Board of Zoning Appeals (bza) - Regular Meeting

As far as I know,

support changed. Okay. [Music] Jesus. I'll give a minute.

Okay. All right. for me. I think they're all That's the fall back to you.

All right. Well, I think I'll call this meeting to order tonight. Ask for a roll call, please. Randy Jones here. John Delberger here. Darla Brown here. Jane Gore here. Andy Bole. Right. Hope everybody had a chance to read our short minutes from the last meeting in July. I did not have any changes to suggest. I didn't hear. I didn't hear.

Okay. Nobody had any changes in the chest. I entertain a motion to approve written motion. Second have a motion to approve that's been seconded. Minutes from last month's meeting roll call vote when you're ready. Jane, yes. John Delberger, yes. Andy Boils, yes. Darla Brown, yes. Randy Jones, yes.

Okay, minutes are approved. We don't have any old business on the docket tonight, so we'll go to new business. First item of which is document number 25-v04. This is a request for a variance from a side setback. Kayla, whenever you're ready, you give us our staff report. Okay. And I think you all have a copy of the amended up there. I just added some clarification. Yes.

This is staff report for Huffman variance petition docket number 25-B4. Hearing date August 27th, 2025. Commissioners and property owners Tim and Angela Huffman. Request is a variance from the minimum side setback requirement of 10 ft. Ordinance provisions section 4.6c of the Brown County zoning ordinance. Location. The property is located at 6475 Chipmunk Court, Ninevea, Indiana, and Hamlin Township. Lots SW-407 and S SW-408 are located on the south side of Chipmunk Court approximately 765 ft southwest of the intersection with Coyote Drive. Zoning and current land use. The lots are in Lake Residential LR zoning district and consist of a home with a onecar attached garage. General findings. One, the Brown County zoning ordinance and the rules of the conservancy district provide that the minimum setback between structures and a side property line should be no less than 10 ft on each side with a minimum total aggregate of 25 ft. Two, combined platted lots consist of approximately 0.20 acres with a width of approximately 74 feet. Three, the petitioner has requested a variance to allow construction of an 8 foot x 20 foot addition to the attached garage. The requested setback for the the addition is 1.1 ft. The existing setback on the opposite side is 10.2 ft or in the statement of request, the petitioner explains that a building permit for this project had been issued for a different location on the property, but it has since been discovered that a new sub system is required to support this current system. Therefore, the building site needed to be moved to the other side of the home. Iben was the addition here in red. The

home was demolished to the foundation. So, the reconstruction was flagged as new construction through the health department and building department. The project is now considered new construction. So, as opposed to a remodel where you can use existing setbacks, their setback requirements should be met. Six. The statement further explains that there are long-standing encroachments on a property line shared with the Finley's of the three letters in support of the petition. One is from the Finley family, the affected neighbor. Seven, the petitioners and the Finley family have agreed to formally adjust the shared property line to resolve some of the encroachment issues in the future. This adjustment of property lines will require approval of replat of the lots. Eight. If the laws are relighted as shown on the proposed future site plan, the setback will be 6.5 ft. The board may grant a variance with respect to specific property if after conducting a hearing under section 7.2 of the Brown County voting 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 material injurious to other property or uses in that district and vicinity. Summary and recommendation. It appears that there are many examples of reduced setbacks within the district, especially on Chipmunk Court. staff believes that there are unique and special circumstances relating to the property that create hardship and necessity for approval of the petition is looking north from the foundation

north but just from a little further back. Is that foundation the foundation of the building that was demolished or is that a new foundation? That's the building of that was from the building that was demolished. Okay. But they'll be reusing that foundation. Understood.

And then this here, I don't know if you can see the pointer there, but it appears that this is the side property line. It's just looking out toward the lake. This is the property line shared with the Finleys. So, they've got a the Finleys. It appears like they've got a hot tub right here. It's hard to see in this picture. There's a little better picture of it. So, I couldn't see where the line was marked um because it's it's all concrete down through here. You didn't get a view from the hot tub?

I did not. [Music] I think that picture was in there twice, but it's because it was really important. [Music] Then these are other approved variances with the pink squares. That the end of the staff report. Can you do a back picture? So the Finley's are to the left of the white. Yeah. Okay.

Um Kayla, the drawing, the site plan that I had in my materials and your staff report gives me this existing setback on the opposite side from the garage. What is the existing setback on the garage side without the addition that they wanted to put on it? I don't see that on my site plan. The it will be the 1.1. I believe now it is. But if we don't grant them the variance, what is the existing setback to the existing foundation? I believe it's 9.1

because it's an 8 foot wide And I believe the petitioners are here too if if we want to verify that with them. Okay, I may. Okay, thanks. Okay, so the existing foundation has a 10 foot and a few inches set back on one side and maybe a 9 foot and a few inches set back on the other side. Gotcha. Thanks. They want to extend it. Yes.

Yes. Okay. All right. So, I have some questions about the amended staff report. So, you've added a paragraph five. So, when I read that, it looks like you're changing your opinion. Are you changing your opinion as to whether or not the board should grant this? I was unaware that the home was completely demolished. Okay. Um until I went out and took pictures on Monday.

Okay. So, um I think that it should be approved, but I do believe that a condition that they do the replat and that the replay is approved because then we would only be 6.5 ft with the uh so they should reach the agreement with the neighbors the Finley's. Yes. Okay. And have they has anybody the petitioner or the families put in front of you a proposed agreement to resolve the encroachment issues? Have you seen anything? Okay.

We do have a letter from the Finley's in the packet um from the um grantee I believe of the transfer on debt. Okay. And can you show me on the chart here where the 16 family is? S I C H T I N G ones who wrote the letter in opposition. Where are they in relation to the petitioner? I couldn't find them. They are a little bit further up this way. So let me see if I can. It's this parcel here. Okay. So they're across this road from the petitioner

since their property line is next to ours. Right. So, you're saying that they're mistaken when they write that their property line is next to the husband's? I believe so. Yeah. When I searched it on GIS and um talked to the to the woman, Emily, I believe last week, that was the property that she indicated was theirs. Thanks. Is there any place else they could put the septic other than where they put it? Is it a size of a lot? the the lot size even though it is two lots it is extremely small which is pretty typical. Yeah.

Um I'm a little confused on Oh, I'm sorry. We Yes, I'm done. Thank you. Okay. On the current status of the septic permit, there's a system there now. There is. And they want to use the existing system. Yes. But I'm not see is the health department okay with that or do you they have to do additions to that septic system? Okay. They they have an addition to that existing system expansion of some kind.

Okay. All right. So, okay. I I don't think I have any more questions for table right now. There's anyone else on the board? I don't I don't have I only have the letter from me. I don't have any from the You should be in your there.

Yeah, I didn't have it either. There was 30 letter from Tim and Angela from the petition. I don't see you get those. Are you talking uh Andy, you talking about the ones in J and M? I've got that one. I heard that there were three other Yeah.

letters don't have them. So, in in the petitioners letter that's in our packet for the request for variance, it does say that they had to move the garage edition, which was already permitted because they had to add onto the septic. That that is the reason for changing where it's built. Got it. Not anything that like any intense development Bringing

She made everybody.

Yes. Sorry people. If there are no more questions from the board for Kayla, are the petitioners here tonight?

Yes. Is there anything you'd like to add to the staff report or or share with us that Yeah, I would like that. If you would come up to the microphone, please, and identify yourself. We record these meetings so we can get accurate minutes. That's hey, can you back up two slides to show the new foundation new photo?

You want me to state my name? [Music] There you go. Yes, ma'am. So, Angela Tim and Angela Huffman. Um, do I need to state anything else? No. Okay.

And I could show you some other picture on that line. So, if you if you look at the original too, we bought the home in 2017 and there's actually an asphalt driveway on there. So, we're not going past that. Didn't realize again that was encroaching. Um, that was done way before we bought the home. And then the the finlays again like we had talked about, they are actually encroaching kind of lakeside. I was hoping to have that already. I talked to him this week. Doesn't always get done as quickly. He's working on that right now, but doesn't have all the legal stuff to switch those. It's kind of a pie shaped up here and a pie shaped up here that we would just trade trade pieces. Um

the family's also they have a daughter who's in sports or couldn't be here tonight, but if we need to call them or anything, they were fine with um us discussing any of that. So, so if you see along that line, it wouldn't it wouldn't go past where the the drive kind of is already there. Um the other two, so the Finleys are right next to us and then right across um are um the Bristols that's right that house right there um which really is the only people we believe could the Bristols own all the way which is I don't know if this things think this is a different property. So they don't they don't have a home there. It's literally little strip of land for lake rights. In fact, the reason I know their name is we tried to contact them to actually purchase that to put the the new septic on it. And they they said, well, they used it for lake rights and they didn't want to do that. So, I don't know if they think it's different property or if they think we'll offer more money now for if that would be the reason. I'll be honest, I have we don't butt up against their property and we've never seen a

that's whoever this this Yeah. Okay. They own this little If you go back to that last picture, is it like this? Yeah. This little strip of land. There's no house or anything. And actually, these people, we we're friends with all those people. They actually mow it. They're never here. Apparently, they inherited it. We tried to buy it from them. So, that I don't know where that came from, but I don't know what their letter said. But, um, ma'am, could I ask you to pull that microphone up a little bit higher, please? Thank you. There you go. Thank you. Um, again just I think a a a lot of confusion. We had

we didn't change our house plans that we submitted in May. We thought we were good leaving the foundation. What I think possibly this is what had happened. So when we had that big rainstorm in April, we sit so close we actually had 10 inches of water to become the home. So we're wanting to raise it up eight eight inches. Um, so we're just raising that up. So, I'm not sure if that's where the foundation we were under the impression if we left the walls. I'll be honest, between our builder and the I'd been in contact with Ernie, I showed him everything. We, you know, upgraded that system and he said we just now needed to put a different upgrade and the problem was is where the system went, it's now not it's like 7 feet off and it's got to be 10 ft off. So we could have built this garage there where we originally had it, but it it was encroaching. He didn't want any encroaching on the septic. He said, "I don't care if you go to the side." So we thought we were fine there. And then when we found out where the lines and everything were, that's why we were trying to claim that. And had

So you demolished it because you wanted to raise it up. Well, we were just the just the lower level. Basically, we sit really close to the water. The house itself is still the same dimensions. Everything's the same on it. It's just that the the shoreline, the seaw wall, we're going to raise it up 8 in so that it's a little bit higher the water to protect the waterfall as we're flowing. Okay. With that map up there and you're all within the white area there, correct? Correct. Where is your septic system? It's in the grass in the front. And the front is where Okay. All right. Right up there. That's where we

sounded like a rather stupid question because that's obvious about the only place you have. I was just So, what we were doing, if you can see, here's our one car ride. What we were originally planning on is just bumping this little out right here. Uhhuh. And then this new treatment they put, it's a it's a new system. It's Anyway, we didn't realize it was going to go right there. We thought it was going to kind of go back because our our lines were in here. It's a water filtration irrigation. No, it's it's one of the new bio treatment. Basically, they're proving them up north that you can actually just run it right back into the lake after it goes through it.

No, they're not doing it. It's like its own septic treatment system that will would get us. So, that's what we had to put in. So that's what they put in where they put it where it had to go after other and so it was going to we were we're only about a 7 foot if we bump this garage here we were seven feet maybe maybe even five and he said that's too close. So then that's when he said we can just add it that way. Gotcha. And if you can see here, well, so is that lot next to you even a buildable lot? We don't have house on each side.

No, I mean the one that from No, it's not even a buildable thing or whatever. It's not even a buildable lot. It's literally a like a 30 foot by It's It's literally It's right there. and can't see it from the like I said the thing that's making me because we actually before all of this I wish we could have just asked to purchase it because we talked to the conservancy and if we could you know run a new subject there and then we just take care of the whole problem and they they said no we use it for the lake right so I'm I'm a little

just my own information you peique my interest here a little bit the septic system that's going to be going into the expansion. Yeah, they've already put that part in. They've already put that part in, but this is going to be an open-ended system. It's like a like he's he's leaving our current finger system in. Okay. This the the new treatment center that he put in will run through our finger system, but he's also adding more fingers. The new treatment system, the new treatment system, whatever the system they put in where it treat it treats the water, it it treats it itself. Okay. That's the thing that they put in. That's what they put in, right?

Where the garage was going to correct. Yes. Not our fingers. Our fingers were not. So that's when we had the plans and we submitted and they weren't by our fingers, but this new thing that they said if you want to do this and keep the foundation, put this in. We said okay. So the the new thing you're talking about was to the county health department. Yes. Already recommended it. Yes. And I didn't bring the emails, but I have all those Kayla. I mean, any other questions from the board for the petitioner? I don't I don't have any. Okay. All right. Thank you for that. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody here tonight that wants to speak in favor of this petition? How about anybody here who wants to speak against the petition? All right. I don't see anybody. So, I'll bring it back to us on the board to reach a decision on thoughts. Well, it seems more important to me that they have a good septic system than to meet the setback on. So, I think they're kind of limited in what they can do. So, and it's through no fault of their own. I think that's a we see around the lake all the time is just it's a hardship because the way the parcels are shaped only so much. So

the neighbors in question, the two that would have leak impeached as speak are both okay with it. I'm okay with it. Okay. Um any I don't I mean yeah I don't have any uh real concerns. I mean we all know that area up there is such a hodgepodge of all kind of different uh and again I go back to the septic system. I think every system has ever been put in the state at one time or another is probably up there in some fashion. So beta uh that was my reason for asking uh where'd you guys go? Oh yeah follow up on that question you were talking about. So but other than that I don't really have any issues.

All right. I guess I don't have any issues with it either. I just I I do think we should make it a condition that replanning take place and that Kayla get u documentation that that's in place before we well we improve it with that condition. We want to give them a time limit to get that done.

Oh, I think they're eager to construct since the foundation's sitting there. So, I'm okay if we don't give them a time limit, but if you prefer one, I'm fine with that. just for he thought that that would probably be ready to go and he told me in about two weeks. So hopefully soon enough he said I I am okay either way putting a time limit on it and 90 days okay with that you know more than I about loops they have to jump through to do this can they continue that's pretty Can they continue building your documentation sure

okay nine days will go Yes. Yeah. And does your uh excuse me, so does your uh your recommendation is changing in lie of what Darw was asked? I I think that that should be a condition. Okay. Yeah, it should read flat. Okay. All right. Do you think 90 days is reasonable? You know how this I think they could apply within 90 days. I don't know that it would be It it sounds like they're already working with the surveyor um with the new surveyor. So things are already rolling a little bit there.

Okay, that's good. I mean I I tried to work with the surveyor a few years ago and I it took me a year more and I never did get the survey. So um they can be dicey. So that's I don't want to put them in a difficult position. If you think that's a reasonable time, Darl thinks that's a reasonable time. As I say, I'm fine. Think so. I don't I think that's fine myself. I mean think I want it but doesn't happen. You come back in and ask for an extension I suppose. Worst case scenario but or call the right surveyor. I can ask 24 hours.

Okay. Well, then would you like to make a motion then since you suggested the additional Sure. condition. Sure. Um, I move that we approve 25-v04, um, which is a petition by Timothy and Angela Huffman for a variance for a site setback, um, on the condition that a replat and a replat of the property lines with the neighbors, the Finleys takes place within 90 days.

What would you That means the completion of the replot or an application as Kayla suggested is made within 90 days. Okay. All right. And with that clarification, I'll second that motion. All right. We have a motion that's been seconded to approveition. Roll call vote when you're ready. Daniel. John Delberger. Yes. Andy Boils. Yes. Darla Brown. Yes. Randy Jones. Yes, your petition's been approved. I've got the reclat paper here.

All right. Next item of business tonight is docket number 25-see-11. This is a request for a special exception for a tourist home. Whenever you're ready, Caleb. staff report for Hoffman/Waller tourist home docket number 25-se11 hearing date August 27th 2025 um petitioners Jamie and Adam Hoffman, property owner, Robin L. Lawler, Revokable Trust. Request is a special exception for a three- guest room tourist home with a maximum occupancy of eight guests. Ordinance provisions, Brown County Area Board of Zoning Appeals, Resolution 2022-01, tourist home special exception guidelines and conditions and section 153.11 of the town of Nashville zoning code. Location is 100 Jefferson Street North Nashville, Indiana in Washington Township. The site of the proposed tourist home is located on the southwest side of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Gul Street. Zoning and current land use. The property is zoned restricted buffer RV and consists of a residence with an attached garage and carport. General findings. One, the property owner gave written authorization for the petitioners to apply for a special exception to allow a tourist home. Two, the home is located on part of lot 37 of the Barnes edition. Three, the petitioner is proposing a three guest

room tourist home with a maximum occupancy of eight guests. Four, the home consists of approximately 1,356 square ft of floor space, which includes three bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen, and two bathrooms. Five, the home contains approximately 672 square ft of guest space, which exceeds the 53 ft per guest space requirement. Six, the home is located outside the boundaries of the average 100year flood as indicated on the flood insurance rate map. Seven, the site plan shows parking for six vehicles on Jefferson Street. This exceeds the parking requirement. Eight, the petitioners wish to manage the tourist home themselves. Nine, Duke Energy provides electrical service to the property. 10, the Brown County Volunteer Fire Department performed an inspection and stated that the driveway is considered fast and that a formal report is not required since the structure is less than 50 ft from the roadway. 11. Water and sewer are provided by the town of Nashville and municipal utilities. 12. The town of Nashville and the tourist home guidelines both prohibit the discharge of firearms. The petitioners have agreed to post post notice that the discharge of firearms is prohibited by guests. Recommendation if the board grants the request for special exception to allow a tourist home should be based on the following conditions. One, all tourist home conditions are met. Two, the home will be limited to eight guests. Three, a local manager will be utilized. Four, a copy of the site plan will be provided to guests inside the home to delineate the property lines. Five, a notice will be posted that the discharge of firearms is provided prohibited. Findings effect. The board may grant a special exception for use in a district if after a hearing under section 7.2 it finds that one section 3.1 of the Brown

County zoning ordinance authorizes a special exception for this use in the designated district. Finding special exceptions for tourist homes are allowed on property zoned restricted buffer RB. Do the requirements for special exceptions provide prescribed by this ordinance will be met? Would you guys like me to read through the No. Okay. I appreciate that.

Three. Granting the special exception will not subvert the general purpose as served by the Brown County zoning ordinance and will not materially and permanently enter other property or uses in the same district and vicinity. Findings staff finds no evidence that approving this application with the conditions listed will materially and permanently injure other property or uses in the same district vicinity. There is no evidence that the impact of this tourist home on neighboring property will be substantially different than the impact of tourist homes previously approved. recommendation based on the findings and prior BZA decisions. Staff recommends the board approve the petitioner's request with the conditions listed from street and the parking and I believe in the staff report I said that the parking was on Jefferson Street and that is not correct. That is these are the parking spaces here on you from Jefferson Street. I plan pink uh the pink house icons indicate nearby tourist homes. That's the end of the staff report.

Okay. Thanks. Any questions from on the board for Kayla? How about cards? There were 36 in and 32 were returned. That's almost a record. [Laughter] Um, uh, is the petitioner's representative here or the petitioner here? Yeah. Hi. Is there anything you want to add to the staff report?

Not really. We're just going to pretty much beautify it, you know, make get the landscaping all taken care of and and fix the inside, do a lot of painting and and upgrade some of the appliances and whatnot in there. But, uh, if anything, we're just going to improve the property, especially the outside. The outside's looking really I think it's been neglected in the last 6 months or so. So, we're going to do a lot of landscaping, make it look really nice, paint the picket fence up front. So, uh, uh, yeah. Yeah. Could you come to the microphone, identify yourself? You said no and then added a bunch of stuff. Adam Hoffman. Yeah,

Adam Hoffman. Um, and my wife and I, we we own a couple properties in Hamilton County also. So, we usually manage her ourselves, but uh she's the one who's going to beautify with me. So, she's not here tonight. She's with her voice. So, So, where do you live? I live in Hamilton County. How do you plan on managing this? I have a house in Trafalver as well. So, we have a house in Trafalgar as well and we visit about once a month. We also come out here uh at least twice a month. So, we're going we manage our property in Trfalgar and we we'll manage a property out here as well. So, you would only rent it when you're in in town?

Not necessarily. So when we manage a property, we usually uh greet the guest that's coming to the property there. We meet them at the door. We give them instructions and when they leave, we go there as well as they as they uh depart their their vacation, I'd say in a couple days. And uh we usually provide uh uh privacy when they're here, of course, but when they leave, we usually get a cleaning crew that comes in and cleans up after them as well. What if they had a a serious problem and you were your mom's wedding?

Um, I have a local guy named Bob who actually my neighbor in Trafaler and he does the same thing for me. He sort of watches our house my we pay him to watch my property in Chicago as well. So he's and he's really well connected out here as well. So if there's any issues which uh we haven't had any in our property uh then he would be right there. So, you you provide a 24-hour telephone contact. Would that be him or you? Um, both. Everybody. Yeah. My wife and myself. Yeah. Okay.

Well, as as you're probably aware, our ordinance recommends that there be a local manager by which we've normally construed, meaning somebody that's in the county and can respond in a timely manner 247 to anything that might arise. Um, and this situation that you're proposing doesn't sound quite like that. Um, and so I have some concerns about that. Would you consider using a local manager? 100%.

Actually, Jeff is my is my representative in uh in Hamilton County. He also represents some properties out here as well. So, he's out here at least once a week. So between all four of us, we're and we and we vacation I say vacation out here at least twice a month as well. So we're always in the county. We're thinking about leaving Hamilton County and buying a house here too as well. So we'll eventually be here.

Mr. I I not one of the documents that we have that's digitign verified says that you gave permission for Marissa Payton to submit on your behalf for consideration of a tourist home inspection for the property located at 100 North Jefferson Street but that the property will be managed by your spouse and yourself. Is that correct? Yes. What was the authorization?

Marissa Payton represented us doing all the paperwork the filing for it. this meeting's valuable, but she was the one who who sort of got all the papers together to send the neighbors and and uh and send all the notices out to all the neighbors. So, we hired her for that reason. So, cuz I didn't know how to do it. I didn't know how to contact anybody or how to get the variance. So, we hired her and she I guess she does this for a living. So, uh she was the one who helped us with that. But I would I wouldn't know where to start. I'm sorry. I'm not sure that uh or maybe I didn't quite understand it that you adequately addressed John's question uh about a local um manager here. Uh you're telling me that you trfalgar you have someone who is living in trfalger.

You live we have a house in Helm County and one in Trafaler. Okay. and yeah some closest would so what I'm hearing is that somebody would be available on call from either trfalger or up in Hamilton County% but nobody's available locally yeah locally would be trfaler I'd say does our guidelines define locally it doesn't in the past it's been someone either within the county or within a 30 minute drive from the location yeah we're about 20 minutes. Chicago house is 20 minutes. Okay.

That's typically how we interpret that and handle that. It's not We don't have that writing in the recommendations. Don't the guidelines say a property manager? I believe it says local manager.

Yeah. So, bring my photo. I'm hardressed to recall a case in which we've approved the tourist home with the manager who is out of county. Now maybe we have but I don't believe that we have during my 10 12 years on board. We've always interpreted a local manager to be someone who's available within the county. Now granted, there are parts of the county where it can take you longer to get to Nashville than it would from Trfalgurt. I understand that. So maybe we need to consider that.

Yeah. E on the tourist home guidelines. Each tourist home should have a local manager who possesses the authority and ability to promptly address and correct any violations of the conditions, use requirements, and or limitations applicable to the tour. name, address, telephone number of the local manager to be registered with the APC office and placed in a conspicuous area of the tourist. Yeah, it's that adverb promptly that's led us to more or less have our managers, as you say, either within 30 minutes or within the county or or something like that. And Mr. Hoffman, just for clarification,

the reason that we have that ordinance in place or that guideline in place, I should say.

Yeah. uh is because if if as a county not everyone that lives here loves the idea of having tourist rentals. One of the things that we do to try and not control but to make sure that they're not just left cuz it's a big county so there's very rural locations also. So, if something happens and a neighbor is offended or a tenant that is renting the place gets crazy or wild, we need we need to know or the pipes freeze in the winter and floods or you'd be amazed at some of the stories I could tell you, but somebody's there to handle it like that or immediately. So,

I I see no other issues with Grandition, but I I'm going to hold fast on the We're real active on our on our properties that we own. We're really active. My wife, that's all she does. She doesn't work. That's her job. So, she's in contact with emails and phone numbers and she's really on top of everything. My wife, that's all she does really. Uh, besides taking care of my two boys as well, but that's what her job is. And Bob Smith, Bob is my neighbor in Travager and he runs everything for me and he does it he does it really well. He had the alarm go off in a Travaler house and he was there before I even got the phone call from my alarm company. He lives next door. Right next door. He's the head of He's local there. Yeah, he's the head of my HOA there. As local as it gets,

but he is he can get here in 18 minutes. He's done it in 17 before with a faster car. But he's from Chicago. Yeah. Legally, right on allegedly takes me 30 minutes. Yeah. Well, we drove today. We were we were the house in Trevaga we have is about it took us 80 minutes to get here. But the individual you're talking about is still in trfal. Yes. Correct. He lives in Does he own a property management group or

No, he he he's managed properties before. That's what he used to do for a living, but he manages ours. And uh this guy is this guy's awesome. Like he does things that I don't even expect me do. And he's he's always there. The alarm's going off. He's knocking on the door taking care of it. Uh he's he's on it. So that's why we trust him to do this as well for us because he's and we pay him for it. Before it was just sort of like a neighborly favor, but we sort of said, "Hey, we're going to start paying you for this." And and he's he's happy with that, of course. So So we do have resources here in the county resources that will and can and do work as property managers. Correct. Right.

Yeah. Which Mr. Hoffman could contract with. Okay. Yep. And I'd be happy to do that, too. That's fine. Well, I think it' make us feel a lot better. Yeah. It'll make me feel better. I think the rest of the board members, but uh we've talked about this before. What the term global I think we need to actually pin that down uh geographically some way a little bit what we do, but So, you would be willing to do that? Oh, yeah. Okay.

Yeah. We've had a we had a um tourist home in Westfield and uh we've had it for about seven years and uh I mean we had parties we've had over 200 300 families a year stay there and we've never had any issues for seven years where we had to really be there on the spot for anything. It's it's usually a self-service sort of situation where people know the expectations of what they need to do there and I properly uh vet all the people that are staying at the place as well. We look at their profiles. We look at their history. We look at their reviews. We don't want just anybody staying at our place because it's my place. This is going to be my house. So, we're really really picky on uh who we have staying at places and we've had good luck with it in the past. So,

okay. How do you vet people that have no internet trail? Um we just don't accept them. Yeah. If we don't like their profile for any reason, if we don't see any at least five or six reviews on them that are positive, we don't care. We don't we don't care about the money. We'd rather it be a safer place for them to stay. And yeah, we don't we've seen people with no reviews that look great and pictures, but we don't see any history or reviews them. So, we just say, "Sorry, we don't have it available that weekend. This is my property and I don't want anybody screwing around with it." So, and we've had good luck in the past with that. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thanks for that. Thank you guys.

Y um is there anybody here tonight that wants to speak in favor of this petition or anybody who wants to speak against the petition? Yes, ma'am. If you'd identify yourself, let us know what you have to say. Dean and Patrick, I live on West Main Street and I don't know if it'd be okay for Kayla to go back maybe one slide that shows the parking. Um, number seven on the staff report says there are six parking spots, so it exceeds the amount of parking that is needed. Can you show the parking spaces, Kayla? They are angled parking and there is no way that a large SUV or a pickup truck can be in that parking spot lengthwise. I just walked past there on my way here and there is a green silver auto truck with the extra seating uh the double door seating and it's hanging out in the street this far. So my concern would be are g if you have up to eight guests there is possibility you could have three to four cars. If they're small cars great they might fit in those spots but larger vehicles are not going to fit in those angled spots. that hang out into the street and town has parking on the north side of the street. Um, so I'm not against a tourist home being there. I would say consider the parking maybe being changed so that it runs maybe just sideways parallel with the building itself. So that is my concern. Thank you. I mean, Dave, help me out here, but if if you're parked with your vehicle sticking out into the street, that's a traffic violation, right?

Yes. Okay. So, anybody could call the Nashville police and, you know, and the vehicle would have to be parked somewhere else, correct? Okay. All right. Just Thanks. Hey, I have a question. It says up to eight guests, but it's a three guest room. I know in the past we've done two per guest room even though it's 50 foot square foot minimum and they did that. So they do they've got a sleeper sofa in the living room. Yes. Gotcha. Right. Cage.

Yeah. It's on the Yeah. In the living room. a sofa bed. So that number um of the living room was taken into account whenever I was calculating for the guest space requirement. I'm going to bring this back us on the board to decide then thoughts.

I guess I would like to hear Mr. Huffman address this last concern with parking. We're only looking at something here visually. I have no idea if that's uh 10 feet, 11 feet, 15 feet. I don't I don't know. I have an extended Lincoln Navigator and it fit there perfectly today. You have a

extended Lincoln Navigator and it fit there. It's massive. It's like a land yacht and it fit there perfectly today. So, I I've seen no problem with it. Maybe the guy that had his truck there today didn't pull up all the way. I don't know. But we've had I mean we have a massive truck and it's and it fits perfectly and we've had four spots that are taken with big cars. We've never had had an issue there. So what you're saying is your experience has been that there's no there's no problems with any kind of impublic with whatever you've been sitting there or the people. Not that I've seen not that you've seen.

Yeah, we've been there probably 30 times in the last two months, three months and we've never had a problem. We've seen cars parked there and never encroachment into the to the driveway or people driving by. Says 18.2 feet or 18t 2 in on the Oh, you got the site plan there. I was going to ask Kay to bring it up. That's a lot of It's a lot of parking for anything down here. Well, no. I mean, you can't build a 20 foot garage and close the door, right, with an 18t car like that. So, I wouldn't say a lot, but it if it's 18 feet, then it would be average, you know. I mean, I I think it would mean I know

I know the area. I mean, I've seen vehicles hanging out there, too. It's But you can't fix or legislate stupidity. People can't park and that's, you know, I agree. Probably probably average for Brown County, but as you know, parking is a premium down here in America. So, yeah. Yeah. And there's two there's a really large spot right in front of the house too. Really large if it's like a car and so so your experience thus far you've seen no problems with any kind of never even thought about it. No intruding out into the public.

Yeah, we have an like we have an extended version of this navigator. This thing is massive. I can't this thing perfectly. Yeah. Yeah. And we've also been signs there that say please pull all the way forward. Right. Everybody has cameras on their cars nowadays. But like you said, if if someone's sticking out and it's really in the way, then then tell them. I don't care. Right. I agree. It's not up to you to

You're right. Like Mr. Mr. B always said, Boics. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Andy, thoughts well uh I I see no problem with it being a tourist uh with with approving the petition other than having a local manager. That's something that we've been pretty sneaky about in the past and I think there's good reason. That's When you say local manager, how would you define that

in county? someone that that's a management company is different than my neighbor Bob. We we had a guy a few months ago that said he had a friend here in the county that would show up if anything needed. Uh and then he said that he's here 6 months out of the year, you know, and it's a management company. our management companies in this county, the ones that I'm familiar with, do a very good job of also letting us know if something's not in compliance and and they kind of help tow that line for us. So, it's kind of a last line of defense to protect, you know what I mean? So, I'm already that's where I'm at. Well, I think all the more recently we we probably need to revisit this and kind of refine that down a little bit. Yeah, like that because like I said,

yeah, I I think we need to define what we mean by promptly. Yeah. One of the other reasons, if I could add on or finish, one of the other reasons is if if a management company is being used, we know that that management company is going to operate that tourist home within the guidelines set because they're not going to risk their reputation andor any any kickback or negative from this board and and from this office. So, whatever. Well, I No, I'm agreeing with you what you're saying. I know two of them wouldn't they don't put up with nothing. So, you know, but they do a great job.

And I think Mr. Huffman agreed to do that. All right. No problem. [Music] I'm going to make her pretty. I promise. Paint that fence, fix the license. You got you got you're going to love it. You probably need to run all that by the Nashville Town Council and make sure that you're within the paint codes and all that other new plan. You do need to go through the DRC. You're in RB zoning. Okay. So, you don't have cart blocks. You don't have cart blocks out there. Yeah. Okay. That's new recently. They just adopted it.

I got that. Okay. Um I I often fine with this petition with the conditions that uh Kayla suggested and that have been discussed already. So I'd entertain a motion if anybody wants to make one. Uh I'll move with respect to docka number 25-see-11 petitioners Jamie and Adam Hoffman for request for approval of turstone uh that we approve septition on the following conditions. All tourist conditions are met. Home will be limited to eight guests. A local manager will be utilized. A copy of the site plan will be provided to guests at the sight of the home to delineate delineate property lines. A notice will be posted that the discharge of firearms is prohibited.

All right. Um would you be okay with some clarifying language about what you mean by a local manager? Oh, you want Okay. Well, in my mind, it should be someone within the limits of Brown County. Okay. Within the county jurisdiction. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thanks for that. Mhm. I'll second that motion. Danielle, we have a motion to approve. It's been seconded. A roll call vote, please, when you're ready. Okay. Andy, yes. Darla Brown, yes. Randy Jones, yes. Jane Gore, yes. Don Bger.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. You're approved. Appreciate it. You're welcome.

All right. Last item of new business tonight is docket number 25-8-01. This is a request uh to repeal the decision made by the planning director. Kayla, whenever you're ready. Staff report for appeal of director's decision docket number 25- A-01 hearing date August 27th 2025 the commissioner Penny Jogggin request is to appeal the decision of the planning coordinator the record of the area plan commission regarding issuance of the fine permit ordinance provisions chapter 7 administration enforcement and appeals and the board of zoning appeals rules of procedure article 5 powers and duties point A

I interrupt you for did you bring the microphone just a little closer to you that sure but yes it is thank you you want me to repeat that you want me to repeat that and read it again I'm sorry

you didn't throw something

to the board of zoning appeal. The board of zoning appeals rules and procedure article 5 powers and duties 1A states the board shall have the following powers finished shall be its duty to hear and determine appeals from and review any order requirements decision or determination made by the director in the enforcement of the Brown County zoning ordinance or the Nashville zoning ordinance. All appeals must be filed within the with the commission within 45 days of the order requirement decision or determination made by the director. Three, the petitioner is requesting an appeal of the director's decision to issue a signed permit for KOA on May 28th, 2025. Four, at the time the determination was made, the appeals process was explained to the petitioner. The timeline for act application under the BCA procedures that an appeal must be filed within 45 days of the decision was met as the petitioner produced an application for an appeal of the decision on July 8th 2025. I the appeal was docketed on August 4th 205. The legal notice was published in a timely manner and the petition was slated for August 27th 2025 BCA meeting six. According to the petitioner, there was a sign in the same location many years before the petitioner purchased the property. The sign was blown down during April of this year. It is unclear when the original KOA sign was placed on the parcel as a sign permit was not found. Seven, the sign sits on property owned by the petitioner, but which has an easement named KOA Drive for the KOA campground. The easement reads, "A perpetual non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over and along a 50 foot wide established roadway leading from State Road number 46 to the above described real estate. Eight, the petitioner is the owner of a

tourist home property located at 2298 State Road 46 East, as well as five additional adjacent tourist home properties. The home most affected by the sign is under construction currently. The petitioner has provided a petition with 118 signatures asking for the sign to be taken down. Nine. Carpenter Legacy Management is the current owner of the KOA campground. A special exception was approved on January 29th, 2014 under docket number 14-se to operate a travel trailer park and campground. Historical reports from staff state that the property was used as a campground for approximately 40 years prior to the possibility of a special exception. 10. According to the zoning maps, the Scrabins properties are zone GB, general business, while the KOA campground is zoned FR forest reserve. The KOA's newly installed sign is located on the GB property and is 80 square ft. 11. There are vastly different maximum sign area allowances depending on where the sign is located from section 4.15 miscellaneous sign provisions. The following are the maximum allowances. Sign area sign height and setback regulations. A in flood plane and in SPF, R1, R2, and LR districts, the maximum total sign area per lot is 24 square ft and the maximum total sign area of any sign located on the lot is 12 square ft. B. In EBAB and industrial and I districts, the maximum total sign area per lot is 144 square feet and the maximum total sign area of any sign located on the lot is 100 square ft. C. In flood plane forest reserve R1, R2

and LR districts, the maximum sign height is 8 feet. D. In GB A, B and I districts, the maximum sign height is 20 ft. 12. On the sign permit application form, it is stated that quote, "Written proof must be attached to this application of owner permission if application is being made to allow a sign on property not owned by the applicant." 13. During the application process for this sign, staff made KOA representative aware of this requirement. 14 in a letter from Clintoning Johnson and Borer PC attorney representing the KOA staff was made aware of the court of appeals of Indiana first district decision Wendy's of Fort Wayne Inc. versus Fagan. The judgment in this case was that the trial courts finding that the grain fee of the easement has the right to erect the directional sign in the easement because that use is incidental to making the grant of ingress and egress effectual. Indiana cases clearly have held that the owner of an eman possesses all rights necessary all rights necessarily incident to the enjoyment of the easement and that he may make such repairs improvements or alterations as are reasonably necessary to make the grant of easement easement effectual summary after reviewing the case law staff granted approval of the application for a sign permit in the easement as the trial courts found that a grantee has the right to erect the sign to make the easement effectual. And then this is the sign in question here. So from this um from where I'm standing here is the middle of KOA Drive looking up at the Scrogggins property

and then looking east on State Road 46 east from KOA Drive. And that picture you just showed us, um, this one is at the intersection of KOA and 46 East. Is that on the petitioner's property as well? This entire easement? Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. And then the petitioner submitted a picture that shows a third sign. Looks like it's also on their property. Do you have a picture of that? in the packet. Yes. Yes.

From the cabin. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. And that third sign, it also is on the petitioner's property, although it's on the I'm assuming it is, but So, the view from the cabin, this one that you're looking at. Yeah. So, it's this sign is the large one that we're talking about here, right? And then the one across the easement. Yes. Is this sign across KOA Drive? Yes. Is Is that one in the East though? Yes. Okay. So, all signs that are out there, which is a total of three, are all within the East? Yes. Okay. Thanks.

And then this last photo is just from our GIS map. Um, so the bottom outlined in white is the specific property where the sign is located and then we've got KOA Drive which is um outlined there in blue. That's the end of the stack report. Okay. Thanks. I have a question before we call. Commissioner, you also have a letter dated March 19th, 2025 to Carpenter Legacy Management. Yes. Uh, is that to KOA people or to the petitioner? To the KOA. Okay.

And it it was instructing them at that time that that they had 14 days to remove the sign and they did not. That was from March. Yeah. So that was prior to March 19th. Um, the sign blowing down. No. No. This is after they repaired the new sign. This was after Yeah. Sorry. This was after This was after blew down. You're correct.

So Pa has no road signage if that's right. Um I had a couple questions for maybe Dave. You said you reached this decision after reviewing the case law. I I went and reviewed the Wendy's versus Fagan 2 and I see the section that was quoted out of there by the attorney who contacted you. Um, but then there's a paragraph after that paragraph, the last paragraph of the opinion that says in the case of Wendy's versus Fagen, the proposed sign is a mere 52 in. And it goes on to say that this type of sign is reasonable to effectuate purposes while not amounting to an offensive burden on the Serbians state, which would be the petitioners here. I read this case law in to say that it's you don't have cart blanch to erect a sign in an easement to effectuate ingress and egress. That that right has to be balanced and and the decision about reasonleness has to take into effect into account the fact of the situation. This opinion seems to suggest that size of the sign is one of those factors to consider. Um, it I guess in deciding whether or not to grant this request or to to allow to sign, I guess you determined that it didn't constitute an an offensive burden on the SCRS. Is that right?

Yeah. And we we talked a day prior to and and also that it was necessary to effectuate the purpose of the easement. So how did you reach that decision if there were already other signs there effectuating ingress and egress? Well, I mean from my perspective, yeah, case law says you can put signs on easements. True. Okay. and the signs that they wanted to put satisfy the criteria of the ordinance. Well, the case law says you can do it if it's necessary to effectuate ignorance and eress if you already have several other signs there.

I guess my feeling is I don't read it that way. And I think that's a statement they made at the very end is to say, well, it's not a big deal anyway. But, uh, so that's just the way I read that, but you're free to read it as you see fit. Yeah. I don't I don't see the part where they said it's not a big deal anyway. Did I miss that or any? Well, reading case law as I've done over 40 years, right? That's I mean that's what happens in appellet cases. They'll say stuff at the end, but the the point is you can put a sign on an easement if it's necessary to uh effectuate your easement. And there's no limit. think it's necessary if they're already assigned there for a second sign

or is that for us to decide? The easement doesn't the easement doesn't limit that. It's just it's just that the case law says you can put a sign up. Is it reasonable? Well, it meets our it meets our code. It meets our code because of it's not in violation of any size limits that we have. Correct. Yeah.

Okay. So, the sign itself in terms of dimensions, it's not an issue. Well, I'm not sure that's what the case law says. I mean, I don't think the word mirror is there for just because the judge felt like it. I think the opinion says a mere 52-in sign, implying that this sign, because it's so small, does not constitute an offensive burden on the surveyant estate, implying that a larger sign might, implying that one has to balance that factor among others when deciding whether or not the sign should be allowed. And the opinion is silent about multiple signs. Doesn't say you have the right to erect as many signs as you want to effectuate your easement.

I would tend to lean and I'm not an attorney, but I'm not sure it would help under that theory. They could put up seven more signs the same size because it helps effectuate their right if it's put under 144 square feet. But is that cumulative or is that each individual sign? That's max max size of a sign. So it's 12 by 12. No, max area. Max area. Well, I don't think our ordinance governs the maximum size in this situation.

What governs maximum size is what is necessary to effectuate the easement and not place an undue burden on the Serbian state. That's what governs this decision in my opinion. Yeah. So I think our sign ordinance is not relevant here. That's not the question. I'm curious as to the other this is two-sided that this sign is two-sided. The other sign that is there is not two-sided. Um, I don't know that the petitioner has an issue with that signed or they would have complained about it also, I'm assuming. But,

well, we'll get to that with the petitioner. Yeah. But my thinking would be if they made the other side a double, that one could come down and it still doesn't stop. That's still plenty of signage to to see where the entrance to that is. So on March 19th, well there was there has been a sign there historically, correct, Kaylin? Yes. Okay. And that sign was destroyed by a storm. Yes. Okay. Then they went and put another sign back up and the March 19th letter that was sent out from this office reflects the fact that sign was put up without a proper permit.

Correct. And they had they we were telling them they had to remove the sign within 14 days of giving this letter to any further action. Did they or did they not? Oh, I'm sorry. Can you come to our office loc for a sign permit? Did they come in for that sign permit? They did. They did. Yes. Okay. So, they were technically in compliance with the March 19th letter and asking what to do even though they put it up without getting the permit beforehand.

Yes. Yes, we have a letter that went out on April 21st of uh the same year. Uh but this this letter also indicates a lack of to me a lack of action on the on the petitioner's farm. So what was this letter trying to convey? uh that they needed to get their get their sign permit because on the same day that this letter was sent to uh Carpenter Legacy Management, we got a um zoning complaint investigation form which you should have there too have it from the petitioners here. Okay. So, they did not come in compliance with

I don't believe it was within that 14 days. Okay. Another letter was sent out on the 21st of the following days. Correct. Yes. So you we have to assume that they did not. Yes. Okay. And when was not the tag in when was the sign permit issued? The 28th of May.

So they didn't they didn't comply within 14 days and then they didn't comply within 30 days. They they did contact us after this April 21st letter was sent out and then this is when um on Logan's report here, property owners came in um 8 days later. So on April 29th, property owners came in says something in in writing basically that they need a permit to begin with. So then Logan provided her with the sign ordinance. um sent an email with that information and then the KOA attorney contacted on the 13th of May contending the determination that the permission was needed from the property owners.

So they were not in viol they were not in compliance with the first letter. They came in after they received the April 21st letter. They still were not compliance, but they did come into the office within you say nine days. Uh, eight days. Yeah, eight days after that date that they were supposed to. So, they were party on that as well. Yes. Okay. But they did come in to address the issue that of the fact they needed a red. Yes. Okay.

And Dave, could I return to the case law thing um that you used to support your decision? Um the letter that you got from the KOA attorney, it also made reference to another case. It was Hicks versus Carewell International, which is corporation for Holiday in hotels. Um and that decision says in part, one one of the parts of that decision, the case Hicks was claiming that Holiday in um did not have the right to erect sign on the easement across their property. And um they claimed in part that Holiday Inn's directional sign that they wanted to put up was larger than that which was placed on the property in Wendy's and that uh that share for Wendy's didn't apply. And the appella court said given the distance to the holiday in from I7 which is where the sign was intended to be read from the evidence established that a smaller sign would not serve the function. The point here being again the court said you have to consider the circumstances of the case. They are allowed to put out at least the minimum size necessary to effectuate ingress and eress i.e to be seen from I7. So to me the question here is is this sign necessary to effectuate ingress and egress and does it not place an undue burden on the scar's property? That's the question to me. Was that the question as you saw it? That's how I see it. Okay.

But we're getting we're getting a recommendation from our legal council that in fact that easement does allow that. You can put a sign on the easement and and and John is arguing that you have it has to be the minimum necessary to effectuate purpose. Well, I mean, is that something that Kayla's going to decide when somebody comes in for a permit? Or is Kayla going to say, "Well, it meets her requirements, which are designed to be reasonable." So, um, what do you do? Yeah. If you have a different if you have a different approach, that's what you're you're here for, and that's fine. Gotcha. Okay.

So, John, if I understand you, what you're saying is one of that sign is a little bit of an overkill for ingress and egress. Can I can I summarize it in that or you can darn near see it from 65 I think is what he's saying.

Well, no. What I'm saying is that they absolutely have the right to put a sign on there. If it's reasonably necessary to effectuate ingress and egress. If there is already a sign on there that can be read from the road, then ingress and egress, in my opinion, has been effectuated. And there's nothing in the case law to suggest that they have any right to erect a second or third or seventh sign as anti-aliotic. Furthermore, the sign has to be in my opinion as effect the least burden upon the subservient estate. That's how I read the case law. And both trial judges made made it clear that they were allowing this because it seemed to be the minimum burden necessary to allow ingress and egress to the property. Now we'll hear from the petitioner and anybody else here and and I want to see but at the end of the day to me that's the question before me. Does this have the minimum impact? First of all, is it necessary at all to affectuate ingress and egress? And if it is, does it have the minimum impact?

Well, I mean, the other thing too is and those are good points. Uh I guess I wasn't going into it quite that deep. My what I was looking at basically it was does the sign now as it sits constitute a violation to our ordinance? No. On TV, it's within the size requirement.

Correct. And that's what that's right. So, so Kayla's decision and and Kayla, I'm going to put words in your mouth. So, your decision was based on your interpretation from our legal counsel and Dave had researched this case law. Is that correct? and gave that as example of how a very a similar case there's never apples to apples usually in these legal cases like this or case law but uh that's what your decision was based on correct yes somebody applied for a sign permit

okay and it meets the criteria of the code that's why she granted I understand. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thanks for that. I know the petitioners are here. Is there anything that you'd like to add to the staff report? Yes. Okay. Whichever one of you wants to go first. We both want to go probably. Whichever one you'll be as fast then.

Any scroggins? I I think you guys have um addressed all the points that I was on. May. Um, but I think maybe whenever the case law was studied by our county attorney, he didn't realize there were three other signs there because those weren't permitted either. So, you know, yes, it it maybe met all the criteria for one sign, but what about the other three? And the other three really don't affect our cabin, even though they're on the easement. They're across the road and they're not an eyesore like this one is. And the sign, he put the sign up on Good Friday. Um the sign had blown down and I contacted the planning department and said, "Hey, you know, they're they've got boards and stuff there to put up a new sign. We don't give them permission to put a sign up." So that first letter in March was the result of that contact. And then on Good Friday, which was April, I think 18th or some somewhere around in there, they put up they went ahead and put up the other sign. K did approach him and said, "Hey, do you have did you get your sign permit?" And he didn't need a sign permit. He paid taxes and he couldn't put up what he wanted.

I'm sorry. What? Which second?

He's he told Kurt that he paid his taxes and he didn't have to have a permit. So So here we are. Um you know, the sign is not, you know, everybody keeps saying that it meets the guidelines for our ordinances, but it doesn't. You know, it's supposed to not hinder anything around it, and it does. You know, if if you're staying in our cabins and you want to look out and see the golf course, you've got this big yellow sign right in your view. Um, and it's not necessary to have that big yellow sign. There are three other signs that identify Kway's entrance.

What was the size of the sign that blew down? It was smaller than this one and it wasn't as bright. You said it blew down when? It blew down. It had to have been probably the 1st of March around in there because the letter that was sent out was in March 17th. The first letter. Was that after you bought the property? Mhm. Yeah. We owned the property for what, two years now? And it was in the same location as this new sign.

The storms came down on the 14th birthday. And what specifically about it the new sign you referred to it as an eyes sore. Is it it's simply the presence of the sign or the location? It's large and the location and the fact that they have three other signs. You know okay with the other three signs? Yeah. They're not they're not bothering us. And you you presumably were okay with the old sign. Well, the old sign was just that it was an old sign. You could tell one day it was going to blow over and and I knew So you prayed through a storm and it came.

No, I knew that they had to have a permission to put it back up or at least that was my understanding. I get you. Yeah, I get you. So So was the old sign in the same place that same location that this was in? Okay. Yeah. Same location, but it was in somewhat disrepair. Yeah. Leaning. Okay. All right, that's all I have. Any questions for this half of the petitioner? Um, so your biggest concern uh is aesthetics. [Music] Limited visibility. Anything else? Am I missing something?

I don't think so. Okay. All right. And you know again to reference the law that was quoted that was one sign and it was a small sign. This isn't a small sign and it I don't think it meets our ordinance the way I interpret the ordinance because I'm not an attorney. Okay. All right.

All right. Thank you. I am Kurt Scrogggins. Uh to address some of the legality ends of it to meet the sign or minutes, you know, it's not size only. I was reading through what Kayla had given us on the sign ordinance and it says right in there that that is to maintain aesthetic environment. What does not? It says to minimize adverse effect on nearby personal property and adverse effect on obstructing natural scenic distance and it does not. It says that the county is supposed to approve location and design. I don't think they did that. I don't know if they went out there and checked the location, but u it also says in another section that signs need to be welldesigned and compatible with their surroundings and buildings. Signs to be harmonous to the sites they occupy. And then of course the part that says written proof of permission from land owner that the sign is on which the easement thing kind of did away with needing our permission and uh pretty much I feel like the county has the authority to regulate signs. You just because there's maximums and minimums you've got the authority to regulate that. Um we did don't feel like that many signs is needed for their purpose.

Um they have the KOA Drive sign that shows that's KOA Road. They have two signs bolted to that sign that says KOA. They have another sign that says KOA on the west side of KOA Drive. And then they have just this other excuse me this other sign that says we fill propane. That's not a necessary sign either. And none of those signs that I know of is permitted as far as getting sign permits. So in my purpose, you know, everybody coming there from traveling the country to stay there overnight or two, they all have GPS. There's no problem finding KOA. But we're not against them having a sign on the west side of the KOA Drive. It's just this big huge monstrosity that when I'm sitting on my porch looking out and all I see is a big yellow sign. I mean, it's bright. And then at night, they have it lighted. You know, there's lights shining up on it. And also in the ordinance somewhere, it says that there should be no lights shining at a residence. Well, their lights are shining towards the residence and it reflects that yellow. I mean, you sit out there in the dark looking at the stars and all you see is yellow. A yellow below, but I just feel like the smaller sign on the west side of the road is fine, but we just want to do away with this big monstrosity.

Oh, I'm sorry, Jane. Go ahead. Do any of the other signs are they do they have lighting on them? The the one sign does have lights on it. Also, the middle size one or Yeah, it's the middle size side of the drive. Yeah, but it is far enough away and kind of back a little bit further than what this big sign was. So, it's not quite as obstructive, but we still don't like it. But, you know, would you have a problem with them making that one bigger if if the big one were on the west side? Like they were to increase that to for visibility or whatever? If it was bigger, then it would right

cause a problem. You know, the size that sign that's there now on the opposite side of the road, it's not too offensive. So, we're not we're not arguing about that size sign. So, you know, if you would be fine with that size, we would be fine. The home that's sitting directly behind us with the new constructions going on, is that is that your home? That's a That's our house that we're building. That's your house that you're building. It It's not our residence. Okay. It's a It's a tourist realm. It's a tourist realm. Yeah. Okay. All right. That's what I That's what I was thinking, but I wouldn't.

So, we're going to have people coming here from all over the country staying there because Brown County is so beautiful and they're going to be sitting there looking at this sign, why would I want to come back to this county when they've got a big sign in these people's yard that is blocking our view and disturbing us. That's that's our thought. I assume taking down all the other signs except the big sign still would not alleviate your concern. It's it's the one big one. The other ones I'm not quite so concerned about. They're still I still feel like they're not doing sign. It's not the fact there's so many signs out there. It's the fact that this one that they recently put up is of such large size and the location it's in. Yeah.

Okay. if it's bigger, brighter. You know, we we we are in business here in county and I've put up signs and we've come before the board. You know, we've had to show materials. Our signs are made of the colors, you know, the location, the size. So, I understand all that part.

Kurt, could I pause you for a minute? Um I just Eddie needed to step out for a minute. I'd like you for all of this. I have a question. We get back into Wait for something. Thanks. You can go ahead if you want.

I forget where I was at right at the moment. Oh, that's my question. Go ahead. Go ahead. The the new sign is that this the same location as where the old one was? Yes, it's location. The landscaping was already there and

Yes. And part of the history of that too, I don't know if this really makes a difference, but when we bought the property, that property owner had tried to get rid of that sign at that time. And he was told that it had been there so long that they wasn't going to make him take down, but if anything ever happened to it, then he would have to go through the process and get it approved and all that. So, you know, when we bought the property, we had in the back of our mind that this sign was going to be gone sometime. And then there was one other ordinance that I failed to mention. U there again, I don't know if this makes a lot of difference, but it said in there somewhere that the sign is supposed to be whatever the height sign is, it's supposed to be that far from the road. I measured the sign and it's 14t tall and it's 11 ft from the road, the big sign. And then the middle sign is 9 ft tall and then it's 5 ft from the road. So there again, it doesn't meet the ordinance requirements,

the road being the KOA camper. Yeah. Okay. of just you know a list of those five or six different ordinances that it just it doesn't meet is that KLA road a county road or is it it's not it's privately owned maintained by it's an easement is that's the EK Kayla the that part of the ordinance that uh Kurt was referring to you're familiar with that somewhat yeah

is I wouldn't read read the sign ordinance in that detail. So, not that I don't believe him. I just wanted to distance from the road. Yeah, that was part three. Where I got that? Yeah. And it's on number 11 on the staff report also. And what does it say? That's about that. Oh, that's about the maximum shine height. Sorry. No, I'm I'm interested in height and distance from low. I can grab one of those sheets in here. We've got a cheat sheet. Okay.

Okay. All right. Well, I'm really interested in what the ordinance says, how it defines road here. Can I read this? Sure. County road means the roads within Brown County that have been accepted into the state of Indiana Department of Transportation criteria. Wish I knew what their criteria were whether AOA road criteria for a set assigning credit such as Brown County Indiana does in fact receive credit or state payments for those roads.

What are you reading from? Well, it's not a statemaintained road, we heard. So, guess Brown County doesn't pay the state anything. The sign ordinance that was emailed to me. We're looking for the park was talking about sendbacks from the road and he specifically I just assumed the road was the grass egress, right? It sounds the way you read it. It sounds to me like a road is a countymaintained road that the county pays something to the state to maintain. The state pays the county. Well, the state pays the county to maintain. If it's on the inventory card, then the state the county gets an allowance from the state.

Got it. So it sounds like KOA road was not a road in for purposes of so that's not saying but now that Kayla's got to the trouble you'll hear it. Yeah. So this is letter E section three of 4.15. of the sign ordinance. In all districts, signs shall be set back from road and highway rideway and from lot boundary lines a distance that is equal to the height of the sign. Okay.

But you interpret that when it says road, do you interpret that to mean private and public roads? I do not. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. Mean state highway. Could you read it one more time? It said road and byway in all districts signs shall be set back from road and highway ride ofway and from lot boundary lines a distance that is equal to the height of the sign. So would a lot boundary line determine anything with an easement? That doesn't that's probably an ease. It's not a lot boundary line probably. I don't think so because it would give you an easement through the law boundary.

Okay. Any other questions for the petitioners? I don't have any. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Anybody here who wants to speak for or against this petition? See anybody? Oh, yes. I see a hand. John, I just have a hard time. I'm Jim Roberts. I don't really have a dog in this fight. Um, I just have a hard time keeping my mouth shut at one of these meetings. Is the public hearing?

I've had occasion to read that that Wendy's case and I I somewhat I agree with you somewhat. I think the two key points there uh are what they describe as directional sign uh which kind of in my mind is a little thing with an arrow saying go this way. Uh and the other thing is that obviously that decision uh the reasoning behind that decision is based on necessity and if there are other uh signs available that satisfy the necessity to make the easement usable, make it practical. I mean, in the Wendy's case, you had a great big Wendy's uh drive-in restaurant and a little guy who had an easement behind him had a business rebuilding starters and alternators and he his argument was, hey, my ement isn't any good because nobody can find me. Uh so and and that necessity which trigger triggered the the black letter uh rule of the law I think is is negated here by the fact that there is other signage and albeit it's on the easement. There's other signage that accomplishes the same purpose here. Um I really didn't mean to come here and say anything about this case. I had to run into town to get something from Bear Hardware. [Music] So, and and also of course the prior petition, uh, as Jane knows that that's my next door neighbor and I kind of wanted to see what their tourist home plans were and welcome to the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thanks for that. All right, there's nobody else left here to speak, so I'll bring this back to the board for us to talk about. I'd be very interested in people's thoughts on this. Jane, why don't you go first? [Music] Well, I can see where it'd be obnoxious to look at that sign every day. I mean, how many signs do they need relatively?

I wouldn't say if somebody were living there on a daily basis, it would be obnoxious. I think it's equally harmful to a tourist home business where you're attracting people partly on the view across the golf course and up to the hills beyond. Yep. I agree. or anything. Well, I have a question. Uh, there's no one here from Carpenter Legacy Management. Well, does not appear to be. Did we hear from any of them? Just a letter that you have in your packet.

That's Well, okay. But they chose not to to be here. Okay. Um I don't know. Well, this is I mean I I went out there today and I looked at it. Uh there is a lot of signs. Uh I think there's a some clever redundancy there. I don't see the sign as a directional sign. I see it as an identification, a site. Um, but what we're considering this evening is whether or not the decision made by our planning director was uh the right decision to make. Um I think arguments can be made both ways but uh I see no fault. I mean she's two things. One she has following the recommendation of our legal counsel and if I heard Dave correctly then the easement that does exist out there does allow this.

Yes, that's what I heard from Dave.

Okay. So, what legal grounds will we are we going to be on if we overrule that decision? Because if it goes in for judicial review, which you could, all cases can, we have to be able to defend our decision. So, um I'm certainly not happy with the carpenter uh legacy management by going ahead and doing what they did without getting proper approval. Uh they did not comply with they went ahead and did it. They did not come to comply with the March letter and they were even targeting compliance with the uh the April letter. But

I don't know to be honest with you. I'm so agitated. Have that for punting the ball. That's a question for May I just respond to Randy first before you ask that. Um as far as where we'll stand legally. Um we are we are the people to make a legal decision here. Sorry, a quasi legal decision because we are a quasi judicial body. Correct. We've heard Dave's opinion and we've heard Kayla's explanation for why she reached her decision, but that decision has been appealed and it's up to us to decide. So whatever we decide, we're on fine legal ground. Oh, I agree with you 100%. Okay.

But I'm saying every decision is subject to judicial view, of course. And that's where you get into things like case law and things like that. So absolutely. I'm just saying that no, we're we're definitely not stepping without outside of the bounds of what we legally can do and what we're expected to do. Uh I'm just saying that if it does come to that, uh I'm one board member that would like to feel comfortable in defending the decision and I'm sure probably the rest are too, but I'm not going to speak for everybody else. You said you had a question. Yeah. Did you did you know the all the other signs were there? I did.

All right, Darla, your turn. You've been very quiet things to say.

Yeah. Well, I don't like this opinion. uh Wendy's of Fort Wayne, but you know, it doesn't matter what I think. But um I don't like the opinion because uh court says Indiana cases clear clearly upheld that the owner of an easement possesses all rights necessarily incident to the enjoyment of the easement and that he may make repairs, improvements, or alterations as are reasonably necessary to make the grain of easement effectual. Well, that sounds real simple, but then the court sort of cavalerely tells good old Mr. Fagan, um, yeah, you could put up a sign, but we're not buying into your argument that you need to install utilities to make your business work. So, they just sort of

I know they parsed that out nicely.

Say, uh, we're going to give you the sign, but we're not going to let you install utilities. So, I don't like that. I agree with you, John, and I agree with um Mr. Roberts. If you look at what the opinion says right after that, the court tries to explain how they come to this conclusion. The road on the easement is the only entrance to Fagan's property and business, which is located approximately 261 ft from Liberty Mills Road extended, the only public s street. assign directing customers and suppliers to that road is necessary to fulfill the easement's purpose of providing ingress and egress to Fagan's business. That customers can't find the road, they won't be able to use it. So, if you look at their explanation for their holding, it does look like that the court of appeals was swayed by the facts of the case. The problem is that's not their holding. And then if you go down to the footnote four, they discuss some of the other issues. The only issue before the trial court was whether Fagan had a right to install utilities and erect the sign. Thus, the evidence that Wendy's was offering regarding alternative locations was not relevant to whether Fagan had the right to erect the sign in the eastment. So, I don't like the opinion. I think the petitioners have a point, but I mean, we've got what we've got. And like I said, that's why the people in Indianapolis, they wear the robes, make the big bucks, cuz this is what they do. And I don't like it. But I can see I can see Dave's point. If we overturn Kayla's opinion, where is she in the future the next time somebody comes before with a a similar complaint?

Is she in the position of having to engage in some sort of subjective test? And I don't I don't like this, but I can see why Dave and Kayla did what they did. And so I'm afraid I'm going to have to find against the petitioners, but I don't like it. And I don't like the way Carpenter Realy acted either. But Cary Legacy managed. Yeah. Okay. Whatever. Sorry. So the footnote in Fagen, they say they have the right to erect assault. That was they were just restating their opinion. It's not relevant to whether Fagen had the right to erect the sign in the east. That's what they came down.

And you're saying the unwritten part there. They should have said had the right to the sign in the east because it is necessary to effectuate the ingress and eress which is the purpose of the easement. Is that what you would have liked them to say? Yeah, I would have. But yeah, they didn't. So, well, I would argue that they did in their opinion. Well, I think we need to be careful. I'm sorry. No, I'm done. I think we need to be careful back too much of minutia of this case. Um I mean it could go on for an item. I think Darl Oh, it can and it does. I think Darl makes some good points and you can argue about easements. Yeah, you can um all day long,

but you can't argue about the language that says it should have the minimum impact on the sity. It says that. Well, yeah. I mean, there are points of that today. That is the case law. That is the opinion. May I give my opinion and also that it's necessary and I'm of the opinion that it's not necessary nor does it have minimum impact. Well, I mean that you're that may be a very defensible position. I mean you guys are free to have another opinion. That's fine. Dave, you wanted to say something?

I just wanted to make one more pass at this. This is an appeal of Kayla's decision as the application of the ordinance. And so the ordinance requires that they have the owner's permission. That was taken care of by that lawsuit. Okay.

The stuff that Mr. Scrogggins read about uh uh maintaining and enhancing aesthetic environment. That's the purpose of the ordinance. That's not a requirement. The requirements uh this says this is why we're doing this. these requirements if you meet them will satisfy this purpose. Okay. So, um the the the signed site or the size and all that meets the ordinance. That's why Kayla granted it. She had they had the approval to do that and they granted it. the issue of whether in my mind whether the sign is necessary the signage is necessary in that extent or whatever that's an issue between the owner of the servant estate and the dominant estate I don't think that's a BCA issue but and I'll respectfully disagree I think it's very much our issue to decide was this sign necessary to effectuate the easement and two did it place an undue burden on the subservient estate.

Where is that in the ordinance, John? It's in the case law that is behind this ordinance. Okay. Well, I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that. It's not the case law behind the ordinance. It's the case law that's applicable and that was cited to Kayla in order to persuade her to reach a decision. I think that the case law presented to her was an excerpt from an opinion rather than the whole opinion and actually both opinions that were referred to and I think had Caleb been aware of those opinions she might have reached a different decision.

May I speak? I think that's why the decision has appealed to us because we have the authority to decide whether or not this decision was properly made or turn it back to Kayla and say revisit this decision. Mr. Chairman, I think Andy's head is going to blow up down there. I'm not we don't let him talk. I actually thought I was timing it better than that, but Go ahead. I didn't because I didn't realize you weren't finished.

I'm not an attorney. Uh, I'm a simple man. On March 19th, a letter was mailed. 28 days later, 23 days later, I'm sorry, another letter was mailed April 21st. They came in on May 8th. 28th. Sorry.

Uh they came in on the 29th of April. 29th of April. Good Friday.

That's 23 days from first notification from the county that they were in violation. Our ordinance says and the letter that they received says any person who violates this ordinance shall be shall be s shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each such violation each day that the violation is committed or permitted to continue constitutes a separate ordinance violation. In my estimation at 23 days, that's $230,000 in fines that could be assessed. I think that Carpenter Legacy Management knowingly and intentionally constructed a sign without a permit after a after a sign was damaged because they knew that they would have trouble getting a permit. So they tried to okie do the system to start with and not ask and just do I do not believe the sign provides directional information at all. So the case law reference directional to the easement. It does not point to a direction. It it's merely advertisement. It does not affect in my opinion the how did they say that? It does not effectually inhibit or the opposite of that. Ingress or egress doesn't help or hurt ingress or egress. Uh a camper or someone hauling a trailer can't get in or out of there any easier because the signs there. I feel like because it was knowingly and intentionally put up that I would tend to side with the petitioner. Even though I do have a hard time going against Kayla, I believe she acted in the best interest at the time. Uh I can absolutely see and also to add

to what John said, it certainly isn't minimized. They went bigger than was before. They knew it was an issue and they tried to get away with it. That's where that's my hard stop. like let's do things the right way to start with and that would have been a different issue. That's my opinion.

I will I'll say for the record first of all the only person up here who's an attorney is Darma and secondly I absolutely understand why Kayla reached the decision she did. Um she was provided with some information about case law. I just happen to think that the case law would lead her to reach a different conclusion. So I I am inclined to ask her to revisit the decision. That's me. All right. I've heard from everybody. Um Well, all right. Does anyone want to make a motion? or

okay, the motion would be either to uphold the decision made by the planning director in this respect or to not uphold the decision and we could further instruct her to revisit the decision or anything else that we wanted to. I guess sounds like you've got that.

Yeah. Okay. So, I'll move I will move that we hold that the decision of the planning director in this particular case was incorrect and ask her to revisit that decision in light of the hearing tonight. Well, I have a question though. When you say you want her to revisit it, um, what exactly does that mean?

I would like her to revisit the decision and if she reaches the same conclusion and notifies the parties involved, then they may again appeal that second decision. When they they petition to appeal the decision. So, in my mind, I I guess I read it as they either we either appeal Kayla's decision or hold. I think Go ahead. I think it's either we instruct her to resend the sign permit or we say yes, she did the right thing by granting the sign permit. I think those are the two choices right now.

Oh, okay. The board of zoning appeals stands in Kayla's shoes. It's as if is as if the application were made to you at this point. Yes. So I I don't think kicking it back to Kayla would be fruitful regardless. But just me I we either need to apper decision or appeal grant the appeal. Uh in which case that petition the carpenter management paya would be in violation of our ordinance.

Okay. So, if I'm if I'm hearing Yarla and all of you correctly, then the decision before us is whether to uphold the decision to issue the sign permit or revoke the decision to issue the sign permit. Correct. Is that what I'm That's what I think before. Yes.

All right. Then I'll make a motion that we revoke the sign permit that was granted in this situation. And we were going to grant the appeal versus revoke the sign because there's nothing in the petition about a signed permit. I'd amend the motion to say I would move that we grant the appeal to the decision made by the planning director in this docket number and that we revoke the sign permit. I would second. Is that okay with everybody? Say it again.

I move that we grant the appeal by the petitioners of the decision made by the planning director in respect to docket number 25-8-01 which granted a signed permit and that we decide to revoke the signed permit. So, it's a motion to grant the appeal and revoke the sign for it.

Can uh should we I know in times past another pause caveat, John, uh in times past we've stated the reasoning for our decision. Uh would that be a good idea here as to why we decided to overrule the director? Yeah, you're supposed to make findings a fact. about

it's important this okay all right then rather than try to do that on the fly should we how do how procedurally how do we proceed because it would really take some sitting down putting together findings of fact and then the opinions that arise from those yes you can make your decision tonight and then work on findings before the next meeting okay I believe I said them during my little monologue that I would I would submit to be with our uh with John's motion. So I know they're in the minutes.

I I understand Dave. Yeah, that makes good sense. In this situation, we should definitely sit down and put down findings of fact and then our discarded decision was from those. Well, it was mine and not his. Well, I second. All right. We have a motion that's been seconded to uh grant the appeal of the decision and to revoke the decision to revoke the sign permit that was issued. Dyla Brown, no. Randy Jones,

no. Shane Gore. Yes. John Delberger. Yes. Yes. Hi. Your appeal's been granted. Thank you. Can I ask a question? Sure. Should I get a letter out revoking that sign permit before the findings are adopted by the board? I'm not sure. Yeah. Is that okay? I think that's Yeah, that's okay. And then our minutes next month would

would we need to that's when we would actually change the minutes and and list that as fact to find binding or is that a separate separate? That's a separate document. Got Yeah. Was that an email or is that an inperson? Well, the first question would be who is going to draft the initial findings of fact and decision? Yeah, I think I think it would be helpful if each of you who voted uh to in favor of the appeal. Yes. To just send Kayla an email outlining some of the reasons you did that then we can put them all together in the the findings of fact form that we usually use. You really need a justification from us who voted no.

Just want to hear you say it. So, no dissenting opinions in this document we're going to generate. Okay. That's only the Supreme Court gets to do that, right? Or anything else. Okay. any announcements or I don't have you have anything for far as any kind of legal case with her? We we don't have anything uh on the docket at this time. So Joe Nixon

uh all all the Joe Nixon cases are done. The only thing we have to decide plain convention wise is to how to enforce that uh how to enforce that. You mean yeah the subdivision control. Okay. Because the court rules against Nixon on both of his appeals and he did not he did not pursue an appeal himself. So those decisions are done. Is he is he come back into compl is he still subdividing Kayla or not subdividing? He's still shown as multiple separate parcels on the map.

Is there an action by this board that needs to take place to direct GIS to re do that? Uh the the plan commission would need to do an enforcement action for feedback. The NPC or the plan being the plan commission being Kayla? No, the that's pl the planning commission APC. The other the other thing that we're on that other board. Okay. All right. Uh I'll move that we adjourn this meeting. Sorry. Roll call vote to please. Andy Jones. Sure. Jane Yes. John right there. Yes.

J. Brown. Yep. He is a jer now. I got to get out.