Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

All right, we'll call the meeting to order. Thursday, July 30th, meeting of the Hancock County Board of Zoning Appeals. I'd like to advise everybody this evening that your testimony is being recorded and taken under oath. We request that anyone that wishes to speak will only do so when called upon and face the attorney to be sworn in to my left before speaking. All persons speaking will be asked to give their full name for the record, and please spell your last name so that we have accurate meeting minutes. Please turn off any cell phones, electronic devices, or noisemakers. The order of those speaking will be the petitioner first with seven minutes in which to make their presentation, followed by a collective seven minutes for all the remonstrators to speak. Any government official wishing to speak gets three minutes, and then we give three minutes for the petitioner's rebuttal after that. Our attorney will give each party a two-minute and a one-minute warning as your time is expiring. We ask that everybody conduct themselves in a civil manner and we reserve the right to request those that are disruptive to leave. I was missing something here.

Well.

All right. Our first order of business will be the adoption of previous month's meeting minutes. We've got to do the May 28th minutes and the April 23rd minutes that were submitted both electronically.

Motion to approve the May minutes as presented.

Second.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Mr. Fawcett would abstain. You were absent from that one. Oh, I would, wouldn't I? Yeah. I apologize. That's okay.

I second then.

Okay. That's probably good. Okay. Yeah. All right. So then we've also got the April 23rd meeting minutes. We're also submitted electronically.

Make a motion. We approve the April 23rd, 2026 meeting minutes. Second.

ALL RIGHT, MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APRIL MEETING MINUTES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

I'LL ABSTAIN.

YES, MS. LACY-WILLARD ABSTAINS. ABSENT. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE HAD FOUR ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING. ITEM NUMBER ONE AND ITEM NUMBER FOUR ARE BEING CONTINUED. ITEM NUMBER ONE WAS DUE TO A LACK OF PUBLIC NOTICE AND ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS ALSO DUE TO PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUES. SO I JUST NEED A MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEMS ONE AND FOUR.

MOTION TO CONTINUE UNTIL AUGUST DUE TO IMPROPER PUBLIC NOTICE FOR CASE NUMBER 26-2682. SECOND.

All right, then moved and seconded to continue until August the variance 262682. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, same sign.

The other motion to continue into the August meeting due to improper notice, case number 26-2701. Second.

MOVED AND SECONDED TO CONTINUE TO AUGUST PETITION 262701 DUE TO PUBLIC NOTICE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, THERE SHE IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF US. ITEM NUMBER TWO, VARIANCE 2692, MEGAN CALHOUN. MEGAN AND JOE CALHOUN.

And then I'll just give a quick brief update about the case number one, since that one has been continued a couple of times. We've worked with the petitioner to finally get him with the public notice on the newspaper. That was the one he was having some issues with. He notified us this week, I want to say, that he has completed that public notice for the newspaper, so he will be heard on August.

Okay.

Our first item for the night is Calhoun special exception. The petitioner, Megan and Joe Calhoun, is petitioning a special exception at the subject property proximate at 1600 West 950 North in Vernon Township in the residential 1.0 zoning district. The petitioner is requesting a special exception to allow an animal stable.

I MAY BE JUST KIND OF SCRAMBLING THROUGH HERE, BUT WE HAVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION BALLOT, BUT ARE THERE VARIANCES WITH IT AS WELL?

NO.

OKAY. THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS ON THE AGENDA.

YEAH. SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND TWO VARIANCES.

It's just a special exception. We modified that one and I guess it's just not in updated agenda, but it's just a special exception. Okay.

All right, we're ready.

In your staff report you'll see the petitioner site plan they provided. Our staff have worked with the petitioner to get a site plan that would meet our standards when they move forward to Actually using the site plan so the petitioners proposing two acres out of the 27.5 acres on the two acres they would have a module home on a permanent foundation with a two car garage and and a barn with five stall horse barn. The petitioner has stated that it is strictly for personal use only and has no desire to operate a boarding facility or commercial horse business. The previous site plan that was submitted, which was the one you probably saw in the initial sent out of the agenda, the issue with that one was with our standards, how it's stated. An accessory structure cannot be in front of the primary structure, so they modified it where the house now sits in front and the barn is behind that primary structure. So the petitioner is only proposing to use two acres out of the entire 27.5 acres. So this would need to go through a minor subdivision process. If the special exception is granted, the petitioner will proceed on filing a minor subdivision in order to then be able to apply for building permits for the house and barn. Once the minor subdivision has been filed it will go to tech committee for comments from the related departments that review it and then that final approval at plaque committee before it gets recorded. And once that final plat is recorded, the petitioner will then be able to apply for a building permit and do the animal stable, in this case, a barn with the stables. In their land use matrix, it shows that animal stable in the residential 1.0 district is a special exception. Therefore, they're requesting that tonight. And then in your report, you can see a screenshot of Google Earth of how that site currently sits. It is currently farmland being used for that. And then, yeah, okay. Also in your package, you can see the floor plans that the petitioner provided for the modular home and as well as the floor plans for the barn. So if the special exception is granted, these would be what she would include in her building permit. So since this property is at the line between the county and Fortville's jurisdiction, we did touch base with Fortville and have the petitioner meet with Fortville to see if they had any concerns or problem with the petition. In your package, you should see an email conversation, a letter that Fortville provided that they had no concerns with the petition at all. We didn't have any letters submitted. We did get a few calls just asking what the petition was about. All of them were not having any concerns or were even in favor of it, but we didn't receive anything. No orders were submitted and then yeah, Fort Will had no concerns. So what staff is recommending for tonight for the special exception is approval with the following conditions. These conditions are from the typical conditions for animal stables. So they read as building permit related to the special exception must be attained within 12 months of the approval date and the occupancy permit must be attained within the 12 months of the approval. of the building permit or the special exception automatically expires. The second condition, the minor subdivision related to this special exception shall be completed within 12 months of the approval of the special exception. The third, the PZA reserves the right to revoke the special exception at an adverse or advertised public hearing if the activity is deemed to be a public nuisance. And then the fourth one being the special exception shall not be transferable to any other person or entity. And then one of the other conditions that the board can consider that staff didn't recommend, which we saw on the typical conditions, was putting a cap on the amount of horses. The petitioner has only stated that they will have two, so it's up to the board if they want to put that cap at two or talk to the petitioner to see if there are going to be more horses. Then also if the board chooses, they can also put a minimum acreage to the minor subdivisions since there is a minor subdivision attached to the special exception, the board also can put a minimum of acreage of that too. Are there any questions for staff?

Questions? No, all right. We'll have the petitioner come up, thank you.

Raise your right hand and be sworn in.

Megan Calhoun, C-A-L-H-O-U-N. Hi. Well, I am here tonight to see about putting an animal stable on my parents land. They're wanting to gift me two acres and Um, they currently own, they live on the property next to it, uh, in their older age, they're needing more help. And I'm down there about four to five days a week. I live in Kokomo, Indiana, uh, currently. And, um, we're just trying to make things easier. Me being able to move closer and build, but my horses are family and I won't move without them. So that's why we're doing this first to see if we can even have them on the land.

That's that, huh? Okay. So this is just, you said just personal use, they're your pets, I guess, and how many are there?

I have two, two horses.

Do you anticipate more?

I don't. My daughter rides. She's currently getting ready to go into college this next month, but I have an older horse and a younger horse, and I mean, I don't plan on getting rid of them, so... I MEAN, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD SAY NO, I DON'T PLAN ON GETTING ANY MORE.

OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS? ANYONE?

NO?

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

OKAY.

DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION? NONE? ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION?

SO THIS WON'T BE A TRANSFER OF TITLE. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL RUN

applicant so the special exception would go with not be transferable the owner oh yeah so i guess what you're saying the special exception would be to the current owner

THE FIRST QUESTION IS, MAYBE WE CAN WAVE IT, BUT WE HAVE THE PROPER APPLICATION NOTICE, THE APPLICANT, AND THEN WHO OWNS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS ITEM. RONDO, YOU MIGHT KNOW.

YEAH. COULD THAT BE A CONDITION?

So we have a consent of the property owner. Is the property owner? Is that right? Other.

What's a special exception? So it would be it would be to the owner, correct? The variances run with the land and.

We've had them. Applicant was. Auto manufacturer. Yeah, he didn't.

It consent so I think we as long as there's consent that it's acceptable to you, okay It's just that signed under a notary Our conditions just need to be appropriate Who does it run it runs with the?

regardless of And therefore that

THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON NUMBER FOUR WILL NOT BE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON NUMBER FOUR WILL NOT BE TRANSFERABLE TO AN EITHER PERSON, TRANSFERABLE TO AN EITHER PERSON, ENTITY, OR PARCEL AND WILL BE ENTITY, OR PARCEL AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE CONSTRUCTED IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TO THE DOCUMENTATION PRESENTED. TO THE DOCUMENTATION PRESENTED. NOT MOVING AROUND THE ACRES.

NOT MOVING AROUND THE ACRES. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD BE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD BE ASSIGNED TO THE PETITIONER, ASSIGNED TO THE PETITIONER, RIGHT?

mother passes and the land goes to her then is that I misspoke variances run with the yeah yeah so um and you can have it just run with her if oh yeah I think we've done that before where we just stuck it to the petitioner and it was just theirs forever yeah yeah

So maybe that number four just needs to be reworded to the special exception shall be applied to the petitioner and not be transferable to any other person or entity.

Or parcel and will be constructed in substantial conformance to the location presented.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right. Any more discussion on the conditions? Motion on the conditions.

It would be nice if we can just, what was the history on the variances? And we can just be clear in the motion for that.

That was just typo. I'm assuming Don was just copying and pasting the formatting and then filling it out. And then we had edited it, but I guess it didn't save, so. Got it. Thank you.

You said there was going to be a variance, though, because of the location of the barn?

No, it wasn't. There wasn't going to be a variance for that because the site plan could have changed even at the minor subdivision.

Okay.

So it was just more of like kind of an idea of what the site plan could look like. But there wasn't any conversation about having a variance. Okay.

All right.

Thank you. Okay. I'll make a motion should this get favorable approval. The conditions of staff will attach with the amendment of number four, the special exception, will be assigned to the petitioner and will not be transferable to any other person, entity, or parcel and will be constructed in substantial conformance to the location presented in documentation tonight. But also probably note, I don't know if it needs to be number five, we just administratively note there's no variances considered.

Second.

All right, it's been moved and seconded that should the special exception be approved to be subject to the conditions as stated. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign, carries. You can fill out your ballots, please.

Hey, the special exception case number 26 dash 2692 is granted a vote of 520.

Thank you. Alright, item 3 Doug. Rester 262697. Setback variance.

Last item for the 9 is Russell variance petitioner Doug Russell is petitioning a variance at the subject property 2840 South 700 West in the sugar Creek Township under the 2.5 residential zoning district. The petitioner tonight is requesting a reduction in the required side yard setback of 15 feet to 8 feet in order to build a garage. your package you should see the site plan that the petitioner provided the petitioner is looking to build a garage that is 24 feet wide and 57 feet long and this would be in addition to the current garage The request is to reduce that side yard setback to be able to have the garage, the size that's being proposed, while still being in a functional location away from the septic system and easier access for the driveway. The petitioner also noted where the septic system is located on the property and where they would make the electrical connection. So in our residential 2.5 standards, in our lot standards, it states that the minimum side yard setback shall be 15 feet. With the size that they're proposing of the new garage, they're needing a reduction from the 15 to only have it at 8 feet. We took some screenshots from Street View showing the nature of the area and the nature of the site. In the red rectangle in boxes, you can see where the garage is gonna be located. And this additional space would allow the petitioner to be able to store his cars, his boat, and other storage for his personal use. We did consult with some other departments to kind of get their feedback On it, there were some concerns about storm water runoff into the neighboring property with how close that garage is going to be. There was concerns that the overflow of that water can affect the driveway of the neighbor. And then also that close proximity to the driveway and the privacy fence of the neighbor was also a concern. In your packets, you also should see the covenants for this subdivision. We like to point out Covenants 5, where it states that lots of this neighborhood can only have one single-family residential and then a garage of, I think it's three-car garage that has to be attached. The petitioner is proposing a detached garage So when staff considered all of the concerns from the relative departments that would review it for permit review and then even though the county can't enforce covenants looking into those covenants unfortunately for staff we are recommending denial Because of the concerns of the adjacent properties with that storm runoff of the proposed detached garage in the location of how close it is for the neighboring properties or that neighboring property that creates an adverse impact in the reduction would cause to be too close to the privacy fence in the driveway and without exactly knowing where that property line is when you look at beacon that driver looks to be exactly at that property line. So without knowing exactly where that line is there was concerns from some departments about that and then there was some raise of concern for property values. We did get some calls about concerning of the structure affecting people's property values. And then, as I said, as the county can't enforce covenants, there is that restricted covenants that can be enforced by neighbors of that three-car garage needing to be detached. However, staff did include some conditions if the board chooses to approve this. These are the conditions that we would like if the board goes the other direction of our recommendation. These are some conditions from your typical setback reduction and then some additional ones that... Kayla and I came up with to be able to mitigate some of the concerns that we had as different departments and then as neighbors. So the conditions read as follows. The building permit related to the variance must be obtained within 12 months of the approval date and an occupancy permit must be obtained within 12 months of the approval date. of the building permit or the variance will automatically expire. The side yard setback reduction only applies to the proposed garage addition as presented to the Hancock County Board of Zoning of Appeals The proposed garage shall be reduced to 20 feet in width rather than the 24 feet being proposed. The garage shall not exceed the height of the residence. The barn shall include gutters and downspouts directed away from the adjoining neighbors. The setback reduction of eight feet shall include the overhangs and gutters. A stake survey must be attained and stakes remain in the ground until final inspection is complete. And the final one being that the exterior material or materials of the garage shall compliment those of the primary structure. Are there any questions for staff?

With regard to the 700 estate documents and restrictions we have, is that what you use as a proxy to determine value? Is that impact to value?

The concern about value came from a conversation with a neighbor that came in asking about the petition, and they had concerns about that. Thank you.

The condition to reduce to 20 feet. Was that was there any discussion with the petitioner on that? Or is that just a suggestion to get?

It was a suggestion. Consulting with. Planning and building to mitigate. Potential of storm water running off and then also giving room for the overhangs and gutters Since sometimes that's not really taken into account for that reduction. It allows some wiggle room for that. Okay It was just a hand drawing that the petitioner provided that it also should be in your packets and Yeah, it says barn metal, but when in the residential 2.5 standards, there is standards on it being complementary to the primary structure materials. And then it also was a condition that we proposed. The material would change.

All right. Any more questions? All right. We'll have the petitioner come up, please.

Yes. Please state your names. Doug Ruster, R-U-S-T-E-R.

I don't have a whole lot to say. I was basically trying to build just a garage on the side of my house. I didn't know all the stipulations, attached, detached, three car. There was a lot of stuff that I learned just now. I knew that it couldn't be real wide if they had to encroach it. I understand that. That's why I asked for the intrude on the setback.

Basically, it was for my personal use like she said cars both stuff keep inside during the winter And that's basically all I've got This did you take a look at the conditions could we put those up what's that there's conditions that were proposed Notably that it would be reduced to 20 feet in width is that even? Doable is I don't know what is it?

It's not ideal.

Yeah, yeah

on the setback, get to 24.

And there's another requirement for the stake survey that's really important when we're this close to a property line. Were you anticipating a stake survey and keeping it in place until the inspection is complete?

I mean is that something I could do or do you have to have somebody do that?

Just stake out where the structure would be Yeah, we've started asking for property line stakes just so that when the building inspector comes out They know it can verify that you are within the setback that was approved by the variance.

Yeah Is there anywhere else you would put this if I

Well, you can see by the pictures, I wanted to put it on the side of my house because it eliminated a driveway to go behind the house, and I didn't want to build it on top of the septic system, and the utilities come from the back. You can see where the utility comes across the middle of the backyard, and I didn't want to build it on top of that. If I build it where I am now, the utility basically comes down between the garage and the house and ties into the meter right there, and then I wouldn't have to intrude on the septic system.

Okay. I ask because the documents for the 700 estates have three pretty stringent requirements. It can't be under 15 feet on a side yard line. You have to have exactly equivalent materials on any cladding, and it has to be that attached three-car garage. Not that we enforce that, but it might be good to have that in.

I had no idea.

Oh, okay. I do think for us that is an indication. One of the things we have to decide on is value. Not that we have to enforce these, but it tells us what the neighboring expectations are in terms of design and impact value. It's just a signal for us.

All right. Any additional questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anybody who wants to speak in opposition to this petition, to this variance? None? Alright, any discussion? Discussion on conditions.

Anybody. That's what I'm. We call him.

Did you have any letters of Jimmy phone calls, letters and over us?

We did have one phone call just asking what the petition was and then one person coming in to kind of see the layout of what was being proposed.

Okay.

But no official letter was submitted.

Okay. All right.

There has been some sort of confirmation that the neighbor directly next door who's being impacted Summer. So are they out or notice? I just.

Yeah, it would be. It's in the map that when we put the addresses, it was one of the marked ones. And then there would have been a sign also on the property.

I think this guy has a question. Could you come back up, please? I think Scott's got a question. Get you in a microphone there.

So as close as you are, that eight-foot line that you're talking about to the property line, the people next door to that, have you had a conversation with them? Are they okay with this?

Yeah, I cut their grass. I take care of them constantly.

No problems there? You got a good relationship with them? Great relationship on both sides. Okay. That's all I got. I'm just making sure. Yeah.

All right. Good. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Any additional discussion? Any motions on conditions or discussion on the conditions? It sounds like condition number three he didn't like.

We haven't historically been in RECEIPT OF SUCH DETAILED DOCUMENTS WHILE WE'RE LOOKING AT, BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE IN THE 700 STATES IS MATERIALS EQUIVALENT TO THOSE, AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS EXTERIOR MATERIALS SHALL COMPLEMENT THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO PICK THAT UP, BUT I THINK IF WE CONSIDER THIS, WHY IT'S PRESENTED TO US IS BECAUSE IT'S A VALUE IMPACT.

Yeah, we can bring you back up. Sorry. Yeah, good exercise this evening. Yeah. So I think the question was regarding the materials.

I mean, the materials, like I had planned on doing it pole barn style to match the colors of the house. I mean, I really wasn't planning on bricking the front like the house is now. I hadn't planned on that, no.

Okay.

Just it's obviously cheaper to build a pole barn style building than it is to get masonry involved and brick and so on and so forth.

Yeah. Okay. Well, all right. Sounds good. Thank you.

Well, one thing, just to play devil's advocate here, if you will, you know, especially with now the explosion of barn dominiums and structures of that nature that it's becoming quite commonplace. And a lot of these are actually looking pretty darn good. equivalent might be a little, A, it's outside of our norm and B, it might be a little extreme. I think complimentary wouldn't be bad. There's a lot of materials out there nowadays that looked at it, which include metal. So that's kind of where I'm leaning on that.

Yeah, I think you're right. We don't normally look at The covenants, just because we don't enforce them, but it is an interesting, we could approve this, but then they would be in conflict with the setback required by the covenant as well.

Well, on the same token, when it comes to the covenants, was there a contract signed at the beginning at the purchase of the house like normal HOAs? And then without that, is it even enforceable at that point in time?

Yeah, I'm just... Could you just tell, if we pass a standard below what we're seeing here, what are the consequences for the applicant? We don't want to be misleading, certainly, because it could be title issues down the road, there could be valuation. So if you could just outline those concerns.

He could be sued by his HOA.

But if there isn't one, or there wasn't a document signed at the purchase of the house, would that even be enforceable then?

So what you're saying is there's a covenant that requires the setbacks. I mean, yeah, an aggrieved person could bring a suit.

Yeah. So it would just be an individual and not a quote-unquote HOA?

You could allow him to do it, but he takes the risk of further lawsuits.

Which in reality is...

I think we had one about chickens a while back that...

I was going to say in reality is always a potential risk anyway, regardless.

not if they're staying in compliance with the covenant and because that's on their that runs with the land and that's on their title they have access to that or knowledge of it yeah it says it's a dedication and plot restriction so it would have been attached to the the title so i don't think there's any risk for the county it's just that he needs to be aware that

HE'S GOT THIS ATTACHED.

I'M SORRY.

IT WOULD BE RISKED TO HIM.

JUST RISKED TO HIM. NO RISK TO THE COUNTY.

AND IT'S NOT JUST ONE, IT'S THREE ITEMS. IT'S 15-FOOT SETBACK THAT'S CLEARLY STATED, THREE-CARD GARAGE AND THE MATERIALS EQUIVALENT. GOOD INFORMATION TO HAVE. YEAH.

WELL, IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE IT DOES AFFECT ONE OF THE FINDINGS, OBVIOUSLY.

IT DOES. IT DOES.

All right, any additional questions? Any motion on conditions?

I do have one question for you. So I know Michael asked it, but just to be clear, was the 20-foot discussed with the property owner prior to putting it in the conditions?

No, it was not. It was one that Kayla and I with the building department were talking about with... the overhangs and gutters and then trying to mitigate that stormwater runoff when the surveyor talked to us about that being a potential concern when this would, if it had gone through permit review.

So for me then, with that knowledge, I would like to not have that condition in there if it was discussed with the property owner prior to the meeting. It's not fair to the property owner to make changes in the interim.

Plus he consents right now to it.

Yeah, but then we're surprising him with it. It's no different than in other instances and meetings, hey, we want X amount of feet and right-of-way. and your approvals hanging in the ballots without prior discussion of it. It's not, I don't think it's in good faith with the petitioners.

It's not ideal, but you make changes here as a board all the time.

Yeah.

What people, what their expectation is.

Should you do a continuous service so they can consider it?

Either that or we just remove that condition.

So you said the surveyor recommended that because he felt like there was... No, it wasn't.

It was based on what the surveyor had said to us when planning and building was discussing. Because when we have a staff report, we kind of float through the departments that would see it at primary review to see what their concerns were, if this would even get approved. So in conversation with planning and building, we were like, well, let's... What can we do to kind of mitigate that stormwater runoff? And then also were the eaves or overhangs and the gutters considered? Because I don't think there was gutter being proposed in the barn. So that's kind of the thinking behind that.

Yeah.

Right. Making it. LESS WIDE, DOES IT CHANGE THE PITCH OF THE ROOF?

MAKE IT SHORTER PROBABLY, YEAH. YEAH. YEAH, EVERYTHING GETS SMALLER. ANOTHER CONDITION THAT WE SOMETIMES SEE ON HERE IS TO JUST, OH, NEVER MIND, IT'S ON HERE. ALL RIGHT. ANY MOTION ON THESE CONDITIONS?

I make a motion we accept the approval with conditions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and completely strike three from the process. I second that.

Okay has been moved and seconded that an approval would be subject to condition staff conditions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

No.

We had four approved and one no, okay.

Okay, in case number 26-2697, the variance is granted a vote of 4 to 1 with Willard dissenting.

All right. Yep, so you're all set. But I would encourage you to check out those covenants, though, just so you don't put yourself in a pickle. Yep, come on up. We can answer it real quick.

WE HAVE OTHER BUSINESS.

WE HAVE A DEPARTMENT UPDATE AND ZONING VIOLATIONS.

Just a quick update about the department. I am leaving the county. I am resigning from my position. My last day with the county is August 18th. And since I work with this board heavily, I just wanted to notify you guys. But that is the quick little update.

Thank you. I hope it's a good move and congratulations on a good move. And we hate to lose you.

So the highlight of the report basically is that change in the notice of violation language has yielded some positive results. People are resolving the violations without citations. There are three such cases that have yielded that positive result.

So you don't need any direction from us on any of your current outstanding violations? Potentially one.

Okay. So the mega farms, the citation was, the notice of violation using the previous language was already sent, and then a second citation was issued, and they paid for the first one. So the penalty basically kind of states the previous language. It doesn't state that the fine accrues daily, which is the current practice.

The mega farms is the one we turned down, right?

This is for something else. They have a portable toilet. They left a portable toilet on the site. And it's been there.

Okay.

Even though their permit is expired.

Flat per citation, not per day.

So the problem is, or the potential problem is, The old language in the citations required fines per violation. The new language has fines per violation that accrue daily. Right.

I would. So this wasn't the one that was supposed to be a truck parking lot?

No.

Same, it's. Yeah. Yes. Okay. That's a different site?

It's the same site.

It's the same site. Different issue. Yes. Different issue.

Okay. I think that the question then about the site, about the fines, I think we would just go with what was in play when the site, when the violation was noted, right? I mean, so we would stick with that. And we could have Rhonda write him a letter. But like she said, we're in litigation with him now, so open communication.

What about if they get cited a third time? Do I still use the new language or the old? Do I use the new language or the old language?

I would say we use the old one, the one that was in play when the case started. I don't know. What do you think?

I would agree. I would agree with that. If we're talking about a time of when it started versus what we do with it, I would stick with when we started.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. But on a situation like this, help remind me, how many levels of citation is there in the old system?

So the old system is still the same levels. The only thing that has changed is we're enforcing the daily accrual. So the $100 fine, $150, $200, $300, and so on and so forth is still the same. The only thing that changed was the daily accrual.

Because my only other concern then with that situation is we've already got pending litigation. WITH THEM, AND I DON'T, A LOT OF TIMES WHEN YOU HAVE A SCENARIO LIKE THIS, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING ANYWAY.

I WAS SURPRISED THEY PAID THE FINE. WE HAD TO ASK KAYLA FOR NEXT STEPS. I DIDN'T EXPECT THEM TO PAY THE FINE. I ACTUALLY SPOKE, HE CAME IN, WE SPOKE, AND Like a month after they paid the $100 fine.

Yeah, but on the same token, we can't keep... Even if he pays it every month, at a certain point in time, we're going to have to say no. I don't believe... Paying the fine is not free. It's not rental fee. It's a fine. The situation needs to stop.

Yes, yes, yes.

So...

I think as long as we consult with counsel on that. And it's either grandfathered in the prior notice provisions or not. And it's good evidence that our new provisions are working. But I think, Rhonda, you'd have the best input.

All right. Yep. That's usually helpful.

Anything else?

Appreciate the report. It's very detailed.

I do have a question. Old business? What's happening with the guy on 40 with the U-Haul? He doesn't look like he's moving to me. I think he's past his window, hasn't he? I think it was 60 days, wasn't it?

I'll tag in in this one because it's been some conversation. He, I know, has hired Mike Gibson to represent him at Greenfield. He has now located a property within Greenfield city limits and he's planning to move to the location if he gets the right approvals. However, the timing of it is not going to land in his favor. So Mike Gibson did come into our office to kind of ask what what can we do and that's where we kind of just read the minutes to him and told him what was approved and there's not much to do since he is running out of time essentially.

Did you find out when he goes before Greenfield?

I think it's September.

So he is going to be on the agenda in September?

Yes. I think it's September is what he had told me because they had to get some things worked out and they were going to file it in August to do the September hearing is what I believe he had said. But yeah, he was working on getting filed with Greenfield.

So was there action that we needed to take when, I'm trying to remember what we said we were gonna do there.

Based on the approval and reading in the minutes, there wasn't any further action besides Dennis having to do the inspections, I think at the 60 day mark and then nine. 38. Yep. Yep. And which Dennis has been doing. And then if he wasn't out of that site within the last inspection, full enforcement would be applied.

But he's being proactive and coming. Like he's not.

Mm hmm.

Stay on top of them and just make sure we're communicating for a period of time.

Maybe see if you could do some cleanup over there. It's not like it's getting worse. I agree. Or it was bigger. Yeah, I thought too.

Yes, and they did work with health department on that. So are we wanting to pause on the fines or what are, I guess what guidance does Dennis need for that?

I don't think we need to pause the fines.

Okay, and that's what I had told Mike that I don't, where there's not much left to do.

Yeah, and hopefully he gets himself sorted out and the fines can stop, but yeah.

Business as usual, staff handles and escalates to us if need be. Okay.

yeah right that's true so there was an email when i came in is there anything we need to discuss on the um mega farm litigation it looked like michael sent a a brief and then a um reply brief maybe or something i just saw that i didn't read it i saw that you've not seen it okay no discussion Alright. You guys been listening quietly. If you have any questions.

I'm not sure we're in the right place.

Oh well, get with Maria. She can help you then so. Alright. Alright, I think that's all we got guys.

Do adjourn.

Second moved and second to adjourn. All those in favor signify by saying aye. I'm signed.