Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Welcome to the town of Avon board of the zoning appeals meeting. If you are

interested in having a copy of the agenda or the staff reports, they they are available on the tables to the right of the audience. This mean this meeting is being recorded for the public record. Because of this, we request that personal conversations are kept to a minimum and cell phones are set to vibrate with any phone calls taken outside of the chambers. If you are interested in commenting during any public hearing, please sign up on the sheets located on the tables to the right of the audience. When your name is called, please step forward to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Please address your comments to the board and not to staff or the appellant. Your comments should relate directly to the case at hand. We do understand that there may be several persons who wish to speak. The chair may therefore impose a time limit for each person. Federal law requires that the town make available to all attendees a title six public involvement survey. These surveys are on the table to the right of the audience. Members of the public who wish to complete this survey may do so and place them in the designated area. If because of a disability any person in attendance needs assistance or accommodation to fully participate in this meeting, please notify staff. Thank you for your assistance in facilitating a respectful, fair, and timely meeting. Again, welcome to our meeting. Please stand for the pledge of 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.

Roll call, please. Paul Genenberger, here. Annne Inman, here. Katherine Ransburg, here. Marcy Tashler, here. Marcus Turner, here. First item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from July 17, 2025. Did anyone have any questions, comments, corrections? And if there are none, we'll entertain a motion. Actually, June 17th, June 17th number. Okay, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for June 17th. I'll second. We have a motion by Mrs. Inman and a second by Mrs. Ransburg. Any discussion? All in favor say I.

I. Anyone opposed? Meeting minutes are approved. Next item is request for continuences or agenda modifications. Thank you, Chairperson Turner. Um, so the first two petitions on your agenda, SE2502 and V2503 for Seven Brew at Shiloh Crossing, um, are being withdrawn by the petitioner. Um, uh, with the plan they filed, the they would have needed a variance for a bypass for a defic deficient bypass lane. um they had submitted a revised site plan a couple weeks ago that would have been compliant and so the V case was already going to be withdrawn. We anticipated the special exception going forward when we published the staff report. Uh but a few days ago, the petitioner indicated that their client um still wanted to revisit the the site plan. Um and so they requested to withdraw the special exception and they anticipate that they'll uh refile in a couple in the next couple months once they've uh come up with a site plan that is satisfactory to their client. So recapping SE2502 and V2503 both being withdrawn and that should just require your acknowledgement.

Very good. Thank you. Public comment. Does anyone wish to address the board? And with no one coming forward, we will close public comment. We have no old business. We will go right into new business. And our case for this evening is V U25-02137 production drive child care.

Thank you again. This is a request for a variance of use of UDO 3.2 2, which is the permitted use table to allow for uh child care use as a primary use in an I2 district. Uh I2 being in uh the general industrial district. The property is located at 137 Production Drive, uh just south of US 36. It's a little less than one acre, and you can see it on the map here. on the east side of Production Drive. This is a look at the front of the building facing west across Production Drive. That's a view facing the opposite direction. Sorry, that was facing east, not west. This is facing west from the front of the property across production drive to the abuing industrial properties. That's facing north along production drive towards US 36 from in front of the site. And then that's facing south along production drive from in front of the site. Production drive just south of this site turns west and then terminates a little farther back um to the west. These are a couple of photos that were submitted by the petitioner um of the outdoor play area that's been constructed along the south side of the building. Excuse me. This is the site plan. So, this is the the building here and the childcare operation would take this portion here. Um, there's parking out front and other portions. I'm not sure about both portions of the building. There is an

auto repair business that's operating in part of the building as well. So, the petition indicates that this use would occupy about 3,700 square feet of the existing 13,000 square foot commercial building with the outdoor play area that I showed you in the photos um comprising about 600 square feet along the south wall of the building. So while childcare use is not a permitted use by right in I2, it can be permitted by a grant of special exception as an accessory use to another industrial permitted use in any of the industrial districts. So we would typically look at that as a situation where there's an industrial user just say for example across the street uh from this property is Harland Bakeries. If as a permitted industrial use they wanted to run a child care for the benefit of their employees, they could do that on their site. um potentially they would need to apply for a special exception, but the ordinance envisions that that can be an appropriate use in an industrial district. So we do see that the UDO contemplates the need for and the appropriateness of a child care facility in an industrial district. And we don't think that the proposed childcare facility would interfere substantially with continued industrial use of the surrounding industrially zone properties and that it could potentially be a benefit uh to workers in the industrial district. So for a use variance you have five findings that are required. The first that it's not injurious to the public health safety morals or general welfare of the community community. The

second that the use or value of adjacent areas would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The third that the need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property. The fourth that the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would constitute an unnecessary hardship if they were applied to the property. And finally, that doesn't interfere substantially with a comprehensive plan. Um, I'll talk about each of those if I can just back up to give you a little bit of history on this. Um, so the as I understand the petitioner had called the town offices prior to signing a lease and moving forward with trying to operate this use. And I I know firsthand from looking at our Beacon website that hosts our GIS that provides both to staff and to the public all of our property and zoning information that the addresses that are assigned on production drive are not they're not necessarily consistent with what's out there. And some of the parcels don't have an address assigned to them, such as this one did not. So, as I understand it, the the applicant, the operator um of this facility had called the town and had inquired about this address and what they would need to do from a zoning standpoint in order to operate a child care facility there. When town staff couldn't find that address when in searching in the Beacon system, town staff interpreted that that address was not located in the town of Avon and instructed the the applicant or operator to contact Hendricks County in the belief that it was in an must have

been in an unincorporated portion of the county. So my understanding is that the applicant and they can obviously attest to this firsthand in their testimony, but my understanding is they contacted the county who said that we don't regulate that property. Um, you know, would have made sense that they would have maybe told them it was in the town of Avon if they found that, but they told them they didn't regulate it. And so then our understanding is that the applicant believed that they were good from a zoning standpoint and moved forward with um signing a lease and doing whatever they needed to do to the property to operate their use. Um, the use came to the potential use came to the attention of the town when there was a complaint made after the outdoor play area was first established uh on the the west side or the front of the building close to production drive. This the town received a complaint. Somebody was concerned with the play area being out near the the roadway. uh the town's inspector went out, checked down the property. It appeared that they were either operating or working towards opening um for this type of use. So, they were cited for a use that's not permitted by Wright in an industrial district. At that point, they came in and and talked to town staff. We explained the situation that it was located in the town, that it was zoned I2, that it didn't permit that use by right, and that their remedy would be to file for a variance of use, which they promptly did at that point. And I believe they need to still um they need to have a license approved by the state that regulates childcare facilities, but they can't I don't

believe they can get that approval until they have uh demonstrated that they meet local zoning for the use. Um, I believe they have had they would also have to have a fire inspection by the Avon Washington Township Fire Department um to meet those codes. I believe they've I was told by um our building commissioner that they've had an inspection and they have some corrections that they'll need to make. Um but and I don't have all the details on that, but as I understand those are all things that can be worked through. they're not major issues that would require major renovations to the property. So that's how we got to the point we're at today. Um so in going through the findings, the first finding that it not be injurious to public health safe safety, morals or general welfare. Um essentially as I mentioned the how they operate the facility is regulated by state statute and the state will require inspection and licensing to make sure that they operate that in a safe manner. So if they can meet the state requirements in addition to fire code um which is an ongoing thing they'll have to address um we don't believe that a childcare facility here would be injurious to the public. We also don't see a reason to think that it would negatively impact the use or value of adjacent properties, which is your second required finding. This uh building was built prior to incorporation of the town. So, prior to the town being incorporated and and passing a zoning ordinance and zoning this industrially. The looking at the assessor's property card, it shows this building as a commercial building rather than an industrial building. Um, I'm not sure on all the the history of what uses have

been in here. The auto repair that I mentioned that could be considered a commercial or industrial use. It's permitted in both commercial and industrial districts. Um, looking at the front of the building, it looks a little maybe closer to an office type building than a a typical industrial facility. So staff thinks it's reasonable to say that it could be a condition peculiar to the property that it was built prior to the town's zoning and that the building may be uh more conducive to non-industrial uses and therefore it would could be appropriate um to grant a use variance to use the building for a child care use that it might be more conducive to than a permitted industrial use. Um, and therefore also strictly applying the terms of the UDO that would require other industrial uses to be in here instead of a childare facility could be considered an unnecessary hardship for a building that predates the town and its zoning ordinance. So, those are the third and fourth required findings. The fifth finding being that it doesn't interfere with the comp plan. Um, again, although it's the I2 zoning doesn't permit a child care facility by right, we think that it could be considered complimentary to the adjacent uses. Um, it could be used by workers of the other industrial properties to take care of their child care needs while they're at work. And we don't think it would interfere with the continued use of those adjacent properties for permitted industrial uses. So th for those reasons staff is recommending approval because we do think the five required findings would be met. Uh we would just recommend approval subject to substantial compliance with the site plan on file.

And with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. I just want to clarify they are not currently operating in the building. Correct. or are they currently operating in the building? That would be a question best addressed to the petitioner. Okay. Um I don't believe they're operating because they're awaiting their state license. I'm not aware of whether they have some provisional permission that would allow them to operate, but I I'm assuming they're not operating, but that would be I just wanted to make sure I didn't mish hear something. So, thank you.

And have the have the address issues been resolved? I believe that that we have the we do have the 137 address assigned there now, right? Yep. Correct. Yes. Are there and when you were describing this, I got the impression there's multiple uses of this parcel. That's correct.

So, is this variance for going to cover all the uses of that parcel? Well, I don't know exactly what is in each of the other portions of the building. Um, the as the site plan shows here, the daycare would take this portion of the primary building. There's also this northern portion and this eastern portion that the daycare would not use. I don't know if both of these are used by the existing auto repair business or if one of them might be vacant. I know there's auto repair going on back here based on, you know, seeing vehicles back there and um so

there's also two other buildings on the site. Um the site plan obviously doesn't indicate I don't know if the petitioner can shed more light on that, but the auto repair use is a permitted I2. So there would be no need for this variance to address that use. Um

well so help me here because it sounds like we have multiple primary uses of this parcel. So I'm trying to understand the variance if it applies to the entire property to a specific piece of property which I didn't think that is how a variance works. And then do we have multiple primary uses which isn't that again do we have to address that? Can you have multiple primary uses on one one property?

We've had we've had cases before where when you had multiple primary uses. I'm thinking of the the Waffle House down there, multiple primary uses, they had to come in for a variance. Yeah. Well, it's its use is commercial. So, just like with any multi-tenant commercial building, it is it's each lease space has their own use. I would I would recommend that if you grant the petition that you limit the the effect of your decision to the the area at least by the petitioner so as to clearly state what you're doing. So not to the entire building.

Not to the entire building. That's correct. That's what I would recommend because that's really I think what you're being asked to do and you could just use the phrase the least premises whatever the petitioner is leasing as the way to limit the effectiveness and be specific about it. How would that then going forward say this we would grant the variance but then the the current lessers are they move on that variance lives on for that property right because it's not tied to the business it's tied to that property correct so other other commercial uses could be uh could occupy the same lease base in the industrial district

this is uh unusual in that it's a less intensive use. Yeah.

Um, you know, usually we're dealing with the other way around, like it's day child care in a residential district, a more intense use, a commercial use in a less intensive district. I think that Paul did a good job, though. I think the unusual language about child care not being permitted as a primary use in an industrial sector is simply because what was envisioned was an in-house child care center like at Harland or like at some facility like that. But but the truth is that most um child care providers are separate. And so if this weren't a commercial district anywhere along US 236, I mean US 36, we wouldn't be having the conversation just because it's tucked back there in that industrial district is why we're having it. And so, uh, you would be changing the use, but I mean, you'd be allowing a less intensive use in a more, uh, intense zoning district, which would tend to be a much different thing than, uh, allowing a more intense use in a lower intense district.

Thank you. Do I understand the history correctly that there appeared to be some confusion about who controlled the property and the petitioners were given information that was incorrect about where they needed to get their so um they contacted our office when we this the address was put into Beacon it it came up as a like almost like a leased parcel not the actual ownership parcel. And when you go into Beacon and you punch in the address, it says town of Avon if it's in the town. This did not. And part is part of that because there was confusion with the address label.

Not well the address to the parcel is different than the address to the lease space. And the address to the lease space happened to be a weird parcel in B in Beacon. Okay. That almost shouldn't have come up, but it did. And they were told they were not in Avon. And then they contacted Hendrickx County and they said, "Well, you don't need anything from us." And so they thought they were good. So they were given in incorrect information thinking they needed to that they were good to go. Correct. And then later it was discovered that they were in the town of Avon after the complaint was made. Correct. Okay. So they were they were relying on good faith. They were in good faith.

They tried to do the right thing and were given bad were given bad information. Okay. Okay.

Yeah. And I agree with Paul's analysis on the unnecessary hardship, which is a very high standard to meet. The definition of that is that strict compliance with the ordinance would leave them unable to use their property. And again, uh the chronology here given advice, they relied upon that advice. They entered into a lease. Although they're not operating though, they now have a they now have a hardship. And we and we we helped create that. I mean, we did. And so, it's a little different than what you hear about sometimes, but I I I think u this happens occasionally. It's sometimes someone in the building department is sometimes planning, sometimes it's someone at the front desk. You never know how it's going to work. But,

so this is a very unique case in that they articulate a very cogent uh unnecessary hardship uh argu, you know, make that argument pretty well. That's where I was going in thinking through the whole how everything happened, but I just wanted to confirm that what I thought I heard is actually what I heard. So, is that it for staff? We're right here from petitioner.

For the record, I'm Andy. office at 71 West Marian Street in Danville. Well, if you if you insist on the record.

All right. Thank you. Um I am here representing your petitioner, Breitstar Academy Ministry, Inc. Um I have with me uh in the center there uh the young lady is Faith Miller. She's the uh owner operator of the the um daycare facility. She's got her parents Rhonda and Antoine with her this evening. Um, as you know, request for approval of use variance to operate a child daycare in a in an I2. Um, I'll just give you a little bit of background on on uh the the daycare operation. Miss Miller started her daycare in 2023 uh as an inhome daycare. There's various uh levels from what I can gather about five um with the state and she was at an in-home daycare. Um began with three kids fluctuates you know throughout the year but at a maximum at at one point she had about 13. Uh so getting pretty busy for the home site decided to look for a an off-site property. um December of 2023 or toward the end of 2023 and then all of 2024 looking for uh facility to operate from. Didn't have any luck. found this uh lease opportunity and I won't rehash the um I think you've gotten a pretty good indication of what happened here and a little bit of miscommunication and um so they did you know they they started their thing and then found out about the violation. So so here we are. Um in terms of the Mr. Lambi mentioned the the state process they do uh have to be licensed by the state. They're waiting to file that application. They've been in contact uh Miss Miller has constantly with the state, but there's a there's a

uh a time frame on that once you file it. And so, uh best course of action here is to seek the zoning first because the state can't approve you if you don't have the zoning in place. Uh step two is the um fire inspection. They attempted to have that done to keep things rolling and they were told we don't want to do the inspection until the zoning. So everything kind of hinges on this step one. Then we will do the uh we would do the fire inspection if we're approved here this evening and then move on to filing an application with the state. Uh in terms of the proposed use, you're looking at hours of operation from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Um they have children uh infants to 12 years old. Um in terms of any staff there, uh this is regulated by the state. They have required background checks, uh fingerprinting, um drug screening, there is a physical test, uh through Indigo Urgent Care, they just to make sure that they can lift and do things that would be required in a in a daycare setting. So all of that is required. Um Miss Miller is approved. Uh I'm going to use the initials here and we'll we'll I'll I'll mention that but CCDF um she was approved for vouchers from that program through the state at her inhome facility and will continue uh that lensure through uh at this facility. And what that is is the child care and development fund. It's a federal program. Um, it helps lowincome families pay for daycare while the parents are either going to school, going to training or working. Um, and it supplements uh so that they can pay for daycare during that. Um, in Indiana that that program is administered by the

office of early childhood and out of school learning which is part of the family and social services administration. There's various eligibility requirements for that program for the families that apply. Um there's a there's a maximum income level threshold. Um there is a residency requirement. The family must reside in the county where the facility is. So this is this is going to be strictly Hendrickx County uh folks using that program. Uh children must be under 13 years of age to apply. Uh there's a citizenship requirement. child must be a US citizen or a qualified legal alien. Uh there's an identity, a proof of identity for all family members uh requirement. And then there's also an attendance requirement that the state monitors. So if these families are getting a certain uh level of funding to pay for daycare, it's expected that they're using that for daycare and so the state monitors their attendance at the facility as well. Um the state involvement would be ongoing. Uh, daycare facilities are regulated under Indiana code 12-17.2. They do generally two site visits a year. One of those is scheduled and announced. The other is a popin. Um, so they do come by at any time they choose. They'll be doing things like confirming that uh immunizations are up to date for the um for the kids, confirming that uh periodic fire drills are occurring. um they'll be looking at the kitchen facilities, the refrigerator, checking out the food situation, uh site sanitation. So, there is an ongoing um monitoring element with the state. The So, the CCDF program is going to directly benefit um Avon residents um and allow lower income residents to work or attend school or training and still

have the ability to to have daycare for their kids. Um, at the same time, it's going to ensure that program ensures the state's continued involvement in uh in monitoring the site. Um, Miss Miller has recently been in contact with Avon High School and they're continuing those discussions. There is hope to set up a um an opportunity for upper classmen to work at the facility for elective credits um depending on what their major is. So that those discussions are ongoing and um hopefully there will be there will be that opportunity for the town as well. I think I'll I'll end here just showing some uh some slides. Um so this this is as you come in the front door and this kind of hits on Mr. Lamb's comment about the the character of the building uh being, you know, not necessarily an industrial uh building that we would normally think of. So, this is when you come in the front door. Uh there we go. Here is the uh meeting room for staff. There's the kitchen. There's one of the rooms. Uh, obviously the infants, another room. There's a larger area. We get some tables and chairs in there. They do a lot of uh um educational I guess that was it. A lot of uh educational work there. Um I think you had some probably some letters in your packets. Um I think you could see in there that the parents were very happy with the level of instruction the kids get. There's also uh this is a ministry for them. So there's a faith-based component to it as well.

One thing I would um just reiterate is that the child care use in general is as as has been mentioned, it's not a a prohibited use in the in the I2. It can be a permitted use. Um so there is a contemplation that that that could be accommodated in the district. Um, and also if you look at some of the permitted I2 uses that could go in as a matter of right in the I2, uh, you do have schools, you've got community centers, you've got parks, playgrounds, all of those are actually permitted uses in the I2. And so, um, there's definitely an anticipation or a a contemplation that you're going to have kid, uh, centered activities at times in that in that district. Um, back to the support letters, I think you could see the parents are very pleased with Brightar Academy. Uh, there was a common theme across all of those letters. Uh, I noticed um that my children are antsy to get there in the morning and and excited as heck to be dropped off and then when we pick them up, they don't stop talking about the place and what they did. I think as parents or grandparents, I that's hitting a home run if you're talking about a daycare facility. So, um, they do a very good job. Um, we are pleased to be here with a favorable staff recommendation and and we would respectfully request your approval this evening and we'll answer questions you might have.

So, are they currently operating in the space? They were. They're right now they're not. They they were um they were advised by the state that they could keep they could transfer kids from the inhome. they could not seek new CCDF uh children and so they they were operating with with some of their clients that they already had. They have not sought uh new children. So they are operating in the space. They're just not taking on new students. Yes. Okay. But they are currently operating in the space. Yes.

Under the lensure. Under the pre the lensure they they had from the previous. Yes. Okay. That's correct. Okay. Before we go any further, I'm sorry. Go ahead. As I said, before we go any further, let's let's go ahead and open up the public hearing. Is there anyone signed up to speak? Is there anyone who wishes to speak? Well, we put her on there in case she's needed for something I can't answer. You want to ask her how tall she is or something?

Last chance if anyone wishes to speak. No one coming forward. We'll close the public hearing. I'm sorry. Continue. Okay. Sorry about that. I just wanted to because I wasn't clear based on status reports whether or not they were actually in the hearing in in the space or not, but they are functioning in the space. They're not just take they're just not taking new children until they get the licensing approved which is dependent upon the exception and the yeah all the inspections and everything. Yeah.

Okay. Can you talk to what the state does to certify then do they certify the location? Um, is it just the program? What is a state certification that's necessary?

I'm going to bring Miss Miller up to answer that, but the question made me think of something uh that was discussed already. I'm going to just offer my my two cents on it. In terms of the I agree that the uh if there were condition put on the leased premises itself, it's approximately 3,700 square ft give or take, but the lease premises would make sense. The other thought I had was that this is a tenant space. This is not a uh you know sometimes when you have a use variance for a a separate building that's being used by the owner to your point earlier you you would see that use variance run with the land. I think in a landlord tenant situation and Mr. Taylor could uh speak to this, but my thought is that could be conditioned on the applicant because once that tenency is done, uh the landlord's going to be seeking new tenants. And I think in that situation, it could be appropriate to limit it. As I say, my two cents, but um if if that was a desire of of the board. So, so I I understand and I've looked at council here because before I thought we couldn't limit to petitioners that any action stayed with property, not with the petitioner.

Yes, that's been we've always done and I I think that we can accomplish close to the same thing. But I mean, if if this tenant left and someone moved in and wanted to do child care there, I would assume if we approved the variance of use the first time, we would have no no real trouble. One of the unique factors of this case, and uh the petitioners hit on it pretty hard, is this is a highly highly regulated um business.

Yes. And so because of that, uh, if a different tenant moved in to operate child care, the town would kind of know what to expect because it is it is very highly regulated and good luck. But, you know, they they and they do approve the facility and they do approve the operations and health and uh, it's very very uh, it's demanding and for good reason. We're dealing with children. It's for good reason, but um, it's a difficult thing. If you can get your approvals, then we we would know what to expect. As opposed to it, if this were a um auto repair shop, for example, and they move out, you don't know what you get exactly. But I think that I would just want a condition to be that it's limited to this lease, the least premises, uh whatever the petitioner is leasing. And that's the way I think is the best way to approach it. And then we don't have any I don't any problems in the future. I would rather maybe not go quite so far because I really don't want it to be challenged. Uh we don't have any reason to go that far. I think we can do what we want to do.

If if we would grant the variance, this just adds another use and all the other uses and I too are still available to any future owners or let people come in and potentially lease that if this business would move on. Correct. The uh it's a good point. The effect of uh an approval would be to simply really essentially say that um this particular use a childcare center is now permitted as a primary use doesn't have to be an accessory use to something else. That's what you're really doing here and that's all you're doing. All right.

So my question is for transportation and This is a pickup drop off pickup kind of situation with parents or guardians or whomever. Are there any often the schools get involved because you have before and after here. So are there buses that come when we see any other traffic besides just you know regular car traffic you know here. Do you want to Yeah. Come on up. Yeah. That's one I didn't that's one I didn't ask. I'm I'm going to be curious to answer just like you. Leave it to me. Um, go ahead and address. Okay. Okay. Wait. The building address or my address?

Whichever one you want on the record. Okay. Um, hi. My Oh, okay. Hi, my name is uh Faith Miller. Um, my address is um um 2137 Fox Glove Drive, Avon, Indiana. Um

uh buses. Oh. Oh, about the buses. Um, so right now we are only serving kids under six right now. We hopefully to get kids in uh before and after school. That's why we wanted to do that. But right now we're only serving kids under 6 years old. So right now that is not a thing that we need. However, the license that I am trying to get which is ministry, we are trying to limit that because you know um um what else do I say? I don't know what else to say.

Mhm. Um because um we're trying to limit that because they don't really need, you know, because most of our parents right now are usually teachers or doctors and they usually get off at like 4 or 5:30 or like right before school gets out. So we don't really need that at the moment. In the future going forward, get new new people. Yes. Kids and that's what you want to grow your business. Yes. So you and you want to get you want to take older children. Yes. Correct. I read in somewhere that like up to 12 years old. Yes.

Okay. So obviously they go to school they do. Um so that might necessitate you know you know what I'm saying. Yes. I'm just wondering if that would I guess I'm trying to think if that would impede anything in that location or um I don't know it would affect you going there. I'm just wondering about um what's around there and how that might

um I don't think that it would I don't think that it would affect it because the buses that we would have is like more of a short bus. It's Yeah, it's not like a really big bus and if we do take uh before and after school kids, they would get there at 6:00. We would drop them off and the bus will be parked um right there in the front so it wouldn't take up any any space that is used right now. Sometimes they Yeah, you might get the wild driver. Oh, no. But anyway, I'm just curious. Okay. I don't recall exactly the space there. likely.

So, the if you get to the if you get to the south end where they're located at the south end of production, uh, as was mentioned, it then veers west uh toward the Harland and um and there's a very large parking lot right at the end. So, they would turn around there. Yeah. Yeah. And it's not a it's not a through lane, so you don't have traffic coming from the other. about the other thing about F4. No. Can I ask Faith a question? Yes. How many seats do you anticipate your capacity to be?

Uh for the entire building is 30. So um we do ratio. So basically um with state with CCDF you have to have a ratio of each teacher each kid in each classroom. So with our infants we only are going to do like four infants. That means it's only one teacher in that classroom with those instas. So it's a ratio base. So we only want a capacity of 30 kids.

I do have one question. If you wouldn't leave, you might be able to help here. Um when I first saw this location, knowing that location, I was a little surprised, but then I think staff did a good job of pointing out there could be a secondary use for like a Harland bakery. So, I thought, okay, this this is I don't know dayc carees. I'm assuming that's what the state works with you on making sure that it's safe and usable and you got to meet all those requirements. And I've used a daycare for ch children, but I've never run one. So, I applaud you for doing that to take care of kids because that's a heavy duty there. So that can you help me is is the state really is the one that's going to make sure and look at everything in that location that it meets the requirements for safety of the teachers and the kids.

Yes. So um with it um is that the state is going to be a ongoing process with us. So that means that they would do like a initial inspection and with the initial inspection they want to make sure that the building is safe obviously like we have like the sinks, we have the child approved uh furniture for the kids and that all of our employees um staff and um records are up to date like our um TBS test, our physicals, things like that that we have to uh do and we also have to go through um a thing where we have to take tests like each week or month we have to take a test like different things just to keep we being refreshed on things that we do. So it is more like they are like really in it you know what I mean with us. So it's not like they just like oh tell us like oh yeah you have a child care you're on your own. Like they really walk us through the process and help us make sure that we're getting more kids make sure that we're in standard with state with um with child safety and making sure that they're okay.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. I have another question. Okay. So, are you with the state departmental folks at all? Well, what I'm asking, not so much what you're doing, but you said are people around and whatnot, you know, stuff. So, I'm just wondering, is that an inspection that they do or is there something that have you not passed that bridge or is that um No, that's that doesn't even apply. That's something that doesn't even apply. Um they're outside for next thing you know, you know, got something going on. So, what one of your neighbors is

Yeah. Yes. Um No. Yeah. No, that doesn't apply at all. um what they are looking for is ma uh making sure that the kids are safe and if the kids are safe and like everything is checking out on their boxes then they're good with us. So it's never been that. So yeah what I'm what I'm alluding to basically falls under the ceiling of safety. Yes is what I'm hearing you say. Yes.

Hold up. Don't go too far. I know that I'm seeing with Family Promise, we're doing a a venture with the industrial park in Planefield and we're going to have early learning center there right in an industrial park and that is a trend to service the industrial park areas for kids. So, I can see the need and the value of having it in an industrial park. They actually do have one uh client right now who works there in the in the park. So it over time that may expand uh for that need. Um and to your point on that I I think I think that goes to the whole uh issue of safety and and with the state involved and and you know doing popins and that type of thing. The goal is make sure the kids are not unsafe. So as long as the regulations can be met, it can be accommodated. [Applause] Any other discussion?

Thank you. I'll just say I I'll just add I thought the I thought the staff report was spot on. Criteria one for for safety. Um, typically when I look at stuff like this, I'm looking for conflicts between peak traffic periods when you're mixing the the truck and the car traffic, but I really don't see that being an issue here. The truck traffic I'm not going to claim to be an expert here, but it uh it's pretty constant in and out of there. So, I don't I don't see any big conflux there. So, I'm

I like the idea of adding more daycare opportunities. I think other than housing, the biggest challenge families have right now is finding affordable daycare. You know, when you're paying more for daycare than you are for your mortgage or your rent, you know, and and that's not just specific to Avon, but it's everywhere in the country. Daycare is just extraordinarily expensive. So, the more options we are able to provide the members of our community, the better. And sounds like um the petitioner has has done everything she can to cross her tees and dot her eyes and do things the way they're supposed to be done by the state and apparently her parent that her children's parents are very happy too. So

I was just going to say that at least by the six letters or so it sounded like they're very happy. The kids are happy but they're happy. Yeah. You know, happy parents makes your life a lot easier, I'm sure. So, congratulations on that. Yeah. So, I have a question for staff then. Is the the correct address the 137 production drive? Yes. Okay.

I guess the other thing I'd say is I'm I'm supportive of Dan's recommendation to uh correct me if I'm wrong here, Dan. um limit the variance to the lease premises. I would say to the petitioners lease premises. Okay. Any other discussion? If there's none, we'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion. I move that we approve VRU25-021 137 production drive child care a variance of use of UDO3.2 to to provide for a child care use as a primary use in an I2 district because it will meet all the requirements for variance of use under state law and subject to the adopted findings of fact with the condition that the variance of use applies specifically to the petitioner's lease premises. I'll second that motion. A motion by Mr. Gutenberger and a second by Mrs. Rainsburg. Is there any discussion? Roll call vote please. Genenberger

four. Enman four. Ransburg four. Tashler four. Turner four. Y. Thank you. Good luck.

Do we have any other business? I just want to um make another note that you received an email from me earlier regarding this training um that's being completed. I know Paul and and Katherine have already heard it heard about it, but it is free for us and for this board um Paul and I are going, several members of the plan commission are going. And if you'd like to sign up, there's a link in the email that you were sent today. And you do have to register, but it is free. Initially I thought it was mandatory.

It is not mandatory. It's just a day of learning. [Music] Okay, if there's no other business, we are adjourned. Thank you.