[1:00] All
[1:06] right, we'll go ahead and get started.
Welcome to the August 27th meeting of
[1:10] the Hancock County [clears throat] Board
of Zoning Appeals.
[1:16] Like to advise everybody that your
testimony this evening is being recorded
[1:18] and taken under oath. We request that
anybody that wishes to speak only do so
[1:22] when called upon. Please come up, face
our attorney to my left to be sworn in
[1:25] before you speak. All persons speaking
will be asked to give their full name
[1:29] for the record. Please spell your na
your last name so that we have accurate
[1:32] meeting minutes. Please turn off all
cell phones, electronic devices, any
[1:36] funny noise makers that you might have.
The order of the speaking this evening
[1:41] is the petitioner starts with seven
minutes uh to make their presentation.
[1:45] That's followed by a collective seven
minutes of remmonstrance. We offer
[1:50] government officials that would wish to
speak three minutes and our attorney
[1:54] will issue I'm sorry. Then we have a
three-minute rebuttal period for the
[1:58] petitioner and then our attorney will
issue a two-minute and one minute
[2:01] warning as your time is expiring. We ask
that everybody conduct themselves in a
[2:05] civil manner and we reserve the right to
ask you to leave if you're not able to
[2:09] do that. Our first item of business is
the adoption of the previous month's
[2:13] meeting minutes that were submitted uh
electronically by Dennis.
[2:18] » Motion to approve.
>> Second
[2:20] » been moved and seconded to approve last
month's meeting minutes as submitted
[2:24] electronically. All those in favor
signify by saying I.
[2:27] » I.
>> Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries.
[2:33] One other thing.
[2:38] This meeting this evening has been has
is being recorded and streamed for
[2:43] public viewing. By participating, you
acknowledge that your image, voice, and
[2:46] comments may be captured, made publicly
available. This meeting has been
[2:49] properly noticed in accordance with
Indiana Code 5141.5. And I like to
[2:53] remind everybody in the black chairs
that those are the ones that are on
[2:55] camera. So Mike Gibson's always over on
the left, so he's not never on the
[2:59] camera. I'm smart guy.
[3:04] As far as roll call, we have a full
board this evening.
[3:09] Item number one, I believe, is looking
to be continued. Is that where' she go?
[3:19] Item number one is being would like to
be continued. Are they going to request
[3:23] a continuence or are we doing it?
>> Um,
[3:26] sorry.
>> Public notice.
[3:28] » So, yes. So, number one is
>> Dixon.
[3:33] » Um, yes, we spoke with Dixon and notice
was not properly p published. We are in
[3:38] touch with them still. Um, so they would
like to continue to next month.
[3:42] » Is this his third time?
>> I at least second.
[3:46] » What are our rules on continuing to the
BCA? Uh I believe it's was it once is
[3:52] their um their option. The second the
second is I guess our option. Um and
[3:58] then beyond that I think is uh at your
will but Rhonda can you clarify that?
[4:03] » I'll look it up.
>> Thank you.
[4:05] » Say do we know for sure this is only the
second?
[4:09] » No.
Thought it was his third. It might be a
[4:13] second with public notice. We we
continued him the first time because of
[4:17] uh Oh, his notice was messed up the
first time when he was here.
[4:23] » Third time.
[4:29] » We We don't have anybody here
on behalf of the application.
[4:34] » Mr. Dixon here.
>> No, we informed him that his notice was
[4:38] needed to be done properly in order for
that petition to be heard. Was this the
[4:42] one the initial not is this a separate
instance where the
[4:49] someone beyond
his [clears throat] controls messed up
[4:52] the notice?
>> So the initial time he published the
[4:55] affidavit of public notice instead of
the actual notice of public hearing
[5:01] and uh that was the reason that it got
continued the first time
[5:05] » and that one was outside of his control.
It's
[5:11] it is the responsibility of the
petitioner to provide that sheet out of
[5:15] their application packet to the
newspaper.
[5:18] Now,
>> so that was within his control. I
[5:23] thought there's that's what I'm trying
to understand because there was one that
[5:27] it was somebody it was an outside party
that he had no control over that messed
[5:32] up a notice. And if I'm mistaking that
with this one, that's fine.
[5:36] » I don't believe that's the case. Now, I
also wish that we as a planning
[5:39] department would have checked and found
that the newspaper had not published the
[5:43] correct sheet out of his packet in a
more timely manner. Um, since then, we
[5:48] have been checking much more diligently
to make sure that notice has been
[5:51] properly done, which is why he is not
here tonight because we were able to
[5:55] definitely say that he had not published
notice in a timely manner.
[6:00] So
>> our rules say one by right, one by
[6:04] election, and then the rest by election
of the board.
[6:08] » I don't see I'm just I just searched on
the word continue.
[6:16] » I could find there's three times that's
mentioned and
[6:20] anything about the time number of time
[6:25] that the board mate
[6:33] we perhaps put that on the backlog for
consideration
[6:38] for rules
next the next round whenever we're
[6:42] looking at that. It'd be nice to have
some guidance on that.
[6:46] Perhaps we've discussed it and just
didn't find it appropriate to
[6:50] incorporate in the last round of rules.
[6:57] I don't remember when he first came.
>> So the only concern is that um three
[7:03] times and this fills up [clears throat]
our agenda and we are bumping other
[7:07] people potentially. Not this time
though, right? We didn't bump other
[7:09] people. Okay. All right. Would we be
bumping any other applications next?
[7:15] » Uh no.
[7:19] » Um okay. Motion to continue case
26-2682.
[7:25] um with a stern note that this uh would
likely be the last opportunity to get
[7:30] the notice right.
>> Second.
[7:34] » All right. It's been moved and seconded
to continue item number one due to
[7:39] improper public notice to the September
meeting. All those in fa in favor
[7:45] signify by saying I.
>> I opposed. Same sign. Motion carries.
[7:50] Item number two, I understand, was
withdrawn.
[7:55] So, we just need a motion to accept the
withdrawal of item number two.
[8:00] » Seconded.
>> All right. It's been moved and seconded
[8:03] to accept the withdrawal of item number
two. All those in favor signify by
[8:08] saying I.
>> I.
[8:09] » All oppose. Same sign.
>> Motion.
[8:12] » Before we move to item number three,
I notice we got six items on the agenda.
[8:18] I'm only showing uh item three and five
in my packet.
[8:22] » Item three is Laughlin. Is that correct?
And item five is Hocket.
[8:27] » Mhm.
>> Those are the two we'll be hearing this
[8:29] evening.
>> Number six is Kerr.
[8:31] » I'm going to be requesting a continuence
for Kerr.
[8:34] » Okay.
>> Could we perhaps um accelerate our
[8:38] review of items number four and six for
anybody who might be in attendance this
[8:42] evening?
>> I concur.
[8:47] Oh, you want to move on to item number
>> four and six in case there's anybody
[8:53] here for those
>> is number four sing.
[8:56] » Yeah,
>> sing is continued. It's number five
[8:58] hocket that will be on the agenda and
heard
[9:00] » tonight. You want to Is there anybody
here that's u
[9:05] for item number four J Singh? No.
[9:10] » Anybody here for item number six?
Richard Kerr.
[9:16] » All right, let's just move on to We'll
just jump out of order here. We'll move
[9:19] on to item number four. That one we're
looking uh to be continued due to
[9:25] improper public notice like the last
one.
[9:28] » How many times has this been in front of
us?
[9:31] » This is the first time that the
extension of the special exception has
[9:35] been in front of you. It was in front of
you a year ago and was approved. This
[9:40] primary plat is also um in consideration
at plan commission and has been
[9:46] continued a couple times there as well
for public notice issues.
[9:50] » Okay. And so it's a new public notice
issue.
[9:55] May I ask if that's a strategic
opportunity that we're dealing with that
[10:00] we're we're doing out?
[10:05] » What do you mean?
They Well, [clears throat]
[10:10] » Mike,
>> yeah, this one's
[10:13] this is a time extension, right? And
they they were continued at the planning
[10:17] commission this month as well.
>> Yes,
[10:20] » I think that's what you're getting at.
>> I'm getting at utilizing [clears throat]
[10:24] public notice as a forright opportunity
for delay,
[10:29] » which stays a time extension.
[10:37] um
>> normally requires it to have some sort
[10:40] of underlying finding and a continuation
of existing conditions.
[10:48] » If it if it continues, it doesn't extend
their date, does it?
[10:55] [clears throat]
[10:57] » Rhonda,
>> I I sorry I'm
[11:00] » I think it's
>> Sorry, I'm not putting together all the
[11:02] component. I probably will not be able
to give you an answer. Item number four,
[11:05] » I'm not following the timing thing that
you're talking about.
[11:08] » So, item number four was a time
extension, a special exception time
[11:12] extension.
>> Uh, it's they've requested to continue
[11:18] due to improper public notice.
>> All I can tell you is I I know that the
[11:24] I believe this is the one where the they
were really wanting it to go forward and
[11:28] actually made a case for why we should
put it forward um on the acreage. I
[11:34] believe it was.
>> Mhm.
[11:35] » And
we found another notice problem where
[11:39] the addresses, two addresses were wrong,
or maybe three, and we didn't think they
[11:43] got the certified or the the mailing.
So,
[11:48] I felt like they were wanting to move
forward.
[11:55] » Then we found another problem that hung
them up. Was it was their continuence at
[12:01] the plan commission also public notice?
I believe it was [clears throat]
[12:06] » they misnumbered one of the um at least
one of the addresses involved. I believe
[12:12] on both.
>> Oh, maybe I'm confusing those two then
[12:14] because
>> you're correct. It had both issues.
[12:17] » Okay.
>> Yeah.
[12:19] » What's the expiration of the special
notice or the special exception right
[12:22] now?
>> One year.
[12:23] » Which which what date? Uh it was
September of 2025. So I think September
[12:28] 25th maybe of 2025. Uh BZA hearing in
September of 25.
[12:34] » And the special exception is for what?
>> It is for a convenience store or gas
[12:40] station in the commercial neighborhood
zoning district.
[12:45] » Status of permitting.
>> Not no uh permit has been issued.
[12:51] Was
this approved under our previous
[12:57] zoning and approvals?
It was okay.
[13:03] Yeah.
Yep. So,
[13:08] all right. With that, do I have a motion
uh to continue item number four due to
[13:15] its improper public notice?
[13:21] Did I have a Did you Nobody made it.
Can't second yet.
[13:24] » Oh, I thought she [laughter] did, too.
[13:28] » Anyone?
>> So, so moved.
[13:31] » Anyone? Anyone? If they're not here to
present, it'll it'll die, right? If we
[13:35] don't take any action on it, we have to
take some sort of an action on
[13:40] » this sing special exception.
>> Um, I believe that was going to be a
[13:44] continuence to the next BCA.
Well, that's what we're talking about.
[13:49] I'm waiting for somebody to make a
motion to continue.
[13:52] » Did you?
>> Oh, do I have a second to continue?
[13:58] No second.
[14:04] [laughter]
I will second it then. So, all right.
[14:08] All right, it's been moved and seconded
to accept the um continuence to
[14:13] September for item number four due to
improper public notice. Dennis, we will
[14:18] need to call the role I think on this
one.
[14:23] » A yes is to continue.
>> Any discussion? What what happens if
[14:26] there's a no action?
Well, in the case of public notice, did
[14:33] is there some I would hate for us to
miss an opportunity here to have
[14:38] everybody represented, is there is it a
right of the petitioner to have another
[14:43] opportunity to come back um to speak
their case and then if the board still
[14:47] feels that no action is required, they
can make it at that time.
[14:55] If this one is denied and they're not
the motion is not given a continuence,
[15:00] right?
>> And one thing I would have to check is
[15:03] to see if there are any um provisions
about the weight the wait time um if
[15:09] that's relevant
>> and then whether they'd have to refile.
[15:17] » If if we don't continue then we will
have to hear the case and they're not
[15:22] here to present, right? So we would have
to we would have to vote on the on the
[15:27] continue on the we'd have to vote on the
time extension, [clears throat]
[15:30] » right? So that's kind of one of the risk
is when they're not here, but staff told
[15:37] them they didn't have to be here or
>> we let them know it would be continued
[15:41] because the public notice was not
properly sent to all the property
[15:44] owners. So even if there were people in
support of something like this, they
[15:48] also would not have been given the
chance to come. So that's where
[15:51] everybody receiving that notice is
important.
[15:55] » It would tip typically be an automatic
continuence. We typically just vote on
[15:58] it as for the record. So an automatic,
but I guess if we don't accept it, I
[16:05] think it automatically continues
anyways, right? Based on
[16:08] » Well, it's since it's a notice
provision, I mean, there's kind of
[16:10] fairness on the side of the people that
didn't get the opportunity to be here.
[16:16] Oh,
>> that's true. Yeah. [clears throat] If
[16:17] there's traders. So,
all right. So, we'll go ahead and take
[16:23] the vote for the record. So, call the
role. Dennis.
[16:30] » Yes.
>> Yes.
[16:41] » Yes.
[16:45] » Okay. So item number four, J Singh will
be heard on September
[16:52] whatever that meeting date is. I don't
have it here. September meeting.
[16:56] All right. That moves us to item number
three, a live one, a variance to allow
[17:03] an accessory structure in the front
yard.
[17:05] » We want to go to six because we had
attendees.
[17:07] » Well, item six is going to have a
presentation. So we'll just go ahead and
[17:11] leave it in proper order. Then you've
got a presentation. Mr. Gibson's here.
[17:15] » Well, I at least can reason to you why I
am having to request a continuence.
[17:19] » Mhm.
>> Yeah. We'll just go ahead and move in
[17:21] our regular order here this evening
so not to hold up the two that are in
[17:27] line.
[17:30] So, item number three, Mr. Laughlinary
[17:36] structure variance.
[17:45] All right. So, our we do have a staff
report for the Laughlin family. Um Oh,
[17:51] sorry. Not plugged in.
>> Yeah. I was going to say, will you
[17:54] » the one on your
black? There we go.
[17:59] » Got it.
>> There we go. Thank you.
[18:01] » Okay.
[18:04] » So, Mr. and Mrs. Laughlin live on McCord
Road in a little stretch that is not
[18:10] incorporated into the town of
McCordsville in Vernon Township. Um the
[18:14] property is zoned R1.0. You can see it
outlined here on the map,
[18:21] 5574 West McCord Road. Um, they would
like to request a variance to allow an
[18:27] accessory structure, a garage in the
front yard.
[18:39] As you can see, uh, they have a fairly
large site here. Um, driveway places
[18:47] them, uh, over about 200 feet off the
road. They do have an additional small
[18:54] garage or barn in the backyard. Um they
have a septic field on the
[19:00] west southwest side of the house. Um and
a large uh turnaround area at the end of
[19:07] which is where they would like to place
this u garage.
[19:12] So, our standards state that accessory
structures must be located um outside of
[19:19] the front yard, which is anywhere in
front of the face of the house, and they
[19:23] also cannot be located in the side or
rear setback uh minimums.
[19:31] I've given the definition of the front
yard here so you can see exactly how it
[19:36] is uh explained. uh front yard, the
horizontal space between the nearest
[19:42] foundation of a building to the front
lot line extending to the sidelines of
[19:47] the lot and measured as the shortest
distance from the foundation to the
[19:51] front lot line. So very clearly
different than the required side and
[19:56] rear yard setbacks.
[20:06] I've included just a Google Street shot,
street view shot of the residents. Um,
[20:12] so you can see that they are a
significant distance off the road and
[20:15] where that turnaround is where they
would like to put the garage.
[20:25] Here is the garage they would like to
build.
[20:30] It is a 28 by 32 foot structure with
brick Wayne scating.
[20:52] I've included the variance application
decision criteria
[20:56] um that you can see here um read through
just to recap um for a development
[21:04] standards variance the board may grant a
variance from the standards of this
[21:08] chapter such as height bulk area if
after a public hearing it finds a
[21:13] determination in writing con consistent
with IC code that uh the approval will
[21:19] not be injurious to the general welfare
public health, safety, morals, um
[21:24] adjacent properties will not be damaged
um or their values hurt and that there
[21:30] is practical difficulty. The strict
application of the terms of the chapter
[21:35] will result in a practical difficulty of
the use of the property. This situation
[21:39] shall not be self-imposed nor be based
on a perceived re reduction of or
[21:44] restriction on economic gain.
Okay. Conditions may be imposed
[21:51] uh as me commitments.
[22:02] So for the variance uh request to have
an accessory structure in the front
[22:06] yard, my staff recommendation is to
approve the condition uh guided by the
[22:12] following section of code.
So, for residential subdivisions, um,
[22:18] built now, uh,
if it's a residential subdivision in
[22:24] minor or major, and if it's located in
the R2.5, R3.5, or R5.0, uh, districts,
[22:30] these are architectural standards that
guide architectural um, concerns. It
[22:35] would not actually apply to this
particular lot because it's it's R1.0
[22:39] and not a subdivision. However, I did
find this guidance helpful in
[22:44] determining a condition for having a
accessory building in the front yard. So
[22:49] that's why I chose to site this.
So for garages in these areas and
[22:55] specifically for garage forward design
[23:01] there is a provision that garages that
pro protrude forward more than 16 ft
[23:07] shall be side loaded which this one is
and shall install a window that faces
[23:12] the street and that would be my
condition that I would add.
[23:19] So um the approval with conditions um
would be that building permits relating
[23:25] to the variance must be obtained within
12 months of the above approval date and
[23:29] an occupancy permit must be obtained
within 12 months approval of the
[23:33] building permit or the variances will
automatically expire and the variance
[23:39] only applies to the proposed garage as
presented. Uh the exterior design
[23:44] materials of the garage shall complement
the primary structure and be
[23:48] substantially similar to the design
presented which I think it is. Um and
[23:52] the proposed garage elevation facing the
cord road shall include at least one
[23:56] window
and those are my proposed conditions.
[24:02] » Did you talk to the petitioner about the
a stake survey?
[24:07] » I did not.
>> Gutters and downspouts. I did not. This
[24:12] property is 19 feet from the neighboring
property line which is uh meeting the
[24:17] setback requirements. Okay.
>> Um it is only that front yard
[24:20] requirement that it's uh not meeting.
>> All right. Any questions for the staff?
[24:27] » Any considerations on exterior lighting?
>> Uh no. It does have two coach lights on
[24:33] the garage um pres that was were
presented.
[24:37] » Okay.
[24:41] Any other questions for staff?
All right, we'll have the petitioner
[24:46] come up, please.
[24:53] I'm going to swear you both in. If you'd
raise your right hand, do you swear or
[24:57] affirm under the penalty of perjury that
the testimony you're about to give is
[25:00] the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
[25:02] » Yes.
>> Please state your name and spell your
[25:04] last name for the record.
>> Jeffrey Laughlin. L A U G H L I N.
[25:09] » Don Laughlin. L A U G H L I N.
>> Okay, you have seven minutes. Go right
[25:13] ahead.
>> She said everything. So, [laughter]
[25:18] great job. Um, so the only question I
would have are is on the uh if you guys
[25:24] would know so I can tell my builder the
windows. Is there any parameters or
[25:29] anything I need to know about that? Is
it just one? Is it two? special sizes
[25:39] » at least one is what it says in the
conditions as it says in the guiding
[25:42] documents. So at least one typically
what we say is of a similar design
[25:46] pattern as the main structure.
>> Okay.
[25:49] » Yeah.
[25:54] » Um a lot of probably not terribly
important with your property but one of
[25:58] our standard conditions has been in the
past to have a stake survey done. That's
[26:02] simply uh by a surveyor and that's
simply so that when the building
[26:06] inspector comes out they can verify
visually that it's within all the
[26:10] setbacks that you're committing to.
Um
[26:15] kind of protects you too to make sure
that you're inside of your setbacks and
[26:18] whatnot. So would you have a problem
adding that to your project
[26:21] » doing a stake survey?
>> Yeah. No.
[26:23] » Okay.
[26:29] » All right. Any questions for the
petitioner?
[26:37] You like to talk about garages? Come on.
>> I'm good on this one.
[26:41] » You're good with this one.
[clears throat] Okay. [laughter]
[26:44] » All right. If no questions, we're all
we're all good.
[26:47] » I have I do have just one question. When
I was talking to my builder today, he he
[26:50] mentioned something and we're just I'm
just going to ask the question. So,
[26:54] we're at 28 by 32 now. Um he said if we
did the 30x 32 it'd be a little more
[27:00] structural sound and we would have more
space in the side for doors coming up
[27:05] you know opening and closing and it's
still under 1,000 ft. So, I didn't know
[27:09] if that's something that I would have to
do a a whole variance again or if that's
[27:13] something that could be handled in the
building permit stage.
[27:17] » Ben, depend upon how you did the notice
and what was identified in the notice.
[27:23] » 28 by 32. That's how we can approve. We
can we could probably improve less
[27:26] tonight but not more. [laughter]
>> Yeah. Yeah. If the notice had the
[27:32] mention on it, then we're probably
stuck. Oh,
[27:35] » it didn't.
[27:39] accessories.
>> So, as long as they stay under the
[27:42] square footage, they're fine and stay
within the setbacks. Okay.
[27:47] » All right.
>> What's the What's the parameters you're
[27:49] looking for?
>> 30 by 32.
[27:52] » So, just two extra feet on the front,
[27:57] » maybe.
[28:02] » Yeah. So, which direction would you be
going towards your driveway?
[28:10] » I would I would split it in that
turnaround. So, it'd be 1 foot one foot
[28:16] width. It's widthwise, I'm sorry.
>> Yeah.
[28:19] » Okay.
[28:23] » And I think that gravel is 30 like about
35 ft right there.
[28:30] » Okay.
[28:33] All right. Yeah, I think that sounds
like that's fine. Just make sure that
[28:37] that's
represented in the drawings for the
[28:41] permit that are attached to the permit.
>> Okay.
[28:43] » So, that gives the staff another chance
to check it before the permit is issued.
[28:47] » Okay. Perfect.
>> Yeah.
[28:50] » All right. We're all done, I think, with
you. Do we have anybody that wants to
[28:53] speak in opposition to this petition?
>> None. All right. We're all set then.
[28:59] » All right. Thank you. Any any discussion
on the conditions?
[29:03] » But I can make a motion. [clears throat]
>> Okay.
[29:06] » Should this variance be approved, staff
conditions will attach with the
[29:09] exception of a few changes to number
two. Uh it applies to the proposed
[29:13] garage as presented and as amended
during discussion
[29:18] that okay staff can enforce. Okay. Then
the um substantially similar to the
[29:24] design presented um as amended by
discussion and then adding a number five
[29:29] that a um using our typical stake survey
language from our approval for variances
[29:36] that up. Um and then number six that the
structure may be increased to 30 by 32
[29:44] expanding on the width as long so long
as setbacks and total square footage is
[29:50] within
uh guidelines.
[29:55] » Second.
>> All right. Moved and seconded that
[29:59] should this variance be approved to be
subject to the conditions as stated.
[30:04] All those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I. I oppose. Same sign. Motion carries.
[30:09] Go ahead and fill out your ballots.
[30:22] [clears throat]
[31:00] Case number 26-2704
is approved. A vote of 520.
[31:09] » All right. Um,
[31:18] might put a note in your calendar on
that 12 months in case for some reason
[31:22] you don't build it here this fall just
to make sure you get that extended if
[31:26] you need to so you don't have to redo
all this again. Yeah.
[31:35] Okay.
[31:40] All right.
>> Item number four we dealt with
[31:44] continued. [clears throat]
Item number five is the Keith Hocket
[31:48] commercial neighborhood special
exception. And I'll be mediating the
[31:52] discussion, but I'll abstain from voting
on this one this evening.
[31:59] » The rules on a tie vote.
>> If there's a tie vote, then uh it gets
[32:05] automatically continued.
[32:10] So you'll need three
three like votes for a direction. So
[32:30] pocket special exception for a
contractor's warehouse. Petitioner is
[32:35] Keith Hockett. Location is 6822 West
US52 in New Palestine in Sugar Creek
[32:40] Township. The property is zoned
commercial neighborhood and it is 7.67
[32:46] acres in size.
[32:50] Got a map here showing approximately
where it is on US52, north side of US 52
[32:57] uh just past um before you get to 700
west
[33:03] and um it is between the um oh the edge
of the new Palestine growth area, the
[33:09] Hancock Health and all of that um stuff
that's going on on the south side of US
[33:14] 52 and Sheldom Village.
[33:27] So the use in this case is that Mr.
Hockett would like to operate his um
[33:32] boat storage business. Um so I'm going
to leave it to Mr. Hockett to further
[33:37] explain his business model and how all
of that works. Um but more or less this
[33:41] is a like a boat storage in these barns
and Mr. Hocket goes and brings the boats
[33:47] to them. You will store everything in
these barns. No outdoor storage. At
[33:52] least that's a condition we've come to.
And that's why I've chosen to to look at
[33:55] this as a contractor's warehouse. Um,
I'm listing here the definition of
[34:01] contractor's warehouse from our from our
definitions in our zoning ordinance,
[34:05] which is an enclosed building within
which a construction contractor or
[34:10] landscape contractor stores construction
equipment and other materials
[34:14] customarily used in the trade. This is a
special exception in the CN zoning
[34:19] district.
I understand that this is not a trade
[34:23] per se. This is not a landscaper or an
electrician. Um, this is kind of a
[34:29] service basically to boat owners to go
and get the boat and bring it up for the
[34:33] winter and then deliver it back to them
in the spring. Um, this seemed like the
[34:38] closest thing I could relate it to in
our ordinance. We have mini storage um,
[34:45] which is where things are stored
indoors, but you have a lot of public
[34:48] coming in and out with their stuff. Uh
we also have RV boat storage outdoor,
[34:55] but once again that's a lot of people
coming and parking their things on an
[34:59] open lot. So both of those seemed like
more intensive uses than what Mr.
[35:07] Hockett is proposing this evening.
Additionally, this was another reason,
[35:14] uh, the CN zoning district is a stretch
for this use family of boat storage. Um,
[35:23] most of our use matrix wants it to be
zoned a heavier commercial district or
[35:29] even an industrial district for this
kind of use. However, given that this
[35:34] site is located in a developing area
near New Palestine, as we know,
[35:39] Sheldomire Village is a really nice area
as you get into the Marian County side
[35:43] of things. And we also have um New
Palestine with the hospital development,
[35:48] all of the new stuff happening down
there, the community center. Um CN is a
[35:53] great zoning district for this
particular area to stay. We want this
[35:57] area to stay zoned as a planning
department CN because long-term as these
[36:02] two areas kind of build toward each
other, CN is a great location is a great
[36:07] zoning district offering a lot of great
opportunities for retail um denser
[36:12] residential options, things like that,
serviceoriented businesses.
[36:19] We do have a section in our land uses um
section of the code that says unlisted
[36:24] or questionable land uses. Any use not
listed as a permitted use or special
[36:29] exception use is considered
non-permitted. The planning director may
[36:32] determine into which category any use is
placed. If not specifically listed, but
[36:37] is similar to another use that is a
permitted use or special exception. The
[36:41] determination may be appealed to the
board of zoning appeals consistent with
[36:46] the provisions of 156.104.
[36:50] And so that was the section that I used
also to justify my interpretation of why
[36:54] this is a contractor's storage house
storage building um or could be looked
[36:59] at like sorry warehouse um or could be
looked at that way.
[37:06] The yellow buildings on this site plan
are existing right now. There's an older
[37:10] farmhouse um and an existing barn in the
back.
[37:16] You may recall this um particular site
because it it did have a history as a
[37:21] violation. Um but it has been resolved.
All fines have been paid and so now
[37:26] we're basically trying to make the use
legal. So that's what we suggested um
[37:31] back when we were dealing with the
violation um that Mr. Hocket do was come
[37:36] here. Let's make it let's figure out a
way to get you legal.
[37:43] There are elevations of the proposed
barn he would like to add to the site.
[38:01] And here you can see that contractor's
warehouse once again is that special
[38:04] exception in the CN zoning district.
[38:14] » [clears throat]
>> You can also see that this site is in
[38:17] the corridor overlay meaning commercial
sites are held to a stricter standard uh
[38:22] architecturally.
Um one thing that we have going here is
[38:26] that um
there is room for outlots still in the
[38:30] front as well. So if this area develops,
the long lane and keeping the boat
[38:35] storage use at the back of the parcel
actually preserves some area in the
[38:38] front if this ever became a commercial
subdivision.
[38:44] So, as far as compatibility
compatibility with the surrounding land
[38:48] uses go, um I would point out that the
barn built on the railroad tracks from
[38:54] my understanding and talking to
everybody was a seed storage or some
[38:59] sort of an agricultural use, which makes
sense then when you think about it being
[39:02] built on the railroad tracks like that.
I don't know any more than just talking
[39:08] to people and understanding that. Um
there is also a cell phone tower back
[39:12] there which would prohibit residential
construction within like 300 feet of it.
[39:17] Um so we've got a couple things going on
back there along with the active
[39:20] railroad of course.
So I would say for those reasons as
[39:25] well, this use is actually fairly
compatible.
[39:29] The proposed use and its scale are
generally compatible with the
[39:32] surrounding uses and land development
pattern. The presence of yet the cell
[39:35] phone tower limits residential uses on
most of the lot leaving space for
[39:39] commercial uses. A smallcale indoor boat
storage facility provides a service to
[39:45] the community members while limiting
people's presence near the tower on a
[39:48] constant basis. Getting boats into this
lot is possible due to its access to
[39:53] US52. The nature and intensity of the
proposed use are appropriate for the
[39:57] location and the development is not
anticipated to negatively impact the
[40:01] character or functionality of the
surrounding areas.
[40:07] I've also got then of course that just
description of commercial neighborhood
[40:10] which yeah smallcale we're trying to do
more retail more walkable stuff that
[40:15] works next to residential.
[40:21] All right, these are just some
screenshots of the area. You can see
[40:24] it's US 52 and this kind of site kind of
just looks like an old farmhouse on the
[40:28] north side. It's got some really nice
pine trees
[40:37] and that's Google Street View, so it
might be old now, but anyway, that's
[40:40] what it looked like then.
[40:45] Once again, we've got decision criteria
for special exceptions.
[40:57] So this is basically where it goes
through and says uh the special
[41:01] exception
uh needs to meet these criteria and also
[41:05] that this board uh may attach
conditions.
[41:24] So in going through those the staff
finding is that the special exception is
[41:29] listed uh in the land use table if we
interpret it as a contractor's
[41:34] warehouse. [clears throat] The special
exception can be served with adequate
[41:38] utilities, access roads, drainage and
necessary facilities.
[41:49] regarding um any element that would
cause any condition to be dangerous,
[41:54] injurious or noxious to any other uh
person or property.
[42:00] The proposed use conducted in accordance
with the commitments provided by the
[42:04] applicant poses no hazardous, injurious
or noxious conditions and as a result,
[42:09] it is important that the commitments be
required and recorded with the BCA um if
[42:14] they approve this special exception.
[42:20] There is a petitioner commitment as well
to add landscaping
[42:25] uh to screen the property. I did touch
base also with the town of New Palestine
[42:30] and that was one of their concerns was
as long as it had like some landscaping
[42:34] and looked nice basically. So
[42:40] all right.
[42:43] Yep. And then pretty much the rest of
that goes through to say that um the
[42:48] commitments that have been developed uh
by the petitioner and um everything else
[42:54] that we've just talked about uh make it
a good candidate for a special exception
[42:59] permit.
Okay. Which is why the staff
[43:03] recommendation is to approve with the
following conditions and commitments. So
[43:08] conditions, a building permit and/or
improvement location permit relating to
[43:13] the special exception must be obtained
within 12 months of the approval date
[43:17] and an occupancy permit obtained within
12 months of that. The BCA reserves the
[43:22] right to modify or revoke the special
exception at a public hearing if it
[43:26] determines that the business constitutes
a public no nuisance. The special
[43:31] exception shall be limited to and run
with the petitioner. The special
[43:35] exception shall not be transferable to
any other petitioner, person, or entity.
[43:39] So, just like we've done in the past, if
Mr. Hocket sells his business to
[43:43] somebody else, they would need to come
in here and have the special exception
[43:47] essentially transferred to them
by this board
[43:54] re-review requirement for operational
changes. So, I think I just went over
[43:58] that, but um any future expansion to
building footprints, operational scope,
[44:03] or deviation from the approved
operational model shall require formal
[44:07] review and approval by the BCA. Ongoing
compliance and revocation.
[44:14] The petitioner will be required to
continuously comply with all stated
[44:18] conditions and commitments and failure
to comply may result in enforcement
[44:22] action or revocation of the special
exception approval which I think
[44:28] we've been there so I hope we don't go
back there in that case. um
[44:33] enhanced corridor overlay screening. The
petitioner shall install and maintain
[44:38] enhanced landscape screening along the
US 52 frontage uh and property
[44:44] perimeters fully compliant with the
zoning ordinance which I believe states
[44:48] that that screening could be closer to
those buildings as well. Thus kind of
[44:51] preserving the field in front and kind
of staying out of those
[44:58] building placement restrictions. The
proposed 80 by 200 barn shall be cited
[45:02] no closer to US52 than the existing
residence and structures on the property
[45:07] maintaining the setback depth. So the
barn can't be any closer than the
[45:12] residence is right now and it's well in
front of um it works with the site plan
[45:16] as proposed
[45:20] and the following commitments.
Operational hours and outdoor activity
[45:24] limits. Outdoor movement of boats and
staging areas shall be limited to
[45:29] standard operational hours, 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
[45:34] Indoor storage only. All stored boats,
personal property, vehicles, and
[45:39] equipment shall be housed entirely
within the enclosed structures. No
[45:43] outdoor boat or RV storage. Outdoor
storage of boats, recreational vehicles,
[45:49] RVs, trailers, or equipment is strictly
prohibited even on a temporary basis. No
[45:54] shrink wrapped or visible exterior
items. Shrink wrap boats, unwrapped
[45:59] holes, trailers, or associated inventory
shall not be parked, staged long-term,
[46:04] or visible outside the buildings.
Prohibition of retail and public
[46:08] storage. No retail sales, customer
service counters, or public self-
[46:14] storage operations shall be permitted on
the premises.
[46:19] That's the end of my presentation. Do
you guys have any questions for me? Is
[46:23] » this a owned or leased property?
>> Owned.
[46:27] » Um, and in March of 25 when we started
the fines, how long did that last?
[46:32] » Let me look. Do we have a ledger of
total?
[46:58] All right. So, it looks like
in 2024, June of 2024, there was a
[47:05] compliance deadline set. Um, which seems
to mean that there had already been some
[47:11] activity. Um, let's see.
Can read through this. Um, boats were
[47:18] removed by on Okay. In 2024. All right.
Um, see, new complaint was received in
[47:26] the fall of 24.
um
[47:31] and continued
[47:37] into 2025
[47:47] and the case was closed in spring of 25
and the fine was received.
[47:56] Any
more questions?
[48:00] » Yeah, Kayla, the
>> within the
[48:05] uh corridor,
>> what what what is the dimension? Is that
[48:10] a 600 ft set back from the center line
as well?
[48:13] » Yes.
>> Along 52.
[48:15] » Mhm. So if it is uh isn't there some uh
standards as to
[48:23] masonry
if it falls within the the corridor?
[48:29] » I would honestly have to look back
through that and make sure whatever they
[48:32] do is in compliance. Yep.
[48:37] » Turn it on here.
[48:57] Yeah. So, there's the corridor overlay.
[49:02] I would have to read back through that,
make sure that there was see how that's
[49:06] all written out. Yeah. I think there has
to be a certain percentage of
[49:10] » masonry. Okay.
>> If it falls within the corridor,
[49:14] » that would make sense for like the
drainage solutions building that was
[49:17] recently built on US40. Um, and the
masonry requirement for buildings like
[49:21] that can be something like textured
concrete block or something like that.
[49:26] It doesn't have to be brick, per se. I
don't know if that helps or hinders in
[49:29] cost, but there's some flexibility.
>> Yeah.
[49:34] » Yeah. So, it's probably just something
good to note um that it adheres to all
[49:38] of the regulations of the overlay if
it's approved.
[49:43] Good catch.
[49:48] All right. Any other questions for the
staff? All right. We'll have the
[49:52] petitioner come up.
[50:00] Do you swear affirm under the penalty of
perjury that the testimony you're about
[50:03] to give is the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth?
[50:05] » Do state your name, spell your last
name.
[50:08] » Playing out.
>> Okay.
[50:11] » Good evening. For the record, Russell
Brown, B R O WN, with law firm of Clark
[50:15] Quinn, business address, 320 North
Meridian Street, Sweet 1100 in
[50:19] Indianapolis. Uh Keith Hockett and his
wife are here with us as well tonight if
[50:24] you have questions that I I can't
answer. Um, so, uh, the Hawkins have
[50:28] owned this property since 2022. Uh, so
are relatively recent owners of the
[50:33] property. Um, per currently has that
approximately 2200 foot residential
[50:40] structure and a 60 by approximately 60x
200 uh, out building. The property has
[50:46] that existing cell tower and as
mentioned in staff reports, bordered on
[50:50] the north boundary by those railroad
tracks. As we're talked about tonight,
[50:54] the request here is for a second out
building um that uh staff has classified
[51:00] as a contractor's warehouse. A portion
of the use of this proposed building
[51:04] would be with Mr. Hockett's business uh
which does include the storage of uh
[51:10] boats, seasonal storage of boats, but
also would be utilized for his personal
[51:15] uh effects as well uh prop uh property,
vehicles, etc. uh for in inside storage.
[51:22] The new building would be set back
approximately 400 ft uh from the the
[51:27] US52 ride ofway and behind the existing
residential structure which will remain.
[51:32] It will not be removed as part of the
proposal here. The doors for this new
[51:36] structure would face to the north. So
you would create kind of a courtyard uh
[51:40] concept between those two buildings.
That was purposeful. The goal being to
[51:45] create to shield uh those overhead doors
from the US52 corridor and also shield
[51:51] uh the doors on this from those
residential uses across the railroad
[51:55] tracks. So very purposeful of trying to
create a corridor there trying to shield
[51:59] uses and and also uh decrease visual
impact of those overhead doors.
[52:06] Um this the configuration here as staff
mentioned does reserve that US52
[52:13] frontage for potential future outlaw
development for uh that's in compliance
[52:17] with the CN zoning that would be more
retail or customer oriented as this is
[52:23] intended to not be customer oriented.
There will not be customer visits to the
[52:27] site. This will be done that boats will
be uh dropped somewhere else, prepared
[52:32] for storage, delivered on site, stored
for the season, then removed by Mr.
[52:38] Hockett or his company and and then
delivered to the customer offsite. So
[52:42] customers will not be delivering boats
here. That's part of those that plan of
[52:46] operation and it's something that we
were very purposeful in uh considering
[52:49] when uh making this request this
evening. Uh the site does have pretty
[52:55] substantial existing trees to both the
east and the west. Um those as I went
[52:59] back and looked at GIS, those have been
there for more than 10 years uh on those
[53:04] on those locations. Uh I don't know the
story about why they're there, but I I
[53:09] think they do largely comply with the
landscaping requirements of the overlay
[53:13] district there. We understand that there
is additional requirements for
[53:17] landscaping located towards the US 52
that would need to be complied with.
[53:22] There is no setback or height variances
are necessary for the construction of
[53:26] this building. And as we did include a
conceptual uh elevations which may need
[53:31] tweaking based on the location uh in the
corridor uh area that we understand
[53:36] would be completed through the ILP
process. Uh prior to filing this
[53:41] petition, we did meet with staff. Uh
that's why our proposed in our letter of
[53:45] intent, our uh requested or proposed
commitments and conditions marry up
[53:51] nearly identically with those of staff.
Um we did uh meet with them and and kind
[53:56] of go through those before we went
through the filing process. Um I will
[54:00] just say that I did not previously
represent Mr. Hockett in those uh in in
[54:06] the times before you. So this is the
first time I've been before you on his
[54:10] behalf. Um, I will just say that I think
there was some misunderstanding between
[54:14] him and his previous council about where
notices were going, what was permitted
[54:18] and what was not permitted. When
notified that it was not permitted, um,
[54:23] they then did comply. I got involved
last fall confirmed. I think that email
[54:28] that Kayla showed up there was me
confirming that all uh that the property
[54:32] was in compliance and that all fines
were paid. And then we got involved in
[54:36] this process uh here this evening. So um
and and the thing that I would also note
[54:41] is that there is no intended outdoor
storage uh under this plan of operations
[54:45] expressly prohibited and that is uh I
think one of the the biggest issues that
[54:50] was occurring previously is that there
was outdoor storage going on and that
[54:54] thus the reason we're here suggesting a
new proposed building and also have
[54:59] agreed that there will be no outdoor
storage as part of the operations uh
[55:03] here. Um we do believe uh that with
those conditions and commitments that
[55:08] the special exception uh findings of
fact have uh and can be met. Belie given
[55:16] that the orientation of the buildings uh
the largely seasonal nature of the use
[55:20] we believe these uh minimize any
potential impact of this proposal on
[55:25] surrounding properties. Given that
largely seasonal nature, uh that the
[55:30] buildings are mainly used for passive
storage.
[55:33] » The the use is not use is not intended
not in intended for public use and will
[55:38] not has a commitment to that effect. The
use will not have minimal impact on
[55:43] utility drainage and on-site uh on-site
traffic. Uh we believe those findings of
[55:49] fact meet our obligation. We would
incorporate them into the record. Uh we
[55:54] believe this petition stands ready for
your approval and ask for your favorable
[55:57] to vote on the same and happy to answer
any questions that you have.
[56:01] » Uh what is the use of the residential
structure? It
[56:04] » is used as a rental.
>> It is it is
[56:08] » it it is rent it is residentially
utilized currently as a rental property.
[56:13] » If you go to the page with all of the
staff recommendations and the
[56:16] conditions, are you consenting to all
the items as outlined by staff?
[56:20] » Yes.
And if the corridor overlay does require
[56:26] a masonry component,
>> we will comply or we'll be back here
[56:30] with for asking for a variance. So, um I
mean my intention is we'll comply. Uh
[56:37] » you said you are asking for a variance.
>> No, I said I said if we're we can't
[56:41] we'll be back here asking for a variance
to that.
[56:44] » There's there's going to be a staff
interpretation on this, I believe. I'm
[56:48] looking at it right now to refamiliarize
myself, but have you read through the
[56:52] overlay requirements, parking lot,
paving, lighting?
[56:56] » I I have not read through them as it
relates um to this property.
[57:01] » All right.
>> The only thing that we've talked with
[57:03] staff about was uh prior to tonight to
the question that raised tonight uh
[57:09] related to landscaping and buffering
requirements. Um and we are in agreement
[57:14] to comply with those related to the
corridor overlay.
[57:17] » Okay. and your intention to comply is
beyond what's outlined here for
[57:20] landscaping.
>> I I'm dealing a little bit
[57:27] » I'm sorry I don't understand the
question.
[57:28] » Um so one of the requirements that we
were asking about is enhanced
[57:32] landscaping that would be compliant with
zoning ordinance and what's outlined
[57:35] here you wouldn't say this is enhanced.
>> No that's show that's showing current
[57:40] site.
>> Got it. Thank you. All right. I we have
[57:43] one more question on the kind of the
procedural history here and it's about
[57:48] um condition I don't know if you can go
to the conditions condition
[57:53] um number five ongoing compliance
um I know that and and you I understand
[57:59] you've got a kind of state with with an
umbrella language there's no intended
[58:03] outdoor storage well certainly there is
none in the zoning ordinance nor was
[58:08] there in 24 or 25 right so we we this is
this has cost us a lot lot of
[58:13] administrative time and um you know it's
it's time for us. And so um number five
[58:20] concerns me a little bit because it's
just a maybe um a paper statement and it
[58:24] doesn't really have enforcement
mechanism
[58:30] uh ongoing compliance.
So really I think what we're concerned
[58:33] about is the outdoor storage again.
>> Yeah. So top five. Yeah. I understood
[58:40] number three says that there is no uh
>> oh what did I
[58:44] » number three of the the commitment
specifically says that there is no
[58:48] outdoor storage of vehicles and it's
expressly prohibited
[58:53] number three of the commitments says
that
[58:55] » oh yes yes I I think the intent of
ongoing compliance is that we we would
[58:58] just revoke it is is our
so so that we value the commitments one
[59:05] of which is no outdoor storage we
enforce with the ongoing compliance and
[59:08] revocation
um and the conditions, right?
[59:12] » Correct. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I mean,
obviously commitments are enforceable
[59:16] and failure to abide by them is subject
to an enforcement action and a
[59:20] revocation based on
>> and let me ask what was the intention to
[59:23] have the different definition of
conditions and commitments.
[59:37] This might get into Rhonda territory. Um
the commitments can be recorded, right?
[59:42] Whereas the conditions are part of our
staff letter or recorded with or as part
[59:46] of the staff certification,
>> right?
[59:50] go with the deed and they're um usually
conditions are maybe something that are
[59:57] more temporary
[1:00:01] during the time period of instruction or
something like that
[1:00:05] » or conditions
>> in the case of a BCA item like this. Um,
[1:00:10] would the term commitments in these case
be simply conditions that the petitioner
[1:00:14] is just putting forward and agreeing to
have included with the conditions?
[1:00:20] » Well, some are going to be written
commitments and
[1:00:24] » Okay. So, [clears throat] recorded
separately,
[1:00:26] » right? Okay.
>> The ones that you've noticed,
[1:00:30] » you probably had a reason of why you
were you separated them. Do you have a
[1:00:33] reason of why you separated them? I
wanted to separate them between what the
[1:00:37] um
what are typical conditions that we use
[1:00:41] as BZA items and what the petitioner was
committing to voluntarily.
[1:00:48] » Okay. So, so I'm going to rephrase my
question to you. If we were to consider
[1:00:52] all items 1 through 7 and 1 through five
as
[1:00:57] commitments, is that the term we're
using?
[1:00:59] » I have no I have no objection to them
being recorded. I mean, most counties
[1:01:02] record the entirety of those um versus
kind of splitting them. So, I don't have
[1:01:07] any objection to suggesting that they be
recorded. Um,
[1:01:17] all right. Any additional questions for
the petitioner?
[1:01:22] Right. So, none. Do we have anybody that
wants to speak in opposition to this
[1:01:25] petition?
Special exception.
[1:01:30] All right. with that. Do we have any
discussion?
[1:01:33] » I I just really I'm going to go back to
number five. As long as they're all
[1:01:36] included as a single batch um additional
enforcement mechanism beyond what we're
[1:01:43] having here, I I just don't know that's
available to us.
[1:01:46] We would just revoke the special
exception, have to go through another
[1:01:49] enforcement
[1:01:53] » enforcement action or revocation of the
special exception.
[1:01:58] So if there is a complaint that is
verified, this goes straight to public
[1:02:03] hearing instead of going through the
traditional you get so many notices, so
[1:02:07] many chances.
>> That's what that is. Thank you.
[1:02:09] Understood.
>> As long as there's due process involved
[1:02:12] and there's an opportunity to be heard
and decided, I I that's fine.
[1:02:16] » There is. Yeah. It would have to come
here. Yeah.
[1:02:20] » Thank you.
>> All right. Any more discussion?
[1:02:27] We have a motion on conditions and
commitments.
[1:02:30] » Should this I I'll I'll try it. Um
should this receive a f u approval
[1:02:38] um all staff recommendations
will attach
[1:02:43] um in one category of conditions and
adding an additional one that staff will
[1:02:50] interpret the overlay
for requirements on masonry, outdoor
[1:02:55] paving and other items that might impact
the site.
[1:03:04] All conditions.
>> Well, uh,
[1:03:09] » which one's recorded?
>> Commitments.
[1:03:12] » Commitments.
>> Commitments.
[1:03:14] » Want them all as commitments.
>> Yes. Everything in a single. I don't
[1:03:19] differentiating is going to be too
difficult.
[1:03:20] » Okay. So, if they're all recorded, then
you will want Okay.
[1:03:24] » I would amend my motion to term them as
commitments. Thank you. Yep. Second.
[1:03:34] Sorry, taking a note here. All right,
it's been moved and seconded that should
[1:03:38] the special exception be approved, it be
subject to the list of
[1:03:46] commitments as stated for the minutes
and recorded commitments. All those in
[1:03:52] favor signify by saying I.
>> I oppose. Same sign. Motion carries.
[1:03:57] Your ballots.
[1:04:15] » [snorts]
[1:04:41] » Mr.
[1:04:50] Okay. A special exception case number
26-2707
[1:04:54] is granted. A vote of four with one
abstaining.
[1:05:01] Mr. Long.
>> All right. Motion carries. Um Mr. Brown,
[1:05:05] take a look at that overlay and make
sure you
[1:05:09] understand that before you submit the
plans and then pay close attention to
[1:05:13] the 12 month running clock. Thank you.
[1:05:22] All right. Um, item number
six,
[1:05:28] Richard Kerr, a variance in Vernon
Township for required road frontage
[1:05:34] reduction.
[1:05:38] » Yep.
[snorts]
[1:05:43] » All right.
[1:05:47] why we're continuing Kerr Logan Limited.
Is that where we're at?
[1:05:52] » Okay.
>> Yep. Right.
[1:05:55] So, as you guys know, I've been getting
some help uh with keeping things afloat
[1:05:59] in the planning department. Um and our
very talented part-time planner um with
[1:06:04] HWC
um Axana PHOY um mentioned brought up a
[1:06:10] very important point to me and that is
that um for variances like this um which
[1:06:18] we have been requesting pretty regularly
um there may be some room for them to be
[1:06:23] interpreted as waivers
uh by the plan commission and there's
[1:06:29] maybe some interpretation ation room. So
that's the reason I'm requesting a
[1:06:33] continuence. I want to make sure that I
am interpreting this correctly as a
[1:06:36] variance versus does it need to be moved
over to the plan commission as a waiver
[1:06:41] from subdivision control. So as you guys
know also there have been some
[1:06:45] discrepancies between those two
documents which we are hoping soon to
[1:06:49] fix um with the zoning ordinance. I
don't think that really has much play on
[1:06:52] this particular situation. Um, but just
to be most fair to the applicant in this
[1:06:57] case, I hate to cause a delay, but I
also want to do it right. Um, so for
[1:07:02] that reason, I'm requesting a variance
so I can talk more with Rhonda and also
[1:07:07] Axana about moving forward. Does this
need to be looked at as a variance um as
[1:07:13] we have been or is this actually a an
item that needs to be shifted over as a
[1:07:18] waiver from the subdivision control
ordinance um alongside the primary plat?
[1:07:26] » If the UDO is approved next month, does
that trip you up with what you're doing
[1:07:31] here? It shouldn't, but
>> I don't believe it will in this case
[1:07:35] because this was filed under the old
>> Oh, got it. Yes, it was. Okay,
[1:07:39] » Rhonda, is that kind of a correct
interpretation?
[1:07:43] But yeah, we're just straighten it's
like I said, it's all on all on me. It
[1:07:47] should it's a little technical thing
that we just need to get worked out on
[1:07:50] our end. So, okay. Can you can we give
the applicant the option of
[1:07:54] grandfathering or new UDO through our
continuance motion just so we're fair
[1:08:00] and because it's a timing issue?
>> Well, it's already filed, right? So,
[1:08:05] well, it would be a new filing
with what you're thinking you're doing
[1:08:10] with
>> if it went over.
[1:08:12] » Yeah, they'd be filing for potentially
for waiverss would be a new filing.
[1:08:16] » The content really hasn't changed um as
part of the new UDO. However, we did
[1:08:22] straighten up some definitions and where
things were doubly mentioned in both
[1:08:25] » backs specifically and frontage
specifically.
[1:08:30] So,
>> okay. I I I think it's fair if this
[1:08:35] passes in the meantime through the
continuence to allow for either
[1:08:40] either the grandfathering or the
utilization of the new standard,
[1:08:43] » whichever is more helpful,
>> whatever they prefer. I don't know what
[1:08:46] definition of helpful they would use. I
would Mine's probably different.
[1:08:49] Whatever Whatever they would elect.
>> Okay.
[1:08:52] » If we didn't know this was passing or or
had to pass, I think it's a different
[1:08:56] situation, but we do
>> and we're requesting the continuence.
[1:09:04] All right. So, this would be a BZA
continuence,
[1:09:09] I believe. Correct.
>> Yes.
[1:09:12] » With the potential of a withdrawal.
>> Correct.
[1:09:15] » Okay.
>> Yeah. All right.
[1:09:19] » Allow for public comment.
>> Well, I was going to say is that Do you
[1:09:22] want to have anything to say? No.
Nothing. Okay. He doesn't want to go on
[1:09:27] the record.
Does anybody else?
[1:09:33] » Nobody's in favor. Nobody's opposed.
Okay. All right. Sounds good. Well, we
[1:09:38] may see it uh next month then as a in
this form or the possibly the plan
[1:09:44] commission could be looking at it as a
waiver to the subdivision control. Okay.
[1:09:48] » Yes. I did mention to anybody who showed
up this evening that they will be
[1:09:51] receiving an additional notice
regardless because this does need to go
[1:09:55] to plan commission for primary plat
approval.
[1:09:58] So, they'll be receiving another notice
as it relates to this project as well.
[1:10:02] » Okay, got it.
>> Make a motion.
[1:10:05] » I'll do it. A motion to
continue in line with the staff
[1:10:10] recommendation and request, noting that
the applicant will have the option of
[1:10:17] compliance with existing standards or
new OD UDO standards
[1:10:23] um as part of the continuence if the UDO
is passed in the meantime.
[1:10:28] » Second.
All right, it's been moved and second
[1:10:31] seconded to continue item number six,
Richard Kerr's project to September as
[1:10:37] stated. All those in favor signify by
saying I. I
[1:10:40] » oppose. Same sign.
>> Motion carries. That concludes our
[1:10:44] hearing items. We'll move on to other
business for a planning department
[1:10:48] update.
[1:10:53] » Feel free to come visit my office
anytime. Um I'm happy to talk to any of
[1:10:57] you. So, we're we're very busy. um many
applications. Um we are dealing with
[1:11:02] data center stuff as you all know an LOI
or letter of interest was submitted to
[1:11:06] the board of commissioners and is
available in the August 18th board of
[1:11:10] commissioners packet if you'd like to
read it. um really think that and uh of
[1:11:15] course the passage of our UDO or unified
development ordinance adoption draft
[1:11:19] favorable recommendation at Tuesday's
plan commission meeting which will go to
[1:11:23] the September 1st board of commissioners
meeting um possibly for adoption at that
[1:11:28] meeting. So moving right along.
>> Yeah. And like she was saying earlier,
[1:11:34] there are no zoning changes in this.
This is a format change only at this
[1:11:38] point
for ease of use.
[1:11:42] All right. Uh, zoning violations.
[1:11:47] Here we go.
[1:11:57] All right.
[1:12:00] So, there are basically um there were
basically Oh, there are six um open
[1:12:08] violation cases this month. Any
[1:12:16] questions respect to any of them?
[1:12:29] I should mention that um
I spoke with [snorts] Mr. Bree
[1:12:37] um today. I the report was sent out
yesterday.
[1:12:43] So I spoke with him today and he
mentioned that the lawn care business is
[1:12:49] no longer operational.
So
[1:12:58] we I spoke with Kay and um
we will be pivoting to the regular um
[1:13:08] uh violation remedies.
So I he also mentioned that he wouldn't
[1:13:14] have any problems um removing the
equipment and the debris and even
[1:13:21] putting the fence. So I don't I don't
foresee that there will be any problems
[1:13:25] getting him to comply.
Is
[1:13:28] » there anything in the conditions or
commitments that we pass that could help
[1:13:32] you in this or because the enforcement
seems to be it
[1:13:38] anything help you? I I don't know that
there is anything. But
[1:13:41] » um so
[1:13:45] Caleb mentioned um maybe moving forward
there would be like a condition for a
[1:13:51] decommissioning of
um the home occupation. That would allow
[1:13:57] for time to get the debris and
everything sorted and all the equipments
[1:14:03] removed from the property without
enforcement.
[1:14:09] Thank you.
[1:14:14] [snorts]
[1:14:18] What's the next step with the um
[1:14:24] Thomas Carter, the US40
moving company? So, um,
[1:14:33] I sent out a notice of violation
and
[1:14:41] I cited him for uh, no, I I sent out
just the notice of violation.
[1:14:50] » He was
supposedly
[1:14:53] moving
the LA last month.
[1:14:57] » Yes. But he's still there. still there
>> and I think I'm not I don't know what's
[1:15:02] going on with the process with the city
of Greenfield
[1:15:09] » something in Greenfield
>> place in Greenfield yeah
[1:15:13] [clears throat and cough]
>> you got any insight on that
[1:15:19] » might be one to check in on for next
month we may have to take more firm
[1:15:24] action on that if he's not progressed
with his new location.
[1:15:30] » No. Is
>> it um inappropriate to post the running
[1:15:35] ledger of totals that we're looking at
here
[1:15:39] » post
>> um like in the earlier case we saw that
[1:15:43] it was a total of $3,000 and that's the
first time we did like the running the
[1:15:47] running. So in the fine basis it's a per
day acrruel under that. I I don't know
[1:15:51] if it's easily available just to say oh
it's $250 it's $800. Okay.
[1:15:56] » If possible, um that might indicate
where we need to intervene in a
[1:16:01] different way than finding.
>> Sure.
[1:16:04] » Might help help along.
>> Subsequent report should say how much
[1:16:08] was cited. Is that
>> to date? Yeah.
[1:16:11] » Okay.
>> I'm assuming no one's paying these as
[1:16:14] they go.
>> Well, I just sent out the notice um last
[1:16:21] well this week. Yesterday, actually. So
he and he's supposed to pay a $100 fine.
[1:16:31] So
>> I also was curious um
[1:16:37] one that was going on for a long time
was also on US40 and 200 West. It was um
[1:16:43] a lawnmower repair. It's a concrete shop
now and it had inoperable
[1:16:50] restroom facility and a whole bunch of
weird things going on, signage
[1:16:53] violations and things like that. and it
doesn't appear to be resolved as well.
[1:16:58] Buyers concrete, right?
>> Yes. Um
[1:17:03] I last year I followed up cuz Dala had
left like a um report on the case and so
[1:17:13] he mentioned that he was going to that
he was in contact with
[1:17:20] the county.
So
[1:17:23] » that like the health department or
something.
[1:17:25] » Yes. So I I gave him I believe I gave
him um
[1:17:31] some time to get all that settled.
>> So I I will be pursuing the case again.
[1:17:39] » Okay.
It just appears like nothing's getting
[1:17:43] resolved there either and there's stock
piles there now and some different
[1:17:47] things. So,
>> if [snorts] something about um the board
[1:17:51] gave him some time to move out,
>> okay,
[1:17:56] » and seize operations. I've driven by the
location.
[1:18:02] I don't think there's any operations
going on, but like I can't see for sure.
[1:18:06] » Okay. All right.
Right. Sounds good. Any other questions
[1:18:12] for Dennis?
[1:18:16] All right. I think that's it.
>> All right. Thank you.
[1:18:20] » Keep up the good work.
>> Thank you.
[1:18:24] » I think that's it. It's no 32 minutes,
but it's not
[1:18:29] close.
>> Slightly over.
[1:18:32] [snorts]
[1:18:36] » Yeah, we can adjurnn or we can just kind
of hang out. Whatever you guys want to
[1:18:38] do.
>> Making a motion. We adjourn.
[1:18:40] » Oh, okay. All right. Move and seconded
to adjurnn as opposed to sit here and
[1:18:44] hang out. All those in favor signify by
saying I. I.
[1:18:47] » Oppos. Same sign. Motion carries. See
you next month.