a spot where it's feasible to get out of the driveway. You know, I,
There's a lot, it sounds like you're talking about, you need a lot of disturbance that's not before
us right now. The disturbance is already there. The road's already in there. You wouldn't have to make
any other change to the road. Possibly if NDOT wanted us to do something at the top, just because of
the curves right there is the only thing I was thinking. I'm wondering if we could get staff to pull
this up on Google Street View.
There's a pretty good image that I found here.
I had a little bit of trouble finding it too. Is it farther north? Yeah, I believe it's right there
on the left. To the left. Yep. That's going down. Right.
OK, you can kind of see where those guardrails are at and that kind of flat spot right there. But then
it drops dramatically down the hill to a big flat spot, which is solid rock. But do you feel that you
need to change the driveway from the flat spot at the bottom to the to the? I think the drive going
down is fine and getting back up it is fine in the winter and stuff. But the top, that's where I'm concerned
because of the traffic.
Yeah, where the guardrails are. You would like to do something there so that you can get, uh,
we won't be, you won't have the back of the car downhill when you're trying to get out on the road.
Yes. Okay. But so, so that's additional disturbance. You don't, from aside from the, the,
change you might need to make at the top, and that's gonna be back 30 feet that you may need, something
like that. Well, cars, what, 18 to 20, so yeah. Yeah, so that's why I'm guessing. That's a pretty good
guess. 25 at least, you know, and then the driveway down would be no further disturbance. Right.
when you bought the property, that disturbance was already there. So you come and look at it and say,
well, this looks pretty good without knowing that they had, uh, perhaps violated the, the, yeah. Well,
they had, they had driveway permit to do that, to put the driveway in. They also had a septic permit
on file when she bought it. Okay. Okay. Um,
I mean, you had to have some sort of permit for guardrails to be installed, right? Oh, those are a highway.
They're there regardless. OK, well. I have the permits when I purchase the property. We're on this Google
map. The image is the home to be located. Is it right there to the right down the hill? Straight go
back to that other picture like that's where you would come in right there at the top.
back past that blue. Yeah, past the blue. You see all that flat area right there. All that's flat. Okay.
So by the blue is that sort of toward the front and there looks like stuff is there's a piece of equipment
down here. That's where it's flat. Yes. And everything around this driveway does this everywhere. So
it's tricky. I have a question for staff. From time to time we come up with people that would have been
okay when they bought it, but then we've changed the rules. Is this one of those properties? Rules did
change us. Let me check with staff. So the only consideration is possibly that this was
of the area three, but this was still in the eco area. It would have not, we didn't add eco
area considerations around the lake. It's the same overall boundary, but some of the areas two and three
did get consolidated. So I'm not sure if this was probably part of area three, which would have been 18%.
and now it's 15% under the CDO. That's the only change. But when they purchased the property, we're
just going through the aerials, just as a reminder, the disturbance was not there yet. So it was really
in like 2025, 2026 that the disturbance has taken place, which is after the passage of the CDO.
I'm confused now that the driveway that we were just looking down on that street view, when was that
grading done? Way before us. Yeah, it was there when I purchased the property and is down at the bottom
is where she's talking about. That's been dirt has been moved a little bit, but the driveway itself
was not was was when you bought it in, uh,
Five years ago, that driveway was already in exactly the condition to see. So we have on the screen
the aerial. 2022 is on the left right now, which is within five years. 2024 is on the right. And then
Ray will keep going 2025 left, 2026 right. So based on the aerials, it's been significantly changed
since 2022. Let me go back to 2026.
Okay. Now is this the area of disturbance or is this the area of disturbance? You see what I mean? There's
one that's I'm calling lower here. And then there's. That's the neighbor to the north. This is the neighbor
to the north.
No, not that. OK, that is. Those structures. OK, so this is the disturbance we're talking about. Correct.
And in 2026, I can see this driveway is clearly disturbed. Now, this is 2025. And it doesn't look as
disturbed, but it looks like there's some disturbance. Is that right? Well, the Eagle View, I mean,
the Beacon Gise imagery was
The quality was pretty poor, so that was just the only picture I could get from 2025. OK, let's go back
a year, please. Now here is the road cut, is that right? But I don't see either in this one or in.
This one. Let's ask her what year she bought the property. 21.
2021. So do you see what my concern is that this looks like looks like there's a driveway cut here that
you can see is looks like that something the highway department might have done. And then I don't see
that driveway coming down and it goes the other direction.
So you're going straight across, go at an angle. You can go ahead and... So you're saying that there's
a disturbance that goes from here to here? That's where they put the driveway in, yes. Okay. Yeah, that's
the cabin. Yeah. But is that your cabin? No, that's the other, the neighbor.
Okay, where's the building site? Is it down here? Right past the blue. Right in there. So this one is
2025. This is 2025. And we go back to 2024. You see, to me, it looks like there's clearly been
additional disturbance from 2024 to 2026. From driving on the road and moving a little bit of dirt around.
Yeah, there's been some, but not built a road in there. The road's been there. There's been no... Digging
or anything like that? No, not on the road. No, just maybe a little gravel. Yep. But on the building
side, didn't I read that you took down 30 trees? Yeah. That's the difference. The disturbance could
be that. The trees were gone from the big flat area.
There we go. So that you can definitely see the difference on that. OK, so there's quite a few trees
came out. So and you Mr Hendrickson, you've been working on this for five years too. It sounds like
for several years. Yeah, trying so. How long? Trying to get it done right, but you've been working with
back surgery in the process and everything got delayed and it's just well, it's not the first,
isn't it? It's always that way with family.
But your testimony is that the driveway we're seeing in the 26 picture was not substantially changed
back to 24, it's just the pictures don't show the disturbance and that's partly because you put a little
gravel on it and you tried to make it usable, but there was no regrading, no change in the grade. There
were big runs in and stuff from where they put it in and there's been some done to it. I'm not going
to say there's not, but it's not
bigger or longer or anything like that. Or more or less steep. Right. Okay. Well, that's an important
thing for me to understand. And it's not clear from the pictures. Yeah. But I think... It's really not.
No. But I'm comfortable with your on-site inspection being more accurate than aerial photos. Thank you.
I'm not sure where it leads me. Well, I have concerns that as I look at property like this, this this
is part of the parcel of the terrain we live in. Where can you put your house? Because it has to be
usable and has to be buildable. I understand that. And I also understand the staff saying if we rotated
it so on and so forth, boy, that changes the whole
look in appearance and entry and everything else how it looks. That's a big steep climb when it comes
to your home. So I have sympathy that in the terrain we live in, the lack of perfect buildable space.
And I'm also concerned that we don't know if it's 15, if it's 18%, 20%, though the pictures, some of
them look like it's a slope, a meaningful slope.
But that's the terrain we live in all around us. So we also have our water supply to worry about The
watershed and this is in it and you know, we lose our water supply one cut at a time and I'm worried
about the the quality of the water It's not been so great lately, you know and our role in that
On the screen, I have the history of the Google Maps history of the property. So you can see from 2008,
2015. And this is along that driveway. 2018, it's kind of hard to see. Sorry, 2022.
Okay. But I can clearly see there is addressed in that 2022. It does show that did show clearly that
the driveway was there in 2022, just like you said, but it was, that was a good view of that. That's
a really good view right there because you can see the flat spot where it opens up in the back. Yeah.
And this is 2022. Is that right? Yeah. Okay.
That's very helpful to have found those. I'll also note on the beacon GIS, the disturbed area, if I
can just share my screen right now. So the disturbed area that you see is 70 feet kind of north to south
where you can see like a clear rectangle and then it's
48 feet kind of east to west, and they're stating it's going to be a basement construction on Eric Deckard's
plan. They're showing a 75 foot north to south and at least a 45 foot, if not more, the other direction.
So we've got maybe enough area east to west, but not
quite enough area north to south, so it is a very steep site. What I will say here is that in the code
we do have allowances for exceptions. Of course, we are not able to use those. If they grade the site
first, it is only for when someone comes to us with a permit at first. We can evaluate a site. But some
of the considerations for applying the exception is that
the house maximizes any buildable area existing on the site and that the house footprint doesn't exceed
2,500 square feet. This is a 3,006 square foot home over a basement. So it's
a considerable footprint for the limited buildable area you have here. So one of the things that the
BCA does need to find if you're leaning towards approval is that they've met practical difficulties,
which means that the site cannot be redesigned or modified in a way that potentially could mean altering
the house footprint, rearranging its orientation to meet within the site constraints that exist.
What we just heard about 2,500 versus 3,006, what do you think about that? Can it be downsized? Is that
an option or a possibility? I mean, if it has to be, the worse it gets built, but it would be nice to
keep it the way it is. But I understand the problem with it, too. How many bedrooms is this? Three.
No, we can change that. Go down to the two bedroom. It's not the number of bedrooms for us. It's the
square footage. Yeah. Okay. Oh, I know what it was. Jackie, does the fact that it has a basement make
any difference?
So I think that the image you have here is kind of the construction plans we have. I didn't know if
it was, this is kind of a, just like a, I don't want to say AI generated, but just like the background
is just template, right? It's not fitting with the site. Is the basement a walkout basement or is it?
Okay. Is it going to be fitting within that kind of rectangle? Okay.
and then you'll just build up from there, and that's why the driveway's then gonna be built up. Yes.
Okay, so the first floor elevation on the certified plot plan, Ray, what was that again? I think it's
779. Okay, and then on beacon, the existing kind of contours here
It's about 764. So you said, what was it? 779. 779. So you have probably a basement with a 10 foot and
then the first floor would be, so you'd be building up maybe five-ish more feet. Then the driveway would
kind of be five more. But it would be like starting where the flat spot's at all the way up to the,
flat spot. So is a plan to bring the house up higher to the profile 446 like the first floor of it?
Or is it too? It would be at the ground level where that openings at. OK. So you're not planning on
like specifically building the house up in order to grade the driveway starting at the house higher
to lessen that slope up to 446 in a way. OK, lessen it.
sure okay because the slope is dramatic I just don't want to because of the disturbance obviously the
more more dirt move the worse so we're not gonna put the house the same
height as 446. Is that what you're asking? No, I'm asking if you're just going to soften that. No. That's
the consideration for a basement, right, is that you just have to look at what the first floor elevation
is as compared to what the elevations are on the site. So that can kind of tell us, but really what
we'll need for construction if they're planning on altering the driveway grade is with fill, they'll
need to show us what that fill
elevation looks like. How many feet of fill will they be doing on the driveway, essentially? Are they
doing incremental, you know, six-inch grade changes to the driveway all the way up, or is it going to
be quite a bit different? Will NDOT require anything there at the top of that? We don't know that until
you ask. Well, the only reason I ask that is because the grade right now is doable the way it is.
on the road coming in, but the top is where we have the issue. I just worry about the traffic right
there. And you'll be paving this driveway, is that correct? Yeah. Okay. You know, we're struggling.
You're welcome.
We're struggling to try to find a way to yes here. And it's not easy because there's a lot of variables.
But the site does exist. And you didn't create the site. You bought the site. And you say, Mr. Hendrickson,
they had a driveway permit.
Well, I tell you what, we're going to try to shoehorn ourselves into an exception that doesn't exactly
apply, but we're going to ignore the fact that somebody else made the changes. But it seems like I don't
want to make any more exceptions than we need to. And if you can talk yourself into 2,500 square feet,
then I'm much more comfortable using that exception, because that's just one less change we need to
make, one less favor we have to do. And we'd be doing, I think you understand from our perspective,
some pretty good favors. But I don't want to say, well, I'm sorry you bought land that can't be developed.
And you're not too far from that.
And you're just one vote on the committee. Oh, of course I'm just one vote. I'm talking about me, I'm
not talking about anybody else. So for me to be, I said we when I should have said me, the difference
between me and we is a big difference. So you're comfortable making that 2,500 begrudgingly, but if
that's what it takes, you'll do it and you'll agree to the limit,
to design the house within that? Absolutely. Okay. Because my bank is saying, come May, it needs to
be up or you need to pay the full amount of the loan. And so I'm stuck. Something has to happen. And
nobody's going to buy it who can do any better than you. Exactly. Well, okay, I'll take the plunge. I'll say
given the commitment to redesigning it to 2,500 feet, I move we approve with the findings that shorn
this into the exception and disregard the fact that the disturbance was made prior to their ownership,
the major disturbance.
And do you want to add the practical difficulties have been shown? Do you want to add that? Extreme
practical difficulties have been shown because otherwise I don't see how anybody could make any change
or adjustment that would would make this a usable piece of property. I don't like the fact that changes
were made years ago and you bought it this way, but I don't want to say you bought something that's
useless. But not every property.
is required to be built on. It's not just a person can enjoy the property without building on it. And
that's been proven in the courts. So that's not a practical difficulty. If it's going to be a residential
property. That's the big if. That's the question. That's right.
I made my motion. If it fails, I will understand and be sympathetic with. And do you want to list the
number of the variances on that motion or not? Well, I think that the variance too is a sort of a no
brainer and that we're going to do that. So maybe I should separate the motion. No, you don't have to
do that. I just wondered if you want to take
read for the record what the number was. All three. And I can, can I have, yeah. There you go.
Thank you. That it's, um, um, then Hodgma, uh, uh, 43A, 43B, 43C all be, uh, approved. I'm gonna, with
the condition of the downsizing of the property, I'm going to second that motion.
and repeat that. Yeah, good. Thank you.
motion has been made to approve VAR-26-43A, which is the eco area to 15 percent slope variance. VAR-26-43B,
which is the eco area to one acre contiguous buildable area variance. And VAR-26-43C, which is the eco
area to natural disturbance vegetation or disturbance of natural vegetation
variance to chapter 823 with condition that the home size be no greater than 2,500 square feet total.
A vote yes is a vote to approve all three variances with the condition stated. Margaret Clements.
Unfortunately, I'm unable to support this petition. Guy Lofman. Yes. Jeff Morris. Unfortunately, I'm
a no also.
I want to explain why I want you to be able to build your house, but I also think there's some minor
modifications that could be made that would allow it to be built while we continue to preserve our,
our, you know, our, um, restrictions that we have in the CDO. And so, you know, while I want you to
build your house, I want to make sure we're, we're protecting our environment too. Emily Davidson.
I'm going to vote yes. Are you suggesting they come back and visit with staff to see if there's some
kind of accommodation could be made on that space? Is that what your suggestion is? Yeah, I think there's,
you know, reducing the square footage or potentially adding a room on a second floor or something. In
that case, I wonder if we should continue this case to give them an opportunity.
So the vote that vote fails for lack of majority. So it's two to two. So this would automatically be
continued to the next meeting for lack of majority vote. But it is a good suggestion to maybe come back
to staff and talk to us about the driveway plans. Get everything that you want on there. If you're willing
to shore up to 2500 square feet, show that to the board and see if that can be approved. Yeah. And work
with Mr. Tobiah to
So the 2500 feet includes the basement or we have to go up. I think that's a standard footprint, a footprint
2500 square foot footprint. So we don't care how many you can go up two stories for all I care. You
then have a three story house. It's the footprint 2500 square foot of a footprint and in as much of
the buildable area as possible.
as staff has outlined. And that's why I voted no, because I think you could go up and maybe put a room
upstairs that you're going to put on the first floor and still fall within our guidelines that protect
the land around it. This has been automatically continued then to the next meeting, which is on December
2nd at five thirty in this room. Thank you both for sharing all the details. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Moving on to the next item on the agenda, this is VAR-26-44A, 44B, 44C, 44D, 44E, 44F, 44G, 44H, 44I,
and 44J. Ms. Nestor-Gellin, do I need to read the descriptions on each of those?
That's OK. I do believe that the petitioner before us having a staff presentation, they would like to
request a continuance, but because that was made within seven days, the Board of Zoning Appeals rules
or procedures state that they have to present evidence for good cause to request the continuance and
you have to vote on it. OK, do we have the petitioner or representative here in the room? OK, if you
could come forward.
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
swear to tell the truth? The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Okay. Could you explain
why you need the continuance? Yes. Um so I have recently received the staff report. Um it's
fairly complicated property. These
factual questions that need to be investigated in response to the staff report and recommendations provided
last Thursday in the span of time since last Thursday and my other workload and the additional investigation
that we feel would be appropriate. We would request a continuance. Carol and Michael Rominger are here
with their son and they have committed to working with me to providing a better, a more prepared
presentation. Although whoever, if you,
wish to, you know, we'll be here. We would rather have this continued to December or perhaps January
given we don't know your workload. So we have requested a continuance. We have the payment for that
and we've communicated with Drew Myers on Monday. Okay. Could you let us know whether you preferred
December or January? Would that be helpful for staff to know that? We would personally prefer January,
but I don't want to ask if that's not going to work for you. Okay. Thank you.
Are there any questions? Well, the petitioners are present. I move we grant the continuance to January.
And I second that. And thank you for wanting to be better factually prepared. That helps us all. I appreciate
that. OK, and so that date will be January 6th, 2027. So it's been moved and seconded to move this to
January 6th, 2027. A vote yes is a vote to approve
to that continuance. Jeff Morris? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes.
Okay, that motion carries four to zero. Have a good evening. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay, moving on to VAR-26-45A, 45B, 45C, 45D, and 45E. This is the Lahore Eco Area 1 deck and landscaping,
12% slope, variance to chapter 823. The disturbance of natural vegetation, variance to chapter 823.
The residential density maximum, variance to chapter 823. The minimum lake frontage, variance to chapter 823.
and the one acre contiguous buildable area variance to chapter 823. So Mr. Brown, I will turn it over
to you. I just wanna make one announcement. I apologize. Mr. Skip Daly, our fifth board member is present.
He's virtual and he's on the screen. So sorry, Skip, we did not see you on the last roll call if you
were here before that. Was he here? Could we ask him?
skip what time did you enter the meeting I'm not sure I came in midway through that last hearing so
I was not eligible to vote on it okay okay so you just missed the continuance vote okay
This is a variance for the purpose of enclosing an existing patio, installing a garden and two retaining
walls, as well as laying down steps. The petitioner is proposing landscaping improvements, including
a retaining wall east of the home for drainage improvements to a lot, as well as a remodel of a home
that includes the replacement of an existing deck and enclosing of a concrete pad under the deck.
as well as rectifying were completed in 2019 under a foundation-only permit that required variances.
I did want to note that I think in the staff reports, it mentioned that the slab was installed without
a permit. And speaking with our zoning inspector, it turns out that it might have actually been permitted
under that. However, the variance is still split into two general categories, landscaping improvements
and deck improvements.
For the landscaping improvements, the petitioner is proposing the establishment of retaining wall generator
and propane tank placement with subsequent removal of four mature trees, as well as installing a garden
bed off the new deck. Per the petitioner letter, the four trees subject to removal are under 10-inch
in diameter. Additionally, they state that the retaining wall is meant to help with erosion and damage
control for the site. It's worth noting that the garden bed itself also includes a small retaining wall.
As for deck improvements, the deck is to be replaced, to be replaced was submitted under PILP-427. Part
of the remodel also includes enclosing a concrete slab existing below the current deck. During the review
of the residential construction predesign, it was for the deck and landscaping improvements, it was
found that this platted lot and most of the proposed modifications
would not be in compliance with the standards of the environmental constraints overlay area one, and
the work would first require variances. Furthermore, the existing elevated deck was expanded without
first obtaining a permit in approximately 2019. So the property does not meet any of the five listed
standards for the environmental constraints overlay area one as listed in chapter 823-5A, as you can see here.
It is worth noting that the property was present in its current dimensions in 1976. No, 1967, my fault.
And the ECO regulations were not put in place until 1992. Here's the location map as well as a zoning
map of the property. The reason why it is cut off in the map on the left, that map is cut off is because
it doesn't extend beyond the county boundaries.
And here is a comprehensive plan map and site conditions map. So the picture on the left shows the home
in question as well as the garden area where my mouse is. And here is the proposed extension of the
deck that was conducted without variances. The image on the right is an image of the proposed location
of the eastern retaining wall.
The image on the left here is where the proposed steps are going to go. And the image on the right is
a close up of the proposed garden area. And this is the certified plot plan showing condition existing
conditions as well as proposed site plans as updated and views of the existing home as it stands now.
and just zoom in, zoomed in photos of the same. And so for VAR-26-45, staff is recommending denial of
VAR-26-45A for the landscaping and deck. A, the after-the-fact variance for the deck, we recommend denial
based on the findings of fact and that practical difficulties have not been demonstrated.
As for retaining wall installation, we're recommending denial based on the finding that the installation
of the retaining wall will require the removal of formative trees, and the petitioner has not submitted
adequate evidence proving practical difficulties. For the stone steps, we recommend denial based on
the finding that the petitioner could retain that portion of the site in its current condition, which
would alleviate the need for variance, as well as the same for D, the garden, for the garden bed in this
That's for VAR-26-45A. For VAR-26-45B, for disturbance of natural vegetation for the landscaping, we
are recommending denial of the retaining wall installation based on the finding that the installation
of the retaining wall will, again, require removal of formature trees, and the petitioner has not submitted
adequate evidence proving practical difficulties. Conversely,
We are recommending approval for VR-26-45C, 45D, and 45E, the five-acre requirements for the deck and
landscaping, the 300-foot lake frontage requirement for deck and landscaping, and the one acre of contiguous
buildable area requirement for deck and landscaping, respectively. The reason for that is the same for
all three. The practical difficulties have been demonstrated.
As the lot cannot meet the residential area requirements, the variances would be needed for any new
development on the subject's property unless the Platt Amendment is pursued, as well as the fact that
the lot has existed in its current dimension since prior to 1967, and the eco-regulations came into
effect in approximately 1992. And I will take any questions. Let's go ahead and turn to the petitioner.
Is the petitioner here in the room? If you could come forward, please.
If you could sign in and then I'll swear you in. Are you all three representing the petitioner? Okay,
if you could all three sign in, I'll just swear you all in at the same time that way. Anybody can speak.
We have the entire team here tonight.
If you could, one at a time, state your name into the microphone so we have it on record. My name is
Ernesto Castaneda. OK, next. My name is David Watts. OK. Torrey Vaughn. OK, and then if you could all
raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? OK,
you'll all have a combined total of 15 minutes to share whatever you'd like to with us. Thank you. May
I approach and give you guys something?
would you make sure staff get a copy as well? Thank you. Thank you. Well, thank you. Good evening,
commissioners. My name is Ernesto Castaneda. I'm the design principal at Lauren Wood Builders. Thank
you for your time tonight. And I also want to thank the planning staff for recommending approval of
our variances. I would like to start with the house itself. The house was built around 1966.
In the same years, Bloomington started drawing its drinking water from Lake Monroe. Back then, nobody
had written the protections that we have today. The environmental constraints overlay didn't come along
until about 1992. The house was built the way houses were built at the time, on a hillside with water
running straight toward. Our clients bought this home a few years ago. They didn't buy it to tear it down,
or to build something bigger. They bought it because they loved it, and they wanted to take care of
it. Almost right away, they found the foundation was moving, so water remediation has to be done. Water
coming down the hill was pushing the house toward the slope. In 2019, Monroe County issued them a foundation
repair permit, and the work occurred.
You have the permit in the packet, has evidence of that, the inspection ticket, and the engineer's letter
in your packet. So what we're asking tonight is not about adding something or increasing the footprint
of the house. It's about making sure the work they already done holds. Laurinwood Builders supports
the eco standards. We work around the lake all the time. And we know what that means for our community.
When we look at this hillside, the problem we're trying to solve is the same one the ordinance is trying
to solve. Water and soil moving down the slope towards the house and toward the lake. The retaining
wall is erosion control. The stone aging on the existing garden bed is erosion control. None of this
is aesthetics or something. When I say to beautify the site, this is just a remediation to control the water,
of the project. We are also working on the construction of the tower's Lake erosion control. We've listened
to staff concerns and tonight we're making two commitments. First. We're removing the stone steps. From
the project entirely. Second building the retaining wall means we have to remove four trees. All four
are under 40 10 inches in diameter. And we will replace each
The slab and the deck were done before this variance. The clients didn't realize a variance was needed,
and we owned that. The old slab had deteriorated to the point where water was getting into the house,
so they replaced it on the same footprint, which you can see in the 2017 GIS image. The deck connects
two sides of the house, so it works as one for the house.
and he sits above the old gravel drive on a single new column. Pulling out that column and his footing
or the slab would disturb more ground and change more drainage than leaving them has there now. Uh,
commissioners, this family is just trying to do the right thing with the house that was built before
anyone knew better. We're asking for a chance to protect that house and the heel and the lake along with it.
Thank you very much, and we're happy to answer any questions I have here. The landscape architect and
the designers here with me for answering the questions. Thank you. I have one question. I think you
stated this, but I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. You said that the concrete slab was
already there, but you replaced it because it was deteriorating, and then the deck was built over the
top of it, correct?
So they removed the broken slab that was causing water to go under it and go into the foundation and
causing more water problems. So they removed that and replaced it with the exact same footprint. Okay.
Yes. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the petitioner? And are you saying that the
retaining wall
is necessary to control erosion? Correct. That's correct. And for us to be able to control the water
runoff, we have to build this retaining wall. But there are three, four trees that we would have to
remove in order for this retaining wall to happen. But we want to replace those trees with the same
number of trees for that to happen.
Can I heard you say that you are not going to install the stone steps? No, we're not. We're deleting
that as part of the scope. Okay. Staff, would that change any of the recommendations knowing the steps
are out of the equation?
Well, I will say that I think that the petitioner has done a great job of committing to planning the
four new trees and then removing the stone steps that does help. I think in the packet on page 115,
we have kind of showing like part of the concrete pad and the deck are under the 15% slope. And so removing
those stone steps on the south side does reduce that overall encroachment, but they're kind of
Tangled up as one but it does certainly help Okay, it doesn't remove a variance. I guess if that's what
you're asking, okay Thank you for clarifying any other questions for the petitioner before I turn a
public comment So the house was there soon after the lake was built and I
You couldn't have built it today, but it did get built. And you don't want to fall into the lake. And
you don't want to bulldoze it. And you just are trying to preserve. And each of these changes is going
to contribute to the stability of the property and the garden.
Change is not because it's going to be a beautiful garden, which you hope it will be, but because you
need to make this change to, again, protect erosion. Correct. These are just prevention measures to
control the runoff, the water runoff. Yes, it would look nice for sure, but this is just to prevent
more erosion and the houses sliding down the hill. You know, the house was built in the sixties.
fun times back then, you know, we didn't have these provisions to protect the environment. And,
you know, different times we're here today, and we're just trying to help this house to, to not slide
down the hill. Yes. I have no other questions myself. Thank you. Skip Daly has one. Oh yeah. Mr. Daly,
go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for staff, if I may. Does
Does the requirement for denial fall, or would a requirement to take down the deck fall on the petitioner
if this is denied? Yes, so part of the denial under VAR 2645A, if that part is not approved, the 12%
specific for the deck
encroachment, it would require them to take down those posts in the deck. My. For the expanded portion.
My other question, and perhaps this might be rhetorical, I did not hear the petitioners discuss anything
outside of the evidence that was already in the packet. And if. And if staff is saying that
practical difficulties has not been met with that evidence. What would it take for a practical difficulty
in this exact scenario in the eyes of staff? I don't know if you're allowed to answer that. Well,
I will say, Skip, that they did introduce a few items that they were committing to tonight. And one
of the things that they stated in their testimony was that
Their belief is that removing the posts and removing that expanded deck will cause more disturbance
of the natural vegetation and the steep slopes. So that's something that was not included in the petition's
application. I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you. I meant toward the practical difficulty side
of it. That was other evidence, but that doesn't apply to the practical difficulty, which is what staff
have the problem with.
Yeah, I think Ms. Clemens would like to say something as well. Yeah, Skip, you know, we miss you here
today, but they did introduce some evidence. It was an engineer's report on the house. And because you're
not here, you can't really see it. But one, I'll read to you a few of the highlight
items. Foundation settlement has occurred along the west rear wall and along the south wall of the home.
Elevation measurements determine that the left rear corner is two inches lower than the right rear corner
and two inches lower than the left front corner. It goes on like that. It's talking about structural
damage that's occurring due to water.
and water runoff down the driveway, causing erosion and shifting of the crushed stone and water coming
down the drive from across the road at the top of the drive. And so it's my interpretation that these
requests are to mitigate the water flow that is maybe causing damage to the structure. And we do have
it on the screen shared. Yeah, you can see that now. Skip.
Thank you. Yeah. Sorry about that, but thank you. Are there any other questions for the petitioners?
Okay, we'll turn out a public comment, so you're welcome to have a seat. If anybody speaks against the
petition, you're welcome to come back up and thank you. Okay, turning out a public comment. Do we have
anybody here in the room who wishes to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please come to the podium.
Do we have anybody online who wishes to speak in favor? Go ahead and raise your virtual hand and we'll
get to you after the in-person speaker. Sir, if you could sign in on the piece of paper there on the
podium, then I'll swear you in.
If you could state your name and then raise your right hand. Anthony Moore. OK. Do you swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. OK. You'll have three minutes.
Thank you. I live in the same subdivision, not very far from this house. I belong to the Homeowners
Association. I'm on the architectural review board. We look at everything.
that people plan and we give it the yay or the nay or tell them what has to be done, same as you folks.
I'm not intimately familiar with the property, but I have been to it and I have walked under that porch.
Everything that they want to do will improve a perfectly good house, provided it's kept up. We don't
want to waste houses.
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
we will okay it and I think that you should too. They're they're excellent builders they're doing it
right. That's just what I want to tell you. Okay thank you sir. Any questions? I believe so. I'm also
a builder so I know what what they're doing. Okay thank you. Thank you. Anyone else here in the room
who wishes to speak in favor?
Okay, anyone online who wishes to speak in favor of this petition, please raise your virtual hand. Anyone
here in the room who wishes to speak against this petition, please come to the podium. Anyone online
who wishes to speak against, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing no one, we will close public
comment and bring this back to the BZA for discussion. I have no problem approving, moving to approve
these variances.
with the factual change of the removal of the stone steps. So I'm moving to approve variances 26-45
A, B, C, D, E for the layer eco area one deck and landscaping projects.
Does that include the commitment to replant for new trees? Oh, yes. Thank you so much. Yes. And we appreciate
that commitment. If the four trees are removed to replant for substitute trees, thank you very much.
OK, do we have a second second? OK, it's been moved and seconded to approve VAR-26-45A 12% slope.
B, disturbance of natural vegetation. C, residential density maximum. D, minimum lake frontage.
And E, one acre contiguous buildable area requirements of Chapter 823 for the layer property.
with two conditions that the petitioner remove the stone steps from the south side as proposed on the
plans in the packet and that the petitioner commits to replant four new trees in return for removing
four trees on the plans. A vote yes is a vote to approve all variances. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret
Clements? Yes. Skip Daly? Present.
Hoffman? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Okay. Motion carries four to zero. Thank you to the petitioners and
thank you for coming prepared to suggest the trees. Thank you. Thank you. Have fun. So we will move
on now to administrative business. First item is BZA rules of procedure.
a working session on abbreviated conduct of hearings procedure and notice requirements. OK, so I'll
go ahead and go through some of the changes. But in the packet on starting on page seven, we do have
a red line version of the rules of procedure that will be changing. One overall change is that we're
and then the next page, the change is, uh, stating that the secretary shall be considered the planning
director for the planning department. Just since that was, uh, two
Two ways, it was office manager in some places and planning director in others. So we just made it concise
and made it the planning director. The next change, we did remove the reference to hearing officer because
that is no longer part of the CDO. And then we switched all indications from zoning ordinance to CDO,
county development ordinance, which has replaced the prior zoning ordinance.
And then we clarified improvement location permit instead of or occupancy permit. We removed that reference
since the occupancy certificate of occupancy is controlled by the building department. So we wanted
to make that clear. And then the next change that we want your opinions on is that, so the,
way that we do notice right now is that it's certified mail, which is when a petitioner pays certified
mail, they show proof of sent sending to the addresses that we're requiring. And it shows proof of delivery.
Well, right now, and since covid the
USPS doesn't actually get us back a signature of who received the mail. It just shows online that it
was delivered to the address. So it could be a tenant receiving it. It could be maybe someone under
the age of 18 receiving the mail. I'm not sure who they allow to say it's been delivered and that's
who gets it, but it doesn't necessarily show proof that it was delivered to the owner of the property.
So we're suggesting that we open this up a little bit to say certificate of mailing or certified mail.
Certificate of mailing still shows proof that the petitioner sent the letter to the address on file
as required in the timeline
required. The cost of that is about $1 per letter, whereas certified mail is running about $7 to $8
per letter these days. So it's a cost savings. But if we think that it's really important to know that
a letter was both sent and delivered, then we need to stick with certified mail. But if we only need
to show proof that it was sent, that would be moving it to certificate of mailing.
And then the next section we wanted to show was just to kind of elaborate on the list of the property
owners receiving the mail. We wanted to make sure that it was clear that it's the last known address
and that we will need that proof back at least two days prior to the hearing. Sometimes we have to get
people to get us to us, you know, in the last hour. So we really want to get that a little bit earlier.
And then we also wanted to make it clear that we want to have the property marker sign up not less than
10 days. That's that red and white sign with the handwritten information. Those help notify the public.
And then the next changes I can go through, these are to clarify two different conducts of hearings,
which we're calling the regular conduct of hearing or the full hearing.
And then the other version is the abbreviated conduct of hearings. And so I've appreciated any feedback
that we've received so far. And I wanted to put this in writing so that we would actually have something
to point to in case there were questions later down the road about a hearing that received an abbreviated
hearing. That way we have it in the rules of procedure. So I'm happy to go through these
as well, if there are any questions. And let's see, beyond that, I think that was the main changes that
we have here, updating the chapter references to the CDO, and updating the chair to Jeff Morris. So
that's the summary, and if you wanna spend,
any time on the regular hearing versus the abbreviated hearing. I'm happy to do so. Um, I had one quick
question on page five. Do we have no time limit on rebuttal? It's five minutes. I thought it was five
minutes, but I thought it said check five. Okay. Thank you. In the upper right hand corner.
Page five, if anyone speaks in opposition to the relief sought, then the person seeking relief shall
receive five minutes for rebuttal unless extended by the board. All right. So there was some changes
that I made sure were still in there. Yes, super. I thought it was because we've always said that guy.
You tweak these a whole lot. What do you think? What's your sense? Well, my sense is that it's they're
all great updates.
I think the CDO and all those things, we shouldn't be wrong. And I think the abbreviated hearing, we've
adopted and used now for several months and it's been terrific. It saved the public and it saved us
pointless hours. But this, I think, gives complete protection. If any board member says, you know, I'm
not comfortable with this, then we go through the whole thing.
Or if the petitioner is not comfortable with any conditions, then we go through the whole thing. And
if anybody in the public says, wait a minute, we go through the whole thing. So all the people who have
the right to object, that right is preserved. And we don't go forth with this.
If any of those, and we determine early that all of those things are present. If they are, then there's
no reason I can see to go through a perfunctory, but sometimes extensive hearing process. And I would
add to your list that the staff has recommended approval of those. Of course. Of course. This is only
when staff has recommended approval, perhaps with conditions. That's right. Yes. Yes, that's the whole point.
So I'm good with these. I am. I have one concern about the certified mail. You know, I having been involved
with certified mail, you know, over thousands of people, you know, I heard reports that the post office
only had to show proof of delivery and that the efficacy of that proof of delivery was rather speculative.
And there were people who faced choices about their property and information about their property who
never received the notice. And I think it's because it's property and it may be their biggest investment.
I'm not eager to eliminate the certified mail.
I don't know how others feel. I don't know if there's an alternative like email certified receipt. It
seems as though the snail mail is taking a couple of weeks. So to have sent just a certified mail, the
proof of delivery is pretty important because I'm even hearing where it's possible for someone
to take out a mortgage on another person's house. I just feel that it's important to have a, would this
be a receipt of delivery? So certificate of mailing, it does not involve a receipt that it was received.
It's only clearly that they sent it. And if you will, I think I have one,
example where we can see what the post office gives us as a link. I'll just have to find it. But I hear
you. If you want proof of delivery, certified mail is your only option. And I'm old enough fashion that
I'm reluctant to give that away. And I don't know how others... I can't appreciate your comment on that
because it is property. Yes. I really can.
My concern is, is it real? That is, is certified mail return receipt requested, I think. Is that what
it's still called? That's what it did back when I practiced. And sometimes, I think we're, I think somebody
was saying, was it Jackie was saying, sometimes you don't, sometimes they,
That doesn't necessarily, does that mean Jackie, does that mean somebody has actually physically signed
for it? They do not sign for it anymore. So I'll show you an example. Sorry. I just have to find what
they give us now. So they give us a tracking number and then you go online and you click the tracking
number and then you can go from there to see it was delivered. They don't show the address. So they
have to have shown the address,
written in on the green card, and then you match it up to that tracking number. Wow. So it's not as
good as it once was. It's not as good as it once was. Yeah, so you don't really know. And the other
thing is, if somebody doesn't want it, they can
They can avoid the, you know, it's like serving process on somebody when you file suit, you know, you
need to prove it, but I don't think we need to go to that, demand that. So that's why if the certified
request for proof of delivery can be illusory, which it sounds to me like it can't, and in fact, it might
make it so something doesn't get delivered at all. They don't get anything. Right. So, you know.
I hear you. But I wonder, you know, it's been a while since I've been really active in this kind of
notification. Thank goodness. Yes. So I just wonder if it's possible or what we know about
delivering something by email where we at least get a notification of the receipt. But their email isn't
in the property records. That's what we go with to say, where do you send this is the property records.
And it's not, not with the tax, not with Judy Sharp's office. I'm saying no when I'm ignorant.
Yeah, because that's what my question was. What is the state of our information now? Our electronic
communications with property owners? Well, I tell you what, they're it's not unusual to have the real
estate address different from the owner's address. That's true. And but and this is supposed to be sent,
I think. Is that right, Jackie, to the owner owner? Correct. To the real estate address? Yes. This is
what we receive, like on the screen here. So you see this tracking number?
Yes, you would tie this up with the other portion that the petitioner would send a picture of. So we
would take this tracking number, for instance, on the screen here, type that into the USPS tool. And
this is what we get delivered left with individual Gossport, Indiana, September 12th, 2026.
1 45 p.m. Whereas when back in the day used to receive the other half of the green card tear with the
signature and you would see who it was that received it. That's right. So now Jackie I recall it was
within it was within 10 years. So and if somebody in good faith nobody's home.
I mean, how many people are home when the mailman comes these days? When the mail delivery person comes
these days, not very many. And so, you know, then they don't leave it. I don't think they leave it.
They leave a note that says we're trying to deliver something to you. They leave a note, but you still
don't get it. And if you don't look at that note and follow up on it, which is very hard to do,
I have gotten these things just at my house. I'm convinced then. I'm persuaded. I didn't know that things
were at this level. I did not know that. This feels useless, even with Amazon looking at photos. If
the address or the person is no longer, like you can do return to sender, or if the address is not in
existence, then we will get that back.
And we will scan that in as part of the file to say undeliverable. So we do get the bounce backs back
to us. OK. OK, then if it comes back undeliverable, does that mean that the petitioner can't go forth?
I don't think so. They did. They tried to send notice. And if if it was undeliverable, I don't see where
we had to say, well, you you're stuck then you can't you can't
Just you can't you can't keep your house from falling down the the so I I think I Hardly see if they
want to use the certified mail I guess they can but I don't see who would and there's the red and white
sign and people The neighbors would see that and call whoever they know to be affiliated with the property
so we have doubled our attempt to communicate
the state of affairs, I wondered if we could think of a way to triple, you know, to triangulate that
to make sure that we've exhausted. But that's the subject for another day. I'm I'm comfortable with
with this. We see how it goes. If we have problems with delivery, I think we need to revisit that and
maybe work out something with the, um, with another department that might have more knowledge. Some other
My question is, and I haven't looked at one for a long time, is when you do properly, you've got the
disclosures. Each of you needs to say who it is. But I don't think, and it gives, I think, a phone number.
I just don't.
see that very clearly. The letter that was sent, is that what you're saying? No. I'm saying when I buy
or sell real estate, there's the property disclosure that tells you who the buyer is and who the seller
is and what the price was and all that information. And I don't know whether it gives anything other
than the address of the
of either party, of the buyer. We're using the assessor's records and the treasurer's records of last
known address, so we're sending it to the same address that your tax information would go to. I think
I'm comfortable with just making it the proof of mailing because there's almost an opportunity to
to keep somebody from getting it. That's true. Under certain circumstances, yeah. Yeah, Mr. Daley's
got his hand up and then I've got a comment also, but go ahead, Mr. Daley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One
of the things that I will repeat is that I would like to see something added to this that states
On the record, either in the packet somewhere in the packet toward the beginning or have the chair of
the meeting have confirmed on the record at the meeting. Either way, it doesn't matter to me, but that
all of the petitioners before us
at a particular meeting or within a particular packet have indeed taken care of their obligations that
are statutory and within us as well in terms of notification. So that's one comment I have. And then
another comment I will reiterate
that I believe I still have a two and a half year old open motion, I believe it was seconded, that called
for unanimous consent of meeting minutes and disregarding the roll call and
And so I'm going to have an objection to that. And that's all. Well, for now, I have a few other comments
on another section, but you guys can discuss. Do staff, regarding Mr. Daly's comments about notifications,
do staff follow up with the petitioners to ensure that they have sent their required notices?
Yeah, so it's actually on the workflow step of our variance petitions that we get. It's one thing that
we have to check off before they get to the BZA meeting is that all notice, all proof of notice has
been submitted. And if it's not, we just continue it. So it wouldn't even come to us if they hadn't
fulfilled that? That's correct. We're very diligent about that. But we can certainly add it like maybe
in the table or as a slide just to say that proof of notice has been sent.
Because I understand it's a, and the case that, you know, brought this to our attention again, of course,
in that case, they had done certificate of mailing and not certified mail. And that was the issue is
that we didn't have receipt of delivery. We only had receipt of it being sent. But if we changed the
rules of procedure, then we're in alignment with the CDO as well.
And then my comment was a little bit further down on page four here, Jackie, under 1C. Persons who want
to speak in favor who are not physically present at the meeting shall state and spell their name and
address. Two comments on that. One is we haven't historically asked for an address. And I was wondering
if this is a recommendation that we start doing that or, you know, where that came from.
Any sign-in here to the given address? It's on the sign-in sheet, yes, but to have somebody say it out
loud when they're online is another thing. Yes, so it does ask for their name and address on the sign-in
sheet, but we typically, in other meetings, I was just checking, making sure we were on the same page.
In other meetings, we usually just have them
write down their address and then state whether they're a county resident. That's something I've heard,
but we haven't heard people typically ask for the address to be said out loud, but we can. I do wonder
about the privacy concern of that. I just looking for consistency. If people who are here provide the
address, if they're speaking favor against, then it seems to me people who are speaking online.
should have the same requirement. Now, I do understand the distinction of having to say it, although
the sign in here is all public record. So anybody who wants to know where somebody lives could check
the item of right, could check those records. So it makes it more public, but more easily accessible.
but it doesn't change the fact that they would, and otherwise, I mean, I sort of, usually if somebody
talks, they say, and I live next door, and that's something I'm often concerned about, is does somebody,
how far away you live makes a difference to me. Not all the difference, but it's nice to know if it's
somebody nearby. So, and I think that was one of my suggestions,
everybody gives the same information. And I think everybody should spell their name because I'm sorry,
but the gentleman who spoke in favor of the last petitioner was a name that I couldn't guess how to
spell. And there's a lot of ways to spell a lot of words, of names. So I just think for the clarity
and completeness of the record, everybody should say their name,
spell their name, and state their address. You've convinced me on the address one. Hearing that people
are writing it up there does make it make sense for people online. When they sign in online, we get
their name. That's what I was going to go to next. Oh, sorry. No, that's fine. On the spelling of the
name online, Jackie, when you're creating the meeting minutes,
If somebody's speaking on Teams, are you able to see the name that they have signed in as? Okay. If
they're unverified and they don't, they can just come in as like Jay. Right. That's what I was getting
toward. I was wondering if maybe we could word it to use some discretion. If Jim Smith or Daniel Brown
is there and he states his name as Daniel Brown, I'm wondering if we could use that. But if DB
signs in if we could ask them to spell it out in that case. These are not love or die issues to me.
I'm just like consistency. So everybody know whether you're here in person or not is treated the same
way. I don't really care what way it is, nearly as much as I care that it's consistent.
I would be more comfortable if people spelled their names because sometimes Brown has an E and sometimes
it doesn't. It just seems to me more we get a better record. I agree with you. I'm just thinking of
it from a process perspective of sitting here asking people to spell Jim Smith or something that we
can clearly entertain.
but I don't want to have a stand. Well, if I can guess how your name, probably guess how your name is
spelled, you don't have to spell it, but it's anyway, I, I like it that way, but if somebody wants to
move to, you know, remove it, I, I will, I would consent if somebody doesn't, I just want it consistent.
That's what I care about the most. Mr. Daily, I see your hand raised again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I
agree with Guy that,
Consistency is important and saying and spelling the name of the person's legal name that is testifying
is important and perhaps just speaking the address. Speaking the address is what I suggested. Yes, and
I'm agreeing with that. I think that
speaking and spelling, first and last name, and speaking the address is important. Thanks. Any other
comments? I think we haven't made any actual changes to the document as you presented. That last one,
I can make the changes. Skip just mentioned. You know, now that I'm looking at this,
It doesn't really say that people in person will sign in, does it? It does. Okay. Approach the podium,
sign in with their name, address, state their name. So some of the changes, are you reading from the
packet guy? Yeah. Okay, it is. It's somewhat red and green if you're in color. I am. Where are you?
Under C, third line. This is- Page four.
page four of the BZA rules under article five. Persons who want to speak in favor who are physically
present at the meeting shall approach the podium, sign in with their name and address, state their name,
be sworn in by the chair, and make their statement for the record. Okay, I tell you what, I must have an
Earlier copy. I know you. Yes. And I didn't print this. Okay. It's already there. I'm sorry. I wasn't
up to date. Do we have a motion? Sorry, skip. Go ahead. Thank you. Whenever we get to discussing page
six, let me know because that's where my next comments are for. Thank you.
Yeah, I think we're discussing any part of this that you want to discuss. OK. So. Get there on my hand.
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
in practice and I love that.
it's being suggested that we add this in some capacity to the procedural book here. My problem is, is
that we've convoluted two things. We've not defined calling the question and we've in turn
associated it only with this abbreviated conduct of hearings as it's being called, which is not accurate.
And a call of the question is just a request to end debate. That can be done by any board member at
any point in time requesting to call the question.
What I would prefer to see in this is a definition of the procedural usage of call the question and
then a follow-up underneath that or defining it in terms. I don't see terms and definitions in this
packet here,
in some capacity, actually defining what calling the question is, as opposed to having it associated
solely with the use of this, because it can be used in, any one of us can use it in any other capacity
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,
board member right during these meetings to request that the debate be ended. And quite frankly, it
needs to be separated. Call the question procedural is this if we want to inform the public.
how that can be used in abbreviating. A hearing where. X, Y and Z has all taken place. Is this this
in this using that procedural device and we're not doing that here and it's imperative. And I will also
remind you guys that I
I still object to the second correction of the packet. In terms of Robert's rules, I think there may
be a better way to say this than call the question. In that way, we could say,
shall move for an immediate vote. Because that's what moving the previous question is. It doesn't use
Robert's Rules terms, but if we, and I don't care if we, then the board shall, I would say then a member
of the board shall ask for an immediate vote to be taken. If there is a second,
to the request that an immediate vote be taken, the secretary shall call the roll. Because that's what
we're saying. We want to have an immediate vote on the petition taken. And call the question. There's
nothing more routinely confused than call the question and move the previous question, whereas we just
call it what it means.
call for an immediate vote, then I think it's that can't be confused very easily. So I would suggest
that we and that we actually don't have to put in parentheses because it's just using common English
terms. That's right. Work. So would would that make you, Mr. More comfortable, Mr. Daly? Mission speak.
Yes, permission. Yes. Uh, I'll say perhaps because I'm not 100% clear as to what you were saying. I
like right now. Any one of you could request a
call the question and you could, and my discussing this and all of the rest of us discussing this, if
a percentage also, I don't know that we have defined a percentage of, I'm not seeing it here. Director,
am I missing a percentage of members that have to approve
the call, the motion to call, because typically it's a two-thirds situation. Has that been identified
in here? No, and it should. It does say under two, the last sentence, a majority vote must prevail for
the agenda item to be resolved as of right now. But I think that's the, I think,
She'll call the role is whether proceed with for if the call the question vote succeeds. I think that
should say succeeds by a two thirds by at least a two thirds vote. Because that's the standard. I thought
it was unanimous that we all if any one of us has reservation about truncating the deliberation, we've
already done that in a.
in one A, whether the board members consent to an abbreviated hearing. If all it takes is one board
member saying, no, I want a hearing and we have it. So I'm just trying to. You're right. I wasn't up
to speed. But I think it would be shocking if we didn't get unanimity since we've all consented to it.
But the vote should still be on the record that we're going to have the shortened hearing. But I think saying,
And again, oh, sorry, Mr. Walpole. If there's a second to call the concessionary rule as to whether
to proceed with a further call, if the request for an immediate vote is passed by a two-thirds majority,
by at least a two-thirds majority, then I think that should address your concern, Mr. Daley. Does that
seem appropriate? Well, right, that addresses part of it. And the other is, you know, and I don't want to
I don't want to run on semantics here, but because we're discussing procedural stuff, I think it's important
to make sure that we're using the right language in the right places and we're getting it done. Right
the first time and I do understand we can always come back to some of this stuff and revise things,
but I would. You know if the whole purpose of
having this procedure is to what's being called abbreviate conduct of hearings. Why are we specifying
that a vote has to happen and why can't we again, and I'm gonna go back to my soapbox about unanimous
consent, you know, with the exception of
vocal objection. One of the reasons is that the part I drafted, I drafted this way, is because that's
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.
That's what we've been doing. Somebody moves the question, somebody calls the question, we vote on that,
and then we vote on the underlying
petition. Since that's what we've been doing, I was trying to mirror that. I think it would be just
as good, because we all know everybody consents to say something like, if A, B, and C are, and if nobody's
in a position, then the board shall move for an immediate, shall proceed to a vote on it, shall just
proceed to a vote.
Well, this will often I think what I'm what I'm trying to say might be different from what you're retorting.
What I'm suggesting is. When someone makes a motion for. Calling the question that the chair turn and
say, does anybody object? So are you familiar with unanimous consent?
The chair would turn and say, does anybody object to this motion? And if nobody objects, the chair can
approve based on unanimous consent that the call to question without having to call or roll.
That's all. Well, the 1A says that when all the board members consent to an abbreviated hearing is the
first issue,
And then if the answer day and there nobody is, so I would be perfectly comfortable if we said, if conditions
A, B, and C are met and nobody else opposes, then the board shall proceed directly to a vote.
I don't think we need this interim step, but that's the way we've been doing it. So, you know, and I
agree it's awkward, but we don't, and we could get rid of it just saying, then the board shall, okay,
so if the answer to A is above and no member of the public or president in person are in line to oppose,
then the board shall proceed to an immediate vote on the petition.
on the matter before it. That would be, I'd love that. I think it's good and succinct. I'll have to
be, because the way it's written, sorry. I'll have to say if the answer to A and B above are yes and
C is no, because it's whether there is anyone from the public who opposes. So you would want that to
say no and the answer
The board shall call for an immediate vote. Then the board shall proceed to an immediate vote. Yeah
we're essentially just going through the same process twice by voting on the same thing.
immediate vote and then we slip down to the bottom to approve the request with any condition
staff recommends. A majority vote must be present. There's a second to the call for an immediate vote.
The secretary shall call the roll for the petition. Yes.
and close the, well, I would just, yeah. And then we vote. If the call for immediate vote succeeds,
I'll take that. Process things are so important, but I have very little. Majority vote must prevail
for the agenda item to be resolved. That's still applicable. And then down to three, every person appearing
before the board shall abide by order and directions of the chair.
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
quite the way I was thinking. OK. So here's the edited version. So make changes. Yeah. As you're in
the end, then the board shall proceed to a meeting. Then we don't need to say if there's a second to
the call for the immediate vote. Then it just take out that sentence. Yes, take out that sentence now, I think.
It shall answer C, is then the board shall proceed to an immediate vote. The majority must prevail for
the agenda item to be approved, I would say, you know? Assuming it's always approved, yeah. Well, this
is because there's approval. Yeah, so let's just say approved. We may as well say approved. Oh, I love minutiae.
I think that was the only item outstanding that we haven't discussed. Um.
object to approving of minutes requiring a vote when it can be and should be and is done in every other
board that exists by unanimous consent. And I believe I have an outstanding. Motion and second from
two and a half years ago that was never addressed on this so.
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
every single time voting presence. And when I run meetings, I run it with unanimous consent. And I'm
sure that's why it's being addressed now by staff. I think that we should talk about the merits of unanimous
consent versus voting. I think that that's something that is overdue and it's
was a weakness of mine that I never addressed it. And it was just, you know, an avoidance of confrontation,
you know, which is not, for which I apologize. So let's talk about the merits of unanimous consent versus
voting. Is that okay? Well, it shall require a vote unless unanimous consent is obtained.
So we just changed that sentence. Because if somebody says, no, I don't approve the minutes. I didn't
say anything like that, then they have the right to vote against it. And everybody says, well, we see
it right here. Staff, I think, likes to have in the record the actual votes on the minutes. Right, staff?
OK. Well, then I think, Mr. Daly, nothing personal, but I'd rather make the staff happy than you.
What does Mr. Daly feel about that? How unhappy does Mr. Daly feel about that? Can you hear us, Skip?
Oh, I can definitely hear you. Was that a rhetorical question? Yes, I asked how does that make you feel?
We have in two extremes, I guess, the staff feels a need to have in the record our per person vote on
the minutes. And you are requesting unanimous consent. And that's the hesitation is that the staff has
a practice and a belief that
especially for this quasi judicial process, that our votes on the minutes be registered individually.
Did I state that correctly? I can add to it. And that itself is my specific concern. I believe under
Indiana code is a requirement for board action. Official board action must be
This is the majority vote. And I think the last sentence should say shall require majority vote. Is
there any other discussion on this? On the screen I have the first change the majority vote and then
I added the change for the online
folks that they state and spell their first and last name and state their address. And then we went
over together the abbreviated conduct of hearings change. So I made those changes. I just really feel
that through
the deliberation and the thought that Skip and Guy and Jackie have given these rules of procedure. And
with your brilliant initiation of this calling the question, Skip, you know, you've saved the public,
you've saved us a lot of time, and I'm really grateful. And I feel like the right people are putting
the right thought into what makes our Board of Zoning
appeals, you know, a very good process. So I want to thank everybody here. Thank you to staff and everyone
who's put so much time into this. Yeah, Mr. Daily. I'd like to move that we get whatever has been updated
from the last thing that was sent sent out to us and
we discuss this and vote at our December meeting. I'm comfortable with that. I would love to see the
whole thing. What I'd like is to see it without no strikeouts or anything, just so I can read it without
having to go back and forth and saying, wait a minute, so that we get the whole thing as it would be
passed. So go ahead. How about this? I'll do a red line and then a clean copy. I'll do both. Perfect.
Okay, I like it.
I can do that. It's a plan. Was that a second, Mr. Lofman? It certainly was. It's been moved and seconded
to push this to the December meeting with the changes. I'll include both a red line and a clean copy.
And this will go to the December 2nd Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. And I suggest we put it as the
last item on the agenda for that if we can, because that's what we're going to do. I can do that.
Thank you. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daley? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Jeff Morris?
Yes. Okay. Motion carries five to zero. Okay. And I believe we still have the notice requirements to
discuss, right, Jackie? Um, then certified mail versus. That's in the rules of procedure. Oh, okay. So.
Yeah, perfect. I think we discussed it, but we I mean, I think at this point, we probably should just
discuss it next month. We were clear. I think that we understood the weaknesses of our mailing system
and our antiquated. I'm happy to give more examples and try and talk to the post office to see if there's
any. I've talked to him to an idea, you know, not about
county business, but when I want to send something certified, it seems like it's very difficult. And
also the level of security that it was delivered to the person intended is quite low. Well,
what is that? She says with a laugh. It's a lot of money for a little service. That's so true. Is there
a motion to adjourn? Let's move to adjourn. Yes. All right. Bye, Skip. Thank you, Mr. Daly.