Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening. The July 2026 meeting of the Bowling Green Zoning Board of Appeals is called to order. Mr. Secretary, will you please call the roll?

Jerry Anderson. Here. Jeff Crawford. Here. Tim Emmerich. Here. Tom McCumber. Here. Rod Noble.

Here.

David Flayer. Jay Sockman. Here.

Okay, a quorum being present. The first order of business is the approval. June 2026 meeting is previously circulated. Is there a motion? So moved. Moved by Mr. Crawford. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Emmerich. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Okay, the minutes are approved. First, welcome everyone to our meeting. I want to start off by saying I understand that zoning can be a little confusing, especially when somebody's trying to tell you what you can or can't do with your property. So with that in mind, I want you to feel at ease. We're your fellow citizens and generally nice people and we're Very interested in hearing what you have to say, and we will give your request due consideration. As you know, our zoning code provides for variances in the event that the strict application of the code would otherwise cause you a practical difficulty. And as you know from your application forms that you filled out, we need your help a little bit in that. And that involves you presenting to us credible evidence and letting us know exactly what it is that the strict enforcement of the code would cause you a practical difficulty over. And it needs to be something unique to your situation. For instance, the topography of your lot, a slope that prevents you from building a fence or a shed or that sort of thing. It can't just be that you want to have a fence because you have a dog or those sorts of things. It has to be something that's unique to your circumstance. And finally, I'd like for you to keep in mind the seven criteria that were in the application that I think everybody, the three applicants tonight, did a very good job of addressing. those three criteria in your application, so thank you very much for that. As we proceed, you'll be invited to come to the podium. We ask that you speak into the microphone clearly. We'll ask you to state your name and address for the record, and then we'll hear what your practical difficulty is. Others will be invited then to give testimony either for or not in support of your request and at the appropriate time we'll stop the public comment portion of the hearing. The board will discuss the matter amongst ourselves and we will give you a disposition of it this evening before you leave. Appeals of the decisions of the board may be made to the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, and as such, this is a quasi-judicial proceeding, so we will ask you if you plan to testify or think that you might to stand and swear your oath to tell the truth. If you have not done so, before you leave, please sign the check-in sheet by the door. And we will go ahead and get started with the first request, which is from Dan Abdo of Joseph Development, has requested a variance to allow the construction of an 18 feet, eight inch tall commercial building, which would not meet the minimum 25 feet structure height required in the commercial C district by six feet, four inches at 1187 South Main Street.

Chase, you want to give us the... I want to swear them in. You want to swear them in?

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and get Chase's... Sorry. You can have a seat. He's got to go through a couple things. We'll...

Okay, so like you mentioned, there is a commercial development that's happening south of the Burger King that is on the south side of town. This is one we don't see very often. Some of these are shorter than normal, not too tall. But it is 18 feet, eight inches tall, which our minimum height is 25 feet for a commercial structure. And in this table, which is, if you look in the fourth column over for commercial and you go the, let's see here, second from the bottom, you can see where it is a 25 foot minimum height and a 45 foot maximum height. And defining structure height, as you can see in figure one, illustrations of a structure, which is for height, for residential structure, which is on the left, commercial structures are on the right. building height or structure height, the vertical distance between the average and grade plane of a structure, and the highest point of any flat roof or midpoint of a pitched roof. Which, that makes more sense when you look at this for commercial developments. We go from grade to the top of the flattest portion, which that is the wall. For residential, we measure the midpoint of the peak. And this is an aerial view of the location, which is south of Burger King, on the south side of the city. This is an image from across the road where currently it is a vacant lot. It's just in front of caliber collision. Um, again, another aerial image of the property, another one. And that is that for that one. And an advertisement was placed in the newspaper of general circulation as required. A site notice was placed at the site. The other notices required by the administrative code were posted in proper time and location, and a letter was mailed first class mail to the tax mailing address of the owners of the adjoining property. Therefore, all procedural requirements have been met Thanks, Chase.

Okay, now I got ahead of myself there for a minute, so anyone who plans to or thinks they might testify in any of the three cases we have tonight, please stand and raise your right hand. I do solemnly swear that the testimony I will give in these matters this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

I do. Very good, thank you.

Okay, Mr. Abdo?

You would come up, please state your name and address for the record. Good evening. My name is actually Dan Stone. I'm with Van Horn Hoover Associates. Address is 3200 North Main Street. We are the engineers and surveyors of record that are working with the developer, Dan Abdo. Okay. Unfortunately, he is out of state today on other projects and could not make it. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Tell us what's going on. Basically, as Chase stated, this is a proposed Chipotle, and they are looking to install one of their standard prototypes, which is 18 feet, 8 inches tall, to the parapet, which is the highest point, as described by the glossary. you know, the definition there on the screen. Again, this is a standard prototype that Chipotle has. They do it across the nation. And with the size of the structure itself of only being 2,400 square feet, the height, as the higher you go, makes it actually look less aesthetic. Again, the highest point is gonna be facing the roadway, so it'll be, you know, that'll be the most visible. It's not gonna be the backside or anything of that nature. It is gonna be kind of a brick veneer, so it's gonna be an aesthetic-looking, front facade of the height of the building itself. It is pretty, relatively consistent, the same height as the Burger King next door. We understand that Burger King was constructed prior to the amended codes, but again, this is a standard prototype that they use across the nation, and that is one of the reasons why we're requesting to go ahead and have the variance to have the shorter building.

Can you talk a little bit about the practical difficulty issue that we need?

that you would experience if the codes basically you know it is like said this is a prototype that they use across the nation they typically use this building they have a couple different floor models again to construct the building higher would make you know obviously the walls taller you'd have structural differences on the building it's gonna cost more to do it I know cost is not a consideration But again, you know, it's something that, you know, we want to let you aware of as well. Again, it's just, you know, the prototype that they use is this height. And by bringing it up, it's just, you know, just not what they typically do.

Okay.

Any questions for Mr. Stone?

What's the height of the Chipotle on East Wooster Street?

I did not measure that, but again, if I had to guess, it's gonna be the same height. Over the years, because we actually did work on that one as well, over the years, their prototypes have not changed other than different facade colors and inside. So if I had to guess, it's gonna be still in that 18 to 20 foot range.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Anyone from the lobby have any comments on this matter? Okay, we'll close the public comment portion.

I do have a question. I think you seized on something, Dan. This is about the cost of building this.

I mean, yes, it is.

Because as I go through it, I think we owe a lot to our zoning code that we try to enforce, but do so in such a way that is not unfair to people who bring us there and ask for a variance. I see no trouble with any practical difficulties that you've It's just coming down to you're going to change the plans because the cookie cutter plans so that they all look alike. And we get that in a franchise situation. Everybody wants to know. I go to Chipotle. It's going to look the same. It's going to taste the same. It's going to be consistent. So at the end of the day, this is just about the extra cost of changing plans and maybe having some more expenses in terms of building it.

For all sakes and purposes, yes. But again, it goes against their standard look that they do across the nation. So yes, it is a cost. And I believe it was actually stated in there in the application. But yes, it's that. And again, it goes kind of against what they typically do across the nation.

Well, yes, there was a cost reference in here. The property cannot yield a reasonable return If you build it to code, you can't make money out of Chipotle if it's a little taller?

That, I did not prepare the application. I'm just reading this. I agree. I understand.

It would put other users of similar size at a disadvantage. And I'm sure if there were competitors, they would say, wow, what a great thing. They're looking out for my self-interest. Has anybody told you it would, any other business person told you it would put them at a disadvantage? And if so, how? I can't answer that one.

We get into the situation from time to time where the applicant or the owner or the applicant's or owner's authorized representative isn't here and able to answer those questions. So that you might let Mr. Abdo know that that was a little bit of an issue here.

I will definitely let him know. Thank you. Thank you.

Anything else for Mr. Stone? Okay, now we'll close the public comment portion of the hearing. Any conversation, any thoughts from the board members on this? Jay, you can start it off.

I don't have a problem with it myself. I think if they do it over 25 feet, it might kind of look out of place with Burger King there, and I'm fine with it. I think it'd be okay.

Anything else, Jerry?

I just have trouble granting a variance to our zoning code if the only reason is it will save corporations money. I think that those things were in there for a reason and I have not seen anything that presents such a practical difficulty that this would be such an encumbrance on them.

Tim? Yeah, I guess, you know, I think This is a really tough one because the code is the code. So at what point is a variance unreasonable? And I think businesses should be granted reasonable variances for the business climate for a whole bunch of reasons. So six feet to me, I mean, I'm about six feet tall. I don't think I'm a tall person, so it doesn't seem that significant to me. There's not other building lines that we're trying to preserve or anything. It's kind of a standalone. I think, you know, some of the stuff in the application maybe is a little bit trumped up, and I do share Jerry's concerns that, you know, corporate profits doesn't... raised to the level of hardship. So I guess I'm pretty torn, but I don't think this is that big of a variance to ask for.

Okay, Jeff?

I intend to support it because I think it'll fit with the other fast food restaurants that we have out there. I think it'll be a good addition to that end of town, and I don't think six feet taller makes it any more attractive.

Bob? Chase, I would ask you a question. What's the purpose of the 25-foot minimum? Why do we come up with 25 feet versus 20? It sort of makes sense to me as to why you don't want a building to be too tall. I get the upper, the maximum. I don't really understand the reasoning behind the minimum.

I don't know the entire reasoning behind that because I was not here during when this was passed. But I think it was for standardization so that way there was more of a uniform look to things. And so that way everything was held to a standard of you don't go below 25 feet or you don't go above 45 feet is to keep everything within one kind of box.

How about apparently the Burger King is not 25 feet tall?

I do not know how tall the Burger King is.

And I wonder about Home Depot and all those businesses along that little strip mall there, Five Below and TJ Maxx and so forth. Is that 25 feet tall?

I do not know how tall those are.

Part of me is thinking if all those other businesses are less than 25 feet tall, then I'd be more inclined to grant this variance. So that's a question of some significance to me. Otherwise, I hear Tim and Jerry's points and feel sort of mixed emotions otherwise. It's a fairly close call.

Thank you.

I agree with what Jerry said, that cost, as I think Mr. Stone even pointed out, that's not necessarily a consideration for the board in considering this variance and Tim, what you said and Bob, I also agree with you. I think it bothers me a fair amount that no one is here from the developer that can address some of these questions and that we're just faced with some uncertainties with the request. I can't say that I think that it's overly substantial request. I agree with Tim, I think some of the statements in the application are a little trumped up, I think, to use your terms, but I just have concern that this wasn't necessarily important enough for the developer to be here to answer these questions, so that's my issue.

Anything else? You know, I think if the minimum were 20 feet, then I wouldn't have any problem saying, okay, it's only a foot and four inches. But I do look at the six feet as not being insubstantial.

Yeah, I think your point about, and I don't know, I wasn't able to measure anything, but it doesn't occur to me from my experience in this eyeballing that those other structures you mentioned, I don't believe are 25 feet tall. That would be my guess as well, although I don't know for sure. But we didn't have that credible evidence presented to us, so it's difficult to make that determination.

I think like Petco, That line, I think a lot of those are over 25 feet. Those are pretty tall down through there. Now, Burger King's probably not. Caliber Collision's probably not. I don't know about the old Rent-A-Center and GameStop area. The front of that facade's kind of tall. So, I don't know.

Taco Bell across the street.

Taco Bell's not, no, because that was an old Burger King, so that's not tall.

Okay. The aesthetic, it seems like the spirit of the zoning codes are generally aesthetics. And to me, we've seen, we've all seen them. This is not going to hinder the aesthetics of that, of South Main Street to have it, that building there. Six feet shorter than the code allows for.

If we keep comparing... requests for variances to buildings in situations that existed in Bowling Green long before our zoning code was updated, why did we update the zoning code? If it was good enough back in 1960 and it's still standing and God didn't rain down locusts, it must be okay. I'm just trying to protect our zoning code and the only practical difficulty I've heard is it's gonna cost us money to play by your rules. And that to me doesn't swing a vote for a variance for myself.

Yeah and that additional cost is a one time thing. One time additional cost to build the building a little bit higher, not an ongoing repetitive kind of cost. I do think a couple of the statements in the application were somewhat exaggerated in terms of potential profitability.

I know from experience being in the business that you deal with these companies like Chipotle and especially the big box stores. They have their design standards and a lot of times it's basically if you don't want to meet our standards then we're not coming to your community if you can't be flexible with us. That's always a tough situation to be in. I just don't, again I go back to I still have unanswered questions and I think if the developer would have been here and we could have had some better evidence in the absence of a clear practical difficulty that's being established. I just have a little problem with it. Okay, anything else? If not, we'll entertain a motion for the disposition of this. I move. Moved by Mr. Sockman. That's to approve as submitted.

Mm-hmm.

Okay, is there a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Crawford. Any more discussion? Okay, if not, Mr. Secretary, please call the roll. Jerry Anderson?

No. Jeff Crawford?

Yes.

Tim Emmerich? Yes. Bob McCumber? No. Rod Noble?

No.

Chase Ackman? Yes.

Okay, that's a 3-3 tie vote. Unfortunately, that means that the request was not approved. Um, you have the ability to, if you so choose to apply or to appeal to the wood county court of common, please, if you desire.

Thank you.

Okay, case number two, Patrick Shy, I'm taking a guess, of Vandico Signs, has requested a variance to allow the construction of a six foot by 12 foot monument sign, which would exceed the 64 square foot maximum monument sign area by eight square feet at 1072 North Main Street.

Chase? All right, so we're looking, like you said, at a monument sign that is going to be in front of the strip mall that is to the south of Kroger. But we're looking at the zoning code under 150.82 sign regulations in all zones and districts. Letter K, number three, no monument sign may have a sign area that exceeds 64 square feet. And their request is 72 square feet. This is an image of the sign that is being requested. As you can see, it is a 12 by six sign. The brick portion does not count in with the sign. We only do calculations with the sign portion itself. And here you can see the sketch of the location where they intend to locate the sign. I measured it off and it is outside of the area that it's allowed to be, so it's good. This is an aerial view of the location. You can see the strip mall and then there to the north you can see Kroger. This is from across the street. It's the best image I can get because that's a busy road. Right next to the right of that white truck is the location that they're intending on locating the sign. On the south or the north? To the north. And this would be a sign that would have all the businesses in there. Like they have little slots that would advertise their... And lighted, backlit.

Yeah, I believe so.

And this is an aerial view of that location. As you can see, that little protrusion, that island that is coming in there to the north, that is where the sign is to be located, or the proposed sign is to be located. A different image, well, a different angle of the same image. And then sign area, so the entire face of the sign, including the advertising surface, and any framing, trim, or molding, but not including the supporting structure. For projecting or double-face signs where the sign faces are parallel or where the interior angle formed by the faces is 60 degrees or less, only one display face shall be measured in commute, computing sign area, provided the two faces are attached to a common structure. If the two faces of a double face sign are of unequal area, the area of the sign shall be taken as the area of the larger face. But since they are both equal, everything's the same. The measurement comes out the same. And an advertisement was placed in the newspaper of general circulation as required. A site notice was placed at the site. The other notices required by the administrative code were posted in proper time and location. A letter was mailed, first class mail to the tax mailing addresses of the owner, adjoining property owners. Therefore, all procedural requirements for the hearing have been met.

Thank you, Chase. Representative from the applicant? If you would state your name and address for the record, please.

Patrick Shy, 320 East Walnut Street, Argus, Indiana.

Yeah, we're just trying to get a tenant sign there.

The difficulties are there's eight tenants there, and they want to all be visible, and we're not really asking for too much more, and even this sign's really not that visible for some of those tenant signs, but we'd like for it to pass, and yeah, other than that, I have nothing else for you.

Why now? Why is this request being made now? Why wasn't this done back when the building was first constructed and occupied?

I don't think they ever wanted to do it then. Now they're just wanting to do it now. I mean, it's probably been around for a while, right?

So we're back in another situation where we don't have an owner or a representative here that can answer questions. Okay. Any questions from the board?

But is that really relevant? I'm not going to argue with you.

Any questions from the board?

You guys are a big sign company? I wouldn't say big, but... Talented designers and the like? Why not make that to 64 square feet? It's just not that hard.

I don't disagree with you, but do you want all your tennis to be able to be visible? I mean, at some point, we're going to have to probably take out a couple of those panels.

First of all, I'm not going to design your sign for you, but if you walk up and down the streets of Bowling Green and say, hey, well, let's go up to the North BG Center, nobody knows what that is. Okay. Okay, so you could save some space there, or you could say, the other thing is, you're talking 12 feet by 6 feet, right? Yep. What if 12 feet, that's 144 inches, what if 12 feet became 11 1⁄2 feet? And a six feet became, you know, if you did 11 and a half feet by 5.6 feet, you come in at 63.8 square feet. You're right, you're under 64.

But as you move it in, those logos that they're creating get smaller and smaller.

Doing 12 feet, we're taking it in by six inches.

And then it goes in diagonally like that as you move it in. The logos are, you would have to distort the logos to be able to move them.

I just, if you have talented people on your staff, you could do that at 64 square feet and we could see all the signs. I do believe. It's a fair point.

How far back off the road is this sign set? There's no visibility issues or?

No. Let me see. I lost my location. A monument sign is required to be located a minimum of five feet from the right-of-way. I believe when I measured it, it was well over 10 feet away from the right-of-way, from the edge of the right-of-way.

So the also question I got, how wide is, you don't have how wide where the address is, is that another foot and a half, two foot? The 1058 through 1074, how wide is that brick part? I was just curious.

Don't know. I know the bottom part says two foot. Is the 1058-1074 part of the sign? Uh, it depends what your guys' code is. Is the address plates part of the signage? It depends where you go.

You do want to place the address on the brick.

Yes. Yeah. Okay. It'll be like standoff letters, like a plated letter. So I guess it's two by two, you'd add four square feet. So now we're looking at a 76 square foot sign.

I will say the brick and the addresses are not considered part of the sign. Okay.

So we don't know the setback from the right-of-way line nor the distance from the edge of the pavement, right?

No, we do. It's well past the five feet required.

Okay. I apologize. I was just thinking about visibility there from the... It doesn't really matter, I guess, because you... Okay. Any other questions?

And with that, being farther from the road, you'd want the panels to be larger, too. for visibility purposes as well.

Anyone else have anything to add to this from the audience?

I just need to be clear on the practical difficulty if we don't grant this variance is what?

The size of the tenant panels. That's it? How small they would have to be, yes.

Okay. For me, that is not enough for us to look the other way on our zoning code.

Okay.

When I just, just got a 12 feet and take six inches off of it.

Yeah.

take six feet tall, make it five, by the way, 5.6 feet, 6.6 feet is actually seven inches. So you're taking five inches.

Looking at a foot panel tall for each of those people. And like you said, they're 15 feet off the right of way already. So it's already farther off the road that hinders visibility. So you'd want a little bit larger. I understand that's not in your code. That's why we're here for a variance for this.

Okay.

If this had a six tenant property, this would be a lot easier to get done because I don't have plenty of room for each one. When you have eight tenants on that size sign, I think it makes it difficult for each of them to get plenty of visibility.

I don't recall, there are eight tenant spaces in there now, or have there been demising walls constructed so there are only four tenants or five tenants?

There's eight properties there. There are eight businesses there.

There is, yeah, Goodwill, you got Wild Bills, you got Haircut Place, you got the Pizza Place. So there's good businesses there. You got the physical therapy place.

Eight addresses located on that. Visual.

Okay. All right, we'll close the public comment portion of the hearing. Discussion amongst the board. Any thoughts? Start at this end this time, Bob. Okay.

Well, it seems to me in reading the applicant's request that there's basically two justifications that they offer to us for granting the variance. One is that the sign will be more visible if it's bigger than 64 square feet. The problem I have with that justification is, well, that would be true if you went to 80, 90, 100 feet. It's going to be more visible the bigger it's allowed to be. It's almost an argument to not have a limit on the size of signs as opposed to something that's particular to this particular sign. The other justification that I hear is that continually in the application, it talks about what a minimal increase this is over the 64 square foot number that's in the code. Well, if it's a minimal increase over 64, 64 is also a minimal decrease from the 72 that they want. That argument could work both ways. I think there was a lot of talk about signage in Bowling Green when the zoning code was adopted. I think there's been a general feeling in the community that we've been too permissive in terms of what we allow people to do with signs. And I think if we approve this, now the standard's not 64, the standard's 72. And then what if the next person wants 80? Then they say, well, granted, 72, it's only a few feet more than 72. I think you need a number where anything above that is not allowed. I think we would all probably agree that as the signs get bigger, there has to be a spot that's the stopping point. Well, city council, in adopting the zoning code, decided that spot was 64 square feet. So I'm inclined to stick with that, and I'm not favorably inclined toward this request.

I also have a question. So I know when we did Kroger a while back, they included all the signage. You can only have so many signs per the building. Does this increase... more signs to the building compared to what you know, already the businesses already have on the front of the building?

No, no, this is not for any one individual businesses for the plaza as a whole. So there is no actual sign for the entire plaza. So this is the only sign for that when they're under the allow that we make them under the allowable amount and under the square footage allowed.

Jeff.

I intend to support this request too. In my eyes, it's still not, I hear what Bob's saying, but it's still not a, it's not that significant that the, what, eight square feet more there is not significant to me to say that I would vote no for this.

Tim? Yeah, I mean, you have a lot of businesses there. I mean, it's a pretty nice-looking sign. I think it would really help the businesses. I don't think eight square feet is that much. I know there's the slippery slope argument that if we do this one, then we'll have to do the next one and the next one, but I don't believe that's how we work. And it's a nice-looking sign. They're asking for eight square feet. Like, now people ask, where's the Goodwill? People go, oh, it's at the North BG Center. I mean, I think this would really help the businesses. And we're only talking about eight square feet. It's a nice-looking sign to me. I think I don't have any problem with this.

Jerry? I think talented people could take that sign and make it 64 square feet and do it tomorrow. That would allow us to support businesses zoning code that was long debated researched went through weeks months years of review a Planning Commission approved that I believe City Council approved it and We're not doing too much damage because in your own words as the applicant. It's a slight increase It's a minimal increase does not significantly change the overall scale So if it's that narrow I say I'm writing with our zoning code. I

Jake? Yeah, I'm kind of, Jerry makes a very good point on that. Just a little bit smaller would, I don't think would be that big of a deal, but.

signs are important signs are important businesses you know i never knew that was graphic there's like there's lots of reasons i never knew that was called the north bg center jerry's right they could shrink it easily they're talented i'm sure they can make it that way but that much splitting hairs over eight feet to me isn't isn't worth strict application of the code okay i agree

I agree as well but I think our ordinance clearly spells out how a property owner needs to approach a request for a variance and that involves showing a practical difficulty and I don't see that there was a practical difficulty demonstrated here for the strict application of the code and while it's perhaps even a de minimis VARIANCE REQUEST. THAT WASN'T DONE. WE'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS THAT CAN'T GET ANSWERED. AND THEN THE OVERWRITING THING FOR ME, TOO, IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WORKED LONG AND HARD ON THE ZONING CODE UPDATE. PURPORTEDLY THEY SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON EXPERTS WHO HELPED PREPARE THE UPDATE, INCLUDING STANDARDS SUCH AS THIS. I'm going to go with the assumption that those people are experts and know what they're doing and that they considered this very situation that is being claimed for the need for this sign. So those things together because of the lack of the practical difficulty demonstration and also I have to admit again that the fact that an owner or authorized representative didn't show up here, this is troubling too. So anything else? Is there a motion for the disposition of this case?

I so move.

As submitted. As submitted. Moved by Mr. Sockman. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Crawford that the request be approved as submitted. Any other discussion? Okay Mr. Secretary please call the roll. Bob McCumber.

No.

Rod Noble?

No. Jay Sockman? No. Jerry Anderson? No. Jeff Crawford? Yes. Tim Emmert? Yes.

Unfortunately, your request was not approved. Appeal to the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, if you so choose, and thanks for your time. Number three, Allen Davis, 1723 Wexford Drive has requested a variance to allow the construction of a nine foot by 33 foot driveway extension to the widening, which would be five feet wider than the maximum width allowed based on the width of the 20 foot wide garage to which it leads. Chase?

All right, so thank you for reading that. This is just like all the other requests that we have been receiving recently from Cogan's Crossing. So for off-street parking, number three, we're serving a one-unit or two-unit dwelling use. A driveway may not exceed a width of 20 feet or the width of the garage to which it leads, whichever is greater. And then if you would like, I could read the glossary of terms for driveway and off-street parking if you all want me to read that.

I don't think it's necessary unless others want it. Okay, go.

And this is an image of the request, it's not zoomed in as much, but the green area there is the nine foot by 33 foot box up for the site plan. This is an image of the front of the house. This is more of an image of the location where they would like the extension to be. And this was a putting a rendering technology now. So this is using a rendering showing where the where the extension would be located. It is seven feet from the edge of that to the edge of the property line. So there were greater than the three foot minimum that is required. This is a aerial view of I would say of the site, but the site has not been updated in some time. And here we are using pictometry to show the structure or the house. And an advertisement was placed in the newspaper of general circulation as required. A site notice was placed at the site. The other notices required by the administrative code were posted in proper time and location. A letter was mailed first class mail to the tax mailing address of the owners of the adjoining properties. And therefore, all procedural requirements of the hearing have been met.

Thank you, Chase. Are you Mr. Davis? Yes, sir. Please come and state your name and address for the record, please.

Hi, Alan Davis, 1723 Wexford Drive. Okay, great.

Can you tell us what's going on and keep in mind the practical difficulties?

I will certainly do that. Basically, we have two grown kids now that are driving. We also have a total of six vehicles at our house. I'm trying to file the ordinance of not blocking the driveway. So if we put four cars in our driveway currently, two of them are hanging over the sidewalk, which I don't like. Also, when it comes to snow season, trying to get all the cars off the street the best we can to allow the snowplow drivers to go through. And then the community down there just keeps growing. Kids keep driving. I know you guys have approved several down that way, just trying to limit the amount of street traffic and parking that there is down there as the community keeps growing. Do you have young children? I have a 12-, 16-, and 18-year-old. So two of them are driving.

Any safety concerns with the 12 year old?

A little bit. I mean, he's pretty good, but if he's riding his bike and stuff with the current parking situation, he's coming out of our driveway with cars on both sides of it. So I do have a little bit of concern with that.

Any questions from the board?

Alan, have you talked to your neighbors on that side about this?

Yep, that was actually one of them sitting right here.

And can you paraphrase his answer to his thoughts?

He's like, we're not cutting the street any wider, right, like the curb cut. And I was like, no, I'm doing what everybody else did. He's like, oh, okay, I'm leaving. So I don't really think he was too concerned with it. You'll probably see him back up here in a few months because he wants to do the same thing. They're just not wide enough. It's 16 foot wide right now to get two vehicles in there and open the car doors without dinging cars. It's just not practical. Yeah.

And you can get over to that space and we'll get over to that space without going over the tree lawn out there. Correct. How many of your vehicles park in that garage? One. Out of six.

So I'm parking two and a half in the driveway and three sometimes on the street. You guys out there, you have parking on one side of the street. All your mailboxes are on the other side. There is no mailboxes. We have a community, I don't know what they call those now. So our neighbors to the south of us have mailboxes, but none of us have them going forward. Thanks, Alan.

Thank you. Anyone else have any comments regarding this matter? All right, we'll close the public comment portion of the Hearing any discussion?

I think this is, once again, we all know how many cars are on that street and how many kids are down there. I mean, less cars on that road, the better for safety crews going through and our public services, because I think it's kind of a narrow street myself. So I'm for it. Jerry?

There's a boatload of cars in the neighborhood. I love your neighborhood, by the way. Thank you. But we are seeing it in several places out there. It doesn't seem to have destroyed the look, the nature of the neighborhood. I would tend to support this.

Tim?

Yeah, I mean, these driveways are like crazy short. I have no objections whatsoever.

Well, I must say, Cogan's Crossing, and especially Wexford Drive, gets the award for most visitors to our austere board. I agree with what the rest are saying. Even though you don't have super young children, I think it's still a concern with all the cars that do seem to park on Wexford Drive that we can try to limit that as much as possible so I don't have a problem with it.

Nothing more to add. Bob?

I've only been on this board for a few months, but this is the fourth one of these that have come up since I've been on. The other three were all approved without any real dissent, and this to me is just a duplication of those other three.

Also, I would like to just recognize that Mr. Davis pointed out his efforts to keep, when you have multiple cars like that, keep the sidewalk open. I know it's very easy to try to squeeze one in there. As an avid walker of sidewalks in Bowling Green, the sidewalks are supposed to be, I think, for pedestrians. So thank you for the effort and pass it along out there. Thank you.

Okay, good. Anything else? None. Is there a motion for the disposition of this case?

I would move that we approve this request. As submitted? As submitted, please.

Okay. Is there a second? Second. Moved by Mr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. McComber. Any more discussion? Mr. Secretary, please call the roll.

Jeff Crawford.

Yes.

Tim Emert. Yes. Bob McComber. Yes. Ron Noble. Yes. Jay Sockman. Yes. Jerry Anderson.

Yep. Yes. Okay, your various requests have been approved. Make sure you see the planning department, get your permits all squared away, and wish you the best. Thanks. Any lobby visitations? Anything else from board members? Is there a motion to adjourn? I would move that. Second. Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. We are adjourned.