Board of Zoning Appeals (bza) - Regular Meeting

Okay.

I don't know that I will be, but I will certainly try to be comfortable with change.

of the Board of Zoning Appeals to order and ask for a roll call, Danielle, when you're ready.

Okay. Randy Jones?

Present.

John Dilberger?

Here.

Darla Brown? Jane Gore? Here. Michael Harrison?

Here. Okay. Darla Brown, the other member of the Board, let us know in advance. She wouldn't be able to be here. She has a conflict that arose recently. The first item on the agenda is to review and approve the minutes from last month's meeting. I had a chance to look at those and didn't have any changes to suggest. Anybody else? I'll move we approve the minutes from last month's meeting April 29th of 26 as written. I'll second. Roll call vote when you're ready, Danielle. Okay.

Jan Gore? Yes. John Delberger? Yes. Michael Harrison? Yes. Randy Jones?

Abstain due to absence. Okay. All right, the minutes are approved as written. All right, before we get into agenda items, I just want to let everybody in the audience know that since we only have four board members instead of five tonight, if you'd like, as a petitioner, to wait and have your petition continue to next month's meeting when we have five board members that's an option for you. I say that because with four board members we have an option of reaching a tie vote instead of making a decision and a tie vote would be a failure to All right, the first item on the agenda tonight is an old business item. That's docket number 26-SE-04. It's a request for approval of site plan amendment to a tourist home. Staff report when you're ready, Kayla.

All right, staff report for Wagler Tourist Home, special exception amendment, docket number 26-SE-04, hearing date May 27, 2026, continuing from April 29, 2026. Petitioners and property owners, Ken and Lisa Wagler, request as an amendment to the original tourist home special exception 25-SE-10 to add a screened-in porch. Ordinance provisions, Brown County Area Board of Zoning Appeals Resolution 2022-01, tourist home special exception guidelines and conditions, and Chapter 1, Section 2, and Chapter 3, Sections 1 and 4 in the Brown County Zoning Ordinance. Location, 6194 State Road 135 North, Morgantown, in Jackson Township. The home is on the west side of State Road 135 North and is approximately a half mile south of the intersection of State Road 135 North and the railroad tracks. Zoning and current land use, the property is zoned primary residential, R1, with special exception approval for a tourist home that has a residence, garage, and a pond. These are the general findings for the April meeting. Do you want me to go ahead and read these into the record for this month as well?

Yes, go ahead and do that.

General findings for April meeting. One, during a meeting held on July 23rd, 2025 under docket number 25-SE-10, the property was approved to allow the existing home to be rented on a short-term basis. Two, the tourist home is located on three acres. Three, the petitioners are requesting to amend the site plan to allow construction of a 14 foot by 16 foot screened in porch. Four, the proposed site plan change should have no impact on the operation of the tourist homes as there will be no added guest space and therefore will have no additional strain on the septic system. The following conditions from the original approval should remain in effect. One, all tourist home conditions and guidelines will be met. Two, the number of guests will be limited to six. Three, a local management company will be utilized. Four, the septic system will be installed in compliance with the Brown County Health Department's requirements. Five, the building permit will be completed and inspected prior to operation. Six, the property boundaries will be delineated on a map inside the home. Seven, a notice will be posted that the discharge of firearms is prohibited. Findings of fact. 1. Section 3.1 of the Brown County Zoning Ordinance authorizes a special exception for this use in the designated district. Findings. Tourist homes are allowed in R1 zoning districts with special exception approval. 2. The requirements for special exceptions prescribed by this ordinance will be met. Findings. The special exception requirements in the ordinance will be met as long as all the conditions in the 2025 approval remain met. The board may grant a special exception for a use in a district. Sorry, I got ahead of myself. For a use in a district if after a hearing under Section 7.2 it finds that 1. Section 3.1 authorizes a special exception for that use in that district. 2. The requirements for special exceptions prescribed by this ordinance will be met. Three, granting a special exception will not subvert the general purposes served by the Brown County Zoning Ordinance and will not materially and permanently injure other property or uses in the same district and vicinity. And this is additional information for May 27th, 2026. One, the board tabled the petition to the May 27th meeting as there appeared to be a discrepancy between the amendment request and the July 23rd, 2025 meeting minutes. The original approval was conditional in part on the petitioner's agreement to utilize a local management company. Two, the petitioner supplied a contract dated May 3rd for property management at 6194 State Road 135 North. The local property management company will be, management will be provided by Justin Barrett of Just In Time Professional Cleaning LLC slash handyman service slash property management. Three, according to the provided contract, just in time, we'll provide the following services as the local management company. Manage property between bookings, inspect property for damages and make repairs, change light bulbs and batteries as needed, haul away trash or other items, ensure electronics are working correctly. Staff recommendation, since the special exception exists and there will be no change to the number of guests or septic system, Staff recommends approval of the site plan amendment to construct a screened-in porch with the original conditions. Looking north from the driveway. South from the driveway. Does this feel like deja vu we went through this? I know. They do look familiar. Yeah. Dragway from the house back to 135. This is what the porch will look like, except for theirs will be screened in instead of glass. And then the home, can you see my, yeah, the home is here.

All right, that's the end of the staff report. Thank you. Anybody on the board have any questions for Kayla?

I do. Due to my absence last month's meeting, I guess I'd like a little more clarification on number one under additional information. This was heard last month, correct? It was. And the original approval was conditional in part on the petitioner's agreement to utilize a local management company. So that wasn't addressed last month? I mean, was that not?

So in the site plan and your guys' board packet, and I didn't realize this until after the meeting, it says will be managed by Ken and Lisa Wagler and Just In Time Professional Cleaning. I was unaware, as I think we all were, that Just In Time Professional Cleaning is also Just In Time Property Management. and just-in-time handyman services. So I did come to learn that.

So last month, Randy, we got this letter accompanying the petition, and it ended with the typed sentence that the property be managed by the petitioners. Oh, okay. And they'd actually agreed to the condition that it be managed by a local property manager, and so that seemed to be a discrepancy between what they were doing and what they'd agreed to do. So we asked them to, we tabled the petition, moved it to this month so you had the chance to come back and address that. Does that make sense?

It does, yeah. Okay. All right. Just wanted to make sure I understood that. Sure.

All right. Anything to add to what Kayla's told us tonight?

No, we apologize for the wording there in the last meeting.

Do you want to come up to the microphone because this is being broadcast and also we record it for minutes purposes. Identify yourself and let us hear what you have to say. Kenneth Weigler.

We apologize for the mix-up. I don't know if Justin had been managing several properties and so we just We originally was going to use Hills of Brown, and then Justin is my neighbor, and so we get along really, really good, so it was real easy to transition to there. We really never went with Hills of Brown because we hadn't finished and we hadn't had all this done, so. Sure. Sorry for the mix-up.

No, that's fine. I was looking at the contract from Justin's company, and It says he'll manage the property between bookings, but I think our concern was more about who's managing it during bookings, not between. So who's going to manage it during bookings? Who do people contact, neighbors or the people renting themselves, if they have an issue? He'll be the one. You will? He will be the one, yes. Well, does he want to revise his contract so it says he'll manage the property not just between bookings, but during bookings?

He probably needs to. I hope that wording doesn't cause problems. I'm thinking that would be a good idea for your protection if nothing else. What he does is if he gets a call, then he just basically by the hour takes care of it and just charges me. Okay. All right. So that is your expectation.

Sorry, John. Go ahead. I'm done. So that is your expectation. It would be not just between bookings, but also while it was being occupied. Yes. Okay. Especially when it's occupied. Especially when it's occupied. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

All right. Does he manage other properties or just yours?

It's only had... Go ahead. Did you...

I can't remember the number of He did tell me a number of places that he managed and wanted to be put onto our list of property management companies. Oh, okay. I want to say he said 14. I was like 14 or 16. 14 or 16. I can't remember the exact number, though. Okay.

I do like the name, Just In Time Professional Cleaning.

Thank you. Anybody here tonight who wants to speak in favor or against this petition? I don't see anybody, so I'll bring it back to us on the board. I don't have a problem approving this. I never had a problem with the porch. I think we do need to nail down the local manager thing. I don't like that Justin wrote a contract that specifically excludes managing during the time it's occupied, so...

well it's been a source of confusion before at least on at least with me uh you know how we have it written up and what our expectations are even in our our guidance manual so it might not be a bad time to revisit that whole thing like you're like you're suggesting john i agree well i mean kenny agreed to go back to justin to get the contract revised i'm

so i don't have a problem with this i have no i have no concerns all right then i'll move that we approve docket number 26-se-04 request to amend uh existing tourist home special exception i'll second the motion all right uh roll call vote when you're ready daniel okay john dillberger yes michael harrison yes yes okay your request has been approved all right the second item of old business on our agenda was stock at number 26-SE-05 this is a request to and the petitioners have requested that we table this until the next meeting that would be on June 24th all right well i'll move we table docket number 26-se-05 to our june 24th meeting i'll second it okay uh girl call vote when you're ready danielle please michael harrison yes randy jones yes jane gore yes john delberger yes okay All right, on to new business. First item, docket number 26-VAR-04. This is a request for approval of a setback variance. Staff report whenever you're ready, Kayla.

Just heard that make a sound up there. It is showing up on my computer this time.

So he kind of randomly chooses which screen he wants to appear on.

It should appear on all three.

I see. It worked perfectly for the last one.

Yeah.

It's all yours, Sarah?

Yeah.

Well. Would you stand up and hold that over your head so we can all look?

I was going to ask if you guys, if I could stand up here.

I have the staff report. Do my other board members have the staff report? Yes. All right. So we have your staff report so we can see it. Okay. You two folks in the audience, are you okay not seeing the staff report, but just listening to it? We live here. Oh, there we go. All right. Wow. Okay. It's on one screen.

It's from you. Yeah. Okay. But that's okay.

Oh, my God. So you'll just have to change it whenever I go through? Yes. Okay.

All right.

Yes, yes. She saved the day. Please proceed then. All right. Sorry about that. Okay, staff report for Keene rear setback variance petition. Docket number 26-VAR-04. Hearing date May 27th, 2026. Petitioner and property owner Galen Keene and Darren Keene. Request is a variance from the rear setback requirement of 25 feet. Ordinance provisions sections 3.6 and 4.6B of the Brown County Zoning Ordinance. Location 2660 Lanham Ridge Road in Jackson Township and is lot number one in the Keene subdivision. The property is located on the west side of Lanham Ridge Road, approximately a half mile southwest of the intersection with Helmsburg Road. The property is zoned secondary residential R2 and consists of a residence and a one-car detached garage. General findings, one, the Brown County zoning ordinance section 4.6b provides that the minimum distance between the rear line of structures and the rear property line should be no less than 25 feet. Two, the property is lot number one in the Keene major subdivision and consists of 1.358 acres. Three, the petitioner wishes to build an accessory structure five feet from the rear property line. Four, the reduced setback extends toward lot number three of the Keene major subdivision and one of the owners of this parcel, Darren Keene, is also part owner of the parcel to the rear that would be most affected by approval of this request. Five, a statement of request was provided by the petitioners explaining the necessity of the variance request due to the unique physical constraints of the property and that approval of the requested variance will not adversely affect neighboring properties. Six, the statement of request also explains that due to its size and the slope of the hill, the parcel has limited space and if the 25 foot rear setback were met, then it would reduce the already limited flat area. The petitioner also states that locating a building five feet from the rear property line allows for the least site disturbance and the most practical use of the property while maintaining safe and convenient access to the structure. Seven, the petitioners plan to re-flat the lots in the major subdivision, but have yet to find a surveyor to complete the work. If the lots are re-flatted, the distance to the rear line will increase and not decrease. Eight, according to the site plan, all other setback requirements will be met. The board may grant a variance with respect to the specific property if, after conducting a hearing, Under Section 7.2 of the Brown County Zoning Ordinance, it finds that, one, there are special circumstances relating to the property that do not generally affect other property or other uses of the same kind in the same district and vicinity. Two, the special circumstances create hardship in that if the variance is not granted, a substantial property right that is enjoyed by other properties in that district and vicinity cannot be enjoyed. Three, the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property or uses in that district and vicinity. Summary, the board must determine whether the special circumstances of the parcel create a hardship and whether approval of the variance will be materially injurious to other property or uses in that district and vicinity. Here's the proposed location.

Kayla, what are we looking at here?

So this is from the rear of the home. Let me go forward.

Okay, so that's the roof of the home behind it we're seeing. That is the roof of the...

The solar panel.

Oh, that's the solar panels we're seeing. Got it.

I keep forgetting that you're controlling...

Is that what you wanted?

Yeah. So I was standing at the edge of the house there. I'm going to come use yours. This is really difficult to do on two computers at one time. So I was standing right here taking that picture. So what you can see there, the roof structure. So closest one is that solar panel. And then that flattened spot is where the proposed location will be. Okay. And then we can go back to those pictures now that you're oriented a little bit better.

Okay. I see the solar panels and the roof is the home on the parcel behind.

That's actually the roof of my barn.

The barn on the workshop.

Yeah.

That's right here. Yes. That's the other one.

Oh, okay. That's a workshop. Got it. Thank you. Thought it was a home. Gotcha. Thank you. Alright, I'm oriented. Continue.

Can I go back? Yeah, just look through the pictures. Alright. And then that was just the copy of the secondary class that was approved in 2018, I believe. All right.

Got it.

And it's lot number one up there, closer to the road on the right-hand side of the diagram.

I see it. Okay, thanks.

Any questions from the board for Kayla? Yeah, I do. Sure. Sorry, Kayla.

That's okay.

If we could go back to general findings number seven. I need a little more clarification on exactly what the meaning of this is. A teacher's plan to replant the lots in the major subdivision but have yet to find a surveyor to complete the work. If the lots are replanted, the distance to the rear line will increase and not decrease.

Okay. And we can ask them.

I'm sorry. Would you rather them address that? Yeah.

I've talked to them about it, but I think they can probably explain it a little bit better.

All right.

okay if you'd identify yourself i'm darren keen thank you i i set up the whole thing to start with and galen is my son okay got it so on the on the original we got caught in a situation where the line there's one line that when they put it on the gis service it it's not in the correct spot when dave harden did the pud So there's just one line that we're going to get changed so it doesn't go through my house. But if we had to, we can give Galen, there's about another six feet that we could give in there if we needed to. We could move that down, but it gets to be more complicated. Oh, I see the line going through your house now. I wondered what that was about. there are some county-wide issues like this going on right now. They'll all be addressed eventually. The only reason that... So, that was just a survey error? Is that what you're saying? Yes. Okay. All right. Well, we're still trying to track down a survey error, a GIS error, so... Okay. All right. We'll get that worked out. But it has no implications or problems with what Galen's trying to do. All right. The only reason that we are going for the five foot variance is that we actually have a driveway permit on file that we could come into this lot. And if you'll notice how it gets dark up there near the front, that area slopes off very rapidly for Lanham Ridge Road. And so if we move that building back, it gives a flatter space and we're not going to use that driveway permit.

Okay, I get it. So you can't really move it east very much where the ground starts to fall off.

Yeah, it drops off about eight feet. Yeah, it's real steep. Yeah, gotcha.

I thought I had a picture of that on here, and I guess I don't. It does drop off pretty quickly down toward Lanham Ridge.

So from there towards Lanham, it drops?

Yeah, where she's running the mouse there, it drops off, yeah, so fast. So if we keep the building tucked back, then it gives room to actually come down the existing drive, make the turn into there, and we're not causing problems with the road or anything. Okay.

So you are the closest? I'm the only neighbor that it impacts. You're the only one that will have any kind of either direct or indirect impact that we're talking about?

Okay. It was actually my idea to scoot it back there to make it better. Okay. Yeah, the only thing that it gets close to is that there's actually a little road bed that we use for moving firewood and stuff between the two buildings. Because between that building, then there's a steep bank down to my bar. So it doesn't have any access issues. Yeah.

Yeah, okay. So it falls off steeply at the property line, starts to drop off steeply down.

If that property goes underwater, you all are floating. Yeah, I think we sit at 800 feet above elevation.

This accessory building you want to build looks like it's about the largest you could build on the available flat land, is that right? Yeah. What's the purpose of this building?

To get all of his tools and stuff inside. You've got another storage building on the other property, correct?

That's my barn where I do all my work and stuff. So this building is for me. I hobby work on a lot of vehicles. So it's somewhere to get my tools inside, actually work on vehicles inside. I'm tired of crawling on the gravel floor to work on vehicles. So this is somewhere where I can actually get all of my stuff inside and

i get my yard picked up so my dad stops complaining about it yeah his dad's too stingy to let him use part of his shop so all right um i'm not sure i understand why you can't go ahead and replat make this i mean it seemed like another approach i i you've not heard this before but i i'm i'm new to the board i'm still learning how to think through some of these i have a basic adverse to such significant changes here you want to change the setback by 80% we've talked about setting precedents and those kinds of things and it seems to me that there's another way to solve this without the setback problem and well the set if we were to change that property line it makes a really unusual property line running back through there and it

Removes my ability for my firewood passage back down to the backside of the property if for some reason In my 80s, I decide to get rid of the place, you know We want to leave that passageway in between there and we did talk to a couple surveyors and one of the main problems with it is is

Both my house. Sir, would you come up here and stand here next to your dad and just talk into the microphone, please? Yes, this is Galen Keene. And get a little closer to the mic. This is Galen Keene. We did talk to a couple surveyors about this as well. And one of the largest problems was, so both my house and then my dad's have active mortgages on them. And so in order to replant these lines, we would have to get mortgage releases from the banks to actually be able to do that whole process.

All right. Well, I mean, I'm sympathetic to Michael's thinking. I think along the same lines he does. We are reluctant to grant variances. Well, let me put it another way. There's a number of tests we have to pass in order to grant a variance. Kayla read some of them. Basically, there have to be special circumstances that don't affect other properties. Well, you've laid out the special circumstances. This is the only flat place to put an accessory building. And then the next thing we have to ask ourselves is, do these circumstances create a hardship? Well, our zoning ordinance goes to great length to describe what a hardship is. A hardship is not just an inconvenience. I mean, the ordinance says A hardship requires that the variance be exceptional, unusual, and peculiar to the property. That sounds good, but then it says mere economic or financial hardship alone is not exceptional, and the not is capitalized. inconvenience, aesthetic considerations, physical handicaps, personal preferences, or the disapproval of one's neighbors cannot, as a rule, qualify as exceptional hardship. All of these problems can be resolved through other means without granting a variance, even if the alternative is more expensive or requires the property owner to build elsewhere or to put the parcel to a different use than originally intended. So that's what we're up against. I mean, we, you know, We may think it's a fine idea, but the zoning ordinance is something that we have to go by. So I can see the special circumstances. I'm struggling with the hardship. And I understand that you'd have to build a smaller accessory building or orient it differently on the small flat area you got in order to meet the setback requirement. The idea of replanting so that you could have a larger building and still meet the setback requirement, that's something, but you can't do that right now. You'd have to go get it replanted and that has economic considerations like you mentioned, stuff like that. So is there anything you can do to help me meet these tests? Because these are tests that we're required to meet. I didn't think about it for a minute or three, because I'd like to hear what other board members think about this.

May I add something?

Yes, please do.

If they do move that property line back 20 feet to where he then would meet the setback on the front line, the existing building would not meet the front setback of 50 feet to the new... Let me...

The barn, you mean? Is this there now?

Yeah. So if we move this back 20 feet-ish, this barn is not going to meet the 50 foot setback from the front.

I see. From the front of the property?

Yeah. So the front setback is 50 feet. So he would need to be 50 feet from this line, or if this line was moved over to this

Okay, so the front of that structure there is not where the driveway goes in? That's not the front of it? No. I see.

The drive, if I may, the drive is actually going to come off of my existing drive, come down through here, and do a loop into that new building that's going to sit right back here. So it would do a loop like this.

I think Kayla's talking about the existing barn on the other lot.

Yeah, so Dad's... barn shop, whatever we want to call it. So it would be roadside is what I would consider the front setback. So this way here, not from driveway side.

How far is it now? Do you know?

I'd have to GIS do the laser dot thing. But it's not far off of the 50 foot as is.

Got it. Got it. So we're around 50 feet from that property line to that building. Gotcha.

That's a guess. I can get a more accurate number.

It's an interesting fact, but it's not going to weigh on my thinking on this.

I'm trying to get you up again.

It's got to be internet or something.

Yeah, it has to be. Well, to continue, I mean, there are other tests that we're supposed to apply to. One of them is, would granting this be materially injurious to other properties or uses? Ann, you've provided information to me that says no, it won't be. If we granted this, is it material detrimental to the public welfare? I can't see that it is. If we denied this petition, does it keep you from enjoying a property right that others enjoy? And if so, is that a substantial property right? I think the property right would be you couldn't build as big an accessory structure or maybe not any accessory structure and meet the setback requirement. So other people do get to build accessory structures, but I don't know if that constitutes a substantial property right or not. That's one of the things we'd have to discuss and figure out on the board. It's a small lot with a limited flat area. Maybe it just doesn't support an accessory structure. I don't know. Anyway, I wanted you to know what we're up against and what we have to wrestle with.

So. John, I want to, let me, can I? Yeah, go right ahead, go right ahead. I want to make sure that we're following, I'm showing that we have three criteria that we, you had mentioned some, I think some others that you were mentioning out of the ordinance itself, but I think the BZA has three criteria that we have to look at in terms of whether we are, it would qualify for granting of a variance or not, is that correct? And that's the three that's already here under on the sheet?

They're listed as three. The first one is, are there special circumstances that don't apply to other properties? And yes, I think there are. Do the special circumstances create a hardship? Well, our ordinance defines hardship. It gives a paragraph definition of what hardship is to help us figure out whether the circumstances create a hardship.

Okay, so you were getting into the definitions. Yes.

It takes time to describe.

And then the third one is the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public. I'm trying to read without my reading glasses on. Will not be detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property or other uses in that district or vicinity. Right. Okay. Right.

But we have to find that the special circumstances create a hardship where we can't grant a variance, which means we've got to pay attention to the definition of hardship and figure out how we want to define it, I guess.

Well, I also think when you talk about the extent of this setback, I think there is somewhat that three does come into play somewhat. i don't think it's as uh well defined as a hardship issue and i think really what we're kind of looking at here is you know that the economic impact you know there are all kinds of structures built in this county on slopes and uh you know there's ways to solve that i mean it's going to be expensive it's going to be inconvenient right but i i think there's room there to and you know maybe we get some consideration where maybe it's not 25 feet if it was 20 or something some other than five foot, I'd be more receptive to this. I'd say that's an 80% decrease. So, you know, smaller building, roof building, I think there's some other options.

Well, and I agree with you. I can imagine a number of other options, too. They may not be less palatable, less desirable, but sure. Jane, do you have some thoughts to share with us on this?

I don't see the hardship, but I don't, I don't, I don't see the, I don't see the problem. I mean, I do see what we are trying to do.

I wondered if you'd bring that up. Go ahead.

So you own the lot Who owns the lot that's most affected? Me.

You. He is the adjacent lot and then we both technically own the lot that we're trying to get the variance for.

Is that a buildable lot by itself?

Which one?

The one that is most affected.

How many acres is it? 5.785.

Yeah, I mean I technically could go way back to the back and build there someday.

Okay. And from my measurements, I did a few on here. I wish that I was able to show them. 70 to 74.4 feet. Okay. Currently.

Does it have access? I mean, it has road frontage.

Well, I mean, when we did the whole PUD, there is a, what do they call it, an easement that runs down.

It's not even an easement. It's an actual little leg, 30-foot wide strip that runs all the way up to road frontage for that lot number three.

Have you owned it as long as you've owned the other?

Yeah.

Bought them together?

I inherited them all together. Okay. I mean, it's family property. My grandparents lived at the one where he's at now. He took over that one, so it remains family property.

So, I'm sorry, Jane. Before you do, Randy, Jane, you brought up a really good point. What's the problem here? And you're right. I see no problem we're creating for these two gentlemen if we grant this variance. The problem we're creating is that we're ignoring our ordinance for the umpteenth time. And we've basically made it clear that we're going to ignore our ordinance in certain circumstances if we feel like it. And it sets a bad precedent. And we've set a bad precedent for at least the 15 or so years I've been on the board.

I totally understand that.

And so it's very, very hard for me to now say, I think we should change course. direction okay which direction John of actually paying attention to our ordinance we had the discussion last night did you yeah we'll go into that later oh okay all right okay with you if it's if it's not relevant for this that's fine if you think it's relevant no or anybody i don't think so it's just a matter of sharing some information okay all right just brought before that so if i'm understanding you correct

I'm done. You do have other areas there.

You have other options that you... Not on that piece of property, no. Not on that piece of property. No. So where this piece of property is, so the original septic for the house... was in that area where that flat spot is now. So I wondered about that. Yeah. So what it was is that septic was actually failing. Okay. And so I had last year, I had a new septic, new Presby system installed behind the house, between the house and the, okay. And so that is, The actual, the only buildable spot on that property.

So that old septic is now completely disconnected. Completely disconnected. It's actually like seven foot underground now. Yeah. So you're saying the hardship is that you have no other options.

No, that would be the only location I could put this structure.

Well, except as Michael pointed out, what he means is he has no other flat option that would allow a building this big. Correct. He does have non-flat property or a smaller building. Yes. At least as two options. Right.

Well, if the building was smaller, then he could work around the topographical.

I don't know. I don't know.

A smaller building would have a greater setback.

That's all I know. It would just be less useful for me. Yeah, it would be less useful for him. It could be. Right. Realistically, where I'm at the dimensions of that building, I can't move it forward, the ground slopes off too much, it would limit access into the building at that point, the drive, just the way the flat would, the building surface, and then the drive would come in at the further I move forward, the steeper it gets. And so at that point, I would, the 15 extra feet or 20, whatever the setback is, would have to come off of the back of the building And so it would go from, it'd just lose that 20 foot of building on the backside. How big is the building? 40 by 60. 40 by 60. Is what I'm shooting for.

I got you. And I saw how it's oriented, so it's the 60 foot dimension.

Yeah, and it just kind of follows the contour of the hill as best we can. And then the southern side of it, we actually, when I redid the septic to steel dirt to actually be able to have enough dirt to put in your septic in, We cleared a bunch of that off, and it's actually going to be set 10 foot into the hill, so the south side has to have a 10 foot port wall already to be able to work with the hillside that's there. Got it.

And so could you manage, so to meet the setback, it'd have to be a 40 by 40 building then, right?

Yes.

Yeah, okay.

And so what I'm trying to be able to do is I'm trying to go tall enough that I can get Car lift in and I got a little dump truck that I want to be able to get in and out of it and work on. And then at the same time, I want to go tall enough so I can have a mezzanine and end up with some storage and some office space in the back. And that's what I would lose. I would lose all the office space, the storage. Where's the closest neighbor?

Me. No, I mean outside of you.

That would be the Leros. Pardon me? It's Sarah Leros. Sarah Leros. I don't know. to the north would be the closest. So that would be this property here is the Laroses.

And I've got it pulled up here too. I keep thinking I'm pulling it up up there.

So that's about approximately how far away?

uh well just give me as a crow flies it would be 30 it would be exactly 30 foot so this is my lot there's a third this is that 30 foot strip that is access to dad's back here and then this is larryville so it is 30 foot off of my property line okay are you asking about the house or the the current house that's there yeah the current house is several hundred feet you know i'm talking about the proposed um structure they're talking about yeah so that'd be several hundred feet to the house

So if we said we'd be comfortable with reducing the setback to 20 feet or 15 feet, would you reduce the size of the building or would you shift the building and put it, have it a little bit on the slope?

What's already. any more into the slope.

That is where the rock ledge is. So the building would get smaller at that point. Got it. Because realistically, redrawing the lines, it would, to get enough room... Put them between them, it wouldn't work. Wouldn't work.

And on top of that, getting released from the mortgage companies would be... And if we tried to move the building forward and scrap using the driveway on the existing property... We were approved for a new entrance down onto the, but it just, it's such a steep approach. We worried that if gravel would always be washing out of the road.

Yeah, you don't want that kind of driveway. No, no, it'd be bad.

Well, anyway, it would make the road unsafe right there, so that's why we opted to keep everything back. Got it.

So for what you're wanting, you can show a lot of hardships and limitations for what you want. Yes. Gotcha. Gotcha.

Yep. And it's really the corner. It's not the whole face of the building. Yes. It's just a corner.

Yeah, because that property line runs at an angle, so it is realistically one corner of it. I'm not convinced. As it runs back towards the south, it gets further from that property line. Right.

What's the proposed size of the building? 40 by 60.

If I went to be parallel with that back property line, that's the problem. The front of the building would face so far into the ground, I'd have to rotate probably 15 degrees. and there would be no access of any kind into that building. Like I would have, you would have zero access. You might have a man door worth of space by the time you cut it far enough into the hill. Gotcha. Because at that point I'd have to do, the whole thing would have to turn and go parallel with this solar and this property line and this hillside is already 10 foot deep here, so by the time I turn it, I'd end up with poor wall across the front and no real way to make the turn to get into it. While you're up there, can you just point where the new system is, septic system is? The new septic is, it goes from within five foot of here, and it is to the edge of the driver. It is this entire back section. No impact from...

If you rotate the dome like you talked about, why can't you move it towards the

So to the north here, it goes downhill. From the edge of that building north within 20 feet, it drops eight. So it's, I mean, yeah, it's, it's, it is a cliff that way I would have in order to do it. Are you just good? Yeah. You'd have to build a, 500 loads of dirt there. It would be a cliffside here at the Laroses. Mike Laros might kill me.

You've got a space that will barely support a 40 by 60 building. Correct. But the setback can't be met with a 40 by 60 building. Correct. I get that. Yeah, I get that. Okay. Alright. Okay, I think I'm going to bring it back to the board for us to discuss and see if we can reach a decision on it. Michael. I'll let you go first.

Well... I just don't think that we could... I'm not willing to vote for cutting this up back to 5B. Obviously, they've studied this. They know their property. I just feel like that there may be some options that how you encounter, how you overcome those obstacles to make it fit. And maybe it is a somewhat smaller building. I just, we're fighting over whether it's five foot or something else, and I'm not willing to vote for five foot setback. Gotcha. Okay.

Jane, thoughts? Where are you ending up? Where do you react to Michael? Either one.

I think I have to agree with Michael because we have to We have to stick with the rules and we're just making it too easy to put too large of a building on a lot. Okay.

All right.

As bad as I hate to say that and deny his request because it seems harmless, but it's not really in the long run harmless.

I understand. understand I wrestle with that too it's not it's not harmless basically I think it's detrimental to public welfare to be ignoring the laws that have been passed by the county for us to ignore those laws is detrimental to public welfare because it fosters a complete lack of respect for us and it feels like we're arbitrary I don't think that's good so I think I get what you're saying Randy your thoughts

Well, you can argue against the fact that, well, I suppose you can, but I don't think you're going to win. I agree with what you're saying in terms of, you know, there needs to be some fidelity to our ordinances and the setbacks and stuff, because once you let that, you open that can, which we have done in the past on certain things, we've created some real issues. However, I'm not convinced that this is probably a good one to start that, and I don't mean to start that. I mean, I think we've had other cases that probably showed less hardships that we went ahead and allowed for it. I think you're right. And I know that's what you're wanting to address and maybe to discuss that issue that that's not always been good public policy. So I'm, the fact that there's not really anyone else inclined to be impacted by this and the fact that I think that they have made somewhat of a convincing argument on the hardships. Where'd you guys go? You sat back down, didn't you? Okay. In this particular case, I'm inclined to grant this. But I want to throw a caveat in there that I'm hearing what you're saying and I think that's It's something we need to look at and to really address. But I'm not sure this is a good one to start on.

I'm very sympathetic to that. Here are my thoughts on this. I said last month that I thought we were going to have to change the way we've been doing things with regard to variances, and I still believe that. We have gone a long ways in the wrong direction over the years, and I've been part of that, so I take some responsibility for that. I feel like we need to change direction. We need to change course, but it's a little bit, to use the old ocean liner analogy, you don't want to change course all of a sudden. You want to change course somewhat gradually. And I agree. We could change course abruptly. I think that's the wrong way to go, in my opinion. I am with Michael. I don't think that building absolutely the largest building you can build and leaving a five-foot setback, I think that's thumbing one's nose at our ordinance, and I'm unwilling to approve that. I could countenance a lesser... Variance from the setback as Michael mentioned I Mean I and I guess if I threw out a number I'd say I'm willing to grant a variance From the 25 foot setback to reduce it to a 15 foot setback, but I don't think I'd go more than that So I throw that out to my fellow board members as a proposal I

I want to throw something out there, what you said in the very beginning, that there's only four members here. We could table this until we have five.

Dave, how's that work since we've held a public hearing?

Darla would need to review the transcript or the tape of this meeting, and then she would have all the testimony she needs to make her decision. Okay. Or she could say, hey, I didn't get quite enough at the next hearing, ask additional questions.

So I was careful not to close the public hearing for this reason. So in my mind, the public hearing is not closed, so we could continue the public hearing if we continued this to next meeting.

Is that correct? Yeah, just table this item until the next meeting and pick up the threads.

Okay. I like the idea of getting Darla's input, but honestly it's your decision as the petitioner, I think, whether you'd like to ask us to table this and continue it to next month's meeting or whether you'd like us to make a decision tonight.

Of course, this is totally up to you guys. I would be willing to accept the 15-foot setback. Anything I can get helps. So if it's something where we would be agreeable to a 15-foot setback, I will make it work on my end. And at that point, I wouldn't feel the need to wait for another person's input next month.

Okay.

But once again, that is totally in your guys' hands.

Okay. Yes? No, I heard what he said. I think that's, if I'm not mistaken, that's kind of where you were coming from, John. Wasn't it on the 15-foot?

Yes. I was giving him the option to continue this the next meeting and have an additional member on the board, and we'd continue the public hearing and then bring it back to the board. But I also, myself, suggested that if approved this with a 15 foot setback, that I thought that was a reasonable compromise. And it accomplishes the purpose I have set myself, which is to steer us gradually back to actually complying with our zoning ordinance.

Well, hearing Mike's testimony, and your testimony, and Jane's testimony, and Mr. Keene's testimony, what he just said about the willingness to compromise there on the 15 foot, I would I would definitely support that and would encourage you to go ahead and take action on it.

Okay. I would support it as well.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. And can I read something from the rules of procedure too? Yes. Just in case we get into this with the next one. So no case which has been denied by the board shall again be placed on the docket for consideration within a period of six months. So if a petitioner decides to go ahead... With the four members, they can't reapply for six additional months.

I understand. I understand. Mr. Keene understands that, too. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks.

That applies both planning and VCA?

This is just VCA. I think the planning commission is actually longer.

Okay. Yeah. I think it's a year.

I think so. Okay.

What do we do here? We move to accept this with the alteration of the setback 15 foot instead of 5 foot?

Yeah, procedurally, that's a good question. So, Dave, do we have to deny the request for the 5-foot setback variance, and do they have to then request a 15-foot setback variance, or can we actually grant them a 15-foot setback variance tonight? As a condition.

Yeah, I mean, I think if they're saying yes, they would go for a 15-foot setback, then you could say, if they amend their request...

Alright, Mr. Keene, would you, are you willing to amend your request for a setback variance from 5 foot to 15 feet? Yes, I am. Okay, thanks for that. Alright, I'm going to move that we, I'm going to move that we grant docket number 26-VAR-04 as amended as 15 foot variance from the 25 foot setback requirement to a 15 foot setback in order to construct an accessory structure I second that okay any further discussion on the board no okay roll call vote when you're ready Daniel Randy Jones yes Jane boy yes John Dilberger yes Michael Harrison yes All right, your request has been granted. Thanks so much for your help and understanding. Thank you. Thank you, guys.

And what paperwork do I need to file to comment? All right, thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, John. You're welcome.

All right. The next item of new business tonight is docket number 26-VAR-05. The petitioners have requested that we table this petition until the next scheduled meeting so they can comply with public notice requirements. I don't have a problem with that. All right. I'll move the docket. Docket. I'll move we table docket number 26-VAR-05 until our next scheduled meeting, which is June 24th of this year. I'll second the motion. Roll call vote when you're ready, Danielle.

John Dilberger? Yes. Michael Harrison?

Yes.

Randy Jones? Yes. Jane Boyd? Yes.

All right, that's been tabled. Last item of new business tonight is document number 26-VAR-06. This is a request for approval of a setback variance. Whenever you're ready, Kayla will have your staff report in whatever form you can give it. Okay.

Are you up on yours so I can open it? Yeah, go ahead. Give me a second.

Okay, staff report for Larson, variance petition, docket number 26-VAR-06. Hearing date, May 27, 2026. Petitioner and property owners, Harold Construction for Elizabeth and Hans Larson. Request is a variance from the rear setback requirement of 25 feet. Ordinance provisions, section 4.6b, standard setbacks of the Brown County zoning ordinance. Location, 7225 Center Lake Road, Nineveh, in Hamblin Township, within the Cordray-Sootwater Conservancy District. The property is located on the northeast side of Center Lake Road, approximately 980 feet northwest of where Center Lake Road turns into Cordray Drive. Zoning and current land use, the property is zoned Lake Residential, LR, and contains a residence and a garage. General findings, one, the Brown County zoning ordinance and the rules of the Cordrick-Sweetwater Conservancy District provide that in a residential district, the minimum distance between the rear line of structures and the rear property line should be no less than 25 feet. Two, the petitioner is requesting approval to construct a deck measuring 18 feet by 23 feet with a roof storage shed measuring eight feet, six inches by 19 feet. Three, the nearest point from the deck to the property line is five feet Four, the reduced setback extends toward the lake and not toward private property, and according to the petitioner, should not cause visual issues on neighboring properties' view of the lake. Five, there are many examples of reduced setbacks for pre-existing and for new construction within the Cordery-Sweetwater Conservancy District. Six, according to the site plan, the front and side setback requirements will be met. The board may grant a variance with respect to specific property if, after conducting a hearing under Section 7.2 of the Brown County Zoning Ordinance, it finds that, one, there are special circumstances relating to the property that do not generally affect other property or other uses of the same kind in the same district and vicinity. Two, the special circumstances create hardship in that if the variance is not granted, a substantial property right that is enjoyed by other properties in that district and vicinity cannot be enjoyed. Three, the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property or uses in that district and vicinity. Summary, staff finds that there are many examples of reduced setbacks nearby located both on land and on the water. The board must decide if approval of the variance will be materially detrimental to other property or uses in the same district and vicinity.

Yeah. Could you go back to your recommendation summary?

Mm-hmm.

Did you read that? Or did you read that?

I think I did.

Yeah, I think you do.

Do you want me to read it again?

No. Okay. I guess I was just dozing off there. Excuse me.

It's okay. It happens at my age. I feel like I have been reading very fast, so I'm sorry. It's all right. Okay.

Never mind, okay?

Okay.

All right. Would you orient me on this photo, please, if you can? If not, I'll have the petitioner, I think, who's here do that. Okay, let's go to...

Hold on. This one?

Okay. So it is the rear of the house that we were looking at in that first photo.

Got it. So I see the house and there's nothing back at the rear of the lot at this point except a dock maybe. Yeah.

Sorry? Yeah. This would be the projected location of the deck there with the roof over it. Gotcha. There's kind of a little fire pit area there now. It's a little leveled off.

Okay. And then the rear of the... So this is looking from lakeside back up toward the house.

Okay. Okay, so help me here. That set of stairs with the railing, that's on this property or the neighboring property?

It's on this property. Okay. The requested area to build the deck is... Right in here.

Okay. So you're going to have a deck build up next to the existing stairway there is what you're saying?

Yeah, and then redo the stairs themselves because they're not safe at this point.

So in the site plan pictures, the stairs currently are about in the middle of the property.

Okay. All right. All right.

Yeah, it's second to last. That one. This one? Yep. See the stairs. Ethan, can you point to the stairs?

I see the stairs, yes.

Alright, I get it. Yeah, it's about right in the middle, isn't it? While you're standing there, could you show me where your existing septic system is?

Finger, finger, finger. That's the reason I even put it there because I can't get any closer to that septic. It's very close. Gotcha.

So you can't pull it up toward the house because the septic Alright, so help me out since you're up there already, if you would. I realize this doesn't help our Zoom listeners, but if you would kind of orient me on here. Where's the existing stair?

Right here. Okay. They're right here. And these will be... Yeah, they'll be gone. I get that.

Okay. You've got some... On both the drawings, there's some red font, but that's That's already existing, correct? You see the pitch, 31 by 32 pitch roof?

Yeah, it is there now, but we would be rebuilding that. And we got that approved by the corridor sweep audit.

Okay, so that red roof exists already. You'd just be rebuilding that roof. And it's the dotted line on the left, on the... Upper left is what you want to build.

Yeah, and this is the deck, and then a little shed-style roof. Thank you. Storage area. Got it.

So the Conservancy District handles everything on the water, so the docks and things like that, they handle all of that. As soon as that property line hits and it's not on water anymore, that's then our jurisdiction.

Okay, thanks. Now I understand what he's asking the special exception for.

I mean, the variance for it. Got it. What happens on the lake side of that retaining wall underneath the deck? Here? Yes. Well, you've got a retaining wall, and then on the lake side, I assume that retaining wall is holding the dirt back that's up towards the house. Yes, sir. Okay. That's the septic system up there. Right. On the other side, underneath your storage area, what do you have on the lake side of that retaining wall?

No, there's drainage behind the retaining wall in stone, but it's just a retaining wall and then a deck.

Well, I guess I'm not making the question clear. You've got a retaining wall that's, the septic system's there, and then you've got a change in elevation on the other side of the wall, correct? Correct, yeah. Okay, what's on the ground there?

rip rap or what are you doing on the ground nothing the deck will be out like this and the you got a void spot under the deck though right it won't change there'll be footers that go down from the posts but the deck goes out like this and then the ground below it doesn't really the only reason we're putting retaining wall here is because it might go over the decking and disturb the decking a little bit The need for it anymore.

So that elevation that's there right now will stay?

Yes. Yep.

I'm not messing with that. Gotcha.

Are you with Carroll Construction?

I am, sir. Okay. And you are? Would you go up to the microphone and identify yourself just for our record? And then if Randy or anybody wants to go back to point things out, that's fine. Yeah. Ethan Martin, Bureau of Construction. Okay, thank you. Is that microphone on?

It should.

Test, test, test.

I've got it down for someone my height.

I got you.

There you go.

Thank you, Ethan. Thank you. All right. Anybody else have questions for the petitioner?

I have a question for Kayla. How many cars? Six were sent out and four have been returned.

All right. Okay. That doesn't sound like anybody else from the board has any questions for you.

No, I think it's pretty much cut there. I'm going to turn to what he's requesting, actually. Yeah. I don't have any other questions.

We're back to the... Well, and I don't see anybody else here in the meeting room who wants to speak to this petition, so I'm going to bring this back to the board for us to discuss. You're welcome to sit down. If we have any questions, you can come back up. Yeah, thoughts on this one? I'm not going to make Michael go first again. I don't mind. I knew you would. Okay, Michael, what are your thoughts on this one?

Well, they're a little different, I think, than what you might expect. I've said before that I really felt like we were looking at things a little bit backwards. And I felt like that the conservative district ought to have the first look at that. You know, they own the lake. But in this particular instance, we've got existing construction there with the dock. And I'd see that as altering the circumstances. I would see if we were starting off building this without the dock. So I don't have a problem with this one. Okay. All right.

Jane?

I guess I've got a question for you.

Sure.

How does this differ on the setback because it's not an extension of the house?

I see it different on the setback because you've already got construction out there beyond the 25 feet in the dock. Maybe you see that differently than I do, but I probably would look at this differently if there was, I would look at it differently if there was no dock there and you were starting off and trying to build this within the space. The setback's already moved.

Yeah, if I understand Michael right, and he'll tell me if I don't, he's saying you know yeah technically the rear property the dock sits beyond the rear property line but he looks at the dock as one of the several structures on this property and so it already exists out there at the rear property line and beyond

Randy? Well, let's look where we're at.

Always a good starting point.

Yes. And there's been We've already established a precedent out there on this because of, you know, we've allowed people to put, and I use this analogy probably too much, 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5-pound sack, and then they want to come in and redo and re-change and re-modify and build and tear down and reconstruct and yada, yada, yada, which puts us really in a pickle and sometimes in a very uncompromising position. And just like you, I'm getting a little tired of that. so I really do think we need to become serious about either enforcing our existing ordinance or changing it yes that's another subject for another day but that subject is going to be coming up here and it is put to you this week is being discussed broadly right now but I'm digressing I Considering what it is, where it is, and what it's asking, I don't have any problem with this. I would feel a little bit more guilty in saying no.

All right. I share some of your feelings. I think that we can forget about setting a precedent. We already set a precedent over the last 25 to 50 years specifically in the Lake District. In my opinion, to change our practices now on the Lake District would be wrong. What we need to do is we need to exempt the Lake District from our ordinance or amend our ordinance so that it sets different requirements for the Lake District that actually match the reality there. So I am willing to approve this, while i acknowledge that it is a flagrant violation of our current zoning ordinance you want that you want that in the minutes yes i do okay okay i do i would love to do what's legal i will do if i have to choose between what's right and what's legal i'll do what's right and yeah i don't mind if i guess so we've got randy's yada yada yada and then we've got your okay these are going to be fun minutes yeah well mine's an age thing that's the second one i've had this evening so all right any further discussion no i don't all right all right then i'm going to move we approve docket number 26-vai-06 which is a request for a setback variance Roll call vote when you're ready, Danielle.

Okay. Michael Harrison?

Yes.

Randy Jones? Yes. Jane Gore? Yes. John Dilberger?

Yes. Been approved.

Thank you, sir.

Go forth and build.

Not until you get a building permit.

You don't need anything else from me? No. No, thank you. All right, any items to bring up for discussion, anybody? What else do we have on the agenda?

That was it on the agenda.

That was it on the agenda.

I had something. We've got five for next month, so I'm really glad no one decided to table tonight because we've got five on the agenda.

All right, so moved and seconded. Roll call vote when you're ready, Danielle.

Okay. Randy Jones? Yes. Jane Gore? Yes. John Dilberger? Yes. Michael Harrison?

Yes.

This meeting's adjourned.