Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

You ready?

I'm good. How are you? Today is May 19, 2026. The Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals is called to order at this time. I need a motion and a second for the approval of the minutes from April 21, 2026. I'll make a motion.

I'll second.

All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. Minute's stand is written. If you've not done so, please sign in at the back of the room. And anyone wishing to speak tonight, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Answer with I do. I do. Thank you. Do we have any special requests tonight, continuance, withdrawals, or waivers?

Yes, ma'am. Renee Raffalo, Director of Public Works. We have a request to withdraw from the petitioner for petition 26LSV05, 4700 Post Road. We have a withdrawal per petitioner request for 26 LSB 06-11022, Brave Court. And then we have a request for continuance with notice from the petitioner's attorney for 26 LSB 08-9625, East 52nd Street. That petition has been continued to the June 16th hearing with notice.

The 08 has?

Yes, ma'am.

And that is with notice?

Yes, ma'am.

And the other two, you said?

Are withdrawn.

Both of them are withdrawn?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. I need a motion and a second to continue 26 LSB 08 with notice.

I'll make a motion to continue. I second.

All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed?

Thank you.

Continuous has been granted. We will hear new business tonight, which is 26 LSV07, 8101 Pendleton Pike, Request a variance of development standard from the City of Lawrence Consolidated Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to permit internal walkways, required stacking spaces, design and location of stacking spaces, transitional yard and edge buffing.

Got some stuff. Give me a second. Okay.

Thank you.

I also have a handout, if I can hand out to the board right now, or would you rather wait? Thank you. So my name is Jonathan Woker. I'm a planner with McBride Del Clarion. My address is 5721 Dragon Way, Suite 300, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45227. I'm here representing Valvoline Instant Oil Change on this request. I do understand that I've got a limited time and several variances, so I'm going to read through my notes and try to make sure that I cover all my details. And I did, as you know, provide some graphics for your review, and I'll reference those as I go through. So Valvoline is proposing to build a new two bay oil change facility. This will be located on a 0.49 acres of the existing Esquire Plaza. The site is located on the south side of Pendleton Pike at the signalized interchange with the plaza. And the site is currently underutilized parking that is zoned C4 district. On the easel I have the existing site survey. Uh, babbling is a permitted use in this district. Uh, so we are here to request variances. Uh, we did receive plan review and approvals from the city of Lawrence, but the city of Indianapolis identified a few zoning items that we would need to address. And so we've made a submission based on Indianapolis is review, uh, for, uh, the four variances that are before you today. Um, this is our site plan i know it's small but you also have it in your handout we are proposing to build a 1462 square foot building as i mentioned this will have a two bay oil change lanes the project will have nine parking spaces We have a dumpster enclosure on the east side of the property. We are reducing pavement with this development. We are proposing new landscape areas for the project. On this plan, customers will enter from the east side of the building, and then they will exit on the west side. So it's kind of a counterclockwise flow of traffic for our customers. Primary service is for oil change and minor maintenance. Employees greet the customers at the entrance, and then they guide them out at the exit. So the typical process would be to greet the customers as they enter, make sure they're in the right lane, and then also guide them out as they leave. As I mentioned, we are asking for four variances, so I would like to go through that. We did submit written findings of fact for each of the variance criteria, so I'm going to summarize my point, but I know you have in your packet the written criteria for each of these. So the first variance has to do with the internal sidewalk connection. A connection is needed from the store to the sidewalk in Pendleton Pike. The plans that we submitted do not show a sidewalk connection. However, we've determined that we can make a sidewalk connection after evaluating that more closely. We believe that we can add the sidewalk to our plans without having a detrimental impact on the drainage.

That sidewalk would be generally this location here, and that would then connect to the circulation around the building.

So we believe that we can add that sidewalk and address that in construction plan details. We typically have few pedestrian customers for this type of use, but we do recognize that the city's code requires the sidewalk. So we've sharpened our pencil and come up with that solution. the second variance has to do with the required stacking and the code says that two stacking spaces are required before the service point and then two stacking spaces are required after the service point the plan we submitted doesn't show those stacking places but again we've looked at those requirements and we believe we can meet that we would have two stacking spaces for each lane And so you could have the required stacking that's indicated per the code. Again, I want to point out operationally, the way this typically will work is that an employee would direct the a customer to the lane as they pull in and because our service takes about 15 to 20 minutes they typically would let someone know so typically we might have one or two cars stacked there and so if a person comes we try to let them know hey listen you're number three in line or number two in line and give them that idea and then with um So we typically don't have a stacking issue as you enter. When you exit, we do the same. One car typically exits at a time. Again, it's directed by an employee. So as the service is finished, they make sure that you exit the building in a safe way, and then they would direct you to the exit. We have adequate stacking per the code, but we do believe that it's important for the city to act on this variance so that it's clear to Indianapolis that you've determined that we meet the stacking requirement. So we would ask the city to address that variance in a clear fashion. The third variance has to do, again, with the design of stacking. And the code says that a bypass lane, driveway, or other circulation area is needed. So we are requesting a variance for that. We believe the proposed site design meets the intent of the zoning code, which is to make sure someone's not stuck in a lane without being able to leave. And so because of the operations of our facility and the design, we don't have that condition that exists because we have minimal stacking required. But we also have circulation around the building. So if a customer arrives and is told by the employees that there's two people waiting, they can either go around the building and leave or they can wait. And if someone pulls onto the site and sees that they're stacking,

They have the ability to either circulate around or go back around.

So we believe that providing a dedicated stacking bypass lane would be detrimental because we would have to add more pavement to the site, which would have a negative impact on our stormwater. It would also impact the drainage design on the north side of the building, which is between the store Pendleton Pike and it would also require us to build a line lane that we really don't need we don't believe that we will have internal traffic conflicts or that this design will result in any emergency access issues so we believe we have a practical difficulty meeting the standard based on the size of the property and for the reasons that I've described and then the fourth variance has to do with landscaping So this is our landscape plan, and then I have a color version of that landscape plan, which you also have in your packet. So because there's a property across the street on Pendleton Pike that is zoned D5 residence district, I'm going to turn this around. Here's our site, and there's a D5 zoning district. Again, you have that in your packet. That D5 property is the Wendy's fast food restaurant. and so There's not a residential use across the street But because of the zoning the code says we have to provide a transition buffer yard We believe the d5 zoning was applied to the Wendy's by mistake by the city of Indianapolis and that the property is not used for residential which is not we also point out the Pendleton Pike and is a seven lane wide road and also that there are no other uh areas along pendleton pike that would provide that similar transition buffer yard i will point out as you saw in the landscape plan we are providing landscaping between our building and the right-of-way we'll have a 23-foot wide area we also are providing trees so we'll have eight trees and check my notes make sure i get an 18 shrubs so we are increasing landscaping right now it's a surface parking lot without landscaping and as you can see from the street views there's no residential to be screened by that requirement so we believe that it's appropriate to grant the variance for the landscape buffer along pendleton pike based on these conditions so as i mentioned we submitted written findings of fact with the variant standards we believe that granting the variants will not have a negative impact on the public health safety or general welfare of the community we also believe that it will not have an effect on our adjacent properties in a substantial way in fact we think that this development will have a positive benefit on the surrounding properties by new improvements and also by potentially catalyzing development. So we believe that Compliance with these standards results in practical difficulties due to the small size of the property. This is a permitted use, and this is a significant investment with new jobs and new landscaping and a new quality building. We believe the variances are minimum that are necessary for this approval. and contrary to the staff recommendation for denial we believe that we do meet the standards for each of the variances and that the requests are not significant and we believe that the sidewalk the stacking can be addressed as I pointed out I know I've covered an awful lot in a fast time for four right in your 10 minutes yeah and I'm probably at my 10 minutes but I will try and answer questions I do have other members of my team if you have questions but we request your approval of the variances

Have you got with the city of Lawrence and gone over these requirements and explained to them what you're going to do and everything?

We did have a conference call, or I had a conference call with Renee. And I explained that we believe we can do the sidewalk. And I also explained the stacking that I pointed out. The bypass lane and the transition buffer yard, those we think are variances that we need based on our site design.

OK. Board, any questions?

Yes, the question about the bypass lane requirement. So you were saying that you wanted to, you didn't want to do what the city was requesting because you felt like what you have now is okay? Is that?

Yeah, I think that's a fair summary, if I could recap.

Sure, yes.

To do that, we really would have two choices. We would either have to build on a larger site, or we would build between the store and Pendleton Pike. So it would be putting a lane here that we really don't feel we need, and then that exacerbates the buffer issue. We think that from a practical standpoint, the function of the site works, which is to make sure no one's stuck in a lane that they can't get out of. We typically don't have that situation, and because we're talking one, two-car stack, it's not a scenario. So we have a circulation pattern to address that.

Well, that was my concern because, you know, there's other businesses who have a similar structure. And I know when we're talking about 15 minutes, when I'm coming, right, to get in and out quickly. So the last thing I want to do is get in and can't figure out how to get out. So I know you say there's ways for them to get out. Are there directional areas or something? Because sometimes I've got to, like, figure out, well, how do I get out of here? Because there's somebody in front of me, I can't back up, or I can't. I'm not even sure how to get out. Right.

Part of that's an operational issue, and so a Valvoline standard approach would be to speak with you as a customer, kind of let you know. They first would say, get into lane one or lane two. You don't generally pick which lane. As you come in, they've got a bell line that lets them know a new customer's there, and they put you in the lane that they want you to be in. And then they're supposed to let you know, hey, listen, we've got a customer in front of you. We're probably 20 minutes, 35 minutes, whatever the time is. and in that situation if you've got an appointment or you've got to pick up your kids from school you back up before there's a queue behind you and we help you get out but we typically don't have an escape lane issue like that but i could see a problem with them having to back up and then

Because that's happened to me. It's something you can't control because you can't control who's coming, right? I'll pull in, somebody else comes in. It could happen at a restaurant drive-thru, right? You get up there and the line's long. Everybody's behind you, can't get out. It's like, so, you know, that's like a...

I do think that a restaurant drive-thru is a scenario that has that concern, where you could be the fifth person in line or there's five cars behind you. There's not a scenario where you would have five people queuing behind you here. And we have the employees interacting with you that are able to assist you with that movement.

So where are the employees that are working and where are they parking at there?

So we have employee parking here. We've got eight parking spaces here and one handicap. And because of the nature of our business, then parking is primarily for employees because you drive there for service and you stay in the vehicle. You don't have a lot of customers come and park because of the way it works.

Thank you.

Board, have any other questions?

I'm sorry, I want to get on this or for you're saying that you're going to increase some of the last bit of the one that's going to be in compliance with the city, but you're going to be going to do more. Other than what's there now.

There's no landscaping there now. So we are doing more. And we are planting, as you can see by this plan, we've got eight trees. They're ornamental trees. And then we've got shrubs around them. We've kind of clustered them. So our point is that the intent of the transition buffer is to protect residential. And that only comes into play because it's across the street and it's a Wendy's that's across seven lanes of the highway. So... We think that the landscaping and the area we're providing is appropriate and actually will be a substantial improvement without the need for that transition buffer.

Again, have you talked to the city about whether or not this is acceptable?

Well, I've seen the staff's report.

We're not here to negotiate. We're not here to negotiate. Things need to be taken care of before you come into here. And like one is the, like he said, the stacking spaces, the landscaping, all that. You also mentioned sidewalk.

Correct.

Okay. This all needs to be put together for us so that we know what we're voting on. We're not here to say, okay, yes, it's okay. We need to know that it's okay with the city too.

Well, I understand that. And in my experience, generally, is that applications are made and plans are submitted and we get feedback from the staff and then we continue to evaluate. And then this is our opportunity when we get to the board to say, hey, listen, we think we can build the sidewalk. I hope that that's clear. I can continue to describe that. But if the requirement is for a sidewalk connection, what I'm telling the board is, we can provide that. I also...

But then if you can't, then again... Then I don't get my permit.

Okay. Right? So what I'll have to, my understanding is what I'll have to do is go to Indianapolis when, for my ILP, my improvement location permit, and I'll have to address the conditions that they pointed out that we're here asking for a variance for, right? So...

But we're not the city of Indianapolis. We're the city of Lawrence, and Lawrence has to be the one also to approve all this.

Right. And so if you grant the variance for the transition buffer yard, for example, that's how I will resolve that with the city of Indianapolis. I will say the Board of Zoning Appeals has approved the transition buffer yard variance, and they will check that box. Similarly, I will show them a sidewalk connection, and they will agree. that meets that condition as well. So I do apologize that between the time we filed and the time we are at this board that we've come with solutions, but we haven't changed our plan. You know, the addition of a sidewalk doesn't materially change the plan. And, you know, in talking with the director, our concern was that we were going to be delayed and not be able to present to the board because of what i've just described so there have been no material changes to this plan this is the same plan that you've you've seen in your packet we've just come to an understanding that we think we can address some of the stacking and sidewalk issues that we hope you would agree with okay and i apologize if i've you know made a confusing situation any other questions thank you sir

We will now hear from anyone who is for or against this petition. Please state your name and address, please.

My name is Carrie Libering. I'm an attorney for Sandor Development. We're located at 10689 North Pennsylvania Street in Indianapolis, 46280. My objective today is to help provide additional context surrounding the history of this property and our goals with this development. We've owned this property for over 30 years and we consider ourselves a member of this community and a partner of the city in helping this area to flourish. This shopping center is one of the oldest shopping centers in the city of Indianapolis. When we acquired it in the early 90s, vacancy was high and the prospect of it yielding any financial success for our owners was questionable. However, with over 30 years of time, investment and a dedication to revitalizing this center, Esquire Plaza has become one of our flagship properties and is a mainstay of the Lawrence neighborhood. Despite periods of decline, administrative difficulty and disinvestment, we have remained committed to this area. Because that's what we do. Our company tagline is retail revitalized, and shopping center revitalization is our guiding principle. When Sid Eskenazi founded our company in the 1960s, he did so with the goal of identifying diamonds in the rough for long-term holding and development. He, along with his son and nephew, bought property all over the east side of the city, and we still own those properties today. Our company has continued to invest in the city of Lawrence and to adapt an ever-changing retail landscape in order to meet the needs of Lawrence's constituents. The city's success is our success, and we take our role in that seriously. With each development, it is always our intention to put a given property to its highest and best use, and that is exactly what we are trying to do here with the Valvoline development. We've been marketing this out lot for 30 years. Multiple restaurant tenants have evaluated the site and determined that the depth of the parking field makes the site unworkable. Through years of trying to attract top notch tenants, we have learned that the parameters of the site limit the uses that can be effectively made of this parcel. We believe that the staff's recommendation of denial is partially grounded in a preference for transit-oriented development. I understand and respect the city's vision for a more transit-oriented future in this area. I appreciate the long-term planning goals intended to encourage walkability and utilization of public transportation. However, I believe this development aligns with the practical realities of the neighborhood today. This development should not be viewed as a barrier to public transit, but rather as an economic investment into a parcel that has historically struggled to attract a tenant. Despite years of planning discussions, substantial transit-oriented development has not yet materialized on this site. While those aspirations may eventually become reality, we as a property owner feel we should not be forced to leave land economically stagnant indefinitely while waiting for speculative future development that may be years away. The reality is that this area remains heavily automobile dependent. Many residents rely on personal vehicles to get to work, school, medical appointments, and childcare. Public transit remains important, but it does not eliminate the daily transportation needs of working families who own and depend on vehicles. As a property owner of more than 30 years, we respectfully ask the board to consider the fairness of expecting us to indefinitely hold underperforming property based solely on future planning concepts that have not yet translated into development. Valvoline has evaluated the site and determined that it can work for them, but it will require some flexibility from the city. We ask that you view this proposal not as an affront to the careful urban planning that was previously put in place here, but rather as an opportunity for the city of Lawrence to welcome a stable national chain to the area. We are willing to work collaboratively with the city staff to ensure the project contributes positively to the area and reflects the broader goals of city planners. All we are asking is that we be permitted to make viable and productive use of our land. By permitting the construction of a Valvoline on this site, you will not only allow for the generation of economic activity, but you will also improve safety, eliminate blight, create jobs, and increase the tax base for the city of Lawrence. An occupied, professionally operated business is significantly better for the neighborhood than another vacant or underutilized parcel. This is not an intensive industrial use. It is a modern automotive service facility designed to operate safely, efficiently, and attractively. This project does not prevent future growth or revitalization. Instead, it helps move the area forward now with tangible investment rather than indefinite vacancy and uncertainty. I respectfully ask for your support and approval of this request. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions?

Yes, for the attorney. I guess I just wanted to be, thank you for the 30 years of serving, and we appreciate that. I guess I just want to be clear about the idea that it's just only for public transit oriented, to be oriented. need more that that more than that to me well i'm not the one of the meetings of the meeting today and someone was just complaining about this how don't like looks period not not the fact of uh... the businesses that they're just the way that it looks so i don't know no-no just collect the link back here yet yet so i thought that is more than to me is more than just for transportation the looked appearance of landscaping all of that doesn't matter that that has uh... has a certain feel that people look for and like to see when they're driving through or going to live through there. So I think it's more than just the public transit piece. So just wanted to state that part. Landscape, that's what we asked. That does matter too. The way things look, appearance does matter.

Sure, and I would argue I was at a Valvoline a couple weeks ago. Valvoline builds beautiful buildings, well-maintained buildings. They aren't eyesores like you would expect an oil change facility to be. So I don't disagree with you, and that's part of the reason why we think Valvoline's a great fit for our center, because Quite frankly, it's going to be a nicer building than our center. So if we can start there, then if development continues to flourish, we can start to revamp our own building.

Sure. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else for or against the petition? We'll hear from the city of Lawrence.

Good evening, Renee Raffala, Director of Public Works. I want to start with saying this is not about Valvoline. This is not about Valvoline as a company or any of that. It's about the four deficiencies in their plan that they've presented. This recommendation isn't based on a transit plan for the future. Nowhere in our staff report does it say that we're recommending denial because of a transit plan. So I'm not sure where that came from. The use is permitted. There are standards though that you have to meet in order to build. and part of those are adding a sidewalk that connects the business to the main public transportation. They said that they're willing to do that, so I would recommend that we make a denial on item number one. We're gonna deny the request to eliminate the sidewalk. They've already agreed that they can add that, so let's make them do that. Number two, the required stacking spaces. They're proposing two before and two after, saying that they'll be added to the plan. I'd like to deny that, too, because they're saying they can do so. So we deny the request to eliminate that stacking. The bypass lane. They're saying they're not willing or not able to add a bypass lane. I think a bypass lane is important. You mentioned that when you pull up, if something happens and I need to leave and there's a car behind me, how am I going to get out? They've got to make the car behind me move. That's a safety issue. There's a purpose to the bypass lane. There's a reason it's part of the code. It's to avoid people backing up on the site and possibly causing an accident or a collision there's a reason there's a bypass lane required i recommend that we deny that request for a waiver of the bypass lane the transitional yard buffering i do believe that when they did the overlay and updated the zoning that they missed the parcel. It's where Wendy sits and it's zone D five. I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be C five, but they've not fixed it. The zoning code requires a transitional yard. When we met on Thursday, he didn't propose any update to the landscaping so i'm not sure if the eight trees and the 18 shrubs that they're proposing are going to meet the requirements of the code for transitional yard i don't have that in front of me and i haven't didn't have an opportunity to check it so i would recommend that we deny that request for a waiver of that also so basically i'm asking that the board deny all four requests for variances to eliminate these requirements from their project

Does the board have any questions for Renee? No. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Jonathan Walker, again. Regarding the the transition buffer yard and the landscape plan what I've presented to you tonight is the plan that we submitted in the package, so No other property on this quarter has a transition plan transition landscape offer There's nothing for us to transition landscape buffer to across the street. It's a Wendy's I am presenting to the board that we have a quality landscape plan that is a significant improvement from what's there today. So I just want to make it clear that we haven't changed the landscape plan from what we submitted. Our plan shows eight ornamental trees and 18 shrubs. We have scenarios where customers back out of parking spaces all the time. I think with all due respect, If there's a scenario where someone needs to leave after they've decided they are in line, it's a scenario where we'd have to have one person move their car to have them leave. And that's not a situation that we typically encounter. think when you look at this plan someone would not consider this to be a trap for people back here you know I think we have a good circulation pattern so with all due respect I think it's reasonable to consider the plan that we have for the bypass and I would agree with staff that we can provide the stacking in the land on the sidewalk so I would ask you to approve the bypass lane and the transition buffer yard and consider that. Thank you.

Any questions for the petitioner?

So you want us to okay three and four and not one and two? Correct.

I'm in a tough spot. I don't get to make a zoning determination because we're going to do a sidewalk, so I'm assuming the zoning inspector is going to say that meets your criteria. We've got stacking. We think that meets your code. I won't know that until someone checks that box, but we believe those two are addressed. The other two, we think we've got practical difficulties that we'd ask you to approve.

board we can go ahead and vote on it or i don't want to see vote on it and it could deny because i think we need the business here and i think valine would be a very good place there i think on my how i feel is we need to continue it with notice and him and the city get together and work these four issues out this is not what this board does This needs to be negotiated prior to coming in here and making sure it meets. If we approve you, we stay consistent within the city of Lawrence. And if we do it for you, then we're going to have to do it for others. And that is not something I want to see. So it's up to you. We can vote on it, or we can continue it with notice and come back next month.

We don't anticipate changing our plan.

Okay.

Because what we've presented, I'm confused by what you think I have changed. I don't know what Ms. Renee needs to see that she hasn't seen.

Well, that's why you two need to get together and work that out to make sure the city is for what you want. Like I said, I would love to see Babylon come in here.

We want to be here too.

So in that place where you're wanting to be is absolutely right. It would be an asset there. But I do think we need to have everything addressed. Yes, Renee.

um the original on the landscaping number four transitional plan if you look in my staff report at this drawing that's the one that was submitted with the original petition and this drawing and the packet that they gave you are different I would ask if you do vote that you make a commitment that it needs to meet the standards of the zoning code, because I don't know if the additional trees and bushes are what they submitted to Indy was this, and it was found insufficient. So I'm not sure if this new proposed plan is going to meet those requirements.

Okay.

okay do you are you following me yes i have a question for him yeah i guess i'm just curious is is what home would the continuous do are you on a time what what if you're on a time schedule time frame because i think what we're saying normally the process is this would have already been taken care of before it got to us right that's that's what we're saying so is there a time crunch what would the continuous do or cause problems, issues, or?

So Robin Peck is my client. She's with Valvoline. I'm going to let her. OK. Yeah, Robin Peck with Valvoline.

As far as continuance that is being considered, we came to you hoping that we could get a variance on two of these or all four of those. That's what we thought typically occurs. in a BZA meeting. We did meet with Renee a couple of times. First time we met with her to go over all of these, she was very enthusiastic and agreed with us. But then after review, I guess, with her staff, there was concern. So we feel we've addressed those concerns and we're asking you to consider those as part of approval of a variance for each of these.

Yes, please I'm not a construction person But I can tell you that there is some landlord work that had to be done in connection with this development some infrastructure related items relating to utilities and originally we were told that we couldn't start work until Valvoline started work because you didn't want to have unused infrastructure which made sense and At some point along the way that changed and we have started our work. We've stopped all work because of where we're at with this because if Valvoline doesn't get approved and Valvoline doesn't come here that infrastructure is no longer needed. So I will say just that there is some started but not yet completed infrastructure work that's lingering.

They started their work because our plans were approved by the city. At the same time, they were submitted to the city of Indianapolis for the ILP with our understanding that that was just an administrative approval. We weren't expecting these comments, and now we're addressing these comments so that we can continue for this.

So what I'm hearing is you do not want to vote on a continuance. You want us to vote whether to approve or deny.

We would like a continuance. Okay. We would like to continue.

Great. We really didn't want to vote tonight. We prefer the continuance. So is the board in favor of voting on continuing this with notice to the next?

Yeah, I can make a motion.

And you get with the city to work out the two issues. And I think it's workable.

Thank you.

Okay. At this time, the board is voting on a continue. I'm going to make the motion. Oh, we need a motion and a second. Yeah.

Oh. Do we have a second? No, I was getting ready to make it. I was going to make sure. We want a motion to continue with notice for 26LSV07.

Correct. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. So the board is voting on 26 LSB 0780101 Pendleton Pike, request a variance of development standard from the City of Indianapolis consolidating zoning and subdivision ordinance to permit an internal walkways, require stacking spaces, design and location of stacking spaces and transitional yard and edging buffing. You don't okay all those in favor signify by saying aye aye those opposed It has been granted your continuance At this time with no further business the board is zoning appeals adjourned