[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.

Hancock County, IN - 8/27/2026 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting

Agenda

Transcript