Board of Zoning Appeals and City of Madison Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Narr I know that board member Carl Eagland is here somewhere. He is not. Okay. He wasn't. He had a conflict. Okay. Thanks. If you could call the role. Mr. Ferris here. Here. Mr. Eagland is absent. And Miss Burkart here. Uh board members, have you had a chance to look over the minutes of last month's meeting? I wasn't here.

Well, then we will have to wait on approving the minutes till next month when Mr. Eagland is here because he was uh renewals. We only had two renewals. Uh Susan Smith, 2355 North K Road and Herzo Engineering, uh 448 Meadow Lane. And I understand they have paid their renewal fees. So those two conditional uses are renewed and there have been no complaints. Now we had on the agenda, oh excuse me, board members. Uh the agenda is published had after the minutes election of officers, but with your permission, we will postpone that till the end. Hearing no objection, we'll postpone that one. Uh we had one tabled application BZCU-25-23 uh small cell utility poll for various reasons that one has been withdrawn. So the next item on our on our agenda is new applications BZVD-25-16 Delbert. Mr. I just I just want for the record that uh application BZCU23-20 25-23 is actually in the state right of way and so that's the reason we we do not need to consider that.

Thank you. Glad that's in the in the minutes because otherwise we would have had there would have been a requirement for a conditional use but as you pointed out that is a moot question because it's in state rightway. Thank you. Um, new applications, uh, Delbert Reese, 2747 Laneir Drive, requesting a variance from the developmental standards to build a new shed on an existing pad. Is there someone here in the audience to represent? Mr. Reese, are you here? Or a representative? Wells um seeing nobody and realizing we're under a time constraint of a of a meeting following. Uh I move that we table this application until our next regular meeting.

Second. All in favor say I. I oppose. No. And the motion is tabled. However, if before we adjourn this meeting, he shows up, we'll untab it. Uh, the last item of on the agenda is election of new officers. Uh, president and a vice or a chairman and a vice chairman. Do we have nominations? I'd like to nominate Scott Balden as chairman and Carl Eaggan as vice chairman.

Second. I appear to be outnumbered. Um, well, let that be a lesson to Mr. Eagland. He should know. Uh, all in favor of these two applications say I. I.

I. Oppose. No. And they are passed. Is there anything that I have forgotten? Um, I was just gonna mention that we do have our meeting dates posted. Um, so those are all on there. And in terms of deadlines, we are looking at extending those. Right now, it's about two weeks prior to any meeting, which is really when the red light on.

Oh, red means on. Okay, I'll repeat that so it gets on the record. Um, the meeting dates again, it's always the second Monday of the month. Those have been published. um and notices provide been provided for those. Tonight's was the only exception. It was published earlier. Um and then the deadlines for those applications. We are um looking at doing those 30 days out instead of about two weeks out because it's just um very very uh very tight deadline that the applications are due and the next day the legal ad is due to the newspaper. So that time turnaround time is just really too tight to adequately serve the applicant and the public. Um so we're going to look at it about 30 days out and next month we can come back and discuss proposed um rules and procedures uh for BCA. We're doing the same thing for plane commission. The plane commission will also be looking at a revised fee schedule. Um and then we can um start to update some of our applications. So keeping open gov but uh maybe requiring a few different procedure requirements within there. um making sure that we do have uh timelines on some of those things that that come in so we aren't getting certified mailings the day before. Joe,

and I I'll just kind of follow up on that. Um the state, I think it was last year, maybe the year before, kind of changed some of their notice requirements. Um but after talking with um you know folks within the city administration and we feel that it is important to still and continue to publish things in the paper because that's what people are used to seeing. Um but it becomes very difficult when the paper is only on its on the schedule that it is. Um and so that does become very difficult to do so. Um the statute technically allows us to not um uh advertise in the paper if we don't want to um and do it all via online um and things like that. But frankly, we just all feel that that's not what our citizens are used to looking for. And so the best way to try and rectify that and deal with that and give us a little bit more time um is to move the um the dates back. So that's the plan as of right now.

Thank you. Uh, one last chance. We had an application from Delbert Reese, 2747 Laneir Drive. Is Mr. Reese, our representative here? Guess not. Well, having no more business, take a motion to adjourn. I do. I move we adjourn. Second. All in favor say I. I. I oppose. No. We are adjourned. Nine minutes. It's fun.

She says she's now. Now I'm I would be like, I don't need to. I'm staying muted though, right? Because we're getting Make sure that correctly. Congratulations.

Best thing you can do.

What happened?

We're ready. All right, Amy, are you ready? All right. Oopsie. All right. Well, welcome to the plan commission meeting on January 12th, 2026. Amy, you want to start us off by doing roll call?

Um, Mr. Tavanagh here. Mr. Storm, he was going to try to dial in. Okay. Mr. Wilbur here. Mr. Rston here. Mr. Crafton's absent. Mike Armstrong. Carl Eagland. Rick Ferris here. Zack Laughlin here. All right. Uh, everyone should have got the minutes for last month. Uh, any corrections, additions, changes? If not, I'll accept a motion to approve. I move we approve the minutes as submitted. Do we have a second? I'll second that.

All right. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. Same sign. All right. Okay. Uh before we go forward, we'll do the election of officers uh for 2026. Uh do we have any nominations? Yes. I would like to nominate Josh Wilbur for the chairman and Patrick Teanol for the vice chairman. Right. Any other nominations? All right. Hearing none. Uh, we'll take a vote right at this point. You want to do Tony? You want to do a roll call? Sorry. Mr. Kavanagh. Yes. Mr. Wilbur? Yes. Mr. Rston? Yes. Mr. Ferris?

Yes. Mr. Laughlin? Yes. All right. Uh, we have a change in our agenda and I'll let Tony uh speak to that. So Tony, you want to talk about the change? Yeah, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration, uh we'd asked that the UDO public hearing, uh be tabled. Um this afternoon, we received a letter from an attorney challenging the appointments and makeup of the plan commission. Uh so we can review this claim thoroughly. Uh we would ask that the UDO public hearing be tabled and moved to January 26th at 5:30 or at a time you decide. Okay. Uh does the board have any objections to special meeting on the 26th of January?

Can you state that location too? Uh location will be here at city hall. Hearing no objections. Can I get a motion to approve it? I make a motion to approve. We change the meeting to January 26th city hall. Can you include in your motion to table to table the application? To table the application. Not the application but not the application. the hearing the UDO resolution. Sorry. The UDO hearing and map. Yes. Second. All right. All right. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. Same sign. Okay. 5:30. 5:30. Yep.

All right. We have two tabled applications then on the agenda. Uh the first app both are by the same applicant. So, uh Jim, you want to come on up? You can. Uh the first application is SDVA-25-1. Uh Jim Prit on behalf of DNW Realy Holdings LLC application from a variance from subdivision standards to allow for a smaller ride ofway for a future road. Location is 2629 North Michigan Road 4-88 Century Lane and 200 plus State Road 62 zone general business. Uh Amy, do you have any Yeah. comments on this?

Um so I know this is uh like most applications at the moment were taken in by your previous kind of administrator. So I'm I'm trying to be well verssed in these and make sure I can catch up on them. Um so like you said, uh there is one to set your stepback your setbacks currently in your ordinance within general business. That is defined on a case- by case basis. There's not just a set a standard setback. Um, the other is for a uh what I would technically call a waiver instead of variance from your subdivision standards. And um my one kind of question on that, I know again being that this isn't serving a single family lots that um when I review that I would not say there's really a need for a ride ofway that should be a private drive to serve multifamily versus having it as a public right ofway. Um if that is the case then you can build your driveway to your own stand, you know, to your standards and the 40 foot does not matter. who's requesting it to be a right of way and to be 40 ft instead of a standard 50 ft. Um, if you do determine that to be right ofway, I would uh highly recommend that we discuss what uh you'd want to accept into your inventory as a city and making sure it does meet those standards. There's reasons for that to 50 foot width. Um, but do not feel that that probably even really needs to be right of way. I think it can be a private drive serving multi as you're calling it multifamily. Um, typically we would not have that be right of it would just remain a private drive, private entrance um to serve those those units. Um so I think within that and then when you look at the setbacks um and I've got your parcel pulled up here

just so just so we're aware the setbacks are under the second application which is PCGB25-3. I'll talk first one first. So Jim threw up Jefferson Street. Yeah. Hold on just a second Jim. I'll let you comment on that. So, I think just within the subdivision uh request for that waiver, I would say let's consider whether or not and I don't know if there were previous discussions on why this would have been um a right-of-way because if it was serving individual single family lots, I would agree this needs to be a right-of-way. Um but it's serving one lot on the the north or one lot on the east and one lot on the west. Is that correct?

Um or here. So, it would come in here. Can I get the same thing that she's showing up on that one so the board can see what she's How do I turn that one on? Which one's north and which one's this would be north if I go? So that's been that particular part there in the 70s and that's been unflatted and replatted a number of times. That one turned off now. This is how it is currently. It's currently one parcel. It's one long like flag almost lot. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I'm I'm just seeing if they can I do have your application. I can pull

that up as well, but it's thinking about it. Ah, there we go. Oh, hold on. It the other screen. All right. So, yeah, you're looking at here with all of these piano keys basically integrated. That's unplatted. So, that no longer exists. It's all one long one, right? So, again recommendation unless there was something pre it's at odd time of coming in with other people having started this application this started when was this application date um I believe it was like September or previous to that even so so it's been it's been tabled I know right previously

go ahead go ahead Jim all right so originally u there was discussion about this whether Can you turn your mic on please thank you

is it all right All right, Jim Puit, 304 Jefferson Street, Madison, Indiana, here representing DNW Realy Holdings. Uh so, uh to catch up on this, uh it's been some quite some time since we were here originally. We brought in a uh original uh design uh for this 19 properties uh 19 uh residential rentals on one property. It is not a subdivision. Uh this is the first I've heard from anybody with the city that they did not want a street. all the conversations up to this point, we were led to believe that we needed a street. Uh we were led to believe that yes, we could have a a driveway that did not need approval. We could do a city street to meet the city specifications, build it to the city specifications, and turn it over to the city for their m maintenance. That way that the um you know, you'd have just all the city services on the street.

And that is an option to to do that. But I would still probably say just it probably is better served as a private driveway.

Yeah, this is the first conversation. This this first time you and I have ever spoken. We emailed back and forth a couple times a couple times just to make sure. So this is the first conversation we've had. So up until this point, we were led to believe that a city street would be better at this point from a previous uh person in this position here. So what we did is the 50oot rightaway, we spent a considerable amount of money with the u engineering firm to draw this. We drew it one way, uh, redrew it a second time, redrew it a third time, uh, they asked us, uh, in the meeting that we were here in September, uh, if we, uh, would give a little bit more, uh, information or a little more closeup. So, we went back, had the engineers draw that up. I think you have a copy of, uh, U enlarged like this. I don't know if you see this. So, basically what it is, it's uh, 26 ft from gutter to gutter or curb to curb. Uh that leaves um 17 so that's a 50 foot to 40 foot right away. It'll be 17 feet from the set building area. So what we've defined on that is the building areas of a 40x 50 square foot uh 40 by 50 foot which is 2,000 square feet. The structures would be about 13-,400 square feet. So it's not going to be a 2,000 square foot building. Those are just the individual building areas. So, we've drawn up the uh the rightway. You can see at the top and bottom in the heavily hash lines. You can see the 26 ft street from curb to curb and then 17 ft from the uh front of the building area to the curb. And then there's a 4ft sidewalk and uh and it that's what the requirements are a sidewalk a sidewalk. It doesn't say on both sides or anything. So, I think that meets the regulations from what you see.

Yeah. I mean, your regulations currently are a little they're not as defined, right, as maybe what we would propose in the new ordinances, right, Jim? Is all the parking going to be on the street? No, the parking they will have uh a driveway um is what in front of each Yeah. In front of each place, right? Yeah. And so it'll be set back the house will be set back in somewhat area there. So, and you can have the driveway within the rightway area of the of the street,

right? So, um, we came back to the next meeting. Um, I think maybe, uh, there wasn't a quorum or, you know, we've been dragging this on. I was out of town on one time and then, uh, a couple times there's, uh, there's there's been, it's my understanding that the, uh, regulations state that there has to be five yes votes for something to pass, even though there's nine members. So, um, a couple times there's only been five members. We've tabled it. I don't think those are very good odds. uh when there's only five members present and it requires five yes votes. Um so um here again we're in the same situation this evening that there's five members present. If one of you vote no, this is turned down. It's my understanding we can't come back for a year on this. Is that correct?

Okay. So I'm going to ask to table this again until I can come when there's um more members present. uh before table is there any questions about his the current uh application just the way it is that way you can answer some of the questions.

So let me yeah let me just u catch you up a little bit. I don't know if everybody was here the last meeting. I know some of you were but I'm not sure that everybody was here. So basically the city of Madison has indicated that uh they they've given us direction that this is a permitted use within the city of Madison. I don't think there's a question that it is a permitted use or not a permitted use. Uh we're only here for these two things and that would be the uh right away uh from 40t to 50 feet. The second application is for the uh setbacks which setbacks are set on a case- by case basis on a general business. There are no setbacks established. Um so we're asking for uh the setbacks for for 5 foot. But uh you know we're not here to talk about you know the neighbors liability fences you know designs of houses or anything else. This is strictly the variance and the uh the setbacks. So, uh that's uh that's where we're at.

Okay. Just wanted to Is there any questions you have or I can show you this larger plat if you need to see that? Just to to refresh my memory. Um the the houses are they single family houses or single family homes. Single family. Okay. 19 single family homes 13-400 foot. Thank you. Other questions? I mean, I don't know. Is is is there such thing as an advisory? I mean, can you guys advise of what your thought process is? No. No, we're not supposed to do that. No. No. That's something,

right? Well, it it just, you know, when there's there's nine nine members present, and I've heard some previously that there's maybe another member that that can't. So, you know, one of you vote no, it's turned down and I can't come back for a year. I don't I don't like those odds very well. So, we have a request to table the application. Uh we have a motion to uh accept the request to table it. I'll make a motion that we table this application. Do we have a second? I'll second that. All right. Uh I think we do roll call on that. Yeah. Is that being is that being tabled to the next regularly scheduled meeting? When it's table be brought back on um you know whenever

Yeah. I'd like to bring it back to the next regularly February 9th to the February meeting. Okay. February 9th. You want to I I will be out of town. I'm sorry. Uh in the February meeting. Yes. Okay. So will you want to table till March till the March which will be if you need a date. Sorry I can get you a date. I didn't have that one on top of me. uh March 9th at 5:30 PM at city hall. Okay. You want to amend your motion? I'll make a motion to table this until the March 9th meeting at 5:30 in city hall. All right. We have a second again. I'll second that. All right. Roll call. Mr. Ferris. Yes. Mr. Rston? Yes. Mr. Laughlin? Yes. Mr. Wilbur? Yes.

Mr. Te? No. All right. This is this has been on our agenda for four months now and to table it even further on out into March just makes things really questionable for me. I think we need to make a decision on this and by then we'll most likely have a new set of ordinances on the book and things become even more convoluted on this. Um so I just I can't support continuously tableabling this. I guess one option could one option could be you could table it to the this the 26th but that's up to you guys

but you are correct Patrick that the new UDO could be in uh you want to folks know there's there's five members present it's not unanimous anyway so it can't right can't can't be table can't be table that's right right now it's not table yeah right now it's not so it's not tabled so what what are our options ask for would the 26th work? Yes. You want to

I mean it's it's it's it's unfair to to somebody coming to a board where there's nine members and it takes five members to p for it to pass and there's been five or six members present at every meeting. And so it's not of the members present. It's not the majority of the members present. It takes five yes votes for this to pass. Is that correct? Okay. And it sounds like that you and I need to have some conversations based on your your what you brought up tonight. This could be a public drive a private driveway. We could do that and not be here. Is that correct? Yeah. This could be a private driveway for the first application would not be needed. In my mind, that just might be a viable option if

you're concerned about, you know, I mean, getting the vote that this could be a private driveway. I better go forward with a private driveway. I also have some some concerns about this even being a permitted use on general business. If they're single family homes, yes, they're all on one parcel, but dwelling units besides uh apartments and condominiums are not permitted in general business. And it just seems like an exceedingly poor location to sandwich single family homes with very small requested setbacks between industrial properties. Um, I I don't think it's a wise planning decision. Um,

that's a city of Madison decision, right? City of Madison's given us the approval that that is a permitted use. Well, according to the schedule of uses, it's not. I don't know who you talked to within the city, but on the schedule of uses, we have public meeting where that was on record that it was permitted use. And that would have been when Nicole was here to okay,

interpret that use. Um, it was an administrative decision or administrative interpretation of the current ordinance, which again, there's lots of things in the current ordinance that we need to clarify, right, for this exact reason. We shouldn't so we don't have to have those debates and it's just clear. Um, I can read you the definition of current of your multif family dwelling within your current ordinance, but that was administrative decision and always default to the attorney, but there is a process for appealing an administrative decision as well. um through the BZI but um

so at this point we don't have uh it's not tabled so we um you need to take a vote uh or uh if you're willing to table it to the 26th I think that's the only two options we have Patrick I I I think I think we're better off if we just go ahead and and figure this out now Um, from from a um an administrative standpoint though, would a new application be able to be made under the new UDO without the year lapse in there? Does would the new UDO supersede this? How I don't with

So I know like if it's a current application, we've outlined that within the UDO there's always transition, right? So if somebody applies and has a completed application on file prior to the effective date of that new DEO, they follow the old rules. We can't make someone change course midstride. Um but any application received after that date um would be confined to the new ordinances. um they wouldn't have you can voluntarily choose to go with the new or if there's we can't force them to come just like a plat if they already have a primary plat we can't force them to come and conform when they get their secondary or if there's changes made to the proposed then that that doesn't have to wait a year to come back am I correct in understanding

I'd have to see how your current ordinance technically reads usually when we write them we write but there has to be substantial change the purpose of that is just so that neighbors don't have to continually keep coming out to meetings after meetings Um it's always been interpreted that as you know it as long as it's a substantial change that you can come back but it's you know it can't just be you know an inch. Yeah. But on this one it's if it was a private driveway we wouldn't even need the application on the first one I'm referencing. And I guess that's where I was trying to help to kind of navigate a little bit of this. We were quite aware that it could be a private driveway and and so we were going to go ahead and do a city street at a at a at a much greater expense. Uh, right.

It's much safer. It's much better. You have all city utility, all all city services. Um, and that's the reason we're we were talking about this. Uh, we know that we know that a private driveway can be done. We could have started on that already many minutes ago. Yes. And already had that done. So, what we're trying to do is make a better product with a 40ft rideway instead of a 50 foot rideway. Okay. All right. Um, any other questions from the board at this point in time,

right, being considered probably I don't know if he's finished because I think what he requested table. So if that didn't happen then I think he has the opportunity to finish his presentation what he wants to do. the public. Yeah. Right. That's where I was I was kind of headed to Yeah. Yep. Um could he just withdraw it? Is that an option and resubmit it? I I don't know what the purpose would be to withdraw and resubmit. I don't I don't Your preference is to do a road, not a driveway.

That That's why we're here. Yes. Yeah. because I've been I've been I've been beat up pretty hard over this road. Yeah. Okay. So, any anything more, Jim, you want to study here before I No, I just want to be clear here. I just want to be clear on the procedural aspect here. Yep. We asked for a table. It was voted four to one, right? So, that took no action because it takes five members. Is that correct? Right. So, we can't table it, right? Okay. Even if I asked to table it, would you vote no again? I It's been tabled for four or five months at this point. I'm I'm I'm It needs to be taken off the agenda.

Is that your fault? Right. Yeah. I I I mean there there was not a quorum here one night and other nights you've you've asked for it to be tabled as well. So I you know we're right we're here. I think I think the plan commission needs I think the plan commission needs to move on with it with it. There were nine members here present also, you know. So, yeah. Go go go ahead with the public input. All right. Uh, is there anyone for the public that wants to speak about this? Good evening.

State your name and address.

Yeah, no problem. Patrick McGrath, West Sixth Law, uh, 1 West Sixth Street. I'm an attorney here in town. Uh I represent several adjoining land owners including uh uh Daryl Deetur and Harold Hunt. Um they're they're opposed to this uh application for a few different reasons. Um first of all, as as the applicant said, uh this is not a subdivision anymore. So the application uh PC AF259 was approved that that vacated all of the lot lines and consolidated into a single lot which means you don't have a subdivision any longer and under that standard it's in front of the wrong board, right? I mean like you guys handle subdivision control and you handle subdivisions. When they vacated all the lot lines, it's no longer a subdivision which which the applicant just admitted. And as a result, it's not appropriate to be seeking any variance to the subdivision control ordinance because it doesn't apply to this piece of property any longer. In order for it to apply to this property, they would have to seek a new subdivision on the property. And at that point, they could then potentially ask for variance from the subdivision control as part of that subdivision plan. But that's not the plan. The plan is to leave it as a single parcel of land, which is not a subdivision. So for that reason on its face any applications for variance from the subdivision control we would request be denied. They don't they don't apply to this piece of property. The second thing is is that your ordinance provides under section 510 that any application you have to demonstrate that the planned use is expressly permitted. So that when you're making an application the fundamental issue is is what we're going to do with this land actually permitted under the ordinance and as Mr. Teanol was saying it's not. It's it's not actually permitted the way that this is presented, right? So, what's being presented is 20 single family rental houses on a single parcel of land. And we know that that's not permitted under

the zoning ordinance. You can't have 20 single family dwellings on a single parcel. First of all, single family dwellings are not a permitted use in general business. just right off the top. I mean, if you go to the category of uses, if you look at the chart, right off the top, single family dwellings not permitted in a general business. So, the the intent then here is to try to reframe these 20 single family dwellings as a multi-family dwelling, but they're not multif family dwellings. They're clearly single family dwellings. Even the applicant has listed them as 20 single family rental houses. I mean, the applicant knows these are single family dwellings. the the administrative advice that was previously given and frankly I don't believe that it constitutes an administrative decision. Yes, administrative decisions can be made and yes those can be appealed to the board of zoning appeals but that would be at the time of the issuance of a permit. No permit has been pulled in this case that the zoning administrator has not issued a permit for the intended use and so there's nothing to appeal at this time with regard to whether or not it's permitted use but you should consider whether or not it's permitted use and considering these applications. So multif family dwelling right is is defined um in in the ordinance and multif family dwelling includes town houses, apartments, condominiums and patio homes. But in the in the listings for uh the category which the the intended category of use for this case is category 130 which only includes apartments and condominiums. So in general business, category 130 apartments and condominiums is allowed in general business. But that is only a portion of what the definition of multi-dwelling family is. And so the ordinance itself has carved out a particular type of multif family dwelling apartments and condominiums and said that's permitted in general business, but it has not allowed for town houses or patio homes to be

permitted in general business. So again based even just on the definitions that you have in the zoning ordinance this is not a permitted use that that goes further when you look at the difference between the definition between multif family dwellings and single family dwellings. So for example the definition of a multif family dwelling says a dwelling consisting of four or more dwelling units with varying arrangements of entrances and party walls. Party walls and multiple units. This is indicating that it is one building, right? It is a multif family single dwelling. Dwelling is defined as a single fixed structure or building containing one or more dwelling units and it has party walls. Meaning the the definition of a multif family dwelling is intended to be a single building that has multiple dwellings within it. So on its face when you have individual single family rentals that cannot be a multif family dwelling. This is distinct from a single family dwelling which is defined as a single family single dwelling unit only separated from other dwelling units by open space. The definition of single family dwelling specifically says that they're separated from each other by open space which is exactly what is being presented here as the intended use. To view 20 single family rental houses as a multif family dwelling entirely removes the distinction between a single family dwelling and a multif family dwelling. Essentially, you're just ignoring the definition of a single family dwelling and saying, "Yeah, even though they're separate, we can call them a multif family dwelling." It just doesn't meet the definitions under the ordinance. Multif family dwellings on on the on their own are also not a permitted use. Only apartments and condominiums are a permitted use in general business. And so, for that reason, it also should not be approved. The underlying use is not a permitted use. Finally, in order for them to be successful on this application, they

have to not only demonstrate that what is their intent, they also have to demonstrate that they actually meet the requirements of a variance and variance has some additional specific requirements. A variance by your by your ordinance is a modification of the strict terms relevant regulations of the ordinance where modification will not be contrary to public interest and where owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the results of the actions of the applicant a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary and undue hardship. There is no reason for varying from the underlying ordinance here other than what the applicant wants to do. This is a condition that has been created by the applicant. We want to do this and therefore we should get a variance. And yet the ordinance specifically says not the result of the action of the applicant. Furthermore, the article 1 section J spells out that the conditions have to be unique to the property that the particular physical surroundings or a particular hardship to the owner as distinguished from mere inconvenience and financial disadvantage to the property owner is not proof of a hardship. There is no indication that this land cannot be used for other things. There's no indication that they that they that that actually following the standards and applying the standards that are necessary would in any way be an undue hardship other than what the applicant wants to do. And what your ordinance says, financial disadvantage to the property owner is not on its own sufficient to demonstrate the basis of variance. If this were actually going through the appropriate procedure, it would be through a new subdivision request and that would require them to follow all of the subdivision requirements. Right? So that would require them to go through the procedure. Council referred earlier that there's a part of that procedure which is the advisory step where they have to come to the plan commission on an advisory plat. There's public hearings on the advisory plat. There's

approval of a preliminary plat. There's preparation and submission of construction plans review by an engineer. At that point, the entire subdivision would have to meet the subdivision control ordinances, including the placement of streets, sewers, storm, sewers. It would have to be reviewed by the city engineer, reviewed by the plan commission itself. It would have to meet all the requirements of lot sizes, setbacks. If not, not not to mention even within the ordinance itself, you have a section G subsection 9. The intent of the of the road, if it is still a road, would be a deadend road that's more than 800 feet long, which would require an 80 foot diameter culde-sac. All of those would be requirements if it was going through the process of actually applying for a new subdivision, which brings us back to the original point. It's not a subdivision. So, a variance from the subdivision control ordinances does not apply. Even if they did apply, the intended use is not an accepted or permitted use in this area. And this does not meet the requirements of the variance where the only reason that they're requesting the variance is because of the conditions they themselves haven't put on the land that has made it difficult for them to use it for what they want to use it for. Those are the legal issues. Mr. Mr. Demer would like to address how he feels like it's going to affect his property personally, but I just want you to consider those legal issues with regard to whether or not this even is an appropriate application to be before the commission.

Thank you. Hello, I'm Daryl Demer, owner of property of Graham Brazil that joins the south side of the property there. That same in question. Can you state your address though?

It's 180 140 through 180 Clifty Drive. Um, I have I feel like putting residential homes in a general business area is going to devalue the business property around there. And it's the whole point of us being in that area is to try to protect our businesses and their values by having commercial business in that area. And my neighbors feel the same way. And if if that becomes a permitted us is there then speaking with my father we can do the same thing put residential houses behind speedway as well and that's not the right place to put speed residential homes either. So I mean you got to stop it somewhere before it ever starts. So

is that that's it. Thank you Mr. Anybody else? Y we we'll be nice. You would state your name and address.

Yes. My name is Sher Austin and I'm representing 2629 Michigan Road, the England Motel. Um my only concerns and again I wish I was so educated like all of you people about all these different plans because I have no knowledge whatsoever. I know that they just keep talking about the road But my concerns also too is like, okay, have they already concerned themselves about all of the sewage and everything else that goes along with that. Um, there is already a major burden in that area which has had to be dealt with several times as far as the sewage goes and I don't know who's in charge of all that. But I'm assuming that the city would be the ones who have to take care of all of that in regards to if something should occur and all of those additional homes, 20 homes, 20 more bathrooms. I mean, that's a lot of problems in that area. My also knowledge, I'm sure that all of you are familiar with Madison, so you know where Taco Bell is at, and it is already such a burden in that area trying to get in and around. And that intersection is just insane. And I can't imagine 20 more homes back there trying to sneak out and make a turn to get out there. I could see that as being very even if it's like just a driveway. And I would think that wouldn't they have to also have permission from the state to be able to put another driveway out there? Again, I have no knowledge in regards to that. But that's my concerns. I just don't see where the rest of the plans are. just keeps talking about the road and getting that resolved and I'm just concerned about everything else that goes back in there. So, that's what I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Right. I don't see anyone else. Um I think at this point we are you want to respond? Okay.

Jim Pro 304 Jefferson Street. Let me um say a couple things here and this is reading directly from uh Oxford language dictionary. An apartment a set of rooms forming one residence. Okay, set of rooms forming one residence typically in a building containing a number of these. Okay, so there's the definition of an apartment. Okay. Um, next thing is that um, I find it very ironic that um, the neighbor that's opposed to this going forward is operating his business under a variance. He's operating in general business with a variance to operate as light industry and that's a pot calling the KD black. Um then as far as uh going backwards here the road the road is the first this is this is the process that we go through there is other things once things are approved we have city sewer we have a drainage we have to go through so those are the things that uh that we have to go through so uh there are other things the designs of the house haven't been picked out but it's one step at a time and this is the first step thank you Jim All right. Uh, hearing that, uh, we'll accept a a motion on the application. I, uh, should we have a motion, separate motion for each application?

We can. Is that the best? Okay. Yeah. I think we've just been doing So, we'll do SDVA-25-1. Okay. Uh, I would move that we reject the application for a uh variance for a smaller right of way in SDVA25-1. You have a second. I'll second the motion. So, you do a roll call. So, but make sure though this because he did say he's rejecting. So a yes means, can you go over this with the board? Make sure you made a motion.

Motion to reject. So a yes would be an agreeance. Rejecting. So does everybody understand? If you vote yes, that would be agreeing to rejecting. Voting no means disagree with rejecting. Mr. Laughlin, no. Rick Ferris, yes. Mr. Rston, yes. Mr. Welber. Yes. Mr. Teal. Yes. All right. We have a second um application. So that motion really didn't I know.

I understand. So So So I think I think it dies. So the application dies. Yeah. So I I need clear and concise. What what happens now?

Yeah. Um it's it's my understanding I think pursuit of rules that if you don't get you have to have enough rule or enough to approve or to take to to conduct business you have to have a majority of five.

No conduct business to have a majority here just to conduct business. So I think that motion fails. So there would have to be a motion to make a motion to approve if there were not enough votes to approve the application if okay so if a motion to approve go it doesn't I mean in other words it doesn't get all five then it dies but if another motion is not made then what happens

we have to take action Yeah.

You make the motion. I Well, I'll make the motion to approve. I'll second that motion. So, all right, Tony. So, and just again, so with this one, if you say yes, that means you're approving the uh application SDVA-25-1. If you say no, you're not approving it. Just making sure everybody understands. Okay. Okay. Mr. Teanol. No. Mr. Wilbur? No. Mr. Rston? No. Mr. Ferris? No. Mr. Laughlin? Yes.

Joe, could they make another another motion to table if they can come back to consensus with again needing more than five at this point? I don't I don't not at this point they can't make that notion again. Okay. I would think so.

Um all right. So the second application is PCGB-25-3. Uh Jim Prud on behalf of DNW Realy Holdings LLC. Application to establish setbacks for the multi-unit single family development with general business. Setbacks will be 5 foot for the north, south, and east property lines. Setbacks will be 30.18 ft from the west property line. Should the development include a public road, setbacks will be 5 feet from the rightway. Location 2629 Michigan Road and Century Lane Properties zone general business.

Um Amy, anything more on this part? Um yes, I know that you are requesting um 5 foot setback. So three of those property lines um and then a 30 foot setback on the um the east west

west. Um so just looking at again some of those surrounding uses um I think that's something to be taken into account and knowing it's a dwelling not a business. Um I think that's just something these are set case by case basis. Um for perspective I know someone had asked me earlier what is the proposed within the EDO just as basis um proposed UDO is a front yard setback would be 40 ft um sideyards would be 20 for primary structures again just as a as a reference for that. So I think it's just making sure you consider what is around you. Um and maybe if a lesser setback is considered um and offset anything we could talk about again requirements give a lesser lesser setback to have some sort of vertical effects to plings um within that that can be considered that a reasonable request.

Okay. Okay. Jim

Jim Puit 304 Jefferson Street, Madison, Indiana. Um, so with this new change here, I'm getting a lot of information thrown at me that we have haven't discussed here. The setbacks don't have anything to do with the front setbacks whatsoever in this meeting. This is only for the uh this has nothing to do with the street setbacks, front setbacks. It's strictly uh around now. I've had discussion. There's been a lot of conversation. I've asked what the um if the five foot is turned down with only five members here again um can I come back and apply for something different and my understanding is yes. Okay. Is that wait for our legal?

Sorry. Well, I I was for you for just wait.

All right, Joe, he has a question. I think that he wants you. just procedurally uh if we ask for five five foot setbacks and we're turned down I don't know what the the substantial change uh I don't know what the definition of that is. So if we come back if we're if we're denied for five foot setback and we come back for a different setback what's substantial mean? And I don't know that we can put a number on that. Yeah. I mean I guess there's always so there's always some gray area in in all of that. Um, and I mean I think the board could turn down your application if they felt that it wasn't um, substantial enough, but I mean I guess Amy, what would you what's been your experience with

um, again it's an interpretation. I would say six feet is not substantial. Um, but if you come back with at least double or you know two to three times that that would in my mind be substantial for the board to hear again. Um, but 10% or 20% is probably not substantial.

Right there. Again, I'm going to go on record and say that that with five members, it takes five members of a nine member committee to vote in favor and there only being five members, only one person has to vote no. And those there again, I don't like the odds. This is a nine member committee. And if there were nine members present, I think that um the odds are a lot better. So, I'm probably going to go through the same thing here if I asked to table. Um, precedents been set here on the last application. So, we're asking for five foot setbacks on a north, south on the uh little parcel there right behind parcel one.

North, south, and east is what? Yeah. Yeah. So, here east is over here. Parcel number one. Yep. North and then the west is south right here. Any comments from the audience?

Patrick McGrath 11 West 6. I I'm just going to ask that you um consider my comments from the the first application. I don't think there's any reason to reassert those same arguments. Uh there's still a fundamental issue with whether or not this is actually a permitted use. Um again that the all of this is happening within the confines of the you know expectation that essentially a subdivision without subdivision control is getting put in. Um we don't think this is the appropriate method for doing it. We would ask that the the board uh reject this application as well.

Any other comments from the audience? I forgot to ask any comments questions from the board. Yeah. And I I think probably the easier way to do this instead of asking for an a motion to approve or a motion to deny is just the application is before the board for approval or denial and just vote yes or no on the application. Don't you need We don't need a motion. I don't think you have to have a because it's on it's before you. Just making sure. Yeah, it's before you. Okay. All right. So So this would be um or if you want to do it the same way, we would do a roll call and you would just say approve or you know what? Just do it the same way you just did that cuz I feel like we're going to change things up. Okay.

But I think in the future that's really what should happen. Okay. All right. Can we get a motion on this application, please? I would move that we uh reject application PCGB25-3. Do we have a second? I'll second the motion. Mr. Teanol. Yes. Mr. Wilbur. Yes. Mr. Rston. Yes. Mr. Ferris. Yes. Mr. Laughlin. Yes. All right. That was all five. So,

we don't have motion carries. All right. We don't have any other uh we don't have any new applications for this evening. So, with that, I will accept a motion to adjurnn. I make a motion we adjourn. Have a second. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. Thank you guys. United States.