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

About 6 o'clock, time to begin. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Madison's Board of Zoning Appeals, September 14th, 2026. Can we have a roll call, please?

Rick Harris?

Here.

Scott Hollywood?

Here.

Carl Ewan? Here.

Here.

Here.

Tonight's agenda, we had a couple tabled applications from last meeting. First one is BZVU-26-4, Jared Kempton and Kelly Kempton requesting a use variance for a campground and campsite located at 2422 North K Road. That was tabled last time, so once again, if somebody representing that could come up and And I might remind you, last meeting, a gentleman named Roger Ward with the Rikers Ridge Water Company put into the record that K Road has a moratorium in place for no more water taps available. And so bearing that in mind, you wouldn't be able to put in new water taps for campsites, apparently.

We were asking about it. We have some relatives that live out west in Colorado and Arizona. property along with that that's really what started that realization that our family wouldn't be able to come out and stay on the property and stay in their rv with the restrictions that we were in the city since we met last time we talked to there were a couple letters that we were presented with that had been delivered to all of you who read those with their concerns and then we had a chance to talk to neighbors that were around

Yes, give them to all the board members, please. Thank you.

Thanks. So the first one, and this no more than four RV sites or campsites will be built and maintained at any time. So we're not looking at, you know, an 80-site campground or anything like that out there. It's a few sites. With the regulations We saw all of that was taken care of by the week for our home well, which we're probably And then we feel like that addressed really all It seems to me you're asking two things.

One is to have family and friends. And the other is possibly in the future to rent it out.

Our initial motive was the family and friends.

If it were just family and friends, how many would you anticipate? Well, let's say July 4th or one big get-together. What's max you would think would be there with their own? Pardon?

I have pizza.

So how many RVs would there be there, Max, if you had to get together with your family?

So how did you come up with the four RV sites?

That's what the space that we have allotted seems like a good...

And assuming you had family come to visit with an RV or a camper trailer, how long would they be there? A year? A month? A week? What I'm driving at is if your parents or family came, you're not considering they're leaving their RV there forever. They're going to come and go is what you're trying to say.

Okay.

So it's not a permanent RV camp?

Right.

Not a little KOA or anything?

I mean, I guess it could be the situation of

Scott, we do have use standards on these that I know I pointed out to you guys when we first started these discussions. So our ordinance for any cramped campground does limit to 180 overnight stays within 12 consecutive months. That aligns with DNR's standards for what they typically do.

And that's of course what the city could easily enforce if needs be.

So is that what like Clifty does too?

I would assume, but I haven't specifically checked. That's usually in their general guidance. That's where we kind of get that 180.

And just a question. I just have a question because I don't RV. Could they stay at Clifty in the winter? Are they open in the winter? I don't know.

I don't think so.

What's the answer? Folks from the audience say no. I do not personally know if Clifty is open. But it sounds like from the audience people are saying no. They're not opening a ground.

I've just been asking you this stuff because in my view, like I said last time, we just got a brand new UDO which was subject to review by the public for, give the city credit, they had plenty of opportunities for people to look it over. And in my view, family is one thing. Allowing an exception to the zoning ordinance is what this is. Family is one thing, but a business is totally something else. That's just my view. Board members, do any of you have any questions, comments?

Yeah, I want to read something here. The description of rural residential development or the zoning classification for agricultural rural residential. It says activities characterized as agritourism, farm trails, farm markets, and roadside stands may occur here. Development in this area will likely not be connected to municipal water or sanitary sewer. Development other than agriculture or rural residential should not be encouraged to minimize potential conflicts with other land uses. So the part about renting sites out To me, that kind of takes care of that part, the part about using it for family. I'm open to discussion there, but I think we need to take that into consideration.

And of course, if the board should decide to give this variance of use, there can be conditions. Obviously, we all know that. Any other questions, comments, board members?

I think the guidelines he's put out are pretty reasonable myself. I appreciate you doing that. Talking to people and getting their feedback and coming up with this, that's helpful.

Well, thank you. Would anybody, I imagine there are numbers of you in the audience would like to speak to this. And I'm going to ask you, we believe in freedom of speech here. This here is your government. But probably a lot of people would like to speak, so I'll ask you to voluntarily limit yourself to about four minutes. And you can say an awful lot. I've heard some. You know, the Gettysburg Address only lasted about eight minutes. You can say an awful lot in four.

Scott, do you want to stick with our rules that we had readapted a number of months ago that are three minutes for those adjoiners and then up to a minute that can be increased by?

We'll give four minutes.

Four, okay.

Well, if any of you would like to speak for or against this proposed variance of use, and once again I'll remind you that some of you are very skilled in this stuff. Some of you aren't so skilled. A variance of use means that the zoning ordinance lays out certain uses you can do in each zoning district. The zoning district is like the old-fashioned R4, four houses per acre, R8, eight houses per acre. And there were certain things you could do. And then there were some things that you could do by special exception or conditional use, we used to call it. And then there are some things that you can't do. A variance of use means that even though a specific use is not supposed to be in that zoning area, the people would like an exception to be able to do it. I just want you to understand that. It can get complicated, but that's the way the law is written. Yes, sir. If you want to speak, come on up. Give your name, address.

Hello. My name is Jason Goldy. I live in 1962 East Arlington Lane. I did want to make one comment about the previous statements. While I do have freedom of speech, you're not my governor, and I can't vote for you. So it's a very cool representation of me and all of you in Florida. I live on and operate a grain farm on K Road, and I travel that every day. 13 feet wide, as you know. We can't handle additional commercial traffic or RVs and travel trailers despite the length. They're still very wide and usually pulled by big trucks. The proposed campground is an excessive burden on the existing road. I'm concerned about my safety and the safety of others. This is zoned RA, and the additional proposed uses should not put excessive burden on the primary use of President Viagra. I'd like to look about the UVO a little bit, And it was determined that more than one campground, one campsite, RV, so two or more, classifies as a campground. One does not. And it's free or charged, it's considered a campground. So that kind of puts the family stuff into perspective. Whether it's free or charged, if it's two or more campgrounds, two or more campsites, it's considered a campground by your own definition. That was decided on and discussed and agreed to. The city UDO also has several requirements for the campground, one of which is a 24 foot wide by 200 feet paved approach entrance. And I would ask, was that necessary? Apparently so, because it was put in the UDO, so why is that not being discussed here? The internal roads must be 10 feet wide with traffic one way or 20 feet per two way. look like on the application if it's not a loop it needs to be 20 feet wide and it still needs the 24 by 200 feet again that's not mentioned lastly most importantly the campgrounds are prohibited in this internet mra i understand there may be variances but there was a reason that zoning was set up the way it was this causes an undue hardship and there's no permission to this property the fact that these owners want a campground in a prohibited area is not a condition of the property but rather of the ownership justify a variance of use for a hardship, a hardship must stem from the physical reality of the land itself, not from a business or personal goal. This is their problem, not the land's problem. Because they could do a lot of other things with this land that are approved that wouldn't be a variance for them. So, I would ask that this be denied based on the UBO and the state law defining what variance is and when it can be used. Cato can't handle additional commercial traffic I'm still very unclear what's being asked today. Is it family? Is it commercial? Because if it's only family, the application needs to be amended because it does include commercial. And I would like to see that very clear in the application. And the way I see this, they can have one camper without ever asking any of you or any of us. And that does not constitute a campground. If they want to have family come with one camper, they don't need to ask. I'd ask you to adhere to the city's UDO as well as the state law.

Would anybody else like to speak for or against this application? I'm seeing nobody. Board members? Oh, yes, would you like to speak? Sure, come on up.

Most of them, you know, came over.

Thank you.

Yes, sir, if you could give your name and address for the record, please.

count your

11 to 13 feet. And not only is 11 to 13 feet, but it has a lot of blind curves and areas where you cannot pass. I have to put farm equipment on that road. If I'm left at the center and we have an accident, it's my fault. Okay? That's being unstable. That is a huge liability for me so this granting of this would be uh to start with campgrounds are not approved so why would we approve it under such unsafe conditions it just just doesn't make a lot of sense so i'm opposed to the exception thank you very much

And on that note, a few years ago, we had a controversy about out there, and I went and measured it myself, and he's right. It's about 11 to 13 feet wide in places. Board members, any other questions, comments? Any other folk from the audience would you like to speak for or against this proposed variance of use? Well, seeing none, we'll declare comment time closed. Now we have to go on to our findings of fact. There are five criterion for a use variance and they're made by the state, not by us. So since, in my view anyway, this is a very big deal, board members will go down and I would like you to give a detailed Explanation of whether or not you agree with the criteria and why. First one, approval is not injurious to the public health safety morals and general welfare of the community.

Mr. Ferris. I think those conditions are not favorable. This application I think does cross the line with some of those things. And I don't think it fits the comprehensive plan when it's stated right here that uses other than ag or rural residential are not to be encouraged.

Mrs. Burkhart.

I agree with his statement. I don't think it meets the definition of what RA should be. I said I just disagreed. I don't agree. I think it does not go with what RA definition is allowed or what should be in RA.

Mr. Amick.

We're looking at these four factors here, public health, a lack of facilities. There's a sanitation issue that would have to be addressed. Safety, a lot of people talked about the road issue. Morals, I don't think this is detrimental to the morals of K Road by any means. But the general welfare, I don't see it as a benefit to the general welfare of that area.

Is it injurious to the public health, safety? Certainly as a commercial campground, we've had plenty of experience and that's a very important thing, safety. The road is just not designed for big vehicles. In fact, I can remember in a previous meeting, the fire department talking about their trouble getting down there. General welfare. The area was designated as rural, and that one is kind of iffy in my opinion, so I do not think that that one is really met. Number two, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. Will it hurt property values? Mr. Parris.

I think if we vote in favor, which would be against a lot of the descriptions in the UDO, I think that does potentially cause harm to adjacent properties.

Mrs. Burkhardt?

I agree. I think the use would be substantially adversely affected.

Mr. Amick? I don't think it would adversely affect property values in the area myself.

And we've heard no testimony from anybody to that effect, so I think that one's met. Number three, the need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved. And be sure to, if you think it does, then specify what that is. Mr. Farris.

I think the audience members addressed that. There are no conditions peculiar to this property. for this use.

Mrs. Burkhardt.

I agree with that statement.

Mr. Amick.

I agree. Another victim of the buffer zone.

Condition peculiar to the property involved. You could say that it's close to the county's zoning district, but that has really... no relevance to Madison's. Speed limit in one state may be different from speed limit in another. It's the same principle. One government district is not necessarily the same as another. As far as that would, in my mind, be the only peculiarity that it's I just can't see that that one is met, if there's anything peculiar when the law was so clearly written. I do not think that one's met. Number four, strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to this property for which the variance is sought. In other words, an unnecessary hardship. If you think that that one is met, explain what that hardship is. Mr. Ferris?

I don't believe there is any hardship.

Mrs. Burkhardt?

I agree. I see no unnecessary hardship.

Mr. Amick?

Yeah, I agree. It's an inconvenience for the Kemptons, but not necessarily a hardship. I've struggled with this one because I understand their desire to have family and be able to spend time with them. But it's a big ask. It's not just getting into a setback or something. This is a significant variance from the UDO.

In my view, there are two parts to this. If the place were to be made into a commercial rental property, And I can see no justification for that. I can see no hardships. If the place is strictly for family, as has been pointed out, you can have one family member come and nobody cares. So, in my view,

To clarify the campsite and campground in our use list, we do say campground, which is defined as was stated. It's campground and campsite. So while those are two definitions, they're on the same line item in our use table, just to give you a heads up.

Thank you. Anyway, I don't think that one is met. Number five, last one. The approval does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan. If you think that it does, explain why. Mr. Farris?

I think it does interfere with the comprehensive plan, and I'm going to refer back to what I read earlier. It says development other than agriculture or rural residential should not be encouraged to minimize potential conflicts with other land uses.

Mrs. Burkhart.

I agree, as we stated in previous comments.

Mr. Amick.

The scale is very small, but I agree. There's an interference there.

And the comprehensive plan is in both the comprehensive plan itself plus the things that are commented are written in the zoning ordinance, so I don't think that one's met. Board members, as you know, just remind, especially for the public, you're free to vote however you want. But you're really supposed to vote yes to approve something like this. You really should have said that all five you'll agree with that are met. But like I say, you can vote any way you want if you're board members. So we'll take a motion.

And with that, if you do make a, like Scott said, if all are met, then you should be voting in the affirmative. Yes, if one or more are not met. It's the voting to deny. If you do vote either way, please let me know specific findings so we can make sure those do get included, especially if it's in the denial. I just want to make sure I document at least one of those findings you guys talked about. So I'll include that in our motion.

Let me say one other thing before we have time for a motion. A motion could include conditions As the folk, they pass this paper with some of their proposed conditions. Conditions can include things that they would only go with the owner. It could include how many, just a myriad of things. So you don't just have to, if you think that this, you want to make a motion to approve, you can approve it with conditions.

And those conditions can be used to mitigate something you just talked about that would be a finding that you can offset with a condition in some fashion. So that makes sense.

Or, of course, you can simply move to deny the application. So we will take a motion.

I move we deny this application.

Do you have a finding for that that you want to make based on at least one of those? Or I can read through those and you tell me which apply just to make sure we have that?

Well, I think that I voted against all of them. So pick one.

Based on then the findings that it doesn't support the purpose of the RA district, and that also I know sanitation was mentioned, public safety because the road is dangerous and too narrow, and could cause a hardship on those adjacent uses because of the road and the rural uses, and that the hardship is more of an inconvenience than an actual hardship. Does that cover your findings that I can include within that?

It covers mine.

Okay. That's included in your motion. Okay.

I second.

Was that Nancy?

Yes.

Okay, we have a motion and a second because we have a roll call. Let me explain. You made a motion to deny. If we vote?

Yes.

Our secretary will call in a minute your name. If you say yes, that means deny, and no means I'm against that motion. Okay? It can be confusing to realize. Yes means you're voting to deny the application. Do we have a roll call? Of course.

Rick Paris?

I vote yes to deny.

Scott Baldwin?

Yes.

Nancy Burkhardt? Yes. And Brian Amick?

Yes.

So that carries 4-0. So the motion to deny passes.

Of course, folks, essentially it means that the board said no business. But the board didn't say no family. So you can have a mom and dad come and see you if you want. That's fine. But just don't run afoul of campsites and stuff like that. For heaven's sakes, don't fire weapons and get everybody mad at you. Next item on the agenda, carried over from last time, a table of motion, BZVD-26-9, William Carr, Ivy Tech State College, requesting a variance from developmental standards to make for primary structure setbacks, 590 East Clifty Drive, essentially to make a new dog pound if we could have somebody come up if you could give your excuse me oh yes i should say mr amy has a conflict of interest in this through my work with the uh county i've been involved with this animal shelter project from its inception so i'm going to recuse myself from this discussion so thank you and the rules we adopted today that he actually has to leave the room Yes, sir. Go ahead. Name and address for the record.

My name is William Carr. And they're coordinating with the Jefferson County Commissioners on the development times longer or nine times as long as the average width of it so just unusually shaped properties for development and obviously a portion of iutex existing parking lot sits on that northern property as well so we're looking to develop a portion of that property for to access their existing parking lot. They have requested to maintain 16 feet worth of property piece of the parcel as well. So they're looking to transfer ownership of the central portion of those two properties to Jefferson County. By transferring just kind of that central piece, ultimately Ivy Tech will retain ownership of all of the surrounding property around this the county to utilize that existing access drive to access their new property. So what we're looking for in terms of approval, because of the unusual shape, because of the property that Ivy Tech is looking to retain, the building fits on the property, but it's a very snug fit. of that access right, but because Ivy Tech is looking to retain that 60 feet worth of property So it would still be 60 feet away from the existing property line. In addition, on the south side of the property, there's a 20 foot required setback on that side. We've requested to reduce that to five feet. So those are the two setbacks that we're requesting the variance for. The north and east sides, we're not requesting any kind of change. We'll maintain the setback as required. The other thing that we're asking for, and this is kind of inherent because of the way that we're breaking up the property, that existing access drive, we're looking to provide some new parking

and the same thing on I think some of does the property line cross into these are parking spaces aren't there some will that be reconfigured

just for the existing parking beyond that.

On the Ivy Tech side.

On the Ivy Tech side, yes. So their existing parking spaces would remain in their current relation to that property line. And one of the reasons why to the north of this site. That's what the parking serves, their existing building. They do intend to utilize a portion of the new animal shelter for some of their classroom needs and so forth. So they'll have streets that are moving back and forth between Ivy Tech's existing building and the new animal shelter. So utilizing a property immediately adjacent to their existing building

So I'm confused. Where is the access point to the animal shelter? Let me pull up the map.

Sorry. This might show you better. This is the private drive that he is referring to. This is not a public street. This is a private drive, and that is permitted by our commercial industrial. You can have a private drive. So this is not a public street. It feels like a public street. You know, as you're going down there. But it serves this commercial development, and it serves Ivy Tech. And it served the new animal shelter as well. Sure. But it comes out, you know, down here.

And Ivy Tech, didn't they just start the vet tech program?

I believe so. Yes. Because that's in collaboration with the program from talking with others. So they need a space to do that.

Obviously, we've needed a new animal shelter for a long time. Were there any kind of judgments against the animal shelter that the old one is no good, you've got to build a new one? Did some judge or somebody...

now on I think is it the south side maybe between the triangle and the other property were you gonna put any fencing I know there's you said play yards on the east side and then I think it's south side Yeah, that part right there. Were you going to put any, like, trees or anything to separate it from the adjacent property?

We do have a fencing plan. Beyond that, I don't know that we've really discussed.

Any other questions or comments, board members?

Well, you might want to talk about the relative size of what the Animas shelter has now versus what this one is of the need for expansion.

It just seems to me this is why variance from developmental standards was invented.

Any other questions, board members? You can have a seat, sir. Would anybody in the audience like to speak for or against this proposed variance of developmental standards? Yes, ma'am, if you could give your name and address for the record, please. My name is Tricia Parker, and I live at the...

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Give your name and address for the record, please.

Good evening. My name is Amanda Harsin. I'm at 6152 laid off the project tonight it's a truly unique partnership that brings together a training opportunity with a county need I do think that we've maximized in terms of retaining the private road access that we can maintain and keep our students traveling through, as well as thinking about the animals' well-being as the humans and the animals work in this space. I also would be the property owner on all sides. Ivy Tech is on all sides. It would be very synergistic for us to be able to have our faculty and students at a location near us. The alternative would be for us to have to look at properties away from the college in order to have this type of facility. And so it's very advantageous for us to be able to keep our faculty and staff so close to our college. And so I really appreciate everything the county's done, principal, for designing this for maximum use. We have been approached previously about some commercial opportunities, and it wasn't in Ivy Tech's best interest to sell the property for other uses. But this very clearly serves the community, serves our students, and serves both the humans

Anybody else like to speak for or against this proposed variance of developmental standards? Board members, anything else? I'll see none. We will declare the comment time closed and we will move on to our findings of fact. And this is a variance from developmental standards. requesting 20 foot north lot line, according to the record, 20 foot east, five foot south, and zero foot west. There are three criteria. I'll go through them, and then board members, express your opinion, please. Number one, Approval is not injurious to the public health safety morals of general welfare. Mr. Ferris?

No, I don't believe it is. I think it's going to have a positive effect. Mrs. Burkhardt?

I agree. I see just a positive effect.

And I think that one's met. It's very obvious this community needs a new animal shelter and has been obvious for years. Number two, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property. included in the variance is not affected in a substantially adverse manner, Mr. Ferris.

I don't believe it is. The adjacent landowner also spoke in favor of it.

Mrs. Burkhart.

I see no problem with that.

No, this is a joint venture between the two parties that are involved. That one is met. Number three. strict application of the terms of the ordinance will result in a practical difficulty based on the use of the property. This cannot be based on a personal financial hardship, personal inconvenience, or be self-created. As always, this is the big one. Mr. Ferris?

You know, I think the strict application obviously would would cause them to redesign their facility and I do think that the the shape of the lot is very peculiar in the fact that it's triangular shaped you know I think it would create a hardship if we applied the standards as they're written for those reasons. Mrs. Burkhart.

I agree. You have two plots of land. One's long and skinny and the other's triangular. I believe those are hardships.

And I would agree with that. The hardship is the shape of the lots. And the fact that this is absolutely something which is needed though I think that that one is meant to. But we've gone through our findings of fact. I move that we approve this variance of developmental standards for the setbacks which were requested. Second. We have a roll call. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Mr. Emick, you can come back in now. Somewhere. Next item on the agenda.

Yeah. Yeah.

We do have a candy jar out there that's very tempting. Under new applications, first item is BZEU-26-10, Austin Ketchum and Lisa Lumford requesting a special exemption approval for short-term rental at 211 East Main Street. We can have somebody come up and address this. Well, then we will move that one, postpone it until the end of the meeting, see if they show up. Next item, BZCU-2611, Jeff and Renee Cox, Cox, Jeffrey, and Toys, special exception approval for short-term rental 602 Jefferson Street. If you folks could give your name and address for the record, explain what your plans are, what you're doing. Any questions or comments, board members?

What was your maximum number of guests? Ten. Ten. How many bedrooms was that?

Did we get a set of house rules? I'm looking.

Madison's UDO says, short-term rental standards, which is section 3.12d, occupancy limit shall not exceed two people per occupiable bedroom or limits permitted by state codes and requirements. So if you have four bedrooms, that would be eight people per the ordinance. Any other questions or comments? Board members?

Here are the house rules, too. I zoomed in. It is pretty simple, so we easily have three. Quiet hours, 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. or 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. Check-in is 4 p.m. Check-out is 11 a.m. That one says 12. That one says 12 max. We just keep going down. No large parties or events without approval. No pets allowed. No smoking or vaping. Leave dishes in the dishwasher. report damages, and turn off the lights and appliances when they're not in use. So those are the basic rules there.

Well, the ones that this board would be concerned with are quiet hours and actually, of course, noise and tumult.

Yes, we have an Airbnb next to us, and that's kind of borrowed from there.

So if the neighbors had an issue... Would they be able to contact you or are you guys? Okay.

Any other questions, comments, board members?

But that's the house guests. The neighbors themselves? I'm talking about the neighbors.

Yes, we actually know the neighbors on both sides. They have our cell phones.

Okay. So you're not having a property manager?

We're going to start off trying to do it ourselves.

And I do believe that we could specify as a condition that this goes with the ownership, if the board so desired.

If you wanted to, yes, you could. I think in the last number for HDR and CD, Central Business District, I don't believe you have, but if there's a need for that, you could.

So that option is available to the board. Any other questions, comments? Anybody in the audience like to speak for or against this application? Well, seeing none, I'll declare the comment period closed. And we will move on to our findings of fact. This is a special exception. It used to be a conditional use. I will go down. There are six criteria, board members, as you know. I'll go down, mention each one, and if any of you have any objections, speak up. First one, establish it's not detrimental or endangers public health safety morals. Any of you have any issues there? No. Number two, it's not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. Are there any issues there? No. Number three, it will not impede... or substantially alter the normal and orderly development improvement of surrounding properties. Are there any issues there? No. No. No. Number four. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage has been provided. Have any issues there?

No. No.

I certainly don't. Number five. Adequate measures to provide ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestions. Are there any issues there? No. And it's on a very wide and accessible road. I see no problem there. Number eight, or excuse me, number six, it's located in a district where such use is permitted. Are there any objections there?

No.

Seeing none, we'll take a motion. I move that we approve this special exception with the following conditions in the house rules. Quiet hours will be from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m., and this special exception will go with ownership of the property.

Did we change the number of people to eight people?

Yes, exactly. Thank you. Maximum number of people will be two per bedroom or eight people.

Second.

Do we have a roll call?

Rick Ferris? Yes. Scott Baldwin? Yes. Yes.

Yes.

We wish you well, folks. Appreciate your taking on that building. Next item on the agenda. BZBU-26-6, Alba Duncan. and Marilyn Duncan, a use variance for a single-family dwelling at 945 West Hutchinson Lane. And folks, if you could give your name and address for the record and explain the situation you're in.

I'm Marilyn Duncan, 1910 50 Drive, Massachusetts. Currently, the land is some of my chemistry. However, there are three houses and one small business on that corner. Two of the houses in one business next to my commanding house is Hutchinson, and we would fix Hutchinson. We currently have a pool barn there. Everybody that passes on that road, you may have seen the big... 1045. 945. We'd like to build a house in front of the pool barn. It would probably only be 1,700 to 1,800 square feet. It would be a big one. We have an acre on switching, an acre there, and we're trying to move two acres. We'd like to live in one acre. They're by the barn where he likes to go and mess around anyway. The empty lot over there belongs to the person who lives behind us. And we saw his sign and one of the other neighbors. That's his ingress, egress right now. So he couldn't sell it and be able to get off his property. So if he would sell it, we'd probably buy it. I think that's probably about it. You said there's already three houses on the corner. We would just like to add one more, too.

Well, I do appreciate the mess you're in. It's probably happened way back in the 1960s when they adopted.

We didn't even know we were in city limits. We went to the county first, and they said, oh, you're in the city. We said, no, we're not. The three other corners were city, and we were just talking to our neighbor last weekend, and he said, well, yeah, we're unique because we're the only county corner. I said, no, you're not. I said, you're in the city now. Well, there's the clarification.

There's city limits, which is in the corporate boundary. And then there's the buffer. So the county, just so. the city and like Hanover they have a area they have jurisdiction for zoning on outside of city limits called the buffer a lot of times and that's so you're still in technically the county like you can look at your personal you're not been annexed in or anything like that but under the city uh yeah city uh zoning jurisdiction though it's a little different

I have a question for staff since they are in the two-mile buffer zone and not specifically within the corporate boundary of Madison. That would make it rather difficult for Madison to rezone that property, would it?

No, I mean they have zoning jurisdiction in the buffer.

Yeah.

So the city has zoning jurisdiction on the buffer just like you would in the city. It's just you're not technically in city limits. I was trying to pull the buffer.

We just can't vote, Scott. I'm a buffer zone, too.

I'm a buffer. We live in the city, so we can vote. But if you put there, then we'll be voting different.

Yeah. Sure, for every primary. So the purple area includes the buffer. City limits, I don't think city limits go that far out.

I don't know.

Well, the reason I asked the question to staff a number of years ago, my own house, had to be rezoned because a neighbor or a person was going to buy a nearby house, and he couldn't get a mortgage because it wasn't properly zoned. So that's why you've got this bizarre situation, probably The first zoning ordinance, to my knowledge, was 1966. And those houses were probably there before then. And you get these messed up. I sympathize with you. I've seen it.

Yeah, my dad built one of the houses, the yellow one on the corner. And it was all, everything there was county. And you felt like you were way out of town. That's kind of changed.

Yeah, town catches up with you. So what I'm driving at, Ms. Williams, I personally wish that it was possible to rezone all that and that might just make far less trouble in the long run. Like if you got hit by a storm and you had to make a loan to repair your house or something. Or you go to sell it and there's a persnickety lender or But if you get a use variance, then that obviates all those problems. But then the neighbors still have the problems, possibly.

And we went back and forth. I know when I first talked to you to say, okay, you know, there's different avenues to get there. One would be rezoning. Staff concerns on that is then you're going to have a little dot of yellow in the sea of purple, right? So meaning one little area of single family in a – you're surrounded by industrial areas. So that can cause conflicts in the future too.

If they are houses in an industrial area and a very large facility comes in and wants their property, can he institute legal proceedings to take their property?

No, not a private entity. I mean, you'd have to purchase it. I think one of the issues, and pointed out in the staff report, with this parcel in particular, I believe this is city limits, if you see that blue. It's the city council district, so that should be city limits there. You're close, but not quite in. that these parcels on this corner would all have to be assembled, meaning like private entity come out, get you all to sell, right? Not just you, but all of the parcels around you to make this feasible to actually develop as industrial, because the lots are just not feasibly... large enough to develop as industrial and that's one of the issues until all of these are kind of assembled now we also did talk about like there are big parcels just to the east here and those could develop industrial and being aware of you're going to probably be around industrial at some point in the future right might not be next year might not be five years or ten years who knows when yeah But being aware that that could happen because it's owned industrial. So, you know, we've talked through those things as well.

So perhaps a variance of use. It's just simply the best solution for a bad situation.

Yeah, I don't love variances of uses because we need to show a hardship, but I think that hardship here is, again, none of these parcels are feasible to develop as industrial as they are today because of their size.

Any other questions, comments, board members?

No.

Well, thank you, folk. You can sit down. I guess I should ask, anybody want to speak for or against this? Probably not. Well, we declare the public comment time closed. And once again, board members, this is a variance of use. So I will go through the criteria. I'll ask you to give a... explanation of your reasoning and whether you think that the criteria is met. Number one, it's not injurious to public health, safety, morals, general welfare. Mr. Ferris.

No, I don't believe it is. I think the situation with the other houses in that area, it's not... It's not going to be injurious to any of those.

Mrs. Burkhardt.

No, I see no impact on that.

Mr. Amick. No, no issues. And those houses have been there forever. I don't see, I think that one's met. Number two, use and value of area adjacent to the properties, not affected in an adverse manner. Mr. Ferris.

Again, yes. There are other residences adjoining the applicant's property, so I don't see that being an issue. Mrs. Burkhardt.

I agree. I see no adverse effect. Mr. Amick.

Same. Would there be an improvement to the area?

We've heard no testimony saying that it would be adversely affected, so I think that one is met. Number three, need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved. What is it? Mr. Ferris.

Well, I think the peculiarity is the fact that there are residences already in a zoning district that's zoned light industrial. So they're in a bit of a quagmire, it seems, with the zoning district that covers that area.

Mrs. Burkhart.

I agree. There's just a pocket of residential community there that's been there for years.

Mr. Amick.

Same comment, yes.

And the peculiarity is they've been there for years. The zoning ordinance came and the confusion came. I think that was certainly met. Number four, constituted an unnecessary hardship. By the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance, what is the hardship, Mr. Ferris?

Well, I think the hardship is that they own property that's in between other residential properties, and they wouldn't be able to build a house. Mrs. Burkhardt?

I agree with that comment.

Mr. Amick?

Yeah, depriving the use of their property, yeah.

The unnecessary hardship is they've found themselves in a zoning trap through no fault of their own with adjacent houses that were for residential use. And I think applying, and they even have a barn on the property, so I think that would be an unnecessary hardship to strictly apply this zoning ordinance and Number five, approval does not interfere substantially with comprehensive plan. Mr. Ferris.

No, I don't think it does. I think they're investing in the property, and I think that will be an improvement. Mrs. Burkhardt.

I agree. The land is not big enough for any industrial to be put there anyway, so the only use you can use with that is for a residential.

Mr. Amick. I agree with Nancy's comment.

I think the previous board members' comments were very well stated, so I think that was met. I move we approve this use variance.

Second.

We have a roll call.

Yes.

Scott Baldwin.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Next item on the agenda. EZVU-26-7, Joe Pettit, E Street Trust. Requesting a use variance for golf cart parking and a storage building located at 859 East Street, Zone R2. Yes, sir. Give your name and address for the record and why you're requesting a use variance.

My name is Scott Landshaker.

to pull up. There's a location map in case you do want it as well. But I'll pull the drawings up too.

I understand you're in a floodplain, not a floodway. I was just here for the zoning.

I assume you'll have to get it going. So he will have to, like you said, get a building permit and he'll have to comply with our floodplain ordinance as well. which these are not habitable spaces meaning like no one's going to live in there so there are provisions for that versus if it was a you know a space that's going to be occupied by a business person anything of that nature so there are different provisions for that these could be floodable you know what I mean with with dense flood vents and all of that versus if it was habitable space it would have to be two foot above our base flood elevation

So is the intent for this to be used for people who, say, want to have a car but don't have space to store it at their house so they can? Yeah. Okay.

Okay. So I did a little study of the neighbors. It is kind of residential. Long Island Mac. 502, 504, 506. It's owned by something called St. Penn Investments, who apparently shelled out quite a lot of money for those houses.

I believe, is it these, Scott, that you're talking about on the screen? These houses?

Yeah, along Allenback Drive, which is in the immediate vicinity. Okay. There are other apparent residences or rentals, 533 Spring Street, 535 Spring Street. In the vicinity, I don't know if people reside in them or they rent them, but the point is they're obviously residential. So to give a variance of use, once again, that's a brand new zoning ordinance, much commented on. The general area has residences that apparently are occupied.

Do we need to put this in the motion, too, for in the minutes? Yes.

Time out. We did receive a communication from Christy, to Christy Gray, I'm trying to say who from, who the Reeds. The Reed couple called in about this application, our handicap. They want to say they're against the golf cart parking and storage because it's too close to the creek and believe it will cause accidents. I move we accept this communication into the record.

Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. That one is accepted. The only thing that concerns me is variance of use. The ordinance doesn't allow that. There are residences, obviously, in the immediate vicinity. It's in a floodplain. The residences have been there, occupied. Apparently judging by the GIS one guy shelled out quite a lot of money for several houses So No, I'm just wondering why should we I Mean you could put a house there. I mean is it possible I

I live on Stable Street Lane and my neighbor... Come up, ma'am, if you want.

Could you come up to the address for the record, please?

Hi, my name is Angela Park. I live in 988 Stable Street Lane. I've been there almost 30 years. I've been through three floods in this area. The way my mobile home sits, it was placed... And he comes in with these garages. of everybody coming down Hatcher Hill, coming down our alley to go up to downtown on the river. And they're drunk, they're loud, it's all hours of the night and the day. Something like this is just going to keep them all right there in our field.

He's going to build them up. He wanted to build the land up to be able to do that, which is just going to push the water up into that fire. I can't do that.

It's just not a good idea. went out my home and flooded down the alley, further this way down to Royer, which is where we had that whole problem all the way around. So until any of this floodplain stuff is fixed like it's supposed to be, I don't feel like it's a good idea. And Mr. Penn, when we discussed this, his solution was, I'll buy your property. Now, money doesn't impress me. I'm a hard-working person.

a lot of them already cut through our thing so he builds the mutants there

Thank you. And I, too, had a concern about that. The buildings look big enough to hold 40 golf carts, maybe, let's just say. Because they are substantially 20-by-100-foot buildings, and there are two of them. And I think, what, 10 bays apiece. So you could put two or three golf carts in each bay. So you have a whole mess of golf carts, and you have people... want to store their golf cart there, well, that means they have to have a car come to pick them up or to drop them off. Or park your car, perhaps, if you are here for the weekend. Well, thank you, folks. So that is my first concern. If you have 40 or 50 golf carts in here, you have to have people coming and going to pick them up and drop them off. There's no parking on the facility. The facility is made essentially just to pull a golf cart in and drop it off. The roads there are miserable. They're not designed for heavy traffic. So that was my concern as well as obviously going against the intent of the zoning ordinance. Any other questions, comments, concerns, board members?

The parking was one thing that came to mind when I saw this. We're 40 people going to show up on Chautauqua weekend to pick up their carts, and where are they going to park?

Yes, come on up. Sure you can. Yes. That happens frequently. We appreciate that. Well, then I move we table this application until our next regular meeting. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.

which I'm going to announce the meeting date, time, and location so we don't have to extend public notice. So that will actually be tabled to Tuesday, not our normal Monday because Monday is Columbus Day, Tuesday, October 13th at 6 p.m. at City Hall. So, again, not our normal Monday day because we'll be closed. What's that? Yes. Yeah, they're tabling. They just made a motion to table it to the next meeting. Okay. So it will be Tuesday, October 13th, 6 p.m. at City Hall. Just trying to make sure it's clarified that it's not the Monday. When you've got to get up at 4 a.m. in the morning. A long day. Okay. Who seconded that? Was it Nancy?

Yes. But a tabled application, that will be heard first, correct?

Yeah, we do hear those first. That will be first on the agenda because it was tabled first. So if you come to the meeting and you're worn out from work, it'll be the first thing we talked about. So you won't have to stay here late.

And was that a 4-0? Yes.

Thank you, sir.

Thanks, guys.

Next item on the agenda, BZVD-26-10, Rob DeLue, Valvoline, LLC.

Requesting developmental standards for sign size, located 154 Franks Drive. Looks like we don't have anybody here for that one. And the last one, BZBD-2611, Gabrielle Sharman, developmental standards for sign, 3894 West State Road 56.

There were three that did not have applicants. Can I get a motion to table those three to the October 13th meeting at 6 p.m. at City Hall so we don't have to redo notices? So moved. And that is applications. Make sure I say this correctly.

I'll make a motion. I move we table until the October 14th meeting BZCU-26-11. BZVD-26-10 and BZVD-26-11. Second. I'm giving it to Rick. Sorry. Got a second? Rick did. Anything I've forgotten?

We didn't do the minutes again. I know these weren't in your packet, so if you had a chance to look through them, we can go ahead and do it. If not, you can do those next month. That's up to you guys.

Right, because are there enough to even vote for that? Because I wouldn't hear and Rick wouldn't hear.

That's up to you guys. I mean, technically you can vote.

I think we'll have to wait until next meeting.

So we will just table that, too.

If that's all our business, I move we adjourn. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those no, we are adjourned.

And just so everybody knows.

Give a second at that one.

Give it to Nancy. She missed the other one. Nancy. I don't want her to go home pouting.

And just a reminder, our next meeting is not Monday. On a Monday. It's on a Tuesday.

Just before everybody departs. I have termed in my resignation for the end of the year. I feel like eight years is long enough.

And my term is up in December, too, after 10 years.