[1:55] Good evening.

[1:56] Um, I'd like to call to order the August

[1:59] 5th, 2026 meeting for the Zanesville

[2:02] Board of Zoning Appeals.

[2:05] Um,

[2:07] if everyone would please join with me

[2:08] for the Pledge of Allegiance.

[2:12] I pledge allegiance

[2:13] » Allegiance to the flag of the United

[2:15] States of America, and to the republic

[2:18] for which it stands, one nation under

[2:21] God,

[2:22] indivisible, with liberty and justice

[2:24] for all.

[2:31] » We'll do a roll call.

[2:33] » Katie Glenn.

[2:34] » Present.

[2:35] » Amanda Miller.

[2:36] » Present.

[2:37] » Josh Fedor.

[2:38] » Present.

[2:40] » Jim Hurst.

[2:40] » Present.

[2:42] » Josh Martin.

[2:44] Absent is he uh

[2:45] Have we heard anything from Josh?

[2:47] » Yeah, he he was going to be absent

[2:49] tonight.

[2:49] » Okay. Thank you. So, we have a quorum of

[2:51] four.

[2:52] » Thank you.

[2:53] Our first item is to approve the meeting

[2:55] minutes from July 1st, 2026.

[2:59] Is there any corrections, additions?

[3:03] Wonderful.

[3:04] » I move that we approve them.

[3:06] » Second.

[3:11] » Go to a vote.

[3:14] » That'll be Jim Hurst.

[3:15] » Aye.

[3:16] » Josh Fedor.

[3:17] » Aye.

[3:17] » Amanda Miller.

[3:18] » Aye.

[3:19] » Katie Glenn.

[3:20] » Aye.

[3:20] » Motion passes.

[3:21] » Thank you.

[3:23] Okay, tonight we will start with we have

[3:28] uh

[3:30] docket number 202619UV.

[3:35] Um, it's a continuous continuance from

[3:37] September 2nd, 2026.

[3:40] Um, staff, do you want to

[3:43] » Uh yeah, so this is this project has

[3:45] been uh

[3:46] in our office for a month or so. Uh

[3:49] after reviewing it, we found out that a

[3:51] traffic study was warranted at this

[3:53] intersection given the the subdivision

[3:57] uh being constructed north of the site

[3:59] along with what is being proposed as

[4:01] part of this development. Um the staff

[4:05] in the rules is entitled to one

[4:07] automatic continuance.

[4:09] Um we're going to exercise that uh so

[4:11] the petitioner has an opportunity to

[4:12] complete the traffic impact study.

[4:14] Um hopefully um the study is completed

[4:17] prior to uh the September 2nd meeting

[4:20] and so we'll be able to have

[4:22] the public hearing [clears throat] for

[4:23] this uh this item at that point.

[4:25] » Thank you.

[4:27] Um

[4:28] at this point I'll enter a motion to

[4:30] continue case 2026-19

[4:33] UV to the September 2nd, 2026 meeting.

[4:37] » Uh if you if that's the motion, I'll

[4:39] second it. If not, I'll make the motion.

[4:43] » That wasn't the motion.

[4:43] » That was the motion.

[4:44] » That's I'll [laughter] do the second

[4:46] second.

[4:47] » I'll take a second.

[4:50] » Tim Ross?

[4:51] » I.

[4:52] » Josh Fedor?

[4:53] » I.

[4:53] » Amanda Miller?

[4:54] » I.

[4:55] » Katie Glenn?

[4:55] » I.

[4:56] » Motion passes.

[4:57] » Thank you.

[4:59] Okay, on to continued business.

[5:02] Uh we are at case 2026-15

[5:07] UV.

[5:08] Staff, would you mind outlining

[5:11] uh this variance of use?

[5:14] » Uh yeah, so this is uh as you said, this

[5:16] is a use variance located 526 North 1200

[5:20] East.

[5:21] Um

[5:22] the property

[5:23] uh is zoned AG, right? So it's subject

[5:26] to the permitted uses in section 194082,

[5:31] but essentially what that means is the

[5:34] warehousing component, um I think the

[5:37] word that is used is storage barns.

[5:39] The component of that project is not a

[5:42] permitted use by right in AG.

[5:44] Um the overall project consists

[5:47] primarily of two components. There is an

[5:50] equestrian element to this, which has

[5:53] uh a horse arena, uh some stables,

[5:56] and uh you can see the conceptual

[6:01] layout, um

[6:03] as part of exhibit eight, I believe.

[6:06] Um, you can see the schematic layout of

[6:09] the arena and the proposed storage

[6:12] buildings.

[6:12] » A time out. Can we able to get the

[6:14] video, the visual?

[6:15] » Well, that's what I'm I'm

[6:17] don't know what's going on with the

[6:18] internet. That's what I was trying to

[6:19] figure out.

[6:22] IT, are you having issues with your

[6:23] internet?

[6:29] Well, I fixed my screen,

[6:31] I think,

[6:33] but I can't fix my internet.

[6:39] While we work on that,

[6:42] let me see if it'll reload.

[6:46] Okay.

[6:48] Updated conceptual layout. Let's see if

[6:50] it'll work.

[7:04] Is yours working?

[7:08] We can use this one. This will work.

[7:11] » Fix this.

[7:12] » Thank you, sir.

[7:16] Plug it in that one.

[7:22] There you go.

[7:25] Sorry about that, everyone.

[7:30] Maybe.

[7:35] There you go.

[7:37] It's on the back screen.

[7:39] Now it's on the front.

[7:41] » Thank you.

[7:41] » Okay.

[7:42] So, you'll see a conceptual

[7:45] rendering.

[7:48] Um as I was saying, this comprises uh a

[7:50] two

[7:52] two uses. One is the equestrian

[7:54] component. Um my mouse is not working

[7:57] for yours. Here's okay.

[7:58] » Because you're using the other one.

[7:59] » It's okay.

[8:07] I'm sorry. I'm not able to get this

[8:08] thing to zoom in the way it needs to.

[8:10] This is the equestrian component up here

[8:13] with the horse arena. And the part in

[8:15] question, which is the subject of

[8:17] tonight's use variance,

[8:19] are the proposed storage barns that you

[8:23] see uh laid out along this path.

[8:27] Again, just to reiterate, um while it's

[8:30] all while it's part while all of this is

[8:31] part of the same project, uh the use

[8:34] variance component is not specific to

[8:37] the equestrian elements of this project.

[8:39] Uh those elements could be developed

[8:41] today with regardless of how the outcome

[8:44] of this project was to of the use

[8:46] variance was to go. Um we're only

[8:49] talking about the warehousing or the

[8:51] storage barn component of this project.

[8:54] Um to get to the staff report,

[9:02] I'm not going to spend a lot of time

[9:05] going through the uh

[9:07] the the reasons why we would support

[9:09] something. I'm going to talk on the

[9:11] reasons why we

[9:13] did not land on a favorable

[9:15] recommendation. Uh

[9:17] mostly being item number three, the need

[9:20] for the variance arises from a condition

[9:22] on the site. We disagreed with that

[9:24] finding.

[9:25] Uh finding number four, uh the zoning

[9:27] ordinance constitutes an unnecessary

[9:29] hardship in the use of the property. We

[9:31] disagreed on that finding.

[9:33] Um and the last finding, which was

[9:35] finding number five, uh the approval

[9:37] does not interfere substantially with

[9:39] the comprehensive plan.

[9:40] Uh although several commitments have

[9:43] been made by the petitioner, um and I

[9:44] will let him speak to those during his

[9:46] presentation.

[9:47] Um staff still feels like the

[9:49] fundamental use of warehouse

[9:51] um is not an agricultural use as

[9:54] recommended by the comprehensive plan.

[9:56] Um and so those are the three primary

[9:58] reasons why staff issued an unfavorable

[10:00] recommendation.

[10:02] Um I'm happy to talk about any

[10:05] parts of the staff report or any of the

[10:06] proposed um exhibits.

[10:09] Um if you all have any questions, I'm

[10:10] happy to answer those. Otherwise, I'll

[10:11] turn it back over to you.

[10:12] » Thank you.

[10:14] Does the board have any other questions?

[10:15] » Time, no.

[10:17] » Wonderful.

[10:19] Well, I will have the petitioner come

[10:20] up. If you could state your name and

[10:22] address.

[10:24] And as you take the stage, I'll just ask

[10:26] that everyone

[10:28] please speak calmly and respectfully

[10:31] throughout tonight.

[10:33] Um even when there are differences of

[10:34] opinions, I think we can all do that.

[10:36] And so thank you for helping us maintain

[10:38] a

[10:39] uh productive and courteous discussion.

[10:43] » Uh Andy Newton, 5 English Green,

[10:45] Westfield, Indiana.

[10:46] Uh have you been given the renderings

[10:49] » [snorts]

[10:49] » For the property?

[10:54] » They are on the agenda if I can get them

[10:56] to pull up here. That is what I'm trying

[10:58] to pull up for you.

[10:59] » Pass them out. I got some copies here.

[11:01] » We have renderings. I don't know if we

[11:03] have everything in your hand cuz I can't

[11:05] see what's in your hand.

[11:09] Thank you.

[11:15] Thank you. We We do have that. But can I

[11:17] have it again?

[11:18] » Yeah, no, that's That's fine. I just

[11:19] wanted to see what you're holding up.

[11:34] I promise I'm a a better builder than I

[11:36] am presenter, so I apologize.

[11:39] Good evening, Madam Chair, members of

[11:41] the board. My name is Andy Newton, and

[11:43] I'm the petitioner for case 2026-15-UV

[11:47] regarding 526 North 1200 East. We are

[11:50] requesting a use variance to allow what

[11:52] the BZA calls warehouse general use on

[11:54] this property within the rural general

[11:56] agricultural zoning district.

[11:58] Since the previous hearing, we have

[12:00] continued to work with the staff and

[12:01] have supplemented the record with

[12:03] additional materials, including an

[12:04] updated operations plan, traffic impact

[12:07] study,

[12:08] commitments, and supporting information

[12:09] to address general concerns.

[12:12] The site currently sits on 25 acres

[12:15] containing remnants of a landscaping

[12:17] business and is situated in an area

[12:19] characterized by a mixture of

[12:21] agricultural activities, rural

[12:23] residential uses, and agricultural

[12:25] support operations.

[12:27] This request is not for a large

[12:29] industrial park, distribution hub, or

[12:31] high-intensity commercial operation.

[12:34] Rather, it is a request to allow a

[12:36] warehouse use within buildings and

[12:38] operational parameters that are in line

[12:40] with the intended agricultural use.

[12:43] The requested relief is limited to this

[12:45] property and does not change the zoning

[12:47] classifications of surrounding parcels.

[12:50] The site has been planned to function

[12:52] safely and efficiently while minimizing

[12:54] impacts on neighboring properties. We

[12:56] have gone around and inputted as much as

[12:58] we could from uh from input from

[13:00] neighbors.

[13:01] Uh as reflected in the conceptual

[13:03] rendering, we feel the design adds to

[13:05] the rural character of the area rather

[13:08] than takes away.

[13:09] In addition, we have voluntary proposed

[13:11] commitments that will govern how the

[13:13] property is operated. These commitments

[13:15] provide enforceable limitations and

[13:17] assurances beyond what would

[13:20] otherwise be required.

[13:22] In addition to commitments submitted, I

[13:24] would also like to add a commitment of

[13:26] when the loan is paid off that stores

[13:28] operations will cease and operations

[13:31] will be 100% agricultural.

[13:34] Our objective has been straightforward.

[13:36] Create a use that is operationally

[13:38] successful while adding value to the

[13:40] community.

[13:42] Traffic is one of the primary concerns

[13:43] when evaluating a use variance and we

[13:45] understand that. The traffic analysis

[13:47] was intended to evaluate the impact of

[13:49] proposed use on local roadways and to

[13:51] determine whether the surrounding

[13:53] transportation network can accommodate

[13:55] anticipated traffic.

[13:57] Our position is that the evidence

[13:58] demonstrated that the proposed operation

[14:00] can occur without creating unreasonable

[14:02] traffic impacts or compromising public

[14:04] safety.

[14:06] I recognize there may be concerns about

[14:08] whether a warehouse use is appropriate

[14:10] in an agricultural zoning district. The

[14:12] master plan calls for uses agricultural

[14:15] in nature.

[14:16] With the limitations put in place, we

[14:18] feel this project is agricultural in

[14:20] nature.

[14:22] The board is not being asked whether

[14:24] warehouses should be permitted

[14:25] everywhere in AG zoning. The question

[14:27] before the board is whether this

[14:28] particular property with its unique

[14:30] characteristics and proposed

[14:32] operational limitations is appropriate

[14:34] for the requested relief. We believe

[14:36] that it is.

[14:38] We respectfully submit the approval of

[14:40] the variance can be granted without

[14:41] being injurious to the public health,

[14:44] safety, morals, or general welfare

[14:47] without substantially affecting the use

[14:49] and value of surrounding properties.

[14:52] Thank you for your time and

[14:53] consideration. We appreciate the staff

[14:56] review of our process. Jonathan, you've

[14:57] been great. Uh the commitments received

[14:59] from the neighboring property owners,

[15:01] thank you. And uh

[15:03] and the opportunity to present this

[15:05] request to the board. Thank you. At this

[15:07] time, we respectfully request approval

[15:09] of petition 2026-15

[15:12] UV and I would be happy to answer any

[15:14] questions from the board.

[15:16] » Thank you. Appreciate it.

[15:20] Fellow board members, do you have any

[15:22] questions?

[15:26] » You talk about

[15:28] uh storage of agricultural equipment in

[15:30] these buildings.

[15:31] Um

[15:32] Yeah, you use tractors and farm

[15:34] machinery. However, a lot farm machinery

[15:36] is larger than these doorways that

[15:38] you're proposing if I remember

[15:40] 14-ft doorways.

[15:42] » Okay.

[15:43] » Um

[15:47] I just feel like you're limiting

[15:48] yourself quite a bit on what you can

[15:50] store in that if you're trying to store

[15:51] agricultural equipment.

[15:53] These are what? 14 by

[15:55] 50 if I remember.

[15:56] » So, 14 1/2 by 50.

[15:58] » 14 1/2, I'm sorry.

[15:59] » Yep.

[16:00] » And how tall are the doorways?

[16:01] » How tall? Uh 14 ft.

[16:04] So, 12 by 14 would is

[16:08] But door doorways openings can be

[16:09] changed, so

[16:12] » Okay.

[16:13] It just seems a little bit tight for

[16:15] some of this larger farm machinery that

[16:17] most folks around here, I mean, the days

[16:19] of the little John Deere tractors are

[16:20] kind of gone, but

[16:22] um seems a little small.

[16:25] And then you said after you were done

[16:27] with the storage here you paid off the

[16:30] » Once the loan is paid off.

[16:31] » Once the loan is paid off and

[16:33] what's then what are you going to do

[16:34] with the buildings?

[16:35] » What's that?

[16:36] » What are you going to use the buildings

[16:37] for then?

[16:37] » I'm going to turn them over to the

[16:39] operations of the equestrian center.

[16:43] » Equestrian center center is then going

[16:45] to use them for

[16:47] » Uh

[16:47] » More stables?

[16:48] » Well,

[16:49] so more more storage for trailers, uh

[16:52] members of the facility, uh things to

[16:54] put them in as well.

[16:56] Uh and also I proposed not paving the

[16:59] facility, keeping it gravel, so if later

[17:01] down the road development needs to

[17:02] occur, it's pretty easy to take the

[17:04] post-frame buildings apart.

[17:08] » I think you'll find with the development

[17:09] plan with the town you're going to need

[17:10] to pave it.

[17:11] » Uh What was that? I didn't catch that.

[17:13] » You'll find when you get to the

[17:14] development plan stage with the town

[17:16] you're probably going to have to pave

[17:17] the entire project if it gets that far

[17:19] here.

[17:20] Um

[17:22] at 143 units

[17:25] at an average of

[17:27] 500 is

[17:29] sounds like you'll get this paid off

[17:30] pretty quick if you get it rented out.

[17:32] So.

[17:33] » Well, so

[17:35] right right now at 143 units, 550, so

[17:38] you're you're

[17:40] it it's it's actually really close.

[17:42] You're looking at a 6 and 1/2 to 12

[17:44] million dollar loan. Your payment on

[17:46] that alone is going to be

[17:48] 55 to 100,000 dollars a month.

[17:51] » I I just

[17:53] I'm just looking at the basics of it

[17:54] here.

[17:55] » Oh, I I I just I was trying to answer.

[17:57] My bad.

[17:58] » That's all I got so far.

[18:02] » You referenced in your testimony that

[18:04] there were unique characteristics

[18:07] um

[18:08] that caused you to ask for this, but I

[18:10] it I'm not sure you defined for us the

[18:12] unique characteristics. So, if I missed

[18:14] that, forgive me, but

[18:16] but what unique characteristics are

[18:18] there that we need to consider?

[18:19] » So so really it's the residential

[18:20] properties to the north and south. Uh

[18:24] they they have requirements that they

[18:26] wanted, uh

[18:27] not removing trees, but then also in

[18:29] that to create a

[18:32] a

[18:33] cash flow that could justify the

[18:36] equestrian center. Uh we looked at other

[18:39] options. So, if you wanted to do hogs or

[18:41] chickens, neighbors were not favorable

[18:44] to that answer. But then also, there's a

[18:46] I think a 1,320-ft

[18:48] offset that you have to be from

[18:50] residential buildings for that

[18:52] classification. So, it you're you're

[18:55] you're limited, but I I

[18:57] in exploring that, the neighbors

[18:58] wouldn't want that at all. To me, that's

[19:00] more industrial than what I'm proposing.

[19:01] What we propose is what I felt like was

[19:04] the least impact

[19:05] uh and would help the neighbors out the

[19:08] most for what we're trying to do. Um

[19:11] we're limiting as far as access. You

[19:13] come into the units, you're not going to

[19:15] see people inside there. We're going to

[19:16] have fencing, completely enclosed, no

[19:19] outside parking. Uh,

[19:21] again, the the the idea is the least

[19:23] amount of impact and I've literally gone

[19:25] door-to-door trying to get any

[19:26] recommendations we can and anything I've

[19:28] gotten I have incorporated. So.

[19:31] » Okay. Thank you.

[19:37] » [clears throat]

[19:51] » Um, curious, what is the term of the

[19:53] loan?

[19:55] » Uh, it hasn't been determined yet as I

[19:57] haven't determined how many units I'm

[19:58] going to be able to put in there.

[19:59] » Mhm. Well, what do you You've obviously

[20:01] done some pro formas and preliminary

[20:03] numbers based on what we've been

[20:05] presented today. So, based on that, what

[20:07] would the term length be?

[20:08] » 20 year.

[20:09] » Okay.

[20:15] » Um, you mentioned no power to these

[20:17] buildings and I understand trying to

[20:19] keep an agricultural feel.

[20:21] Um,

[20:22] » So, in recommendation from the fire

[20:23] marshal, uh, just pulling everything out

[20:26] that cuts down any fire hazard that

[20:28] would be.

[20:29] » And no storage of explosive materials.

[20:31] However, I saw you had campers in there

[20:33] as a list it

[20:34] » Okay.

[20:35] » Uh,

[20:36] storage you know, or or something you're

[20:38] looking at storing.

[20:39] Um, are they going to remove that

[20:40] because most campers have an LP tank in

[20:42] them in some fashion. Are they going to

[20:44] remove those LP tanks prior to storage

[20:46] then or

[20:47] » Uh, I can have them do that, yes.

[20:49] » Okay.

[20:50] And then most of those type units are

[20:52] going to want to winterize.

[20:56] I'm just

[20:57] thinking out out

[21:20] » So, correct me if I'm wrong, Jonathan.

[21:23] By giving the use variance,

[21:27] you know,

[21:30] this doesn't have to stay equestrian.

[21:32] This could this these storage

[21:34] units could be used for

[21:37] a lot of different things.

[21:41] » Uh to the petitioner's credit, he has

[21:43] placed commitments that he's entered

[21:45] that would restrict

[21:49] that would limit the use, right? So, to

[21:51] his credit, the answer to your question

[21:53] would be yes. Generally speaking, had he

[21:54] not submitted commitments,

[21:56] um and you approved the use of warehouse

[21:58] general,

[22:00] that person would have been allowed to

[22:02] store and operate freely under that use.

[22:05] The petitioner has restricted and

[22:07] provided a list of commitments that and

[22:10] from that component eliminated our

[22:12] concerns as far as the warehousing

[22:14] component. Um the other part we had was

[22:17] a concern about um

[22:20] less about the warehousing, which was

[22:22] the was the the issue. Our concern was

[22:24] the continuation of the equestrian

[22:26] component. Um

[22:29] Our our zoning ordinance restricts the

[22:31] uses from starting,

[22:33] but we obviously don't stop uses from

[22:35] continuing, right? And so,

[22:38] if y'all were to grant this warehousing

[22:40] operation,

[22:42] our concern was there was nothing

[22:44] preventing the shutting down of the

[22:46] equestrian component.

[22:48] And then essentially, you would end up

[22:50] with a parcel full of warehousing,

[22:52] right? Um I think the petitioner can

[22:54] speak to that part of it. That he

[22:56] addressed that concern from our

[22:57] standpoint. Um

[22:59] » So, we will cease operations if the

[23:01] equestrian center ceases operations.

[23:04] We've committed to that.

[23:05] » I'm not sure if I answered your question

[23:06] or not, but

[23:07] » Yeah, I'm just wondering are the

[23:08] commitment list that prohibited

[23:10] activities, is that the

[23:12] the list that you're pulling from? Is

[23:14] there a separate commitments list that I

[23:16] » This one? Item number 10?

[23:17] » Yeah, that's the prohibited activities.

[23:19] Okay.

[23:19] » Um

[23:21] obviously some of these are

[23:23] um

[23:24] you know, like outdoor storage is not

[23:26] going to be permitted anyway, right? So

[23:28] um he committed to it, but along with

[23:31] the warehousing component, your

[23:33] warehousing is typically internal,

[23:35] right? And there's a separate use for

[23:37] out outdoor storage, right? So

[23:40] um some of these are

[23:42] obvious things that would not have

[23:44] occurred anyway.

[23:45] » Mhm.

[23:46] » Um

[23:47] some of them, for example,

[23:50] explosive material storage, if, you

[23:52] know, there's warehousing that has

[23:54] explosive material inside of it, he is

[23:56] agreeing not to warehouse that. So

[23:59] that's something that he's doing above

[24:00] and beyond what would be

[24:02] allowed.

[24:04] » And these are commitments that Phil

[24:06] comfortable with upholding?

[24:08] » Yeah. Yeah.

[24:09] Um I'll speak for myself. I don't want

[24:11] to speak for Mike Hill, but uh

[24:13] I'm comfortable

[24:14] » There's a legal activity, you're not

[24:15] going to be the one called, but

[24:17] » You know,

[24:17] » [laughter]

[24:17] » You know, sleeping in vehicles,

[24:19] trailers, and sleeping in the storage

[24:21] unit, that's something that regardless

[24:22] of this petitioner, we're not going to

[24:24] allow to occur anyway, right? So

[24:26] um you can't live in a storage unit.

[24:39] » Yeah, please.

[24:40] » So, do you mind if I have a couple

[24:41] questions about your commitments and be

[24:43] maybe the specificity of them? So

[24:46] if you anticipate that the

[24:48] uh term of your loan will be 20 years,

[24:50] is the commitment then a 20-year term

[24:52] because the loan could be renewed and

[24:54] term extended?

[24:56] So, is your commitment 20 years or is it

[24:58] unknown?

[25:00] » It is far as

[25:03] » You said that the warehouse operation

[25:04] would cease when the loan is paid off.

[25:06] But, the term of the loan could be

[25:07] extended.

[25:09] » Okay.

[25:09] » Just trying to figure out what that

[25:10] means. Does that mean 20 years or does

[25:12] it mean 20 years?

[25:12] » Commit to 20 I'll commit to a 20 year.

[25:14] » Okay.

[25:15] » Yeah.

[25:15] » And the same kind of question, you your

[25:17] commitment that you've proposed

[25:20] uh places a limitation that the project

[25:22] will not exceed the original conception

[25:23] plan footprint of 12 farm style storage

[25:27] buildings.

[25:28] Would you be willing to commit to um

[25:31] a square footage as well because um

[25:35] obviously you could make buildings

[25:36] bigger and I don't think that's your

[25:38] intent, but

[25:39] » So, no. So, so, so I

[25:41] I can uh I don't have the square footage

[25:43] number in my head, but what what's on

[25:46] that paper it would only get smaller

[25:47] from that and those are 50 foot.

[25:49] Uh we I can get the area for that and

[25:51] figure that out.

[25:51] » It's I think it's 94,500

[25:54] ft square feet is what was in the staff

[25:56] report.

[25:56] » It's 94,000 It started off as a 100,000,

[25:59] um but we have gone through revisions

[26:01] and it's been reduced to 94.5.

[26:03] » So, in

[26:05] in four, commitment number four, would

[26:07] you be willing to add to the 12

[26:09] buildings not to exceed 94,500 sq ft?

[26:14] » Is that what was on

[26:16] » That's That's the most recent site plan

[26:18] I got from from Derek.

[26:20] Was 94.5.

[26:21] » 94,000?

[26:25] » I got everything. Okay, then yes.

[26:26] » Okay.

[26:27] That would help us enforce it if we ever

[26:28] needed to.

[26:29] » Essentially that that picture it's only

[26:30] going to get smaller and they

[26:33] they got the new one cuz we already lost

[26:35] a building, so.

[26:36] » [clears throat]

[26:37] » Okay, thank you.

[26:38] » All right.

[26:39] » And I have a question for our council.

[26:41] It

[26:44] We're able to grant a variance for a

[26:47] specific use and specific owner. It

[26:50] doesn't run with the land.

[26:52] » Right. It's use variance. It's just your

[26:54] your It's not a use as permitted under

[26:56] the current zoning and there So, you

[26:59] you're The question is what you're being

[27:01] asked to do is say you can you can you

[27:03] can have warehousing there. That's the

[27:04] question.

[27:05] And yes, it just it's it's just this

[27:08] this owner.

[27:09] » Okay.

[27:10] And so, we can term limit it and Okay.

[27:13] » You can impose any conditions that you

[27:15] would like on a grant of a use variance.

[27:18] And as you've heard me talk about

[27:19] before, use variances are

[27:22] rare.

[27:23] And but it's a use issue, not a

[27:25] development standards like a development

[27:26] standards variances. It's all use. So,

[27:29] the commitments are important,

[27:30] obviously, for that reason.

[27:40] » I also just want to add just to get

[27:42] ahead of any problems in the future.

[27:45] Often times, approvals, if y'all elect

[27:47] to approve this, often times, we put a

[27:50] statement substantial compliant with the

[27:53] submitted site plan or the conceptual

[27:55] site plan. I'm concerned that you have

[27:58] submitted a site plan and although your

[28:00] proposal would be smaller than

[28:04] is it substantially compliant to what

[28:06] they see tonight? And so, I just want to

[28:09] point that out because if we get

[28:11] approval and y'all are seeing a site

[28:12] plan tonight,

[28:14] my concern is you're going to move

[28:15] forward to plan commission with

[28:16] something that's not shown tonight.

[28:19] And if that's an issue,

[28:21] maybe address it tonight prior to

[28:24] approval.

[28:26] Because it has been an issue in the past

[28:28] where we've granted approvals based off

[28:29] site plans that were submitted

[28:31] and then projects land at plan

[28:34] commission

[28:35] and it's not the same site plan that was

[28:37] presented.

[28:38] » Mhm.

[28:39] » So, I'll commit to the same site plan.

[28:41] Any changes will be in in congruence

[28:45] with what recommendations they give.

[28:48] » Oftentimes it's Mike Dell who gets to

[28:50] decide if it is substantially compliant.

[28:53] So, if Mike's okay with that, I am okay

[28:55] with that.

[28:58] » Is this considered a site plan?

[29:01] » What I am referring to is

[29:04] » What we have in

[29:04] » This. This is going to be my bigger

[29:08] concern. What you see on the screen is

[29:10] these

[29:11] I'm sorry, I did not bring my glasses

[29:13] and I didn't realize it was going to be

[29:14] this small, but however many buildings

[29:16] are there

[29:17] coupled with the equestrian component,

[29:20] that's what we're going to see.

[29:22] Right? And that's what y'all are seeing

[29:23] tonight.

[29:25] And my concern is if we get to planning

[29:26] commission and there's

[29:29] one less building or the buildings are

[29:30] in different locations,

[29:32] um is that substantially compliant? So,

[29:35] I just want to make sure we address that

[29:37] if that's something we're considering.

[29:39] » So, so one of the buildings already, the

[29:41] the larger one, I believe Ron uh told me

[29:44] that we're going to have to shrink that

[29:45] one down.

[29:46] Um the the the footprint though, nothing

[29:49] with nothing's going to change. Uh

[29:52] and from that area right there, it will

[29:54] only get smaller.

[30:00] » And to the question I think Mr. Fedora

[30:01] would

[30:02] uh ask next, um

[30:05] would we be able to get a commitment

[30:06] that it also looks

[30:08] um a lot like

[30:10] » Will will will you let me do that? I

[30:11] think they already mentioned something

[30:12] about stone. Uh

[30:14] » It will

[30:15] » I

[30:15] That's

[30:16] » I will commit to that. Yes, yes.

[30:18] » Yeah, there's two there's [laughter] two

[30:19] There's two different renderings

[30:20] included and this one is

[30:22] much different than the other rendering.

[30:24] » [laughter]

[30:25] » There's a a little bit more of an

[30:27] isometric and then obviously you have

[30:29] the high-res rendering and um obviously

[30:31] a much sharper look.

[30:33] » $5,700 difference.

[30:34] » I know how much they cost, yes.

[30:36] » [laughter]

[30:37] » I will say this one, correct? Andy, this

[30:39] is the one that I got this afternoon,

[30:41] right?

[30:41] » Th- Th- This one right here? Yes. Th-

[30:43] This is what we're going for. This is

[30:45] the appeal on the street.

[30:46] This is the goal.

[30:50] » And so you would be willing to

[30:52] if we were to grant a use variance,

[30:54] you'd be willing to grant that the the

[30:56] visual look would be

[30:57] » Yes. Uh

[30:59] the one building though, like I said,

[31:01] we've already lost that in the design of

[31:02] the pond

[31:04] location. So that's

[31:06] where I'm saying it'll be less. It won't

[31:08] be more. Uh

[31:10] and and I didn't have time to change

[31:12] that, so

[31:14] » I know. I I understand that, but I think

[31:16] » Building right behind it is going to

[31:17] look the same. I'm going to have the the

[31:18] same barn doors on it. Still the same

[31:22] I say everything the same, just maybe

[31:24] less.

[31:28] » But the same visual style if that

[31:30] Okay.

[31:31] » Just just like that is is what we're

[31:33] going for.

[31:41] » Okay.

[31:44] Do you have any other questions?

[31:49] Josh, you mentioned needing paving. Is

[31:52] that something that would go through

[31:53] planning commission? That that might be

[31:54] something that will come up.

[31:55] » Might be wrong. My wouldn't would any

[31:58] commercial building like this need to be

[31:59] a paved driveway?

[32:02] » Paved entrance off the right of way?

[32:04] Would that be a requirement? I I'm not

[32:06] sure. That would be a

[32:07] » Of I just I always thought of it when

[32:09] commercial we were asked to pave it.

[32:11] » Yeah, I'd rely on the department public

[32:13] works to determine that.

[32:16] » I'm pretty sure it's going to have to be

[32:17] paved.

[32:18] » It's a standard. Um I think you can I'm

[32:21] going to use the word waiver.

[32:23] Um you can defer the pavement for up to

[32:25] 1 year, I believe, to allow for gravel.

[32:29] I think, but they don't have to grant

[32:31] that.

[32:32] Um I think the requirement at planning

[32:34] commission is that it has to be paved,

[32:36] and then they can possibly, depending on

[32:39] the conversations that y'all would have,

[32:40] y'all might be able to get a waiver for

[32:42] up to a year to allow it to be gravel, I

[32:44] think.

[32:48] All that would have to be hashed out

[32:49] prior to approval of the development

[32:50] plan, though. So.

[32:54] » Do you guys have any other questions?

[32:59] No.

[33:02] Okay, I'm going to open it up to

[33:05] um

[33:07] the public. Um if you wouldn't mind

[33:09] sitting down and probably call you back

[33:11] up later, but um I'm going to call out

[33:15] uh

[33:16] individually um as you guys have written

[33:18] your name here. If you could just um try

[33:20] not to repeat what other people have

[33:22] said and

[33:24] and uh

[33:25] and um

[33:27] and I'll begin.

[33:28] Um so, first person I have is Beth

[33:30] Hayes. Hey.

[33:32] Haynes.

[33:33] If you could state your name and

[33:34] address.

[33:44] » Um I'm Beth Haynes. I live at 11725

[33:47] East 100 North.

[33:50] Um I am not here tonight to question

[33:52] Good Venture Farms not being able to

[33:56] conduct their stable and arena business

[33:59] on this particular piece of property

[34:01] since it is already zoned agricultural.

[34:05] Um they have a wonderful repre-

[34:07] reputation and they provide a wonderful

[34:11] wonderful service to its clients.

[34:14] And they would not impact our area and

[34:16] would not affect our property values.

[34:21] I am here tonight

[34:24] as the petitioner is seeking a variance

[34:26] to allow commercial warehouse operation

[34:29] in an ag zone.

[34:31] Thus, it appears as a separate entity

[34:35] from the stable and arena operation.

[34:38] As your staff report states, commercial

[34:41] warehousing is not allowed in an ag

[34:43] zone.

[34:45] Since no zoning hardship exists, this

[34:49] sets a precedence for future variance

[34:51] requests for business entities which do

[34:54] not show a hardship due to zoning.

[34:58] Again, as the staff report states, the

[35:01] hardship cannot be due to a self-created

[35:05] need for a variance.

[35:08] I'm a retired educator and I worked in

[35:10] an elementary school

[35:12] that had classrooms of severe and

[35:15] profound students, mild and mentally

[35:18] handicapped students, and emotionally

[35:21] disturbed students.

[35:23] I understand the need for this type of

[35:25] program. I have no qualms about it.

[35:30] It would be wonderful on that piece of

[35:31] property property

[35:34] but without warehouses.

[35:38] I know there are other therapeutic

[35:40] riding centers in the area, four

[35:44] including

[35:45] um

[35:46] Good Ventures that I know of.

[35:50] And I know Mr. Newton seems very

[35:53] passionate about this program, but

[35:56] I really think that this particular

[35:58] piece of property

[36:00] is not the one for it.

[36:03] » 1 minute.

[36:04] » Um

[36:06] I think the warehouses may affect my

[36:09] value as I live around the corner from

[36:11] it and I will be able to see the

[36:12] warehouses from my property.

[36:15] Um

[36:17] and I have some questions that arose

[36:19] when I read the original

[36:21] um

[36:23] um proposal.

[36:26] What if What happens if Good Ventures

[36:28] decides the epic economically cannot

[36:31] keep paying the rent for this second

[36:34] facility?

[36:36] Um

[36:38] And Mr. Newton said he was going to have

[36:40] a 20-year mortgage.

[36:43] So, what if they back out before he's

[36:45] finished paying it off?

[36:48] Um

[36:51] And my other question with that was what

[36:54] happens to the warehouses since these

[36:56] are two independent businesses?

[36:59] » Fine.

[37:01] » Okay.

[37:02] » Um you finish your How many questions

[37:04] more do you have?

[37:05] » I just have a few more.

[37:06] » Okay. Let me Okay.

[37:08] » Will a stable caretaker be on the

[37:10] property in the evening?

[37:13] What happens if the horses get loose and

[37:15] meander into the woods at the back of

[37:18] the property and into our crops, which

[37:21] we 50/50 farm with one of the other

[37:24] petitioners here?

[37:26] Uh

[37:27] Why are the warehouse up hours of

[37:30] operations so late, especially having

[37:33] neighbors on either side?

[37:36] Um my other thing was the rental of the

[37:38] units. If somebody had an RV and

[37:42] and

[37:43] they were in a unit with no power or

[37:45] lights and they need to recharge a

[37:47] battery.

[37:49] They're kind of up a hill and they're

[37:50] working in a cave, a dark cave.

[37:53] And again, as Mr. Fedor mentioned, some

[37:57] of these units are not

[37:59] large enough to get farm equipment into.

[38:03] And will enough acreage be set aside

[38:06] for pasture to meet the ordinance of

[38:09] number of acres per horse?

[38:11] And lastly,

[38:13] um

[38:16] Hamilton County legal drain runs through

[38:18] that property and has a 75-ft easement

[38:22] on either side of it for a total of 150

[38:24] ft. Will this affect the number of

[38:26] warehouses and their play placement that

[38:29] the petitioner wants to build on the

[38:32] property?

[38:34] Um and then it is my hope that the board

[38:37] will adhere to the new comprehensive

[38:39] plan

[38:41] which time, money, and public input were

[38:45] put into to protect our agricultural

[38:48] land, neighborhoods, and homes.

[38:51] Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

[38:54] » Thank you.

[38:55] I'll just quickly state that anything

[38:57] that's decided tonight does not set

[38:59] precedent. We um address cases

[39:02] individually, so there is no precedent.

[39:05] That is not a thing in BZA. So, every

[39:08] case is evaluated on a case-by-case

[39:09] basis.

[39:11] Thank you.

[39:12] Um

[39:13] Pamela, can you please step up and say

[39:16] your name and address?

[39:27] » My name is Pamela Shugart, and my

[39:29] husband and I Gary and Gary reside at

[39:32] 650 North 1200 East, and we're just two

[39:35] drives past the this property.

[39:38] And I am in opposition with the mini

[39:41] buildings and the storage unit business

[39:45] that's

[39:46] proposed in this residential area that

[39:48] is considered Ag. And that's all I'd

[39:51] like to say. Thank you.

[39:53] » Thank you.

[39:56] Um Andy Newton Oh,

[40:00] not you.

[40:01] » [laughter]

[40:01] » Lauren,

[40:04] could you come up and state your name

[40:05] and address?

[40:10] » Hi. I'm Lauren McGee. I live at 9692

[40:13] Autumn Way, Zionsville, Indiana.

[40:16] So, I want to thank you for the

[40:16] opportunity to say a few words. I'm a

[40:18] parent, writer, and instructor at Good

[40:20] Venture Farms, and I'm also a Zionsville

[40:22] resident. So, I think I could stand up

[40:24] here for ever give you a dissertation of

[40:26] the benefits of horseback riding, and

[40:28] what Good Venture Farms would give to

[40:29] our community, but that's not what we're

[40:31] debating tonight. We all agree that a

[40:33] horse barn adding to a historical

[40:35] equestrian community is a good thing.

[40:38] The proposed storage barn add a

[40:40] different element, yes, to this

[40:42] equestrian facility, to a point, but

[40:44] most agricultural facilities have some

[40:47] sort of storage barns on their property

[40:49] and facility. The design of these

[40:51] storage barns mirror the barns, and in

[40:54] no way resemble a typical storage

[40:55] warehouse, like we've seen built behind

[40:57] neighborhoods in Zionsville, such as

[40:59] Stonegate.

[41:00] When my family and I moved to Zionsville

[41:02] in 2019, we were drawn to the rural

[41:04] landscape, the small-town feel, and the

[41:05] great school system. Beyond my personal

[41:08] investment in Good Venture Farms, I

[41:09] would be ecstatic to see rural

[41:11] Zionsville used for agriculture, a need

[41:15] for another barn in our community, and

[41:17] also used for storage, beautiful barns

[41:20] complimentary to the agricultural feel

[41:22] of Zionsville, where residents can store

[41:25] RVs, boats, whatever they need to store,

[41:27] and not go to other communities. This

[41:29] would also prevent another build of

[41:31] neighborhoods and gas stations, which we

[41:33] continuously see being built in

[41:35] Zionsville. So, I strongly support this

[41:37] variance being

[41:39] um

[41:40] passed tonight, and would be happy to

[41:42] take other questions.

[41:44] Thank you.

[41:45] » Thank you.

[41:47] Uh Brittany.

[41:58] » Hi, I'm Brittany Stuff. I live at 1255

[42:02] South 900 North.

[42:04] No, I don't. 1255 I'm sorry.

[42:08] 1255

[42:09] South 900 East, Zionsville. It's where

[42:13] the Fabers used to live. You guys know

[42:14] where it is. Anyway,

[42:16] um

[42:17] Shoot, that's Lauren's dog. Okay.

[42:19] Anyway,

[42:20] uh

[42:21] when my son, who's now 9, 2 years ago

[42:24] asked to start horseback riding lessons,

[42:26] something that I did when I was growing

[42:28] up in Hamilton County,

[42:30] um one of the things that drew us to the

[42:33] barn community was the sense that it was

[42:35] part of a wider rural community and that

[42:37] is something that drew us to move from

[42:40] the Eagle Creek area to move here to

[42:42] Zionsville eventually.

[42:44] Um to the point that three of us now

[42:47] ride and we are as a family part of the

[42:49] broader barn community. Horse people

[42:52] like barn people and farm people and

[42:55] rural Boone County in general are good

[42:58] neighbors or at least that's that's what

[42:59] I found. Even when we disagree, we're

[43:02] pretty respectful. We generally live and

[43:05] let live. They're supportive, selfless,

[43:08] generous, caring to the point of almost

[43:11] absurdity and they're when you need

[43:12] them.

[43:13] Um what I like about uh

[43:17] what the board has said about this

[43:18] variance is is that it is not a slippery

[43:20] slope, that that's not a thing. Um we

[43:22] can have ice cream for dinner tonight

[43:24] and that doesn't mean that we're ever

[43:25] going to have ice cream for dinner

[43:26] again. This is just a thing that happens

[43:27] once.

[43:29] Um but what I like about the proposal to

[43:31] this one variance is that it serves a

[43:33] broader swath of the community. I like

[43:35] that um

[43:37] what the proposal is at pains to propose

[43:40] is that it's they're pretty barns. Uh we

[43:43] just built a barn and it it was such a

[43:46] pain, but that is a good thing because

[43:48] it meant that things were pretty

[43:50] and that we were doing things slowly and

[43:52] consciously and honoring what we want

[43:55] our community to be. Um I, like a lot of

[43:58] you, drive through Carmel a lot and I

[44:00] really like Carmel. It's a nice place,

[44:01] but I don't want Zionsville to look like

[44:03] Carmel. I want Zionsville to be Carmel.

[44:05] Um and I would much rather see storage

[44:08] sheds than anything else, especially if

[44:10] they're pretty. And they look like my

[44:12] barn or they look like a lovely barn. I

[44:14] like Science Hill's rural character.

[44:16] I'm also glad we're meeting tonight. I'm

[44:18] glad we're talking about this, and I'm

[44:19] glad we're taking it slowly,

[44:21] thoughtfully, and strategically. That's

[44:22] how development should be.

[44:24] Um, I like the idea of our barn being

[44:27] more convenient to the community. I like

[44:29] the idea of it being more accessible to

[44:30] people.

[44:31] Um, and I like the idea of this serving

[44:34] the community as a multi-use space. I

[44:36] think there's a long history of rural

[44:38] people offering our city and suburban

[44:41] neighbors a place to park their stuff.

[44:44] Um, but I also like the idea of it not

[44:46] being visible from the road. I like it

[44:48] being behind a pretty barn facade. Um,

[44:51] I'm hopeful that we can all kind of come

[44:52] find a way forward to make everybody

[44:54] happy, preserve the character and charm

[44:57] of our community, and I hope we continue

[44:59] to do that. Thank you.

[45:01] » Thank you.

[45:03] John.

[45:06] Haswinkel? Did I say that right?

[45:07] » Very close.

[45:18] Yeah, my name's John Haswinkel. My wife,

[45:20] Chris, and I own the property 11615 East

[45:23] 100 North. And our property is, uh,

[45:26] north and west of that. Probably have

[45:28] the most frontage line to the,

[45:30] uh, subject property. Uh, we are in We

[45:33] oppose the,

[45:35] uh, commercial buildings for this. Um,

[45:38] it's clearly not ag. I would venture to

[45:41] say that any farmer that wanted to store

[45:43] equipment is going to build his own

[45:45] building. As Josh had said earlier, this

[45:47] is not going to accommodate a combine or

[45:50] big spraying equipment, uh, tillage

[45:52] equipment. So, I think the, um,

[45:56] little bit disingenuous to to build this

[45:59] office at ag-related. What I I don't

[46:01] think many farmers would start store

[46:03] equipment there at all. So, I think this

[46:05] is clearly using a commercial property

[46:09] to pay for the

[46:10] um horse facility. Have no problem with

[46:13] the horse facility, but it seems

[46:15] um

[46:15] wrong for me

[46:17] to um

[46:19] allow this commercial property to pay

[46:20] for it. I just think it's uh

[46:22] it's not what the intended use is, and

[46:25] uh that's all I have to say. Thank you.

[46:27] » Thank [clears throat] you.

[46:30] Kim?

[46:32] So sorry, just Thompson.

[46:37] » [laughter]

[46:38] » I don't have the best penmanship either,

[46:39] but

[46:42] » My name is Thompson. I live at 11722

[46:47] East 100 North with my husband Mitch.

[46:50] We live across the street um

[46:53] from the Haswinkles and the Haynes.

[46:56] And this we are I'm we are both opposed

[46:59] to this development very much, not

[47:01] because of the horses at all.

[47:03] We have horses, we love horses,

[47:06] um had horses all my life, and I know

[47:08] how hard financially it would be to

[47:10] sustain on the value of this property

[47:13] without the

[47:15] storage warehouses.

[47:17] Um I was always told if you ever want to

[47:20] become a millionaire in the horse

[47:21] business, you better start out as a

[47:23] multi-millionaire.

[47:25] But um but it was that aside, I think

[47:27] the warehouses would just be very much

[47:29] of a distraction um to our little rural

[47:32] community.

[47:33] Um

[47:35] Like everyone else here has said, it

[47:37] doesn't fit in with the zoning.

[47:40] It I know that you take it case-by-case,

[47:43] but it still opens up

[47:45] warehouses in our neighborhood.

[47:48] And I don't understand why they would

[47:50] need to be open until 11:00 at night. Um

[47:53] if you're storing boats and campers, we

[47:55] have a camper. I know that you're going

[47:57] to need a generator probably to get it

[47:59] going. So, how many people are going to

[48:01] be running generators that night getting

[48:02] ready for their camping trip the next

[48:04] morning.

[48:05] Um I don't believe that any farmers

[48:07] would store their equipment in these

[48:09] facilities. Um it just it just doesn't

[48:12] seem like the right fit for our our

[48:14] area. So, we very much oppose the

[48:16] warehouse piece. Thank you.

[48:19] » Thank you.

[48:21] Um Andy, would you like to come back up

[48:23] and

[48:29] I'm sure there's maybe things comments

[48:31] that you want to make, but I have a

[48:32] couple questions.

[48:34] Is there any comments you want to make

[48:35] after?

[48:37] » Uh just that

[48:39] uh for the agricultural piece, uh

[48:42] I've tied myself to the equestrian side.

[48:45] Uh if it ceases, I cease.

[48:48] Uh

[48:49] if the when the 20-year loan's done,

[48:52] I'm turning it over.

[48:54] Uh

[48:54] This is going to give someone an

[48:56] opportunity that otherwise would not be

[48:58] able to quit her jobs and do something

[49:01] that uh has been her dream.

[49:03] Um And like I said, I'm just fortunate

[49:05] to be a vessel to hopefully make that

[49:07] happen, but uh as far as the Do I answer

[49:12] the questions directly that you posed?

[49:14] » Say whatever you want.

[49:15] » I I didn't have I didn't have more

[49:16] » Need to answer any questions. I just

[49:18] wanted to give you a chance to to to say

[49:20] anything that you wanted to.

[49:21] » And and that's the biggest thing is that

[49:24] you know, uh

[49:25] Google met it they won't tie themselves

[49:28] to what they're trying to do. I'm

[49:30] committing to

[49:32] financial resources and everything to to

[49:34] make this happen and uh again, it is

[49:37] equestrian so in nature. Um

[49:40] » Um I'd like to add I'm Leah. I'm the

[49:42] owner of Good Adventure.

[49:43] » Hello. Thank you.

[49:44] » You could just state your name and

[49:45] address. Yep.

[49:46] » My name is Leah Bonaventure. I live at

[49:47] 2665

[49:49] uh East 6 No, South 650 East. Britney,

[49:52] you did that to me. Thank you.

[49:54] Um I own Good Venture Farm. Um all my

[49:57] So, my riders came out today.

[49:59] Um something I just like to mention when

[50:01] you guys talk about farmers, like I I

[50:03] totally understand what's a farmer, so

[50:05] um my boyfriend over there, he has

[50:08] tractors, trailers, everything you can

[50:10] think of. Um

[50:12] he would store something like that

[50:13] somewhere here. Um

[50:15] just because you're a farmer doesn't

[50:16] mean you own a giant combine, doesn't

[50:18] mean you own, you know, certain

[50:20] material. Um people see themselves of a

[50:22] farmer having a

[50:25] What is it? A zero-turn, honey, that you

[50:26] have two or three of them sitting in the

[50:28] driveway that need to go in a storage

[50:29] barn. Yes.

[50:31] Um if he could have somewhere to store

[50:32] those, that would be great. If he had

[50:34] somewhere we could store them close

[50:35] where he could drop them off and check

[50:36] on them, that'd be fabulous. Um

[50:40] I think that the they're beautiful

[50:42] looking. I think it adds to the

[50:43] aesthetic. Um I don't think it does

[50:45] draws anything away to what we do.

[50:47] Um

[50:49] I think Andy's done a wonderful job, and

[50:50] it's small, it's family run, my family,

[50:53] barn family, Andy's family. It's a

[50:56] beautiful, beautiful accent to the uh

[50:58] community.

[51:00] That's my two pieces.

[51:02] Oh, the horse is getting out. Horses get

[51:04] out all the time.

[51:05] Um so I worry about the ordinance about

[51:08] having horses on land. So, my horses um

[51:11] go out on a rotation. They don't live

[51:13] outside. They won't have horses living

[51:15] We I won't have horses living outside.

[51:16] They live in the stalls. They go out to

[51:18] graze for about 4 to 6 hours a day. Um

[51:21] yeah, so I will have fencing. We have

[51:23] fencing in place. Um I will also have a

[51:25] hot wire going around the fencing to

[51:27] keep them in place. I can't account for

[51:30] Mother Nature. Um I wish I can control

[51:32] her sometimes. I can't. Um if it knocks

[51:34] down a fence, yeah, that horse is going

[51:35] to get out. Um my horses are all

[51:38] friendly, so you could go up to them and

[51:40] say, "Hey, whoa."

[51:41] and just walk right up to them. They

[51:43] will be wearing halters. Um I wouldn't I

[51:46] wouldn't be concerned about a horse

[51:47] getting out unless Mother Nature came

[51:49] through or something of some drastic

[51:51] measure happened. But my horses live

[51:53] inside, they go out in a rotation 4

[51:55] hours. There's somebody on the property

[51:58] during hours of operation.

[52:00] After hours of operation, no one's

[52:02] living on the property. It's going to be

[52:04] secured circuit so we can watch the

[52:05] horses. So you don't have to worry

[52:07] about, you know, anybody that you don't

[52:09] know pulling in and out at certain

[52:10] hours. My hours are limited. I do have a

[52:14] life outside of the barn. So

[52:17] surprising you to all you guys, I do

[52:18] have a life.

[52:20] Um

[52:21] So it won't be

[52:23] all hours at night. I won't ride horses

[52:25] out in an arena. I won't have

[52:27] spotlights. I'm not going to have a

[52:28] rodeo. It's not going to be a

[52:29] pick-a-part. It's going to be a place

[52:31] where kids, adults can come and they can

[52:33] have their passion shared with me and my

[52:35] other barn family.

[52:38] What else about the barn getting out?

[52:39] Anything?

[52:41] The questions

[52:44] Oh, yeah.

[52:44] » We can't take testimony from the

[52:46] audience, please.

[52:46] » I'm sorry. I was just hearing the the

[52:48] questions. I apologize.

[52:49] » A couple questions for you if you're if

[52:51] you've if you're if you're done.

[52:53] » I'm done.

[52:53] » Okay.

[52:55] I did have a question. I think I was

[52:57] confused on the relationship between

[52:59] Good Venture and you. So is technically

[53:01] Good Venture is your tenant and there's

[53:03] a lease in place?

[53:05] A land lease or there will be. So what

[53:08] term length of a lease? That's a pretty

[53:10] big partnership to not have any kind of

[53:11] lease in place currently. I would think

[53:13] that you guys would have negotiated the

[53:15] terms and what that looks like.

[53:18] » As far as I mean, the intention is that

[53:20] she takes this over. So

[53:23] I mean, I'd be willing to do a 20-year

[53:25] term lease if that appeases the board.

[53:27] » All of this got passed, we had agreed to

[53:29] sit down and make that agreement.

[53:32] The intention is for me to eventually

[53:33] take over

[53:35] the whole property. That's going to be

[53:36] where I put my roots in the ground and

[53:38] live.

[53:39] Um

[53:39] » When you say take over the whole

[53:40] property, you mean buy the whole

[53:41] property or like lease the whole

[53:43] property?

[53:44] » Take over the loan.

[53:45] » Take over the loan. Okay.

[53:47] » Ownership. She would love to put her

[53:48] house out there one day.

[53:50] And And that be her property.

[53:53] » Okay.

[53:54] » And right, you don't always have to be a

[53:57] multi-millionaire to get into the horse

[53:59] business. It's It's the community that

[54:00] you build. It's the people that support

[54:02] you.

[54:03] Um I built a wonderful barn family and

[54:05] the support's there. So, no you don't

[54:07] have to be a multi-millionaire to be a

[54:09] horse person. I'm not looking to do

[54:10] that. Um but what I am looking to do is

[54:12] have an opportunity for people to come

[54:14] share my passion and um

[54:17] if they want to store their trailer that

[54:18] they keep at home, I got a spot for

[54:19] them. So.

[54:21] » I am a little confused as to why the

[54:24] hours of operation is so late. I thought

[54:26] that

[54:27] before

[54:28] um 11:00 is late.

[54:31] Um for a family. I'm just curious.

[54:33] » People getting back with their camper,

[54:35] uh giving them an opportunity to get get

[54:36] in there and get stored from a trip or

[54:38] something. Uh I'd be willing to reduce

[54:40] that if that appeases you.

[54:41] » I'm just curious. I I wouldn't

[54:44] want to live by the

[54:45] » Thing with the hours early, if someone

[54:46] has a fishing boat, just coming in early

[54:48] to

[54:50] That's the idea.

[54:51] » I'll elaborate on that a little bit.

[54:53] With 11:00, it's dark even in the middle

[54:55] of the summer.

[54:57] Here you have these long rows of

[54:58] buildings with no electrical back there,

[55:00] no safety lights, no security

[55:02] » So there's lights out front.

[55:04] So you you'll you'll be able to see the

[55:05] lights.

[55:06] » Somewhere there was no electrical in the

[55:07] buildings.

[55:08] » Inside.

[55:09] » Okay.

[55:10] » So So the the the the idea is you wanted

[55:12] to reduce a a plug-in for people because

[55:14] that that's an extra fire hazard. That

[55:17] » In the rendering, it shows lights

[55:19] outside of each barn door.

[55:24] In the rendering.

[55:25] » Okay.

[55:25] » I'm just asking because you said this

[55:27] rendering was going to look like this.

[55:29] » Of the buildings. All All All that's uh

[55:31] exterior.

[55:32] And for the Through the planning

[55:33] commission, they they may have

[55:34] requirements that we may have to add

[55:36] lights in there. I I haven't got that

[55:37] far yet. Uh

[55:39] but like I said, right now the lights on

[55:41] the exterior and we're trying to face

[55:42] everything inside. Everything's

[55:44] enclosed.

[55:45] » Okay.

[55:46] » So, when Josh asked about getting a

[55:48] trailer back there at 11:00 at night

[55:49] when it's pitch black, there will be

[55:51] lights at every door so they can come

[55:53] » Lights. There's lights inside the

[55:55] facility. Yes, you'll be able to see

[55:57] what you

[55:57] » Stay on 24 hours?

[55:59] » So, we're we're probably going to put

[56:00] them on like a a motion sensor so that

[56:02] they turn off and then when everyone's

[56:03] gone, uh they can turn off. Again,

[56:05] planning commission will probably have

[56:06] some requirements and I'll have to abide

[56:08] by that, but the intent is

[56:11] uh motion activated.

[56:15] » Well, I forgive me, but I think

[56:17] any requirements about your operations

[56:19] actually have to be done here. I don't

[56:20] think the planning commission can do a

[56:22] lot about that. They can talk about

[56:25] » Well, I thought requirements for lights.

[56:27] Uh they don't control

[56:29] » They will have comments on that. You've

[56:30] got two planning commission members

[56:32] sitting at on BZA right now, so

[56:35] » The uh and I have a concern and perhaps

[56:37] staff can help me with it that if it was

[56:39] reaching planning commission stage when

[56:41] it comes to lighting, even if your

[56:43] intent right now or the

[56:46] the the modest lighting scheme you

[56:48] showed directly here on the buildings,

[56:50] um does staff think that

[56:53] this would hit on the planning

[56:55] commission side and all of a sudden

[56:57] we're talking about 30-ft structures in

[57:00] the air to provide

[57:02] uh lighting like

[57:04] other uses have in their parking lots.

[57:07] » The the proposal would have to comply

[57:08] with the town's, you know, light

[57:09] standards and that would be confirmed

[57:11] during the development plan review.

[57:14] » Does that answer?

[57:15] » Uh

[57:17] Yes.

[57:19] Uh it it answers that that would have to

[57:21] comply. Could we [clears throat] write a

[57:24] restriction that said

[57:27] this is the lighting the only lighting

[57:28] scheme we would approve?

[57:30] » Yes, I believe so. You can have you can

[57:31] establish a standard that's that's more

[57:33] restrictive.

[57:34] » More restrictive.

[57:35] » Yeah, not less.

[57:37] » Okay.

[57:41] » Want me to commit to

[57:42] » I I'm kind of doing a little discovery.

[57:45] I mean, I these are always

[57:49] » Um

[57:49] » These are just difficult to do because

[57:53] if we're at all going to consider this,

[57:55] the operations

[57:57] of the property and the agreement get

[57:59] set here. Um

[58:01] that we've seen that done badly.

[58:04] » I I also want to add to that, Jim, cuz I

[58:07] you're going through your process. I

[58:08] want you to keep going, but

[58:10] getting back to the lease, that's an

[58:12] important factor to me because I do love

[58:14] the equestrian piece of this, and I

[58:17] I

[58:18] um have a kid in occupational therapy,

[58:20] and I know how good horses can be for

[58:22] that, and it's a wonderful thing. Um but

[58:27] you know, making sure that transfer

[58:28] happens, like

[58:31] you know, at that 20-year, there's a

[58:32] commitment for a 20-year, but there's no

[58:34] lease in place.

[58:36] That is to be negotiated once they

[58:39] get through planning commission

[58:41] or this gets approved. So, that for me

[58:44] if

[58:45] is a

[58:47] is one that I would want a commitment

[58:49] from.

[58:51] » I need the water a little bit. This

[58:53] follows with

[58:55] uh Andy.

[58:57] The commitments are going to follow with

[58:58] the landowner with the property owner

[59:00] when it shifts ownership.

[59:02] » Can have it limited.

[59:04] » Starts from scratch again, doesn't it?

[59:05] » Right, that's true. Assuming they have

[59:07] that agreement executed that he does

[59:08] actually

[59:09] gift her it once the loan is paid off.

[59:13] » Uh

[59:14] Can we are we

[59:16] » Yeah.

[59:16] » I I've got I I

[59:17] » Please.

[59:18] » So, there was a concern or a question

[59:19] brought up about full-time help, and

[59:21] that led to another concern. I've been

[59:23] to a lot of horse barns, and there's

[59:24] always in somewhere.

[59:26] Uh where that where there's a

[59:29] full-time barn help living in the on the

[59:31] premises is going to be an occurrence.

[59:33] There is going to be a big full-time

[59:35] living on the property.

[59:38] I Because I ask cuz they have their

[59:40] plusses and minuses. Uh, the plus is

[59:42] there's somebody there all the time. The

[59:44] minus is

[59:45] there's somebody there all the time.

[59:47] Um

[59:48] » So, for for the um

[59:50] for the recording was that a no?

[59:52] » Yes.

[59:52] » Okay. All right.

[59:53] » Correct. There There There's no No one's

[59:55] going to be living in There's no

[59:57] apartments or living stable or

[59:59] » No.

[1:00:00] » Could you speak into the microphone if

[1:00:01] you would?

[1:00:02] » I was going to say I am there all the

[1:00:03] time, but I'm not going to live there.

[1:00:06] » Um And what were the hours of operations

[1:00:08] again? I'm sorry.

[1:00:10] » Uh, I believe it was [snorts] Let's see

[1:00:12] here. What time

[1:00:13] 5:00 to 11:00

[1:00:16] weekend.

[1:00:16] » I think it was 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 if my

[1:00:18] memory serves.

[1:00:20] » All week or is that

[1:00:21] » 5:00 to 10:00 Monday to Friday, 5:00 to

[1:00:23] 11:00 Saturday and Sunday.

[1:00:28] » And And that's for the storage. Um the

[1:00:31] my facility I I've got

[1:00:33] » Could you speak into the microphone?

[1:00:34] » That's for the storage. My facility I'm

[1:00:35] not We won't be running that late. I

[1:00:37] mean, my last lesson Yeah, 7:00 a.m. to

[1:00:40] 9:00 p.m. Um Monday through Friday.

[1:00:44] Uh, Saturday and Sunday it's the same

[1:00:45] Oh, so I should say Sunday to Sunday. Um

[1:00:48] I don't stay there after 9:00. Only time

[1:00:50] I'm going to come back is if I see

[1:00:51] something on the cameras that one of my

[1:00:53] ponies have gotten out and are wandering

[1:00:55] the hallways.

[1:00:58] Just to see.

[1:00:58] » Um and then

[1:01:00] I'm sorry. One more uh, there was a

[1:01:02] drainage easement brought up in your

[1:01:04] findings of facts as well as they

[1:01:06] remonstrator brought it up. Can you

[1:01:07] elaborate a little bit on this drainage

[1:01:09] easement that runs through the property?

[1:01:11] » Uh, can I have my engineer speak to

[1:01:13] that?

[1:01:14] » Absolutely.

[1:01:14] » Absolutely. Yeah.

[1:01:15] » Could you come up and state his name and

[1:01:17] address?

[1:01:21] » [clears throat]

[1:01:22] » Air Gordon with Spacegoat. We're located

[1:01:24] at 3850 Property Way South Drive in

[1:01:27] Indianapolis, Indiana.

[1:01:29] Um the

[1:01:30] legal drain that runs through our

[1:01:31] property

[1:01:32] is right at the tail end of the Jacob

[1:01:35] Shoemaker drain. It is our property and

[1:01:37] then the parcel just north.

[1:01:39] And then everything drains south into

[1:01:42] Hamilton County. So, it's a fun

[1:01:44] situation with us being right on the

[1:01:46] county line.

[1:01:48] Uh getting to coordinate with both Boone

[1:01:50] County and Hamilton County. We met with

[1:01:52] them last week.

[1:01:53] And that'll be a

[1:01:55] continuous conversation until we get

[1:01:57] county approval

[1:01:59] from both parties.

[1:02:01] Along with Zionsville approving the

[1:02:02] drainage. So, all three will

[1:02:04] be able to review.

[1:02:06] Um standard relocation for legal drains

[1:02:10] is uh 30-ft drainage easement. We will

[1:02:14] pick it up where it hits our property

[1:02:15] line there at the north.

[1:02:17] And reroute around our operation

[1:02:21] to the south property line where

[1:02:24] uh through our development it'll be a

[1:02:26] 30-ft drainage easement. And then north

[1:02:29] and south of that it will be the

[1:02:32] uh 75-ft on each side being a total 150.

[1:02:39] » You've you've made communications with

[1:02:40] Hamilton County and Boone County

[1:02:42] Surveyor's offices.

[1:02:44] » Yes, we've been in conversation with

[1:02:46] them.

[1:02:47] Yep.

[1:02:48] » Okay.

[1:02:49] » That was them

[1:02:51] uh

[1:02:52] emails over the past couple months and

[1:02:54] sat down with them last week.

[1:02:58] » And then I got one more question for

[1:03:00] you, Andy.

[1:03:02] Um

[1:03:03] This is ag. This is farmland. This I

[1:03:06] mean, everything up through here it's

[1:03:07] been ag

[1:03:09] my whole life. Um

[1:03:12] And we're you're saying you're wanting

[1:03:14] to store agricultural equipment here. If

[1:03:16] we limited this to just agricultural

[1:03:18] equipment,

[1:03:19] so we could stay within the agricultural

[1:03:22] mindset. No boats, no trailers,

[1:03:25] or no flatbed trailers, no

[1:03:28] RVs, no

[1:03:30] anything but agricultural equipment.

[1:03:33] Would this

[1:03:34] business model work?

[1:03:36] » So, right now I don't think so. Uh one

[1:03:40] one of the things I am doing though is

[1:03:42] offering a discount for ag equipment.

[1:03:45] And then I'm also offering a period

[1:03:46] where I will not offer it to the general

[1:03:48] public as well.

[1:03:50] Uh should we fill up everything at in

[1:03:52] that time, then I mean, I'll make a

[1:03:55] commitment that we don't need the other

[1:03:57] side. Uh I'm willing to state that. Uh

[1:04:00] but I don't know. What I'm scared of is

[1:04:03] limiting that income and getting a loan

[1:04:06] and not being able to repay it. And it's

[1:04:08] kind of the the safeguard to make all

[1:04:10] this happen.

[1:04:12] » I could say that that would get it to my

[1:04:13] mind that, hey, we Okay.

[1:04:15] I get my head around

[1:04:18] this being an agricultural use if it was

[1:04:20] strictly used for agricultural

[1:04:22] equipment. But I'm afraid what I'm I'm

[1:04:24] looking at here is RV storage and boat

[1:04:27] storage. It's a tremendous need in this

[1:04:29] community.

[1:04:30] Um

[1:04:32] it happens on a lot of farms around here

[1:04:33] already. And the

[1:04:35] quite frankly, no one's turned them in.

[1:04:37] When they get turned in, they'll have to

[1:04:38] address it.

[1:04:39] But I guess tell me how this isn't going

[1:04:42] to be boat storage and RV storage.

[1:04:44] Because that's to me that's what it

[1:04:45] looks like to me.

[1:04:47] » Uh so again, just just the offering $100

[1:04:50] a month cheaper to ag residents. Um I'm

[1:04:54] trying to entice uh and give incentives

[1:04:57] to the agricultural community.

[1:04:59] » I I I appreciate that. I'm just

[1:05:01] you know.

[1:05:04] » So so where

[1:05:06] where the large building is at up here

[1:05:08] on the uh

[1:05:10] screen,

[1:05:11] if I made a commitment to shrink that

[1:05:13] down, which I think the fire marshal

[1:05:14] said we're going to have to, if I added

[1:05:16] another building in there, put in large

[1:05:18] doors, offered it free, made that

[1:05:20] commitment,

[1:05:22] cuz real really the biggest thing to

[1:05:24] farmers I think holding them up is the

[1:05:26] cost.

[1:05:27] Uh I think I think your husband

[1:05:29] mentioned that to me. Uh I'd be willing

[1:05:32] to construct another building in there

[1:05:34] and uh offer it free to agricultural

[1:05:36] combines, anything large of that nature,

[1:05:39] and

[1:05:40] uh

[1:05:42] » I I don't think your business model's

[1:05:43] going to work too well if you're

[1:05:44] offering free storage. So

[1:05:47] Um I think your business

[1:05:48] » The margin to do it, Josh, let him.

[1:05:51] » [laughter]

[1:05:51] » But I guess my thing is

[1:05:55] Like I said, I can get my head

[1:05:56] » It's not a good business idea.

[1:05:59] » I I

[1:06:00] okay.

[1:06:00] » I'm I'm being honest with you.

[1:06:02] Honestly, it'd be better to go across

[1:06:04] the street and build a whole bunch of

[1:06:05] storage units in the industrial area

[1:06:07] that's going to be zoned for that, but

[1:06:08] it's not about that. And that that's my

[1:06:09] whole intent for this whole thing is

[1:06:11] it's not about the money. It's about me

[1:06:13] getting an opportunity to help someone.

[1:06:15] I'm a builder. I'm literally going to be

[1:06:17] building these with my own two hands.

[1:06:18] I've hired a guy to help me already.

[1:06:21] We've got Amish on board to help out as

[1:06:22] well. This is going to be a true

[1:06:26] uh and again, I'm going to quit my job.

[1:06:28] This is this is what I I want to do. I

[1:06:30] would like to help people, and when

[1:06:31] she's at the point where she's able to

[1:06:32] take it over, I'd like to go do

[1:06:34] something else

[1:06:35] positive as well.

[1:06:37] So again, I've heard from many people

[1:06:39] this is not a good business decision. It

[1:06:41] is not, but it's more than a business

[1:06:43] decision.

[1:06:44] So

[1:06:49] » Josh hit all your points, Jim.

[1:06:51] » He did.

[1:06:53] Yeah, I think he got you got me covered.

[1:06:55] I kept crossing things off every time I

[1:06:56] asked a question.

[1:06:57] » Know. We'll see. Great minds think

[1:06:59] alike.

[1:06:59] » Yeah.

[1:07:02] » For me to even wrap my head around

[1:07:05] this, for me the

[1:07:08] transfer from a 20-year loan to make

[1:07:11] sure it stays like good venture that

[1:07:13] that the use drops off

[1:07:16] is

[1:07:18] something that I feel like needs to be

[1:07:20] in there if this is even something that

[1:07:23] um

[1:07:26] can even move forward from my

[1:07:27] standpoint.

[1:07:29] Um

[1:07:33] that would be a contingency.

[1:07:35] » I'm unclear on what happens to the

[1:07:39] storage facilities once the loan is paid

[1:07:42] off for the arena and you no longer

[1:07:45] require them as a source of income.

[1:07:49] What exactly is going to happen

[1:07:52] to you said you're going to use those

[1:07:53] storage facilities for for your barn

[1:07:55] equipment?

[1:07:56] » Mhm.

[1:07:57] » And is that going to fill all of them?

[1:07:59] Are they What's going to happen to

[1:08:01] buildings that you no longer need that

[1:08:03] you are no longer using?

[1:08:04] » So

[1:08:05] the Amish will come and take them down.

[1:08:07] » They'll remove them.

[1:08:08] » So so the post frame construction is

[1:08:10] relatively easy to take down and reuse

[1:08:12] and probably be donated, honestly.

[1:08:16] » I'd like to keep a few up for extra

[1:08:18] storage for, you know, if I have

[1:08:20] any horses that I need to move out, need

[1:08:22] to move in another area.

[1:08:24] Um so it would be used for another area

[1:08:26] of

[1:08:27] horse

[1:08:28] barns if I could, but I mean it's like

[1:08:30] he said they would be taken down.

[1:08:34] » Are Are these concrete foundation

[1:08:36] buildings then or are they going to be

[1:08:37] gravel

[1:08:38] So are we talking gravel floored in

[1:08:40] these buildings or are they

[1:08:41] » Uh concrete.

[1:08:41] » Concrete, okay. So when the buildings

[1:08:43] come down, the concrete will be busted

[1:08:45] up, removed and

[1:08:46] » If they don't need the building, that's

[1:08:48] like I said, it wouldn't be mine at that

[1:08:49] time.

[1:08:50] » I'm not keeping the concrete.

[1:08:53] » And just out of curiosity, so there's

[1:08:55] going to be lighting on the outside of

[1:08:57] these storage units.

[1:08:58] » That's the intent right now.

[1:08:59] » Electrical on the interior of the units

[1:09:02] for anyone to use for personal use. How

[1:09:04] do the doors open? Are they going to be

[1:09:06] » They're manual.

[1:09:07] » Okay.

[1:09:09] With just a

[1:09:11] a lock?

[1:09:11] » So so so you have a padlock and put on

[1:09:13] it and take the padlock off, pull the

[1:09:15] latch open and you go down and you you

[1:09:17] lift it up and roll it up.

[1:09:26] » I'm thinking of self-storage units

[1:09:30] um

[1:09:31] Madonna I've been in and around

[1:09:34] They usually have more site security

[1:09:37] than I see here.

[1:09:38] Uh more substantial fencing that isn't

[1:09:42] the gentle kind to keep horses in but

[1:09:43] it's built to keep people out.

[1:09:46] Um many of them do elect to have someone

[1:09:49] staying on site at least larger

[1:09:52] uh properties and I don't know where

[1:09:54] that cut off is.

[1:09:56] But

[1:09:57] when you talk about site security and

[1:09:59] the security of people's

[1:10:00] uh contents and the um

[1:10:03] any comfort of the neighbors that it's

[1:10:05] you know not a an attractive place to

[1:10:08] go thief from. How how do you manage

[1:10:10] that?

[1:10:11] » So so right now we're going to have uh

[1:10:13] security with cameras and then we're

[1:10:15] also going to have uh a gate for access

[1:10:17] kind of where they're showing the gate

[1:10:18] right now with sliding that building

[1:10:20] back. Uh

[1:10:22] there'll be an access gate to get in and

[1:10:24] out of the facility.

[1:10:25] » Okay. So it's not showing on here it'd

[1:10:27] be a another gate

[1:10:28] » There's a gate shown on there but it it

[1:10:30] it's it's going to be probably further

[1:10:32] back.

[1:10:32] » Yeah, I I got you.

[1:10:33] » So

[1:10:36] » So

[1:10:37] people taking lessons won't have access

[1:10:40] to the storage facility.

[1:10:41] » There'll be a separate gated through.

[1:10:45] They So she's going to have access.

[1:10:47] She's going to keep equipment and some

[1:10:48] few things in there what not but not not

[1:10:51] her.

[1:10:53] Yes.

[1:11:03] » I'm not sure if we have any more

[1:11:04] questions. I know we need to have our

[1:11:05] » Yeah, I just

[1:11:06] I think just if we could revisit like

[1:11:08] the factors, you know, um and head back

[1:11:12] to

[1:11:13] um

[1:11:15] you know, fair market value, hard

[1:11:17] necessary hardship.

[1:11:19] And

[1:11:20] and focus on those and

[1:11:26] Yes, you guys can sit down. You guys

[1:11:27] have any other questions?

[1:11:28] » No.

[1:11:28] » Okay. Sorry. Thank you.

[1:11:31] » It's uh

[1:11:35] They're

[1:11:36] very

[1:11:37] sincere people, I think, trying to do

[1:11:40] good things here, and it it always makes

[1:11:42] it difficult because it comes back to

[1:11:45] the unnecessary hardship question.

[1:11:48] Uh if my memory serves, which is

[1:11:50] imperfect, this I think is the third use

[1:11:53] I we've seen um at BCA here proposed for

[1:11:56] this property.

[1:11:58] And if if it was a world that I had to

[1:12:00] pick out of one of those three, and I

[1:12:02] was a neighbor, I would probably want to

[1:12:03] pick this one. Um

[1:12:05] but that isn't really how we make our

[1:12:07] decisions.

[1:12:09] Um

[1:12:11] it

[1:12:12] Somebody will have to walk me through

[1:12:15] the unnecessary hardship. I've been

[1:12:17] trying to wrap my brain around

[1:12:19] uh and it was mentioned by several

[1:12:21] people

[1:12:22] um

[1:12:23] who testified that there are plenty of

[1:12:25] ag operations that

[1:12:27] you know, have some storage, but that's

[1:12:29] different than

[1:12:30] having a, you know, 94,500

[1:12:33] sq ft of dedicated storage facility

[1:12:36] in the next 20 years. And I think

[1:12:38] unnecessary hardship's tough, so

[1:12:42] how do we make it

[1:12:43] fit under ag is the question, and I know

[1:12:45] Mr. Fedor is making a run at that.

[1:12:48] Um

[1:12:49] with contemplation of of what limits of

[1:12:51] what could be stored on the property.

[1:12:54] Uh but that right now is where my

[1:12:55] hang-up is.

[1:12:57] » Yeah, I'll I'll elaborate on what Jim

[1:12:59] just said. A lot of farmers have

[1:13:01] buildings, but they don't rent the

[1:13:02] storage out. They're using it for their

[1:13:04] own equipment and

[1:13:06] normal normally if you go in them

[1:13:09] they're crammed to the gills with their

[1:13:10] own equipment. Um but they don't rent

[1:13:12] the storage out.

[1:13:14] That that's a different that's a

[1:13:16] different beast right there.

[1:13:18] So

[1:13:20] Uh

[1:13:20] I'm I'm right there though with you as

[1:13:22] well. I'm trying to get

[1:13:24] around

[1:13:25] uh three and five are the two that I

[1:13:27] have trouble with. Um that I don't see

[1:13:29] anything particularly unique about this

[1:13:31] prop- property that requires this nor

[1:13:33] can I get around the

[1:13:35] the unnecessary hardship. This is a um

[1:13:39] It's a It's a farm field that's there's

[1:13:42] not very much unique about it. A lot of

[1:13:44] farm fields have drainage easements that

[1:13:46] run through them.

[1:13:47] Um

[1:13:49] So I

[1:13:51] I I think it's a great project.

[1:13:53] I would love to see this in an area

[1:13:56] that's that's more suited zoning for it.

[1:13:58] It's It's a great layout.

[1:14:00] Um but I don't know if this is the place

[1:14:02] for it.

[1:14:06] » Question to staff. If this was

[1:14:10] just equestrian and it was barn storage

[1:14:13] for

[1:14:15] you know

[1:14:16] trunks and things like that for their

[1:14:18] horses.

[1:14:20] Um is that an approved use under this?

[1:14:25] » Yes. Um

[1:14:27] I'm going to go back to a previous

[1:14:29] concern you'll have about

[1:14:31] uh if the warehousing operation were to

[1:14:33] cease, what would the buildings be used

[1:14:35] for, right?

[1:14:37] Um the buildings we are concerned with

[1:14:39] the use of the buildings, right? Um

[1:14:42] these buildings in this case in this

[1:14:44] period of time are warehousing, which is

[1:14:45] causing the issue.

[1:14:47] Once the buildings are constructed,

[1:14:50] unless y'all guys place some parameters

[1:14:52] on the use of these buildings or some

[1:14:54] condition saying you have to remove them

[1:14:56] at a certain time.

[1:14:57] Um

[1:14:59] our planning office, we don't have

[1:15:02] what I have historically seen in other

[1:15:03] offices, which is a change of use.

[1:15:06] Right? So, once the building is erected

[1:15:09] and y'all approve this project or y'all

[1:15:11] if y'all were to approve it, um 15 years

[1:15:14] from now if there's no conditions on it,

[1:15:16] let's say the warehousing was to stop,

[1:15:18] as long as a use that's permitted in ag

[1:15:22] was to move into that facility. I'm just

[1:15:24] going to make something up because a

[1:15:25] commercial greenhouse

[1:15:27] is a permitted use, right? So, let's say

[1:15:30] the the the warehousing operation ceased

[1:15:33] in 10 years for whatever reason.

[1:15:35] Um

[1:15:36] there are numerous uses permitted by

[1:15:39] right

[1:15:40] in the ag zoning district that could

[1:15:43] relocate into these empty buildings.

[1:15:45] Now, there could be other issues from a

[1:15:47] fire standpoint, from an engineering

[1:15:49] standpoint, some internal improvements

[1:15:51] that would have to be made. Um

[1:15:54] but from a zoning standpoint, we look at

[1:15:55] the use.

[1:15:56] And if the buildings were to be vacant

[1:15:58] and a new person wanted to move in,

[1:16:01] we would look at what are they wanting

[1:16:02] to do, right? Is it a greenhouse

[1:16:04] operation? That's a permitted use.

[1:16:06] Is it a

[1:16:07] you know, another warehousing facility?

[1:16:09] That's not. And so, they would have to

[1:16:10] come back to you guys depending on the

[1:16:12] use to get approval. In this case,

[1:16:14] they're saying they're going to remove

[1:16:15] the buildings. So, that would take care

[1:16:17] of that, right?

[1:16:18] Um

[1:16:19] but yeah, they could build these

[1:16:20] buildings.

[1:16:22] They don't if we if they were only

[1:16:23] proposing

[1:16:25] stables,

[1:16:26] they wouldn't be here tonight.

[1:16:28] They could build stables within the

[1:16:30] parameters of the development standards

[1:16:32] and they'd need no approvals from the

[1:16:34] board.

[1:16:35] They would just go to the planning

[1:16:36] commission get a development plan

[1:16:37] approval

[1:16:39] and um

[1:16:41] and then start construction.

[1:16:45] Did that answer your question?

[1:16:46] » Yes, it did. Thank you.

[1:17:02] » Well, I I can't say I like my position,

[1:17:04] but I

[1:17:05] uh I'll put numbers on it. I struggle

[1:17:07] with the uh

[1:17:10] number four, which is the unnecessary

[1:17:12] hardship, and I struggle with the uh

[1:17:14] number three, which is the

[1:17:17] condition peculiar to the property

[1:17:19] involved requires the variance.

[1:17:22] Um

[1:17:25] And that That's where I am. I don't know

[1:17:27] if anybody else has more they want to

[1:17:28] say or

[1:17:30] » That's hard for me, too. I

[1:17:32] I mean, I know a lot of people who own

[1:17:34] horses who pay

[1:17:37] crazy for barn storage and to store

[1:17:39] their horses. I mean, I

[1:17:42] you it's wild. So, I don't I makes it

[1:17:45] makes

[1:17:46] the fact that a boat or a RV would pay

[1:17:49] more than them, I just

[1:17:51] um that's hard for me to wrap my head

[1:17:53] around. Um

[1:17:56] that that wouldn't be a profitable

[1:17:57] model.

[1:17:58] Um since the true intent is to to

[1:18:01] support the equestrian center, which I

[1:18:03] love.

[1:18:04] Um

[1:18:06] so

[1:18:07] yeah, that's hard.

[1:18:14] » Well, I I

[1:18:17] ready to make a motion if you're ready

[1:18:18] to hear me, Madam Chair.

[1:18:20] I move that docket number 2026-15-V

[1:18:24] UV variance of use to permit a warehouse

[1:18:27] building facility in a rural general

[1:18:28] agricultural AZ zoning district for

[1:18:31] property at 526 North 1200 East, Science

[1:18:34] Hill, be denied as presented and

[1:18:37] described.

[1:18:38] » Second.

[1:18:44] » Jim Hurst.

[1:18:45] » Aye.

[1:18:47] » Josh Fedor.

[1:18:48] » Aye.

[1:18:49] » Amanda Miller.

[1:18:50] » Aye.

[1:18:51] » Katie Glenn.

[1:18:52] » Aye.

[1:18:53] » Motion passes.

[1:18:55] Petition is denied.

[1:18:56] » Thank you.

[1:19:03] Okay.

[1:19:16] » It's a good It's a good project.

[1:19:19] That's Yeah.

[1:19:20] It's a good It's a good project.

[1:19:22] » [snorts]

[1:19:22] » It's really a good

[1:19:25] » Okay, we'll move on to case 206

[1:19:30] 2026 16 UV.

[1:19:32] Um

[1:19:34] another use variance.

[1:19:35] Um I will let staff uh present.

[1:19:44] » It's me.

[1:19:47] Okay.

[1:19:48] Um

[1:19:51] All right. I'm hopeful my internet is

[1:19:53] working now. I'm running this off of my

[1:19:55] cell phone. So, if it's a little slow,

[1:19:57] forgive me. But, uh here we go.

[1:20:01] Uh use variance pursuant to again 194082

[1:20:04] table two to allow for a vet animal

[1:20:07] hospital or clinic in the rural single

[1:20:09] and two-family residential zoning

[1:20:10] district. Um there is history to this

[1:20:14] site.

[1:20:15] Um I'm sure all of y'all are familiar

[1:20:17] with the site and the history that's

[1:20:18] come through

[1:20:19] BZA in the past. Um here's a brief

[1:20:22] summary of it. Um on page one of the

[1:20:24] staff report.

[1:20:27] The request, you'll see the subject site

[1:20:30] is currently

[1:20:32] um 17 uh 17.4 acres to be exact.

[1:20:37] If this

[1:20:38] request is approved,

[1:20:41] there will be a 5-acre section that is

[1:20:46] subdivided from the overall 17.4 acres

[1:20:51] um as shown in this exhibit on the

[1:20:53] screen.

[1:20:54] Um and the 5 acres is actually the

[1:20:56] subject site of the use variance

[1:20:58] request. The clinic and the operations

[1:21:01] associated with that clinic would be on

[1:21:04] the 5-acre tract, not on the entire

[1:21:08] 17-acre parcel. The subdivision

[1:21:12] would be allowed by right. Our zoning

[1:21:15] ordinance

[1:21:16] uh

[1:21:17] has a one-time a clause that's a

[1:21:19] one-time lot split exemption.

[1:21:22] Um and the petitioner, the owner, would

[1:21:25] take advantage of that one-time lot

[1:21:27] split exemption in the zoning ordinance

[1:21:29] to create the 5-acre tract of land. This

[1:21:31] would not need plan commission approval.

[1:21:33] So, you wouldn't see this subdivision at

[1:21:35] plan commission.

[1:21:37] Um the petitioner submitted a plan of

[1:21:40] operation

[1:21:42] uh as well as some conceptual

[1:21:44] uh as close as possible, but still

[1:21:46] conceptual

[1:21:47] uh both site plan and elevations of the

[1:21:50] facility.

[1:21:51] Um and again, here you'll see key to

[1:21:53] note that the 5 acres is going to be

[1:21:57] outside of the MRO, so it would not be

[1:22:01] subject the development would not be

[1:22:04] subject to the MRO standards, okay?

[1:22:06] Um and then as far as the analysis as to

[1:22:10] is this the proper use for the 5 acres,

[1:22:13] we looked at the comprehensive plan,

[1:22:15] uh both the old one and now the new one.

[1:22:19] Um

[1:22:20] getting to town to getting to the staff

[1:22:22] analysis, I'm going to skip to the

[1:22:24] questions. Um and I'm going to address

[1:22:26] the ones uh, in here where we disagree.

[1:22:30] Uh, the approval will not be injurious

[1:22:32] to public health and safety.

[1:22:34] Um, again, we disagree.

[1:22:36] We cannot determine, given the

[1:22:38] information that we had at the time,

[1:22:40] uh, the impact. Um, as of this writing,

[1:22:43] we know the request is going to use

[1:22:44] estimated, uh, structure of 6 to 8,000

[1:22:47] square feet. Um, but we're trying to

[1:22:50] give the petitioner an opportunity to

[1:22:51] present the pro- proposal to you,

[1:22:54] um, without having to go through the

[1:22:56] entire plan set of a plan commission

[1:22:58] submittal. And so, with limited

[1:22:59] information, that's why we landed on

[1:23:01] that conclusion. Um, the use or value of

[1:23:03] the area adjacent to the property

[1:23:05] included in the variance will not be

[1:23:06] affected in a substantially adverse

[1:23:08] manner. Again, we cannot determine the

[1:23:09] impact of the request given the lack of

[1:23:11] information provided,

[1:23:12] uh, as it relates to the future

[1:23:14] five-acre improvements, five-acre site

[1:23:16] improvements,

[1:23:18] which is again why we disagreed. Um, the

[1:23:21] need for the variance arises from a

[1:23:22] condition peculiar to the property

[1:23:24] involved. Uh, the five-acre site can be

[1:23:26] developed for single-family residence.

[1:23:28] Uh, it's already zoned R2. You can build

[1:23:30] a home at this at this location. Um, the

[1:23:34] newly adopted comp plan identifies

[1:23:35] single-family,

[1:23:37] uh, in this area. And so, again, we

[1:23:39] disagreed as it related to that.

[1:23:42] Uh, strict application of the zoning

[1:23:44] ordinance, uh, will will or will not

[1:23:46] result in unusual and unnecessary

[1:23:49] hardship.

[1:23:50] We disagreed for the reasons listed, um,

[1:23:53] here on page six. And then finally, the

[1:23:56] comprehensive plan. Again, I previously

[1:23:58] mentioned the new comp plan that was

[1:24:00] adopted in June,

[1:24:01] um,

[1:24:02] identifies this five-acre site for rural

[1:24:04] and equestrian,

[1:24:06] uh,

[1:24:06] resident- a rural and estate

[1:24:08] residential. And, uh, the current zoning

[1:24:10] of R2 already allows for that to occur.

[1:24:14] Um, and so, we don't believe this is

[1:24:16] aligned with the comp plan. Um,

[1:24:19] happy to answer any questions you have

[1:24:20] on the staff report or any of the

[1:24:22] exhibits that you have attached to the

[1:24:23] agenda.

[1:24:24] If there's no questions, I'll I'll turn

[1:24:26] it back over to you guys.

[1:24:29] I do want to mention there were numerous

[1:24:31] letters of support and I believe some

[1:24:33] information as it relates to

[1:24:35] remonstrance that have been attached to

[1:24:36] the agenda.

[1:24:37] Some I believe were as recently as

[1:24:40] today. So, I wanted to point those out

[1:24:42] for you.

[1:24:43] » And Jonathan, it's

[1:24:45] not ever I think that I've seen a BZA

[1:24:49] petition come to us

[1:24:52] where you could make a determination

[1:24:54] because the information hadn't been

[1:24:56] provided to you. Did you encourage the

[1:24:59] petitioner to continue and provide you

[1:25:01] the information how

[1:25:02] » They they have

[1:25:03] They have provided

[1:25:05] information as it relates to

[1:25:08] elevations, right? Conceptual

[1:25:09] elevations, conceptual site plans, which

[1:25:11] you can see.

[1:25:12] Let me pull them up here.

[1:25:20] And on their commitments, right? And

[1:25:21] this is something that uh

[1:25:23] you can see too. Let me pull those up.

[1:25:28] For example, one of the things would be

[1:25:30] a known concern by the neighbors, right?

[1:25:33] Of the dogs barking. And so

[1:25:38] buffering, right? Buffering between ag

[1:25:40] currently only allows or only requires

[1:25:43] 40 ft of grass.

[1:25:45] Right?

[1:25:46] Um

[1:25:48] I mean obviously this

[1:25:50] Well, I thought I pulled it up, but uh

[1:25:56] » Forgive me, Jonathan. Whatever you're

[1:25:58] about to show me, was this given to you

[1:26:00] after you produced the staff report or

[1:26:02] is this material

[1:26:04] » Um

[1:26:05] this material I don't believe was given

[1:26:06] to me after the staff report, right? I

[1:26:08] think it was prior to.

[1:26:09] » I'm going to go back to my my question.

[1:26:11] I mean, you've written twice here you

[1:26:13] can't determine the impact cuz you don't

[1:26:15] have the necessary information.

[1:26:17] » We would like to see increased buffer

[1:26:18] standards, just to be honest with you,

[1:26:20] because if it is allowed, we know

[1:26:22] there's issues with

[1:26:24] the dogs and complaints about the noise.

[1:26:28] If this is approved with no additional

[1:26:30] requirements,

[1:26:31] the only requirement would be 40 ft of

[1:26:33] grass.

[1:26:35] Right? Or

[1:26:37] let me let me look at the chart. The R2

[1:26:40] standards. And so

[1:26:41] » That. I mean, I think you

[1:26:43] can't answer the question is

[1:26:44] the

[1:26:45] I I mean, you wrote it down. You didn't

[1:26:47] have

[1:26:48] » If we had more

[1:26:49] information

[1:26:50] » Of I mean, you've written it twice.

[1:26:52] » Yes, and

[1:26:54] and technically speaking, the system in

[1:26:57] place, right? The application only

[1:27:00] requires the submittal of a site plan.

[1:27:03] And any further

[1:27:05] things that are above that is really at

[1:27:09] the discretion or at the expense or the

[1:27:11] risk of the petitioner, right? And so,

[1:27:12] they submitted a site plan, a conceptual

[1:27:14] site plan.

[1:27:15] Um and

[1:27:17] anything above that

[1:27:20] is is either at y'all's discretion or at

[1:27:22] the petitioner's willingness to provide

[1:27:24] it. And um

[1:27:26] some of that obviously gets expensive

[1:27:28] and if it's not needed, then why make

[1:27:30] the petitioner submit it, right?

[1:27:33] And um

[1:27:34] » Okay.

[1:27:34] » I'm I'm not sure if that answers your

[1:27:36] question or not, but

[1:27:37] um

[1:27:39] that's why that's in that that

[1:27:40] statement's there.

[1:27:41] » Okay. Well, then thank you.

[1:27:50] » Any other questions for staff?

[1:27:54] » Not at this time. No.

[1:27:56] » Well, I will let the petitioner come up

[1:27:58] and speak.

[1:28:05] » [clears throat]

[1:28:21] » Good evening, members of the board.

[1:28:23] My name is Steven Growth, and it's my

[1:28:25] privilege to represent Dr. Denise Cats.

[1:28:28] Before she walks you through her

[1:28:30] proposal, I wanted to introduce her to

[1:28:33] you.

[1:28:34] She's a licensed veterinarian,

[1:28:37] and her life's work is to provide care

[1:28:40] for dogs that other people have given up

[1:28:42] on.

[1:28:43] These are dogs that require serious

[1:28:45] medical care.

[1:28:47] They've been rescued from a shelter, and

[1:28:49] otherwise would be euthanized.

[1:28:51] Her project is called the Love Pet

[1:28:53] Project. It's widely recognized.

[1:28:56] It's a non-profit animal welfare

[1:28:59] program, and she runs it at her own

[1:29:01] cost.

[1:29:03] For years, she took in the animals, the

[1:29:06] stray dogs, from the county,

[1:29:09] at no expense to the taxpayers,

[1:29:12] which allowed those animals to stay in

[1:29:14] custody shorter,

[1:29:16] and deputies to devote their time to

[1:29:18] more public safety activities.

[1:29:21] Uh you will hear from the sheriff's

[1:29:22] department that they strongly support

[1:29:24] this petition, showing that it has value

[1:29:27] to the community.

[1:29:29] You will also hear from many of her

[1:29:30] neighbors, almost all of which are

[1:29:33] Excuse me, almost all of which are in

[1:29:35] support of the petition,

[1:29:37] and

[1:29:38] show that this this proposal

[1:29:41] uh will not involve extra traffic, extra

[1:29:44] noise, and any extra problems within the

[1:29:48] surrounding area.

[1:29:50] And with that, I invite you to please

[1:29:52] give Dr. Cats your attention. Thank you.

[1:29:55] » Thank you.

[1:29:57] Okay, unfortunately, I'm going to have

[1:29:58] to tell him to when to switch slides,

[1:30:00] but um go ahead if you don't mind. Thank

[1:30:02] you.

[1:30:03] Um so, like Steve said, I'm a

[1:30:05] veterinarian. Um I spent most of my time

[1:30:08] practicing in shelter medicine both at

[1:30:09] Indianapolis Animal Care Services and

[1:30:12] the Houston SPCA. I actually set up the

[1:30:14] whole vet program at um IACS and during

[1:30:17] my time there uh won the um Mayor's

[1:30:20] Performance Award and Meritorious

[1:30:22] Service Award for my work there. Um, I

[1:30:24] was an adjunct professor for shelter

[1:30:26] medicine at Texas A&M.

[1:30:28] Um, I founded the Love Pet Project in

[1:30:31] September of 2019 to kind of continue my

[1:30:33] mission of helping animals.

[1:30:35] Um, and I also opened Indy Animal

[1:30:38] Surgery Center in 2023. It's at 116th

[1:30:41] and Michigan. So, I do have a veterinary

[1:30:43] clinic. I actually have one down south

[1:30:45] as well.

[1:30:46] Um, I sit on several advisory boards

[1:30:49] um, including

[1:30:51] uh Bailing Out Benji, the uh um

[1:30:54] Association of Animal Welfare

[1:30:56] Advancement, and I consult and speak

[1:30:58] nationally um, usually for the American

[1:31:01] Kennel Club or the AKC um, as well as

[1:31:04] Companion Animal Health.

[1:31:07] Uh, next slide, please.

[1:31:11] So, something that I do want to make

[1:31:13] clear, I own every animal on the

[1:31:15] property. I know we've been here before.

[1:31:17] I know I've said it. Um, but I have

[1:31:19] legal documentation, USDA paperwork for

[1:31:21] every dog that's on my property and

[1:31:23] puppy. Um, well, every puppy that's on

[1:31:25] my property. I don't have any dogs.

[1:31:27] Um, but um, that being said, um, when

[1:31:32] uh

[1:31:34] one of the reasons um

[1:31:37] that I wanted to do all this is to save

[1:31:39] the puppies and the dogs that would

[1:31:40] otherwise be euthanized and not even

[1:31:42] given a chance. I mean, all these dogs

[1:31:44] that I get

[1:31:45] I would venture to say 70% of them would

[1:31:48] be dead had uh I not stepped in. Um, I

[1:31:51] have a 98.5% live release rate. That was

[1:31:54] as of 2025 and that's including every

[1:31:57] animal that enters my property. I do run

[1:32:00] the Love Pet Project. I founded it,

[1:32:03] um, but that is not the only avenue

[1:32:05] which these dogs find homes. Um, I work

[1:32:07] with two other rescues, um, one in

[1:32:10] Chicago and one in Houston, Texas, and

[1:32:13] those are the other avenues in which

[1:32:15] these animals find homes, and I have

[1:32:16] nothing to do with their operations.

[1:32:18] Um, so that is including everybody who's

[1:32:21] stepped foot on my property.

[1:32:23] Um, so this program, the Love Pet

[1:32:26] Project, is nationally recognized, um,

[1:32:29] we have been nationally recognized

[1:32:31] across many avenues for the impactful

[1:32:33] work that we do. We're the only program

[1:32:35] of our kind out, um, in the country, and

[1:32:38] we is because we work both ends of the

[1:32:40] problem. So not only

[1:32:42] do I deal with the animals that I have

[1:32:43] in my care and making sure they get the

[1:32:45] best care possible, but we also work

[1:32:48] very strongly with educating the general

[1:32:50] public. Um,

[1:32:52] I also I'm have a passion for teaching,

[1:32:55] so I like to educate students, but also

[1:32:57] breeders to make sure these problems

[1:32:59] don't happen again.

[1:33:02] Another thing that, um, we do or I do is

[1:33:06] I collaborate with universities and

[1:33:07] specialists to impact dog population as

[1:33:09] a whole and additional implications to

[1:33:11] human medicine.

[1:33:13] So the bulldogs up there represent all

[1:33:16] the pneumonia puppies that we have. I

[1:33:17] developed a new treatment protocol for

[1:33:19] pneumonia, um, and so through that, um,

[1:33:23] we've saved a lot of puppies, um, other

[1:33:26] ones that would have succumbed to the

[1:33:27] disease. Um, and actually we're uh,

[1:33:31] I speak on this a lot with companion

[1:33:32] animal health because we brought this

[1:33:35] modality to other, um, places across the

[1:33:38] country and we're seeing an improvement

[1:33:40] of pneumonia within 1 week

[1:33:42] radiographically where previously it'd

[1:33:44] be 6 weeks.

[1:33:45] Um, the Rottweiler, I'm working on a

[1:33:48] study right now with Purdue and Tufts

[1:33:50] University on subaortic stenosis in

[1:33:52] Rottweilers.

[1:33:53] And probably the most fun one is the

[1:33:56] Shiba. We've discovered two populations

[1:33:58] of Shibas through this work that have

[1:34:00] ventricular septal defects, which

[1:34:01] happens to be the most common cardiac

[1:34:03] abnormality in infants.

[1:34:05] And through this, and hopefully we're

[1:34:07] going to get the NIH grant, that we'll

[1:34:09] be able to use this population of dogs

[1:34:11] to impact babies.

[1:34:13] So,

[1:34:14] what we're doing is

[1:34:15] even more far-reaching than what you can

[1:34:17] see on my property.

[1:34:20] We also have several other studies that

[1:34:22] are published with other treatment

[1:34:24] modalities we've started with the dogs

[1:34:26] we use.

[1:34:27] » Next slide, please.

[1:34:30] » But what does that impact here locally

[1:34:32] in our community? The number one would

[1:34:35] be working with Boone County Sheriff's

[1:34:37] Office. You're going to hear from

[1:34:38] Captain McClain here soon.

[1:34:40] Um and the impact that we had while we

[1:34:43] were working with them, we can't work

[1:34:45] with them right now because we got

[1:34:46] designated a kennel. Um so, I can't have

[1:34:50] the adult dogs that he has on my

[1:34:52] property. Um but we did this at no cost

[1:34:56] to the taxpayers.

[1:34:57] You're going to see a case, the only

[1:34:59] case I've been able to take in this

[1:35:01] year.

[1:35:01] Um and we had to do it at a different at

[1:35:03] my other location.

[1:35:05] Um but that was because

[1:35:09] that again wasn't at any cost. It would

[1:35:11] have cost the taxpayers $10,000 for that

[1:35:13] one dog. Um and it's something I

[1:35:15] absorbed by myself. Um I also assist

[1:35:18] them in cruelty cases.

[1:35:20] Um I've testified for you guys before as

[1:35:23] well.

[1:35:24] Um and then also we help raise money for

[1:35:26] the um retired police dogs because it

[1:35:30] came to my attention that once they

[1:35:31] adopt one,

[1:35:33] the community ceases to help. Um and

[1:35:35] those dogs worked pretty hard for us.

[1:35:37] So, we help um raise money for that.

[1:35:43] But let's get to the property. This is

[1:35:44] the property in question.

[1:35:46] Um so,

[1:35:47] um you can see

[1:35:49] uh

[1:35:50] there's a few neighbors here. Um but the

[1:35:52] Nelsons are going to be here speaking

[1:35:55] against.

[1:35:56] They are the property adjacent and then

[1:35:58] the property across the street are the

[1:36:00] Laviolettes. They will be speaking in

[1:36:02] support. But I do also really want to

[1:36:05] point out that right across the street

[1:36:06] from the property is an active fire

[1:36:08] station and right across the

[1:36:11] 421 is a dump. So also active and both

[1:36:15] are community serving operations.

[1:36:19] To give you a little idea cuz this will

[1:36:21] come in later with noise.

[1:36:23] We are where the dogs are currently

[1:36:24] housed is where that red dot is.

[1:36:27] That's the home on the property.

[1:36:30] We are 440 ft from the Nelsons. We're

[1:36:32] 460 ft from the Laviolettes.

[1:36:36] Next slide, please.

[1:36:39] So I just want to give you a little bit

[1:36:40] of property history.

[1:36:42] Um

[1:36:43] So before I purchased this property, it

[1:36:45] sat on the market for 312 days.

[1:36:48] During that same time frame

[1:36:50] that

[1:36:51] other residential houses in Zionsville

[1:36:53] were being sold in 65 days. I think that

[1:36:57] clearly demonstrates that this property

[1:37:00] has never functioned as a normal

[1:37:02] residential property, which it has been

[1:37:04] designated

[1:37:05] by the town. It just never has. Even

[1:37:08] before I bought it, the historical use

[1:37:11] was always non-conforming. It was never

[1:37:13] an R2 property.

[1:37:15] And so I think that plays a big role.

[1:37:18] And again, I want to stress the fact

[1:37:20] that there's other public service uses

[1:37:22] right there down the street.

[1:37:24] So saying that we're not in compliance

[1:37:26] or not along the same lines, I don't

[1:37:29] believe is true because it's already

[1:37:31] been approved and it's already

[1:37:33] being used for that. Next slide, please.

[1:37:38] Some additional property horse history.

[1:37:41] It was used for animal related

[1:37:44] activities since 1988.

[1:37:46] The previous owners that I purchased it

[1:37:49] from are um operated their business out

[1:37:51] of there. They had an equestrian center.

[1:37:53] Um there was boarding lessons, people on

[1:37:55] and off the property all the time. I

[1:37:57] boarded my own horse there.

[1:37:59] Um I purchased the property from them in

[1:38:01] August of 2020 and since that day um

[1:38:05] there have been animals on that property

[1:38:08] with historic support from the neighbors

[1:38:10] including the Nelsons. Um they have a

[1:38:12] dog for me. They visited our my property

[1:38:15] with that dog several a day to allow it

[1:38:17] to play in our fenced-in yard with my

[1:38:19] other dogs.

[1:38:20] Um in March of 2024 is when I requested

[1:38:23] my first use variance. I'm sure you guys

[1:38:25] have heard this before.

[1:38:26] » 1 minute.

[1:38:28] » What? I'm sorry. What did you say?

[1:38:29] » He was just saying 1 minute.

[1:38:31] » Oh, I thought I had 15 minutes.

[1:38:33] Oh.

[1:38:34] Sorry.

[1:38:34] » It's okay. Just You can continue.

[1:38:36] » Okay. So

[1:38:37] um we'll go to the next slide.

[1:38:42] Um so the whole reason we took that use

[1:38:44] variance out uh was because um Mrs.

[1:38:47] Nelson asked us to essentially in that

[1:38:50] zoning appeal. She said, "I guess I

[1:38:52] don't understand why it can't stay the

[1:38:53] same or the way it was."

[1:38:55] So

[1:38:57] trying to be a good neighbor, we decided

[1:38:58] to keep it that way

[1:39:00] um and

[1:39:01] um

[1:39:03] that's what we did. We removed that

[1:39:05] request. If you

[1:39:06] will you go to two slides from there?

[1:39:09] Let me speed this up. Um so in March of

[1:39:12] 2025 uh the Nelsons decided to uh um

[1:39:16] put in a civil suit against me. Um so in

[1:39:20] uh their request in February of this

[1:39:22] year, they requested that I um

[1:39:26] move current operations

[1:39:28] uh

[1:39:29] closer to 421, that I request the use

[1:39:32] variance be for a veterinary clinic, uh

[1:39:34] that I create new buildings and that I

[1:39:35] sell them uh 11.6 acres of my land. If

[1:39:38] you'll go ahead.

[1:39:41] I agreed to all that except for selling

[1:39:44] 11.6 acres of my land. I have uh large

[1:39:47] animals as well, and I intend to keep

[1:39:49] that property for that use.

[1:39:51] Um I and I'm moving it closer to 421.

[1:39:56] I'm um

[1:39:58] asking for the vet clinic and I will

[1:39:59] build these purpose-built buildings.

[1:40:03] Um if you'll go to the next slide.

[1:40:05] This again just shows the 5-acre outside

[1:40:08] of the Michigan Road overlay.

[1:40:10] Um next slide.

[1:40:12] » Dr. Katz, can I interrupt real quick?

[1:40:13] You do get 15.

[1:40:14] » Okay. Sorry, I was like

[1:40:17] I was planning on that based on the

[1:40:19] email.

[1:40:20] Um okay. So,

[1:40:23] uh property improvements.

[1:40:25] Um and I apologize. I thought you had

[1:40:27] all this beforehand. Um and so that's

[1:40:30] where I was a little confused by that,

[1:40:31] too.

[1:40:32] Um but the veterinary clinic um we're

[1:40:36] proposing be 40 by 80 ft. The kennel

[1:40:39] buildings, there'll be three detached

[1:40:40] ones. They're prefab, made by um the

[1:40:43] Amish community. So,

[1:40:45] they're used to this. Um

[1:40:47] they'll be three of those.

[1:40:49] All of that together comprises just over

[1:40:51] 2% of the property we're proposing.

[1:40:54] Again, this is only asking for this 5

[1:40:56] acres. It's not asking for the remaining

[1:40:58] acreage, which will stay R2, and I will

[1:41:00] retain ownership of it. Um

[1:41:03] and then a parking lot to accommodate 17

[1:41:05] vehicles. We never believe we'll ever

[1:41:07] need that, but it does say that we have

[1:41:09] to have one spot for three kennels.

[1:41:11] Next slide, please.

[1:41:14] So, just a quick overview, that's

[1:41:17] what our footprint would look like. And

[1:41:19] that is including play yards in the

[1:41:22] green square. It's less than what I

[1:41:25] already have on that site, which is that

[1:41:27] horse barn.

[1:41:28] Uh next uh next slide, please.

[1:41:32] Um that's essentially a uh

[1:41:35] a really uh

[1:41:37] small um rendering of this, but it's not

[1:41:39] to scale. It's just to kind of show how

[1:41:41] the buildings will be faced.

[1:41:43] Um next slide, please.

[1:41:46] And Jonathan, I thought you had these

[1:41:48] two, the voluntary commitments. So, um

[1:41:50] it was my understanding that we needed

[1:41:52] to adhere to Buffer Yard B standards,

[1:41:54] but we're also saying that we will put

[1:41:56] privacy fencing around all spaces

[1:41:58] housing dogs, inside, outside, wherever

[1:42:01] the dogs are, it will be around there.

[1:42:04] We're restricting outdoor dog hours. Um

[1:42:07] so, they'll only be allowed outside

[1:42:08] between 7:00 and 7:00. Um and they will

[1:42:12] have automatic doors that lock and doors

[1:42:14] that we can lock individually. So, if

[1:42:17] there is a nuisance dog, it won't be

[1:42:18] allowed free access to the outdoors

[1:42:21] um even during the 7:00 to 7:00 time

[1:42:23] frame. Um there'll be limited access to

[1:42:26] the property just as there is now. It's

[1:42:28] just myself, my family, my friends, and

[1:42:30] the people that help me take care of my

[1:42:31] animals. Um no commercial advertising,

[1:42:34] no commercial [clears throat]

[1:42:35] operations. This is not an operating vet

[1:42:37] clinic in any traditional sense.

[1:42:39] This is essentially, please let me have

[1:42:41] my dogs on my property um and I don't

[1:42:46] want the general public coming in there.

[1:42:48] I don't want the general public to even

[1:42:49] know we're there. Um

[1:42:51] noise mitigation, we'll be able to have

[1:42:53] the appropriate insulation in these

[1:42:55] buildings,

[1:42:56] um but continue to manage noise,

[1:42:58] property maintenance and removal as is,

[1:43:00] and then we hope to initiate the project

[1:43:02] within a year, and we say we'll

[1:43:04] guarantee that it'll be done within

[1:43:05] five. Uh next slide, please.

[1:43:10] Um uh this So, noise has always been

[1:43:13] well, hasn't always, but has recently

[1:43:15] been the complaint, I should say.

[1:43:17] What I did after our last meeting here,

[1:43:19] um was where you see that star is, um I

[1:43:23] bought a um decibel meter that's

[1:43:26] calibrated um

[1:43:27] and it lives out there where that star

[1:43:29] is. So, 150 ft from where all the dogs

[1:43:31] are housed.

[1:43:32] And 290 ft to the Nelson's front door.

[1:43:35] Um,

[1:43:36] and the new proposed building would be

[1:43:38] 570 ft from them.

[1:43:40] Um, but that decibel meter is running

[1:43:42] non-stop. It takes readings every 5

[1:43:45] seconds and records them, but during

[1:43:47] that time it's 5 seconds it's picking

[1:43:50] whatever the highest volume is and it's

[1:43:53] running through that. Next slide.

[1:43:56] So, um,

[1:43:58] just to give you an idea when we're

[1:44:00] talking about sound, 30 to 80 decibels

[1:44:03] is considered ambient noise.

[1:44:05] 30 to 40 akin to a library, 40 to 55 a

[1:44:08] soft conversation, 60 to 75 an active

[1:44:10] restaurant um, or general office

[1:44:13] chatter.

[1:44:14] These are the top graph is, um, an

[1:44:18] aggregate over an entire month of all

[1:44:20] the times those recordings were taken.

[1:44:23] And what you'll see is that this is

[1:44:26] during the day at the top and at night

[1:44:28] at the bottom. It's actually louder at

[1:44:30] night. What we did was we also, uh, put

[1:44:34] a microphone attached so we could see

[1:44:35] what was causing the noise. And the

[1:44:37] noise at night are the cicadas and bugs

[1:44:40] and storms that we've been having. Uh,

[1:44:42] the noise during the day when it rises

[1:44:44] is the lawnmower or people talking in

[1:44:46] that area. I have llamas housed in that

[1:44:47] area so people like to go play in there.

[1:44:50] Um, but if you'll notice it never

[1:44:53] reaches over ambient noise, ever.

[1:44:57] And this is, again, on my property. By

[1:45:00] the time you reach,

[1:45:02] uh, the Nelson's front door, outside the

[1:45:04] front door, not even in their home

[1:45:06] it's fourfold less noisy than that. So,

[1:45:08] that's negligible at this point.

[1:45:12] Next slide, please.

[1:45:13] Again, this is shows that again. This is

[1:45:15] every day from

[1:45:17] uh, midnight to midnight. Um, and it

[1:45:20] never reaches,

[1:45:21] uh, over 70.

[1:45:24] And just to kind of summarize, next one.

[1:45:29] I hate to end on something Well, this is

[1:45:30] going to be happy at the end. But, this

[1:45:32] is the one case that we helped Broome

[1:45:33] County with. I want to be able to help

[1:45:35] them with more.

[1:45:36] This is something that happened in our

[1:45:38] community to this dog, and I believe

[1:45:40] it's our responsibility to help them.

[1:45:43] And this is the dog that cost us

[1:45:45] $10,000.

[1:45:46] Um or and would have cost the taxpayers

[1:45:48] that, but mainly because I couldn't do

[1:45:51] anything on my property. That dog was

[1:45:53] hospitalized for 2 weeks. I could have

[1:45:55] done that myself.

[1:45:56] Um

[1:45:57] So, this is uh it was a hardship for us.

[1:46:00] It's one of the reasons we can't

[1:46:02] continue to help them, but we felt it

[1:46:04] necessary to help in this case. Um last

[1:46:07] slide.

[1:46:08] This is the pictures of Maeve yesterday.

[1:46:10] Um so, it took us about 2 and 1/2 3

[1:46:12] months to get her to this. Um and she

[1:46:15] actually is on her way to her new home

[1:46:17] today through one of our rescue partners

[1:46:18] in Chicago. Um but, this is why I want

[1:46:22] to do what we're doing. I'm willing to

[1:46:25] take ownership of all these animals, and

[1:46:26] luckily in the state of Indiana, animals

[1:46:28] are still property. So, no matter the

[1:46:30] length of time that I own these dogs,

[1:46:32] they're still my property. I can then

[1:46:34] choose to give them to somebody else,

[1:46:36] but during their length of stay at my

[1:46:38] house,

[1:46:39] they're still mine.

[1:46:41] Um and I want to be able to help dogs

[1:46:43] like Maeve. I want to be able to help

[1:46:44] our community.

[1:46:45] Um

[1:46:46] And I want to be able to help dogs as a

[1:46:48] whole. And so,

[1:46:49] um I know we didn't speak as much to

[1:46:52] hardship and things like that, but the

[1:46:54] property was already set up for animal

[1:46:57] use. Um if I can't use it for that, it

[1:46:59] renders a lot of the buildings unusable.

[1:47:02] Um and then

[1:47:03] I know that it's been taken away now,

[1:47:06] but the airport

[1:47:07] um

[1:47:08] district was right over that property.

[1:47:11] And my intended use when I bought this

[1:47:13] property in 20 19 or 2020, sorry, was to

[1:47:17] live on the property.

[1:47:19] And after I bought it,

[1:47:21] that was imposed.

[1:47:22] And since then, I've had to make other

[1:47:24] arrangements, right? I didn't end up

[1:47:26] building my house on the property or

[1:47:28] anything like that. And I get that it's

[1:47:29] been taken away now, but all those years

[1:47:32] of me not being able to do that, I had

[1:47:35] to use do something else with the

[1:47:36] property as well. So, this was one of

[1:47:38] the uses that

[1:47:40] we did and it's

[1:47:42] I want to stress that we're doing all of

[1:47:44] this right now. Um

[1:47:46] we are not intending to change any

[1:47:48] operations. It's just uh I want to be

[1:47:51] able to help dogs like Maven help the

[1:47:53] community. Right now, you know, we're

[1:47:55] not labeled a kennel because I only have

[1:47:58] puppies on of my property. Um but that's

[1:48:01] um

[1:48:03] I guess what we're asking and I'm

[1:48:05] » Thank you.

[1:48:05] » Open to questions.

[1:48:06] » Appreciate it.

[1:48:07] » Thank you.

[1:48:10] » I do have just a few questions, Dr.

[1:48:12] Katz. Uh

[1:48:14] when the sheriff's department brings you

[1:48:15] a dog, uh you mentioned you you own the

[1:48:17] dogs out here at this farm. Do you take

[1:48:19] ownership of that dog when they bring it

[1:48:21] to you?

[1:48:22] » Not now. We have not been working with

[1:48:23] the sheriff's office since this all

[1:48:24] happened.

[1:48:25] » In the future, if this was to go through

[1:48:28] and the sheriff's department brings you

[1:48:30] a dog,

[1:48:31] » Correct. I will take ownership. Yes.

[1:48:33] » You don't take ownership at that at that

[1:48:34] moment.

[1:48:34] » Yeah, so our current Well, what we used

[1:48:37] to do was when the animals came in and

[1:48:39] they were stray, they stayed at the

[1:48:41] sheriff's office during their stray

[1:48:43] hold. As soon as they got off stray

[1:48:44] hold, uh Julia would bring them to us,

[1:48:47] the

[1:48:48] her her his deputy.

[1:48:50] » Um

[1:48:51] » And we would go assess them there for

[1:48:53] them again at my cost. I would go, I'd

[1:48:56] vaccinate them, I'd get them all set up,

[1:48:58] um but they would hold them there

[1:49:00] because they couldn't be mine yet.

[1:49:02] » Um and also in the uh

[1:49:05] staff report, we had a building that

[1:49:08] showed the clinic

[1:49:10] being 14 by 32 and you mentioned 40 by

[1:49:14] 80.

[1:49:15] » So, that was uh an old one.

[1:49:17] » Okay.

[1:49:18] » I I think there there was

[1:49:20] I was meeting with Jonathan probably

[1:49:23] more way more than he would like. So,

[1:49:24] there was different iterations by the

[1:49:26] time we got to this point.

[1:49:27] » Okay.

[1:49:29] So, but it is going to be a 40 by 80.

[1:49:31] » Correct.

[1:49:31] » Okay.

[1:49:38] I believe I have the most recent updated

[1:49:41] exhibits online that they are looking

[1:49:43] at, but if y'all see some revision or

[1:49:44] some version that's outdated, let me

[1:49:46] know and I'll get the most recent and

[1:49:48] show them. Okay?

[1:49:49] » Okay.

[1:49:53] You were talking about um

[1:49:57] I'm just wanted to clarify, but you said

[1:49:59] that you weren't able to do

[1:50:01] what you want you were going to build a

[1:50:03] resident and residence and you weren't

[1:50:05] able to that so you had to find a

[1:50:06] different I'm confused why you couldn't

[1:50:08] build a house on that property.

[1:50:09] » So,

[1:50:11] when um

[1:50:12] when I finally got full ownership, so

[1:50:14] after I sold the or after I purchased

[1:50:17] it, the owners part of the deal was the

[1:50:19] previous owners got to live there for a

[1:50:20] year.

[1:50:21] So, by the time I got um

[1:50:25] the entire place, I guess,

[1:50:27] um

[1:50:28] they uh

[1:50:30] I we were in the overlay or whatever

[1:50:32] that What was that called? The um

[1:50:34] » Michigan Road Overlay 1

[1:50:36] » Yeah, we were tier 1 for the airport

[1:50:37] which

[1:50:39] didn't allow you to build another house.

[1:50:43] » I was just clarifying.

[1:50:53] But you could renovate that house or

[1:50:55] build tear that down and build another

[1:50:57] one.

[1:50:58] » That I don't know. I did not look into

[1:51:00] that.

[1:51:00] » I'm just curious. I just you made it

[1:51:02] sound like I just wanted to clarify.

[1:51:04] Um

[1:51:13] » To be fair, I also didn't want to put

[1:51:14] any additional investments in the

[1:51:15] property being that we were in tier one

[1:51:18] and across the street from the dump and

[1:51:19] it didn't sell for over a year. If I was

[1:51:22] going to live there, that was one thing,

[1:51:23] but the excess noise was something that

[1:51:26] scared me.

[1:51:27] » You waited six months, you would have

[1:51:29] gotten a lot of money for that property,

[1:51:30] probably.

[1:51:31] It was right on the cusp of everything

[1:51:33] blowing up about 50 to 60% so you bought

[1:51:37] it at a good time.

[1:51:39] Worth a lot more now.

[1:51:44] » It's questionable due to its location.

[1:51:47] » No, I would know.

[1:51:55] Any questions?

[1:51:57] » Well, I mean, I it

[1:51:58] you look at some surrounding uses

[1:52:01] that

[1:52:02] aren't R2 and I'm sure they're all zoned

[1:52:04] appropriately and all that.

[1:52:07] Um

[1:52:08] I'm sympathetic to that argument about

[1:52:11] what's around it. I just don't know that

[1:52:13] BZA is the right venue. If if that's the

[1:52:16] argument, it it seems like a a zoning

[1:52:19] change request

[1:52:21] more appropriately than a

[1:52:24] a use variance.

[1:52:26] Um

[1:52:28] Have you considered pursuing it in in

[1:52:30] that avenue and and what brought you

[1:52:31] here and instead of there, I guess?

[1:52:33] » In speaking with my neighbors,

[1:52:35] especially the ones that are in support

[1:52:37] here, they would prefer this use

[1:52:38] variance be tied to me cuz they know how

[1:52:41] I will use the property and I don't

[1:52:44] think they want a zoning change. I think

[1:52:46] they want it

[1:52:47] they just, you know, cuz that would

[1:52:49] allow me to sell it and get a lot more

[1:52:51] for the land.

[1:52:52] But I'm just trying to do what I want to

[1:52:55] like do what I want to do, take care of

[1:52:57] these animals. I'm not trying to

[1:52:59] increase the value of the property in

[1:53:01] that sense or um I think a use variance

[1:53:04] would suffice in

[1:53:07] that case.

[1:53:08] » Okay. I know that.

[1:53:09] » And I think it would appease most of my

[1:53:10] neighbors knowing that

[1:53:12] this is tied to me and this is my use

[1:53:14] and I I mean, I think they know I want

[1:53:16] to be there for a very long time.

[1:53:21] » Okay. Go ahead.

[1:53:22] » No, no, please.

[1:53:23] » And and I know

[1:53:26] my memory isn't great, but you know, we

[1:53:28] we've spoken in this venue before.

[1:53:31] Um I understand you you own the dogs and

[1:53:34] at some point you transfer ownership. Um

[1:53:37] is there payment at the time of of

[1:53:38] transfer?

[1:53:39] » Not to me personally. They make uh

[1:53:42] an adoption donation to whatever shelter

[1:53:46] is adopting out the dog. So, for

[1:53:48] example, Maeve

[1:53:50] I don't know what they're going to

[1:53:51] charge that adopter. It has nothing to

[1:53:53] do with me.

[1:53:55] I will never see a dollar of that, nor

[1:53:56] will the Love Pet Project. That is with

[1:53:59] that adoption agency.

[1:54:02] » Um

[1:54:04] All right. I'm going to chew on that for

[1:54:06] a couple of minutes.

[1:54:07] » So, how do you make your income? Is that

[1:54:08] from your other vet clinic?

[1:54:11] Because obviously, you do wonderful

[1:54:13] work.

[1:54:14] You know, there's no no one's

[1:54:15] questioning the work that you're doing.

[1:54:17] Um

[1:54:18] but

[1:54:20] you know, how do you eat, I guess? You

[1:54:21] don't do everything for free. So

[1:54:24] » I have seven other businesses.

[1:54:25] » Okay. Are they vet clinics?

[1:54:27] » They're all animal adjacent, at least I

[1:54:29] would say. But some of them are

[1:54:31] veterinary.

[1:54:31] » Okay. Not on this site or on a different

[1:54:32] site.

[1:54:33] » Correct.

[1:54:34] I own property elsewhere.

[1:54:35] » Okay.

[1:54:38] And that the reason you're here tonight

[1:54:40] is to get a variance of use to allow an

[1:54:43] animal hospital.

[1:54:45] Correct?

[1:54:46] » Yes, but it will not function as a

[1:54:48] traditional animal hospital.

[1:54:50] » What will it function as?

[1:54:52] » Just caring for my own animals.

[1:54:56] » Okay.

[1:54:57] So

[1:54:58] » So, if I can add a point which also um

[1:55:01] relates back to what what Mr. Hurst was

[1:55:04] asking about, why the uh the use

[1:55:06] variance mechanism is appropriate here

[1:55:09] is because the location of this property

[1:55:11] is part of its limitations, being across

[1:55:14] from the landfill and the fire station,

[1:55:17] which is part of the unique

[1:55:18] characteristics of this property, and it

[1:55:20] makes it kind of a buffer property.

[1:55:23] It's not, you know, it's buffer between

[1:55:26] the Michigan Road,

[1:55:28] uh all the activities there, and

[1:55:30] residential, and the use variance is a

[1:55:33] is a good opportunity for this board to

[1:55:35] create a carve out a specific use that's

[1:55:38] approved that will be a nice buffer

[1:55:40] because this the activity that she does

[1:55:43] it's not a commercial, it's not a

[1:55:45] retail, it's not going to have signage

[1:55:47] or anything like that. It's a continuing

[1:55:50] it it allows her to continue what she's

[1:55:51] been what she's doing and been doing at

[1:55:53] a location that's farther away from the

[1:55:55] remonstrators and more insulated.

[1:55:59] And so it's not it doesn't fall into any

[1:56:02] square

[1:56:04] uh pay square holes that are currently

[1:56:07] living in the zoning ordinance. That's

[1:56:09] why the use variance makes sense to us

[1:56:11] at this time.

[1:56:13] » Why are you not asking for just just out

[1:56:16] of curiosity, you're asking for a

[1:56:19] variance to allow an animal hospital but

[1:56:21] not a kennel?

[1:56:23] Why

[1:56:24] what's the

[1:56:26] » Because that's what my neighbors asked

[1:56:27] me for.

[1:56:28] » Okay.

[1:56:29] » Yeah.

[1:56:29] » But is it more

[1:56:30] » Otherwise, we would have gone for a

[1:56:32] kennel.

[1:56:33] » Okay.

[1:56:33] » Well, that's also the focus on the

[1:56:35] medical care, too.

[1:56:39] » So, what you were saying

[1:56:42] is that because this property can't be

[1:56:45] used for anything else because

[1:56:47] it's adjacent to a firehouse and a waste

[1:56:50] facility,

[1:56:52] you're giving it a

[1:56:53] a use because without you, it wouldn't

[1:56:55] be worth a lot. Is that what you're

[1:56:57] saying?

[1:56:58] » I mean, I think the facts state like it

[1:57:01] was on the market for 312 days, five

[1:57:03] times longer.

[1:57:04] » Uncommon. That was not uncommon for

[1:57:06] Indiana pre-pre-pandemic.

[1:57:08] » But that I mean it was at the same time

[1:57:10] where it was 65 days was the average in

[1:57:12] Zionsville for residential house.

[1:57:14] » Understand, but it's a new day and age

[1:57:16] and

[1:57:17] and I I would say that lot is very

[1:57:19] valuable. Um there's a lot of people

[1:57:21] building, you know,

[1:57:23] selling properties for a hundred a

[1:57:26] million acre next to fire stations and

[1:57:29] huge power lines that I would never want

[1:57:32] in my backyard, either. So, you know,

[1:57:35] I'm just saying I don't know if that's

[1:57:36] the best way to

[1:57:38] » Spending that money for a home site?

[1:57:40] » Absolutely. Absolutely, yeah.

[1:57:42] » I actually I would argue that there is

[1:57:45] the landfill across the street does

[1:57:47] limit this property. Growing up here,

[1:57:50] um

[1:57:51] that site across street's not just

[1:57:53] landfill. That's a Superfund site. When

[1:57:56] I looked, there were actually four

[1:57:57] separate Superfund sites listed

[1:58:00] for that property across the street.

[1:58:03] That's So there there is a challenge

[1:58:05] with this property from that standpoint.

[1:58:07] » Couldn't pay me to live next to a huge

[1:58:09] power plant. I know what kind of voltage

[1:58:12] comes off that whether or not people

[1:58:15] realize that. So, I think that's also

[1:58:17] what are people's pain limits and what

[1:58:19] do they the knowledge base of what

[1:58:21] they're willing to, you know, I mean,

[1:58:22] trust me, I agree with you. I would

[1:58:24] never live there. I'm just it's

[1:58:25] surprising to me that the acre just sold

[1:58:27] gobs for that.

[1:58:29] » Adjacent to the

[1:58:31] » [clears throat]

[1:58:31] » That's true.

[1:58:33] » Yeah.

[1:58:33] » But this is again where I think the

[1:58:35] market speaks for itself, but

[1:58:37] also, I mean, speaking of the Superfund

[1:58:40] site, they come on my property every 3

[1:58:42] months to test my well water to see if

[1:58:43] it's safe to drink. Um

[1:58:46] I would never drink the water there. I

[1:58:48] don't care what they say.

[1:58:49] Um But, so,

[1:58:51] » [laughter]

[1:58:51] » It's just, you know, it is it isn't. Um

[1:58:54] and I think my neighbor Nick can speak

[1:58:56] to it. He showed the property

[1:58:57] um and his property several times. And

[1:59:01] multiple times the reason they didn't

[1:59:02] purchase it was because of the Superfund

[1:59:04] site and the um fire station.

[1:59:09] » Well, do you guys have any other

[1:59:10] questions?

[1:59:12] » No, I think I'd like to hear.

[1:59:13] » Okay, perfect. Thank you guys so much.

[1:59:15] » I do think two of my neighbors came in

[1:59:16] after the papers were

[1:59:18] uh

[1:59:19] » Okay, I'll I'll make sure to open it up

[1:59:20] once I get through the list.

[1:59:22] Um okay, Eric Nelson.

[1:59:30] Just state your name and address.

[1:59:33] » I am Eric Nelson. Uh I live at 90 9755

[1:59:38] East 100 South and we also have a lot at

[1:59:40] 9705

[1:59:42] East 100 South.

[1:59:44] Um

[1:59:46] we have been living there since

[1:59:49] 2014 when we bought it from the original

[1:59:52] owners,

[1:59:53] uh Gary and Jenny Flora.

[1:59:56] And that property did operate very well

[1:59:59] as an R2.

[2:00:01] Um

[2:00:03] they had horses, not dogs, not a

[2:00:06] hospital,

[2:00:08] and they had

[2:00:09] 20-some-odd horses there for many years.

[2:00:13] Um

[2:00:16] uh First, I want to thank you

[2:00:18] for

[2:00:20] um

[2:00:20] again for listening to both sides of

[2:00:22] this issue yet again.

[2:00:26] Unfortunately, not a lot has changed

[2:00:28] since you heard this petition and ruled

[2:00:31] against it earlier this year.

[2:00:34] The cover page now states this will be a

[2:00:37] hospital.

[2:00:39] But as you read on, it's still the same

[2:00:42] kennel operation which Dr. Katz

[2:00:44] continues to run

[2:00:46] out of a house with no with no one

[2:00:49] living there or attending to these

[2:00:51] animals overnight.

[2:00:53] She could have lived in that house that

[2:00:56] stood there as the Flores did and the

[2:00:59] people that she bought it from.

[2:01:02] Um

[2:01:03] she describes this in detail in the

[2:01:06] attached deposition.

[2:01:08] There was some misinformation in

[2:01:10] documents presented to you

[2:01:13] as support documents.

[2:01:16] I like to deal with facts and truth in

[2:01:19] making my decisions

[2:01:21] and I was truly offended when she blamed

[2:01:24] my wife

[2:01:25] um

[2:01:26] for uh

[2:01:28] all this situation that that we're

[2:01:31] involved in now and saying that I

[2:01:33] approved.

[2:01:35] That never happened.

[2:01:38] Um

[2:01:41] » That's good.

[2:01:42] » I like to

[2:01:42] » Situation, I just want to say one thing.

[2:01:44] The situation has also changed over the

[2:01:46] last couple of years. So, it started out

[2:01:48] as puppies, it was fine, but then we

[2:01:50] went to rescuing dogs from the sheriff's

[2:01:52] office and again, there's nobody there

[2:01:54] at night. So, these are puppies and

[2:01:56] adult dogs. There were outdoor runs.

[2:01:58] She's showing you that they're in the

[2:02:00] house now in the residence, but that's

[2:02:02] the change that was made. They're in a

[2:02:04] shed right outside our place. So, so

[2:02:07] this you know, sound mitigation, that's

[2:02:09] all great and and nobody is against

[2:02:11] rescuing dogs, absolutely not. It's just

[2:02:14] the way this business is being run, it's

[2:02:16] run out of a house. Um there's lots of

[2:02:19] cars there, there's lots of employees

[2:02:21] there. It's a residence, but nobody

[2:02:23] lives there. So,

[2:02:25] again, we just want to thank you for

[2:02:27] hearing the petition again, listening to

[2:02:29] both sides and our attorney's going to

[2:02:31] say more.

[2:02:31] » I'll speak now.

[2:02:33] Stay here though.

[2:02:34] » Yep.

[2:02:35] Uh

[2:02:36] thank you uh members of the uh Board of

[2:02:38] Zoning Appeals. My name is Mike

[2:02:40] Andreoli, 1393 West Oak Street. Uh have

[2:02:43] represented the Nelsons for a number of

[2:02:45] years with regard to this particular

[2:02:47] situation. Uh and continue to represent

[2:02:51] them tonight. I'm going to try to be

[2:02:53] very brief. I've submitted written

[2:02:55] materials to you twice now with the

[2:02:57] supplemental just on on just a few days

[2:03:01] ago. I apologize for the lateness of the

[2:03:03] supplemental. A counsel for

[2:03:06] Dr. Katz indicated that they were going

[2:03:09] to need a a in a continuance of this uh

[2:03:12] midweek of last week

[2:03:15] and kind enough to ask me if my thoughts

[2:03:18] about if I had any objection to it. He

[2:03:20] had a conflict and of course I tried to

[2:03:22] be accommodating and said no. If you

[2:03:24] needed to be a continue get a

[2:03:26] continuance, we would try to not be in

[2:03:29] opposition to that if you actually have

[2:03:30] a conflict. And then the mind was

[2:03:32] changed and then Friday we learned no

[2:03:35] that matter is going to be put on. So I

[2:03:38] had a I had to regenerate what I was

[2:03:40] thinking of doing the week before. So I

[2:03:42] apologize for that. Couple of different

[2:03:45] things I think it

[2:03:47] need to understand.

[2:03:49] This isn't a 17-acre site.

[2:03:53] This is actually two separate lots.

[2:03:57] It It amounts to 17 acres.

[2:03:59] But the portrayal of this is all one lot

[2:04:01] of 17 acres. These are two parcels.

[2:04:04] First parcel is a 5-acre parcel at the

[2:04:08] corner of County Road 100 Road by the

[2:04:10] way, which is a gravel road and Michigan

[2:04:13] Road. So that's 5 acres. The balance of

[2:04:16] the ground is from that the western

[2:04:20] terminus of the 5 acres all the way to

[2:04:23] my client's property line. So

[2:04:25] in essence there are two parcels making

[2:04:27] this up. Uh that's significant because

[2:04:31] in our efforts to try to be cooperative

[2:04:34] and said look, if you're going to e-

[2:04:36] either seek a rezoning or a use variance

[2:04:38] or something to locate a veterinary

[2:04:41] hospital,

[2:04:43] if that's what you needed, a veterinary

[2:04:44] hospital,

[2:04:46] put it

[2:04:47] at Michigan Road.

[2:04:49] Put it next to Michigan Road. Put it

[2:04:51] where that there there's traffic there,

[2:04:53] there's noise there. Uh now, uh that's

[2:04:57] the appropriate place to put this

[2:05:00] proposed veterinary hospital if if it's

[2:05:03] if it's going to be put at all.

[2:05:05] I I'm reminded of the uh the uh

[2:05:09] uh application that came before you

[2:05:11] tonight for use variance and reminded of

[2:05:14] the application that was approved a

[2:05:15] number of years ago for Hopwood Cellar.

[2:05:18] And they I understand he's got a

[2:05:20] purchaser for that and they're coming

[2:05:22] back uh with some additional site plan

[2:05:25] uh and uh architectural requirements,

[2:05:27] but when we did that use variance,

[2:05:30] we had a we had to talk to the state of

[2:05:32] Indiana

[2:05:33] uh off of 421. We had to get uh

[2:05:36] approvals and comments from the from the

[2:05:39] highway department. We had have detailed

[2:05:42] renderings of that, and those of you

[2:05:44] that were on the board remember that. We

[2:05:45] had very detailed renderings of what it

[2:05:47] was going to look like, a very detailed

[2:05:49] and engineered site plan. We had some

[2:05:52] preliminary drainage issues. We had a

[2:05:54] number of other issues. We don't know

[2:05:56] whether this is going to be on septic or

[2:05:57] well, and if the water's so bad,

[2:06:01] uh what is this even being located on a

[2:06:04] septic or or a well uh if in fact that's

[2:06:07] what it's going to be?

[2:06:09] There's no detailed site plan with this.

[2:06:12] This is not This is not ready for

[2:06:14] primetime under any circumstance and

[2:06:17] puts uh staff in a particularly

[2:06:19] difficult position cuz they don't really

[2:06:20] have anything to review. And if you give

[2:06:23] an approval, most of the approvals on

[2:06:26] use variances or on a lot of these

[2:06:27] projects or subject to the actual site

[2:06:30] plan that you that you develop in

[2:06:33] accordance with the site plan that's

[2:06:35] being proposed for the use variance. We

[2:06:37] don't even have a legitimate site plan

[2:06:39] in this particular situation. They have

[2:06:42] what what is looks like an AI-generated

[2:06:45] uh

[2:06:46] area, but we don't have any dimensions,

[2:06:48] we don't have any of those things

[2:06:51] connected with a normal use variance

[2:06:53] that has been approved all and up and

[2:06:56] down Michigan Road for a number of

[2:06:58] years. And the architecture that we have

[2:07:00] there and the development that we have

[2:07:02] there is just been wonderful, but it's

[2:07:05] because of the the detailed nature of

[2:07:07] what has been presented. Uh

[2:07:10] So, that that's a that's a real concern.

[2:07:13] The other concern is

[2:07:15] uh as as I mentioned to you in my

[2:07:17] supplemental,

[2:07:19] uh they're asking for a 1-year approval

[2:07:21] to go ahead and construct. Well, that

[2:07:23] just gives them a stopgap measure in the

[2:07:25] litigation that's going on so that they

[2:07:28] they can argue that they've been given

[2:07:30] approval, but they they they may or may

[2:07:32] not ever ever build, they'll just

[2:07:34] continue to utilize the property as it's

[2:07:36] currently as it's currently utilized,

[2:07:38] which we believe is is a nuisance and in

[2:07:43] contra- contradiction to the zoning

[2:07:46] ordinances that that we have here in

[2:07:48] Zion as as it relates to the use of that

[2:07:50] particular realm.

[2:07:52] Finally, one of my

[2:07:54] one of my concerns were what I I and I I

[2:07:57] was looking at the things that were

[2:07:58] coming in and out, and I'm sure as staff

[2:08:00] was, various things that that changed

[2:08:03] and submitted to try to get a handle on

[2:08:05] exactly what are they proposing out

[2:08:07] there.

[2:08:08] They They Their initial application was

[2:08:11] for a veterinary hospital.

[2:08:14] Well,

[2:08:15] that sounds good, but when you look at

[2:08:17] all of the veterinary hospitals, and I

[2:08:19] provided you with pictures and

[2:08:21] everything of the veterinary hospitals

[2:08:23] in and around this area, two things

[2:08:25] stand out. One, they're in

[2:08:27] truly commercial districts.

[2:08:29] And two, none of them have kennels.

[2:08:33] Th-

[2:08:34] This is This is not a veterinary

[2:08:37] hospital. This is a kennel masquerading

[2:08:40] as a veterinary hospital. So, aside from

[2:08:42] some of the legal requirements and the

[2:08:44] legal objections that we have as it

[2:08:46] relates to the setbacks that would that

[2:08:49] would be required with regard to kennels

[2:08:52] that the county has imposed and

[2:08:54] presumably are now part of Zion's

[2:08:56] ordinances,

[2:08:58] uh

[2:08:58] this is really not a a veterinary

[2:09:00] hospital at all.

[2:09:02] Uh

[2:09:06] Let me sum up by saying I I understand

[2:09:09] the the concern about trying to help

[2:09:13] animals and

[2:09:14] uh and I understand the the desire to do

[2:09:17] good work and I'm not here to suggest

[2:09:20] that the Dr. Katz is not doing good work

[2:09:24] and doesn't have her heart in the right

[2:09:26] place as it relates to trying to protect

[2:09:29] animals and do those types of things.

[2:09:31] I think we could probably all agree to

[2:09:33] that.

[2:09:35] But,

[2:09:36] members of the Board of Zoning Appeals,

[2:09:39] doing good work

[2:09:42] uh and having a noble cause has never

[2:09:45] been

[2:09:46] the litmus test for good planning and

[2:09:48] zoning in the town of Zion's Hill. It

[2:09:50] just hasn't.

[2:09:52] I I've never had a client who thought

[2:09:54] that they didn't do good work.

[2:09:57] Uh I've never heard of somebody

[2:09:59] presenting on behalf of a client who

[2:10:00] didn't think they did good work.

[2:10:03] Uh that doesn't translate on whether or

[2:10:05] this is the right location.

[2:10:07] It is not the right location for this

[2:10:09] particular

[2:10:11] uh

[2:10:11] for this particular use of the property.

[2:10:15] And I I I I tend to agree with

[2:10:19] with one of the members of the Board of

[2:10:21] Zoning Appeals that suggested maybe the

[2:10:24] the better approach is to try to see if

[2:10:27] you could seek a rezoning

[2:10:29] in and along Michigan Road to have a

[2:10:32] land use change where all of the

[2:10:34] particulars are going to have to be met.

[2:10:36] The town council is going to have to be

[2:10:37] consulted. Is that part of what we want

[2:10:41] to see in and along Michigan Road? The

[2:10:44] other advantage of that is they have to

[2:10:46] conform with the Michigan Road Overlay

[2:10:49] District as all others who have located

[2:10:52] in and along Michigan Road. So, it's

[2:10:54] this is really a cynical attempt to move

[2:10:57] it to the center of the property, come

[2:10:59] off of Michigan Road by 400 ft, and

[2:11:02] therefore not have any architectural uh

[2:11:05] standards with regard to this. We don't

[2:11:07] have a rendering. We have no

[2:11:09] architectural standards. We have nothing

[2:11:11] as part of this application.

[2:11:13] Uh and so, uh we would respectfully uh

[2:11:16] request that the uh board deny this uh

[2:11:20] use variance. Thank you, members.

[2:11:24] » Why don't you guys stay up for a minute

[2:11:25] in case there's any questions? Can you

[2:11:27] guys just stay at the podium for a

[2:11:28] minute?

[2:11:29] If you guys have any questions.

[2:11:31] No? Okay.

[2:11:33] All right, never mind. Go ahead and sit

[2:11:35] down.

[2:11:36] Um

[2:11:39] Okay, I have a Jeremy.

[2:11:55] » Um Jeremy McLain from Boone County

[2:11:57] Sheriff's Office, 1905 Indianapolis

[2:11:59] Avenue. It's in Lebanon, 46052.

[2:12:02] Um I did submit a letter um

[2:12:04] on behalf of the Sheriff's Office in

[2:12:06] support of Dr. Katz in what she does.

[2:12:09] Um

[2:12:09] you know, we started this program

[2:12:12] um when we started it, you know, we were

[2:12:14] averaging keeping dogs for

[2:12:16] 7 days.

[2:12:18] Um right now we're keeping dogs right

[2:12:20] around 2 and 1/2 months um before we can

[2:12:24] get the Humane Society to step up and um

[2:12:27] take these dogs.

[2:12:28] So, you know, that burden itself on us,

[2:12:31] on the sheriff's office, on animal

[2:12:32] control, on the taxpayers, you know, it

[2:12:34] just it it just mounts. Um you know,

[2:12:37] when she was doing it like she said, you

[2:12:38] know, we would bring a dog in if we knew

[2:12:40] it was a stray, she would come to the

[2:12:41] facility, she would assess it, she would

[2:12:43] treat it. Once the stray hold was up, we

[2:12:46] would take it to her facility, sign it

[2:12:48] over to her, and then she would um adopt

[2:12:52] it out. Um

[2:12:53] you know, she she showed you Maeve on

[2:12:55] there. That actually Maeve was actually

[2:12:57] seized from Zanesville

[2:12:58] from the apartments just right up here

[2:13:00] on um Michigan Road. I received a call

[2:13:03] um

[2:13:03] on uh

[2:13:05] election day this year at 4:00 in the

[2:13:07] afternoon

[2:13:08] from several Zanesville officers. They

[2:13:10] went into an apartment and the dog was

[2:13:12] was laying there in a kennel.

[2:13:13] Um I was able to contact Dr. Katz

[2:13:15] immediately um

[2:13:17] and met with him and

[2:13:19] she said, "No questions asked." She

[2:13:20] said, "Bring it to

[2:13:22] um the Animal Surgery Center." When I

[2:13:23] got there, herself and the other uh

[2:13:26] veterinarian there, Dr. Ball, were there

[2:13:28] waiting. Um the dog was was basically it

[2:13:31] was gone.

[2:13:32] And they they spent several hours that

[2:13:34] night um bringing her back.

[2:13:36] Um and like she said, she monitored her

[2:13:38] for several months or I'm sorry, they

[2:13:39] they monitored there for several weeks,

[2:13:41] and then once she was healthy enough we

[2:13:42] brought her back to the kennels, and

[2:13:43] then today we were able to

[2:13:45] get her adopted out. So, um Zanesville

[2:13:48] police called me because, you know, they

[2:13:50] contacted every local vet there. Every

[2:13:53] local vet wanted

[2:13:55] payment up front. Nobody was going to

[2:13:57] going to save this dog unless they could

[2:13:58] pay the bill up front.

[2:14:00] Um Dr. Katz still to this day has never

[2:14:03] sent us a bill.

[2:14:04] Um which in turn, you know, obviously is

[2:14:07] is a huge

[2:14:08] uh benefit for us. And that's not the

[2:14:10] first dog like that. There's been

[2:14:11] several dogs um that she's taken in for

[2:14:14] us that she's done that and we've never

[2:14:16] once received a bill. Um

[2:14:18] so I you know, I can't you know,

[2:14:22] express enough, you know, the important

[2:14:24] work that she does especially for for us

[2:14:26] and the residents of the county. It's

[2:14:27] it's never cost us a dime. You know, I I

[2:14:29] really hope you guys approve the

[2:14:30] variance that way we can get back to uh

[2:14:33] you know, our work with her. Right now,

[2:14:35] you know, we have six kennels at the

[2:14:36] sheriff's office.

[2:14:37] Um when those are full,

[2:14:40] if a dog comes if somebody from calls

[2:14:42] and says I've got a dog,

[2:14:43] we we can't take it. We say we're sorry.

[2:14:46] It's it's got to roam. There's nothing

[2:14:47] we can do with it.

[2:14:49] Um so, appreciate that. Thank you.

[2:14:52] » Yeah.

[2:14:55] Uh Nick

[2:14:59] » Thank you.

[2:15:00] » Nick Labuelette is ready.

[2:15:08] » Uh Nick Labuelette, I'm right across the

[2:15:10] street 9860 East 100 South.

[2:15:14] Um okay. So, I guess this is like

[2:15:17] the second or third time I've been here

[2:15:18] to tell you that they're great

[2:15:19] neighbors.

[2:15:20] Um

[2:15:22] they're great.

[2:15:23] They're always there to help out. She is

[2:15:26] not absent. She's there

[2:15:28] before I leave the house every day. Just

[2:15:29] because she doesn't live on the property

[2:15:31] does not mean she's not there.

[2:15:33] Um

[2:15:34] what we're really talking about here

[2:15:36] today with this variance was at the

[2:15:37] request

[2:15:39] of the other neighbors.

[2:15:42] And the only thing it does is allow them

[2:15:44] allow her to have the dogs she owns that

[2:15:47] are over the age of 4 months.

[2:15:50] That's all we're really trying to do.

[2:15:52] That she's trying to do.

[2:15:54] So, that is the designation of a kennel

[2:15:58] would not allow that. And that's what

[2:16:00] she's after. She wants her dogs that she

[2:16:02] personally owns that are over 4 months

[2:16:05] to be able to live on her property.

[2:16:09] That's all.

[2:16:13] » Nick

[2:16:14] I have some It doesn't say your last

[2:16:16] name on here. Just doesn't

[2:16:17] No, it doesn't. It says D E N N Y.

[2:16:19] Denny?

[2:16:21] I mean, it's poor penmanship, but it

[2:16:23] doesn't say Love yet. I'm just making

[2:16:25] sure I didn't miss somebody in the

[2:16:26] audience that

[2:16:28] I mean, am I crazy?

[2:16:30] » I got here late, so I actually that

[2:16:33] paper was not down, but maybe somebody

[2:16:35] put my name down.

[2:16:36] » Okay, I just wanted to make sure I was

[2:16:38] getting cuz we keep these

[2:16:41] Yeah, there seems to be a different Nick

[2:16:42] on here, so I I was just verifying.

[2:16:45] Sorry.

[2:16:46] You're good. I just

[2:16:47] » [laughter]

[2:16:49] » I I accept that he knows his last name.

[2:16:51] I accept

[2:16:51] » Yeah, well, is there another Nick in the

[2:16:53] audience that was wrote their name down

[2:16:55] here that's not this Nick? No? Okay.

[2:16:59] Okay.

[2:17:00] Didn't miss anyone then.

[2:17:06] Oh, does anyone online? Oh, yeah.

[2:17:08] Please, come up. Okay, thank you. Please

[2:17:10] state your name. Welcome to come up.

[2:17:12] Sorry.

[2:17:13] » Only if your name is Nick.

[2:17:15] » Yeah.

[2:17:16] With the last name Denny.

[2:17:21] » Uh yeah, my name is Marcus Hendry. I

[2:17:22] live at 9602 East 100 South. So, I'm

[2:17:25] about 1/4 mile down the road. Um

[2:17:28] and uh I've had the opportunity to visit

[2:17:32] her cats' property and talk to her about

[2:17:34] specifically what she wants to do and

[2:17:36] what that's going to look like and the

[2:17:38] whole the whole purpose of it. Um and uh

[2:17:41] and everything that she's tried to done

[2:17:43] in in communication with her closest

[2:17:46] neighbor in terms of like

[2:17:48] mitigation of any noise in terms of the

[2:17:50] scheduling outside dog time in terms of

[2:17:52] like you know

[2:17:54] old plans to convert a structure and to

[2:17:55] insulate it better to mitigate some of

[2:17:57] that to putting the decibel meter out

[2:17:59] and and all of these conversations

[2:18:01] really lead me to believe that she's

[2:18:02] trying to do the right thing for the

[2:18:03] neighbors Um and and just very much in

[2:18:06] support of that. It really is a very

[2:18:10] unique situation. It's not a It's not a

[2:18:14] She's not boarding other people's dogs

[2:18:17] and operating as a kennel. These are

[2:18:19] These are her own animals. It's not a

[2:18:21] traditional, you know, veterinary animal

[2:18:24] hospital. That's why she doesn't want to

[2:18:25] you know be out there on Michigan Road

[2:18:27] with a storefront, you know, for for

[2:18:28] commercial traffic because it's not what

[2:18:30] she's trying to do. She

[2:18:31] specifically does not want commercial,

[2:18:33] you know, commercial traffic. She

[2:18:35] specifically has stated she does not

[2:18:37] want people to know that she's there

[2:18:38] because she doesn't need a whole bunch

[2:18:40] of you know people dropping off a whole

[2:18:41] bunch of animals that she doesn't have

[2:18:43] the capacity to take care of. She just

[2:18:44] wants to operate in the way that she's

[2:18:46] operating. So, to to say well, this

[2:18:49] needs to be out on Michigan Road really

[2:18:50] defeats the whole you know, purpose of

[2:18:52] what she's trying to do and that's why I

[2:18:53] think this use variance is is

[2:18:55] appropriate because, you know, use

[2:18:58] variances there for the outlying

[2:19:00] situations, I think. It's not for It's

[2:19:02] not for your It's not for your standard

[2:19:05] thing where like a zoning change is is

[2:19:07] is is is is what's in order. And uh

[2:19:10] specifically, I don't want a zoning

[2:19:12] change, you know. I'm okay with what

[2:19:14] she's doing and what she's proposing and

[2:19:16] that's great. And I trust her based upon

[2:19:19] my conversations, you know, that that's

[2:19:21] going to be in keeping with what we want

[2:19:22] in that community

[2:19:24] because the alternative is, you know, if

[2:19:26] she has to end up selling that and it

[2:19:28] does get rezoned and I think this is

[2:19:30] something that, you know, that the

[2:19:31] immediate neighbors should be concerned

[2:19:32] about, too. You know, there's more

[2:19:34] expansion, you know, Bradley Ridge is

[2:19:36] coming up, you know, a right up on us in

[2:19:38] terms of that development and more

[2:19:39] development up up 421. And so, if if

[2:19:43] somebody's not keeping that property in

[2:19:44] keeping what it is,

[2:19:46] then it probably is going to end up, you

[2:19:48] know, getting rezoned, you know,

[2:19:50] commercial and there's going to be, you

[2:19:51] know, a gas station on that corner or

[2:19:53] some other stuff that you don't want

[2:19:54] compared to what, you know, to what

[2:19:55] you're getting now. And that's why we

[2:19:57] don't want, you know, a zoning change.

[2:19:59] You know, we just want her to be able to

[2:20:01] do what she's been doing. Um

[2:20:03] and, you know, I walk by that property

[2:20:05] with my dogs three, four times a week.

[2:20:08] Um

[2:20:08] and

[2:20:10] I

[2:20:10] if there's a noise problem, I'm not

[2:20:12] hearing it.

[2:20:13] Um at my house,

[2:20:15] you know, 1/4 mile away, I hear the

[2:20:17] dump. I hear, you know, I hear that

[2:20:19] equipment there. You know, and they're

[2:20:20] much closer to that. And and and I don't

[2:20:23] think you can underestimate like

[2:20:26] what that does to the value of the

[2:20:27] property. I mean, I hear what you're

[2:20:28] saying that you think there's a lot of

[2:20:29] value to it, but if you spend a lot of

[2:20:30] time around there, you know, I wouldn't

[2:20:32] want to buy that property and put it and

[2:20:34] put my house there. You know, so um so

[2:20:36] it is a unique property and it you know,

[2:20:38] in a unique spot that has unique

[2:20:40] considerations with somebody that is a

[2:20:43] trying to be a great neighbor doing very

[2:20:44] unique work that nobody else is doing uh

[2:20:47] that's really helping our community. Um

[2:20:49] and uh

[2:20:50] for those reasons, I'm I'm in support of

[2:20:52] it.

[2:20:53] » Thank you so much.

[2:20:55] » Questions?

[2:20:56] » No. Okay.

[2:20:57] » Any questions?

[2:20:58] » Was there anybody else in the audience

[2:21:00] that wanted to speak this evening?

[2:21:02] No.

[2:21:06] Any fellow board members, do you have

[2:21:07] any comments?

[2:21:15] » The uh

[2:21:17] we're having a lot of lot of fun ones

[2:21:19] here uh recently where you

[2:21:23] have a lot of sympathy for the mission

[2:21:24] and what's trying to be accomplished,

[2:21:25] but it um

[2:21:27] in in my opinion runs a runs a foul of

[2:21:30] the ordinances and expectations of land

[2:21:33] use here in Zionsville.

[2:21:35] Um

[2:21:37] it it

[2:21:39] to the extent sympathy helps, if if this

[2:21:43] were uh Dr. Katz's residence,

[2:21:46] I could

[2:21:47] try to work harder to understand how

[2:21:49] ownership of the dogs interplayed in all

[2:21:52] this.

[2:21:53] Um

[2:21:54] Um

[2:21:56] but Dr. Katz doesn't live there and uh

[2:21:59] but there is an operation of some sort

[2:22:01] going out on over there that I I

[2:22:03] understand it may not

[2:22:05] uh financially reward Dr. Katz. It does

[2:22:08] seem like a commercial operation.

[2:22:10] Um

[2:22:12] I could work harder on figuring this out

[2:22:14] if if it were nearer um

[2:22:18] Michigan Road.

[2:22:20] Um

[2:22:22] I kind of still stand by my

[2:22:25] that if we need to change the use of the

[2:22:26] property, maybe that's a question for

[2:22:29] Plan Commission and Town Council.

[2:22:32] Um looking at the at at the factors, uh

[2:22:36] there are a number that

[2:22:38] that even if

[2:22:40] if the BZA is inclined to find a way to

[2:22:43] grant

[2:22:44] a uh

[2:22:45] grant this use variance, I think this

[2:22:48] would have to be continued cuz there

[2:22:49] have to be a lot of work to do on what

[2:22:52] operations and buffers and all these

[2:22:53] things, site plans, all this.

[2:22:56] Um

[2:22:58] but I I'm

[2:22:59] stuck on the um

[2:23:01] that there's something unusual about

[2:23:03] this property that it could not be put

[2:23:05] » Mhm.

[2:23:05] » To conforming use.

[2:23:06] » Yeah.

[2:23:08] Yeah, I would I would agree with that

[2:23:09] that

[2:23:10] this is the second time

[2:23:12] um that they've come through. I wasn't

[2:23:14] here for the the the first time. That

[2:23:16] was I think there was three, right?

[2:23:18] Maybe you were here for the that third

[2:23:20] » I know I was here. I don't know

[2:23:22] » But um yeah, not having really any site

[2:23:27] plans, you know, nothing was to scale.

[2:23:30] Um

[2:23:32] somewhat of a shotty rendering, quite

[2:23:33] frankly. Um

[2:23:36] it's really hard to just, you know, put

[2:23:38] a big stamp of approval on this and not

[2:23:40] knowing what that looks like. I agree

[2:23:42] with you that there should be a use

[2:23:44] change.

[2:23:45] And um just because

[2:23:47] » I'll be clear. I didn't say there should

[2:23:49] be a use change

[2:23:50] » I'm saying that's what they should

[2:23:51] That's what they should seek is what I'm

[2:23:52] saying. It makes the most sense. No,

[2:23:54] thank you. That's That's what I'm

[2:23:55] saying.

[2:23:56] Um,

[2:23:59] and, you know, just because you're on a

[2:24:00] Michigan road doesn't mean anyone can

[2:24:02] walk on your property, especially for

[2:24:03] not advertising, but, um,

[2:24:07] I also think this 5-year thing is, um,

[2:24:12] you know, a long time to build a very

[2:24:14] what seems to be small structure, but,

[2:24:16] um,

[2:24:22] yeah, so I'm having trouble with that.

[2:24:27] I'm stuck in the weeds over

[2:24:30] the variance allowing a veterinary

[2:24:33] animal hospital, but it's not an animal

[2:24:36] hospital.

[2:24:38] So, if you approve it to be an animal

[2:24:40] hospital, but admittedly it is not

[2:24:44] operating quite as that,

[2:24:46] then is that

[2:24:50] What are you allowing?

[2:24:52] » I think I can speak to that if there's

[2:24:54] confusion. I'm going to plug my computer

[2:24:56] back in.

[2:24:59] So, we have a definition, uh,

[2:25:01] for what we define as a vet animal

[2:25:03] hospital or clinic, and I'm going to

[2:25:05] hopefully pull it up on the screen if my

[2:25:06] computer will work.

[2:25:08] Um, the one thing I want to point to is

[2:25:09] the the the last statement, right? So,

[2:25:12] I've highlighted it for you, but the

[2:25:13] last statement's the important part that

[2:25:15] temporary boarding

[2:25:16] on the premises as an accessory use is

[2:25:18] allowed.

[2:25:19] So,

[2:25:21] correct me if I'm wrong, but what what

[2:25:23] the petitioner is doing is essentially

[2:25:25] helping sick animals,

[2:25:27] making them better,

[2:25:29] and

[2:25:30] I'm going to use the word that the

[2:25:31] zoning ordinance uses, temporarily

[2:25:33] boarding them until they are then

[2:25:35] adopted at some other location.

[2:25:39] Um, and that's the other thing, just on

[2:25:41] a side note, I know the petitioner wants

[2:25:44] to respond as a rebuttal as the rules

[2:25:47] allow.

[2:25:48] So once we're done with all of this

[2:25:49] » Discussion first, yes.

[2:25:50] » Um so yeah, you'll be allowed.

[2:25:52] Um so I I think if does that answer your

[2:25:54] question as to she's going to be helping

[2:25:56] the sick animals and then temporarily

[2:25:58] boarding them as defined by the vet

[2:26:00] animal hospital or clinic until they are

[2:26:02] then adopted.

[2:26:03] » With that?

[2:26:04] » I believe this would cover

[2:26:06] un- unless this does not cover some

[2:26:09] component of the business that I'm not

[2:26:10] aware of.

[2:26:11] » Okay. And temporary boarding is

[2:26:15] » Good The good news or the bad news,

[2:26:16] however you want to look at it, is our

[2:26:18] zoning ordinance does not define

[2:26:19] boarding.

[2:26:20] Right? So I'm not 100% sure what that

[2:26:22] would be defined as.

[2:26:24] Um and the person I always go to to

[2:26:26] define temporary is Mike Dell. So I'm

[2:26:28] not 100% sure what that would look like.

[2:26:30] Um

[2:26:32] » I think what Jonathan's saying is that

[2:26:33] the the particular use was chosen

[2:26:36] because it would allow at least the

[2:26:38] petitioner believes it would allow allow

[2:26:40] what she already does, the temporary

[2:26:42] boarding,

[2:26:43] and that may be why it was chosen it

[2:26:46] because it would uh

[2:26:47] the umbrella of that one use uh

[2:26:50] veterinary hospital would allow some of

[2:26:51] the other things she wants to do. And I

[2:26:53] think that's that's what you're saying,

[2:26:54] right?

[2:26:54] » Yeah, this is And the other statement

[2:26:56] they made, I think, was a good

[2:26:57] statement. They're trying to fit a

[2:26:58] square peg into a round hole. What they

[2:27:01] do isn't spelled out word for word

[2:27:04] exactly as a use allowed in our use

[2:27:06] table or defined in our use table. And

[2:27:08] so this was the closest

[2:27:11] um defined use that we had that aligned

[2:27:15] with

[2:27:16] what she does at her site or at least I

[2:27:18] believe what she does at her site.

[2:27:21] Um So that I hope that answers your

[2:27:23] question as far as

[2:27:25] the confusion as to why she's asking for

[2:27:27] a vet hospital. It allows for the

[2:27:29] temporary boarding of the animal until

[2:27:31] it such time it's been adopted to some

[2:27:33] other place.

[2:27:35] » Thank Thank you.

[2:27:39] » Josh, do you have any any comments

[2:27:41] before I bring the petitioner back up?

[2:27:44] » Trying to get myself around the all five

[2:27:46] criteria here. Number one and number

[2:27:48] two, I agree with staff. We don't have

[2:27:50] enough information at this time to

[2:27:53] to determine

[2:27:54] uh

[2:27:56] number uh three, the the need for the

[2:27:59] variance derives from some condition

[2:28:01] particular to the property involved. I

[2:28:03] will say that having a landfill across

[2:28:05] the street and being a super fund site

[2:28:07] would get I would disagree with staff on

[2:28:09] that and give them that one.

[2:28:11] Um

[2:28:14] I'm having trouble with uh hardship and

[2:28:17] um

[2:28:19] comp plan I'm still struggling with. I

[2:28:22] mean

[2:28:23] I Jim mentioned a continuance. Um I

[2:28:26] would be supportive of that. Maybe try

[2:28:28] to get them to

[2:28:29] firm up one and two for us a little bit

[2:28:32] so that staff can give us a decision on

[2:28:34] it.

[2:28:35] Um

[2:28:36] that's where I stand on it right now.

[2:28:38] Essentially, I look at it as it's it's

[2:28:40] going to be a private veterinary

[2:28:42] hospital.

[2:28:43] It's not it doesn't sound like it's

[2:28:44] going to be public. It's going to be a

[2:28:46] private veterinary hospital.

[2:28:48] Um

[2:28:50] » In R2 though.

[2:28:51] » It and exactly, in R2. So, um

[2:28:57] if I had to make a decision right now, I

[2:28:59] I can't fill all five criteria.

[2:29:02] So.

[2:29:03] » Ask a question.

[2:29:05] » Sure.

[2:29:05] » Um

[2:29:07] just to give better guidance to the

[2:29:08] petitioner, right? So, one of the

[2:29:09] concerns is buffering. And I misspoke

[2:29:12] when I was giving the staff report

[2:29:13] saying it was AG. It's actually R2 to

[2:29:15] R2, right?

[2:29:16] Which if you I thought my computer was

[2:29:19] up. It's not.

[2:29:20] If you look, for example, one of the

[2:29:22] concerns is um

[2:29:26] All right, this was the most recent.

[2:29:28] Maybe I got the wrong iteration of the

[2:29:30] commitments, but insert minimum standard

[2:29:32] of trees needed in buffer. That's what I

[2:29:34] had put on as the exhibit. And my

[2:29:36] concern, you know, as it's as it relates

[2:29:38] to that, if you look at R2 to R2,

[2:29:41] buffer yard B,

[2:29:43] so it's entirely possible

[2:29:45] and allowed, right, by right,

[2:29:47] to have a 10-ft worth of grass

[2:29:50] and then one tree and two understory

[2:29:52] trees.

[2:29:53] And the question from the planning

[2:29:54] committee or from the BZA, my concern

[2:29:56] was is that is that enough?

[2:29:59] Right? Are you okay with this

[2:30:01] development going in with just 10-ft of

[2:30:02] grass

[2:30:04] and a total of three trees

[2:30:06] every

[2:30:07] so many feet, every 100 linear feet?

[2:30:10] Which if that's the standard, I mean,

[2:30:11] you look at the site plan that's

[2:30:12] submitted,

[2:30:14] it's not to scale, obviously, but I

[2:30:15] mean, you can see the aerial. It's

[2:30:17] likely they got enough existing trees to

[2:30:20] meet that standard.

[2:30:22] Is that enough buffer?

[2:30:24] You know, and so if we're going to

[2:30:26] continue this or if we're going to try

[2:30:28] to give additional guidance, what more

[2:30:30] would we like to see

[2:30:33] in addition to a site plan

[2:30:35] » Jonathan, the

[2:30:35] » That would that would

[2:30:37] » Yeah, that retention pond's not there

[2:30:38] currently, right? That's a that's just

[2:30:40] part of this rendering.

[2:30:42] » Part of the rendering.

[2:30:43] » This was the old one. I had sent you a

[2:30:45] new one.

[2:30:46] » And I apologize.

[2:30:48] Let me see if I can get the new one.

[2:30:55] » But it's essentially, yeah, it looks

[2:30:57] like that now.

[2:31:04] I don't see I didn't see another one on

[2:31:06] there that I in our I went through I

[2:31:08] mean, I could have missed it, I guess,

[2:31:10] but

[2:31:11] that was the only site

[2:31:12] » To apologize if there was one submitted.

[2:31:15] I believed I got everything online, but

[2:31:18] obviously I did not, if I didn't.

[2:31:23] Let me disconnect real quick.

[2:31:53] » Um if a petitioner wants to come up and

[2:31:55] have her rebuttal wait, Jonathan looks

[2:31:57] for that.

[2:32:10] So, the first thing I wanted to bring up

[2:32:11] is we actually don't have two um plots

[2:32:14] of land, which I was actually made aware

[2:32:16] of

[2:32:17] uh by Jonathan um and I believe uh

[2:32:20] during one of our meetings. Um it's

[2:32:23] actually one uh plot of land that's

[2:32:25] separated by

[2:32:27] » Section line.

[2:32:28] » Thank you. Um but it's still just one

[2:32:32] uh

[2:32:33] one plot of land. So, we don't have the

[2:32:36] two. [clears throat] Um I thought we

[2:32:38] did, too, honestly, but we don't. Uh

[2:32:41] it's just one. Um so, I wanted to bring

[2:32:43] that up. Uh one of the other reasons um

[2:32:47] I uh chose to live in Zionsville was

[2:32:50] there wasn't a limit of how many dogs

[2:32:52] you could have and own on your property.

[2:32:55] Um same for my personal home. Uh I live

[2:32:58] at uh in the village. Um and so, um that

[2:33:02] is one of the reasons that again, uh we

[2:33:06] don't fit into any

[2:33:08] um designation that's currently

[2:33:10] uh out there for us. Um

[2:33:14] we were designated a kennel at the last

[2:33:16] one. I still don't believe we fit the

[2:33:18] criteria for a kennel. I own the dogs.

[2:33:20] In order to operate a kennel, somebody

[2:33:22] else has to own them and you watch them.

[2:33:25] Um and that's uh

[2:33:28] that's not what we do. Uh they're my

[2:33:30] dogs even if it's just for a certain

[2:33:32] amount of time. I I heard somebody say

[2:33:35] uh if I lived on the property, it'd be a

[2:33:37] little bit different. I don't

[2:33:39] understand, you know, I guess the

[2:33:40] distinction there. Um

[2:33:43] it's still my property, my animals.

[2:33:46] Um and I have, you know, animals on my

[2:33:48] other property, too. Um but also which I

[2:33:51] pay people to to help take care of them

[2:33:53] cuz like I said, I have seven different

[2:33:54] businesses. I'm running around all over

[2:33:56] the place all the time. I'm not always

[2:33:58] home.

[2:33:59] Um but I make it a point to be on site

[2:34:02] here at this um location every day. Um

[2:34:05] as Nick said, I'm usually out there at

[2:34:08] 5:30, 6:00 a.m. and I end up there at

[2:34:11] night, too, after I finish um making

[2:34:13] sure that I can see every animal and

[2:34:15] make sure everybody's taken care of, so.

[2:34:18] Um

[2:34:19] is there anything else to add?

[2:34:21] » Um

[2:34:22] you know, the the uh

[2:34:25] proximity to Michigan Road, not only is

[2:34:27] it

[2:34:28] putting it right on Michigan Road, not

[2:34:30] only would that be contrary to our

[2:34:31] mission, but it would be detrimental to

[2:34:33] the health of the dogs as the

[2:34:36] remonstrator said, there's all the

[2:34:37] traffic and noise there for recovering

[2:34:39] animals, that would not be a good use.

[2:34:42] And in the end, you've got this property

[2:34:44] that's got a lot of unique features,

[2:34:47] a unique history and it's the one two

[2:34:50] punch of the fire station and the

[2:34:52] landfill

[2:34:53] that really put a stress on the use of

[2:34:56] this property

[2:34:58] and this use variance is a really good

[2:35:01] tool to make a good use that's already

[2:35:04] occurring there

[2:35:05] and to allow it to continue for the

[2:35:08] benefit of the community.

[2:35:10] I would say that

[2:35:11] if more specific renderings and site

[2:35:14] plans would be beneficial to the staff

[2:35:17] and to the board for their

[2:35:18] consideration.

[2:35:20] We are fine with

[2:35:22] submitting that coming back next month

[2:35:24] and giving that a submission with more

[2:35:26] details.

[2:35:28] I think the the commitments that that

[2:35:30] Dr. Katz has given

[2:35:32] buffer yard B privacy

[2:35:35] fencing, the hours of operation. I would

[2:35:38] think that would be a good reassurance

[2:35:40] for the board that the operations are

[2:35:43] not going to be disruptive. But if

[2:35:45] additional details would be helpful or

[2:35:47] necessary for your approval, then that's

[2:35:50] something we're definitely in support

[2:35:52] of.

[2:35:52] » And I just want to remind you that right

[2:35:54] now we're at ambient noise levels. And

[2:35:57] that's without everything that we are

[2:35:59] already committing to. And we're at

[2:36:02] proven fact ambient noise levels of this

[2:36:06] running nonstop for over two months and

[2:36:09] we've never hit over 80 decibels.

[2:36:12] Um

[2:36:13] I just you know, for me even that's

[2:36:16] without what we're already proposing and

[2:36:19] further away. So

[2:36:21] I don't want to be a nuisance to

[2:36:23] anybody. I want to just be able to have

[2:36:25] my dogs there and do it in a way that's

[2:36:27] responsible and it respects my

[2:36:29] neighbors.

[2:36:30] And again, I don't want anybody else's

[2:36:32] animals there. I just want mine.

[2:36:36] Thank you.

[2:36:38] » You know, if you I'll throw out

[2:36:40] something else and that is

[2:36:42] if you um

[2:36:45] wanted to approve it as an animal

[2:36:46] hospital but but can put conditions on

[2:36:49] which you can that says no retail

[2:36:51] operations, no public facing operations,

[2:36:53] no signage.

[2:36:55] That is totally fine. That would be a

[2:36:57] closer definition of what is actually

[2:36:59] going on.

[2:37:00] Because it can you have the power to

[2:37:03] limit what's granted and not open it up

[2:37:07] to an animal hospital that could you

[2:37:09] know, throw open open doors to anyone.

[2:37:11] » And we've already made those

[2:37:12] commitments.

[2:37:16] » Thank you.

[2:37:17] » I ask one question about the decibels,

[2:37:19] about that. I I think you said that

[2:37:21] after the last time that you were here,

[2:37:24] um you had that installed. Was that

[2:37:26] after you got rid of the adult dogs?

[2:37:29] » Uh

[2:37:29] » Or were they still there to capture that

[2:37:32] what it was like with the adult dogs

[2:37:33] there?

[2:37:34] Or was that what

[2:37:35] » After, um but with that we wouldn't have

[2:37:39] had any adult dogs near their property

[2:37:41] anyways. That building that they're

[2:37:44] talking about, that's right by their um

[2:37:46] house, has not been in use since October

[2:37:48] of last year.

[2:37:50] » Okay. But

[2:37:50] » It is recently in use with two llamas.

[2:37:53] » Okay.

[2:37:56] But the capturing of the decibels is not

[2:37:58] exactly the same situation that they

[2:38:00] were complaining about. It's It's a It's

[2:38:03] a different situation with younger

[2:38:05] animals.

[2:38:06] » Correct, and arguably louder.

[2:38:08] » Okay.

[2:38:08] » Yeah.

[2:38:11] » Thank you. I appreciate it.

[2:38:12] » Thank you.

[2:38:15] » I can show you the updated renderings.

[2:38:17] » Okay.

[2:38:17] » I I apologize. I saw where you sent them

[2:38:19] on Friday. And uh it has been a very

[2:38:22] busy week. So, I found the most recent

[2:38:25] revision that I got from last Friday.

[2:38:27] Um I did not find anything since then.

[2:38:29] So, I'm hoping this is the most recent

[2:38:31] one. Okay.

[2:38:32] » And these are the ones that are not to

[2:38:34] scale cuz then you these

[2:38:38] » Other version is.

[2:38:40] » The one right next

[2:38:42] Right. That would That would be That

[2:38:43] would be to scale.

[2:38:45] » So, this one would be to scale.

[2:38:46] » No building, but that would show what

[2:38:47] the the footprint would be.

[2:38:54] » There.

[2:38:59] And I did have an opportunity to take a

[2:39:01] look at the parking. Um

[2:39:05] again, from a parking

[2:39:07] from a buffering standpoint, the

[2:39:08] question is we know the minimum buffer

[2:39:10] requirement, which is buffer yard B.

[2:39:12] Um

[2:39:14] we know all the applicable development

[2:39:15] standards,

[2:39:17] and they're going to have to adhere to

[2:39:18] them prior to approval of the

[2:39:19] development plan. So, conceptually,

[2:39:23] um

[2:39:24] you know,

[2:39:25] conceptually, I don't I'm not sure what

[2:39:27] what additional things you would change.

[2:39:30] I I think this is

[2:39:31] pretty set. The parking would be

[2:39:33] compliant. Um

[2:39:36] the setbacks I I can't speak to the

[2:39:39] setbacks for a kennel,

[2:39:41] right? What I can speak to is the

[2:39:43] setback requirements for commercial,

[2:39:44] industrial, or non-residential uses,

[2:39:47] right? Which is what the zoning

[2:39:48] ordinance has.

[2:39:49] Um

[2:39:50] and this property is R2.

[2:39:53] And, you know, you see the standards

[2:39:55] here. They're not marked, right? But,

[2:40:00] assuming they meet the standards, the

[2:40:02] setbacks would be fine, right?

[2:40:05] Um

[2:40:06] it looks obviously more than 10 ft and

[2:40:08] 20 ft

[2:40:10] from the property lines.

[2:40:13] I guess lighting,

[2:40:15] lighting and noise

[2:40:17] would be the things that we haven't

[2:40:18] addressed.

[2:40:21] But,

[2:40:24] » So,

[2:40:25] when we talk about buffer lines, we're

[2:40:27] talking about buffering on the 5-acre

[2:40:29] parcel, not the overall parcel, correct?

[2:40:33] » That that Well, yeah, that's correct. It

[2:40:35] would be for the 5-acre site.

[2:40:36] » Okay.

[2:40:45] No, it noise is still concern of mine.

[2:40:48] Um

[2:40:49] I respect the decibel levels of 70. Uh

[2:40:52] we've heard that number before thrown

[2:40:54] out there as an ambient

[2:40:56] noise level, but on a foggy morning,

[2:40:59] I can you know, you can hear where I'm

[2:41:01] at, I can hear a donkey that's a mile

[2:41:03] and a half way from my house.

[2:41:05] Um

[2:41:06] » And that's why acoustical engineers have

[2:41:08] jobs. You know, you can create buildings

[2:41:11] that and kennels that you cannot hear

[2:41:13] dogs from inside. Which means they would

[2:41:16] not hear Michigan Road if they were

[2:41:17] closer.

[2:41:19] And no one else would hear the dogs as

[2:41:21] well. So, I mean

[2:41:23] people get paid to do this. I know many

[2:41:25] acoustical engineers that could help

[2:41:28] from that standpoint, but I I did noise.

[2:41:31] I agree lighting. And hours of operation

[2:41:33] when the dogs are out.

[2:41:37] Josh, what was else on your list?

[2:41:40] » That's pretty much Right. Jonathan, you

[2:41:43] asked what type of a

[2:41:45] dish on the 5 acres. I don't I I

[2:41:49] » [clears throat]

[2:41:50] » Yeah, it's a limited with just being 5

[2:41:52] acres. I don't know if you can get

[2:41:54] enough buffering in there to try to

[2:41:56] dampen the noise.

[2:41:58] Um

[2:42:00] I'm I'm I'm only looking at the western

[2:42:03] property that backs up to the Nelson's

[2:42:05] property or that area through there. So,

[2:42:09] I don't think you'll have any noise

[2:42:10] concerns to the south,

[2:42:12] to the to the east, or to the north.

[2:42:15] Um

[2:42:16] but it's that side to the west. I I

[2:42:20] There's people make more money than me

[2:42:22] can figure this out, but I mean just

[2:42:23] looking at it, I would say on the

[2:42:25] overall parcel,

[2:42:27] you'd have to have a lot more

[2:42:29] some sort of acoustical buffering.

[2:42:32] But like I said, I I'm still

[2:42:37] I still struggle with with several of

[2:42:38] the criteria.

[2:42:41] Um

[2:42:42] and I don't know on on one and two

[2:42:44] because

[2:42:45] if you can't come up with a

[2:42:48] if staff can't determine it, I I sure

[2:42:50] can't. So.

[2:43:03] » Any other thoughts

[2:43:04] from the board?

[2:43:08] » My mind remains unchanged.

[2:43:10] » Mhm.

[2:43:15] Um

[2:43:16] I I feel similarly that I, you know,

[2:43:21] I guess

[2:43:23] going back to the

[2:43:24] five points,

[2:43:26] um

[2:43:27] that's

[2:43:29] the last ones I'll I'll give you.

[2:43:33] The sanitary side, okay. I'll give it to

[2:43:34] you.

[2:43:35] » [laughter]

[2:43:37] » You lived here in the '80s. You know

[2:43:39] there was so much history about that

[2:43:40] place.

[2:43:43] » Um

[2:43:45] but um

[2:43:46] yeah, I think

[2:43:50] I agree with Jim.

[2:43:52] » I

[2:43:55] I would make a motion to deny it,

[2:43:58] but if

[2:44:00] others feel that more information is

[2:44:03] necessary for them to make a

[2:44:04] determination across the factors, I

[2:44:06] don't want to deny them that

[2:44:07] opportunity.

[2:44:13] » I think it's

[2:44:14] especially if,

[2:44:16] you know,

[2:44:17] they're able to have a conversation with

[2:44:19] the Nelsons, too, and maybe that there's

[2:44:20] a

[2:44:22] you know,

[2:44:24] additional factors that they've tried to

[2:44:26] check some things off their list on what

[2:44:28] would help.

[2:44:29] That would definitely help me, so.

[2:44:34] » Well, you are permitted to make a

[2:44:35] motion.

[2:44:42] » I want to understand if everybody feels

[2:44:46] Do you want me to make a motion?

[2:44:48] » I Yeah, I mean, I

[2:44:52] Maybe to help in the decision-making,

[2:44:54] can I ask the petitioner a question, if

[2:44:56] you don't mind?

[2:44:56] » Mr. Whitehead, yes.

[2:44:57] » Um you may not know the answer to this,

[2:44:59] but if this was continued, would you be

[2:45:02] willing to submit like a photometric and

[2:45:04] a landscape plan? I know there would be

[2:45:06] money that would have to go into getting

[2:45:07] those drafted.

[2:45:09] I mean, those are those are things that

[2:45:10] are required as part of your planning

[2:45:12] commission DP submittal.

[2:45:14] But if we had a landscape plan that kind

[2:45:16] of showed the buffering and the setbacks

[2:45:17] and the noise mitigation elements of it,

[2:45:20] and we had a lighting plan that

[2:45:22] essentially showed that the lighting was

[2:45:25] shielded and not

[2:45:27] crossing over into the neighboring

[2:45:29] properties.

[2:45:30] Um

[2:45:31] I think that would help

[2:45:33] in the determination of number one and

[2:45:36] number two, which would be the impact on

[2:45:38] the community and the impact on the

[2:45:39] property owners, the neighboring

[2:45:40] property owners.

[2:45:41] Um and if you're willing to do that,

[2:45:43] then

[2:45:45] a continuance would be useful,

[2:45:47] possibly.

[2:45:48] Um

[2:45:50] I was asking cuz if that was a no, if

[2:45:52] you was going to say no to that, then

[2:45:54] » I'm absolutely willing to do that.

[2:45:55] » Okay.

[2:45:55] » That's something that

[2:45:58] um might determine

[2:46:00] If it's not going to change things,

[2:46:06] We obviously can't determine whether

[2:46:08] it'll change things or not until we see

[2:46:09] it. So, I can't promise anything to you,

[2:46:11] but

[2:46:14] » One and two [clears throat] are an open

[2:46:15] question.

[2:46:17] But

[2:46:18] Can the is this necessary for the

[2:46:20] property be in conformant use? I

[2:46:23] There are other uses of this property

[2:46:25] under R2, and I don't know how to get

[2:46:27] around that.

[2:46:29] » I agree with that.

[2:46:33] Um I agree Jim as well.

[2:46:37] » I I

[2:46:38] From my standpoint, I would hate to have

[2:46:40] somebody to spend money when

[2:46:43] The those are open questions, but

[2:46:45] but

[2:46:46] it's

[2:46:47] doesn't solve all the factors for me

[2:46:48] that are necessary.

[2:46:50] » And and quite frankly, I I still am

[2:46:53] even if

[2:46:54] that's all provided, I'm still

[2:46:56] struggling with unnecessary hardship as

[2:46:58] we generally do.

[2:46:59] So.

[2:47:00] » Just I might just remind the board,

[2:47:02] yeah, it's the petitioner has to satisfy

[2:47:04] all of the factors. It's not a totality

[2:47:06] or three out of five, it's

[2:47:08] it's all of them. So, Mr. Hurst makes a

[2:47:10] point worth discussing.

[2:47:14] » Well, you could I could not get a second

[2:47:16] or I can be voted down, but I guess I'm

[2:47:17] going to make a motion.

[2:47:19] I move that docket number 2026-16-UV

[2:47:22] variance of use to allow a veterinary

[2:47:24] animal hospital or clinic in the rural

[2:47:26] single-family residential R2 zoning

[2:47:28] district for property at 9855 East 100

[2:47:31] South, Zionsville, Indiana be denied as

[2:47:34] presented and described.

[2:47:38] » I'll second.

[2:47:40] » I'll second it.

[2:47:41] » Thank you.

[2:47:43] Getting tired.

[2:47:47] » Jim Hurst.

[2:47:48] » I.

[2:47:49] » Josh Fedor.

[2:47:50] » I.

[2:47:50] » Amanda Miller.

[2:47:51] » I.

[2:47:54] » Katie Glenn.

[2:47:55] » I.

[2:47:55] » Motion passes. The proposal is denied.

[2:47:58] » Thank you.

[2:48:04] Okay.

[2:48:20] Um case

[2:48:21] 2026-17-DSV.

[2:48:25] Um development standard variance. Uh

[2:48:28] Jonathan, would you mind

[2:48:30] when you're ever you're ready

[2:48:32] walking us through that?

[2:48:59] » Yes, ma'am. Sorry about the delay.

[2:49:02] This is a

[2:49:05] um a development standard variance for

[2:49:07] property at uh 4775 West 116th Street.

[2:49:12] Um

[2:49:13] the Zionsville Pres- Presbyterian

[2:49:15] Church.

[2:49:16] Um

[2:49:17] their sign regulations fall under

[2:49:20] section 1941-164,

[2:49:23] which for their zoning classification

[2:49:25] limits the total number of on-premise

[2:49:28] signs to four.

[2:49:30] What the petitioner is requesting is to

[2:49:33] allow for the

[2:49:35] uh placement of a fifth sign.

[2:49:37] Um as you will see

[2:49:39] in the uh I provided a

[2:49:43] uh site plan

[2:49:44] and uh sign elevations, you'll see. I'll

[2:49:48] connect my computer.

[2:49:49] » Jonathan, are you able to get that uh

[2:49:52] » Yeah, let me

[2:49:52] » Presentation?

[2:49:53] » Let me get it online here.

[2:49:54] » Overhead?

[2:49:55] » Yeah.

[2:50:06] » Good.

[2:50:07] » There you go.

[2:50:08] Um

[2:50:08] here's the sign. This will be the fifth

[2:50:10] total sign on site.

[2:50:12] Um

[2:50:13] here is a

[2:50:16] aerial or a site plan showing where the

[2:50:19] other signs are located on the property.

[2:50:22] Um so essentially uh that's what the

[2:50:24] request boils down to is they have four

[2:50:26] existing signs and they're asking for a

[2:50:28] fifth. Staff, um if you look at our

[2:50:30] staff report, we are in support of this

[2:50:33] request.

[2:50:34] Uh

[2:50:35] we believe that um it meets all three

[2:50:39] findings, right?

[2:50:41] Needed to grant the request item one,

[2:50:44] two, and three.

[2:50:45] Specifically as it relates to hardship

[2:50:47] or unnecessary hardship, we think that

[2:50:50] the size of the property, the

[2:50:52] configuration of the building, and the

[2:50:55] number of public access points into the

[2:50:57] building

[2:50:58] plays a role in the need for a fifth

[2:51:01] sign at this property.

[2:51:03] And so we believe the criteria were met

[2:51:05] and we support the petitioners request.

[2:51:08] If you have any questions, I'm happy to

[2:51:10] answer them.

[2:51:15] » Is there any rendering of the sign or

[2:51:16] just will conform with the existing

[2:51:18] signs and aesthetic?

[2:51:20] » There is the rendering of the proposed

[2:51:23] sign.

[2:51:32] » Any other questions for staff?

[2:51:35] Okay.

[2:51:35] Does the petitioner want to

[2:51:37] come up?

[2:51:44] » Hello, I'm Sally Bias with Zionsville

[2:51:46] Presbyterian Church. And as Jonathan

[2:51:49] said, we're requesting

[2:51:50] to install a fifth sign. We had a new

[2:51:53] addition to the church and

[2:51:55] this is the entrance to our church. So

[2:51:57] it helps people direct people to the

[2:51:59] main entrance.

[2:52:01] » It looks beautiful.

[2:52:05] Does anyone have any questions?

[2:52:16] Does anybody want to make a motion or

[2:52:18] hold this?

[2:52:19] Oh, any public comment? I didn't see a

[2:52:21] head back there, so I forgot you were

[2:52:23] back there.

[2:52:25] I have no public comment, but is there

[2:52:26] anyone online?

[2:52:29] Okay. Anyone want to sign up?

[2:52:34] » Well, I'm going to jump in first cuz I

[2:52:36] I get to agree

[2:52:38] I get to agree with the staff report

[2:52:39] here.

[2:52:40] The hard one for me to always find a way

[2:52:42] around is unnecessary hardship, but this

[2:52:44] is a property that was is an appropriate

[2:52:47] use for its zoning.

[2:52:49] And um

[2:52:52] I think our

[2:52:54] signage ordinances I think are deficient

[2:52:57] for such a multi-entrance multi-

[2:53:00] building public-facing property such as

[2:53:03] this. And so I think the hardship is

[2:53:04] easily cleared as identified in the

[2:53:07] staff's report.

[2:53:10] » I will say generally when I do go to

[2:53:11] this church it's not for the

[2:53:14] greatest times. Normally it's a funeral,

[2:53:15] but I have always struggled to figure

[2:53:17] out kind of where the main entrance is

[2:53:18] cuz they added so many times. So this

[2:53:21] this makes sense.

[2:53:22] » So let that be right in the record. Josh

[2:53:24] has some trouble finding his way around

[2:53:26] church.

[2:53:26] » [laughter]

[2:53:29] » I'll drive you over there more often,

[2:53:30] Josh.

[2:53:32] Haha.

[2:53:32] » [laughter]

[2:53:34] » Uh yeah.

[2:53:37] I was going to make the motion, but go

[2:53:38] right ahead, Jim.

[2:53:39] » Yeah, okay. [laughter]

[2:53:40] I'm going to take this one.

[2:53:43] Uh I move that docket number 2026 17 DSV

[2:53:47] development standard variance to exceed

[2:53:49] the maximum number of signs allowed for

[2:53:50] a business in the urban business office

[2:53:53] in Michigan Road Overlay District at

[2:53:55] 4775 West 106th Street, Zionsville

[2:53:58] be approved as presented and described

[2:54:00] based on the findings of the staff

[2:54:02] report and staff recommendations,

[2:54:04] submitted finding of fact, substantial

[2:54:05] compliance with the submitted site

[2:54:07] plans, and the evidence presented during

[2:54:09] the hearing.

[2:54:10] » Second.

[2:54:13] » Vote.

[2:54:14] » Jim Hurst.

[2:54:15] » Aye.

[2:54:16] » Josh Fedor.

[2:54:16] » Aye.

[2:54:17] » Katie Glenn.

[2:54:18] » Aye.

[2:54:19] » Amanda Miller.

[2:54:20] » Aye.

[2:54:20] » Motion passes. The petition is approved.

[2:54:22] » Thank you.

[2:54:25] » Madam Chair, can we take a 5-minute

[2:54:26] bathroom break?

[2:54:27] » Absolutely. Absolutely.

[2:56:24] » Thank you.

[3:02:44] » We will move on to

[3:02:47] uh case 2026 18 DSV.

[3:02:53] Uh another development standard

[3:02:54] variance. Um Jonathan, I'll let you

[3:02:58] present the case.

[3:02:59] » It's fine.

[3:03:01] So this is another hopefully

[3:03:03] straightforward uh request. The

[3:03:05] petitioner

[3:03:07] is in the AG or rural AG zoning

[3:03:10] district.

[3:03:11] And there's a standard

[3:03:13] um that

[3:03:15] spells out a restriction that limits the

[3:03:18] total

[3:03:19] uh developed accessory square footage uh

[3:03:22] in the rural zoning district. Uh

[3:03:25] specifically, accessory structures have

[3:03:28] to be subordinate to um height, area,

[3:03:31] bulk, extent, etc. In this case, it's

[3:03:34] total total area. Um

[3:03:38] The petitioner's proposing two additions

[3:03:40] to an existing uh

[3:03:42] barn. You'll see those on the screen.

[3:03:44] One's a 30 by 60.

[3:03:46] One is 20 by 60.

[3:03:51] Um

[3:03:52] when you add all the existing square

[3:03:54] footage of the accessory structures

[3:03:55] together, um

[3:03:58] that total number is 5,524

[3:04:00] square feet.

[3:04:02] And um

[3:04:04] the primary structure is not I can't

[3:04:06] remember where I put the the number to

[3:04:08] that.

[3:04:10] It is 2,000

[3:04:12] um

[3:04:13] 556 square feet. So, the 5,000 square

[3:04:16] feet of accessory uh square footage

[3:04:18] exceeds the primary residence square

[3:04:20] footage, which is creating the need for

[3:04:22] this request. We did look at the height,

[3:04:25] which was another concern. Um we looked

[3:04:27] at the height of the addition, not the

[3:04:29] height of the existing building. The

[3:04:31] additions are compliant. They are below

[3:04:34] the height of the house.

[3:04:35] Um so, for this project to move forward,

[3:04:37] they need the one variance to allow

[3:04:39] accessory square footage to exceed

[3:04:41] height

[3:04:42] uh or to exceed the total square footage

[3:04:43] of the primary structure.

[3:04:45] We in this case again support this

[3:04:47] request.

[3:04:49] Um I'm going to quickly

[3:04:51] hit um on the three findings. Um finding

[3:04:55] one, we don't believe it's going to be

[3:04:56] injurious to public health and safety.

[3:04:58] Uh finding two, uh this is not going to

[3:05:00] impact the use or value of adjacent

[3:05:01] properties.

[3:05:02] Um and finding three, as it relates to

[3:05:04] hardship, we see this um

[3:05:06] it's a pretty common situation for

[3:05:08] ag-zoned parcels.

[3:05:11] Um in this case, not large enough to be

[3:05:15] classified as a farm,

[3:05:17] but still large enough to need

[3:05:19] significant amounts of equipment to

[3:05:21] maintain the 9-to-10 acre site. Um and

[3:05:24] any

[3:05:25] outside storage of this stuff is not

[3:05:27] allowed. And so, often times, buildings

[3:05:31] that are needed to house the equipment

[3:05:35] for these types of sites

[3:05:37] um will exceed a one-story

[3:05:40] uh the square footage of a one-story

[3:05:41] home.

[3:05:43] And so, we think that's an unnecessary

[3:05:44] hardship um being created in the zoning

[3:05:46] ordinance on this site. And uh for that

[3:05:49] reason, we think the criteria was met.

[3:05:51] Um and so, we we agree on all three

[3:05:54] findings, and we believe

[3:05:56] um

[3:05:57] they meet the criteria. we we support

[3:05:59] the petitioner's request. I'm happy to

[3:06:00] answer any questions you have.

[3:06:02] Otherwise, I'll turn it back to you.

[3:06:05] » Thank you.

[3:06:07] Do you guys have any questions for

[3:06:08] Jonathan?

[3:06:09] » No.

[3:06:11] » Okay. Does the petitioner want to come

[3:06:13] up and speak?

[3:06:20] » My name is Donna Tanner and I live at

[3:06:22] the address stated there, 8385

[3:06:25] East 100 North, Whitestown.

[3:06:27] And with our equipment and my new horse

[3:06:30] trailer, and the barn that's currently

[3:06:33] there is just really built for storage

[3:06:34] and a workshop.

[3:06:36] And we're needing more room for our

[3:06:37] horses and hay and

[3:06:39] the trailers just need protected for our

[3:06:41] investment.

[3:06:42] So, we're just hoping we can have a new

[3:06:44] barn.

[3:06:46] » Any questions?

[3:06:48] » Uh

[3:06:49] all the equipment you're going to be

[3:06:50] storing in this is going to be personal

[3:06:52] property. You're not storing equipment

[3:06:55] for other people and not

[3:06:56] » Trading a bottle of tequila for it or

[3:06:58] anything like that.

[3:06:59] » You can put one out there if you want,

[3:07:00] but no.

[3:07:00] » Don't give her ideas.

[3:07:02] » [laughter]

[3:07:04] » I'm right down the road from the polo

[3:07:06] club, too. So, we're all the country and

[3:07:07] there's

[3:07:08] nobody's even going to see my barn cuz

[3:07:10] I'm way off the road.

[3:07:21] » Do you have any questions?

[3:07:22] » Uh not for the

[3:07:23] » Okay.

[3:07:25] Um

[3:07:26] well, um I I agree with staff on all

[3:07:28] these points. Um

[3:07:31] » Public?

[3:07:32] » Oh, sorry. Is there public? I'm not

[3:07:33] going to get this today. I apologize.

[3:07:37] I am so sorry.

[3:07:39] I'm so sorry.

[3:07:41] I'm a little tired at this point. I go

[3:07:43] to bed early.

[3:07:48] » My name is Maureen Hart. I live at 682

[3:07:50] North 800 East,

[3:07:52] Whitestown, Indiana, which is actually

[3:07:53] incorporated in Zionsville.

[3:07:55] We live close to the polo field, also.

[3:07:57] So, I don't know what that has anything

[3:07:58] to do with this uh

[3:08:00] this statement here, but

[3:08:02] um

[3:08:04] my mother-in-law and my wife,

[3:08:06] mother-in-law owns the property to the

[3:08:07] south of this request.

[3:08:10] We have no information on to how the

[3:08:12] drainage tile

[3:08:14] is going to be modified.

[3:08:16] We have no information how the

[3:08:17] additional roof coverage is going to

[3:08:19] provide sheet drainage onto the

[3:08:21] property. I can tell you right now,

[3:08:24] property south of her

[3:08:25] is beans,

[3:08:27] first planting,

[3:08:29] great, no second plantings.

[3:08:31] So, any uh future drainage problems

[3:08:33] should need to be addressed in this

[3:08:34] board here.

[3:08:36] We want to be good neighbors. We're not

[3:08:38] here to remonstrate,

[3:08:40] but I will tell you

[3:08:42] that what they're asking for for a

[3:08:43] zoning request is not the most important

[3:08:47] one.

[3:08:48] 194.02 additional setback provisions.

[3:08:52] Long before any of these other zoning

[3:08:56] setback requirements, etc., says,

[3:08:59] "Setbacks for residential uses the uses

[3:09:01] are subject to the special setbacks,

[3:09:04] which shall include necessary buffer

[3:09:05] yards prescribed by the following

[3:09:07] table."

[3:09:08] Table, private on residential lot, rear,

[3:09:12] 100 ft. You're asking for a 60%

[3:09:16] reduction

[3:09:17] in the setback requirement. This is not

[3:09:20] um

[3:09:21] something we will take lightly. When we

[3:09:23] want to future develop this parcel,

[3:09:26] we will get remonstrated

[3:09:28] from

[3:09:29] the neighbors, the Hickory Hall Polo

[3:09:31] Field,

[3:09:32] um all these other neighbors will want

[3:09:34] to remonstrate for any future

[3:09:36] development that we may have.

[3:09:38] So, we're here to make a statement that

[3:09:40] we want to be good neighbors. We're

[3:09:41] willing to work with them,

[3:09:43] um but clearly this

[3:09:45] zoning ordinance that they're asking for

[3:09:47] is not the most important zoning

[3:09:49] statement. So, I'm not sure why

[3:09:52] we're even going to any farther further

[3:09:54] than it's requiring conditions being met

[3:09:57] for this 100-ft setback.

[3:09:59] 194.020

[3:10:11] » What was that in regards to? Are you

[3:10:13] » I'm sorry.

[3:10:13] » I'm sorry. I'm I'm I'm a little lost. Um

[3:10:15] » There's a There's a

[3:10:18] The zoning ordinance 194.020

[3:10:20] » What you're referring to. Sorry. I

[3:10:21] thought you just said it in arbitrary.

[3:10:22] » Clearly is a

[3:10:24] prelim to any other additional zoning

[3:10:27] statements

[3:10:28] » Okay.

[3:10:28] » That being asked.

[3:10:30] We're willing to work with these this

[3:10:32] couple here. We've not heard from them.

[3:10:35] Um

[3:10:36] And I understand what their hardship may

[3:10:38] be, if you want to call it a hardship.

[3:10:39] They bought the property knowing that

[3:10:41] this parcel may not meet their

[3:10:43] requirements, and they come today asking

[3:10:46] for additional variances.

[3:10:49] If she's in real estate, she should have

[3:10:50] known to look these variances

[3:10:52] possibilities up or meet with the town.

[3:10:54] And once again,

[3:10:55] we're willing to meet, okay?

[3:10:58] Um to sit there and try to figure out

[3:10:59] what we can do.

[3:11:01] Uh this barn could be built on the north

[3:11:03] side of the property.

[3:11:04] Um

[3:11:05] So, there's various other things that

[3:11:07] could happen. I think the location

[3:11:09] they're asking for is correct,

[3:11:11] but we don't want to have these future

[3:11:12] drainage issues. We've got a drainage

[3:11:14] tile we don't want to put on our

[3:11:16] property. Um

[3:11:18] But there's just several things here

[3:11:19] that needs to be rectified before this

[3:11:22] moves forward.

[3:11:24] » So, your big concerns are Let me just

[3:11:25] make sure I get this correct. Buffers,

[3:11:27] drainage,

[3:11:29] and there is a site map as far as

[3:11:31] location, but you're not don't like

[3:11:33] that. Is that the site location?

[3:11:35] » Ordinance the ordinance actual ordinance

[3:11:37] is 100-ft.

[3:11:38] » Right.

[3:11:40] » They're asking for a 60% reduction. It's

[3:11:43] excessive.

[3:11:44] But we may work that out with them.

[3:11:50] » Did you want to say something, John? I'm

[3:11:51] sorry.

[3:11:52] » So, I'm

[3:11:55] I'm going to put what I'm looking at on

[3:11:56] the screen so you can so you can help

[3:11:58] me.

[3:12:04] I went to the section 194020,

[3:12:08] which is additional setback provisions.

[3:12:11] Uh

[3:12:13] » Uh if you could sit down, sir. Are you

[3:12:15] addressing him?

[3:12:16] » I was going to just ask. I see the table

[3:12:18] that you are

[3:12:19] » Scroll the table, please.

[3:12:20] » That's what I was I want to know what

[3:12:22] classification

[3:12:23] » Right there. Stable private it's

[3:12:26] Right there. Stable private on

[3:12:28] residential lot.

[3:12:29] » I just want to clarify that it's not

[3:12:31] been classified as a stable.

[3:12:34] » It says stable on the plans.

[3:12:40] » What has been what it's been classified

[3:12:42] as which is why the setback has been

[3:12:45] allowed

[3:12:47] is an accessory to a single-family

[3:12:50] residential building, right? So, it

[3:12:52] would be not subject

[3:12:55] to

[3:12:56] this setback provision as a stable.

[3:12:59] It's subject to the standards in table

[3:13:02] three

[3:13:03] for ag specifically. And what you'll see

[3:13:06] is I don't have the the site plan pulled

[3:13:09] up, but the numbers are significantly

[3:13:10] different on table three than what is

[3:13:13] for a private stable.

[3:13:15] » Are you looking at a new modified

[3:13:18] standard?

[3:13:20] » Uh uh no, sir.

[3:13:20] » Published?

[3:13:21] » No, sir. This is This is on the This is

[3:13:23] on the the website. And I would say

[3:13:27] of the two provisions that we're looking

[3:13:29] at

[3:13:31] the one that's most commonly used far

[3:13:34] and above.

[3:13:35] Um

[3:13:36] » Commonly is different than what states

[3:13:38] black and white.

[3:13:39] » Yeah, what what I'm saying is this is

[3:13:41] not a new table.

[3:13:42] » Um if I could just interject here real

[3:13:44] quick. Um thank you, sir. Your comments

[3:13:46] have been noted. Drainage buffers, I

[3:13:49] understand there's a little bit

[3:13:50] confusion on the zoning piece.

[3:13:52] Um

[3:13:54] if you wouldn't mind taking your seat.

[3:13:55] Um assuming you No one else has any

[3:13:57] questions.

[3:13:59] Um

[3:14:02] Is there anyone online?

[3:14:05] » There is none.

[3:14:05] » Okay. Is there anyone else in the public

[3:14:07] right now that has any other questions

[3:14:09] or Okay.

[3:14:12] Um

[3:14:14] Jonathan, did you want to finish re- Was

[3:14:16] there anything else you wanted to add on

[3:14:18] that piece?

[3:14:18] » I just want to clarify just so

[3:14:21] everybody's on the same page. This is

[3:14:23] not the building that you currently have

[3:14:26] is not solely being used for the sh-

[3:14:30] the housing of horses.

[3:14:32] This is not only going to house horses,

[3:14:35] right? In this traditional sense of a

[3:14:37] stable.

[3:14:38] Um and if it's not the stable

[3:14:42] uh meaning that you're storing hay,

[3:14:43] personal equipment you may store animals

[3:14:46] in there, I have no idea, but if it's

[3:14:48] not solely storing horses as a stable

[3:14:51] then it's not subject to the regulations

[3:14:53] of 194020.

[3:14:55] Right.

[3:14:57] » Um

[3:14:59] fellow board members, com- comments or

[3:15:02] thoughts?

[3:15:04] » I didn't know maybe if the

[3:15:07] A if there was other comment I don't

[3:15:08] know if anybody's in line.

[3:15:09] » Wait. We have

[3:15:10] » You do that? Sorry.

[3:15:11] » Yeah, it's okay. You're tired, too. I'm

[3:15:13] not the only one. Okay, there we go.

[3:15:15] » You're doing awesome.

[3:15:16] » [clears throat]

[3:15:16] » Um I didn't know if the petitioner

[3:15:18] wanted to respond. Maybe not about the

[3:15:21] zoning particularities, which I'm going

[3:15:23] to trust staff's read on that.

[3:15:25] Uh but on any

[3:15:27] tile and drainage concerns.

[3:15:30] » Um would the petitioner like to

[3:15:32] speak?

[3:15:32] » Could you address uh

[3:15:34] the

[3:15:35] » Would you stand up and sorry, name

[3:15:36] address. So, the concerns to the

[3:15:38] previous

[3:15:40] um

[3:15:41] uh

[3:15:42] Renee was that drainage and buffers um

[3:15:45] was something that he brought up.

[3:15:47] » I guess we wasn't told we needed to

[3:15:48] address that yet.

[3:15:50] Um, we just need to get past this stage

[3:15:52] and then

[3:15:53] I guess we have a planning stage to get

[3:15:55] approved for our next go where we get

[3:15:57] into the

[3:15:59] » It'll be a development plan review.

[3:16:00] » That's the impression I had from

[3:16:02] Jonathan. Is that not right? I didn't

[3:16:05] think I had to worry about it.

[3:16:05] » That's correct.

[3:16:06] » Well, that's correct. You're correct.

[3:16:07] Yes.

[3:16:08] » There'll be a a um

[3:16:10] review of the drainage at the

[3:16:12] development plan level before the

[3:16:13] planning commission and the petitioner

[3:16:15] will be required to comply with the

[3:16:17] stormwater ordinance and all other

[3:16:19] drainage laws.

[3:16:20] » Right.

[3:16:20] » So, that's really a different um time.

[3:16:23] » I want to interject. Is is that fact

[3:16:25] that a development plan review would be

[3:16:26] required in this case?

[3:16:28] » There will be a a build as what we call

[3:16:31] a zoning review, which occurs at the

[3:16:33] staff level. Um, the terminology

[3:16:35] development plan review is something

[3:16:36] that we use for planning commission

[3:16:39] items. You're not going to rise to that

[3:16:41] level. You will be reviewed at the

[3:16:44] staff level administratively.

[3:16:46] » With a building permit.

[3:16:47] » Our team Yeah, building permit. Our team

[3:16:50] will look at the zoning regulations

[3:16:52] um to ensure that you comply with

[3:16:53] everything, right? Which this is part of

[3:16:55] that process.

[3:16:56] Um, drainage, right, is DPW.

[3:17:00] And part of the IOP process

[3:17:03] is approval of the drainage from DPW,

[3:17:06] right?

[3:17:07] » Part of that building permit.

[3:17:08] » Uh it is part of the IO Yeah, the

[3:17:10] building permit. I don't want to sit

[3:17:11] here and speak to all the ins and outs

[3:17:12] of the engineering drainage stuff cuz

[3:17:15] that's above my my level of education as

[3:17:17] far as that's concerned. But, it'll be

[3:17:18] addressed um

[3:17:21] at the permit level.

[3:17:22] » And we'd want it to be. Yeah.

[3:17:24] » And I can say they can't issue a permit

[3:17:26] for it if it does not comply with their

[3:17:27] standards, whatever that is.

[3:17:29] » Correct.

[3:17:30] » Thank you. I What I was looking for is

[3:17:32] you were committed to following the

[3:17:33] process of the town to address the

[3:17:35] drainage. So, thank you.

[3:17:38] » I do have one question for Mr. Hart. If

[3:17:41] he would if

[3:17:42] we can get him back up there.

[3:17:43] » Mhm.

[3:17:44] » Uh the question is

[3:17:45] Are you you brought up field tiles,

[3:17:47] drainage tiles?

[3:17:49] I'm looking at the site map. There's a

[3:17:50] creek there straight to the east. Most

[3:17:53] field tiles go straight to the most

[3:17:55] logical outlet. Are you aware of field

[3:17:58] tiles on this or that intersect from

[3:18:00] your property through this property?

[3:18:02] Is there something that drains into that

[3:18:04] small pond from your field?

[3:18:07] » Well, the drawing that was provided

[3:18:09] through the Stump residence, that's what

[3:18:11] you're looking at.

[3:18:13] » Mhm.

[3:18:16] There's an open ditch. If I remember, I

[3:18:17] think that's called Artman Ditch

[3:18:18] straight to the east.

[3:18:19] » It's Artman Creek. It's Artman Creek.

[3:18:21] » Creek, ditch.

[3:18:22] » Artman Ditch, actually. I'm sorry.

[3:18:24] » Depends on if you're marketing it or if

[3:18:25] you're a farmer.

[3:18:26] » Right. So,

[3:18:27] » But it's uh most field tiles are

[3:18:29] naturally going to flow to that ditch.

[3:18:31] Are you aware of any field tiles on this

[3:18:32] property

[3:18:34] that are inter- that are going through

[3:18:36] your property?

[3:18:37] » I am not aware of any I'm not aware of

[3:18:39] any. I can tell you if we'll bring up

[3:18:41] the Hickory Polo Polo Field,

[3:18:44] they put a drainage tile on our

[3:18:46] property.

[3:18:47] We're trying to prevent that. We're just

[3:18:49] trying to be open discussion here.

[3:18:51] » I don't see how with this ditch being

[3:18:53] that close to it.

[3:18:54] » I I don't I don't either. I've seen it

[3:18:56] happen.

[3:18:57] I just want to make sure that the proper

[3:18:59] procedures, if it goes through DPW or

[3:19:01] whatever the

[3:19:02] uh improvement location permit on

[3:19:03] drainage.

[3:19:05] » I just want to make sure we weren't

[3:19:05] cutting any field tiles. That would be a

[3:19:07] » There should not be any that I'm aware

[3:19:08] of, correct.

[3:19:08] » All right. Thank you.

[3:19:16] » Any other questions?

[3:19:19] Thoughts?

[3:19:25] » Well, I think we've

[3:19:27] um confirmed that they will go through

[3:19:30] from a staff level

[3:19:31] um

[3:19:33] a permit and building review process,

[3:19:36] which will cover drainage.

[3:19:38] » I mean yeah, after this you'll still

[3:19:40] have to apply for an IOP.

[3:19:42] » Right.

[3:19:42] » Um we'll do a review and I'm sure

[3:19:46] there's there's supplemental items as it

[3:19:48] relates to DPW, but I don't I don't want

[3:19:50] to speak to that cuz I just don't know

[3:19:52] what that looks like. Um I will tell you

[3:19:54] they're not going to let you do

[3:19:55] something that

[3:19:57] injures your neighbor.

[3:19:59] And what it to whatever degree that

[3:20:01] would be.

[3:20:08] » Any other comments? No?

[3:20:10] Okay.

[3:20:11] » Ready for a motion?

[3:20:13] » Well, I I'm going to jump in there cuz I

[3:20:15] got work for you, Josh, on your planning

[3:20:17] commission role.

[3:20:19] I appreciate staff recognizing that in

[3:20:21] these not 100-acre or greater parcels,

[3:20:25] but there is a need for

[3:20:27] ag-related

[3:20:29] um

[3:20:30] on ag zone property type storage levels

[3:20:33] and that they are supportive of that

[3:20:35] it's a hardship to have these accessory

[3:20:38] structures subordinate to the primary

[3:20:40] house.

[3:20:41] Um

[3:20:42] they shouldn't have to have come here

[3:20:44] for a waiver on that, and I think um the

[3:20:46] planning commission should be drafting

[3:20:48] ordinance for the town council to

[3:20:50] consider in these situations, so we

[3:20:52] don't have to make these people come

[3:20:53] here.

[3:20:54] » All the other planning commission

[3:20:55] members are listening I are watching.

[3:20:57] Yeah, I would I would agree.

[3:20:59] » You would agree? Okay. Now, I got a

[3:21:01] question.

[3:21:01] » If you own If you own acreage, you have

[3:21:03] you you know,

[3:21:04] the last thing I want to see is someone

[3:21:06] buy 9 acres and not be able to have a

[3:21:08] a tractor and a bush hog to be able to

[3:21:09] mow their property, and then it

[3:21:11] overgrow, and then we get invasive

[3:21:12] species in.

[3:21:14] And you know,

[3:21:16] you got to be able to maintain your

[3:21:17] property.

[3:21:18] And when you get in these parcel sizes

[3:21:20] of the size you have to

[3:21:22] I tried doing it for years without a

[3:21:23] tractor and tore up two lawn mowers. So,

[3:21:26] um I I simply I I

[3:21:29] I understand where the petitioner is

[3:21:30] coming from.

[3:21:35] » I would agree.

[3:21:37] Thank you.

[3:21:38] You guys have been You've been You've

[3:21:40] been You've been hearing the bad all

[3:21:41] night.

[3:21:43] » That docket 2026-18-DSV

[3:21:46] development standards variance to allow

[3:21:48] total accessory square footage to exceed

[3:21:50] the total square footage of the primary

[3:21:52] residency for the construction of two

[3:21:54] additions to the existing barn at 8385

[3:21:57] East 100 North B approved as presented

[3:22:00] and described based on the findings and

[3:22:02] staff [clears throat] report staff

[3:22:03] recommendations, submitted findings of

[3:22:05] fact, substantial compliance with the

[3:22:07] submitted site plans, and evidence

[3:22:08] presented during the hearing.

[3:22:10] » I'll second.

[3:22:14] » Jasper door?

[3:22:15] » Aye.

[3:22:16] » Amanda Miller?

[3:22:17] » Aye. [clears throat]

[3:22:18] » Katie Glenn?

[3:22:19] » Aye.

[3:22:19] » Jim Hurst?

[3:22:20] » Aye.

[3:22:20] » Motion passes, the petition is approved.

[3:22:23] » Thank you.

[3:22:58] So, we'll move on to case 2026-20-AP.

[3:23:04] Jonathan, no rush. Whenever you're

[3:23:06] ready.

[3:23:06] » Well, in this case, because it's an

[3:23:08] appeal, I'd like to talk about the the

[3:23:11] And it's

[3:23:12] um

[3:23:13] it's my understanding that the person

[3:23:15] bringing the case to the BZA should

[3:23:17] first present their case

[3:23:19] followed by staffs

[3:23:21] explaining the the reason for their

[3:23:23] position.

[3:23:24] Uh

[3:23:25] So, um

[3:23:27] and then of course then you would decide

[3:23:28] on uh whether to uh

[3:23:30] uphold

[3:23:32] uh

[3:23:33] or grant the appeal um or deny the

[3:23:36] appeal.

[3:23:37] Okay.

[3:23:39] So.

[3:23:42] » Motion.

[3:23:43] » Mhm. Mhm.

[3:23:56] » Good Good evening, ladies and gentlemen

[3:23:58] of the board.

[3:24:00] Uh my name is Tom Bennett. I live at 190

[3:24:02] North Maple Street here in Zionsville.

[3:24:05] Uh very much appreciate your time

[3:24:08] and uh the good work you do for our

[3:24:10] community. And I say that in all

[3:24:11] sincerity.

[3:24:13] And I appreciate uh that you guys have

[3:24:16] been so accommodating uh to for some of

[3:24:19] the things done in the past. Also want

[3:24:21] to say a special thank you to Jonathan

[3:24:23] and his team. Uh you know, um

[3:24:27] I learned a lot in the last um

[3:24:29] several months on the appeal process and

[3:24:31] whatnot. And Jonathan was a great

[3:24:33] shepherd of that process, etc.

[3:24:36] Um I do have with me uh my colleague uh

[3:24:40] Mr. Chris Trapp. Uh he and I work

[3:24:42] together at the uh same company.

[3:24:45] He is our company's director of real

[3:24:47] estate. And he is an attorney, and he is

[3:24:50] far more articulate, eloquent, and

[3:24:52] educated than I am in these matters. So,

[3:24:55] Chris, if you if you will, please.

[3:24:57] » Thank you, Byron.

[3:24:58] If I may, Madam Chair, members of the

[3:25:00] board. And I think he's just saying that

[3:25:02] cuz I'm he's not paying me, so he's got

[3:25:03] to be nice about it.

[3:25:05] » [laughter]

[3:25:06] » No, I

[3:25:06] I appreciate it. I'd also like to to

[3:25:08] echo the sentiments about

[3:25:09] Jonathan's

[3:25:11] assistance here. And quite frankly, the

[3:25:12] the grounds of this appeal of kind of

[3:25:14] our understanding of it have have

[3:25:15] evolved. So, what we were appealing

[3:25:18] is something as simple as an email which

[3:25:20] originally came.

[3:25:22] It said, I'm paraphrasing here and I

[3:25:23] should have printed it out, but Jonathan

[3:25:25] will correct me if I'm wrong, but

[3:25:26] basically, staff has determined that

[3:25:28] your deck is impervious and must be

[3:25:29] removed.

[3:25:31] That was the extent of it. So,

[3:25:33] when Tom and I were preparing for this,

[3:25:35] the the original thought was, "Okay,

[3:25:36] well,

[3:25:37] talking to Tom, is this a concrete

[3:25:38] deck?" It

[3:25:39] looks like a like a typical wooden deck

[3:25:41] that

[3:25:42] drains through into dirt. It It can't be

[3:25:45] Well, our understanding evolved a little

[3:25:46] bit and and Jonathan helped us with

[3:25:48] that.

[3:25:49] And it's really It's two legal questions

[3:25:51] that we're here for

[3:25:52] that are kind of preliminary threshold

[3:25:54] issues. Uh

[3:25:55] one of which is and this this centers

[3:25:58] around the interpretation of several

[3:26:00] different ordinances within the code.

[3:26:02] And the question for the for the board

[3:26:05] is whether the operative definitions are

[3:26:07] ambiguous or not.

[3:26:09] And uh

[3:26:11] fortunately, the planning staff has

[3:26:12] provided that answer. We're

[3:26:14] We're in agreement on this. Um this

[3:26:16] stems back to um

[3:26:18] Director Dale

[3:26:19] for some time has been trying to

[3:26:21] come up with a solution to correct the

[3:26:23] ambiguity in these ordinances. This This

[3:26:25] dates back uh to

[3:26:27] originally a planning director

[3:26:29] determination. I'll get to the fact that

[3:26:31] apparently it wasn't implemented, but

[3:26:33] back October 30th, 2025,

[3:26:35] and I'm quoting here

[3:26:36] uh planning staff have identified

[3:26:38] ambiguity in the zoning ordinance

[3:26:40] regarding the definitions of driveway,

[3:26:42] impervious, lot coverage, and how lot

[3:26:45] coverage is applied. And obviously, the

[3:26:46] two that are

[3:26:47] uh relevant here are impervious and lot

[3:26:49] coverage.

[3:26:51] And then it goes on, one of the points

[3:26:52] made is uh is is staff pointed to a

[3:26:55] specific other subsection of the

[3:26:57] ordinance that says

[3:26:59] expressly that um

[3:27:02] decking can be pervious.

[3:27:04] And that contradicted

[3:27:07] was the word and created ambiguity

[3:27:10] regarding staff's interpretation, and

[3:27:12] this is what we found out that the

[3:27:13] definition of impervious surface under

[3:27:15] the code as they interpreted it um meant

[3:27:18] that all decks are impervious.

[3:27:21] Uh that's not how we interpret it.

[3:27:22] That's not a There's a better

[3:27:24] interpretation. We're going to get to

[3:27:25] that right now, but the question for the

[3:27:27] board is whether or not

[3:27:28] that definition

[3:27:30] is ambiguous. And I'll read it to you.

[3:27:32] It says, "Area covered by a material

[3:27:34] that substantially reduces or prevents

[3:27:36] the infiltration of storm water into

[3:27:38] previously undeveloped land.

[3:27:41] Impervious area shall include, but is

[3:27:43] not limited to decks." I think it's fair

[3:27:45] to assume that the the language, the

[3:27:47] example, the illustrative example that

[3:27:49] comes after the functional definition is

[3:27:51] what's causing problems.

[3:27:53] Clearly, the definition of impervious is

[3:27:56] uh

[3:27:56] it's a it's purely a functional

[3:27:58] definition of whether or not this

[3:27:59] material substantially reduces or

[3:28:01] prevents the infiltration of storm

[3:28:03] water.

[3:28:04] "Impervious area shall include" means

[3:28:07] that is an example of what can

[3:28:09] constitute an impervious area. Does not

[3:28:11] Does not the same thing as saying that

[3:28:13] all decks are impervious. That's a

[3:28:15] totally different thing. And so, what

[3:28:18] staff did, to their credit, and again,

[3:28:19] we're on the same page here,

[3:28:21] March 4, 2026, uh Mr. Dale and uh

[3:28:25] Director Dale in a memorandum to the

[3:28:27] town BZA and Advisory Plan Commission,

[3:28:30] actually went so far as to suggest that

[3:28:31] the town council delete those two

[3:28:34] definitions. The suggestion, the

[3:28:36] recommendation was

[3:28:38] um that impervious

[3:28:41] and pervious, those two definitions

[3:28:43] uh be completely de- deleted from the

[3:28:45] code, and that lot coverage,

[3:28:48] which is again under the current code,

[3:28:50] what uh you know, lot coverage is a

[3:28:52] function of the percentage that's

[3:28:53] impervious,

[3:28:54] but that lot coverage Should much

[3:28:55] simpler definition.

[3:28:57] That basically, we're going to take up

[3:28:58] the whole area. It's a measure the

[3:28:59] proposed definition was a measure of

[3:29:02] intensity of land use that represents

[3:29:03] the portion of a site that is impervious

[3:29:06] the excuse that's current definition

[3:29:07] scratch that. The the suggested

[3:29:10] definition the sum of all applicable

[3:29:11] driveways pathways parking lot

[3:29:13] structures hardship and any other

[3:29:15] material that would prohibit or impede

[3:29:17] the

[3:29:18] absorption of storm water.

[3:29:20] Um

[3:29:22] The question here for the board again

[3:29:23] it's not whether or not

[3:29:26] we're not asking what is the best

[3:29:27] definition.

[3:29:29] Um

[3:29:30] We're not asking what the best policy

[3:29:31] is. We're asking whether or not this is

[3:29:33] ambiguous and the planning staff has

[3:29:35] provided that answer and we are in

[3:29:36] agreement. Both parties are in agreement

[3:29:38] on the ambiguity of that statute.

[3:29:40] So the question that came up and I think

[3:29:41] what was driving this appeal is that

[3:29:42] what what is it what is planning staff

[3:29:44] supposed to do

[3:29:45] with an ambiguous statute? How do they

[3:29:47] get uniformity and how to do this?

[3:29:49] That's the second legal question and the

[3:29:50] Indiana Supreme Court has provided us

[3:29:52] that answer as well.

[3:29:54] Um

[3:29:55] That answer and this is

[3:29:56] Council explained goes back a long time

[3:29:59] was zoning laws being in derogation of

[3:30:00] the common law

[3:30:02] if a zoning ordinance is susceptible to

[3:30:03] more than one reasonable interpretation

[3:30:05] it is ambiguous because zoning ordinance

[3:30:08] restrict the free use of private

[3:30:10] property

[3:30:11] any ambiguity must be construed in favor

[3:30:14] of the free use of land.

[3:30:16] That is

[3:30:18] black letter law in Indiana.

[3:30:20] Um

[3:30:21] and that's what we're asking the the

[3:30:23] this board to do. If it finds this is if

[3:30:25] if it finds that the definition is

[3:30:28] ambiguous which all the parties agree

[3:30:30] upon

[3:30:31] the interpretation it must take for the

[3:30:33] Supreme Court is the interpretation that

[3:30:35] is the least restrictive to land. Not

[3:30:37] what's best for policy not what

[3:30:38] everybody would prefer it's just what is

[3:30:40] the least restrictive. That is the law

[3:30:42] in Indiana.

[3:30:44] So our

[3:30:45] our

[3:30:46] interpretation again is of this the the

[3:30:49] definition of impervious it's just this

[3:30:50] is a functional test. If the town wanted

[3:30:53] to write

[3:30:54] an ordinance that said all decks are

[3:30:56] impervious, it would have said so.

[3:30:59] If it wanted to write an ordinance that

[3:31:01] said that lot coverage wasn't just a

[3:31:04] feature of impervious versus impervious

[3:31:06] distinction, they wanted to

[3:31:08] to say it's all decks are included in

[3:31:10] lot coverage percentage, the town can

[3:31:12] say that. The town hasn't.

[3:31:14] Uh we're we're we're we have an

[3:31:16] ambiguity. Uh it it must be

[3:31:19] uh interpreted in favor of the free use

[3:31:23] of land. And that is the basis of our

[3:31:25] appeal. Now, I

[3:31:27] staff report a couple things that came

[3:31:29] up.

[3:31:30] Uh just for the record, um

[3:31:32] and [clears throat] we did do a

[3:31:33] memorandum that supported some

[3:31:34] authorities of what I'm saying here.

[3:31:36] But uh one of the things we said, which

[3:31:38] actually came originally from the

[3:31:40] October 2025 memorandum that was pasted

[3:31:43] into the staff report, was reference to

[3:31:46] a rebuttable presumption test, which is

[3:31:48] one of the things that was suggested of

[3:31:49] how to deal with this.

[3:31:51] That was a test that um

[3:31:53] uh that the the director had proposed is

[3:31:55] to basically look, we're going to um

[3:31:58] uh

[3:31:59] presume that it is an uh decks are

[3:32:01] impervious surface unless you bring a

[3:32:04] certified engineering plans, the

[3:32:06] applicant does, showing that it's

[3:32:07] pervious,

[3:32:08] which pervious again actually is not

[3:32:11] literally written as the exact opposite

[3:32:12] of impervious, which is another flaw

[3:32:14] with the ordinance.

[3:32:15] But um but he did that and Jonathan

[3:32:18] actually through our uh discussions, it

[3:32:19] did make it into the site or the staff

[3:32:21] report for the hearing, advised, and

[3:32:23] I'll let him correct me if he disagrees,

[3:32:25] but for our conversation, that was never

[3:32:27] implemented. So, my understanding with

[3:32:29] staff is just taking the position that

[3:32:31] their hands are tied, that it is simply

[3:32:34] um

[3:32:34] uh that all decks are impervious. Um

[3:32:38] again, that's that's that's the basis of

[3:32:39] our appeal. There's nothing in the staff

[3:32:41] report. I do have Mr. Bennett here to

[3:32:43] speak to it and his contractor

[3:32:45] um regarding the specific factual uh uh

[3:32:49] issues pertaining to this deck and its

[3:32:52] features, but uh I will

[3:32:55] for the record let him make a few

[3:32:56] comments if I can if I pause here.

[3:32:59] Do you want to explain your deck town?

[3:33:02] » Thank you, Chris. It is a 9 by 10 deck,

[3:33:05] so it's not a very large deck.

[3:33:07] Uh actually um with an overhang

[3:33:10] according to the engineer that I

[3:33:13] uh

[3:33:14] procured per the again the city's

[3:33:16] recommendation to get an expert as to

[3:33:19] the perviousness or imperviousness of

[3:33:21] the of the deck itself. It's actually

[3:33:24] we're actually talking about 75 square

[3:33:25] feet. Uh you can't see the overhang

[3:33:28] there on the on that, but there is an

[3:33:30] overhang.

[3:33:31] Uh and that's actually the outside of

[3:33:33] the deck. I actually have some other

[3:33:34] pictures here that I didn't uh that uh

[3:33:37] submit, but can at least uh distribute

[3:33:39] to the to the board if you'd like to see

[3:33:41] it. It rained quite a bit by the way

[3:33:43] over the weekend. You probably

[3:33:45] notice that. I did.

[3:33:47] And uh

[3:33:48] » [clears throat]

[3:33:48] » And I actually took some pictures.

[3:33:50] Uh uh so we the bottom of the deck as

[3:33:53] you can see in that picture has not been

[3:33:55] covered, so you can't see underneath the

[3:33:57] deck currently. Uh and I have a picture

[3:34:00] here after Saturday's rain and you

[3:34:03] you'll see that it's just dirt. I mean

[3:34:06] there's no pooling no puddling. Frankly,

[3:34:08] if there was I wouldn't want, you know,

[3:34:11] flooding by my house let alone through

[3:34:13] the balance of the property.

[3:34:15] It's a very nice deck. It looks very

[3:34:17] nice. I think it it certainly adds to

[3:34:19] the property. And um

[3:34:21] you know, I'm happy to answer any

[3:34:24] questions. I know it's late, so I

[3:34:26] appreciate that again and don't want to

[3:34:28] drone on too long, but I kind of like

[3:34:30] it. It's I'm very and I'm very proud of

[3:34:31] the work that my contractor did. Again,

[3:34:34] I think I I one of the meetings uh I got

[3:34:36] some compliments like you whoever gave

[3:34:38] me those compliments about the property,

[3:34:40] but I'm very proud of the property and

[3:34:43] uh you know, with your accommodation,

[3:34:45] hope that you folks can

[3:34:46] see clear to allow the deck to to be in

[3:34:49] place.

[3:34:51] Thank you.

[3:34:55] » Thank you.

[3:34:56] » All right, thank you very much.

[3:34:58] Um

[3:34:59] just a little bit of background. Uh

[3:35:01] our building inspectors uh when they

[3:35:04] were on site

[3:35:06] uh for another project, noticed this

[3:35:10] deck and that there was no permit

[3:35:12] granted for this structure. And so in

[3:35:15] then doing the calculation

[3:35:17] uh they said no, it doesn't look like

[3:35:19] it's going to meet the standards for

[3:35:22] uh

[3:35:23] um

[3:35:25] maximum lot coverage. So, um that's when

[3:35:28] we had to make this determination about

[3:35:29] this particular deck.

[3:35:31] Um

[3:35:33] if we were to look at the actual

[3:35:35] language of our ordinance and we are I

[3:35:37] think we have to implement the language

[3:35:39] within our ordinance. However, it may

[3:35:41] it may be flawed, but as staff, um we

[3:35:45] have to look at what the letter of the

[3:35:46] code says and

[3:35:48] with in section 194.095

[3:35:51] regarding urban accessory uses, and it

[3:35:54] refers to uses. It says that it

[3:35:55] indicates that decks must comply with

[3:35:58] maximum lot coverage.

[3:36:00] And again, the focus on uses is is is

[3:36:03] that it's it's not focusing on

[3:36:04] structures, it's focusing on uses.

[3:36:07] Um

[3:36:08] and it does doesn't also doesn't speak

[3:36:10] to pervious or impervious, it speaks to

[3:36:11] uses.

[3:36:13] And so, if decks such as this one

[3:36:15] um are allowed, then how should staff

[3:36:18] determine when a deck is

[3:36:20] pervious?

[3:36:21] In other words,

[3:36:23] it would be possible if if decks were

[3:36:24] determined to be

[3:36:26] pervious, allowing water to infiltrate,

[3:36:28] then theoretically an entire yard could

[3:36:30] be covered

[3:36:31] with a deck

[3:36:33] and it would not count towards lot

[3:36:35] coverage. And is that really the intent

[3:36:36] of the zoning ordinance?

[3:36:38] Uh if we dig deeper in the definitions

[3:36:40] for a zoning ordinance for for in this

[3:36:43] case

[3:36:44] uh and we look at the definition for

[3:36:46] pervious surfaces. It's referring to

[3:36:48] surfaces.

[3:36:50] Pervious pervious surfaces are equated

[3:36:52] to to be

[3:36:53] equal to natural conditions. That's kind

[3:36:56] of the gold standard

[3:36:57] of what constitutes a pervious surface.

[3:37:00] They are natural conditions.

[3:37:02] Um or a material that allows

[3:37:04] infiltration

[3:37:05] or percolation of water in a manner

[3:37:07] similar to natural conditions.

[3:37:10] That is the definition for pervious

[3:37:12] surfaces. They're equated natural

[3:37:13] conditions or material. It's referring

[3:37:16] to material that allows infiltration.

[3:37:20] Another definition that's germane here

[3:37:22] is that of lot coverage, which expressly

[3:37:24] states that decks contribute toward lot

[3:37:26] coverage to be calculated as part of lot

[3:37:28] coverage. And then the third definition

[3:37:31] that's relevant here is also the

[3:37:32] definition of impervious surface. And

[3:37:35] again, the term surface is used and is

[3:37:37] equated to material

[3:37:40] that substantially substantially reduces

[3:37:42] or prevents stormwater infiltration into

[3:37:45] soils.

[3:37:47] So, an example of a pervious material

[3:37:50] is sometimes we refer to these as

[3:37:51] pavers, pervious pavers, that allow

[3:37:54] water to actually uh

[3:37:56] go past through the material or past

[3:37:58] through the surface.

[3:38:00] In this case, the proposed deck will not

[3:38:03] allow water to pass through the deck

[3:38:04] materials. The deck materials

[3:38:06] themselves, in other words, the surface

[3:38:09] is impervious.

[3:38:11] Does not allow water to pass through the

[3:38:12] deck materials, but rather allows water

[3:38:15] to pass between

[3:38:17] the materials, not through the

[3:38:18] materials.

[3:38:20] For any So, for any given area of this

[3:38:22] deck the majority of the area is

[3:38:25] impervious.

[3:38:27] Meaning rainwater cannot penetrate or

[3:38:29] pass through the deck boards or the deck

[3:38:31] surface or deck materials as referenced

[3:38:34] in the definitions for

[3:38:36] pervious surface and impervious surface.

[3:38:39] Therefore, the deck surface does

[3:38:40] substantially reduce or prevent storm

[3:38:42] water infiltration.

[3:38:44] Just as for example, a roof a roof

[3:38:47] structure

[3:38:48] diverts water to a rain gutter system

[3:38:51] that eventually that water eventually

[3:38:53] penetrates the soil.

[3:38:55] That does not mean the roof itself is

[3:38:57] pervious.

[3:38:59] It just means that the that water is

[3:39:02] diverted

[3:39:03] to uh to an area where there are soils

[3:39:06] that can receive that water. And so,

[3:39:08] therefore, roofs themselves also

[3:39:11] should count toward lot coverage. We're

[3:39:13] talking about surfaces and materials.

[3:39:17] Um so, for these reasons

[3:39:19] uh

[3:39:20] staff has consistently counted decks

[3:39:23] towards lot coverage.

[3:39:25] Uh

[3:39:26] And so, that's that's our position.

[3:39:31] » Yeah.

[3:39:36] » [laughter]

[3:39:38] » This a fun one. For the last one of the

[3:39:40] night is a really fun one, isn't it?

[3:39:43] » [laughter]

[3:39:44] » I I have to say your contractor has been

[3:39:47] lovely.

[3:39:48] And he's come through here and you're

[3:39:50] wonderful.

[3:39:52] Um

[3:39:53] so, you did a good job picking him. But

[3:39:57] » Thank you. He also made a nice deck.

[3:40:01] And and and and if I may and I I don't

[3:40:03] know the the process here, so forgive me

[3:40:05] if I'm out of order. Just tell me if I

[3:40:06] am. But I mean, we did we did submit a

[3:40:09] report uh that in did indicate that the

[3:40:12] water does flow through to the ground. I

[3:40:15] admit, I mean, sure there's there's

[3:40:16] decking there. I mean, yes, there's it

[3:40:18] isn't it isn't straight going straight

[3:40:20] to the ground. That that's obvious.

[3:40:22] Uh it does flow through the seams. The

[3:40:25] water does go through the seams. It's

[3:40:27] just raw dirt right now. I have a

[3:40:29] picture right now. I mean I I'm sorry. I

[3:40:31] should have submitted it again. I didn't

[3:40:33] follow all the processes. I apologize

[3:40:35] for that. I'm a I am a first-timer here.

[3:40:37] My contractors evidently charmed you.

[3:40:40] So, appreciate that.

[3:40:42] But I mean if if if the issue is that

[3:40:45] there is a storm water concern or

[3:40:46] something to that effect,

[3:40:48] there is not a concern. I have an expert

[3:40:51] that that said as much. And I have

[3:40:53] pictures from the weekend and I can you

[3:40:55] know you can see what when I took the

[3:40:57] pictures etc. Not on not on the actual

[3:40:59] pictures, but I could submit the timing

[3:41:01] of those pictures and you could see I

[3:41:03] mean it rained a lot this weekend and uh

[3:41:07] there is not a problem underneath my

[3:41:08] deck.

[3:41:09] » Thank you.

[3:41:12] Do you guys have any questions for staff

[3:41:14] or

[3:41:14] » Well, it

[3:41:16] in the

[3:41:18] appellant's uh

[3:41:21] testimony, they were quoting Mr. Dale on

[3:41:23] some things where I think I was in the

[3:41:25] room where he was speaking and I just

[3:41:27] want to try to remember the context.

[3:41:29] But

[3:41:30] Mr. Dale, if you'd remind me when you

[3:41:32] were talking about doing away with

[3:41:34] definitions and doing everything, were

[3:41:38] you trying to address

[3:41:40] whether or not decks were included or

[3:41:42] were you trying to address whether or

[3:41:44] not we should be including driveways?

[3:41:47] » I think actually we're discussing trying

[3:41:49] to get away from this whole conversation

[3:41:50] of what constitutes pervious and

[3:41:52] impervious.

[3:41:53] Because we're getting just caught up in

[3:41:55] that whole you know circular circular

[3:41:57] reasoning of is it pervious is it

[3:41:59] impervious and then if it's

[3:42:02] if it is

[3:42:03] uh if it's impervious, then that has big

[3:42:07] implications for how we calculate lot

[3:42:09] coverage.

[3:42:10] » And I think also the important fact is

[3:42:12] that

[3:42:13] that never got implemented.

[3:42:15] » Right. And so what we decided to say

[3:42:16] well, rather than try to uh

[3:42:20] uh you know wrestle ourselves into an

[3:42:22] interpretation

[3:42:24] given the, you know, the difficulties

[3:42:26] with the ordinance. We We said we'd

[3:42:28] table the matter and instead we'll work

[3:42:30] on changing the ordinance.

[3:42:32] So, yes, that the the the workaround, so

[3:42:35] to speak, that we had written up, we

[3:42:36] never implemented

[3:42:38] um because uh

[3:42:39] we thought it you know, sometimes doing

[3:42:41] that just presents a whole set of series

[3:42:43] of consequences, unintended

[3:42:44] consequences, rather than just fixing

[3:42:46] the ordinance.

[3:42:51] » I might just say I

[3:42:52] I agree with some of the

[3:42:55] information submitted by the petitioner

[3:42:57] from a legal angle. I disagree with some

[3:42:59] others. I just want to talk about that

[3:43:00] for a minute. I think that the

[3:43:02] petitioner makes a good point that

[3:43:05] uh in your ordinance, there's a

[3:43:07] definition for impervious and there's a

[3:43:09] definition of pervious and they're right

[3:43:11] in front of you.

[3:43:13] But, they are not mutually exclusive. I

[3:43:15] think that's a very good point and their

[3:43:17] expert in their letter in his letter

[3:43:20] said that what you have here in this

[3:43:22] particular deck is a semi a semi

[3:43:26] pervious uh

[3:43:28] system because it's the deck planks,

[3:43:31] then gaps, then deck planks, and gaps.

[3:43:33] And I thought I thought that the expert

[3:43:35] uh that they submitted maybe gave the

[3:43:37] best description of what we really have

[3:43:39] help happening. It's a deck system. It's

[3:43:42] neither solid

[3:43:44] you know, decking, nor is it

[3:43:47] and nor is there a 4-in gap between the

[3:43:48] planks. Okay? I thought that was a good

[3:43:50] point. We're dealing with something kind

[3:43:53] of in the middle of the two definitions

[3:43:55] because they are not mutually exclusive.

[3:43:57] So, but I'll [snorts] just say a couple

[3:43:58] things. First of all,

[3:44:00] uh although I certainly supported what

[3:44:02] Mike and staff were trying to do to get

[3:44:04] away from a difficult ordinance to

[3:44:07] administer, that was not actually

[3:44:08] accomplished.

[3:44:10] The board is stuck with the ordinance we

[3:44:12] have.

[3:44:14] And I I don't agree

[3:44:16] that the uh I don't agree that the

[3:44:18] ordinance is ambiguous.

[3:44:21] I think it may not have engineering

[3:44:23] precision.

[3:44:25] It'd be great if there was just a

[3:44:26] drainage coefficient and said that if

[3:44:27] the deck system can drain a certain

[3:44:30] amount of water at a certain rate, then

[3:44:32] it's pervious. Be great if that's That'd

[3:44:35] be perfect. But we don't have that.

[3:44:37] The question is before the board is

[3:44:40] whether this deck system

[3:44:42] um substantially reduces

[3:44:46] or prevents the infiltration of storm

[3:44:48] water into a previously, you know,

[3:44:51] previously undeveloped land.

[3:44:53] So, it isn't whether the deck system

[3:44:58] impedes at all.

[3:45:00] It's it it Your our ordinance says

[3:45:03] does it substantially reduce or prevent

[3:45:06] the infiltration of water?

[3:45:08] I think under, you know, that's what the

[3:45:10] ordinance says and I think that's the

[3:45:12] determination that the board has to

[3:45:14] make.

[3:45:15] Uh staff said they thought I mean, they

[3:45:18] they they they said, "Yeah, we think

[3:45:19] it's we think it's impervious."

[3:45:22] The petitioner says, "No, this is

[3:45:23] pervious."

[3:45:24] And I But I think that just to make sure

[3:45:26] that we're using the words of the

[3:45:28] ordinance,

[3:45:30] it says that you in order to support

[3:45:32] staff, you would have to find that the

[3:45:34] deck system before you substantially

[3:45:37] reduces

[3:45:38] or prevents. Those are the magic words

[3:45:41] here. Substantially reduce or prevents.

[3:45:43] If you find that it doesn't,

[3:45:47] if you find that the deck system as a

[3:45:49] whole does not,

[3:45:51] then I think that I think the petitioner

[3:45:52] is right.

[3:45:53] » May I respond real quickly, counselor

[3:45:55] Madam Chair?

[3:45:56] Because just to clarify for the record,

[3:45:59] what what what counsel just said is

[3:46:00] exactly what we're saying. So, when he

[3:46:02] said When I say it's it's it's it's

[3:46:04] I'm happy to say that it's unambiguous

[3:46:07] that that first sentence about that that

[3:46:09] definition controls. That's our

[3:46:11] position. I think the better way of

[3:46:13] saying it is at worst case, it's

[3:46:16] ambiguous as to the staff's position

[3:46:19] that all decks are impervious. That's

[3:46:20] the point I'm trying to make.

[3:46:21] » And I agree with that.

[3:46:22] » And that is that is what the Supreme

[3:46:23] Court is telling us we cannot do.

[3:46:25] » I I just don't want the board to be

[3:46:27] confused about what their job is here

[3:46:29] tonight.

[3:46:30] » Understood. Yes, sir.

[3:46:30] » So, I'm not disagreeing with that, but

[3:46:32] the question before them is whether

[3:46:35] when the staff said your client couldn't

[3:46:38] build that deck that way without

[3:46:40] violating lot coverage, were they right?

[3:46:42] And in order to do that, we have to go

[3:46:44] right back to this particular deck and

[3:46:46] figure this out. Um the other thing I

[3:46:49] would say

[3:46:50] is

[3:46:52] uh as I mentioned, it would be nice if

[3:46:54] we had some other way to go about it,

[3:46:55] but under the definitions we have, which

[3:46:58] is the law in Zionsville, the zoning

[3:47:00] ordinance is the law.

[3:47:02] Unfortunately, Mike, I love I respect

[3:47:04] you a great deal, but Mike's memo is not

[3:47:06] the law nor an ordinance.

[3:47:08] Uh we are stuck with the definition we

[3:47:11] have.

[3:47:12] And again, I believe the board can make

[3:47:16] a judgment about whether this particular

[3:47:19] deck is impervious. I really think that

[3:47:22] you can make that judgment uh based upon

[3:47:24] the definition because the definition

[3:47:27] doesn't say does it reduce the flow of

[3:47:29] water at all.

[3:47:31] Doesn't say that.

[3:47:33] Whether the deck substantially reduces

[3:47:36] or prevents the infiltration of storm

[3:47:38] water

[3:47:39] into previously unbuilt land. And see,

[3:47:41] that's a little bit of a different

[3:47:43] standard than saying,

[3:47:45] you know, does any water come through at

[3:47:46] all? I think it's a I think it's a

[3:47:48] pretty I think it makes it easier if you

[3:47:50] remember the word substantially. That

[3:47:52] really makes the analysis a little

[3:47:54] easier.

[3:47:57] So, there. I just wanted to say that.

[3:47:58] » No, thank you.

[3:48:00] Um

[3:48:01] Did you want to say something, Jonathan?

[3:48:02] I'm sorry.

[3:48:03] » I was just going to Can I ask you a

[3:48:05] question?

[3:48:06] Um

[3:48:07] it's 10:15, so I'm my brain may just be

[3:48:09] a little foggy.

[3:48:11] » Mhm. I'm I'm glad I'm up

[3:48:12] » Did I hear you correctly in saying that

[3:48:14] based off the

[3:48:16] definitions that we have,

[3:48:18] we should not be classifying all decks

[3:48:22] as impervious?

[3:48:24] » I agree with that because I agree with

[3:48:26] the petitioner when they say that the

[3:48:27] definition is functional. I absolutely

[3:48:29] agree with that. I don't think there's

[3:48:30] any other way to read it. I also agree

[3:48:34] with the uh

[3:48:36] grammatical construction

[3:48:38] that um decks are listed as something

[3:48:41] which can be impervious.

[3:48:44] Including it there, if you read it to

[3:48:46] say

[3:48:47] if you read it to say all decks are

[3:48:49] impervious,

[3:48:50] it it does ignore the definition of

[3:48:52] impervious, and I actually agree with

[3:48:53] the petitioner about that. I actually

[3:48:55] do. I think the analysis is

[3:48:59] is this deck impervious?

[3:49:02] And some decks are impervious, and some

[3:49:04] are not. And it has to do with the

[3:49:05] spacing between the the slats, and I

[3:49:08] think that's what the definition

[3:49:09] requires the staff to do, but

[3:49:12] more importantly tonight, I think that's

[3:49:13] what it requires the board to do is to

[3:49:15] make a judgment about whether or not

[3:49:17] there is

[3:49:19] or is not a substantial reduction

[3:49:22] or prevention of infiltration.

[3:49:24] And I think that's what the definition

[3:49:25] says, and that is the law we are stuck

[3:49:28] with because that's our law.

[3:49:31] » Can I

[3:49:31] » Madam Chair, if I can make a a motion or

[3:49:33] a request, rather, to something here.

[3:49:36] So, what what we asked with Mr. Smith,

[3:49:38] with Jonathan before, this is basically

[3:49:40] I understand Mr. Dale's

[3:49:42] uh suggested procedure is not the law,

[3:49:45] but what he had suggested back in

[3:49:46] October of 2025

[3:49:49] was that

[3:49:50] an applicant could submit certified

[3:49:52] engineering plans that would show that

[3:49:54] the deck is

[3:49:56] pervious or not impervious. That is a

[3:49:58] better way to put it. Um I asked uh

[3:50:02] for the opportunity before this hearing

[3:50:03] to do that. To say, "Can Can we Can we

[3:50:06] Can we discuss that with planning

[3:50:07] staff?" And I think, and I don't want to

[3:50:08] speak for for Jonathan, so he'll correct

[3:50:11] He'll be He'll be free to correct me if

[3:50:12] I'm wrong. I think his problem was there

[3:50:13] was a threshold issue with his office

[3:50:16] about whether or not um, all decks were

[3:50:19] impervious as written. And I think that

[3:50:21] uh

[3:50:22] I agree with council or with with with

[3:50:23] with with the city council or the town's

[3:50:25] council, excuse me, that um

[3:50:27] that they're not. And what I'd ask for

[3:50:29] is let's do that process. Give us 30

[3:50:31] days, reset this hearing, let us come up

[3:50:34] with certified engineering plans, let us

[3:50:36] talk to planning. If they're satisfied,

[3:50:38] maybe we agree and this appeal goes

[3:50:39] away. If they're not satisfied, we come

[3:50:41] back here and ask you to make a factual

[3:50:42] determination. That's my request before

[3:50:44] the board tonight. And to go home.

[3:50:47] » I think

[3:50:48] I would just I think that's a very uh a

[3:50:50] good request, which gets us to the

[3:50:52] facts, which is what we all want.

[3:50:54] » And can I

[3:50:55] » And unless the board doesn't think it

[3:50:56] needs that, but I mean, I do think

[3:50:58] that's a good request.

[3:50:59] » I I would just would like to say while

[3:51:01] your contractor charmed me,

[3:51:03] uh I actually

[3:51:06] voted against this when you first came

[3:51:08] through. When they granted you to take

[3:51:11] over additional, they all actually

[3:51:13] approved this. I I said no

[3:51:15] because of flooding issues and I I

[3:51:17] didn't I disagreed. But

[3:51:20] so

[3:51:21] the reason why it came back is because

[3:51:23] you guys put a structure on there that

[3:51:25] wasn't approved, um, that didn't go

[3:51:28] through, you know, that process and was

[3:51:30] flagged, you know, on the random. So,

[3:51:34] um, when it came back through, the

[3:51:37] position for me was still no. So, for

[3:51:39] me,

[3:51:40] you know, this is

[3:51:43] you know, there was there was already

[3:51:45] additional grant that was given. I am

[3:51:47] fine with a continuous a continuance to

[3:51:51] have them do um

[3:51:53] have an engineer, you know, and if that

[3:51:56] satisfies staff, but um

[3:51:59] I think we're forgetting that we already

[3:52:01] granted them.

[3:52:04] Right?

[3:52:04] » They were denied as I understand.

[3:52:07] » No, this last time, but the first time.

[3:52:10] This is the second time. So, they were

[3:52:12] granted it. They came back because of

[3:52:13] the flagging of the decks.

[3:52:15] » Madam Chair, we were denied a variance,

[3:52:16] which is an entirely different legal

[3:52:18] standard, an entirely different burden

[3:52:20] of review than what the issue is before

[3:52:22] today. The position that we're we're

[3:52:25] taking

[3:52:26] » We granted you

[3:52:27] you were granted the ability to do the

[3:52:29] addition, and the only reason why you

[3:52:31] came back for the variance was because

[3:52:34] you made a deck without approval.

[3:52:37] So, just to be clear here. Yeah.

[3:52:42] I'm fine. I I agree. I'm fine with if if

[3:52:45] you guys all think that you know.

[3:52:48] » I have no problem giving a continuance

[3:52:50] to kind of get some more factual

[3:52:51] information for us to make a

[3:52:53] determination.

[3:52:56] » Is your problem just that we're going

[3:52:57] backwards?

[3:52:59] You don't like that. Okay.

[3:53:01] » Yeah, and I agree.

[3:53:03] It wasn't done It wasn't done correctly.

[3:53:05] » But now that it's there and

[3:53:07] » Well, it may be different for you guys

[3:53:09] because you guys approved it from the

[3:53:11] start, and I was

[3:53:13] on the other side of

[3:53:14] » Project, not the deck.

[3:53:15] » Yeah, the larger project, right,

[3:53:16] exactly. So,

[3:53:18] » Of course, I have to say,

[3:53:20] and I was here, too.

[3:53:22] But yeah, we can't consider all that.

[3:53:24] » Yeah, but we can

[3:53:25] » Right for a minute.

[3:53:25] » It's okay to vent, but we have to

[3:53:27] [laughter] stop and still make the

[3:53:29] decision.

[3:53:30] » Mr. Mr. Mr. Bennett would have jacked if

[3:53:32] I did not say we can't consider that

[3:53:35] when we make a decision on this appeal.

[3:53:38] » If there were there were bricks in

[3:53:40] there, and we were worried about water

[3:53:42] and flooding and all of that. So, now

[3:53:43] there's a harder structure. If there

[3:53:45] were any kind of I mean, they're already

[3:53:46] back to impervious and impervious.

[3:53:47] » I know, but I'm just saying we really

[3:53:49] have to

[3:53:50] We have the somewhat forget all that.

[3:53:52] » [laughter]

[3:53:52] » And that the nature of too often of this

[3:53:56] role that we play for the town is we

[3:53:59] have to figure out all that and rule on

[3:54:00] what's in front of us. Uh

[3:54:03] Uh I

[3:54:04] I move for a continuance so that the

[3:54:07] petitioner has a chance to provide

[3:54:10] engineering drawings to convince either

[3:54:13] town staff or failing that us uh

[3:54:16] that

[3:54:17] this deck does meet our ordinance.

[3:54:19] » Can we define what that is? Is that

[3:54:21] going to be you know something

[3:54:22] scientific like

[3:54:24] Israel mentioned, you know, um

[3:54:27] to

[3:54:28] Do you have a suggestion on that piece?

[3:54:32] » Jonathan, do you know what you would

[3:54:33] request and have you

[3:54:36] » I am

[3:54:37] I don't know what question I want to

[3:54:39] ask, but I just want to make sure I get

[3:54:40] clarity from you, Mr. Taylor, as to what

[3:54:45] we are about to move forward with. So,

[3:54:47] what I'm hearing

[3:54:48] is

[3:54:50] just to reiterate that staff, our

[3:54:52] historical practice, right?

[3:54:55] Um maybe it's been wrong, but

[3:54:57] historically we've just blanket blanket

[3:55:00] applied

[3:55:02] decks against impervious things.

[3:55:04] » Well, that doesn't matter. I can talk to

[3:55:06] you about that later.

[3:55:07] » Well, well, what I'm saying is

[3:55:08] » Case, what the petitioner has said is

[3:55:10] that they would like to present with you

[3:55:12] to you engineered

[3:55:14] um

[3:55:15] calculations

[3:55:16] that support their position that the

[3:55:18] deck is pervious.

[3:55:20] That's That's where we are.

[3:55:22] » Mhm.

[3:55:22] » As to the other, I'll be happy to talk

[3:55:24] to you outside of a public meeting about

[3:55:25] that.

[3:55:26] » I understand. Um

[3:55:28] I'm not 100% sure

[3:55:31] I would look at Mike Dell as the

[3:55:33] director as to what would

[3:55:36] » The determination.

[3:55:36] » Yeah, what would satisfy our office as

[3:55:39] to whether or not a deck meets

[3:55:41] » Engineers Well, engineers are are tasked

[3:55:44] from time to time with the determining

[3:55:47] whether a surface or materials or system

[3:55:50] are pervious. They're fully capable of

[3:55:52] doing it. I've seen them do it.

[3:55:53] You're you're I assume you're going to

[3:55:55] get an engineering report and then you

[3:55:57] can decide or you the town engineers can

[3:55:59] review it and advise you as to their

[3:56:02] opinion.

[3:56:04] And so I I know that this is something

[3:56:06] that is an accepted there

[3:56:09] the courts accept expert testimony about

[3:56:12] this all the time.

[3:56:14] And so

[3:56:15] it will be mathematical in nature, my

[3:56:18] guess is mathematical calculations to

[3:56:20] show that it either is or is not.

[3:56:23] But experts can disagree and the and if

[3:56:25] you if the town staff has a need to have

[3:56:28] independent review, which I think you

[3:56:29] should, then you'll have the opportunity

[3:56:31] to do that.

[3:56:34] » I'm good with that.

[3:56:37] » I I I made the motion. I'm waiting for a

[3:56:39] second.

[3:56:40] » Second.

[3:56:41] » [laughter]

[3:56:42] » I want to make sure Dan got it all out

[3:56:43] there.

[3:56:44] » Did you want to say

[3:56:46] » Yeah, may I say something, please? And

[3:56:48] it's a it's a it's a question.

[3:56:50] So

[3:56:52] you know, um I had a

[3:56:54] an expert deem, you know, the deck to be

[3:56:58] pervious. I I mixed it up, too, by the

[3:57:00] way.

[3:57:01] Uh

[3:57:03] are you looking for something someone

[3:57:05] with a some higher standard?

[3:57:08] Uh well, I guess can I should I work

[3:57:10] with Mr. Dale and and Mr. Mr. Smith as

[3:57:13] to the qualifications you'll be looking

[3:57:15] for? I don't want to I don't want to

[3:57:16] I don't want to kind of like the the

[3:57:18] doctor before. I don't want to go out

[3:57:19] and get work done and that isn't deemed

[3:57:21] to be acceptable. So, we'll work with

[3:57:23] you, sir.

[3:57:24] » Yes, I'd be happy to talk with you about

[3:57:26] this.

[3:57:27] » Okay. Just what what level of of of of

[3:57:30] engineering of of of expert you're you

[3:57:33] would you would be looking for. Good.

[3:57:34] Great. Thank you.

[3:57:40] » [laughter]

[3:57:42] » So

[3:57:43] » I I will say I thought your own attorney

[3:57:44] enunciated pretty well

[3:57:48] I think your own attorney enunciated

[3:57:50] pretty well what needed to be done to

[3:57:51] get to the [snorts] staff but it

[3:57:53] certainly talked with Mr. Mr. Dale.

[3:57:56] » So, I uh

[3:57:58] Do we need a motion?

[3:57:59] » There is a motion There's a motion on

[3:58:01] the table. We're waiting for a second.

[3:58:07] No.

[3:58:10] » It was.

[3:58:11] Okay.

[3:58:12] And who seconded that?

[3:58:13] » Josh.

[3:58:15] » I think it was Josh.

[3:58:18] » We're a talk team.

[3:58:20] » Take roll call. Jim Hurst.

[3:58:22] » Aye.

[3:58:23] » Josh Fedor.

[3:58:24] » Aye.

[3:58:24] » Amanda Miller.

[3:58:25] » Aye.

[3:58:26] » Don Kate.

[3:58:27] Kate Glenn, excuse me.

[3:58:28] » Aye.

[3:58:29] » The motion's passed.

[3:58:31] » Thank you, guys.

[3:58:33] » Thank you.

[3:58:34] » Thanks for spending your evening with

[3:58:38] » Can I

[3:58:38] » [laughter]

[3:58:38] » Off the record, can I make one request

[3:58:41] one more request so as I have your

[3:58:42] attention? Can I go first next time?

[3:58:45] » [laughter]

[3:58:46] » You and everybody else.

[3:58:47] » We're hoping you will be the only one

[3:58:49] next time.

[3:58:49] » Can we go alphabetical?

[3:58:51] » [laughter]

[3:58:55] » Thank you. But sincerely, thank you.

[3:58:56] Thank you for your time.

[3:58:58] » No, we're on we're late. We've got to

[3:59:00] finish up here. We're we're not off the

[3:59:02] job yet.

[3:59:04] » [laughter]

[3:59:08] » Keep it.

[3:59:09] » Okay, we have a couple other matters to

[3:59:11] be considered.

[3:59:13] » Thank you. That's all I wish. Have a

[3:59:14] good evening.

[3:59:15] » Thank you. Couple other matters to be

[3:59:16] considered so I can get everybody home.

[3:59:19] Um

[3:59:20] an executive session um has been asked

[3:59:23] to have um there's just

[3:59:26] be held ahead of our September 2nd

[3:59:30] meeting.

[3:59:31] Are we What time?

[3:59:34] » Um so, I was I'm to see if everyone was

[3:59:37] available for an executive session

[3:59:40] starting at 6:00 p.m. on September 2nd.

[3:59:45] » If I'm in town, I can be here.

[3:59:47] » Okay.

[3:59:48] » That's a little bit of a jump ball.

[3:59:49] » Okay.

[3:59:50] » But you'll know in the next week.

[3:59:51] » Okay.

[3:59:52] » I'm out of town if he's out of town.

[3:59:55] » [laughter]

[3:59:57] » If a date works better for the four or

[3:59:59] five of us or five of the BZA members,

[4:00:02] I'm happy to have a different meeting on

[4:00:03] a different date. I just thought that

[4:00:04] was

[4:00:05] » The easiest time to do

[4:00:05] » You need all of us, right?

[4:00:07] » We just need 30 minutes before the

[4:00:08] meeting.

[4:00:09] » I will uh

[4:00:11] Dan, Mr. Taylor

[4:00:12] » Yes, we I've I've asked for 30 minutes

[4:00:14] to talk with you in executive session on

[4:00:16] matters that can be discussed with your

[4:00:18] attorney. It's a new category in the

[4:00:20] access to public records act. I'm

[4:00:22] confident that 30 minutes will be more

[4:00:25] than enough.

[4:00:27] » Should we confirm our other board member

[4:00:28] will be in attendance?

[4:00:31] » I can

[4:00:31] » Need a quorum.

[4:00:32] » Okay.

[4:00:33] » A quorum.

[4:00:33] » That's perfect.

[4:00:33] » If somebody's not there, I can

[4:00:34] communicate with them separately.

[4:00:36] » It's on my calendar.

[4:00:37] » So, 6:00 p.m.

[4:00:38] » Mhm.

[4:00:39] » Uh night September 2nd.

[4:00:41] » Mhm.

[4:00:45] » That is going to move the pre-meeting

[4:00:46] for the September meeting

[4:00:48] to 5:30. Uh let me see.

[4:00:51] Let me look on my calendar to see who

[4:00:53] the two pre-meeting attendees are for

[4:00:55] that month.

[4:01:09] pre-meeting

[4:01:14] That is Josh Martin and Amanda Miller.

[4:01:16] So, Amanda, you you are aware of the

[4:01:19] change and I will update Josh.

[4:01:22] » If Josh has I know he

[4:01:26] is challenged to get in here a little

[4:01:27] early. If he cannot make that

[4:01:29] pre-meeting, I'll be more than happy to

[4:01:31] swap with you.

[4:01:32] Yeah, thank you. I will I will let you

[4:01:34] know.

[4:01:35] Volunteer for everything. All right,

[4:01:37] well there are no further business.

[4:01:39] » I move we adjourn.

[4:01:40] » Second.

[4:01:41] » [laughter]

[4:01:42] » All in favor say aye.

[4:01:43] » Aye.

[4:01:45] » Run.

Untitled meeting

Transcript