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

Here. Here.

Here. Here.

And we want to welcome Mr. Brian Emick to our board. He's a new appointee. So welcome. You are much needed and much appreciated. Minutes. Board members, did you have a chance to go over the minutes of last month's meeting? Yes. Are there any additions or corrections?

Second.

Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The minutes are accepted. One item I want to do first, BZVU-26-4, Jared Kempton and Kelly S. Kempton were supposed to be number five on the agenda, a use variance for a campground and campsite. at 2422 North K Road. For various reasons, they have requested that this application be tabled till our regular August meeting. So therefore, I move that we table this application to our regular August meeting. Second. And all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. It's tabled. In addition pertaining to that one, I received a message via our secretary from Lana Sprague, who lives at 2639 North K Road, entering her opinion. And I move that we accept this message into the regular, what's the word I'm looking for, into the record. Thank you. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. That's accepted. And it will come up in our August meeting, what the lady has submitted. Yes. Well, after the meeting. Moving on. First item on our agenda. Chad and Allison Fife, 111 East Main Street, requesting a, well, it used to be a conditional use. It's now a special exception. 111 East Main Street, I want to put in a short-term rental, a shop, and a craft studio. Is there somebody in the audience to, yes, sir, come on up.

Yes.

Come on up and give your name and address for the record and inform the board and the public what you're proposing to do.

Chad Fife. Purchased 111 East Main in October, and we're about 80% done with a full renovation, restoration. First floor is a bookstore. Second floor is a short-term rental. Third floor is a crafting studio makerspace. So I think I'm here just for the short-term rental part. Exactly.

In your application, well, I'm hunting up what I need here, board members. If any of you have a question or comment, feel free.

How many are you going to have in the short-term rental?

I did print out some house rules. Someone called me today. I'm not sure who, but... Yeah, if it would be helpful. But I'd say 1,600 square foot, three-bedroom, two-bath, pretty big home. We have a rental on 3rd Street that's a smaller row house, just four people, two people. But because of the three bedrooms, up to six adults and two kids, probably max.

You do have a copy of your rules? Yeah. Would you mind sharing them with the board? Yeah, I printed some.

Is there any parking behind the building?

Well, there is parking, but it's kind of just open to festivals and the telecom place right there. There's not a lot of parking there. There is a little bit. There's usually, because we've been doing renovation for six months, and I've been coming there every day, well, three or four times a week, there's always a couple spots.

Personally, I can't imagine a better place for this. And I've often said here my own personal opinion is how it impacts the neighbors. And you have said that you've committed to quiet hours, 10 PM to 8 AM. As far as parking, well, I guess you have to battle it out with everybody else on Main Street. Are there any other questions or comments, board members?

There's no elevator in this building, correct?

No elevator, but the big project was making a front staircase and lobby, which has been complete. Fire doors are being purchased and installed next to kind of maintain the separation. Once you enter the lobby, you can then go to the bookstore if it's open or just head straight up with your keypad code to the second or third floor. That was a huge undertaking. And that really made it possible for the vision.

You're talking about like six months, eight months, you're talking weekend, you hope?

Yeah, yeah. Just usually I'm on about my 150th guest for three years on Third Street. Usually it's two nights to three nights, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. And then we'll have once a month author nights, crafting nights, probably alternate. So maybe a Wednesday and a Friday sort of night that where the guest of the Airbnb wouldn't be there. Then we'd have some food and things in the Airbnb kitchen that kind of flow up to the crafting space on the third floor for those events.

Staff have anything to add?

No, we did put in findings of fact in the staff report in your packets. So there are three findings of fact on the first page of it and then the following three on the second page. So there are six findings of fact. Staffs did find that all of this had been satisfied in our opinion. So if you do use those facts as your motion, that's fine. But Scott, if you want me to read through them, we can, or it's up to you.

Any other questions or comments, board members?

No, actually, I think it's a nice use of this space. I think we've always talked about using the second and third stories on Main Street for that purpose.

I don't think anyone has ever used, for any commercial venture, the second or third floors in its history since 1845. No electricity, no duct work, nothing, which was a plus and a minus. Right.

I have seen a very similar use to this in Shipchewana, of all places. It was a quilt store, and the top floor was dedicated to quilt guild meetings where a bunch of ladies bring their sewing machines and sew. Oh, really? Well, I can't say gossip, but I just did.

Okay. As long as they can make it up the stairs.

That's probably where...

Thank you, sir. I think you presented your case. Would anybody in the audience like to speak for or against this proposed use? If not, we'll go through the findings of fact. Board members, you know it's our... You can have a seat, sir. Thank you. It's been our... custom to go down each one and ask of each. I think I'll just keep doing that. Fact number one, it's not detrimental to the public health safety morals or general welfare. Does anybody have any objections to that one? No. Number two, it's not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. Are there any objections there? No. Number three, It won't impede or alter the normal and orderly development of surrounding properties for approved uses. Are there any objections to that? Any disagreements? No. Number four, there's adequate utilities and so forth. Are there any objections? No. It's downtown. It's not even an issue. Number five, that's providing or to minimize traffic congestion. Are there any issues there? No. And number six, this is a district where such use is permitted. Are there anybody, any of you think that that's not permitted in this district? This will be fine. Having gone through our findings of fact, we need to clarify something I would like to ask our attorney. In the past, we have, this used to be called a conditional use. And we typically would, for things that seemed possibly disruptive, we would have a one-year renewal period. But I understand that's all been done away with now. And just for the sake of public knowledge, what we vote on tonight will go with the title deed to the property. Yes, that is my understanding. So that means that even if they sell the property tomorrow, this special exception will go with it.

I believe that is the case. But I do believe that it can be challenged or it can be put as a condition as well.

And if it's placed as a condition, then the board can't be sued for doing that or violating some law or another. Not to my knowledge.

And we did talk about that last meeting, too, a bit. Because there might be some places where that's more relevant to do and some that maybe it's not as relevant to do, depending on where it is and what the district and other permitted uses are.

That's such a change from what we've been doing here for years and years and years. It needs to be repeated until it sinks into my head, at least.

No, they didn't. making a lot of changes as it pertains to housing and short-term rentals and all that across the state.

Well, then board members, the only issue in my view, there may be in yours, is should we make a condition of a one-year? Wait a minute before I make that as a motion. Suppose I have another question for staff. Suppose we do put a condition of a one year period, what would that practically mean for the applicant?

I don't believe that you can put a condition on there for one year. I think you can place conditions of ownership, if you wanted to, to say that you did want it to go away if they changed ownership. but I don't believe that you can put a condition like it for a year.

Thank you.

Just along those lines, if there are complaints in the future, if there are complaints in the future, can we then go back to this application? Absolutely.

So we would go through a violation process?

If we didn't stick with the rules and regulations, there is a mechanism to... Absolutely.

And they come with pretty hefty fines if you don't comply with our state statute or our UDO state statute allows $2,500 fine per day per occurrence.

Okay.

And so... That's a pretty hefty fine. So we would now, instead of just addressing it once a year, we address it as it occurs. As needed. In real time with, obviously, there's 30 days here and 30 days there to do notices for them. But we would go ahead and address that and get it taken care of. And then, again, if they're not complying with the rules, that's a different story.

That's new.

Thank you. Like I said, this is all so new. thoroughly understand it. Well, we've gone through our procedure. I will state for the record that I think this is a pretty good use for downtown property.

Especially all three floors. You have to imagine that's probably a first also.

Do we need to enter the house rules into the records?

We can, or if you want to use those as part of condition with your motion, based on the findings of that, that's a condition or written commitment. That's a condition here, and then we'll include that in the approval.

Okay.

Okay, would any of you board members like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion. We approve the BZCU-26-26-6. and also approve using, make sure that they stick with the rules that is with this application.

I second that. One small point on our legal notice that was BZCU-26-5, but the packet says-6, which is correct.

I said six. It's actually five. Five is correct.

That was my mistake. Six is the next one. It's another four.

Next five. Okay, we've got that. Can we have a roll call, please?

Of course. All right. Rick Ferris? Yes. Scott Baldwin? Yes. Carl England? Yes. Nancy Berkert? Yes. Brian?

Yes.

Very good. Moving on to the second item on the agenda. BZCU-26-6, Addie Davis. Special exception approval to operate a short-term rental, 311 East Street. And if you folks could give your name and address for the record, please. Tell the board what you're going to do.

My name is Addie Davis, and this is my fiancée, Kayla Parson, and we own 311 East Street.

Just to use a short-term rental like an Airbnb. Is that what you have in mind? Yes. It'll be probably Airbnb and BRBO listed on both. And I notice you submitted house rules. Yes. Thank you. Quiet hours, 10 p.m. to 8 a.m., street parking only. Yes, we have a private parking. Any questions or comments, board members?

No. And you guys will be around if there's any problems.

Yes, we have the property manager that will be managing their DB list now.

And you, doubtlessly, staff's shown you the UDO's requirements, occupancy, not exceed two people per bedroom, shall comply with all local nuisance and noise, and you provided a very nice set of rules. I assume that then you're talking about two people per bedroom? Yes. And the max occupancy of the whole house is four. Any questions or comments, board members?

No.

Pretty straightforward. Would anyone in the audience like to speak for or against this application? Our dwindling crowd. Please, folks can have a seat. Once again, I'm sorry to bother you, staff. They have supplied a set of rules.

So we... Yeah, you can, and whoever makes the motion, if you want to make a motion to approve it based on the findings of that presented by staff and with the condition that the house rules are followed.

Okay.

Thank you. Once again, this is all pretty much new, so we want to make sure everybody understands. I move we approve this conditional use per findings of fact and also with reference to the set of rules provided by the applicants.

Do you want to do public comment? I did.

That was your motion.

That's my motion. I'll second your motion. Since we've already gone through the criterion, I will simply ask, are there any? It's a little late, but I made a motion. So all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Do you have your conditional use?

And just like the other one, it will be, even if a settlement will be, what's that? It's something new, yes. We're all getting used to new things. Nice to know, man.

Moving on, third item on the agenda, BZVD-26-4, Joey Vanderpaul and Jenna Vanderpaul. Requesting a variance from developmental standards for an accessory structure, 344 Crestwood Drive.

And if you, sir, you could give your name and address for the record. Yes, my name is Joey Vanderpool. I live at 344 Crestwood Drive. I'm building a two-car garage behind the house. I'm just asking for a variance from the 8 foot to 12 foot.

I drove all around your neighborhood today. And I did see the one building that's, I've got to say that's a beautiful neighborhood. The houses are all pretty much alike. Low slopes on the roof. Some of them are made of stone. It's just a beautiful neighborhood. Very well kept. And I did notice on, I believe it was Bel Air Court, There was one building which stuck way above the associated house, which, well, I don't know. In your application, well, you provided a picture of the one on Bell Airport. In your application, I'll find it here in a minute. There we go. I need fact number one. You seem to refer to a fact you needed this thing for a large vehicle.

That would accommodate a full-size truck or larger. You mean like one of these large pickup trucks? Yeah.

Yes, sir. So you have a permanent driveway to this building, correct?

One's going to be put in.

OK. Yeah. And how far back is it going to be from the property on the right side? On the right side. Yeah.

It's going to be going right past on that right side of the house.

And the doors are going to be which part of the building?

The right-hand side.

Is it going to be kind of tough to swing in there?

Yeah, that's going to be a paved blacktop driveway that's going to be right in front of the two-car garage.

How much clearance do you have between the front of your building and your neighbor's property there?

On that right-hand side? Yes. That is... Five feet. Oh, from the building? Yes. So there's a structure there now, my tool shed, that's going to be deconstructed, and it's literally on the line. So it's about two feet away. So it's actually going to be further away than the structure that's already there.

And here you say a building plan of a two-car garage with 12-foot high side walls. And you're here because accessory structures could be 20 feet tall, but they can't exceed the height of, namely, your house.

Yeah, the eave on the house, which is 18.

Any other questions or comments, board members?

And this is just for storage? I mean, personal work?

Yeah, yeah, all residential. Yeah, just two cars, just storage. Yeah, just residential.

No upstairs bar or anything like that going on? Had to know.

One of the criterion, use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. That's what each board member has to decide. That seems to be the issue here. It's just...

Well, the way things sit in your neighborhood, from the street, I mean, your house is elevated. I don't think you're even going to see the top of your garage if you drive by there, in my opinion.

Yeah, and the two houses behind are also two-story houses, so it's not like they're going to be able to see that from the view from their house, because they're two-story houses on the back side of our house.

I do have some reservations, but... without competent witness like an appraiser or a realtor, your feelings can't matter. Any other questions or comments, board members? No. OK. You can have a seat, sir. Thank you. Would anyone in the audience like to speak for or against this application? Well, seeing none. findings of fact. And as you know, board members, you can, I guess I'm saying this for Mr. Hammack, since this is his first meeting, if you think that these findings of fact are not satisfied, you really should vote no on the motion to approve. But of course, you can vote however you wish. Board members.

Brian, you can also add to those findings of fact, change the findings of fact. They're just proposed by staff as a basis, and you can always change those. But if one of them is not met, you should vote no.

OK, thank you. And this is a variance. And this is one of the first variances under our brand new UDO. So I think I'm going to go through the three findings of fact. And I'm going to ask each of you board members to state why or why not you think that it's satisfied. Number one, approval is not injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Mr. Ferris. No, I don't believe it is. Mrs. Burkhart.

No, I don't see a problem with that.

Mr. Eaglin.

No, I don't see any problem. Like I said, there's several of these in the neighborhood.

Mr. Amick.

Yeah, no problem.

And injurious to the public health, safety, and morals? No. I see no issue with that one. Finding effect two. Big one. Use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.

Mr. Ferris. I don't think it will be. There are other structures in that neighborhood that I think... fit into this same category, and I just, I don't see this negatively affecting adjacent properties.

Mrs. Burkhardt.

I agree with Mr. Farris' comments, and also the proposed structure is further away from the property line than the current non-conforming structure.

Mr. Eaglin.

Yes, I agree. I only have one question. I guess all the neighbors were contacted. No, they're okay with it? I'm okay with it.

Mr. Ramek.

I agree with Carl. I have some qualms, but obviously the neighbors aren't concerned. I've seen them elsewhere around town, so I'm okay. Okay.

And use and value. Well, we've heard no testimony saying that property values will be adversely affected. There are no neighbors here. So I think in light of that, that one has been satisfied. Number three. This is always a big one. Strict application of the terms of the ordinance result in a practical difficulty. which is not based on a personal financial hardship, personal inconvenience, or self-created. I need you to comment on that one, board members. Mr. Ferris.

I think obviously the strict application would prevent the project from being completed, but I think this project is um more accommodating for any anybody that's a homeowner is always looking for more space and so i i don't um I don't see this as being a result of the applicant.

Mrs. Burkhardt.

I agree with Mr. Ferris' comments.

Mr. Eaglin. Yes. I mean, he just wanted to expand and buy some more stuff, so I'm okay with that.

Mr. Amick. I agree. I understand you want to use your space, but you've got some limitations, and you're trying to make it work within that. Thank you.

The practical difficulty, well, I don't think that the criteria of financial hardship, inconvenience, are self-created as it applies here. As I see it, the practical difficulty is the construction of the houses back mostly about 1964, which had an era of much smaller vehicles. So I think the practical difficulty is the world's, automotive world we live in, so I think that one's satisfied. I move we approve this variance from developmental standards.

Second.

I think we have a roll call.

Rick Ferris? Yes. Scott Baldwin? Yes.

Yes.

Nancy Bricker. Yes. And Brady.

Yes.

Okay, well, we wish you well. Next item on the agenda, BZVD-26-5, Ryan Leach, John Bennett. Variance from developmental standards for an accessory structure sit back 1023 East Vaughn Street. Yes, sir. If you could give your name and address for the record. I'm Ryan Leach.

I'm representing John and Lisa Bennett at 1023 East Vaughn Drive. And could you tell the board and the public why you're requesting this? Well, basically, the lot's 30 feet wide, and there's a 15-foot setback on each side.

Tough to deal with, isn't it? So your building's going to be like this?

Yeah. You could put an ant colony there.

And there are a lot of properties that are close to property lines in that neighborhood already.

Yeah. And, staff, there is a bit of a history with this. Could you just briefly?

Yes, absolutely. So a use variance was previously approved in 2025. It was BZVU25-1 to construct a single-family dwelling on this parcel. It is zoned open space. That approval, however, did not include a setback variance for a detached structure. The structure by use would be permitted because it's accessory to a single-family. house. It's just the setback issue. A COA was also approved in 2024 and building permit was also approved as well. So it's really just a matter of getting this garage kind of wrapped into that as well.

So does the garage have the same setbacks as a house?

It's, I believe, proposed to do so. Yes. Your setbacks, let's see here. If you look at, I can scroll down on my PDF over here. So, yeah, you can specify a new setback basically is what I would recommend if you, you know. Come on, here we go. It was not dimensioned. I don't know if it, again, either you can specify that it can be setbacks, same setbacks as the house as it was approved or if you have a specific measurement.

I think we were going to go two feet is what.

Two feet on each side of the property. Yeah. And then ten on the rear.

Yes.

Okay.

Are there any questions or comments, board members? Would anyone in the audience like to speak for or against this application? I don't see none. You can have a seat. You can have a seat, sir.

I have a question. Is this a garage or is it a pole barn? The application says pole barn. Yeah, it's a pole barn.

It's not a barn. It's a garage.

Is it going to be metal siding?

It does have to go through historic work.

and we have discussed that so historic board will be the one to control like materials and they need to get a certificate of appropriateness from historic board just so the board knows that the Bennett's also on property to the west side of this a large plot so We own the property on the east side, and we also own property on the northeastern property. And I just don't want it to negatively impact our property. Because I think this house was built with a variance many, many years ago. Maybe in the 80s. No, it was remodeled in 2024. It's an old structure. And I'm not sure it was built with permits back in the day. So it's built right on our lot line. I just don't want to have a negative impact on our property value. Because we are selling, we have just a few more lots to sell. So if I do a pole barn or something that doesn't fit the neighborhood, I have a problem with it.

So you're more concerned about the building materials rather than the lot lines?

Well, that it's right on the lot line. And I think when it was built the first time, I think it was... because they have a large parcel and it's a lot. I don't know how large the other property is. It might be 200, 300 feet wide. It's just, they own more property than just a 30 foot. it may not be such a hardship as it seems. So thank you.

Any other questions or comments, board members? Oh, yes, sir. If you'd like to speak, certainly come on up. Give your name and address for the record, please.

My name's Steve McKay. I live at 1016 East 1st Street. And our concerns are the fact that they are going to build a pole barn in this building of new structures in the floodplain. It's one of our biggest concerns as well as how it's going to sit as far as property and, like Lisa was saying, affect our property values as far as that goes. I mean, that's our main concern and the optics of it from what we see and everything else. So that's basically our concerns.

As for the floodplain, that's a building permit issue, isn't it? Because there are strict rules from FEMA about construction.

Yes, our floodplain ordinance as a city is two foot above base flood elevation. So you can't construct anything that's a habitable space within that. There are some allowances for non-habitable spaces that have, again, like flood fits, and there's design parameters around that. But anything for a building permit to get issued, it would have to comply with floodplain ordinance. Okay. and then have to, you know, they do floodplain certifications if it needs to be above base elevation.

I think the base elevation there is about 465 feet, something like that.

More in that general range, but in the floodplain ordinances pretty much across the state are more or less a DNR template, you know, ordinance.

And when you build, there are other things you have to build There's a floodplain where the water backs up and a floodway where the water flows. If you're in the floodway, you have to build a structure such that the water can flow through it and not wash it away. The floodplain is somewhat a little bit different. But essentially, you have to build so the water can get in and out. got to do that. I mean, that's federal law.

But is there anything in this application that says that she's going to comply with the flood plain rules?

It doesn't matter if it says it or not. They have to comply. I mean, that's a requirement.

And somewhere here we should have someone else speak. Oh, yes, sir. You want to speak? Come on up.

Give your name and address for the record, please. Tony Hammock, Madison, Indiana. I'm the owner next door. I'd like to know how close it's going to be to the property line for one. I'd like to know what the eave height is, what's based on the slope on the roof, how long it's going to be, how wide it's going to be. Anybody got the answer to that?

Come on up, sir. I don't know why that's relevant for setbacks.

It's not going to block your view. It's going to be shorter than the house. Okay. That's common sense. I'm sorry. All right, it's a 412 pitch, 24-foot wide, 20-foot long, 14-foot 6 to the eaves.

All right.

Setbacks that were proposed in the application, sir, were two-foot side yards and ten-foot rear yard, which is? Two-foot off the property line? Off the sides, yes, sir. That's what was proposed.

With the property that you own to the west, is there a reason why you can't move that building to the west?

Mm-hmm.

Come on up to the microphone, sir.

Oh, oh. They're representing them. They're from Greenwood.

Is there any real good reason why they can't?

This has already had the conditional use for it to be a dwelling. So if it's a dwelling, I mean, we want to add the accessory building to the lot that the dwelling's on. The space next door is green space.

Well, we've stopped garages being built on property lines. Folks had to do it.

had to move to the backyard can't this building be moved away from the property line to satisfy the sudden properties only 30 foot wide okay yeah the other i mean the only other there's there's no i mean you can't you can't build in the back of the property it's on fillmore alley it's not on vaughn drive can you move it west okay all these properties to the east

Can't this building be moved west and still be on their property?

Yes, but it's a separate lot. You would have to do a survey and carve out a portion of that to combine it with this because you can't build an accessory building on just a plate.

Yeah, and this is already conditional use as well.

In the past, we've turned down. These kind of things.

Well, it's not on the property line. That's what we're trying to get is a setback for two feet. It's not a zero setback. It's a two-foot setback.

I believe our ordinance says 10-foot. Correct? I'm sorry? 10-foot setback.

Currently in the open space district, it's 15-foot. So that's part of the issue is that the lot is 30 feet wide. And if you have two 15-foot setbacks, there's not even a foot. So that's part of the issue.

Any other questions or comments? Yes, sir. Come on up.

I'd like to know what the facade is going to look like. I'm getting ready to build a 600,000-plus house right above it. There's other 500s right in a row. Everybody knows where it's at. I'm sure nobody would really want a pole barn in your front yard. I mean...

Again, as you all consider things, you look through your findings, take public comment and those findings into account. You can also, again, put reasonable conditions on that if it's similar building materials to the primary structure or if it needs to be modified in some fashion. But again, it's not an end-all, be-all.

And the building materials will come under the purview of the historic board. So that's still got to get approval.

Yeah. I mean, they just approved one down on Elman first.

I understand.

That baby's six foot out of the ground and don't even whatever. I mean, that's another meeting, I guess. But anyway, my whole deal is 600 pole barn. I mean, that's the deal here.

I need some input from staff or from Mr. Patterson.

So there were proposed findings of fact in your packet for the three criteria that we do have to look at for a development standards variance. Those were determined by staff to be satisfied. Again, a 30-foot lot with, it's an old lot, two 15-foot setbacks, there's your need for the variance right there. I do think if you want to put any reasonable conditions, such as, again, concerns seem to be the aesthetics of that. I think that is a reasonable thing for the board if you want to consider to put conditions to help satisfy the concerns with building materials and setbacks. The floodplain will take care of our ordinances in effect regardless of whatever happens here tonight. So it will comply with our floodplain ordinance or the building permit will not be issued. So that would take care of that one. And then, again, your setbacks as proposed, that would be, what, a 26-foot building width at the most. And you're probably going to lease the two-foot setback because you're relieved to make sure they're not overhanging another parcel or property line. So, again, I think whatever you feel is reasonable on that. To get a two-car garage, that's probably about it. somewhat of a standard.

Well, the house is there. The house has been there for years. In that meeting a year or two ago, whatever it was, we approved essentially to upgrade it. I think that's what it amounted to. Okay. And the need of the variance abuse was the fact the house had been there for so many years and nobody knew how it got there. And now the gentleman wants to put in a garage. The garage can't be just some old metal shack. The garage has to have an appropriate appearance from the historic board of appeals. Yeah, they will be required to go. Mr. Hammock is worried about the effect on a very expensive high-end house he plans to construct. Now, in my experience, at least what I used to see when I would go to Chicago, one guy would build a 30-story building with a view of Lake Michigan. And the guy right in front of me would build a 50-story building and block off the other guy's view. And there was absolutely nothing that could be done. Free enterprise system, I guess. So there is a criteria. Use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. Well, for this board to say it will be, we need, in my experience, we need an appraiser or a realtor. And one guy says yes, the other guy says no. But absent of a professional opinion, we can't just let our own opinions rule. That's what I think I've learned here. If that's incorrect, feel free to correct me.

I mean, I think you could, on its face, I mean, if you feel like something is wrong, is obvious or whatever I think you can you can take that into consideration in determining your findings you know I don't know that it's I don't think you have to have that now I mean obviously if challenged that would be a point of contention but I don't know that it necessarily rules the day on that now if they're brought in then it's very easy thing to find but the board has a lot of discretion when it looks at these things and if challenged the courts look at it and the courts give the boards a lot of leeway discretion when determining these things and so i don't think that you necessarily have to have it i think you know obviously makes your jobs easier if you do but i do not think that you have to have it if you believe that just based on the facts and circumstances that that you believe that it would diminish the value of surrounding properties well thank you because we've had no professional statements either way

So if I'm reading or hearing what you and staff are saying.

Yeah, and I do want to clarify something that Amy brought up. We want to make sure that we're looking at what we're looking at. And the issue is the setbacks. And that's whether or not the setbacks... negatively impact the surrounding area or the values of other structures. I don't think you can necessarily look at the building in and of itself. I understand it's kind of chicken or egg kind of thing, but you really have to focus your opinion based upon the setbacks.

So if I understand your statement correctly, if this went to court for an appeal of our decision and all our criteria was the setbacks, that would be a much more firm ground to stand on. I hate to ask this, but I've been involved in a few battles. Learned some lessons the hard way. Well, would anybody else? Yes, ma'am. Come on up.

I'm sorry. Maybe I should have told you before. I've had my real estate license since 1995, and we do own the adjoining property about the same size as the beds do on the other side, and it will negatively impact our lot next to it. They built right on the lot line. So if we ever decide to build... we're going to have two structures that are 15 feet apart versus if it had been built you know, on 30, 15 feet and our 15 feet, you know, there would have been a 30-foot space in between, but now it's just getting tighter and tighter.

So you're talking about the house where it's at now?

Yeah, that little house right there. Is on the lot line? Yeah, it's built on the lot line.

Right, which is something we can't change now.

Right, right. But I think it was built before without maybe permits, correct permits, where the green bush is, that literally the pen is right behind the concrete pier So all the landscaping is actually over on us. And we're fine with that. We don't care about that type of thing. But if everybody starts building little accessory buildings down through there, I think it's going to diminish the value of the properties. And I think we built about five homes up there. And they were all over half a million dollars. And then we start putting little barns behind things. I wouldn't have a problem if they want to put it on their larger parcel, maybe, but not, I think you said it's going to be 20-some feet tall, is that correct? 14 foot. Okay, I misunderstood. If I'm saying it's getting taller, it's really going to impact everybody's view. And then this is zoned open space on both sides of it. So I thought that's what it meant. Was it supposed to remain open space? So just my thought and my opinion. Just so you know, I've had my dealer's license for

Yes, sir.

I just want to state that

Their property zone, open or green space, whatever, they can't build there. So it's not going to decrease the value of it. You can't build a house on that property, so you can't decrease the value of it. So I just want to state that. And I also want to state that that house has been there since the 90s. Those houses have been there for about five or six years, however many. So just take it into consideration. But it's green space on both sides of that.

So with your garage, you're just going to drive under the house to go into the garage?

Well, you'll come in through Fillmore Alley in the back, and it's going to have a door that goes on both sides so you can come through. They just wanted to park their tractors and golf carts that are under the house. that I feel like is an eyesore anyway, you know, so they're going to put it in a nice, it's not going to be, I mean, I'm a contractor. I don't go out here and build sheds that look like crap, you know, so it's going to look nice, I mean, obviously.

It's not going to be as high as the house or not as high.

No, no, no.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir. I mean, they talk about what they're going to build, but I ain't seen nothing of what it's going to look like. Is it going to be the same color as the house? Is it going to be the same pitch of the roof on the house? Is it going to be trimmed out black? Is it going to be gray or whatever? I mean, it ought to be similar to what they got built. If they get to build it there, I think, you know, I wouldn't think you're going to show up there with blue siding or red or something. But we don't know. I ain't seen no pictures on nothing. I don't have a few people.

But is that for us to decide? I thought we were just locked up.

Okay, so that would be another meeting in historic. Figured that one out. So, I mean, that's some of the questions on our mind. Sure. And I'm kind of a guy, really, you know, you've got your own property. I'd like to be able to do what you want, but at the same time, you know.

So the question was, again, BCA can impose reasonable conditions on any approval that they do. While we are debating a setback, a reasonable condition of allowing a lesser setback than 15 could be some sort of, again, building material or aesthetic. Historic Board also has to. They would, if they have above and beyond, they're going to trump this.

Do you have a picture of what it looked like before we did that? I think it's in there. I know what it looked like. Well, yeah, I mean, we're obviously not going to make it look worse by putting a pink building in the back, so I just want to show you all that.

Like I said, we don't want it to look like our building.

Because we're here for setbacks. We're not here for that. That's exactly right.

We're here for setbacks. We have no control over how it looks. That will be the historic board. I have a question, sir.

How high is the peak of your roof on the north side above ground?

It'll be 14 foot. So you propose... 14 foot 6. To the peak, yeah.

To the peak.

It'll be 8 foot.

Well, the relevant issue in my view is how high the thing is, as well as the setbacks. So, since this is... A bit of a controversy. I hope you don't mind, staff. If we provided a and we're in this new UDO universe, Would that be appropriate in your view that we give a condition that it be no higher than the existing peak? Existing peak of? Of the house.

Well, less than that right now. So if you look at the, sorry, let me pull the other part back up. Yeah, I mean, you're... Sorry, I'm trying to find the right... I've got too many times. My Google map here. There you go. So, again, your height right now is from this point, ground level, you know, that's a lot higher than... Well, I'm talking about on the north side of the house. But he's still proposing a pretty substantially less building than the peak height of this. I would... If you want to use something, I would use your 14 feet. That's what I would suggest.

Yeah.

Are you elevating your garage because it's non-habitable space? Are you elevating that two foot above base or are you putting flood pits in and allowing it to be... So it's not going to be elevated up on stilts like the houses because it's... It'll be designed to flood.

It's a non-habited structure designed to let water easily flow through in compliance with federal fund laws. So that'll keep their height down. Which...

have to be followed.

Any other questions or comments, board members? I'm sorry to bother you so much, staff, but this is a bizarre situation where the house got built many years ago and probably never should have been built many years ago, but it got built. Now we've got to deal with it. So if we specified maximum 14 foot to the peak maximum height of the garage, and then since the ground is kind of rising, in your view, would that be adequate? 14 feet above ground level, wherever the thing sits. Yeah, I mean, I think that that's...

So maybe say 15 feet, just to make sure that we're within a range here and don't have to repeat this. If that's something you're wanting to consider, I think that's reasonable.

Okay. Well, we've pretty well hashed this out, Ward. One last chance. Anybody like to say anything for...

comments so I think what your options are you can go through the criterion if you want to or you can accept the findings as proposed by staff with the addition of making a condition on 14 feet and then I don't know if you wanted to impose that it was be same or similar to the surrounding areas or something like that. You said it a lot better than I did.

Yeah, with building materials. You're talking about similar building materials to the primary structure. I would specify in your motion, just for clarity's sake, if it is a two-foot side yard set back and ten-foot rear yard, or if that is different, I would specify that in your motion as well. Thank you. If you need further pitch, I can give something for you.

So in your view, a motion should specify that it be made of similar material of the house, two-foot side setbacks, 10-foot rear setbacks, 14-foot. I move we approve this variance from developmental standards with the condition the building be made of a similar material to the house, two-foot side setbacks, 10-foot rear setbacks, 15-foot maximum height setbacks. and obey all relevant flood laws and it not be used for occupancy.

And to clarify, your height is to the peak.

To the peak, right. 15 foot max height to the peak. That's my motion, board members. Is there a second? Second. Could we have a roll call?

Rick Ferris. Yes. Scott Baldwin. Yes. Carl Dewey.

No.

Nancy Burkhardt. Yes. Brian Amick.

It might be irrelevant, but I'm going to abstain. I recently engaged Mr. Leach to do some work for me, so I don't want to create any conflict.

So the vote was three in favor, one nay, and one abstain. Correct.

So the motion passes. Okay, well. As much as item 5 has been, we did table that until August. So is there anything else I have omitted or forgotten? Well, seeing and hearing none. Oh, by the way, just for the... sake of the board and the public formerly we had to re-approve all the old conditional uses depending on their term but that's been done away with now is that correct? That's correct. So all previous conditional uses which we had approved in the years gone by are they now all to be applied to the deed?

should have previously been recorded with the deed. We've now got a template, because we could not find the template that was previously used. And so we were making sure anything that's been approved this year is getting recorded with the deed as well.

I don't know that they always were.

Okay, at least in recent history they should have been approved with the deed.

Because previously it was variances of developmental standards, I understand, were included in the deed.

Yeah, it said that, I mean, it looks like from your past ordinances and what I've seen, what you would have called conditional use is yes, and then any other variances as well.

Okay. Well, if there's no other business, motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Second? Aye. Seconded? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, no. We are adjourned. Thank you very much, staff members. Of course.