Good evening.
Um, I'd like to call to order the August
5th, 2026 meeting for the Zanesville
Board of Zoning Appeals.
Um,
if everyone would please join with me
for the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance
» Allegiance to the flag of the United
States of America, and to the republic
for which it stands, one nation under
God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all.
» We'll do a roll call.
» Katie Glenn.
» Present.
» Amanda Miller.
» Present.
» Josh Fedor.
» Present.
» Jim Hurst.
» Present.
» Josh Martin.
Absent is he uh
Have we heard anything from Josh?
» Yeah, he he was going to be absent
tonight.
» Okay. Thank you. So, we have a quorum of
four.
» Thank you.
Our first item is to approve the meeting
minutes from July 1st, 2026.
Is there any corrections, additions?
Wonderful.
» I move that we approve them.
» Second.
» Go to a vote.
» That'll be Jim Hurst.
» Aye.
» Josh Fedor.
» Aye.
» Amanda Miller.
» Aye.
» Katie Glenn.
» Aye.
» Motion passes.
» Thank you.
Okay, tonight we will start with we have
uh
docket number 202619UV.
Um, it's a continuous continuance from
September 2nd, 2026.
Um, staff, do you want to
» Uh yeah, so this is this project has
been uh
in our office for a month or so. Uh
after reviewing it, we found out that a
traffic study was warranted at this
intersection given the the subdivision
uh being constructed north of the site
along with what is being proposed as
part of this development. Um the staff
in the rules is entitled to one
automatic continuance.
Um we're going to exercise that uh so
the petitioner has an opportunity to
complete the traffic impact study.
Um hopefully um the study is completed
prior to uh the September 2nd meeting
and so we'll be able to have
the public hearing [clears throat] for
this uh this item at that point.
» Thank you.
Um
at this point I'll enter a motion to
continue case 2026-19
UV to the September 2nd, 2026 meeting.
» Uh if you if that's the motion, I'll
second it. If not, I'll make the motion.
» That wasn't the motion.
» That was the motion.
» That's I'll [laughter] do the second
second.
» I'll take a second.
» Tim Ross?
» I.
» Josh Fedor?
» I.
» Amanda Miller?
» I.
» Katie Glenn?
» I.
» Motion passes.
» Thank you.
Okay, on to continued business.
Uh we are at case 2026-15
UV.
Staff, would you mind outlining
uh this variance of use?
» Uh yeah, so this is uh as you said, this
is a use variance located 526 North 1200
East.
Um
the property
uh is zoned AG, right? So it's subject
to the permitted uses in section 194082,
but essentially what that means is the
warehousing component, um I think the
word that is used is storage barns.
The component of that project is not a
permitted use by right in AG.
Um the overall project consists
primarily of two components. There is an
equestrian element to this, which has
uh a horse arena, uh some stables,
and uh you can see the conceptual
layout, um
as part of exhibit eight, I believe.
Um, you can see the schematic layout of
the arena and the proposed storage
buildings.
» A time out. Can we able to get the
video, the visual?
» Well, that's what I'm I'm
don't know what's going on with the
internet. That's what I was trying to
figure out.
IT, are you having issues with your
internet?
Well, I fixed my screen,
I think,
but I can't fix my internet.
While we work on that,
let me see if it'll reload.
Okay.
Updated conceptual layout. Let's see if
it'll work.
Is yours working?
We can use this one. This will work.
» Fix this.
» Thank you, sir.
Plug it in that one.
There you go.
Sorry about that, everyone.
Maybe.
There you go.
It's on the back screen.
Now it's on the front.
» Thank you.
» Okay.
So, you'll see a conceptual
rendering.
Um as I was saying, this comprises uh a
two
two uses. One is the equestrian
component. Um my mouse is not working
for yours. Here's okay.
» Because you're using the other one.
» It's okay.
I'm sorry. I'm not able to get this
thing to zoom in the way it needs to.
This is the equestrian component up here
with the horse arena. And the part in
question, which is the subject of
tonight's use variance,
are the proposed storage barns that you
see uh laid out along this path.
Again, just to reiterate, um while it's
all while it's part while all of this is
part of the same project, uh the use
variance component is not specific to
the equestrian elements of this project.
Uh those elements could be developed
today with regardless of how the outcome
of this project was to of the use
variance was to go. Um we're only
talking about the warehousing or the
storage barn component of this project.
Um to get to the staff report,
I'm not going to spend a lot of time
going through the uh
the the reasons why we would support
something. I'm going to talk on the
reasons why we
did not land on a favorable
recommendation. Uh
mostly being item number three, the need
for the variance arises from a condition
on the site. We disagreed with that
finding.
Uh finding number four, uh the zoning
ordinance constitutes an unnecessary
hardship in the use of the property. We
disagreed on that finding.
Um and the last finding, which was
finding number five, uh the approval
does not interfere substantially with
the comprehensive plan.
Uh although several commitments have
been made by the petitioner, um and I
will let him speak to those during his
presentation.
Um staff still feels like the
fundamental use of warehouse
um is not an agricultural use as
recommended by the comprehensive plan.
Um and so those are the three primary
reasons why staff issued an unfavorable
recommendation.
Um I'm happy to talk about any
parts of the staff report or any of the
proposed um exhibits.
Um if you all have any questions, I'm
happy to answer those. Otherwise, I'll
turn it back over to you.
» Thank you.
Does the board have any other questions?
» Time, no.
» Wonderful.
Well, I will have the petitioner come
up. If you could state your name and
address.
And as you take the stage, I'll just ask
that everyone
please speak calmly and respectfully
throughout tonight.
Um even when there are differences of
opinions, I think we can all do that.
And so thank you for helping us maintain
a
uh productive and courteous discussion.
» Uh Andy Newton, 5 English Green,
Westfield, Indiana.
Uh have you been given the renderings
» [snorts]
» For the property?
» They are on the agenda if I can get them
to pull up here. That is what I'm trying
to pull up for you.
» Pass them out. I got some copies here.
» We have renderings. I don't know if we
have everything in your hand cuz I can't
see what's in your hand.
Thank you.
Thank you. We We do have that. But can I
have it again?
» Yeah, no, that's That's fine. I just
wanted to see what you're holding up.
I promise I'm a a better builder than I
am presenter, so I apologize.
Good evening, Madam Chair, members of
the board. My name is Andy Newton, and
I'm the petitioner for case 2026-15-UV
regarding 526 North 1200 East. We are
requesting a use variance to allow what
the BZA calls warehouse general use on
this property within the rural general
agricultural zoning district.
Since the previous hearing, we have
continued to work with the staff and
have supplemented the record with
additional materials, including an
updated operations plan, traffic impact
study,
commitments, and supporting information
to address general concerns.
The site currently sits on 25 acres
containing remnants of a landscaping
business and is situated in an area
characterized by a mixture of
agricultural activities, rural
residential uses, and agricultural
support operations.
This request is not for a large
industrial park, distribution hub, or
high-intensity commercial operation.
Rather, it is a request to allow a
warehouse use within buildings and
operational parameters that are in line
with the intended agricultural use.
The requested relief is limited to this
property and does not change the zoning
classifications of surrounding parcels.
The site has been planned to function
safely and efficiently while minimizing
impacts on neighboring properties. We
have gone around and inputted as much as
we could from uh from input from
neighbors.
Uh as reflected in the conceptual
rendering, we feel the design adds to
the rural character of the area rather
than takes away.
In addition, we have voluntary proposed
commitments that will govern how the
property is operated. These commitments
provide enforceable limitations and
assurances beyond what would
otherwise be required.
In addition to commitments submitted, I
would also like to add a commitment of
when the loan is paid off that stores
operations will cease and operations
will be 100% agricultural.
Our objective has been straightforward.
Create a use that is operationally
successful while adding value to the
community.
Traffic is one of the primary concerns
when evaluating a use variance and we
understand that. The traffic analysis
was intended to evaluate the impact of
proposed use on local roadways and to
determine whether the surrounding
transportation network can accommodate
anticipated traffic.
Our position is that the evidence
demonstrated that the proposed operation
can occur without creating unreasonable
traffic impacts or compromising public
safety.
I recognize there may be concerns about
whether a warehouse use is appropriate
in an agricultural zoning district. The
master plan calls for uses agricultural
in nature.
With the limitations put in place, we
feel this project is agricultural in
nature.
The board is not being asked whether
warehouses should be permitted
everywhere in AG zoning. The question
before the board is whether this
particular property with its unique
characteristics and proposed
operational limitations is appropriate
for the requested relief. We believe
that it is.
We respectfully submit the approval of
the variance can be granted without
being injurious to the public health,
safety, morals, or general welfare
without substantially affecting the use
and value of surrounding properties.
Thank you for your time and
consideration. We appreciate the staff
review of our process. Jonathan, you've
been great. Uh the commitments received
from the neighboring property owners,
thank you. And uh
and the opportunity to present this
request to the board. Thank you. At this
time, we respectfully request approval
of petition 2026-15
UV and I would be happy to answer any
questions from the board.
» Thank you. Appreciate it.
Fellow board members, do you have any
questions?
» You talk about
uh storage of agricultural equipment in
these buildings.
Um
Yeah, you use tractors and farm
machinery. However, a lot farm machinery
is larger than these doorways that
you're proposing if I remember
14-ft doorways.
» Okay.
» Um
I just feel like you're limiting
yourself quite a bit on what you can
store in that if you're trying to store
agricultural equipment.
These are what? 14 by
50 if I remember.
» So, 14 1/2 by 50.
» 14 1/2, I'm sorry.
» Yep.
» And how tall are the doorways?
» How tall? Uh 14 ft.
So, 12 by 14 would is
But door doorways openings can be
changed, so
» Okay.
It just seems a little bit tight for
some of this larger farm machinery that
most folks around here, I mean, the days
of the little John Deere tractors are
kind of gone, but
um seems a little small.
And then you said after you were done
with the storage here you paid off the
» Once the loan is paid off.
» Once the loan is paid off and
what's then what are you going to do
with the buildings?
» What's that?
» What are you going to use the buildings
for then?
» I'm going to turn them over to the
operations of the equestrian center.
» Equestrian center center is then going
to use them for
» Uh
» More stables?
» Well,
so more more storage for trailers, uh
members of the facility, uh things to
put them in as well.
Uh and also I proposed not paving the
facility, keeping it gravel, so if later
down the road development needs to
occur, it's pretty easy to take the
post-frame buildings apart.
» I think you'll find with the development
plan with the town you're going to need
to pave it.
» Uh What was that? I didn't catch that.
» You'll find when you get to the
development plan stage with the town
you're probably going to have to pave
the entire project if it gets that far
here.
Um
at 143 units
at an average of
500 is
sounds like you'll get this paid off
pretty quick if you get it rented out.
So.
» Well, so
right right now at 143 units, 550, so
you're you're
it it's it's actually really close.
You're looking at a 6 and 1/2 to 12
million dollar loan. Your payment on
that alone is going to be
55 to 100,000 dollars a month.
» I I just
I'm just looking at the basics of it
here.
» Oh, I I I just I was trying to answer.
My bad.
» That's all I got so far.
» You referenced in your testimony that
there were unique characteristics
um
that caused you to ask for this, but I
it I'm not sure you defined for us the
unique characteristics. So, if I missed
that, forgive me, but
but what unique characteristics are
there that we need to consider?
» So so really it's the residential
properties to the north and south. Uh
they they have requirements that they
wanted, uh
not removing trees, but then also in
that to create a
a
cash flow that could justify the
equestrian center. Uh we looked at other
options. So, if you wanted to do hogs or
chickens, neighbors were not favorable
to that answer. But then also, there's a
I think a 1,320-ft
offset that you have to be from
residential buildings for that
classification. So, it you're you're
you're limited, but I I
in exploring that, the neighbors
wouldn't want that at all. To me, that's
more industrial than what I'm proposing.
What we propose is what I felt like was
the least impact
uh and would help the neighbors out the
most for what we're trying to do. Um
we're limiting as far as access. You
come into the units, you're not going to
see people inside there. We're going to
have fencing, completely enclosed, no
outside parking. Uh,
again, the the the idea is the least
amount of impact and I've literally gone
door-to-door trying to get any
recommendations we can and anything I've
gotten I have incorporated. So.
» Okay. Thank you.
» [clears throat]
» Um, curious, what is the term of the
loan?
» Uh, it hasn't been determined yet as I
haven't determined how many units I'm
going to be able to put in there.
» Mhm. Well, what do you You've obviously
done some pro formas and preliminary
numbers based on what we've been
presented today. So, based on that, what
would the term length be?
» 20 year.
» Okay.
» Um, you mentioned no power to these
buildings and I understand trying to
keep an agricultural feel.
Um,
» So, in recommendation from the fire
marshal, uh, just pulling everything out
that cuts down any fire hazard that
would be.
» And no storage of explosive materials.
However, I saw you had campers in there
as a list it
» Okay.
» Uh,
storage you know, or or something you're
looking at storing.
Um, are they going to remove that
because most campers have an LP tank in
them in some fashion. Are they going to
remove those LP tanks prior to storage
then or
» Uh, I can have them do that, yes.
» Okay.
And then most of those type units are
going to want to winterize.
I'm just
thinking out out
» So, correct me if I'm wrong, Jonathan.
By giving the use variance,
you know,
this doesn't have to stay equestrian.
This could this these storage
units could be used for
a lot of different things.
» Uh to the petitioner's credit, he has
placed commitments that he's entered
that would restrict
that would limit the use, right? So, to
his credit, the answer to your question
would be yes. Generally speaking, had he
not submitted commitments,
um and you approved the use of warehouse
general,
that person would have been allowed to
store and operate freely under that use.
The petitioner has restricted and
provided a list of commitments that and
from that component eliminated our
concerns as far as the warehousing
component. Um the other part we had was
a concern about um
less about the warehousing, which was
the was the the issue. Our concern was
the continuation of the equestrian
component. Um
Our our zoning ordinance restricts the
uses from starting,
but we obviously don't stop uses from
continuing, right? And so,
if y'all were to grant this warehousing
operation,
our concern was there was nothing
preventing the shutting down of the
equestrian component.
And then essentially, you would end up
with a parcel full of warehousing,
right? Um I think the petitioner can
speak to that part of it. That he
addressed that concern from our
standpoint. Um
» So, we will cease operations if the
equestrian center ceases operations.
We've committed to that.
» I'm not sure if I answered your question
or not, but
» Yeah, I'm just wondering are the
commitment list that prohibited
activities, is that the
the list that you're pulling from? Is
there a separate commitments list that I
» This one? Item number 10?
» Yeah, that's the prohibited activities.
Okay.
» Um
obviously some of these are
um
you know, like outdoor storage is not
going to be permitted anyway, right? So
um he committed to it, but along with
the warehousing component, your
warehousing is typically internal,
right? And there's a separate use for
out outdoor storage, right? So
um some of these are
obvious things that would not have
occurred anyway.
» Mhm.
» Um
some of them, for example,
explosive material storage, if, you
know, there's warehousing that has
explosive material inside of it, he is
agreeing not to warehouse that. So
that's something that he's doing above
and beyond what would be
allowed.
» And these are commitments that Phil
comfortable with upholding?
» Yeah. Yeah.
Um I'll speak for myself. I don't want
to speak for Mike Hill, but uh
I'm comfortable
» There's a legal activity, you're not
going to be the one called, but
» You know,
» [laughter]
» You know, sleeping in vehicles,
trailers, and sleeping in the storage
unit, that's something that regardless
of this petitioner, we're not going to
allow to occur anyway, right? So
um you can't live in a storage unit.
» Yeah, please.
» So, do you mind if I have a couple
questions about your commitments and be
maybe the specificity of them? So
if you anticipate that the
uh term of your loan will be 20 years,
is the commitment then a 20-year term
because the loan could be renewed and
term extended?
So, is your commitment 20 years or is it
unknown?
» It is far as
» You said that the warehouse operation
would cease when the loan is paid off.
But, the term of the loan could be
extended.
» Okay.
» Just trying to figure out what that
means. Does that mean 20 years or does
it mean 20 years?
» Commit to 20 I'll commit to a 20 year.
» Okay.
» Yeah.
» And the same kind of question, you your
commitment that you've proposed
uh places a limitation that the project
will not exceed the original conception
plan footprint of 12 farm style storage
buildings.
Would you be willing to commit to um
a square footage as well because um
obviously you could make buildings
bigger and I don't think that's your
intent, but
» So, no. So, so, so I
I can uh I don't have the square footage
number in my head, but what what's on
that paper it would only get smaller
from that and those are 50 foot.
Uh we I can get the area for that and
figure that out.
» It's I think it's 94,500
ft square feet is what was in the staff
report.
» It's 94,000 It started off as a 100,000,
um but we have gone through revisions
and it's been reduced to 94.5.
» So, in
in four, commitment number four, would
you be willing to add to the 12
buildings not to exceed 94,500 sq ft?
» Is that what was on
» That's That's the most recent site plan
I got from from Derek.
Was 94.5.
» 94,000?
» I got everything. Okay, then yes.
» Okay.
That would help us enforce it if we ever
needed to.
» Essentially that that picture it's only
going to get smaller and they
they got the new one cuz we already lost
a building, so.
» [clears throat]
» Okay, thank you.
» All right.
» And I have a question for our council.
It
We're able to grant a variance for a
specific use and specific owner. It
doesn't run with the land.
» Right. It's use variance. It's just your
your It's not a use as permitted under
the current zoning and there So, you
you're The question is what you're being
asked to do is say you can you can you
can have warehousing there. That's the
question.
And yes, it just it's it's just this
this owner.
» Okay.
And so, we can term limit it and Okay.
» You can impose any conditions that you
would like on a grant of a use variance.
And as you've heard me talk about
before, use variances are
rare.
And but it's a use issue, not a
development standards like a development
standards variances. It's all use. So,
the commitments are important,
obviously, for that reason.
» I also just want to add just to get
ahead of any problems in the future.
Often times, approvals, if y'all elect
to approve this, often times, we put a
statement substantial compliant with the
submitted site plan or the conceptual
site plan. I'm concerned that you have
submitted a site plan and although your
proposal would be smaller than
is it substantially compliant to what
they see tonight? And so, I just want to
point that out because if we get
approval and y'all are seeing a site
plan tonight,
my concern is you're going to move
forward to plan commission with
something that's not shown tonight.
And if that's an issue,
maybe address it tonight prior to
approval.
Because it has been an issue in the past
where we've granted approvals based off
site plans that were submitted
and then projects land at plan
commission
and it's not the same site plan that was
presented.
» Mhm.
» So, I'll commit to the same site plan.
Any changes will be in in congruence
with what recommendations they give.
» Oftentimes it's Mike Dell who gets to
decide if it is substantially compliant.
So, if Mike's okay with that, I am okay
with that.
» Is this considered a site plan?
» What I am referring to is
» What we have in
» This. This is going to be my bigger
concern. What you see on the screen is
these
I'm sorry, I did not bring my glasses
and I didn't realize it was going to be
this small, but however many buildings
are there
coupled with the equestrian component,
that's what we're going to see.
Right? And that's what y'all are seeing
tonight.
And my concern is if we get to planning
commission and there's
one less building or the buildings are
in different locations,
um is that substantially compliant? So,
I just want to make sure we address that
if that's something we're considering.
» So, so one of the buildings already, the
the larger one, I believe Ron uh told me
that we're going to have to shrink that
one down.
Um the the the footprint though, nothing
with nothing's going to change. Uh
and from that area right there, it will
only get smaller.
» And to the question I think Mr. Fedora
would
uh ask next, um
would we be able to get a commitment
that it also looks
um a lot like
» Will will will you let me do that? I
think they already mentioned something
about stone. Uh
» It will
» I
That's
» I will commit to that. Yes, yes.
» Yeah, there's two there's [laughter] two
There's two different renderings
included and this one is
much different than the other rendering.
» [laughter]
» There's a a little bit more of an
isometric and then obviously you have
the high-res rendering and um obviously
a much sharper look.
» $5,700 difference.
» I know how much they cost, yes.
» [laughter]
» I will say this one, correct? Andy, this
is the one that I got this afternoon,
right?
» Th- Th- This one right here? Yes. Th-
This is what we're going for. This is
the appeal on the street.
This is the goal.
» And so you would be willing to
if we were to grant a use variance,
you'd be willing to grant that the the
visual look would be
» Yes. Uh
the one building though, like I said,
we've already lost that in the design of
the pond
location. So that's
where I'm saying it'll be less. It won't
be more. Uh
and and I didn't have time to change
that, so
» I know. I I understand that, but I think
» Building right behind it is going to
look the same. I'm going to have the the
same barn doors on it. Still the same
I say everything the same, just maybe
less.
» But the same visual style if that
Okay.
» Just just like that is is what we're
going for.
» Okay.
Do you have any other questions?
Josh, you mentioned needing paving. Is
that something that would go through
planning commission? That that might be
something that will come up.
» Might be wrong. My wouldn't would any
commercial building like this need to be
a paved driveway?
» Paved entrance off the right of way?
Would that be a requirement? I I'm not
sure. That would be a
» Of I just I always thought of it when
commercial we were asked to pave it.
» Yeah, I'd rely on the department public
works to determine that.
» I'm pretty sure it's going to have to be
paved.
» It's a standard. Um I think you can I'm
going to use the word waiver.
Um you can defer the pavement for up to
1 year, I believe, to allow for gravel.
I think, but they don't have to grant
that.
Um I think the requirement at planning
commission is that it has to be paved,
and then they can possibly, depending on
the conversations that y'all would have,
y'all might be able to get a waiver for
up to a year to allow it to be gravel, I
think.
All that would have to be hashed out
prior to approval of the development
plan, though. So.
» Do you guys have any other questions?
No.
Okay, I'm going to open it up to
um
the public. Um if you wouldn't mind
sitting down and probably call you back
up later, but um I'm going to call out
uh
individually um as you guys have written
your name here. If you could just um try
not to repeat what other people have
said and
and uh
and um
and I'll begin.
Um so, first person I have is Beth
Hayes. Hey.
Haynes.
If you could state your name and
address.
» Um I'm Beth Haynes. I live at 11725
East 100 North.
Um I am not here tonight to question
Good Venture Farms not being able to
conduct their stable and arena business
on this particular piece of property
since it is already zoned agricultural.
Um they have a wonderful repre-
reputation and they provide a wonderful
wonderful service to its clients.
And they would not impact our area and
would not affect our property values.
I am here tonight
as the petitioner is seeking a variance
to allow commercial warehouse operation
in an ag zone.
Thus, it appears as a separate entity
from the stable and arena operation.
As your staff report states, commercial
warehousing is not allowed in an ag
zone.
Since no zoning hardship exists, this
sets a precedence for future variance
requests for business entities which do
not show a hardship due to zoning.
Again, as the staff report states, the
hardship cannot be due to a self-created
need for a variance.
I'm a retired educator and I worked in
an elementary school
that had classrooms of severe and
profound students, mild and mentally
handicapped students, and emotionally
disturbed students.
I understand the need for this type of
program. I have no qualms about it.
It would be wonderful on that piece of
property property
but without warehouses.
I know there are other therapeutic
riding centers in the area, four
including
um
Good Ventures that I know of.
And I know Mr. Newton seems very
passionate about this program, but
I really think that this particular
piece of property
is not the one for it.
» 1 minute.
» Um
I think the warehouses may affect my
value as I live around the corner from
it and I will be able to see the
warehouses from my property.
Um
and I have some questions that arose
when I read the original
um
um proposal.
What if What happens if Good Ventures
decides the epic economically cannot
keep paying the rent for this second
facility?
Um
And Mr. Newton said he was going to have
a 20-year mortgage.
So, what if they back out before he's
finished paying it off?
Um
And my other question with that was what
happens to the warehouses since these
are two independent businesses?
» Fine.
» Okay.
» Um you finish your How many questions
more do you have?
» I just have a few more.
» Okay. Let me Okay.
» Will a stable caretaker be on the
property in the evening?
What happens if the horses get loose and
meander into the woods at the back of
the property and into our crops, which
we 50/50 farm with one of the other
petitioners here?
Uh
Why are the warehouse up hours of
operations so late, especially having
neighbors on either side?
Um my other thing was the rental of the
units. If somebody had an RV and
and
they were in a unit with no power or
lights and they need to recharge a
battery.
They're kind of up a hill and they're
working in a cave, a dark cave.
And again, as Mr. Fedor mentioned, some
of these units are not
large enough to get farm equipment into.
And will enough acreage be set aside
for pasture to meet the ordinance of
number of acres per horse?
And lastly,
um
Hamilton County legal drain runs through
that property and has a 75-ft easement
on either side of it for a total of 150
ft. Will this affect the number of
warehouses and their play placement that
the petitioner wants to build on the
property?
Um and then it is my hope that the board
will adhere to the new comprehensive
plan
which time, money, and public input were
put into to protect our agricultural
land, neighborhoods, and homes.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
» Thank you.
I'll just quickly state that anything
that's decided tonight does not set
precedent. We um address cases
individually, so there is no precedent.
That is not a thing in BZA. So, every
case is evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
Thank you.
Um
Pamela, can you please step up and say
your name and address?
» My name is Pamela Shugart, and my
husband and I Gary and Gary reside at
650 North 1200 East, and we're just two
drives past the this property.
And I am in opposition with the mini
buildings and the storage unit business
that's
proposed in this residential area that
is considered Ag. And that's all I'd
like to say. Thank you.
» Thank you.
Um Andy Newton Oh,
not you.
» [laughter]
» Lauren,
could you come up and state your name
and address?
» Hi. I'm Lauren McGee. I live at 9692
Autumn Way, Zionsville, Indiana.
So, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to say a few words. I'm a
parent, writer, and instructor at Good
Venture Farms, and I'm also a Zionsville
resident. So, I think I could stand up
here for ever give you a dissertation of
the benefits of horseback riding, and
what Good Venture Farms would give to
our community, but that's not what we're
debating tonight. We all agree that a
horse barn adding to a historical
equestrian community is a good thing.
The proposed storage barn add a
different element, yes, to this
equestrian facility, to a point, but
most agricultural facilities have some
sort of storage barns on their property
and facility. The design of these
storage barns mirror the barns, and in
no way resemble a typical storage
warehouse, like we've seen built behind
neighborhoods in Zionsville, such as
Stonegate.
When my family and I moved to Zionsville
in 2019, we were drawn to the rural
landscape, the small-town feel, and the
great school system. Beyond my personal
investment in Good Venture Farms, I
would be ecstatic to see rural
Zionsville used for agriculture, a need
for another barn in our community, and
also used for storage, beautiful barns
complimentary to the agricultural feel
of Zionsville, where residents can store
RVs, boats, whatever they need to store,
and not go to other communities. This
would also prevent another build of
neighborhoods and gas stations, which we
continuously see being built in
Zionsville. So, I strongly support this
variance being
um
passed tonight, and would be happy to
take other questions.
Thank you.
» Thank you.
Uh Brittany.
» Hi, I'm Brittany Stuff. I live at 1255
South 900 North.
No, I don't. 1255 I'm sorry.
1255
South 900 East, Zionsville. It's where
the Fabers used to live. You guys know
where it is. Anyway,
um
Shoot, that's Lauren's dog. Okay.
Anyway,
uh
when my son, who's now 9, 2 years ago
asked to start horseback riding lessons,
something that I did when I was growing
up in Hamilton County,
um one of the things that drew us to the
barn community was the sense that it was
part of a wider rural community and that
is something that drew us to move from
the Eagle Creek area to move here to
Zionsville eventually.
Um to the point that three of us now
ride and we are as a family part of the
broader barn community. Horse people
like barn people and farm people and
rural Boone County in general are good
neighbors or at least that's that's what
I found. Even when we disagree, we're
pretty respectful. We generally live and
let live. They're supportive, selfless,
generous, caring to the point of almost
absurdity and they're when you need
them.
Um what I like about uh
what the board has said about this
variance is is that it is not a slippery
slope, that that's not a thing. Um we
can have ice cream for dinner tonight
and that doesn't mean that we're ever
going to have ice cream for dinner
again. This is just a thing that happens
once.
Um but what I like about the proposal to
this one variance is that it serves a
broader swath of the community. I like
that um
what the proposal is at pains to propose
is that it's they're pretty barns. Uh we
just built a barn and it it was such a
pain, but that is a good thing because
it meant that things were pretty
and that we were doing things slowly and
consciously and honoring what we want
our community to be. Um I, like a lot of
you, drive through Carmel a lot and I
really like Carmel. It's a nice place,
but I don't want Zionsville to look like
Carmel. I want Zionsville to be Carmel.
Um and I would much rather see storage
sheds than anything else, especially if
they're pretty. And they look like my
barn or they look like a lovely barn. I
like Science Hill's rural character.
I'm also glad we're meeting tonight. I'm
glad we're talking about this, and I'm
glad we're taking it slowly,
thoughtfully, and strategically. That's
how development should be.
Um, I like the idea of our barn being
more convenient to the community. I like
the idea of it being more accessible to
people.
Um, and I like the idea of this serving
the community as a multi-use space. I
think there's a long history of rural
people offering our city and suburban
neighbors a place to park their stuff.
Um, but I also like the idea of it not
being visible from the road. I like it
being behind a pretty barn facade. Um,
I'm hopeful that we can all kind of come
find a way forward to make everybody
happy, preserve the character and charm
of our community, and I hope we continue
to do that. Thank you.
» Thank you.
John.
Haswinkel? Did I say that right?
» Very close.
Yeah, my name's John Haswinkel. My wife,
Chris, and I own the property 11615 East
100 North. And our property is, uh,
north and west of that. Probably have
the most frontage line to the,
uh, subject property. Uh, we are in We
oppose the,
uh, commercial buildings for this. Um,
it's clearly not ag. I would venture to
say that any farmer that wanted to store
equipment is going to build his own
building. As Josh had said earlier, this
is not going to accommodate a combine or
big spraying equipment, uh, tillage
equipment. So, I think the, um,
little bit disingenuous to to build this
office at ag-related. What I I don't
think many farmers would start store
equipment there at all. So, I think this
is clearly using a commercial property
to pay for the
um horse facility. Have no problem with
the horse facility, but it seems
um
wrong for me
to um
allow this commercial property to pay
for it. I just think it's uh
it's not what the intended use is, and
uh that's all I have to say. Thank you.
» Thank [clears throat] you.
Kim?
So sorry, just Thompson.
» [laughter]
» I don't have the best penmanship either,
but
» My name is Thompson. I live at 11722
East 100 North with my husband Mitch.
We live across the street um
from the Haswinkles and the Haynes.
And this we are I'm we are both opposed
to this development very much, not
because of the horses at all.
We have horses, we love horses,
um had horses all my life, and I know
how hard financially it would be to
sustain on the value of this property
without the
storage warehouses.
Um I was always told if you ever want to
become a millionaire in the horse
business, you better start out as a
multi-millionaire.
But um but it was that aside, I think
the warehouses would just be very much
of a distraction um to our little rural
community.
Um
Like everyone else here has said, it
doesn't fit in with the zoning.
It I know that you take it case-by-case,
but it still opens up
warehouses in our neighborhood.
And I don't understand why they would
need to be open until 11:00 at night. Um
if you're storing boats and campers, we
have a camper. I know that you're going
to need a generator probably to get it
going. So, how many people are going to
be running generators that night getting
ready for their camping trip the next
morning.
Um I don't believe that any farmers
would store their equipment in these
facilities. Um it just it just doesn't
seem like the right fit for our our
area. So, we very much oppose the
warehouse piece. Thank you.
» Thank you.
Um Andy, would you like to come back up
and
I'm sure there's maybe things comments
that you want to make, but I have a
couple questions.
Is there any comments you want to make
after?
» Uh just that
uh for the agricultural piece, uh
I've tied myself to the equestrian side.
Uh if it ceases, I cease.
Uh
if the when the 20-year loan's done,
I'm turning it over.
Uh
This is going to give someone an
opportunity that otherwise would not be
able to quit her jobs and do something
that uh has been her dream.
Um And like I said, I'm just fortunate
to be a vessel to hopefully make that
happen, but uh as far as the Do I answer
the questions directly that you posed?
» Say whatever you want.
» I I didn't have I didn't have more
» Need to answer any questions. I just
wanted to give you a chance to to to say
anything that you wanted to.
» And and that's the biggest thing is that
you know, uh
Google met it they won't tie themselves
to what they're trying to do. I'm
committing to
financial resources and everything to to
make this happen and uh again, it is
equestrian so in nature. Um
» Um I'd like to add I'm Leah. I'm the
owner of Good Adventure.
» Hello. Thank you.
» You could just state your name and
address. Yep.
» My name is Leah Bonaventure. I live at
2665
uh East 6 No, South 650 East. Britney,
you did that to me. Thank you.
Um I own Good Venture Farm. Um all my
So, my riders came out today.
Um something I just like to mention when
you guys talk about farmers, like I I
totally understand what's a farmer, so
um my boyfriend over there, he has
tractors, trailers, everything you can
think of. Um
he would store something like that
somewhere here. Um
just because you're a farmer doesn't
mean you own a giant combine, doesn't
mean you own, you know, certain
material. Um people see themselves of a
farmer having a
What is it? A zero-turn, honey, that you
have two or three of them sitting in the
driveway that need to go in a storage
barn. Yes.
Um if he could have somewhere to store
those, that would be great. If he had
somewhere we could store them close
where he could drop them off and check
on them, that'd be fabulous. Um
I think that the they're beautiful
looking. I think it adds to the
aesthetic. Um I don't think it does
draws anything away to what we do.
Um
I think Andy's done a wonderful job, and
it's small, it's family run, my family,
barn family, Andy's family. It's a
beautiful, beautiful accent to the uh
community.
That's my two pieces.
Oh, the horse is getting out. Horses get
out all the time.
Um so I worry about the ordinance about
having horses on land. So, my horses um
go out on a rotation. They don't live
outside. They won't have horses living
We I won't have horses living outside.
They live in the stalls. They go out to
graze for about 4 to 6 hours a day. Um
yeah, so I will have fencing. We have
fencing in place. Um I will also have a
hot wire going around the fencing to
keep them in place. I can't account for
Mother Nature. Um I wish I can control
her sometimes. I can't. Um if it knocks
down a fence, yeah, that horse is going
to get out. Um my horses are all
friendly, so you could go up to them and
say, "Hey, whoa."
and just walk right up to them. They
will be wearing halters. Um I wouldn't I
wouldn't be concerned about a horse
getting out unless Mother Nature came
through or something of some drastic
measure happened. But my horses live
inside, they go out in a rotation 4
hours. There's somebody on the property
during hours of operation.
After hours of operation, no one's
living on the property. It's going to be
secured circuit so we can watch the
horses. So you don't have to worry
about, you know, anybody that you don't
know pulling in and out at certain
hours. My hours are limited. I do have a
life outside of the barn. So
surprising you to all you guys, I do
have a life.
Um
So it won't be
all hours at night. I won't ride horses
out in an arena. I won't have
spotlights. I'm not going to have a
rodeo. It's not going to be a
pick-a-part. It's going to be a place
where kids, adults can come and they can
have their passion shared with me and my
other barn family.
What else about the barn getting out?
Anything?
The questions
Oh, yeah.
» We can't take testimony from the
audience, please.
» I'm sorry. I was just hearing the the
questions. I apologize.
» A couple questions for you if you're if
you've if you're if you're done.
» I'm done.
» Okay.
I did have a question. I think I was
confused on the relationship between
Good Venture and you. So is technically
Good Venture is your tenant and there's
a lease in place?
A land lease or there will be. So what
term length of a lease? That's a pretty
big partnership to not have any kind of
lease in place currently. I would think
that you guys would have negotiated the
terms and what that looks like.
» As far as I mean, the intention is that
she takes this over. So
I mean, I'd be willing to do a 20-year
term lease if that appeases the board.
» All of this got passed, we had agreed to
sit down and make that agreement.
The intention is for me to eventually
take over
the whole property. That's going to be
where I put my roots in the ground and
live.
Um
» When you say take over the whole
property, you mean buy the whole
property or like lease the whole
property?
» Take over the loan.
» Take over the loan. Okay.
» Ownership. She would love to put her
house out there one day.
And And that be her property.
» Okay.
» And right, you don't always have to be a
multi-millionaire to get into the horse
business. It's It's the community that
you build. It's the people that support
you.
Um I built a wonderful barn family and
the support's there. So, no you don't
have to be a multi-millionaire to be a
horse person. I'm not looking to do
that. Um but what I am looking to do is
have an opportunity for people to come
share my passion and um
if they want to store their trailer that
they keep at home, I got a spot for
them. So.
» I am a little confused as to why the
hours of operation is so late. I thought
that
before
um 11:00 is late.
Um for a family. I'm just curious.
» People getting back with their camper,
uh giving them an opportunity to get get
in there and get stored from a trip or
something. Uh I'd be willing to reduce
that if that appeases you.
» I'm just curious. I I wouldn't
want to live by the
» Thing with the hours early, if someone
has a fishing boat, just coming in early
to
That's the idea.
» I'll elaborate on that a little bit.
With 11:00, it's dark even in the middle
of the summer.
Here you have these long rows of
buildings with no electrical back there,
no safety lights, no security
» So there's lights out front.
So you you'll you'll be able to see the
lights.
» Somewhere there was no electrical in the
buildings.
» Inside.
» Okay.
» So So the the the the idea is you wanted
to reduce a a plug-in for people because
that that's an extra fire hazard. That
» In the rendering, it shows lights
outside of each barn door.
In the rendering.
» Okay.
» I'm just asking because you said this
rendering was going to look like this.
» Of the buildings. All All All that's uh
exterior.
And for the Through the planning
commission, they they may have
requirements that we may have to add
lights in there. I I haven't got that
far yet. Uh
but like I said, right now the lights on
the exterior and we're trying to face
everything inside. Everything's
enclosed.
» Okay.
» So, when Josh asked about getting a
trailer back there at 11:00 at night
when it's pitch black, there will be
lights at every door so they can come
» Lights. There's lights inside the
facility. Yes, you'll be able to see
what you
» Stay on 24 hours?
» So, we're we're probably going to put
them on like a a motion sensor so that
they turn off and then when everyone's
gone, uh they can turn off. Again,
planning commission will probably have
some requirements and I'll have to abide
by that, but the intent is
uh motion activated.
» Well, I forgive me, but I think
any requirements about your operations
actually have to be done here. I don't
think the planning commission can do a
lot about that. They can talk about
» Well, I thought requirements for lights.
Uh they don't control
» They will have comments on that. You've
got two planning commission members
sitting at on BZA right now, so
» The uh and I have a concern and perhaps
staff can help me with it that if it was
reaching planning commission stage when
it comes to lighting, even if your
intent right now or the
the the modest lighting scheme you
showed directly here on the buildings,
um does staff think that
this would hit on the planning
commission side and all of a sudden
we're talking about 30-ft structures in
the air to provide
uh lighting like
other uses have in their parking lots.
» The the proposal would have to comply
with the town's, you know, light
standards and that would be confirmed
during the development plan review.
» Does that answer?
» Uh
Yes.
Uh it it answers that that would have to
comply. Could we [clears throat] write a
restriction that said
this is the lighting the only lighting
scheme we would approve?
» Yes, I believe so. You can have you can
establish a standard that's that's more
restrictive.
» More restrictive.
» Yeah, not less.
» Okay.
» Want me to commit to
» I I'm kind of doing a little discovery.
I mean, I these are always
» Um
» These are just difficult to do because
if we're at all going to consider this,
the operations
of the property and the agreement get
set here. Um
that we've seen that done badly.
» I I also want to add to that, Jim, cuz I
you're going through your process. I
want you to keep going, but
getting back to the lease, that's an
important factor to me because I do love
the equestrian piece of this, and I
I
um have a kid in occupational therapy,
and I know how good horses can be for
that, and it's a wonderful thing. Um but
you know, making sure that transfer
happens, like
you know, at that 20-year, there's a
commitment for a 20-year, but there's no
lease in place.
That is to be negotiated once they
get through planning commission
or this gets approved. So, that for me
if
is a
is one that I would want a commitment
from.
» I need the water a little bit. This
follows with
uh Andy.
The commitments are going to follow with
the landowner with the property owner
when it shifts ownership.
» Can have it limited.
» Starts from scratch again, doesn't it?
» Right, that's true. Assuming they have
that agreement executed that he does
actually
gift her it once the loan is paid off.
» Uh
Can we are we
» Yeah.
» I I've got I I
» Please.
» So, there was a concern or a question
brought up about full-time help, and
that led to another concern. I've been
to a lot of horse barns, and there's
always in somewhere.
Uh where that where there's a
full-time barn help living in the on the
premises is going to be an occurrence.
There is going to be a big full-time
living on the property.
I Because I ask cuz they have their
plusses and minuses. Uh, the plus is
there's somebody there all the time. The
minus is
there's somebody there all the time.
Um
» So, for for the um
for the recording was that a no?
» Yes.
» Okay. All right.
» Correct. There There There's no No one's
going to be living in There's no
apartments or living stable or
» No.
» Could you speak into the microphone if
you would?
» I was going to say I am there all the
time, but I'm not going to live there.
» Um And what were the hours of operations
again? I'm sorry.
» Uh, I believe it was [snorts] Let's see
here. What time
5:00 to 11:00
weekend.
» I think it was 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 if my
memory serves.
» All week or is that
» 5:00 to 10:00 Monday to Friday, 5:00 to
11:00 Saturday and Sunday.
» And And that's for the storage. Um the
my facility I I've got
» Could you speak into the microphone?
» That's for the storage. My facility I'm
not We won't be running that late. I
mean, my last lesson Yeah, 7:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m. Um Monday through Friday.
Uh, Saturday and Sunday it's the same
Oh, so I should say Sunday to Sunday. Um
I don't stay there after 9:00. Only time
I'm going to come back is if I see
something on the cameras that one of my
ponies have gotten out and are wandering
the hallways.
Just to see.
» Um and then
I'm sorry. One more uh, there was a
drainage easement brought up in your
findings of facts as well as they
remonstrator brought it up. Can you
elaborate a little bit on this drainage
easement that runs through the property?
» Uh, can I have my engineer speak to
that?
» Absolutely.
» Absolutely. Yeah.
» Could you come up and state his name and
address?
» [clears throat]
» Air Gordon with Spacegoat. We're located
at 3850 Property Way South Drive in
Indianapolis, Indiana.
Um the
legal drain that runs through our
property
is right at the tail end of the Jacob
Shoemaker drain. It is our property and
then the parcel just north.
And then everything drains south into
Hamilton County. So, it's a fun
situation with us being right on the
county line.
Uh getting to coordinate with both Boone
County and Hamilton County. We met with
them last week.
And that'll be a
continuous conversation until we get
county approval
from both parties.
Along with Zionsville approving the
drainage. So, all three will
be able to review.
Um standard relocation for legal drains
is uh 30-ft drainage easement. We will
pick it up where it hits our property
line there at the north.
And reroute around our operation
to the south property line where
uh through our development it'll be a
30-ft drainage easement. And then north
and south of that it will be the
uh 75-ft on each side being a total 150.
» You've you've made communications with
Hamilton County and Boone County
Surveyor's offices.
» Yes, we've been in conversation with
them.
Yep.
» Okay.
» That was them
uh
emails over the past couple months and
sat down with them last week.
» And then I got one more question for
you, Andy.
Um
This is ag. This is farmland. This I
mean, everything up through here it's
been ag
my whole life. Um
And we're you're saying you're wanting
to store agricultural equipment here. If
we limited this to just agricultural
equipment,
so we could stay within the agricultural
mindset. No boats, no trailers,
or no flatbed trailers, no
RVs, no
anything but agricultural equipment.
Would this
business model work?
» So, right now I don't think so. Uh one
one of the things I am doing though is
offering a discount for ag equipment.
And then I'm also offering a period
where I will not offer it to the general
public as well.
Uh should we fill up everything at in
that time, then I mean, I'll make a
commitment that we don't need the other
side. Uh I'm willing to state that. Uh
but I don't know. What I'm scared of is
limiting that income and getting a loan
and not being able to repay it. And it's
kind of the the safeguard to make all
this happen.
» I could say that that would get it to my
mind that, hey, we Okay.
I get my head around
this being an agricultural use if it was
strictly used for agricultural
equipment. But I'm afraid what I'm I'm
looking at here is RV storage and boat
storage. It's a tremendous need in this
community.
Um
it happens on a lot of farms around here
already. And the
quite frankly, no one's turned them in.
When they get turned in, they'll have to
address it.
But I guess tell me how this isn't going
to be boat storage and RV storage.
Because that's to me that's what it
looks like to me.
» Uh so again, just just the offering $100
a month cheaper to ag residents. Um I'm
trying to entice uh and give incentives
to the agricultural community.
» I I I appreciate that. I'm just
you know.
» So so where
where the large building is at up here
on the uh
screen,
if I made a commitment to shrink that
down, which I think the fire marshal
said we're going to have to, if I added
another building in there, put in large
doors, offered it free, made that
commitment,
cuz real really the biggest thing to
farmers I think holding them up is the
cost.
Uh I think I think your husband
mentioned that to me. Uh I'd be willing
to construct another building in there
and uh offer it free to agricultural
combines, anything large of that nature,
and
uh
» I I don't think your business model's
going to work too well if you're
offering free storage. So
Um I think your business
» The margin to do it, Josh, let him.
» [laughter]
» But I guess my thing is
Like I said, I can get my head
» It's not a good business idea.
» I I
okay.
» I'm I'm being honest with you.
Honestly, it'd be better to go across
the street and build a whole bunch of
storage units in the industrial area
that's going to be zoned for that, but
it's not about that. And that that's my
whole intent for this whole thing is
it's not about the money. It's about me
getting an opportunity to help someone.
I'm a builder. I'm literally going to be
building these with my own two hands.
I've hired a guy to help me already.
We've got Amish on board to help out as
well. This is going to be a true
uh and again, I'm going to quit my job.
This is this is what I I want to do. I
would like to help people, and when
she's at the point where she's able to
take it over, I'd like to go do
something else
positive as well.
So again, I've heard from many people
this is not a good business decision. It
is not, but it's more than a business
decision.
So
» Josh hit all your points, Jim.
» He did.
Yeah, I think he got you got me covered.
I kept crossing things off every time I
asked a question.
» Know. We'll see. Great minds think
alike.
» Yeah.
» For me to even wrap my head around
this, for me the
transfer from a 20-year loan to make
sure it stays like good venture that
that the use drops off
is
something that I feel like needs to be
in there if this is even something that
um
can even move forward from my
standpoint.
Um
that would be a contingency.
» I'm unclear on what happens to the
storage facilities once the loan is paid
off for the arena and you no longer
require them as a source of income.
What exactly is going to happen
to you said you're going to use those
storage facilities for for your barn
equipment?
» Mhm.
» And is that going to fill all of them?
Are they What's going to happen to
buildings that you no longer need that
you are no longer using?
» So
the Amish will come and take them down.
» They'll remove them.
» So so the post frame construction is
relatively easy to take down and reuse
and probably be donated, honestly.
» I'd like to keep a few up for extra
storage for, you know, if I have
any horses that I need to move out, need
to move in another area.
Um so it would be used for another area
of
horse
barns if I could, but I mean it's like
he said they would be taken down.
» Are Are these concrete foundation
buildings then or are they going to be
gravel
So are we talking gravel floored in
these buildings or are they
» Uh concrete.
» Concrete, okay. So when the buildings
come down, the concrete will be busted
up, removed and
» If they don't need the building, that's
like I said, it wouldn't be mine at that
time.
» I'm not keeping the concrete.
» And just out of curiosity, so there's
going to be lighting on the outside of
these storage units.
» That's the intent right now.
» Electrical on the interior of the units
for anyone to use for personal use. How
do the doors open? Are they going to be
» They're manual.
» Okay.
With just a
a lock?
» So so so you have a padlock and put on
it and take the padlock off, pull the
latch open and you go down and you you
lift it up and roll it up.
» I'm thinking of self-storage units
um
Madonna I've been in and around
They usually have more site security
than I see here.
Uh more substantial fencing that isn't
the gentle kind to keep horses in but
it's built to keep people out.
Um many of them do elect to have someone
staying on site at least larger
uh properties and I don't know where
that cut off is.
But
when you talk about site security and
the security of people's
uh contents and the um
any comfort of the neighbors that it's
you know not a an attractive place to
go thief from. How how do you manage
that?
» So so right now we're going to have uh
security with cameras and then we're
also going to have uh a gate for access
kind of where they're showing the gate
right now with sliding that building
back. Uh
there'll be an access gate to get in and
out of the facility.
» Okay. So it's not showing on here it'd
be a another gate
» There's a gate shown on there but it it
it's it's going to be probably further
back.
» Yeah, I I got you.
» So
people taking lessons won't have access
to the storage facility.
» There'll be a separate gated through.
They So she's going to have access.
She's going to keep equipment and some
few things in there what not but not not
her.
Yes.
» I'm not sure if we have any more
questions. I know we need to have our
» Yeah, I just
I think just if we could revisit like
the factors, you know, um and head back
to
um
you know, fair market value, hard
necessary hardship.
And
and focus on those and
Yes, you guys can sit down. You guys
have any other questions?
» No.
» Okay. Sorry. Thank you.
» It's uh
They're
very
sincere people, I think, trying to do
good things here, and it it always makes
it difficult because it comes back to
the unnecessary hardship question.
Uh if my memory serves, which is
imperfect, this I think is the third use
I we've seen um at BCA here proposed for
this property.
And if if it was a world that I had to
pick out of one of those three, and I
was a neighbor, I would probably want to
pick this one. Um
but that isn't really how we make our
decisions.
Um
it
Somebody will have to walk me through
the unnecessary hardship. I've been
trying to wrap my brain around
uh and it was mentioned by several
people
um
who testified that there are plenty of
ag operations that
you know, have some storage, but that's
different than
having a, you know, 94,500
sq ft of dedicated storage facility
in the next 20 years. And I think
unnecessary hardship's tough, so
how do we make it
fit under ag is the question, and I know
Mr. Fedor is making a run at that.
Um
with contemplation of of what limits of
what could be stored on the property.
Uh but that right now is where my
hang-up is.
» Yeah, I'll I'll elaborate on what Jim
just said. A lot of farmers have
buildings, but they don't rent the
storage out. They're using it for their
own equipment and
normal normally if you go in them
they're crammed to the gills with their
own equipment. Um but they don't rent
the storage out.
That that's a different that's a
different beast right there.
So
Uh
I'm I'm right there though with you as
well. I'm trying to get
around
uh three and five are the two that I
have trouble with. Um that I don't see
anything particularly unique about this
prop- property that requires this nor
can I get around the
the unnecessary hardship. This is a um
It's a It's a farm field that's there's
not very much unique about it. A lot of
farm fields have drainage easements that
run through them.
Um
So I
I I think it's a great project.
I would love to see this in an area
that's that's more suited zoning for it.
It's It's a great layout.
Um but I don't know if this is the place
for it.
» Question to staff. If this was
just equestrian and it was barn storage
for
you know
trunks and things like that for their
horses.
Um is that an approved use under this?
» Yes. Um
I'm going to go back to a previous
concern you'll have about
uh if the warehousing operation were to
cease, what would the buildings be used
for, right?
Um the buildings we are concerned with
the use of the buildings, right? Um
these buildings in this case in this
period of time are warehousing, which is
causing the issue.
Once the buildings are constructed,
unless y'all guys place some parameters
on the use of these buildings or some
condition saying you have to remove them
at a certain time.
Um
our planning office, we don't have
what I have historically seen in other
offices, which is a change of use.
Right? So, once the building is erected
and y'all approve this project or y'all
if y'all were to approve it, um 15 years
from now if there's no conditions on it,
let's say the warehousing was to stop,
as long as a use that's permitted in ag
was to move into that facility. I'm just
going to make something up because a
commercial greenhouse
is a permitted use, right? So, let's say
the the the warehousing operation ceased
in 10 years for whatever reason.
Um
there are numerous uses permitted by
right
in the ag zoning district that could
relocate into these empty buildings.
Now, there could be other issues from a
fire standpoint, from an engineering
standpoint, some internal improvements
that would have to be made. Um
but from a zoning standpoint, we look at
the use.
And if the buildings were to be vacant
and a new person wanted to move in,
we would look at what are they wanting
to do, right? Is it a greenhouse
operation? That's a permitted use.
Is it a
you know, another warehousing facility?
That's not. And so, they would have to
come back to you guys depending on the
use to get approval. In this case,
they're saying they're going to remove
the buildings. So, that would take care
of that, right?
Um
but yeah, they could build these
buildings.
They don't if we if they were only
proposing
stables,
they wouldn't be here tonight.
They could build stables within the
parameters of the development standards
and they'd need no approvals from the
board.
They would just go to the planning
commission get a development plan
approval
and um
and then start construction.
Did that answer your question?
» Yes, it did. Thank you.
» Well, I I can't say I like my position,
but I
uh I'll put numbers on it. I struggle
with the uh
number four, which is the unnecessary
hardship, and I struggle with the uh
number three, which is the
condition peculiar to the property
involved requires the variance.
Um
And that That's where I am. I don't know
if anybody else has more they want to
say or
» That's hard for me, too. I
I mean, I know a lot of people who own
horses who pay
crazy for barn storage and to store
their horses. I mean, I
you it's wild. So, I don't I makes it
makes
the fact that a boat or a RV would pay
more than them, I just
um that's hard for me to wrap my head
around. Um
that that wouldn't be a profitable
model.
Um since the true intent is to to
support the equestrian center, which I
love.
Um
so
yeah, that's hard.
» Well, I I
ready to make a motion if you're ready
to hear me, Madam Chair.
I move that docket number 2026-15-V
UV variance of use to permit a warehouse
building facility in a rural general
agricultural AZ zoning district for
property at 526 North 1200 East, Science
Hill, be denied as presented and
described.
» Second.
» Jim Hurst.
» Aye.
» Josh Fedor.
» Aye.
» Amanda Miller.
» Aye.
» Katie Glenn.
» Aye.
» Motion passes.
Petition is denied.
» Thank you.
Okay.
» It's a good It's a good project.
That's Yeah.
It's a good It's a good project.
» [snorts]
» It's really a good
» Okay, we'll move on to case 206
2026 16 UV.
Um
another use variance.
Um I will let staff uh present.
» It's me.
Okay.
Um
All right. I'm hopeful my internet is
working now. I'm running this off of my
cell phone. So, if it's a little slow,
forgive me. But, uh here we go.
Uh use variance pursuant to again 194082
table two to allow for a vet animal
hospital or clinic in the rural single
and two-family residential zoning
district. Um there is history to this
site.
Um I'm sure all of y'all are familiar
with the site and the history that's
come through
BZA in the past. Um here's a brief
summary of it. Um on page one of the
staff report.
The request, you'll see the subject site
is currently
um 17 uh 17.4 acres to be exact.
If this
request is approved,
there will be a 5-acre section that is
subdivided from the overall 17.4 acres
um as shown in this exhibit on the
screen.
Um and the 5 acres is actually the
subject site of the use variance
request. The clinic and the operations
associated with that clinic would be on
the 5-acre tract, not on the entire
17-acre parcel. The subdivision
would be allowed by right. Our zoning
ordinance
uh
has a one-time a clause that's a
one-time lot split exemption.
Um and the petitioner, the owner, would
take advantage of that one-time lot
split exemption in the zoning ordinance
to create the 5-acre tract of land. This
would not need plan commission approval.
So, you wouldn't see this subdivision at
plan commission.
Um the petitioner submitted a plan of
operation
uh as well as some conceptual
uh as close as possible, but still
conceptual
uh both site plan and elevations of the
facility.
Um and again, here you'll see key to
note that the 5 acres is going to be
outside of the MRO, so it would not be
subject the development would not be
subject to the MRO standards, okay?
Um and then as far as the analysis as to
is this the proper use for the 5 acres,
we looked at the comprehensive plan,
uh both the old one and now the new one.
Um
getting to town to getting to the staff
analysis, I'm going to skip to the
questions. Um and I'm going to address
the ones uh, in here where we disagree.
Uh, the approval will not be injurious
to public health and safety.
Um, again, we disagree.
We cannot determine, given the
information that we had at the time,
uh, the impact. Um, as of this writing,
we know the request is going to use
estimated, uh, structure of 6 to 8,000
square feet. Um, but we're trying to
give the petitioner an opportunity to
present the pro- proposal to you,
um, without having to go through the
entire plan set of a plan commission
submittal. And so, with limited
information, that's why we landed on
that conclusion. Um, the use or value of
the area adjacent to the property
included in the variance will not be
affected in a substantially adverse
manner. Again, we cannot determine the
impact of the request given the lack of
information provided,
uh, as it relates to the future
five-acre improvements, five-acre site
improvements,
which is again why we disagreed. Um, the
need for the variance arises from a
condition peculiar to the property
involved. Uh, the five-acre site can be
developed for single-family residence.
Uh, it's already zoned R2. You can build
a home at this at this location. Um, the
newly adopted comp plan identifies
single-family,
uh, in this area. And so, again, we
disagreed as it related to that.
Uh, strict application of the zoning
ordinance, uh, will will or will not
result in unusual and unnecessary
hardship.
We disagreed for the reasons listed, um,
here on page six. And then finally, the
comprehensive plan. Again, I previously
mentioned the new comp plan that was
adopted in June,
um,
identifies this five-acre site for rural
and equestrian,
uh,
resident- a rural and estate
residential. And, uh, the current zoning
of R2 already allows for that to occur.
Um, and so, we don't believe this is
aligned with the comp plan. Um,
happy to answer any questions you have
on the staff report or any of the
exhibits that you have attached to the
agenda.
If there's no questions, I'll I'll turn
it back over to you guys.
I do want to mention there were numerous
letters of support and I believe some
information as it relates to
remonstrance that have been attached to
the agenda.
Some I believe were as recently as
today. So, I wanted to point those out
for you.
» And Jonathan, it's
not ever I think that I've seen a BZA
petition come to us
where you could make a determination
because the information hadn't been
provided to you. Did you encourage the
petitioner to continue and provide you
the information how
» They they have
They have provided
information as it relates to
elevations, right? Conceptual
elevations, conceptual site plans, which
you can see.
Let me pull them up here.
And on their commitments, right? And
this is something that uh
you can see too. Let me pull those up.
For example, one of the things would be
a known concern by the neighbors, right?
Of the dogs barking. And so
buffering, right? Buffering between ag
currently only allows or only requires
40 ft of grass.
Right?
Um
I mean obviously this
Well, I thought I pulled it up, but uh
» Forgive me, Jonathan. Whatever you're
about to show me, was this given to you
after you produced the staff report or
is this material
» Um
this material I don't believe was given
to me after the staff report, right? I
think it was prior to.
» I'm going to go back to my my question.
I mean, you've written twice here you
can't determine the impact cuz you don't
have the necessary information.
» We would like to see increased buffer
standards, just to be honest with you,
because if it is allowed, we know
there's issues with
the dogs and complaints about the noise.
If this is approved with no additional
requirements,
the only requirement would be 40 ft of
grass.
Right? Or
let me let me look at the chart. The R2
standards. And so
» That. I mean, I think you
can't answer the question is
the
I I mean, you wrote it down. You didn't
have
» If we had more
information
» Of I mean, you've written it twice.
» Yes, and
and technically speaking, the system in
place, right? The application only
requires the submittal of a site plan.
And any further
things that are above that is really at
the discretion or at the expense or the
risk of the petitioner, right? And so,
they submitted a site plan, a conceptual
site plan.
Um and
anything above that
is is either at y'all's discretion or at
the petitioner's willingness to provide
it. And um
some of that obviously gets expensive
and if it's not needed, then why make
the petitioner submit it, right?
And um
» Okay.
» I'm I'm not sure if that answers your
question or not, but
um
that's why that's in that that
statement's there.
» Okay. Well, then thank you.
» Any other questions for staff?
» Not at this time. No.
» Well, I will let the petitioner come up
and speak.
» [clears throat]
» Good evening, members of the board.
My name is Steven Growth, and it's my
privilege to represent Dr. Denise Cats.
Before she walks you through her
proposal, I wanted to introduce her to
you.
She's a licensed veterinarian,
and her life's work is to provide care
for dogs that other people have given up
on.
These are dogs that require serious
medical care.
They've been rescued from a shelter, and
otherwise would be euthanized.
Her project is called the Love Pet
Project. It's widely recognized.
It's a non-profit animal welfare
program, and she runs it at her own
cost.
For years, she took in the animals, the
stray dogs, from the county,
at no expense to the taxpayers,
which allowed those animals to stay in
custody shorter,
and deputies to devote their time to
more public safety activities.
Uh you will hear from the sheriff's
department that they strongly support
this petition, showing that it has value
to the community.
You will also hear from many of her
neighbors, almost all of which are
Excuse me, almost all of which are in
support of the petition,
and
show that this this proposal
uh will not involve extra traffic, extra
noise, and any extra problems within the
surrounding area.
And with that, I invite you to please
give Dr. Cats your attention. Thank you.
» Thank you.
Okay, unfortunately, I'm going to have
to tell him to when to switch slides,
but um go ahead if you don't mind. Thank
you.
Um so, like Steve said, I'm a
veterinarian. Um I spent most of my time
practicing in shelter medicine both at
Indianapolis Animal Care Services and
the Houston SPCA. I actually set up the
whole vet program at um IACS and during
my time there uh won the um Mayor's
Performance Award and Meritorious
Service Award for my work there. Um, I
was an adjunct professor for shelter
medicine at Texas A&M.
Um, I founded the Love Pet Project in
September of 2019 to kind of continue my
mission of helping animals.
Um, and I also opened Indy Animal
Surgery Center in 2023. It's at 116th
and Michigan. So, I do have a veterinary
clinic. I actually have one down south
as well.
Um, I sit on several advisory boards
um, including
uh Bailing Out Benji, the uh um
Association of Animal Welfare
Advancement, and I consult and speak
nationally um, usually for the American
Kennel Club or the AKC um, as well as
Companion Animal Health.
Uh, next slide, please.
So, something that I do want to make
clear, I own every animal on the
property. I know we've been here before.
I know I've said it. Um, but I have
legal documentation, USDA paperwork for
every dog that's on my property and
puppy. Um, well, every puppy that's on
my property. I don't have any dogs.
Um, but um, that being said, um, when
uh
one of the reasons um
that I wanted to do all this is to save
the puppies and the dogs that would
otherwise be euthanized and not even
given a chance. I mean, all these dogs
that I get
I would venture to say 70% of them would
be dead had uh I not stepped in. Um, I
have a 98.5% live release rate. That was
as of 2025 and that's including every
animal that enters my property. I do run
the Love Pet Project. I founded it,
um, but that is not the only avenue
which these dogs find homes. Um, I work
with two other rescues, um, one in
Chicago and one in Houston, Texas, and
those are the other avenues in which
these animals find homes, and I have
nothing to do with their operations.
Um, so that is including everybody who's
stepped foot on my property.
Um, so this program, the Love Pet
Project, is nationally recognized, um,
we have been nationally recognized
across many avenues for the impactful
work that we do. We're the only program
of our kind out, um, in the country, and
we is because we work both ends of the
problem. So not only
do I deal with the animals that I have
in my care and making sure they get the
best care possible, but we also work
very strongly with educating the general
public. Um,
I also I'm have a passion for teaching,
so I like to educate students, but also
breeders to make sure these problems
don't happen again.
Another thing that, um, we do or I do is
I collaborate with universities and
specialists to impact dog population as
a whole and additional implications to
human medicine.
So the bulldogs up there represent all
the pneumonia puppies that we have. I
developed a new treatment protocol for
pneumonia, um, and so through that, um,
we've saved a lot of puppies, um, other
ones that would have succumbed to the
disease. Um, and actually we're uh,
I speak on this a lot with companion
animal health because we brought this
modality to other, um, places across the
country and we're seeing an improvement
of pneumonia within 1 week
radiographically where previously it'd
be 6 weeks.
Um, the Rottweiler, I'm working on a
study right now with Purdue and Tufts
University on subaortic stenosis in
Rottweilers.
And probably the most fun one is the
Shiba. We've discovered two populations
of Shibas through this work that have
ventricular septal defects, which
happens to be the most common cardiac
abnormality in infants.
And through this, and hopefully we're
going to get the NIH grant, that we'll
be able to use this population of dogs
to impact babies.
So,
what we're doing is
even more far-reaching than what you can
see on my property.
We also have several other studies that
are published with other treatment
modalities we've started with the dogs
we use.
» Next slide, please.
» But what does that impact here locally
in our community? The number one would
be working with Boone County Sheriff's
Office. You're going to hear from
Captain McClain here soon.
Um and the impact that we had while we
were working with them, we can't work
with them right now because we got
designated a kennel. Um so, I can't have
the adult dogs that he has on my
property. Um but we did this at no cost
to the taxpayers.
You're going to see a case, the only
case I've been able to take in this
year.
Um and we had to do it at a different at
my other location.
Um but that was because
that again wasn't at any cost. It would
have cost the taxpayers $10,000 for that
one dog. Um and it's something I
absorbed by myself. Um I also assist
them in cruelty cases.
Um I've testified for you guys before as
well.
Um and then also we help raise money for
the um retired police dogs because it
came to my attention that once they
adopt one,
the community ceases to help. Um and
those dogs worked pretty hard for us.
So, we help um raise money for that.
But let's get to the property. This is
the property in question.
Um so,
um you can see
uh
there's a few neighbors here. Um but the
Nelsons are going to be here speaking
against.
They are the property adjacent and then
the property across the street are the
Laviolettes. They will be speaking in
support. But I do also really want to
point out that right across the street
from the property is an active fire
station and right across the
421 is a dump. So also active and both
are community serving operations.
To give you a little idea cuz this will
come in later with noise.
We are where the dogs are currently
housed is where that red dot is.
That's the home on the property.
We are 440 ft from the Nelsons. We're
460 ft from the Laviolettes.
Next slide, please.
So I just want to give you a little bit
of property history.
Um
So before I purchased this property, it
sat on the market for 312 days.
During that same time frame
that
other residential houses in Zionsville
were being sold in 65 days. I think that
clearly demonstrates that this property
has never functioned as a normal
residential property, which it has been
designated
by the town. It just never has. Even
before I bought it, the historical use
was always non-conforming. It was never
an R2 property.
And so I think that plays a big role.
And again, I want to stress the fact
that there's other public service uses
right there down the street.
So saying that we're not in compliance
or not along the same lines, I don't
believe is true because it's already
been approved and it's already
being used for that. Next slide, please.
Some additional property horse history.
It was used for animal related
activities since 1988.
The previous owners that I purchased it
from are um operated their business out
of there. They had an equestrian center.
Um there was boarding lessons, people on
and off the property all the time. I
boarded my own horse there.
Um I purchased the property from them in
August of 2020 and since that day um
there have been animals on that property
with historic support from the neighbors
including the Nelsons. Um they have a
dog for me. They visited our my property
with that dog several a day to allow it
to play in our fenced-in yard with my
other dogs.
Um in March of 2024 is when I requested
my first use variance. I'm sure you guys
have heard this before.
» 1 minute.
» What? I'm sorry. What did you say?
» He was just saying 1 minute.
» Oh, I thought I had 15 minutes.
Oh.
Sorry.
» It's okay. Just You can continue.
» Okay. So
um we'll go to the next slide.
Um so the whole reason we took that use
variance out uh was because um Mrs.
Nelson asked us to essentially in that
zoning appeal. She said, "I guess I
don't understand why it can't stay the
same or the way it was."
So
trying to be a good neighbor, we decided
to keep it that way
um and
um
that's what we did. We removed that
request. If you
will you go to two slides from there?
Let me speed this up. Um so in March of
2025 uh the Nelsons decided to uh um
put in a civil suit against me. Um so in
uh their request in February of this
year, they requested that I um
move current operations
uh
closer to 421, that I request the use
variance be for a veterinary clinic, uh
that I create new buildings and that I
sell them uh 11.6 acres of my land. If
you'll go ahead.
I agreed to all that except for selling
11.6 acres of my land. I have uh large
animals as well, and I intend to keep
that property for that use.
Um I and I'm moving it closer to 421.
I'm um
asking for the vet clinic and I will
build these purpose-built buildings.
Um if you'll go to the next slide.
This again just shows the 5-acre outside
of the Michigan Road overlay.
Um next slide.
» Dr. Katz, can I interrupt real quick?
You do get 15.
» Okay. Sorry, I was like
I was planning on that based on the
email.
Um okay. So,
uh property improvements.
Um and I apologize. I thought you had
all this beforehand. Um and so that's
where I was a little confused by that,
too.
Um but the veterinary clinic um we're
proposing be 40 by 80 ft. The kennel
buildings, there'll be three detached
ones. They're prefab, made by um the
Amish community. So,
they're used to this. Um
they'll be three of those.
All of that together comprises just over
2% of the property we're proposing.
Again, this is only asking for this 5
acres. It's not asking for the remaining
acreage, which will stay R2, and I will
retain ownership of it. Um
and then a parking lot to accommodate 17
vehicles. We never believe we'll ever
need that, but it does say that we have
to have one spot for three kennels.
Next slide, please.
So, just a quick overview, that's
what our footprint would look like. And
that is including play yards in the
green square. It's less than what I
already have on that site, which is that
horse barn.
Uh next uh next slide, please.
Um that's essentially a uh
a really uh
small um rendering of this, but it's not
to scale. It's just to kind of show how
the buildings will be faced.
Um next slide, please.
And Jonathan, I thought you had these
two, the voluntary commitments. So, um
it was my understanding that we needed
to adhere to Buffer Yard B standards,
but we're also saying that we will put
privacy fencing around all spaces
housing dogs, inside, outside, wherever
the dogs are, it will be around there.
We're restricting outdoor dog hours. Um
so, they'll only be allowed outside
between 7:00 and 7:00. Um and they will
have automatic doors that lock and doors
that we can lock individually. So, if
there is a nuisance dog, it won't be
allowed free access to the outdoors
um even during the 7:00 to 7:00 time
frame. Um there'll be limited access to
the property just as there is now. It's
just myself, my family, my friends, and
the people that help me take care of my
animals. Um no commercial advertising,
no commercial [clears throat]
operations. This is not an operating vet
clinic in any traditional sense.
This is essentially, please let me have
my dogs on my property um and I don't
want the general public coming in there.
I don't want the general public to even
know we're there. Um
noise mitigation, we'll be able to have
the appropriate insulation in these
buildings,
um but continue to manage noise,
property maintenance and removal as is,
and then we hope to initiate the project
within a year, and we say we'll
guarantee that it'll be done within
five. Uh next slide, please.
Um uh this So, noise has always been
well, hasn't always, but has recently
been the complaint, I should say.
What I did after our last meeting here,
um was where you see that star is, um I
bought a um decibel meter that's
calibrated um
and it lives out there where that star
is. So, 150 ft from where all the dogs
are housed.
And 290 ft to the Nelson's front door.
Um,
and the new proposed building would be
570 ft from them.
Um, but that decibel meter is running
non-stop. It takes readings every 5
seconds and records them, but during
that time it's 5 seconds it's picking
whatever the highest volume is and it's
running through that. Next slide.
So, um,
just to give you an idea when we're
talking about sound, 30 to 80 decibels
is considered ambient noise.
30 to 40 akin to a library, 40 to 55 a
soft conversation, 60 to 75 an active
restaurant um, or general office
chatter.
These are the top graph is, um, an
aggregate over an entire month of all
the times those recordings were taken.
And what you'll see is that this is
during the day at the top and at night
at the bottom. It's actually louder at
night. What we did was we also, uh, put
a microphone attached so we could see
what was causing the noise. And the
noise at night are the cicadas and bugs
and storms that we've been having. Uh,
the noise during the day when it rises
is the lawnmower or people talking in
that area. I have llamas housed in that
area so people like to go play in there.
Um, but if you'll notice it never
reaches over ambient noise, ever.
And this is, again, on my property. By
the time you reach,
uh, the Nelson's front door, outside the
front door, not even in their home
it's fourfold less noisy than that. So,
that's negligible at this point.
Next slide, please.
Again, this is shows that again. This is
every day from
uh, midnight to midnight. Um, and it
never reaches,
uh, over 70.
And just to kind of summarize, next one.
I hate to end on something Well, this is
going to be happy at the end. But, this
is the one case that we helped Broome
County with. I want to be able to help
them with more.
This is something that happened in our
community to this dog, and I believe
it's our responsibility to help them.
And this is the dog that cost us
$10,000.
Um or and would have cost the taxpayers
that, but mainly because I couldn't do
anything on my property. That dog was
hospitalized for 2 weeks. I could have
done that myself.
Um
So, this is uh it was a hardship for us.
It's one of the reasons we can't
continue to help them, but we felt it
necessary to help in this case. Um last
slide.
This is the pictures of Maeve yesterday.
Um so, it took us about 2 and 1/2 3
months to get her to this. Um and she
actually is on her way to her new home
today through one of our rescue partners
in Chicago. Um but, this is why I want
to do what we're doing. I'm willing to
take ownership of all these animals, and
luckily in the state of Indiana, animals
are still property. So, no matter the
length of time that I own these dogs,
they're still my property. I can then
choose to give them to somebody else,
but during their length of stay at my
house,
they're still mine.
Um and I want to be able to help dogs
like Maeve. I want to be able to help
our community.
Um
And I want to be able to help dogs as a
whole. And so,
um I know we didn't speak as much to
hardship and things like that, but the
property was already set up for animal
use. Um if I can't use it for that, it
renders a lot of the buildings unusable.
Um and then
I know that it's been taken away now,
but the airport
um
district was right over that property.
And my intended use when I bought this
property in 20 19 or 2020, sorry, was to
live on the property.
And after I bought it,
that was imposed.
And since then, I've had to make other
arrangements, right? I didn't end up
building my house on the property or
anything like that. And I get that it's
been taken away now, but all those years
of me not being able to do that, I had
to use do something else with the
property as well. So, this was one of
the uses that
we did and it's
I want to stress that we're doing all of
this right now. Um
we are not intending to change any
operations. It's just uh I want to be
able to help dogs like Maven help the
community. Right now, you know, we're
not labeled a kennel because I only have
puppies on of my property. Um but that's
um
I guess what we're asking and I'm
» Thank you.
» Open to questions.
» Appreciate it.
» Thank you.
» I do have just a few questions, Dr.
Katz. Uh
when the sheriff's department brings you
a dog, uh you mentioned you you own the
dogs out here at this farm. Do you take
ownership of that dog when they bring it
to you?
» Not now. We have not been working with
the sheriff's office since this all
happened.
» In the future, if this was to go through
and the sheriff's department brings you
a dog,
» Correct. I will take ownership. Yes.
» You don't take ownership at that at that
moment.
» Yeah, so our current Well, what we used
to do was when the animals came in and
they were stray, they stayed at the
sheriff's office during their stray
hold. As soon as they got off stray
hold, uh Julia would bring them to us,
the
her her his deputy.
» Um
» And we would go assess them there for
them again at my cost. I would go, I'd
vaccinate them, I'd get them all set up,
um but they would hold them there
because they couldn't be mine yet.
» Um and also in the uh
staff report, we had a building that
showed the clinic
being 14 by 32 and you mentioned 40 by
80.
» So, that was uh an old one.
» Okay.
» I I think there there was
I was meeting with Jonathan probably
more way more than he would like. So,
there was different iterations by the
time we got to this point.
» Okay.
So, but it is going to be a 40 by 80.
» Correct.
» Okay.
I believe I have the most recent updated
exhibits online that they are looking
at, but if y'all see some revision or
some version that's outdated, let me
know and I'll get the most recent and
show them. Okay?
» Okay.
You were talking about um
I'm just wanted to clarify, but you said
that you weren't able to do
what you want you were going to build a
resident and residence and you weren't
able to that so you had to find a
different I'm confused why you couldn't
build a house on that property.
» So,
when um
when I finally got full ownership, so
after I sold the or after I purchased
it, the owners part of the deal was the
previous owners got to live there for a
year.
So, by the time I got um
the entire place, I guess,
um
they uh
I we were in the overlay or whatever
that What was that called? The um
» Michigan Road Overlay 1
» Yeah, we were tier 1 for the airport
which
didn't allow you to build another house.
» I was just clarifying.
But you could renovate that house or
build tear that down and build another
one.
» That I don't know. I did not look into
that.
» I'm just curious. I just you made it
sound like I just wanted to clarify.
Um
» To be fair, I also didn't want to put
any additional investments in the
property being that we were in tier one
and across the street from the dump and
it didn't sell for over a year. If I was
going to live there, that was one thing,
but the excess noise was something that
scared me.
» You waited six months, you would have
gotten a lot of money for that property,
probably.
It was right on the cusp of everything
blowing up about 50 to 60% so you bought
it at a good time.
Worth a lot more now.
» It's questionable due to its location.
» No, I would know.
Any questions?
» Well, I mean, I it
you look at some surrounding uses
that
aren't R2 and I'm sure they're all zoned
appropriately and all that.
Um
I'm sympathetic to that argument about
what's around it. I just don't know that
BZA is the right venue. If if that's the
argument, it it seems like a a zoning
change request
more appropriately than a
a use variance.
Um
Have you considered pursuing it in in
that avenue and and what brought you
here and instead of there, I guess?
» In speaking with my neighbors,
especially the ones that are in support
here, they would prefer this use
variance be tied to me cuz they know how
I will use the property and I don't
think they want a zoning change. I think
they want it
they just, you know, cuz that would
allow me to sell it and get a lot more
for the land.
But I'm just trying to do what I want to
like do what I want to do, take care of
these animals. I'm not trying to
increase the value of the property in
that sense or um I think a use variance
would suffice in
that case.
» Okay. I know that.
» And I think it would appease most of my
neighbors knowing that
this is tied to me and this is my use
and I I mean, I think they know I want
to be there for a very long time.
» Okay. Go ahead.
» No, no, please.
» And and I know
my memory isn't great, but you know, we
we've spoken in this venue before.
Um I understand you you own the dogs and
at some point you transfer ownership. Um
is there payment at the time of of
transfer?
» Not to me personally. They make uh
an adoption donation to whatever shelter
is adopting out the dog. So, for
example, Maeve
I don't know what they're going to
charge that adopter. It has nothing to
do with me.
I will never see a dollar of that, nor
will the Love Pet Project. That is with
that adoption agency.
» Um
All right. I'm going to chew on that for
a couple of minutes.
» So, how do you make your income? Is that
from your other vet clinic?
Because obviously, you do wonderful
work.
You know, there's no no one's
questioning the work that you're doing.
Um
but
you know, how do you eat, I guess? You
don't do everything for free. So
» I have seven other businesses.
» Okay. Are they vet clinics?
» They're all animal adjacent, at least I
would say. But some of them are
veterinary.
» Okay. Not on this site or on a different
site.
» Correct.
I own property elsewhere.
» Okay.
And that the reason you're here tonight
is to get a variance of use to allow an
animal hospital.
Correct?
» Yes, but it will not function as a
traditional animal hospital.
» What will it function as?
» Just caring for my own animals.
» Okay.
So
» So, if I can add a point which also um
relates back to what what Mr. Hurst was
asking about, why the uh the use
variance mechanism is appropriate here
is because the location of this property
is part of its limitations, being across
from the landfill and the fire station,
which is part of the unique
characteristics of this property, and it
makes it kind of a buffer property.
It's not, you know, it's buffer between
the Michigan Road,
uh all the activities there, and
residential, and the use variance is a
is a good opportunity for this board to
create a carve out a specific use that's
approved that will be a nice buffer
because this the activity that she does
it's not a commercial, it's not a
retail, it's not going to have signage
or anything like that. It's a continuing
it it allows her to continue what she's
been what she's doing and been doing at
a location that's farther away from the
remonstrators and more insulated.
And so it's not it doesn't fall into any
square
uh pay square holes that are currently
living in the zoning ordinance. That's
why the use variance makes sense to us
at this time.
» Why are you not asking for just just out
of curiosity, you're asking for a
variance to allow an animal hospital but
not a kennel?
Why
what's the
» Because that's what my neighbors asked
me for.
» Okay.
» Yeah.
» But is it more
» Otherwise, we would have gone for a
kennel.
» Okay.
» Well, that's also the focus on the
medical care, too.
» So, what you were saying
is that because this property can't be
used for anything else because
it's adjacent to a firehouse and a waste
facility,
you're giving it a
a use because without you, it wouldn't
be worth a lot. Is that what you're
saying?
» I mean, I think the facts state like it
was on the market for 312 days, five
times longer.
» Uncommon. That was not uncommon for
Indiana pre-pre-pandemic.
» But that I mean it was at the same time
where it was 65 days was the average in
Zionsville for residential house.
» Understand, but it's a new day and age
and
and I I would say that lot is very
valuable. Um there's a lot of people
building, you know,
selling properties for a hundred a
million acre next to fire stations and
huge power lines that I would never want
in my backyard, either. So, you know,
I'm just saying I don't know if that's
the best way to
» Spending that money for a home site?
» Absolutely. Absolutely, yeah.
» I actually I would argue that there is
the landfill across the street does
limit this property. Growing up here,
um
that site across street's not just
landfill. That's a Superfund site. When
I looked, there were actually four
separate Superfund sites listed
for that property across the street.
That's So there there is a challenge
with this property from that standpoint.
» Couldn't pay me to live next to a huge
power plant. I know what kind of voltage
comes off that whether or not people
realize that. So, I think that's also
what are people's pain limits and what
do they the knowledge base of what
they're willing to, you know, I mean,
trust me, I agree with you. I would
never live there. I'm just it's
surprising to me that the acre just sold
gobs for that.
» Adjacent to the
» [clears throat]
» That's true.
» Yeah.
» But this is again where I think the
market speaks for itself, but
also, I mean, speaking of the Superfund
site, they come on my property every 3
months to test my well water to see if
it's safe to drink. Um
I would never drink the water there. I
don't care what they say.
Um But, so,
» [laughter]
» It's just, you know, it is it isn't. Um
and I think my neighbor Nick can speak
to it. He showed the property
um and his property several times. And
multiple times the reason they didn't
purchase it was because of the Superfund
site and the um fire station.
» Well, do you guys have any other
questions?
» No, I think I'd like to hear.
» Okay, perfect. Thank you guys so much.
» I do think two of my neighbors came in
after the papers were
uh
» Okay, I'll I'll make sure to open it up
once I get through the list.
Um okay, Eric Nelson.
Just state your name and address.
» I am Eric Nelson. Uh I live at 90 9755
East 100 South and we also have a lot at
9705
East 100 South.
Um
we have been living there since
2014 when we bought it from the original
owners,
uh Gary and Jenny Flora.
And that property did operate very well
as an R2.
Um
they had horses, not dogs, not a
hospital,
and they had
20-some-odd horses there for many years.
Um
uh First, I want to thank you
for
um
again for listening to both sides of
this issue yet again.
Unfortunately, not a lot has changed
since you heard this petition and ruled
against it earlier this year.
The cover page now states this will be a
hospital.
But as you read on, it's still the same
kennel operation which Dr. Katz
continues to run
out of a house with no with no one
living there or attending to these
animals overnight.
She could have lived in that house that
stood there as the Flores did and the
people that she bought it from.
Um
she describes this in detail in the
attached deposition.
There was some misinformation in
documents presented to you
as support documents.
I like to deal with facts and truth in
making my decisions
and I was truly offended when she blamed
my wife
um
for uh
all this situation that that we're
involved in now and saying that I
approved.
That never happened.
Um
» That's good.
» I like to
» Situation, I just want to say one thing.
The situation has also changed over the
last couple of years. So, it started out
as puppies, it was fine, but then we
went to rescuing dogs from the sheriff's
office and again, there's nobody there
at night. So, these are puppies and
adult dogs. There were outdoor runs.
She's showing you that they're in the
house now in the residence, but that's
the change that was made. They're in a
shed right outside our place. So, so
this you know, sound mitigation, that's
all great and and nobody is against
rescuing dogs, absolutely not. It's just
the way this business is being run, it's
run out of a house. Um there's lots of
cars there, there's lots of employees
there. It's a residence, but nobody
lives there. So,
again, we just want to thank you for
hearing the petition again, listening to
both sides and our attorney's going to
say more.
» I'll speak now.
Stay here though.
» Yep.
Uh
thank you uh members of the uh Board of
Zoning Appeals. My name is Mike
Andreoli, 1393 West Oak Street. Uh have
represented the Nelsons for a number of
years with regard to this particular
situation. Uh and continue to represent
them tonight. I'm going to try to be
very brief. I've submitted written
materials to you twice now with the
supplemental just on on just a few days
ago. I apologize for the lateness of the
supplemental. A counsel for
Dr. Katz indicated that they were going
to need a a in a continuance of this uh
midweek of last week
and kind enough to ask me if my thoughts
about if I had any objection to it. He
had a conflict and of course I tried to
be accommodating and said no. If you
needed to be a continue get a
continuance, we would try to not be in
opposition to that if you actually have
a conflict. And then the mind was
changed and then Friday we learned no
that matter is going to be put on. So I
had a I had to regenerate what I was
thinking of doing the week before. So I
apologize for that. Couple of different
things I think it
need to understand.
This isn't a 17-acre site.
This is actually two separate lots.
It It amounts to 17 acres.
But the portrayal of this is all one lot
of 17 acres. These are two parcels.
First parcel is a 5-acre parcel at the
corner of County Road 100 Road by the
way, which is a gravel road and Michigan
Road. So that's 5 acres. The balance of
the ground is from that the western
terminus of the 5 acres all the way to
my client's property line. So
in essence there are two parcels making
this up. Uh that's significant because
in our efforts to try to be cooperative
and said look, if you're going to e-
either seek a rezoning or a use variance
or something to locate a veterinary
hospital,
if that's what you needed, a veterinary
hospital,
put it
at Michigan Road.
Put it next to Michigan Road. Put it
where that there there's traffic there,
there's noise there. Uh now, uh that's
the appropriate place to put this
proposed veterinary hospital if if it's
if it's going to be put at all.
I I'm reminded of the uh the uh
uh application that came before you
tonight for use variance and reminded of
the application that was approved a
number of years ago for Hopwood Cellar.
And they I understand he's got a
purchaser for that and they're coming
back uh with some additional site plan
uh and uh architectural requirements,
but when we did that use variance,
we had a we had to talk to the state of
Indiana
uh off of 421. We had to get uh
approvals and comments from the from the
highway department. We had have detailed
renderings of that, and those of you
that were on the board remember that. We
had very detailed renderings of what it
was going to look like, a very detailed
and engineered site plan. We had some
preliminary drainage issues. We had a
number of other issues. We don't know
whether this is going to be on septic or
well, and if the water's so bad,
uh what is this even being located on a
septic or or a well uh if in fact that's
what it's going to be?
There's no detailed site plan with this.
This is not This is not ready for
primetime under any circumstance and
puts uh staff in a particularly
difficult position cuz they don't really
have anything to review. And if you give
an approval, most of the approvals on
use variances or on a lot of these
projects or subject to the actual site
plan that you that you develop in
accordance with the site plan that's
being proposed for the use variance. We
don't even have a legitimate site plan
in this particular situation. They have
what what is looks like an AI-generated
uh
area, but we don't have any dimensions,
we don't have any of those things
connected with a normal use variance
that has been approved all and up and
down Michigan Road for a number of
years. And the architecture that we have
there and the development that we have
there is just been wonderful, but it's
because of the the detailed nature of
what has been presented. Uh
So, that that's a that's a real concern.
The other concern is
uh as as I mentioned to you in my
supplemental,
uh they're asking for a 1-year approval
to go ahead and construct. Well, that
just gives them a stopgap measure in the
litigation that's going on so that they
they can argue that they've been given
approval, but they they they may or may
not ever ever build, they'll just
continue to utilize the property as it's
currently as it's currently utilized,
which we believe is is a nuisance and in
contra- contradiction to the zoning
ordinances that that we have here in
Zion as as it relates to the use of that
particular realm.
Finally, one of my
one of my concerns were what I I and I I
was looking at the things that were
coming in and out, and I'm sure as staff
was, various things that that changed
and submitted to try to get a handle on
exactly what are they proposing out
there.
They They Their initial application was
for a veterinary hospital.
Well,
that sounds good, but when you look at
all of the veterinary hospitals, and I
provided you with pictures and
everything of the veterinary hospitals
in and around this area, two things
stand out. One, they're in
truly commercial districts.
And two, none of them have kennels.
Th-
This is This is not a veterinary
hospital. This is a kennel masquerading
as a veterinary hospital. So, aside from
some of the legal requirements and the
legal objections that we have as it
relates to the setbacks that would that
would be required with regard to kennels
that the county has imposed and
presumably are now part of Zion's
ordinances,
uh
this is really not a a veterinary
hospital at all.
Uh
Let me sum up by saying I I understand
the the concern about trying to help
animals and
uh and I understand the the desire to do
good work and I'm not here to suggest
that the Dr. Katz is not doing good work
and doesn't have her heart in the right
place as it relates to trying to protect
animals and do those types of things.
I think we could probably all agree to
that.
But,
members of the Board of Zoning Appeals,
doing good work
uh and having a noble cause has never
been
the litmus test for good planning and
zoning in the town of Zion's Hill. It
just hasn't.
I I've never had a client who thought
that they didn't do good work.
Uh I've never heard of somebody
presenting on behalf of a client who
didn't think they did good work.
Uh that doesn't translate on whether or
this is the right location.
It is not the right location for this
particular
uh
for this particular use of the property.
And I I I I tend to agree with
with one of the members of the Board of
Zoning Appeals that suggested maybe the
the better approach is to try to see if
you could seek a rezoning
in and along Michigan Road to have a
land use change where all of the
particulars are going to have to be met.
The town council is going to have to be
consulted. Is that part of what we want
to see in and along Michigan Road? The
other advantage of that is they have to
conform with the Michigan Road Overlay
District as all others who have located
in and along Michigan Road. So, it's
this is really a cynical attempt to move
it to the center of the property, come
off of Michigan Road by 400 ft, and
therefore not have any architectural uh
standards with regard to this. We don't
have a rendering. We have no
architectural standards. We have nothing
as part of this application.
Uh and so, uh we would respectfully uh
request that the uh board deny this uh
use variance. Thank you, members.
» Why don't you guys stay up for a minute
in case there's any questions? Can you
guys just stay at the podium for a
minute?
If you guys have any questions.
No? Okay.
All right, never mind. Go ahead and sit
down.
Um
Okay, I have a Jeremy.
» Um Jeremy McLain from Boone County
Sheriff's Office, 1905 Indianapolis
Avenue. It's in Lebanon, 46052.
Um I did submit a letter um
on behalf of the Sheriff's Office in
support of Dr. Katz in what she does.
Um
you know, we started this program
um when we started it, you know, we were
averaging keeping dogs for
7 days.
Um right now we're keeping dogs right
around 2 and 1/2 months um before we can
get the Humane Society to step up and um
take these dogs.
So, you know, that burden itself on us,
on the sheriff's office, on animal
control, on the taxpayers, you know, it
just it it just mounts. Um you know,
when she was doing it like she said, you
know, we would bring a dog in if we knew
it was a stray, she would come to the
facility, she would assess it, she would
treat it. Once the stray hold was up, we
would take it to her facility, sign it
over to her, and then she would um adopt
it out. Um
you know, she she showed you Maeve on
there. That actually Maeve was actually
seized from Zanesville
from the apartments just right up here
on um Michigan Road. I received a call
um
on uh
election day this year at 4:00 in the
afternoon
from several Zanesville officers. They
went into an apartment and the dog was
was laying there in a kennel.
Um I was able to contact Dr. Katz
immediately um
and met with him and
she said, "No questions asked." She
said, "Bring it to
um the Animal Surgery Center." When I
got there, herself and the other uh
veterinarian there, Dr. Ball, were there
waiting. Um the dog was was basically it
was gone.
And they they spent several hours that
night um bringing her back.
Um and like she said, she monitored her
for several months or I'm sorry, they
they monitored there for several weeks,
and then once she was healthy enough we
brought her back to the kennels, and
then today we were able to
get her adopted out. So, um Zanesville
police called me because, you know, they
contacted every local vet there. Every
local vet wanted
payment up front. Nobody was going to
going to save this dog unless they could
pay the bill up front.
Um Dr. Katz still to this day has never
sent us a bill.
Um which in turn, you know, obviously is
is a huge
uh benefit for us. And that's not the
first dog like that. There's been
several dogs um that she's taken in for
us that she's done that and we've never
once received a bill. Um
so I you know, I can't you know,
express enough, you know, the important
work that she does especially for for us
and the residents of the county. It's
it's never cost us a dime. You know, I I
really hope you guys approve the
variance that way we can get back to uh
you know, our work with her. Right now,
you know, we have six kennels at the
sheriff's office.
Um when those are full,
if a dog comes if somebody from calls
and says I've got a dog,
we we can't take it. We say we're sorry.
It's it's got to roam. There's nothing
we can do with it.
Um so, appreciate that. Thank you.
» Yeah.
Uh Nick
» Thank you.
» Nick Labuelette is ready.
» Uh Nick Labuelette, I'm right across the
street 9860 East 100 South.
Um okay. So, I guess this is like
the second or third time I've been here
to tell you that they're great
neighbors.
Um
they're great.
They're always there to help out. She is
not absent. She's there
before I leave the house every day. Just
because she doesn't live on the property
does not mean she's not there.
Um
what we're really talking about here
today with this variance was at the
request
of the other neighbors.
And the only thing it does is allow them
allow her to have the dogs she owns that
are over the age of 4 months.
That's all we're really trying to do.
That she's trying to do.
So, that is the designation of a kennel
would not allow that. And that's what
she's after. She wants her dogs that she
personally owns that are over 4 months
to be able to live on her property.
That's all.
» Nick
I have some It doesn't say your last
name on here. Just doesn't
No, it doesn't. It says D E N N Y.
Denny?
I mean, it's poor penmanship, but it
doesn't say Love yet. I'm just making
sure I didn't miss somebody in the
audience that
I mean, am I crazy?
» I got here late, so I actually that
paper was not down, but maybe somebody
put my name down.
» Okay, I just wanted to make sure I was
getting cuz we keep these
Yeah, there seems to be a different Nick
on here, so I I was just verifying.
Sorry.
You're good. I just
» [laughter]
» I I accept that he knows his last name.
I accept
» Yeah, well, is there another Nick in the
audience that was wrote their name down
here that's not this Nick? No? Okay.
Okay.
Didn't miss anyone then.
Oh, does anyone online? Oh, yeah.
Please, come up. Okay, thank you. Please
state your name. Welcome to come up.
Sorry.
» Only if your name is Nick.
» Yeah.
With the last name Denny.
» Uh yeah, my name is Marcus Hendry. I
live at 9602 East 100 South. So, I'm
about 1/4 mile down the road. Um
and uh I've had the opportunity to visit
her cats' property and talk to her about
specifically what she wants to do and
what that's going to look like and the
whole the whole purpose of it. Um and uh
and everything that she's tried to done
in in communication with her closest
neighbor in terms of like
mitigation of any noise in terms of the
scheduling outside dog time in terms of
like you know
old plans to convert a structure and to
insulate it better to mitigate some of
that to putting the decibel meter out
and and all of these conversations
really lead me to believe that she's
trying to do the right thing for the
neighbors Um and and just very much in
support of that. It really is a very
unique situation. It's not a It's not a
She's not boarding other people's dogs
and operating as a kennel. These are
These are her own animals. It's not a
traditional, you know, veterinary animal
hospital. That's why she doesn't want to
you know be out there on Michigan Road
with a storefront, you know, for for
commercial traffic because it's not what
she's trying to do. She
specifically does not want commercial,
you know, commercial traffic. She
specifically has stated she does not
want people to know that she's there
because she doesn't need a whole bunch
of you know people dropping off a whole
bunch of animals that she doesn't have
the capacity to take care of. She just
wants to operate in the way that she's
operating. So, to to say well, this
needs to be out on Michigan Road really
defeats the whole you know, purpose of
what she's trying to do and that's why I
think this use variance is is
appropriate because, you know, use
variances there for the outlying
situations, I think. It's not for It's
not for your It's not for your standard
thing where like a zoning change is is
is is is is what's in order. And uh
specifically, I don't want a zoning
change, you know. I'm okay with what
she's doing and what she's proposing and
that's great. And I trust her based upon
my conversations, you know, that that's
going to be in keeping with what we want
in that community
because the alternative is, you know, if
she has to end up selling that and it
does get rezoned and I think this is
something that, you know, that the
immediate neighbors should be concerned
about, too. You know, there's more
expansion, you know, Bradley Ridge is
coming up, you know, a right up on us in
terms of that development and more
development up up 421. And so, if if
somebody's not keeping that property in
keeping what it is,
then it probably is going to end up, you
know, getting rezoned, you know,
commercial and there's going to be, you
know, a gas station on that corner or
some other stuff that you don't want
compared to what, you know, to what
you're getting now. And that's why we
don't want, you know, a zoning change.
You know, we just want her to be able to
do what she's been doing. Um
and, you know, I walk by that property
with my dogs three, four times a week.
Um
and
I
if there's a noise problem, I'm not
hearing it.
Um at my house,
you know, 1/4 mile away, I hear the
dump. I hear, you know, I hear that
equipment there. You know, and they're
much closer to that. And and and I don't
think you can underestimate like
what that does to the value of the
property. I mean, I hear what you're
saying that you think there's a lot of
value to it, but if you spend a lot of
time around there, you know, I wouldn't
want to buy that property and put it and
put my house there. You know, so um so
it is a unique property and it you know,
in a unique spot that has unique
considerations with somebody that is a
trying to be a great neighbor doing very
unique work that nobody else is doing uh
that's really helping our community. Um
and uh
for those reasons, I'm I'm in support of
it.
» Thank you so much.
» Questions?
» No. Okay.
» Any questions?
» Was there anybody else in the audience
that wanted to speak this evening?
No.
Any fellow board members, do you have
any comments?
» The uh
we're having a lot of lot of fun ones
here uh recently where you
have a lot of sympathy for the mission
and what's trying to be accomplished,
but it um
in in my opinion runs a runs a foul of
the ordinances and expectations of land
use here in Zionsville.
Um
it it
to the extent sympathy helps, if if this
were uh Dr. Katz's residence,
I could
try to work harder to understand how
ownership of the dogs interplayed in all
this.
Um
but Dr. Katz doesn't live there and uh
but there is an operation of some sort
going out on over there that I I
understand it may not
uh financially reward Dr. Katz. It does
seem like a commercial operation.
Um
I could work harder on figuring this out
if if it were nearer um
Michigan Road.
Um
I kind of still stand by my
that if we need to change the use of the
property, maybe that's a question for
Plan Commission and Town Council.
Um looking at the at at the factors, uh
there are a number that
that even if
if the BZA is inclined to find a way to
grant
a uh
grant this use variance, I think this
would have to be continued cuz there
have to be a lot of work to do on what
operations and buffers and all these
things, site plans, all this.
Um
but I I'm
stuck on the um
that there's something unusual about
this property that it could not be put
» Mhm.
» To conforming use.
» Yeah.
Yeah, I would I would agree with that
that
this is the second time
um that they've come through. I wasn't
here for the the the first time. That
was I think there was three, right?
Maybe you were here for the that third
» I know I was here. I don't know
» But um yeah, not having really any site
plans, you know, nothing was to scale.
Um
somewhat of a shotty rendering, quite
frankly. Um
it's really hard to just, you know, put
a big stamp of approval on this and not
knowing what that looks like. I agree
with you that there should be a use
change.
And um just because
» I'll be clear. I didn't say there should
be a use change
» I'm saying that's what they should
That's what they should seek is what I'm
saying. It makes the most sense. No,
thank you. That's That's what I'm
saying.
Um,
and, you know, just because you're on a
Michigan road doesn't mean anyone can
walk on your property, especially for
not advertising, but, um,
I also think this 5-year thing is, um,
you know, a long time to build a very
what seems to be small structure, but,
um,
yeah, so I'm having trouble with that.
I'm stuck in the weeds over
the variance allowing a veterinary
animal hospital, but it's not an animal
hospital.
So, if you approve it to be an animal
hospital, but admittedly it is not
operating quite as that,
then is that
What are you allowing?
» I think I can speak to that if there's
confusion. I'm going to plug my computer
back in.
So, we have a definition, uh,
for what we define as a vet animal
hospital or clinic, and I'm going to
hopefully pull it up on the screen if my
computer will work.
Um, the one thing I want to point to is
the the the last statement, right? So,
I've highlighted it for you, but the
last statement's the important part that
temporary boarding
on the premises as an accessory use is
allowed.
So,
correct me if I'm wrong, but what what
the petitioner is doing is essentially
helping sick animals,
making them better,
and
I'm going to use the word that the
zoning ordinance uses, temporarily
boarding them until they are then
adopted at some other location.
Um, and that's the other thing, just on
a side note, I know the petitioner wants
to respond as a rebuttal as the rules
allow.
So once we're done with all of this
» Discussion first, yes.
» Um so yeah, you'll be allowed.
Um so I I think if does that answer your
question as to she's going to be helping
the sick animals and then temporarily
boarding them as defined by the vet
animal hospital or clinic until they are
then adopted.
» With that?
» I believe this would cover
un- unless this does not cover some
component of the business that I'm not
aware of.
» Okay. And temporary boarding is
» Good The good news or the bad news,
however you want to look at it, is our
zoning ordinance does not define
boarding.
Right? So I'm not 100% sure what that
would be defined as.
Um and the person I always go to to
define temporary is Mike Dell. So I'm
not 100% sure what that would look like.
Um
» I think what Jonathan's saying is that
the the particular use was chosen
because it would allow at least the
petitioner believes it would allow allow
what she already does, the temporary
boarding,
and that may be why it was chosen it
because it would uh
the umbrella of that one use uh
veterinary hospital would allow some of
the other things she wants to do. And I
think that's that's what you're saying,
right?
» Yeah, this is And the other statement
they made, I think, was a good
statement. They're trying to fit a
square peg into a round hole. What they
do isn't spelled out word for word
exactly as a use allowed in our use
table or defined in our use table. And
so this was the closest
um defined use that we had that aligned
with
what she does at her site or at least I
believe what she does at her site.
Um So that I hope that answers your
question as far as
the confusion as to why she's asking for
a vet hospital. It allows for the
temporary boarding of the animal until
it such time it's been adopted to some
other place.
» Thank Thank you.
» Josh, do you have any any comments
before I bring the petitioner back up?
» Trying to get myself around the all five
criteria here. Number one and number
two, I agree with staff. We don't have
enough information at this time to
to determine
uh
number uh three, the the need for the
variance derives from some condition
particular to the property involved. I
will say that having a landfill across
the street and being a super fund site
would get I would disagree with staff on
that and give them that one.
Um
I'm having trouble with uh hardship and
um
comp plan I'm still struggling with. I
mean
I Jim mentioned a continuance. Um I
would be supportive of that. Maybe try
to get them to
firm up one and two for us a little bit
so that staff can give us a decision on
it.
Um
that's where I stand on it right now.
Essentially, I look at it as it's it's
going to be a private veterinary
hospital.
It's not it doesn't sound like it's
going to be public. It's going to be a
private veterinary hospital.
Um
» In R2 though.
» It and exactly, in R2. So, um
if I had to make a decision right now, I
I can't fill all five criteria.
So.
» Ask a question.
» Sure.
» Um
just to give better guidance to the
petitioner, right? So, one of the
concerns is buffering. And I misspoke
when I was giving the staff report
saying it was AG. It's actually R2 to
R2, right?
Which if you I thought my computer was
up. It's not.
If you look, for example, one of the
concerns is um
All right, this was the most recent.
Maybe I got the wrong iteration of the
commitments, but insert minimum standard
of trees needed in buffer. That's what I
had put on as the exhibit. And my
concern, you know, as it's as it relates
to that, if you look at R2 to R2,
buffer yard B,
so it's entirely possible
and allowed, right, by right,
to have a 10-ft worth of grass
and then one tree and two understory
trees.
And the question from the planning
committee or from the BZA, my concern
was is that is that enough?
Right? Are you okay with this
development going in with just 10-ft of
grass
and a total of three trees
every
so many feet, every 100 linear feet?
Which if that's the standard, I mean,
you look at the site plan that's
submitted,
it's not to scale, obviously, but I
mean, you can see the aerial. It's
likely they got enough existing trees to
meet that standard.
Is that enough buffer?
You know, and so if we're going to
continue this or if we're going to try
to give additional guidance, what more
would we like to see
in addition to a site plan
» Jonathan, the
» That would that would
» Yeah, that retention pond's not there
currently, right? That's a that's just
part of this rendering.
» Part of the rendering.
» This was the old one. I had sent you a
new one.
» And I apologize.
Let me see if I can get the new one.
» But it's essentially, yeah, it looks
like that now.
I don't see I didn't see another one on
there that I in our I went through I
mean, I could have missed it, I guess,
but
that was the only site
» To apologize if there was one submitted.
I believed I got everything online, but
obviously I did not, if I didn't.
Let me disconnect real quick.
» Um if a petitioner wants to come up and
have her rebuttal wait, Jonathan looks
for that.
So, the first thing I wanted to bring up
is we actually don't have two um plots
of land, which I was actually made aware
of
uh by Jonathan um and I believe uh
during one of our meetings. Um it's
actually one uh plot of land that's
separated by
» Section line.
» Thank you. Um but it's still just one
uh
one plot of land. So, we don't have the
two. [clears throat] Um I thought we
did, too, honestly, but we don't. Uh
it's just one. Um so, I wanted to bring
that up. Uh one of the other reasons um
I uh chose to live in Zionsville was
there wasn't a limit of how many dogs
you could have and own on your property.
Um same for my personal home. Uh I live
at uh in the village. Um and so, um that
is one of the reasons that again, uh we
don't fit into any
um designation that's currently
uh out there for us. Um
we were designated a kennel at the last
one. I still don't believe we fit the
criteria for a kennel. I own the dogs.
In order to operate a kennel, somebody
else has to own them and you watch them.
Um and that's uh
that's not what we do. Uh they're my
dogs even if it's just for a certain
amount of time. I I heard somebody say
uh if I lived on the property, it'd be a
little bit different. I don't
understand, you know, I guess the
distinction there. Um
it's still my property, my animals.
Um and I have, you know, animals on my
other property, too. Um but also which I
pay people to to help take care of them
cuz like I said, I have seven different
businesses. I'm running around all over
the place all the time. I'm not always
home.
Um but I make it a point to be on site
here at this um location every day. Um
as Nick said, I'm usually out there at
5:30, 6:00 a.m. and I end up there at
night, too, after I finish um making
sure that I can see every animal and
make sure everybody's taken care of, so.
Um
is there anything else to add?
» Um
you know, the the uh
proximity to Michigan Road, not only is
it
putting it right on Michigan Road, not
only would that be contrary to our
mission, but it would be detrimental to
the health of the dogs as the
remonstrator said, there's all the
traffic and noise there for recovering
animals, that would not be a good use.
And in the end, you've got this property
that's got a lot of unique features,
a unique history and it's the one two
punch of the fire station and the
landfill
that really put a stress on the use of
this property
and this use variance is a really good
tool to make a good use that's already
occurring there
and to allow it to continue for the
benefit of the community.
I would say that
if more specific renderings and site
plans would be beneficial to the staff
and to the board for their
consideration.
We are fine with
submitting that coming back next month
and giving that a submission with more
details.
I think the the commitments that that
Dr. Katz has given
buffer yard B privacy
fencing, the hours of operation. I would
think that would be a good reassurance
for the board that the operations are
not going to be disruptive. But if
additional details would be helpful or
necessary for your approval, then that's
something we're definitely in support
of.
» And I just want to remind you that right
now we're at ambient noise levels. And
that's without everything that we are
already committing to. And we're at
proven fact ambient noise levels of this
running nonstop for over two months and
we've never hit over 80 decibels.
Um
I just you know, for me even that's
without what we're already proposing and
further away. So
I don't want to be a nuisance to
anybody. I want to just be able to have
my dogs there and do it in a way that's
responsible and it respects my
neighbors.
And again, I don't want anybody else's
animals there. I just want mine.
Thank you.
» You know, if you I'll throw out
something else and that is
if you um
wanted to approve it as an animal
hospital but but can put conditions on
which you can that says no retail
operations, no public facing operations,
no signage.
That is totally fine. That would be a
closer definition of what is actually
going on.
Because it can you have the power to
limit what's granted and not open it up
to an animal hospital that could you
know, throw open open doors to anyone.
» And we've already made those
commitments.
» Thank you.
» I ask one question about the decibels,
about that. I I think you said that
after the last time that you were here,
um you had that installed. Was that
after you got rid of the adult dogs?
» Uh
» Or were they still there to capture that
what it was like with the adult dogs
there?
Or was that what
» After, um but with that we wouldn't have
had any adult dogs near their property
anyways. That building that they're
talking about, that's right by their um
house, has not been in use since October
of last year.
» Okay. But
» It is recently in use with two llamas.
» Okay.
But the capturing of the decibels is not
exactly the same situation that they
were complaining about. It's It's a It's
a different situation with younger
animals.
» Correct, and arguably louder.
» Okay.
» Yeah.
» Thank you. I appreciate it.
» Thank you.
» I can show you the updated renderings.
» Okay.
» I I apologize. I saw where you sent them
on Friday. And uh it has been a very
busy week. So, I found the most recent
revision that I got from last Friday.
Um I did not find anything since then.
So, I'm hoping this is the most recent
one. Okay.
» And these are the ones that are not to
scale cuz then you these
» Other version is.
» The one right next
Right. That would That would be That
would be to scale.
» So, this one would be to scale.
» No building, but that would show what
the the footprint would be.
» There.
And I did have an opportunity to take a
look at the parking. Um
again, from a parking
from a buffering standpoint, the
question is we know the minimum buffer
requirement, which is buffer yard B.
Um
we know all the applicable development
standards,
and they're going to have to adhere to
them prior to approval of the
development plan. So, conceptually,
um
you know,
conceptually, I don't I'm not sure what
what additional things you would change.
I I think this is
pretty set. The parking would be
compliant. Um
the setbacks I I can't speak to the
setbacks for a kennel,
right? What I can speak to is the
setback requirements for commercial,
industrial, or non-residential uses,
right? Which is what the zoning
ordinance has.
Um
and this property is R2.
And, you know, you see the standards
here. They're not marked, right? But,
assuming they meet the standards, the
setbacks would be fine, right?
Um
it looks obviously more than 10 ft and
20 ft
from the property lines.
I guess lighting,
lighting and noise
would be the things that we haven't
addressed.
But,
» So,
when we talk about buffer lines, we're
talking about buffering on the 5-acre
parcel, not the overall parcel, correct?
» That that Well, yeah, that's correct. It
would be for the 5-acre site.
» Okay.
No, it noise is still concern of mine.
Um
I respect the decibel levels of 70. Uh
we've heard that number before thrown
out there as an ambient
noise level, but on a foggy morning,
I can you know, you can hear where I'm
at, I can hear a donkey that's a mile
and a half way from my house.
Um
» And that's why acoustical engineers have
jobs. You know, you can create buildings
that and kennels that you cannot hear
dogs from inside. Which means they would
not hear Michigan Road if they were
closer.
And no one else would hear the dogs as
well. So, I mean
people get paid to do this. I know many
acoustical engineers that could help
from that standpoint, but I I did noise.
I agree lighting. And hours of operation
when the dogs are out.
Josh, what was else on your list?
» That's pretty much Right. Jonathan, you
asked what type of a
dish on the 5 acres. I don't I I
» [clears throat]
» Yeah, it's a limited with just being 5
acres. I don't know if you can get
enough buffering in there to try to
dampen the noise.
Um
I'm I'm I'm only looking at the western
property that backs up to the Nelson's
property or that area through there. So,
I don't think you'll have any noise
concerns to the south,
to the to the east, or to the north.
Um
but it's that side to the west. I I
There's people make more money than me
can figure this out, but I mean just
looking at it, I would say on the
overall parcel,
you'd have to have a lot more
some sort of acoustical buffering.
But like I said, I I'm still
I still struggle with with several of
the criteria.
Um
and I don't know on on one and two
because
if you can't come up with a
if staff can't determine it, I I sure
can't. So.
» Any other thoughts
from the board?
» My mind remains unchanged.
» Mhm.
Um
I I feel similarly that I, you know,
I guess
going back to the
five points,
um
that's
the last ones I'll I'll give you.
The sanitary side, okay. I'll give it to
you.
» [laughter]
» You lived here in the '80s. You know
there was so much history about that
place.
» Um
but um
yeah, I think
I agree with Jim.
» I
I would make a motion to deny it,
but if
others feel that more information is
necessary for them to make a
determination across the factors, I
don't want to deny them that
opportunity.
» I think it's
especially if,
you know,
they're able to have a conversation with
the Nelsons, too, and maybe that there's
a
you know,
additional factors that they've tried to
check some things off their list on what
would help.
That would definitely help me, so.
» Well, you are permitted to make a
motion.
» I want to understand if everybody feels
Do you want me to make a motion?
» I Yeah, I mean, I
Maybe to help in the decision-making,
can I ask the petitioner a question, if
you don't mind?
» Mr. Whitehead, yes.
» Um you may not know the answer to this,
but if this was continued, would you be
willing to submit like a photometric and
a landscape plan? I know there would be
money that would have to go into getting
those drafted.
I mean, those are those are things that
are required as part of your planning
commission DP submittal.
But if we had a landscape plan that kind
of showed the buffering and the setbacks
and the noise mitigation elements of it,
and we had a lighting plan that
essentially showed that the lighting was
shielded and not
crossing over into the neighboring
properties.
Um
I think that would help
in the determination of number one and
number two, which would be the impact on
the community and the impact on the
property owners, the neighboring
property owners.
Um and if you're willing to do that,
then
a continuance would be useful,
possibly.
Um
I was asking cuz if that was a no, if
you was going to say no to that, then
» I'm absolutely willing to do that.
» Okay.
» That's something that
um might determine
If it's not going to change things,
We obviously can't determine whether
it'll change things or not until we see
it. So, I can't promise anything to you,
but
» One and two [clears throat] are an open
question.
But
Can the is this necessary for the
property be in conformant use? I
There are other uses of this property
under R2, and I don't know how to get
around that.
» I agree with that.
Um I agree Jim as well.
» I I
From my standpoint, I would hate to have
somebody to spend money when
The those are open questions, but
but
it's
doesn't solve all the factors for me
that are necessary.
» And and quite frankly, I I still am
even if
that's all provided, I'm still
struggling with unnecessary hardship as
we generally do.
So.
» Just I might just remind the board,
yeah, it's the petitioner has to satisfy
all of the factors. It's not a totality
or three out of five, it's
it's all of them. So, Mr. Hurst makes a
point worth discussing.
» Well, you could I could not get a second
or I can be voted down, but I guess I'm
going to make a motion.
I move that docket number 2026-16-UV
variance of use to allow a veterinary
animal hospital or clinic in the rural
single-family residential R2 zoning
district for property at 9855 East 100
South, Zionsville, Indiana be denied as
presented and described.
» I'll second.
» I'll second it.
» Thank you.
Getting tired.
» Jim Hurst.
» I.
» Josh Fedor.
» I.
» Amanda Miller.
» I.
» Katie Glenn.
» I.
» Motion passes. The proposal is denied.
» Thank you.
Okay.
Um case
2026-17-DSV.
Um development standard variance. Uh
Jonathan, would you mind
when you're ever you're ready
walking us through that?
» Yes, ma'am. Sorry about the delay.
This is a
um a development standard variance for
property at uh 4775 West 116th Street.
Um
the Zionsville Pres- Presbyterian
Church.
Um
their sign regulations fall under
section 1941-164,
which for their zoning classification
limits the total number of on-premise
signs to four.
What the petitioner is requesting is to
allow for the
uh placement of a fifth sign.
Um as you will see
in the uh I provided a
uh site plan
and uh sign elevations, you'll see. I'll
connect my computer.
» Jonathan, are you able to get that uh
» Yeah, let me
» Presentation?
» Let me get it online here.
» Overhead?
» Yeah.
» Good.
» There you go.
Um
here's the sign. This will be the fifth
total sign on site.
Um
here is a
aerial or a site plan showing where the
other signs are located on the property.
Um so essentially uh that's what the
request boils down to is they have four
existing signs and they're asking for a
fifth. Staff, um if you look at our
staff report, we are in support of this
request.
Uh
we believe that um it meets all three
findings, right?
Needed to grant the request item one,
two, and three.
Specifically as it relates to hardship
or unnecessary hardship, we think that
the size of the property, the
configuration of the building, and the
number of public access points into the
building
plays a role in the need for a fifth
sign at this property.
And so we believe the criteria were met
and we support the petitioners request.
If you have any questions, I'm happy to
answer them.
» Is there any rendering of the sign or
just will conform with the existing
signs and aesthetic?
» There is the rendering of the proposed
sign.
» Any other questions for staff?
Okay.
Does the petitioner want to
come up?
» Hello, I'm Sally Bias with Zionsville
Presbyterian Church. And as Jonathan
said, we're requesting
to install a fifth sign. We had a new
addition to the church and
this is the entrance to our church. So
it helps people direct people to the
main entrance.
» It looks beautiful.
Does anyone have any questions?
Does anybody want to make a motion or
hold this?
Oh, any public comment? I didn't see a
head back there, so I forgot you were
back there.
I have no public comment, but is there
anyone online?
Okay. Anyone want to sign up?
» Well, I'm going to jump in first cuz I
I get to agree
I get to agree with the staff report
here.
The hard one for me to always find a way
around is unnecessary hardship, but this
is a property that was is an appropriate
use for its zoning.
And um
I think our
signage ordinances I think are deficient
for such a multi-entrance multi-
building public-facing property such as
this. And so I think the hardship is
easily cleared as identified in the
staff's report.
» I will say generally when I do go to
this church it's not for the
greatest times. Normally it's a funeral,
but I have always struggled to figure
out kind of where the main entrance is
cuz they added so many times. So this
this makes sense.
» So let that be right in the record. Josh
has some trouble finding his way around
church.
» [laughter]
» I'll drive you over there more often,
Josh.
Haha.
» [laughter]
» Uh yeah.
I was going to make the motion, but go
right ahead, Jim.
» Yeah, okay. [laughter]
I'm going to take this one.
Uh I move that docket number 2026 17 DSV
development standard variance to exceed
the maximum number of signs allowed for
a business in the urban business office
in Michigan Road Overlay District at
4775 West 106th Street, Zionsville
be approved as presented and described
based on the findings of the staff
report and staff recommendations,
submitted finding of fact, substantial
compliance with the submitted site
plans, and the evidence presented during
the hearing.
» Second.
» Vote.
» Jim Hurst.
» Aye.
» Josh Fedor.
» Aye.
» Katie Glenn.
» Aye.
» Amanda Miller.
» Aye.
» Motion passes. The petition is approved.
» Thank you.
» Madam Chair, can we take a 5-minute
bathroom break?
» Absolutely. Absolutely.
» Thank you.
» We will move on to
uh case 2026 18 DSV.
Uh another development standard
variance. Um Jonathan, I'll let you
present the case.
» It's fine.
So this is another hopefully
straightforward uh request. The
petitioner
is in the AG or rural AG zoning
district.
And there's a standard
um that
spells out a restriction that limits the
total
uh developed accessory square footage uh
in the rural zoning district. Uh
specifically, accessory structures have
to be subordinate to um height, area,
bulk, extent, etc. In this case, it's
total total area. Um
The petitioner's proposing two additions
to an existing uh
barn. You'll see those on the screen.
One's a 30 by 60.
One is 20 by 60.
Um
when you add all the existing square
footage of the accessory structures
together, um
that total number is 5,524
square feet.
And um
the primary structure is not I can't
remember where I put the the number to
that.
It is 2,000
um
556 square feet. So, the 5,000 square
feet of accessory uh square footage
exceeds the primary residence square
footage, which is creating the need for
this request. We did look at the height,
which was another concern. Um we looked
at the height of the addition, not the
height of the existing building. The
additions are compliant. They are below
the height of the house.
Um so, for this project to move forward,
they need the one variance to allow
accessory square footage to exceed
height
uh or to exceed the total square footage
of the primary structure.
We in this case again support this
request.
Um I'm going to quickly
hit um on the three findings. Um finding
one, we don't believe it's going to be
injurious to public health and safety.
Uh finding two, uh this is not going to
impact the use or value of adjacent
properties.
Um and finding three, as it relates to
hardship, we see this um
it's a pretty common situation for
ag-zoned parcels.
Um in this case, not large enough to be
classified as a farm,
but still large enough to need
significant amounts of equipment to
maintain the 9-to-10 acre site. Um and
any
outside storage of this stuff is not
allowed. And so, often times, buildings
that are needed to house the equipment
for these types of sites
um will exceed a one-story
uh the square footage of a one-story
home.
And so, we think that's an unnecessary
hardship um being created in the zoning
ordinance on this site. And uh for that
reason, we think the criteria was met.
Um and so, we we agree on all three
findings, and we believe
um
they meet the criteria. we we support
the petitioner's request. I'm happy to
answer any questions you have.
Otherwise, I'll turn it back to you.
» Thank you.
Do you guys have any questions for
Jonathan?
» No.
» Okay. Does the petitioner want to come
up and speak?
» My name is Donna Tanner and I live at
the address stated there, 8385
East 100 North, Whitestown.
And with our equipment and my new horse
trailer, and the barn that's currently
there is just really built for storage
and a workshop.
And we're needing more room for our
horses and hay and
the trailers just need protected for our
investment.
So, we're just hoping we can have a new
barn.
» Any questions?
» Uh
all the equipment you're going to be
storing in this is going to be personal
property. You're not storing equipment
for other people and not
» Trading a bottle of tequila for it or
anything like that.
» You can put one out there if you want,
but no.
» Don't give her ideas.
» [laughter]
» I'm right down the road from the polo
club, too. So, we're all the country and
there's
nobody's even going to see my barn cuz
I'm way off the road.
» Do you have any questions?
» Uh not for the
» Okay.
Um
well, um I I agree with staff on all
these points. Um
» Public?
» Oh, sorry. Is there public? I'm not
going to get this today. I apologize.
I am so sorry.
I'm so sorry.
I'm a little tired at this point. I go
to bed early.
» My name is Maureen Hart. I live at 682
North 800 East,
Whitestown, Indiana, which is actually
incorporated in Zionsville.
We live close to the polo field, also.
So, I don't know what that has anything
to do with this uh
this statement here, but
um
my mother-in-law and my wife,
mother-in-law owns the property to the
south of this request.
We have no information on to how the
drainage tile
is going to be modified.
We have no information how the
additional roof coverage is going to
provide sheet drainage onto the
property. I can tell you right now,
property south of her
is beans,
first planting,
great, no second plantings.
So, any uh future drainage problems
should need to be addressed in this
board here.
We want to be good neighbors. We're not
here to remonstrate,
but I will tell you
that what they're asking for for a
zoning request is not the most important
one.
194.02 additional setback provisions.
Long before any of these other zoning
setback requirements, etc., says,
"Setbacks for residential uses the uses
are subject to the special setbacks,
which shall include necessary buffer
yards prescribed by the following
table."
Table, private on residential lot, rear,
100 ft. You're asking for a 60%
reduction
in the setback requirement. This is not
um
something we will take lightly. When we
want to future develop this parcel,
we will get remonstrated
from
the neighbors, the Hickory Hall Polo
Field,
um all these other neighbors will want
to remonstrate for any future
development that we may have.
So, we're here to make a statement that
we want to be good neighbors. We're
willing to work with them,
um but clearly this
zoning ordinance that they're asking for
is not the most important zoning
statement. So, I'm not sure why
we're even going to any farther further
than it's requiring conditions being met
for this 100-ft setback.
194.020
» What was that in regards to? Are you
» I'm sorry.
» I'm sorry. I'm I'm I'm a little lost. Um
» There's a There's a
The zoning ordinance 194.020
» What you're referring to. Sorry. I
thought you just said it in arbitrary.
» Clearly is a
prelim to any other additional zoning
statements
» Okay.
» That being asked.
We're willing to work with these this
couple here. We've not heard from them.
Um
And I understand what their hardship may
be, if you want to call it a hardship.
They bought the property knowing that
this parcel may not meet their
requirements, and they come today asking
for additional variances.
If she's in real estate, she should have
known to look these variances
possibilities up or meet with the town.
And once again,
we're willing to meet, okay?
Um to sit there and try to figure out
what we can do.
Uh this barn could be built on the north
side of the property.
Um
So, there's various other things that
could happen. I think the location
they're asking for is correct,
but we don't want to have these future
drainage issues. We've got a drainage
tile we don't want to put on our
property. Um
But there's just several things here
that needs to be rectified before this
moves forward.
» So, your big concerns are Let me just
make sure I get this correct. Buffers,
drainage,
and there is a site map as far as
location, but you're not don't like
that. Is that the site location?
» Ordinance the ordinance actual ordinance
is 100-ft.
» Right.
» They're asking for a 60% reduction. It's
excessive.
But we may work that out with them.
» Did you want to say something, John? I'm
sorry.
» So, I'm
I'm going to put what I'm looking at on
the screen so you can so you can help
me.
I went to the section 194020,
which is additional setback provisions.
Uh
» Uh if you could sit down, sir. Are you
addressing him?
» I was going to just ask. I see the table
that you are
» Scroll the table, please.
» That's what I was I want to know what
classification
» Right there. Stable private it's
Right there. Stable private on
residential lot.
» I just want to clarify that it's not
been classified as a stable.
» It says stable on the plans.
» What has been what it's been classified
as which is why the setback has been
allowed
is an accessory to a single-family
residential building, right? So, it
would be not subject
to
this setback provision as a stable.
It's subject to the standards in table
three
for ag specifically. And what you'll see
is I don't have the the site plan pulled
up, but the numbers are significantly
different on table three than what is
for a private stable.
» Are you looking at a new modified
standard?
» Uh uh no, sir.
» Published?
» No, sir. This is This is on the This is
on the the website. And I would say
of the two provisions that we're looking
at
the one that's most commonly used far
and above.
Um
» Commonly is different than what states
black and white.
» Yeah, what what I'm saying is this is
not a new table.
» Um if I could just interject here real
quick. Um thank you, sir. Your comments
have been noted. Drainage buffers, I
understand there's a little bit
confusion on the zoning piece.
Um
if you wouldn't mind taking your seat.
Um assuming you No one else has any
questions.
Um
Is there anyone online?
» There is none.
» Okay. Is there anyone else in the public
right now that has any other questions
or Okay.
Um
Jonathan, did you want to finish re- Was
there anything else you wanted to add on
that piece?
» I just want to clarify just so
everybody's on the same page. This is
not the building that you currently have
is not solely being used for the sh-
the housing of horses.
This is not only going to house horses,
right? In this traditional sense of a
stable.
Um and if it's not the stable
uh meaning that you're storing hay,
personal equipment you may store animals
in there, I have no idea, but if it's
not solely storing horses as a stable
then it's not subject to the regulations
of 194020.
Right.
» Um
fellow board members, com- comments or
thoughts?
» I didn't know maybe if the
A if there was other comment I don't
know if anybody's in line.
» Wait. We have
» You do that? Sorry.
» Yeah, it's okay. You're tired, too. I'm
not the only one. Okay, there we go.
» You're doing awesome.
» [clears throat]
» Um I didn't know if the petitioner
wanted to respond. Maybe not about the
zoning particularities, which I'm going
to trust staff's read on that.
Uh but on any
tile and drainage concerns.
» Um would the petitioner like to
speak?
» Could you address uh
the
» Would you stand up and sorry, name
address. So, the concerns to the
previous
um
uh
Renee was that drainage and buffers um
was something that he brought up.
» I guess we wasn't told we needed to
address that yet.
Um, we just need to get past this stage
and then
I guess we have a planning stage to get
approved for our next go where we get
into the
» It'll be a development plan review.
» That's the impression I had from
Jonathan. Is that not right? I didn't
think I had to worry about it.
» That's correct.
» Well, that's correct. You're correct.
Yes.
» There'll be a a um
review of the drainage at the
development plan level before the
planning commission and the petitioner
will be required to comply with the
stormwater ordinance and all other
drainage laws.
» Right.
» So, that's really a different um time.
» I want to interject. Is is that fact
that a development plan review would be
required in this case?
» There will be a a build as what we call
a zoning review, which occurs at the
staff level. Um, the terminology
development plan review is something
that we use for planning commission
items. You're not going to rise to that
level. You will be reviewed at the
staff level administratively.
» With a building permit.
» Our team Yeah, building permit. Our team
will look at the zoning regulations
um to ensure that you comply with
everything, right? Which this is part of
that process.
Um, drainage, right, is DPW.
And part of the IOP process
is approval of the drainage from DPW,
right?
» Part of that building permit.
» Uh it is part of the IO Yeah, the
building permit. I don't want to sit
here and speak to all the ins and outs
of the engineering drainage stuff cuz
that's above my my level of education as
far as that's concerned. But, it'll be
addressed um
at the permit level.
» And we'd want it to be. Yeah.
» And I can say they can't issue a permit
for it if it does not comply with their
standards, whatever that is.
» Correct.
» Thank you. I What I was looking for is
you were committed to following the
process of the town to address the
drainage. So, thank you.
» I do have one question for Mr. Hart. If
he would if
we can get him back up there.
» Mhm.
» Uh the question is
Are you you brought up field tiles,
drainage tiles?
I'm looking at the site map. There's a
creek there straight to the east. Most
field tiles go straight to the most
logical outlet. Are you aware of field
tiles on this or that intersect from
your property through this property?
Is there something that drains into that
small pond from your field?
» Well, the drawing that was provided
through the Stump residence, that's what
you're looking at.
» Mhm.
There's an open ditch. If I remember, I
think that's called Artman Ditch
straight to the east.
» It's Artman Creek. It's Artman Creek.
» Creek, ditch.
» Artman Ditch, actually. I'm sorry.
» Depends on if you're marketing it or if
you're a farmer.
» Right. So,
» But it's uh most field tiles are
naturally going to flow to that ditch.
Are you aware of any field tiles on this
property
that are inter- that are going through
your property?
» I am not aware of any I'm not aware of
any. I can tell you if we'll bring up
the Hickory Polo Polo Field,
they put a drainage tile on our
property.
We're trying to prevent that. We're just
trying to be open discussion here.
» I don't see how with this ditch being
that close to it.
» I I don't I don't either. I've seen it
happen.
I just want to make sure that the proper
procedures, if it goes through DPW or
whatever the
uh improvement location permit on
drainage.
» I just want to make sure we weren't
cutting any field tiles. That would be a
» There should not be any that I'm aware
of, correct.
» All right. Thank you.
» Any other questions?
Thoughts?
» Well, I think we've
um confirmed that they will go through
from a staff level
um
a permit and building review process,
which will cover drainage.
» I mean yeah, after this you'll still
have to apply for an IOP.
» Right.
» Um we'll do a review and I'm sure
there's there's supplemental items as it
relates to DPW, but I don't I don't want
to speak to that cuz I just don't know
what that looks like. Um I will tell you
they're not going to let you do
something that
injures your neighbor.
And what it to whatever degree that
would be.
» Any other comments? No?
Okay.
» Ready for a motion?
» Well, I I'm going to jump in there cuz I
got work for you, Josh, on your planning
commission role.
I appreciate staff recognizing that in
these not 100-acre or greater parcels,
but there is a need for
ag-related
um
on ag zone property type storage levels
and that they are supportive of that
it's a hardship to have these accessory
structures subordinate to the primary
house.
Um
they shouldn't have to have come here
for a waiver on that, and I think um the
planning commission should be drafting
ordinance for the town council to
consider in these situations, so we
don't have to make these people come
here.
» All the other planning commission
members are listening I are watching.
Yeah, I would I would agree.
» You would agree? Okay. Now, I got a
question.
» If you own If you own acreage, you have
you you know,
the last thing I want to see is someone
buy 9 acres and not be able to have a
a tractor and a bush hog to be able to
mow their property, and then it
overgrow, and then we get invasive
species in.
And you know,
you got to be able to maintain your
property.
And when you get in these parcel sizes
of the size you have to
I tried doing it for years without a
tractor and tore up two lawn mowers. So,
um I I simply I I
I understand where the petitioner is
coming from.
» I would agree.
Thank you.
You guys have been You've been You've
been You've been hearing the bad all
night.
» That docket 2026-18-DSV
development standards variance to allow
total accessory square footage to exceed
the total square footage of the primary
residency for the construction of two
additions to the existing barn at 8385
East 100 North B approved as presented
and described based on the findings and
staff [clears throat] report staff
recommendations, submitted findings of
fact, substantial compliance with the
submitted site plans, and evidence
presented during the hearing.
» I'll second.
» Jasper door?
» Aye.
» Amanda Miller?
» Aye. [clears throat]
» Katie Glenn?
» Aye.
» Jim Hurst?
» Aye.
» Motion passes, the petition is approved.
» Thank you.
So, we'll move on to case 2026-20-AP.
Jonathan, no rush. Whenever you're
ready.
» Well, in this case, because it's an
appeal, I'd like to talk about the the
And it's
um
it's my understanding that the person
bringing the case to the BZA should
first present their case
followed by staffs
explaining the the reason for their
position.
Uh
So, um
and then of course then you would decide
on uh whether to uh
uphold
uh
or grant the appeal um or deny the
appeal.
Okay.
So.
» Motion.
» Mhm. Mhm.
» Good Good evening, ladies and gentlemen
of the board.
Uh my name is Tom Bennett. I live at 190
North Maple Street here in Zionsville.
Uh very much appreciate your time
and uh the good work you do for our
community. And I say that in all
sincerity.
And I appreciate uh that you guys have
been so accommodating uh to for some of
the things done in the past. Also want
to say a special thank you to Jonathan
and his team. Uh you know, um
I learned a lot in the last um
several months on the appeal process and
whatnot. And Jonathan was a great
shepherd of that process, etc.
Um I do have with me uh my colleague uh
Mr. Chris Trapp. Uh he and I work
together at the uh same company.
He is our company's director of real
estate. And he is an attorney, and he is
far more articulate, eloquent, and
educated than I am in these matters. So,
Chris, if you if you will, please.
» Thank you, Byron.
If I may, Madam Chair, members of the
board. And I think he's just saying that
cuz I'm he's not paying me, so he's got
to be nice about it.
» [laughter]
» No, I
I appreciate it. I'd also like to to
echo the sentiments about
Jonathan's
assistance here. And quite frankly, the
the grounds of this appeal of kind of
our understanding of it have have
evolved. So, what we were appealing
is something as simple as an email which
originally came.
It said, I'm paraphrasing here and I
should have printed it out, but Jonathan
will correct me if I'm wrong, but
basically, staff has determined that
your deck is impervious and must be
removed.
That was the extent of it. So,
when Tom and I were preparing for this,
the the original thought was, "Okay,
well,
talking to Tom, is this a concrete
deck?" It
looks like a like a typical wooden deck
that
drains through into dirt. It It can't be
Well, our understanding evolved a little
bit and and Jonathan helped us with
that.
And it's really It's two legal questions
that we're here for
that are kind of preliminary threshold
issues. Uh
one of which is and this this centers
around the interpretation of several
different ordinances within the code.
And the question for the for the board
is whether the operative definitions are
ambiguous or not.
And uh
fortunately, the planning staff has
provided that answer. We're
We're in agreement on this. Um this
stems back to um
Director Dale
for some time has been trying to
come up with a solution to correct the
ambiguity in these ordinances. This This
dates back uh to
originally a planning director
determination. I'll get to the fact that
apparently it wasn't implemented, but
back October 30th, 2025,
and I'm quoting here
uh planning staff have identified
ambiguity in the zoning ordinance
regarding the definitions of driveway,
impervious, lot coverage, and how lot
coverage is applied. And obviously, the
two that are
uh relevant here are impervious and lot
coverage.
And then it goes on, one of the points
made is uh is is staff pointed to a
specific other subsection of the
ordinance that says
expressly that um
decking can be pervious.
And that contradicted
was the word and created ambiguity
regarding staff's interpretation, and
this is what we found out that the
definition of impervious surface under
the code as they interpreted it um meant
that all decks are impervious.
Uh that's not how we interpret it.
That's not a There's a better
interpretation. We're going to get to
that right now, but the question for the
board is whether or not
that definition
is ambiguous. And I'll read it to you.
It says, "Area covered by a material
that substantially reduces or prevents
the infiltration of storm water into
previously undeveloped land.
Impervious area shall include, but is
not limited to decks." I think it's fair
to assume that the the language, the
example, the illustrative example that
comes after the functional definition is
what's causing problems.
Clearly, the definition of impervious is
uh
it's a it's purely a functional
definition of whether or not this
material substantially reduces or
prevents the infiltration of storm
water.
"Impervious area shall include" means
that is an example of what can
constitute an impervious area. Does not
Does not the same thing as saying that
all decks are impervious. That's a
totally different thing. And so, what
staff did, to their credit, and again,
we're on the same page here,
March 4, 2026, uh Mr. Dale and uh
Director Dale in a memorandum to the
town BZA and Advisory Plan Commission,
actually went so far as to suggest that
the town council delete those two
definitions. The suggestion, the
recommendation was
um that impervious
and pervious, those two definitions
uh be completely de- deleted from the
code, and that lot coverage,
which is again under the current code,
what uh you know, lot coverage is a
function of the percentage that's
impervious,
but that lot coverage Should much
simpler definition.
That basically, we're going to take up
the whole area. It's a measure the
proposed definition was a measure of
intensity of land use that represents
the portion of a site that is impervious
the excuse that's current definition
scratch that. The the suggested
definition the sum of all applicable
driveways pathways parking lot
structures hardship and any other
material that would prohibit or impede
the
absorption of storm water.
Um
The question here for the board again
it's not whether or not
we're not asking what is the best
definition.
Um
We're not asking what the best policy
is. We're asking whether or not this is
ambiguous and the planning staff has
provided that answer and we are in
agreement. Both parties are in agreement
on the ambiguity of that statute.
So the question that came up and I think
what was driving this appeal is that
what what is it what is planning staff
supposed to do
with an ambiguous statute? How do they
get uniformity and how to do this?
That's the second legal question and the
Indiana Supreme Court has provided us
that answer as well.
Um
That answer and this is
Council explained goes back a long time
was zoning laws being in derogation of
the common law
if a zoning ordinance is susceptible to
more than one reasonable interpretation
it is ambiguous because zoning ordinance
restrict the free use of private
property
any ambiguity must be construed in favor
of the free use of land.
That is
black letter law in Indiana.
Um
and that's what we're asking the the
this board to do. If it finds this is if
if it finds that the definition is
ambiguous which all the parties agree
upon
the interpretation it must take for the
Supreme Court is the interpretation that
is the least restrictive to land. Not
what's best for policy not what
everybody would prefer it's just what is
the least restrictive. That is the law
in Indiana.
So our
our
interpretation again is of this the the
definition of impervious it's just this
is a functional test. If the town wanted
to write
an ordinance that said all decks are
impervious, it would have said so.
If it wanted to write an ordinance that
said that lot coverage wasn't just a
feature of impervious versus impervious
distinction, they wanted to
to say it's all decks are included in
lot coverage percentage, the town can
say that. The town hasn't.
Uh we're we're we're we have an
ambiguity. Uh it it must be
uh interpreted in favor of the free use
of land. And that is the basis of our
appeal. Now, I
staff report a couple things that came
up.
Uh just for the record, um
and [clears throat] we did do a
memorandum that supported some
authorities of what I'm saying here.
But uh one of the things we said, which
actually came originally from the
October 2025 memorandum that was pasted
into the staff report, was reference to
a rebuttable presumption test, which is
one of the things that was suggested of
how to deal with this.
That was a test that um
uh that the the director had proposed is
to basically look, we're going to um
uh
presume that it is an uh decks are
impervious surface unless you bring a
certified engineering plans, the
applicant does, showing that it's
pervious,
which pervious again actually is not
literally written as the exact opposite
of impervious, which is another flaw
with the ordinance.
But um but he did that and Jonathan
actually through our uh discussions, it
did make it into the site or the staff
report for the hearing, advised, and
I'll let him correct me if he disagrees,
but for our conversation, that was never
implemented. So, my understanding with
staff is just taking the position that
their hands are tied, that it is simply
um
uh that all decks are impervious. Um
again, that's that's that's the basis of
our appeal. There's nothing in the staff
report. I do have Mr. Bennett here to
speak to it and his contractor
um regarding the specific factual uh uh
issues pertaining to this deck and its
features, but uh I will
for the record let him make a few
comments if I can if I pause here.
Do you want to explain your deck town?
» Thank you, Chris. It is a 9 by 10 deck,
so it's not a very large deck.
Uh actually um with an overhang
according to the engineer that I
uh
procured per the again the city's
recommendation to get an expert as to
the perviousness or imperviousness of
the of the deck itself. It's actually
we're actually talking about 75 square
feet. Uh you can't see the overhang
there on the on that, but there is an
overhang.
Uh and that's actually the outside of
the deck. I actually have some other
pictures here that I didn't uh that uh
submit, but can at least uh distribute
to the to the board if you'd like to see
it. It rained quite a bit by the way
over the weekend. You probably
notice that. I did.
And uh
» [clears throat]
» And I actually took some pictures.
Uh uh so we the bottom of the deck as
you can see in that picture has not been
covered, so you can't see underneath the
deck currently. Uh and I have a picture
here after Saturday's rain and you
you'll see that it's just dirt. I mean
there's no pooling no puddling. Frankly,
if there was I wouldn't want, you know,
flooding by my house let alone through
the balance of the property.
It's a very nice deck. It looks very
nice. I think it it certainly adds to
the property. And um
you know, I'm happy to answer any
questions. I know it's late, so I
appreciate that again and don't want to
drone on too long, but I kind of like
it. It's I'm very and I'm very proud of
the work that my contractor did. Again,
I think I I one of the meetings uh I got
some compliments like you whoever gave
me those compliments about the property,
but I'm very proud of the property and
uh you know, with your accommodation,
hope that you folks can
see clear to allow the deck to to be in
place.
Thank you.
» Thank you.
» All right, thank you very much.
Um
just a little bit of background. Uh
our building inspectors uh when they
were on site
uh for another project, noticed this
deck and that there was no permit
granted for this structure. And so in
then doing the calculation
uh they said no, it doesn't look like
it's going to meet the standards for
uh
um
maximum lot coverage. So, um that's when
we had to make this determination about
this particular deck.
Um
if we were to look at the actual
language of our ordinance and we are I
think we have to implement the language
within our ordinance. However, it may
it may be flawed, but as staff, um we
have to look at what the letter of the
code says and
with in section 194.095
regarding urban accessory uses, and it
refers to uses. It says that it
indicates that decks must comply with
maximum lot coverage.
And again, the focus on uses is is is
that it's it's not focusing on
structures, it's focusing on uses.
Um
and it does doesn't also doesn't speak
to pervious or impervious, it speaks to
uses.
And so, if decks such as this one
um are allowed, then how should staff
determine when a deck is
pervious?
In other words,
it would be possible if if decks were
determined to be
pervious, allowing water to infiltrate,
then theoretically an entire yard could
be covered
with a deck
and it would not count towards lot
coverage. And is that really the intent
of the zoning ordinance?
Uh if we dig deeper in the definitions
for a zoning ordinance for for in this
case
uh and we look at the definition for
pervious surfaces. It's referring to
surfaces.
Pervious pervious surfaces are equated
to to be
equal to natural conditions. That's kind
of the gold standard
of what constitutes a pervious surface.
They are natural conditions.
Um or a material that allows
infiltration
or percolation of water in a manner
similar to natural conditions.
That is the definition for pervious
surfaces. They're equated natural
conditions or material. It's referring
to material that allows infiltration.
Another definition that's germane here
is that of lot coverage, which expressly
states that decks contribute toward lot
coverage to be calculated as part of lot
coverage. And then the third definition
that's relevant here is also the
definition of impervious surface. And
again, the term surface is used and is
equated to material
that substantially substantially reduces
or prevents stormwater infiltration into
soils.
So, an example of a pervious material
is sometimes we refer to these as
pavers, pervious pavers, that allow
water to actually uh
go past through the material or past
through the surface.
In this case, the proposed deck will not
allow water to pass through the deck
materials. The deck materials
themselves, in other words, the surface
is impervious.
Does not allow water to pass through the
deck materials, but rather allows water
to pass between
the materials, not through the
materials.
For any So, for any given area of this
deck the majority of the area is
impervious.
Meaning rainwater cannot penetrate or
pass through the deck boards or the deck
surface or deck materials as referenced
in the definitions for
pervious surface and impervious surface.
Therefore, the deck surface does
substantially reduce or prevent storm
water infiltration.
Just as for example, a roof a roof
structure
diverts water to a rain gutter system
that eventually that water eventually
penetrates the soil.
That does not mean the roof itself is
pervious.
It just means that the that water is
diverted
to uh to an area where there are soils
that can receive that water. And so,
therefore, roofs themselves also
should count toward lot coverage. We're
talking about surfaces and materials.
Um so, for these reasons
uh
staff has consistently counted decks
towards lot coverage.
Uh
And so, that's that's our position.
» Yeah.
» [laughter]
» This a fun one. For the last one of the
night is a really fun one, isn't it?
» [laughter]
» I I have to say your contractor has been
lovely.
And he's come through here and you're
wonderful.
Um
so, you did a good job picking him. But
» Thank you. He also made a nice deck.
And and and and if I may and I I don't
know the the process here, so forgive me
if I'm out of order. Just tell me if I
am. But I mean, we did we did submit a
report uh that in did indicate that the
water does flow through to the ground. I
admit, I mean, sure there's there's
decking there. I mean, yes, there's it
isn't it isn't straight going straight
to the ground. That that's obvious.
Uh it does flow through the seams. The
water does go through the seams. It's
just raw dirt right now. I have a
picture right now. I mean I I'm sorry. I
should have submitted it again. I didn't
follow all the processes. I apologize
for that. I'm a I am a first-timer here.
My contractors evidently charmed you.
So, appreciate that.
But I mean if if if the issue is that
there is a storm water concern or
something to that effect,
there is not a concern. I have an expert
that that said as much. And I have
pictures from the weekend and I can you
know you can see what when I took the
pictures etc. Not on not on the actual
pictures, but I could submit the timing
of those pictures and you could see I
mean it rained a lot this weekend and uh
there is not a problem underneath my
deck.
» Thank you.
Do you guys have any questions for staff
or
» Well, it
in the
appellant's uh
testimony, they were quoting Mr. Dale on
some things where I think I was in the
room where he was speaking and I just
want to try to remember the context.
But
Mr. Dale, if you'd remind me when you
were talking about doing away with
definitions and doing everything, were
you trying to address
whether or not decks were included or
were you trying to address whether or
not we should be including driveways?
» I think actually we're discussing trying
to get away from this whole conversation
of what constitutes pervious and
impervious.
Because we're getting just caught up in
that whole you know circular circular
reasoning of is it pervious is it
impervious and then if it's
if it is
uh if it's impervious, then that has big
implications for how we calculate lot
coverage.
» And I think also the important fact is
that
that never got implemented.
» Right. And so what we decided to say
well, rather than try to uh
uh you know wrestle ourselves into an
interpretation
given the, you know, the difficulties
with the ordinance. We We said we'd
table the matter and instead we'll work
on changing the ordinance.
So, yes, that the the the workaround, so
to speak, that we had written up, we
never implemented
um because uh
we thought it you know, sometimes doing
that just presents a whole set of series
of consequences, unintended
consequences, rather than just fixing
the ordinance.
» I might just say I
I agree with some of the
information submitted by the petitioner
from a legal angle. I disagree with some
others. I just want to talk about that
for a minute. I think that the
petitioner makes a good point that
uh in your ordinance, there's a
definition for impervious and there's a
definition of pervious and they're right
in front of you.
But, they are not mutually exclusive. I
think that's a very good point and their
expert in their letter in his letter
said that what you have here in this
particular deck is a semi a semi
pervious uh
system because it's the deck planks,
then gaps, then deck planks, and gaps.
And I thought I thought that the expert
uh that they submitted maybe gave the
best description of what we really have
help happening. It's a deck system. It's
neither solid
you know, decking, nor is it
and nor is there a 4-in gap between the
planks. Okay? I thought that was a good
point. We're dealing with something kind
of in the middle of the two definitions
because they are not mutually exclusive.
So, but I'll [snorts] just say a couple
things. First of all,
uh although I certainly supported what
Mike and staff were trying to do to get
away from a difficult ordinance to
administer, that was not actually
accomplished.
The board is stuck with the ordinance we
have.
And I I don't agree
that the uh I don't agree that the
ordinance is ambiguous.
I think it may not have engineering
precision.
It'd be great if there was just a
drainage coefficient and said that if
the deck system can drain a certain
amount of water at a certain rate, then
it's pervious. Be great if that's That'd
be perfect. But we don't have that.
The question is before the board is
whether this deck system
um substantially reduces
or prevents the infiltration of storm
water into a previously, you know,
previously undeveloped land.
So, it isn't whether the deck system
impedes at all.
It's it it Your our ordinance says
does it substantially reduce or prevent
the infiltration of water?
I think under, you know, that's what the
ordinance says and I think that's the
determination that the board has to
make.
Uh staff said they thought I mean, they
they they they said, "Yeah, we think
it's we think it's impervious."
The petitioner says, "No, this is
pervious."
And I But I think that just to make sure
that we're using the words of the
ordinance,
it says that you in order to support
staff, you would have to find that the
deck system before you substantially
reduces
or prevents. Those are the magic words
here. Substantially reduce or prevents.
If you find that it doesn't,
if you find that the deck system as a
whole does not,
then I think that I think the petitioner
is right.
» May I respond real quickly, counselor
Madam Chair?
Because just to clarify for the record,
what what what counsel just said is
exactly what we're saying. So, when he
said When I say it's it's it's it's
I'm happy to say that it's unambiguous
that that first sentence about that that
definition controls. That's our
position. I think the better way of
saying it is at worst case, it's
ambiguous as to the staff's position
that all decks are impervious. That's
the point I'm trying to make.
» And I agree with that.
» And that is that is what the Supreme
Court is telling us we cannot do.
» I I just don't want the board to be
confused about what their job is here
tonight.
» Understood. Yes, sir.
» So, I'm not disagreeing with that, but
the question before them is whether
when the staff said your client couldn't
build that deck that way without
violating lot coverage, were they right?
And in order to do that, we have to go
right back to this particular deck and
figure this out. Um the other thing I
would say
is
uh as I mentioned, it would be nice if
we had some other way to go about it,
but under the definitions we have, which
is the law in Zionsville, the zoning
ordinance is the law.
Unfortunately, Mike, I love I respect
you a great deal, but Mike's memo is not
the law nor an ordinance.
Uh we are stuck with the definition we
have.
And again, I believe the board can make
a judgment about whether this particular
deck is impervious. I really think that
you can make that judgment uh based upon
the definition because the definition
doesn't say does it reduce the flow of
water at all.
Doesn't say that.
Whether the deck substantially reduces
or prevents the infiltration of storm
water
into previously unbuilt land. And see,
that's a little bit of a different
standard than saying,
you know, does any water come through at
all? I think it's a I think it's a
pretty I think it makes it easier if you
remember the word substantially. That
really makes the analysis a little
easier.
So, there. I just wanted to say that.
» No, thank you.
Um
Did you want to say something, Jonathan?
I'm sorry.
» I was just going to Can I ask you a
question?
Um
it's 10:15, so I'm my brain may just be
a little foggy.
» Mhm. I'm I'm glad I'm up
» Did I hear you correctly in saying that
based off the
definitions that we have,
we should not be classifying all decks
as impervious?
» I agree with that because I agree with
the petitioner when they say that the
definition is functional. I absolutely
agree with that. I don't think there's
any other way to read it. I also agree
with the uh
grammatical construction
that um decks are listed as something
which can be impervious.
Including it there, if you read it to
say
if you read it to say all decks are
impervious,
it it does ignore the definition of
impervious, and I actually agree with
the petitioner about that. I actually
do. I think the analysis is
is this deck impervious?
And some decks are impervious, and some
are not. And it has to do with the
spacing between the the slats, and I
think that's what the definition
requires the staff to do, but
more importantly tonight, I think that's
what it requires the board to do is to
make a judgment about whether or not
there is
or is not a substantial reduction
or prevention of infiltration.
And I think that's what the definition
says, and that is the law we are stuck
with because that's our law.
» Can I
» Madam Chair, if I can make a a motion or
a request, rather, to something here.
So, what what we asked with Mr. Smith,
with Jonathan before, this is basically
I understand Mr. Dale's
uh suggested procedure is not the law,
but what he had suggested back in
October of 2025
was that
an applicant could submit certified
engineering plans that would show that
the deck is
pervious or not impervious. That is a
better way to put it. Um I asked uh
for the opportunity before this hearing
to do that. To say, "Can Can we Can we
Can we discuss that with planning
staff?" And I think, and I don't want to
speak for for Jonathan, so he'll correct
He'll be He'll be free to correct me if
I'm wrong. I think his problem was there
was a threshold issue with his office
about whether or not um, all decks were
impervious as written. And I think that
uh
I agree with council or with with with
with with the city council or the town's
council, excuse me, that um
that they're not. And what I'd ask for
is let's do that process. Give us 30
days, reset this hearing, let us come up
with certified engineering plans, let us
talk to planning. If they're satisfied,
maybe we agree and this appeal goes
away. If they're not satisfied, we come
back here and ask you to make a factual
determination. That's my request before
the board tonight. And to go home.
» I think
I would just I think that's a very uh a
good request, which gets us to the
facts, which is what we all want.
» And can I
» And unless the board doesn't think it
needs that, but I mean, I do think
that's a good request.
» I I would just would like to say while
your contractor charmed me,
uh I actually
voted against this when you first came
through. When they granted you to take
over additional, they all actually
approved this. I I said no
because of flooding issues and I I
didn't I disagreed. But
so
the reason why it came back is because
you guys put a structure on there that
wasn't approved, um, that didn't go
through, you know, that process and was
flagged, you know, on the random. So,
um, when it came back through, the
position for me was still no. So, for
me,
you know, this is
you know, there was there was already
additional grant that was given. I am
fine with a continuous a continuance to
have them do um
have an engineer, you know, and if that
satisfies staff, but um
I think we're forgetting that we already
granted them.
Right?
» They were denied as I understand.
» No, this last time, but the first time.
This is the second time. So, they were
granted it. They came back because of
the flagging of the decks.
» Madam Chair, we were denied a variance,
which is an entirely different legal
standard, an entirely different burden
of review than what the issue is before
today. The position that we're we're
taking
» We granted you
you were granted the ability to do the
addition, and the only reason why you
came back for the variance was because
you made a deck without approval.
So, just to be clear here. Yeah.
I'm fine. I I agree. I'm fine with if if
you guys all think that you know.
» I have no problem giving a continuance
to kind of get some more factual
information for us to make a
determination.
» Is your problem just that we're going
backwards?
You don't like that. Okay.
» Yeah, and I agree.
It wasn't done It wasn't done correctly.
» But now that it's there and
» Well, it may be different for you guys
because you guys approved it from the
start, and I was
on the other side of
» Project, not the deck.
» Yeah, the larger project, right,
exactly. So,
» Of course, I have to say,
and I was here, too.
But yeah, we can't consider all that.
» Yeah, but we can
» Right for a minute.
» It's okay to vent, but we have to
[laughter] stop and still make the
decision.
» Mr. Mr. Mr. Bennett would have jacked if
I did not say we can't consider that
when we make a decision on this appeal.
» If there were there were bricks in
there, and we were worried about water
and flooding and all of that. So, now
there's a harder structure. If there
were any kind of I mean, they're already
back to impervious and impervious.
» I know, but I'm just saying we really
have to
We have the somewhat forget all that.
» [laughter]
» And that the nature of too often of this
role that we play for the town is we
have to figure out all that and rule on
what's in front of us. Uh
Uh I
I move for a continuance so that the
petitioner has a chance to provide
engineering drawings to convince either
town staff or failing that us uh
that
this deck does meet our ordinance.
» Can we define what that is? Is that
going to be you know something
scientific like
Israel mentioned, you know, um
to
Do you have a suggestion on that piece?
» Jonathan, do you know what you would
request and have you
» I am
I don't know what question I want to
ask, but I just want to make sure I get
clarity from you, Mr. Taylor, as to what
we are about to move forward with. So,
what I'm hearing
is
just to reiterate that staff, our
historical practice, right?
Um maybe it's been wrong, but
historically we've just blanket blanket
applied
decks against impervious things.
» Well, that doesn't matter. I can talk to
you about that later.
» Well, well, what I'm saying is
» Case, what the petitioner has said is
that they would like to present with you
to you engineered
um
calculations
that support their position that the
deck is pervious.
That's That's where we are.
» Mhm.
» As to the other, I'll be happy to talk
to you outside of a public meeting about
that.
» I understand. Um
I'm not 100% sure
I would look at Mike Dell as the
director as to what would
» The determination.
» Yeah, what would satisfy our office as
to whether or not a deck meets
» Engineers Well, engineers are are tasked
from time to time with the determining
whether a surface or materials or system
are pervious. They're fully capable of
doing it. I've seen them do it.
You're you're I assume you're going to
get an engineering report and then you
can decide or you the town engineers can
review it and advise you as to their
opinion.
And so I I know that this is something
that is an accepted there
the courts accept expert testimony about
this all the time.
And so
it will be mathematical in nature, my
guess is mathematical calculations to
show that it either is or is not.
But experts can disagree and the and if
you if the town staff has a need to have
independent review, which I think you
should, then you'll have the opportunity
to do that.
» I'm good with that.
» I I I made the motion. I'm waiting for a
second.
» Second.
» [laughter]
» I want to make sure Dan got it all out
there.
» Did you want to say
» Yeah, may I say something, please? And
it's a it's a it's a question.
So
you know, um I had a
an expert deem, you know, the deck to be
pervious. I I mixed it up, too, by the
way.
Uh
are you looking for something someone
with a some higher standard?
Uh well, I guess can I should I work
with Mr. Dale and and Mr. Mr. Smith as
to the qualifications you'll be looking
for? I don't want to I don't want to
I don't want to kind of like the the
doctor before. I don't want to go out
and get work done and that isn't deemed
to be acceptable. So, we'll work with
you, sir.
» Yes, I'd be happy to talk with you about
this.
» Okay. Just what what level of of of of
engineering of of of expert you're you
would you would be looking for. Good.
Great. Thank you.
» [laughter]
» So
» I I will say I thought your own attorney
enunciated pretty well
I think your own attorney enunciated
pretty well what needed to be done to
get to the [snorts] staff but it
certainly talked with Mr. Mr. Dale.
» So, I uh
Do we need a motion?
» There is a motion There's a motion on
the table. We're waiting for a second.
No.
» It was.
Okay.
And who seconded that?
» Josh.
» I think it was Josh.
» We're a talk team.
» Take roll call. Jim Hurst.
» Aye.
» Josh Fedor.
» Aye.
» Amanda Miller.
» Aye.
» Don Kate.
Kate Glenn, excuse me.
» Aye.
» The motion's passed.
» Thank you, guys.
» Thank you.
» Thanks for spending your evening with
» Can I
» [laughter]
» Off the record, can I make one request
one more request so as I have your
attention? Can I go first next time?
» [laughter]
» You and everybody else.
» We're hoping you will be the only one
next time.
» Can we go alphabetical?
» [laughter]
» Thank you. But sincerely, thank you.
Thank you for your time.
» No, we're on we're late. We've got to
finish up here. We're we're not off the
job yet.
» [laughter]
» Keep it.
» Okay, we have a couple other matters to
be considered.
» Thank you. That's all I wish. Have a
good evening.
» Thank you. Couple other matters to be
considered so I can get everybody home.
Um
an executive session um has been asked
to have um there's just
be held ahead of our September 2nd
meeting.
Are we What time?
» Um so, I was I'm to see if everyone was
available for an executive session
starting at 6:00 p.m. on September 2nd.
» If I'm in town, I can be here.
» Okay.
» That's a little bit of a jump ball.
» Okay.
» But you'll know in the next week.
» Okay.
» I'm out of town if he's out of town.
» [laughter]
» If a date works better for the four or
five of us or five of the BZA members,
I'm happy to have a different meeting on
a different date. I just thought that
was
» The easiest time to do
» You need all of us, right?
» We just need 30 minutes before the
meeting.
» I will uh
Dan, Mr. Taylor
» Yes, we I've I've asked for 30 minutes
to talk with you in executive session on
matters that can be discussed with your
attorney. It's a new category in the
access to public records act. I'm
confident that 30 minutes will be more
than enough.
» Should we confirm our other board member
will be in attendance?
» I can
» Need a quorum.
» Okay.
» A quorum.
» That's perfect.
» If somebody's not there, I can
communicate with them separately.
» It's on my calendar.
» So, 6:00 p.m.
» Mhm.
» Uh night September 2nd.
» Mhm.
» That is going to move the pre-meeting
for the September meeting
to 5:30. Uh let me see.
Let me look on my calendar to see who
the two pre-meeting attendees are for
that month.
pre-meeting
That is Josh Martin and Amanda Miller.
So, Amanda, you you are aware of the
change and I will update Josh.
» If Josh has I know he
is challenged to get in here a little
early. If he cannot make that
pre-meeting, I'll be more than happy to
swap with you.
Yeah, thank you. I will I will let you
know.
Volunteer for everything. All right,
well there are no further business.
» I move we adjourn.
» Second.
» [laughter]
» All in favor say aye.
» Aye.
» Run.