Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

I grew up the one that my dad I've been up to a couple of them. I was Irish. Oh yeah. never cared about IU football till I mean off and on I've been I hope I'm well but but they're hard to get. Yeah. Good evening everyone. I'd like to call the Cisro Jackson Township Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. [snorts] And with that I'll do roll call. Dennis Shrimp. Mr. Johnson present. Mr. Mr. Misani present. Mr. Thomas present. Mr. Hayden present. Mr. Diller

present. Mr. Heavner present. Mrs. Gillespie. Okay. And Dan Strong's present. So we have nine or excuse me, we have seven of the nine members present this evening. So we can conduct business. And with that, I'll declare a quorum. And then looking for approval of the minute from October 8th, 2025. Has everybody had a chance to look at those and review them? Any additions or corrections at this point? Seeing none, I'd look for a motion for approval. So moved, Harrison Masonic. Thank you, Mr. Masonic. Second, Dennis Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. We have a motion and second to approve our minutes. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Thank you. Moving on to public comment. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on anything not on the agenda items this evening? Seeing no one stepping forward, we'll move forward with old business. This would be for a boat house u annual fence review for their aesthetic review for their temporary fence. Is there someone representing Yes. them this evening? If you'd step forward, state your name and address for the records, please. We'd appreciate it.

Absolutely. My name is Daryl Norris. legal counselor for the boat house swan dive which is um Mad Hall's business and you know where that's at. Um I uh so it's at 409 uh West Jackson Street in Cicero. the um we've submitted an application for a fence permit and for aesthetic review what we wanted to do and we coordinated this in September with Frank making the application but and I think you've seen probably some of the drawings etc but we wanted to reface the fence around the swan area paint the boat house and do some things like that Frank suggested that we do this um we were scheduled in October for a meeting uh Matt Hall's father passed away a day and a half before the meeting. So, it was really difficult for him to be here. Um, he's not here again tonight, but it's only because he is ill and he has some and I don't want to get into specifics except he has sort of a uh a he has some problem with his ear and and and his ability to stand and vertigo kind of things going on. He's been sitting a lot. So, uh, this matter is not right now that immediate and we might actually decide to modify it or whatever, but we're not going to get to it this fall as we originally planned. So, we have two items on the agenda. Um, the second one, I'll go first with that, and that's being this fence wall permit. We'd just like to table that indefinitely. Uh, we'll come back in 2026, uh, when we are in a spot where we think we want to try to move forward on it if that's okay and that's what we'd rather do. Doug Moore, by the way, is a uh much aware of this and I've communicated with him. He's fine with with extending that. The first item then we had talked about it a couple years ago and again last year is the fence along the hill. Uh we decided that we will take that down. Uh they're in the process of sort of working on it now. So certainly by the end of the year, probably by the end of

the month, that fence will be gone and uh so that issue becomes a mood issue. uh we you've renewed it for us I think once or twice and we're just going to take it down now. So if there been anything else there obviously down the road that would be a different application a different matter but that's where we stand if that works for everybody. So okay well we appreciate that Mr. culp since it's an indefinite table. Do we withdraw that or Yeah, we would withdraw that under our rules. That Well, that's fine. That's fine. That's fine.

Does that require us to then renotify you? I I'll go through Frank to have it rescheduled. Is that possible or is that what we would do? Yes. Okay. Okay. And work it through that way. Okay. All right. Super. So, do we need a motion to allow that to be withdrawn or Yes. So, I'll make a motion to withdraw docket PC-1125-15-dcen swan dive restaurant or aesthetic review. Thank you, Mr. Hayden. Harrison Mani, I'll second that. Thank you, Mr. Monsani. We have a motion and a second to withdraw.

Can I can I interrupt for one moment? That would be the aesthetic review and the permit application. There are two applications. Maybe they go hand in hand. So, there's a permit application for fence. That's what Frank had me submit along with the aesthetic review, but it's all the same project. I'll I'll update my motion to include the permit application as well. Okay. Thank you. Harrison do that. I would still second that. Okay. So, we have a motion and second. All in favor allowing them to withdraw their uh aesthetic review and their permit application. signify by saying I I any opposed.

So then the uh the costs that are associated with that that they paid up front, will those just carry over or I'll have to get with Mr. Zawatsky on that and we'll review that. Okay. And we would appreciate that. [laughter] So I don't want to speak for Mr. Zawatsky without having that conversation with him. So Right. Okay. Okay. But I'm guess I'm sure we'll work something out. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you gentlemen. You all have a good evening and be productive and do good things. All right. Thank you, Mr. Appreciate you taking time out of your evening to come and and let us know. No problem whatsoever. All righty. Thank you. And hopefully Mr. Hall will feel better. Thank you.

Okay, moving on to new business. We have docket number PC-1125-14C2 which is Kingman Roofing Five-Star Real Estate Development LLC. Property address is 2133 East 226th Street here in Cisro. An aesthetic review application submitted concerning article 5, the aesthetic review overlay district for signage for the property located at 2133 East 226th Street here in Cis Road. And it appears the petitioner did not show up this evening. So we can discuss this or we can table this to our next meeting. I would look for comments from the board on this.

So are you very familiar with what's being requested here? Yes, for the most part disadvantage because Frank Greg's not here. So it's one side on the upper part of the building. correct is all we're asking.

And then there's a monument sign. The only piece I'm not sure on the monument sign there was a question the location because of the overpass going in and the visibility. And I don't know if the location would be exact to what's shown on there. But but it looks like they may have figured that out. But I know there was a potential of the location of the monument sign might be in in a certain distance there and allowing them some latitude.

Where does look it up on so we can look at it. That'd be west of the drive.

So, it does look like they are looking for maybe a couple of options for that monument sign. I've got on the screen there if that helps any cuz I know there was a question. They weren't sure what the visibility of the monument sign was going to look like until they got the overpass in and they were able to drive it and see as they come over what that might look like. So, So it's not even on 31, right? It's just

correct. So the from my understanding the the wall sign would face 31 and then the monument sign would be along 226th street and that's tried to capture the piece that would be traveling on 226th street going east to west or west to east. So really consider this wall brand new

I don't know that I can answer that question sir. So, you know, for that, if you know, if the board wants to, we certainly can table and tell the petitioners here to uh be able to better answer those questions. If Mr. Zawski was here, he might be able to answer those, but I'm not sure on that. The uh we change our sign rules for the overlay.

So, no, we did not. So, that was one of the things. It is in that US 31 overlay district. So, we still are going by our uh article 10 standards for signage until we decide to, you know, go dig into that a little bit deeper and look at the signage and some of the parking and things that we've talked about doing in the future there. One more question for commercial this sign on. So single

in a single tenant I believe it's 200 square feet in a C2 you verify that but I believe that's correct correct

which I have in my notes for discussion later but it says um cumulative total of permit signs permitted on site and it says one per 200 ft of road. Does that mean they get one sign per 200 ft or one sign height? So we've had a lot of discussion around that. We would suggest taking that out in the future. But when you look at it that is like one road sign for every 200 ft. So if you had a 400 foot property, you could have two signs

said it was 60 square feet per monument sign per side cuz that one's 47.25. Yeah. [snorts] So with a monument sign, we only count one side of the face for the total square footage, I believe. Wall sign is Oh, I was sorry.

So, a single tenant structure for a wall sign. What? 90 square ft. One quick question, guys. The setback is kind of weird for that road that the countyy's already done that where it kind of angles like a funnel. So, that's already been part I believe that's all done. And that's one of the reasons I think that they're asking for some latitude on the monument sign just to make sure that all flows well and it has good good visibility when everything's completed there.

It looks like it angles a little bit further south which is kind of weird too. That's probably the right way.

Yes. So I think it meets all the ordinances for size and uh everything fits within the square footage. I mean, I personally don't see anything wrong with you. You guys are comfortable. I'm certainly good with whatever the board would like to do.

Yeah, it makes sense to move ahead. So, we're under on those square footages. Yes. And we would be under on total square feet. So then it's just aesthetically correct.

Do we like some the monument sign they would have to meet the standard of 50% of the face I think believe is landscaped or looking for here too. I'm not extremely familiar that way. Sorry. The house to the east because there is an old farmhouse there. Correct.

Do you think it's far enough away? Um unless we're going to put some type of like time restrictions on this. Unless people are looking for roofing systems at like midnight. Um, just cuz I like it's it's white and it's probably interior illuminated with 6500K white LED and there's a pond right there. There might be some reflection. I'm not positive to model a light expert, but just like curious if anyone have similar thoughts on maybe looking at times or if they can reduce brightness or something at a certain time period to kind of I don't know if the neighbor would be frustrated with the light out there or not. I can't say because they're not here. Maybe that means they're not.

Are those trees right there? It appears to be

trees around. I guess they came I believe there's not notice yeah these don't require public hearing so the neighbor wouldn't know this right away so it could be a problem but if you look they are shielded pretty well at the house and yeah isue They're looking at it on both sides. I'm guessing they're just got white on both sides.

That's a good question. It might not be an issue. I'm going to bring up something that may not be an issue, but reflection. Can we require to plant a few more evergreen type?

We could do that. I I would answer.

Yeah, I would. That sounds way overass. I would think if we would do anything, we might want to the requirement that it gets shut off at a at the close of the business or something might be the better approach. That way it's not left on all night.

I like to think about it. It's a commercial area. It's not neighborh. So I just think if they are putting lights in they're going to have the lights on some business probably the purpose of lights. Trying to see if it was internally lit.

It is. It is.

Just making sure which would be better than spotlights from that perspective. So bright shines. So, I'll make a motion to approve docket number PC-1125-14-C2 King roofing aesthetic review for signage the property located at 2133 226 Street.

Any stipulations or We're good on that, Mr. Hayden. We're good. I don't have any. Thank you, Mr. Hayden. Looking for a second. Second by Harrison Msani. Thank you, Mr. Msani. We have a motion and a second. Do a roll call vote. Mr. Diller, approve. Mr. Hebner, approve. Mr. Hayden, approve. Mr. Misani, approve. Mr. Thomas, approve. Mr. Johnson, approve.

And I'll approve. So that does pass unanimously with seven votes. Let petitioner know. And uh also I'll mention to Frank that uh for the petitioner if there is a question try to be a good neighbor if if his neighbor would approach him and I'm guessing that since he's been there for quite some time he probably is a good neighbor. So moving on from there since we don't have any other new business we'll move on to plan director's report. Hopefully everyone had an opportunity to look at that in their packets, but uh so it's for October of 2025. Her net revenue for October of 2025 was uh $7,647, which brings the year-to- date total to $48,872. October of 2024 was $6,976. And the year-to- date then was 53,370. difference for the month of March was plus $671 versus last year. Year to date, uh we're negative $4,497, but we're starting to make a little headway there. The planning department issued a total of 27 building permits for October of 2025. 16 have been within the corporate limits, of which zero were new homes. They've issued 11 in Jackson Township which zero for new homes. Estimated cost of the projects permitted was $1,12,956. Next planning commission meeting is scheduled for that would not be right. So that would be I believe it's December the 11th.

Yep. December 700 p.m. December 10th, excuse me. Thank you for that. December 10th, 700 p.m. here at town hall. And then the next BGA meeting is scheduled at town hall for here at November 21st at 7 p.m. And they do have business to conduct at that meeting. November 21st. 21st, sir. That doesn't make sense. Yeah, it' have to be the 20th, wouldn't it? Friday, right? Why he's got 21st on here. Sorry. Guess I need to check things I'm going to read in the future.

Thank you for catching that.

So, thank you. So, moving on there was president's report. appreciate all of you being here and uh hopefully we won't have a long meeting. I know we've talked a little bit about uh some changes with signed ordinances and some ordinance changes and some of those things. So, we want to continue to have those conversations. Probably in the future, we'll start putting those on the agenda under new business to start with and then we'll go with old business. But I did pass out a little bit of information for everyone to think about based upon a conversation that we had previously for neighborhood commercial. So if you look at the first page, it's from our article 10. And it basically we added the poll sign there. And then back to that comment would look to take out the 200 road frontage comments there just to clean that up a little bit. And then also then the next page would have just a what we did with the poll sign to clean that up a little bit for everybody to have the opportunity to review that.

I don't have

you didn't get one. Sorry. Thanks, sir. And as you can see, those are just things we've talked about. So, I just want to make sure everyone got this in front of you so you had an opportunity to take a look at it. We can have further discussion and what you like. And then we'd need to go to our article five. And in that particular case, I highlighted that we would want to add that poll signs are not permitted any place other than the NC zoning district. That seemed to be where we were most concerned about, but that's something for everybody to take a look at and see if you might want to see it located someplace else as well. So, I just drove down Springtown and the utilities sign is that in the city

the utility would be in an R3, I believe. And then what about town utility offices? Is that that would be neighborhood commercial if I remember correctly? Because I just noticed I think it was the utilities office. They just put up a new sign, didn't they? Yeah, they put it up. I think it's probably been maybe two years now. Oh, has been a while. So then that sign wouldn't fit in our new requirements. Correct.

Correct. So actually so the in that particular case it would not fit probably with an R3 but as a municipality we have some latitude that we're allowed to have a little bit different signs. Yeah. So yeah, yes to answer your question. Now it would under probably the new signed ordinance for what we're not there, but it would be if you're considering that a pole sign, it would fit with the pole sign standards I think that we're looking at today for neighborhood commercial.

And then moving on to the next page, just a couple of things to think about. So, one of the things to look at, we had a little bit of from a changeable copy sign and electronic sign of the definitions being very similar but not being the same. So, taking a look at the changing the changeable copy sign definition. So, if everybody take a chance to take a look at that in the near future and then also looking at the monument sign to shore that up just a little bit to help that be a little more understanding of how it's attached to the ground versus a pole sign because if you remember previously I think it was stated it was 4 in off the ground and this would be an attachment to the ground with a base to try to clean that up a little bit and then added the pole assign sign definition there to tie into what we're looking at for pole signs. Thank you, Mr. Cob. And then on the next page, looking at the permanent change of copy sign. So to make that all flow properly, you would look down at the other limit limitations and then that uh verbiage was added there to clean that up a little bit so everything flowed well on the changeable copy side. Is the intent I know that part of this is to prevent the electronic lit up signs like the one that we recently had to make it clear what it is and isn't. But what if it's one of those that's like the old scoreboards where it's it's electric but

it's electric and it drops like a metal copy sign. Are we want wanting to prohibit that or are we just wanting the digital electronics? So, I think if you and I we would have to take a look at it, but I've got my book here, but I believe scoreboards are exempt if I remember correct on our zoning ordinance. They're I'm just thinking if someone had a sign that operated with that. Understood. Because technically it's using electricity, but it's not lights. It's hard copied. It's just flipping. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does. And that's something that was a little bit of concern of trying to change that changeable copy to come up with a good definition for that. So, it's something we might all want to take a look at and if you have a chance to look at it and see if there's a better definition we can do. But wanted to get these out just so some starting points for conversation so everybody could take a look at some of the things that we've talked about that we might want to change in the future.

Well, and it may be that no one's using those signs anymore. I may be imagining a problem that doesn't exist anymore. It's a very good comment, Mr. Culp. Any comments or thoughts on those at this time? And if not, then we'll everybody a chance to absorb those and think about them for the future and continue to work on them.

Good job, Dan. We did look at changing a um projecting sign and a hanging sign. So if you look at our current definition, so we would want to remove on the projecting sign, remove no part of the sign may protrude more than 18 in from the wall it is attached to and then leave the no part of the sign may exceed above the ease of the roof or be mounted on the roof. and look to change that definition to a sign that is rigidly affixed to and supported solely by an exterior wall or rigidly suspended from a pole attached to a building wall no more than 12 in but not greater than 3 ft. Such signs must be perpendicular to the building face upon which they are attached and I can make sure that all gets out sent out to everyone in the soil.

So the signs that we have gone to the BCA does this those that did that they only go out 18 in I don't remember yes the intent is to address those that they actually can be out to 12 in and they can go out a total of 3 ft. So that would allow them to h suspend to address that 18inch gap that you can't be more than 18 in the wall and this one would allow it to be a maximum of 3 ft from a wall. So, it's 12 in from the walls minimum. Yes. And then a maximum of three feet.

Why are we pushing out 12 in? I'm just curious. Well, that was just for conversation. That's what I, you know, we had seen in other ordinances and it seemed to be sort of a standard. Okay. I'm just trying to visually think well is it to avoid being a marquee? Pardon me. Is it to avoid marquee signs? Well, it actually says no more than 12 in. So, so has to start within 12 in, correct? Okay. And then no more than 3 ft out. Okay. All right. I'm good with that.

Okay. And I should have made copies of this. And then we would change the hanging sign because if you look at them, they are sort of very similar. And we've ch change sort of the hanging sign a sign suspended from some other feature such as a post protruding out from a building that is designed for that specific purpose or it may be suspended from a marquee or overhang of some sort. It can be parallel or perpendicular to the building facade and suspended from the support structure. The support structure does not include a post or pole that is mounted to the ground. So, we'll make sure those get sent out to you though. Should have sent that out ahead of and then we'll continue to work on the the development standards and start looking at some of those things. So if everybody has the opportunity to do those and some of the things that have came up just to talk about just to throw out for you at all thinking about is the one uh tree in the parking lot at least eliminating that for the downtown and neighborhood commercial. Probably makes more sense to keep that with the bigger commercial lots but to remove that for neighborhood and downtown commercial possibly. tree in the parking lot.

So for every 10 spaces or less, there's a requirement of a tree. Okay? And we keep running into that into the smaller parking lots, especially in the downtown areas that, you know, basically no one can hardly meet that standard and so they have to go to the BCA on a regular basis to get a variance for that standard.

Okay. Another thing that uh throw out on the table for everybody to think about would be the and this came about from a couple of the things that have been before the board of zoning pills most recently would be allowing parking spaces on the road or on the streets. So the thought might be that we might want to count so many spaces downtown commercial for possibly 10 spaces for a business. As long as they don't need more than 10 spaces, then they would not to seek a variance. But if they exceeded to 10 spaces, then they would need to go get a variance for that. and then maybe looking at neighborhood commercial doing the same things and allowing six spaces and that and if they exceeded the six spaces then they would be required to go to the board of zoning appeals to get a variance if they could not meet the standard. Any thoughts around that or does that make any sense?

How do you determine what parking spaces on the road go into that business?

We would not determine what those were. they would just be allowed to utilize on street parking. We would not specify that they had to be in front of their business or where those might be. It was just if they and I'll use one of the smaller businesses over here that recently went in square footage wise. I think they have two employees. They might have square footage requires two or three spaces. And so, but you know, with our current ordinance, you know, they may not be able to make the the standards they need to. So, it's just trying to make sure we can accommodate the smaller businesses so they don't have to seek variances in the future.

Parking is always an issue as the town grows up, but I think right now it's awesome. So, it's basically to to do those in the neighborhood downtown commercial. So does those numbers seem reasonable to everyone at this point just to think about what happens when you got multiple businesses exact.

No, I understand what you're saying. I guess

well that's the dilemma you know that it's back to you know that we want to that walkability of trying to give a little latitude to try that from and thank you for the information Mr. Mani on the the spreadsheet of going back and looking at all those, but it's trying to, you know, all the things that keeps going to the board of zoning appeals on a regular basis is trying to look at those and should we try to modify some of those things if they're not going to the board of zoning appeals all the time.

So, is that where the six and 10 came from? Did you look back and did an assessment of what they were in for? No, I actually just looked at some of the small businesses that had went in recently and tried to figure out with the square footage and the employees what that impact might be. And that's where I just came up with the six and a 10 just as a starting point for us to talk about and see if that made sense and if not, what would we want that to look like? But I would be curious why has been request I guess that's what you did is what was requested from the BCA. Correct. Yes. But parking seems to go to the BCA a lot. So

no, it's the right approach to make it more efficient. That's costly a business here. So like the closed stores, I mean that that's who you're trying to get. Correct. They don't have parking.

Correct. And per our ordinance, we don't count on street parking. So, so just trying to, you know, fix some of the things that we've talked about over time and making sure that we're being uh business friendly as much as we can, but then also the things that on a regular basis are going to the board of zoning appeals that if you continue to have those issues from what I've understood, you might want to take a look at the ordinance and see if there's a way to work with that. So, so Harrison, you sit on the board [snorts] of appeals. Those numbers seem reasonable to you.

SP gosh, I can't remember what those numbers were. I think you can almost easily because some of them were daytime, some of them were night time, some are breakfast. And so like between I think the biggest issue is probably 10 because a lot of parking anyways, but I don't know specifically based on the business. I don't think that I have seen that many parking there. Okay. It's mainly the little [snorts] shops that don't have Yes.

a lot, you know, cuz some of the bigger ones have contracted with the church to lease out so many spots and they credit that some parking spots, but but you know, it's a place that maybe has off street spots and they may only need realistically they may have three or four customers at a time if that and so you're not talking about high volume. No, it makes sense. I was just asking about the numbers.

The last one that came down I believe the place does the uh They had

Yeah, I'm not saying that necessarily the six and 10's, you know, the the appropriate answer, but I just wanted to throw out some numbers for everybody to start thinking about and, you know, take a look at them and, you know, see if any of that makes sense. If it does, then let's try to figure out, you know, what might work. And I like the concept. So, I guess that's what I'm looking for. Would that concept work? And, you know, make it easier for everyone as well. So, Frank had sent me a spreadsheet that showed all the past variances like 2019, I think. Yes. 2017. Yes.

And they were categorized a little differently. based on two inputs in the spreadsheet. So I couldn't do all the stuff that would make it streamlined for us. This is kind of a backwards way to do it, but so it's not specific. So I did it by type of variance. Sign variances were signed variances were number one. Aesthetic reviews were 45. There were 45 cases. I mean it didn't count hundreds of items because the way it was categorized. So this is just a summary of what it could count. So, signs, aesthetic reviews, accessory structures, um, subdivision, business uses, heights, setbacks, special exceptions, parking was on here, reszoning, and fencing were the big ones, which seemed like they always come up. Signs, structures. I feel like I haven't seen that many heights, but I'm sure there has been. Parking and then fences. So,

one of the big thing with fences is we we normally every couple months have at least one where it's a corner lot. They technically have two front yards and by ordinance you can only put it in the backyard. And so, we need to look at how can we define that so we don't require them to come in because they have two front yards. So way anyway, the intent was just to throw out some items for everybody to start thinking about, but then also, you know, maybe that gives you some additional information when you're going through the book to start looking at the things that you've heard or that you've thought about. So, we continue to work on all of them and uh do our best to get some of these things uh modified and make it easier for the board when possible. Some of the things we know, you know, we're not going to be able to change some of with everything with aesthetics and all those things. There might be some things we might want to modify in the fence ordinance from that. And then also the accessory structures. One of the things that I've heard a couple of times is that and we have two of the BCA members here and I know I believe it's been discussion that when you have lakefront property that it's almost really hard for anyone to do an accessory structure on the lakeside anymore and we have a lot of people coming in and looking for a variance for an accessory structure in front of a primary structure. So, you know, would the board want to consider uh looking at the lakefront properties and, you know, putting into an ordinance that that might be different for an accessory structure being in front of a primary structure versus some of the other zoning districts. So, you know, take a look at all those things and, you know, let's start trying to tweak them and uh a little bit at a time and uh continue

to work on them. But I just want to throw out some thoughts tonight for everyone to think about and get some conversation started and uh any other thoughts or comments on that while we're talking about it. Can you put a separate area there?

Sure. Can you word it as a setback issue? If they're on a corner where they're allowed 20 foot setback or something like that beyond that, the fence could go up or something like that. You can't have an accessory [snorts] structure in front of the main structure. So you're facing two sides of the street a lot in front of the structure. Kind of the way I have been trying to come up with would be focused on where the front door is. So if the front door is here, then for the the purposes of a fence or a accessory structure, this would be they could put it over here without a variance and that would just be for corner. But that was just kind of what trying to come up with a way to define that because most houses don't have two door front doors on each street. They have a clear front side of the house.

Yeah. For accessory structures such as a pool that we just dealt with. I'm not that was okay. Well, apparently we didn't deal with it very well because they put their house up for sale. [laughter] We approved it. They put their Well, we didn't approve it. Yeah. Well, they were in front of the town for because they also had an easement issue. Yes.

That's why they came in front of council. So I think you know that's where we'll have to really dig into some of it and see what you know in those particular cases where they're corner lots what we want to particularly deal with whether it could be strictly a fence or you know or could be other things as well as you know the lakeside you know the accessory structures and some of those things but you know continue to look at those and make notes and you know what we've talked about tonight bring back any additional comments to the next meeting and let's try to tweak some of the things and start checking some of these things that we're talking about off the list and we'll continue to add to the list and it'll be very valuable to us, you know, hearing the board of zoning committee, you know, appeals comments because you deal with a lot of these things and and getting your thoughts as well. So, okay. Okay. I didn't have anything else on that. I got a few things on the list, but I won't get into all those tonight. So, but we'll continue to work on them. Okay, with that, moving on to legal counsel report. Mr. Cole, uh the only thing I was going to mention is I I've shared this with the BZA. Um last month, the court of appeals ruled on a case involving the city of Noblesville's BZA. Specifically, it was the Beaver Gravel project that was approved to the west of town. Uh they had been challenged by neighbors who opposed that. The local court ruled in the neighbor's favor saying that they should not have approved it. The court of appeals affirmed the local court's decision saying basically they agreed that it should not have been approved. Uh I provided copies to the BCA members. I can get them to you if you'd like to see them. It's just an I think it's a good

case to look at how courts analyze what what we do, more specifically the BCA in this instance. I don't agree with either court's decision because according to the law, when a BCA acts, you're supposed to they are the factfinder. And if the evidence supports what they decided, you're supposed to accept that. You're only supposed to overturn what they decided if if the evidence does not support that. there's something that's clearly arbitrary or capriccious. And I believe both courts substituted their weighing of the evidence, but that's just my opinion, which carries no legal weight. Um, I don't know if the city of Noblesville intends to appeal that decision or not. But I know probably at least we're aware of that case because there's been a series of beaver gravel efforts at reszones and different things. I'm assuming they tried to get a land use variance because if you can prove you meet the requirements, you are entitled to one versus a reszone, which is purely discretionary. And I think they've I think they've lost twice trying to convince the Noblesville Council to do reszones. Um, so there there's that case. There's also a a new one that I was going to share with Frank about zoning enforcement where u when an inspector is and isn't allowed to go onto someone's property, what sort of things and steps you need to follow for enforcement. Uh because while statutoily our inspector has the right to go on and do an inspection because we're a governmental entity, that's just you can't just do that um randomly. And so at sometimes we may have to someone won't consent, you'd look at getting a warrant. You can get a civil version of a warrant to go on and conduct an inspection. Uh, all years I've done this, I've never had to do that, but I'm sure sooner or later it's going to happen. Um, you know, but just these kind of legal developments, if anyone's interested, let me know and I can share the two

cases with you. I think I saw where DNR that was an issue in a couple states too where they were supposed to get a a warrant didn't and but they also said that they didn't need one you know to do that that's all I

thank you sir moving on to board member comments comments by board members question on looking at the piece on variances and violations the actified how how do those say Frankach farm attorney how is that you know we gave him a temporary I remember my my recollection is we approved the variance with the condition no amplified music and so if they are violating that we have to go through our enforcement procedure. there's notice. The next step if if if it's an issue would be to issue a notice of fines and penalties that basically says this action constitutes this if there's another incident. But and you can stair step those fines up. I think it's $2,500 per incident. Uh we can also decide if we need to, we can take them to court to seek a injunction. And the BCA if they're violating a condition of a variance can also look they're sending that if they're not going to abide by the conditions that placed on there. I don't know any specifics of this because this is the first I've even heard about that FC reached out.

Yeah, it was only when they agreed to that that the BCA I think I don't think they would have gotten an approval without that. And that was their condition. They offered that if you remember. Go ahead. I think I think he offered she wasn't very happy. No, she was she was not thrilled with that.

But I I I think his attorney read the room and they realized that that was probably their best chance for an approval. But that looks like they did it anyway. I do know when Mr. Zolski gets a complaint, he does follow up on them and I do know that he did follow up on that. So,

I I do think his first step is to try to in a nonofficial way because I think Frank tries to give people the benefit of the doubt. they're not willfully ignoring something. And then if he has to deal with them a second time, then he starts formally going through things. Just wondering how it works. Any other board member comments? Okay, seeing none, our next planning commission meeting will be December 10th at 700 p.m. here. And with that, I would look for a motion to adjurnn. So moved, Dennis Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. And second.

Thank you, Mr. Heer. We have a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Meeting adjourned.