Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

All right, it is 7:06. We're starting just a little later than 7 o'clock here. We'll go ahead and call the November 20th, 2025 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals to order. Um, the main purpose of us all being here tonight is there are two public hearings scheduled. Um, we do have one item of business before those, though. Um, we need to approve the minutes from the October 30th meeting of the board of zoning appeals. Oh, go ahead and do roll call. Uh, Greg Zinc, present. Chuck Williams,

present.

I'm Anthony Ciphers and James Moore and Lorie Jackson are absent. Now we'll move on to approval of the minutes for the October 30th meeting. I've reviewed the minutes of of the meeting and I see everything to be just fine unless Craig find something wrong. Just a clerical order clerical [clears throat] thing. Uh just a misspelled word. Uh and Chloe Chloe Day's statement of course says her last statement says let it be the community that stand up and Scott mod. It should be not push people back. Just that one correction. one

other than the grammatical correction in one of the statements. There any other corrections or additions? I think everything to be fine. All right. I'd entertain a motion to approve the minutes. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. I'll second. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? I I.

All right. Moving along. Um So, uh, we'll go ahead and move on. We've got two public hearings tonight. So, on behalf of the board, I'd like to welcome everyone to the meeting. Um, everyone who appears before the Board of Zoning Appeals is entitled to a legal right of due process. Therefore, everyone present who wants to will be given an opportunity to speak. Is everyone signed in that would like to speak? If not, just see Ronnie or Gina. [clears throat] Um, we're asked that when you are called upon, you'll first state your name and your address for the record. Um, we have two public hearings before us this evening, and we're going to follow the same format for each. Um, public hearings held for the purpose of hearing testimony and just that it's not to be used as a forum for public debate between proponents and opponents of whatever matters at hand. All comments made must bear relevance to the subject at hand and comments made are to us the board of zoning appeals. Um we may choose to impose a time limit of five minutes per speaker. Um it's important that everyone has a chance to speak. Um again we may impose that given the number of people. It's likely we don't have to tonight. Um first the petitioner will present the facts and arguments in support of their case. board may interject with comments and questions throughout their testimony to clear up subject matter. Then we'll hear from individuals from the public who wish to speak. After the public has been heard, we'll invite the petitioner back up to address questions and cons and concerns that have been presented. When we're satisfied that all testimony has been presented and our obligation to you of due process has been fulfilled, the hearing will be closed. At that time, we'll make a decision based on what's been presented, relevant legalities, and is it or is it not in the best interest of Salem and Washington County. Um, at

this time, I'll go ahead and hand things over to Mr. Vissing, and he will explain to us the legalities regarding docket number 2025-16. Yes. [clears throat] And that's Mr. Kimy's application. So, this is for a developmental standards variance. Um, so I will briefly describe to you the process for a developmental standards variance. Uh, the board of zoning appeals may approve or deny a variance from developmental standards from the Salem zoning ordinance um, subject to limitations in section 156.104 of the zoning ordinance. Under the zoning ordinance, a developmental standards variance may be approved when the departure from the developmental standards is not contrary to the public interest and due to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of actions of the applicant, literal enforcement of the Salem zoning ordinance would result in unnecessary and undue hardship. Additionally, pursuant to Indiana Code 36-7-4-918.5, a developmental standards variance may be approved only upon a determination that first, the approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. Second, that the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. And third, that the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. And tonight, with there being three members of the board present, it will take all three votes to carry any motion. [clears throat] All right. So, we will go ahead and invite Mr. Kimy up to or mi Miss Kimzy, I'm sorry.

All right. And if you could please first just state your name and address for the record. Um, are you talking about the property on the docket? Your current address, please. My current address. Okay. My name is Riley Kimy. Um, I currently live at 206 Cindy Lane, Kurthersville, Indiana 47229. All right. And so you are seeking a developmental standards variance and from the application it looks like this is in regard to building a 30 right now a 30 by 32 foot home. Correct. And where the variance is being sought is the placement of the home is going to infringe 12 feet onto the front setback. Correct.

Okay. Um nothing with side or rear setbacks. No. Okay. Um, we have in the application there is a a picture from the GIS of the property here. Um, it's it's not, you know, satellite imagery is great, but it's not always the clearest idea. Can you explain, I guess, why is the variance being sought? Why can't we be 30t from the road?

Yes. on the um uh on the west side of the property right along the line that's the property line there is a water runoff pipe um with also a steep incline. So, the builder um Gary Hollowell went and looked at the property and suggested a um to seek a variance to move the uh the house up um in line with all the other houses that are currently um on the block [clears throat] um to help alleviate any what I'm assuming is potential um sag due to water runoff um or any issues on that back corner because it would put it it looks like um 5 to 10 feet next to that the opening of the pipe. Um so he suggested moving it forward.

Okay. So the biller suggests due to there being a pipe that comes out deposits water moving the footprint of the house up to avoid that would be prudent. And this would put your house in line with the other houses that are already existing. Correct. Such as the adjacent property. Yes. Okay. So to the left and to the right [clears throat]

I don't say do you guys have any any questions Greg additional questions? I'm not seeing any problems. Okay. If it's in line with the other houses um for now. So how how this will work is you'll go ahead. You can take a seat for now. We're going to open public comment and then we may if if we need to, we may call you back up after public comment's done. But that's all we need for now. All right. Excellent. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Um, we did not sort these by which hearing you are here to talk about. So, if it's okay, if we can do so in an orderly manner, if there is public comment on this hearing, if you just want to make your way up and state your name and address for the record, I'll mark you off and we can go in order here. My name is Thomas Roberts and I live at 280 East Bots Lane. I live directly behind where Riley Kinsley's got the half lot up there. My main concern is the water. Uh several years ago I moved there behind my house. Had water standing in my house. Help with the city and the state. I have no more water standing there in my house. Okay. Now I'd like to have it documented before this is approved. If water runs off sit situation now the house is there standing in my backyard all that water will be resolved [clears throat] you know I'm trying to take care of my property

understood and if that's agreed upon good to have that document mailed to The city and the state helped me have no water standing in my backyard no more. It's been years and years since I had water. We had a lot of excess rain. Water will stand there no more. What I'm afraid of is the water runoff now cuz that land's not level goes down. And I'm afraid of the water runoff beside the house or whatever. There might be a situation might have standing water again at the back of my yard. And I don't want that because I have no water now back in my yard. We've had a lot of excess rains.

I understand. Just I guess a clarifying question if it's a appropriate what what work was done by the city and state to help to help rectify that. Right here's Woodlon Drive.

It's kind of angled down, but the brick house to the east of me top next to Woodlong Drive. Water kept running down that way. the state right next to Woodlong Drive close to me put a pipe through there. Well, that water now goes through there and to a dump station over there and goes down to a revenge beside west of my house. There's a big ditch through there. Although she talked about that pipe and that's where that water goes to. Plus the state put a big pipe across uh 160 there, Bots Lane, which I have no more water at my house, no water standing. What I'm afraid of is that drain off comes down. I don't want water standing back on my property again.

Well, I certainly understand that.

Well, you know what? I've had some looks like a lake back when I first moved there cuz a lot of water stood there. But like I say, if water does come down there, I like to have it documented that it would be resolved. Somebody would take care of that without both parties discussing that who's going to [clears throat] take care of what. I want to make sure it's documented. That water situation if it stands there would be be resolved. Okay. Um I don't know in in granting a in the matter at hand which is the granting of the developmental standards variance as it pertains to the front setback. That's the issue at hand here. I certainly understand your your concern here. However, I don't know that it that's

you think that's not feasible to get that resolved. I've had no water problem yet for years. Well, I'm I'm not saying that, but as far as this board and what we are well engaging in, I guess I'm I'm I'm just I'm not sure that that's our

I guess your question is, if I understand it correctly, is the variance application is to build the home within the front setback, so closer to the road. The individual here has concerns regarding water runoff on the at the rear of the property and how is the shifting of the building envelope into the front setback going to potentially affect or impact that water runoff situation because I the lot itself could be developed and built upon by Wright in the absence of a of a developmental standards variance. The the only question is is where the house is going to be placed on the lot, not whether or not a house can be built upon the lot.

Okay. How far back that lot will be positioned off the wood lot? Well, that's a good question there. The the setback requirement is 30 feet. However, the variance being sought is to move it up 12 feet. So, it would be 18 feet off. So to move it away from No, actually I'm not worried about all that. What I'm worried about is I've not had in no water situation for 30 years now. The city's helped me, the state's helped me. We've had some excess rains. If this construction goes here, if that disturbs that land, the water runoff, I could have situation where I have water standing in my backyard again and I don't want that.

Well, I can understand that. Um, I do, but I don't know as far as guaranteeing or making any sort of promise or warranty about water. I don't know that this board in our capacity to the BZA can't bind the city to do any storm water remediation. Okay. May I ask this? On that property,

I've had that done probably 25 years ago. The city and the state. I had a lot of water in my backyard and now it can rain five or six 12 inches. I don't care. No water stands in my backyard. What I'm concerned with now is we've got a construction here now. The divers of this water coming down, if the water stands there now, it wouldn't be standing there if that construction wasn't there. And I think the question that Anthony is asking is do you believe that it's the that moving the building envelope 12 ft further closer to the road would eliminate that

worsen this problem or or somehow affect it? Because I guess the question is not whether or not a home can be built upon the lot because it's it can be built on the lot by right. Right. Right. And and that the applicant wouldn't have to come to this board to get any approval or variance to do so. The only reason that the application is before us is because, you know, due to, I believe, some storm water piping on the property, it's more feasible to build it closer to the road, at least in the judgment of the applicant and and their um builder.

Okay. Another scenario in front or back of the house. Is there any way they can divert the water runoff to that pipe going to that revenge I've got on the west side of my house? I mean, you you may want to speak with the applicant and their builder about what they can do with the

Okay. Well, what happens when it rains real hard? That construction's there and I got water standing in my backyard. I'm not had it for 25 years. What happens then? Well, I guess the question is and in the the relevance to what's before the board is do you believe that there that your concern about storm water runoff is it exacerbated or caused by in your belief the variance that's being sought? So building it closer to the road versus just building it in the existing byright building envelope. I can answer that. Okay. Well, and and that's what M

what I'm trying to say is I've had no water for well over 25 years and I've had excess water back there with the help of the city and the state. I have no water now. I don't want water. I'm trying to protect my property. That's what I'm trying to do. Sure. So, how how so how can I do that? Well, the board I don't think can answer that question for you. They're just evaluating the application based on the criteria of the zoning ordinance. They'll take your testimony as part of the record in in making his decision. But I think the question that not to speak for you Anthony, but I I think the question you're asking is

Yes. is do you believe that the variance the subject matter or the variance being sought somehow impacts the storm water situation on the property rather than I think the way that I I understand you to be posing it to us as you're concerned is about construction on this lot more generally and how that construction is going to I'm worried about construction I'm worried about the water runoff caused by the the building of a home

could be could be it depends on the excess of what rain we But now I don't have no water at all. So I I can't I don't understand why it can't be documented that this situation well if I have excess water back there due to excess rain that this water situation can't be resolved

because we this board does not have the authority to enter into any obligation to to do that. My name is Steve Neville and I'm attorney with Maddox and Wilson down to Alb Indiana, 125 East Spring Street. I'm here assisting Mr. Roberts to get here and talk. I think what he's saying is that, you know, but for there being some kind of drainage or storm water problem that she wouldn't have to seek the variance. I don't think there's an objection that she's putting a single family house in a neighborhood with a bunch of single family houses on a lot that's that's vacant, but that he had problems with drainage before and if you know if practically nobody can really a contractor is not going to build on that lot because there's a drainage problem on one side of it. Um I think what he's asking is that look if things have been fine for 25 years and then all of a sudden I've got construction and somebody builds a new house and then that diverts water onto my property that wasn't there before. uh given that storm water is the reason for the setback the request for the variance on the setback. Can there be some kind of condition to be put in the variance you know that it's not going to divert water that to keep the status quo essentially not divert water that's that's that's not being diverted there right now because it's fixed. I think that's what he's asking. Um and I'm sure that the board and Mr. Vissing could see what they legally can or can't do in terms of adding conditions to that kind of variance. That was the request

and I think Mr. Boils has some comment on that.

Whenever we went out and looked at the site and survey or got all the survey done, we determined that there is a drainage on the west and there is a small drainage on the east side and during construction and we made it clear that they cannot plug up any of those drainage areas during construction. There will be some dirt But long as those two stay open, I don't see any flooding going on there whatsoever. She's going to be moved up closer to the road where it's drier and that'll leave that little uh storm area that's already established, it'll stay open. So, I guess to to your request, would I if the board were to consider putting a condition on any approval if they were to grant it, would a condition requiring the applicant not to materially alter the current storm water and drainoff infrastructure on the lot? Um, would that be something that I guess would make your client feel more comfortable regarding the issue there?

Yes. Okay. And one thing else I'll add, when everything is done, her down spouts will have to be put over into the bigger drain to the west and that'll that'll keep it away from his property. Okay. That's one thing we will make. And is that with as far as diversion of rain run off from gutters, is that something? Yeah,

I I guess you could the if the board were inclined to grant the application for the variance, then you you have the ability to impose reasonable conditions on that approval. One of which could be limiting any impact on the existing storm water infrastructure and also requiring that storm water be diverted into those drains in order to mitigate any potential runoff storm water runoff issues. Understood. That's one thing we don't

All right. It's so basically that takes care of itself with the building ordinance, right? And we'll be there to monitor it. So, do we need to make a motion about this or we need to make sure there's no more public comment first?

Yeah. And but but what if that is a type of condition that the board would be inclined to do, then when you make the motion, we I think at this point we've articulated in the record what those conditions would be. Uh, and those are the recommended conditions from staff. So, in making a motion, if it were to be a motion to approve, then you could just say a motion to approve with the stipulations, the staff recommendations uh, that have have previously been spoken in the record. And we do have a storm water staff that will monitor myself. Okay.

Um, is there any more public comment for this hearing? Okay. Because and I think the wording here if if this is something we're inclined to do, I mean there are any number of circumstances that could arise completely separate from the petitioner's construction or maintenance of the property that could at one point in time impact this area. So, I think if we are inclined to put something in there, it needs to be specific to what she or her builder may or may not actually be able to impact at all. Um, so do we I don't have any additional questions for the petitioner. Do either of you have is there a reason to bring her back up?

All right. Um, I mean, I don't think we need to close here, do we? Is the presiding officer with there being no further public comment, he can close the public comment section and then you know you can continue with discussion and then obviously any motion [clears throat] one way or another on the docket item. Okay. Um we'll go ahead and then close public comment and move forward. Um given I think here um setback itself it's in line with the other houses there doesn't seem to be any

material issue of any neighbor with the building department on granting that. However, of course the concerns been presented here about potential runoff issues. Um

well the potential runoff issues I think is already taken care of by the storm water committee. So you know really I don't think that needs to be put in place with with or without. Although I'm I'm inclined to agree with you that yes, that really does address most of it. Um I I I don't know that personally you can disagree with me. I don't putting in the stipulation

to the approval that during the course of construction that no alterations, changes, impact will be made to existing infrastructure. I don't know because already that is the case. I don't know that it hurts anything for peace of mind of the neighbor to go ahead and just reiterate that formally here. to make sure all that stuff cleared away. Sure. Um I would entertain I guess a motion

a motion. Yeah. I I make the motion to go ahead with the variance with um the perimeter drains everything that that the city asked for them to do and tie in so that it doesn't cause any problems. And the lock designed or shaped to drain off to not cause any water problems. I mean, as the contractor builds it, you'll be able to grade it, shape it, what all. And uh long all the drains are hooked hooked where there should be and what all and I'll make a motion to pass it. I'll second that. All right. Motion's made and seconded. All in favor? I I

All right. Variance has been approved um with the requirement that existing storm water runoff infrastructure is not altered, blocked, clogged any way and that the builder will follow any advice given by the city to help mitigate any potential issues. All right, [clears throat] we'll go ahead and move on. Um, we do have a second hearing tonight, docket number 2025-17. Um, so Mr. Vissing, if you'd like to introduce this one for us.

Uh, yes. This is an application for a special exception uh for the expansion of a mobile home park. Um the mobile home park um or mobile home parks I should say are uh governed by uh section 156.084 of the Salem zoning ordinance. Uh mobile home parks are allowed in the RR and R3 districts as a special exception. Um I believe the the current park there has been approved by a special exception up to a certain number of lots. uh to this point. And so the applicant is seeking to expand the existing um mobile home park on this site um to include additional lots on the full uh the full footprint of this parcel. Um the a little procedural history on this. Uh this came before the plan commission last month. Um under the zoning ordinance, the site plan is subject to review and approval by the plan commission similar to what's required for a plat approval. Uh the the zoning ordinance sets forth some specific criteria about essentially the developmental standards for a um for mobile home park very similar to how the subdivision control ordinance sets forth similar criteria uh for the platting of of a subdivision. Uh so that uh was approved at the plan commission level. Um and so that now th this is coming to the board of zoning appeals for the question about the expanded use. Um so I I'll go a little bit uh through the

procedure and then also speak to a little bit of background on some homes that are currently being stored on on the lot. Um, so for a special exception, the board of uh zoning appeals may approve or deny special exceptions from the Salem zoning ordinance. A special exception is required for uses that would not generally be appropriate uh or without restriction uh throughout a district, but if controlled as to number, area uh location in relation to the neighborhood uh would promote the public health, safety, morals, uh order, comfort, convenience, appearance, and prosperity uh of the of the city and the neighborhood. Um and you know again you'll also be reviewing um this application to ensure consistency with the comprehensive plan. Uh a little additional background on this is the city staff um had you know previously got information about a couple of homes that were being stored uh on the lot and we've been in touch with the applicant and their council about that. Typically under the ordinance, such storage would not be permitted. Um, however, what what we've opted for here, understanding there are some logistical difficulties in moving these homes, finding a place to situate them, and I believe there's the ultimate uh intention to have these on padded lots and connected utilities here at this site. So would the arrangement that we've come to with the applicant is an understanding that if there were an approval that were issued tonight for the special exception, there would be 90 days to get those homes on completed paths and

hooked up to utilities and ready for occupancy. Uh and again that's all in accordance with other uh laws and regulations applicable to the park. Uh if the application were to be denied, there would similarly be a 90-day period to get those homes off of the lot to bring it into compliance with the zoning ordinance. Uh so that's just a little bit of of background from the plan commission level, from the staff level, and then also the procedure on the special exception. Um I do know that the applicant has gone through with it. There's a current private gravel drive uh that's through the uh existing park that has been treated uh with a solution to make it dust proof and to you know somewhat lock the uh the gravel in place uh to prevent kind of loose gravel spill out into the uh public roads nearby. and again to satisfy earlier conditions uh to a prior expansion of the park to require it to be a dust proof service. So staff and the plan commission have been satisfied with that. And so tonight uh we can turn it over to the applicant to present on their special exception application. And just as with the prior docket item, this is a public hearing item. So the applicant will have an opportunity to present um their application. Uh they've submitted a written application, they'll have the opportunity to present it orally to the board and then um the public uh will have the opportunity to come up and provide public comment. Once public comment is closed, the applicant will have the ability to um you know come up and reapproach address some of the comments that have been made and answer any further questions of the board. And as I'm sure Anthony will remind you,

public comments, not a question and answer session amongst the board and the applicant, though the board reserves that the the right to ask some questions of of any uh public commenters as they see fit. Um but and it's it it's especially not a forum for um question and answer between the applicant and the public commenters. Really the comment should be directed to the board as comments, testimony uh regarding uh your position on the issue and any relevant facts that you have to um that you may find relevant or that the board may find relevant. Um so with that, I'll turn it back over to Anthony and we can invite the applicant up.

All right. Uh Mr. Bryant, uh would you like to come forward and [clears throat]

Um, if you don't mind, that would be helpful.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Good evening. My name is John McCoy. I'm an engineer with JLM Engineering. It's at 720 Rolling Creek Drive in New Albany. And I also have Tim, my name's Tim Bryan. I'm with um I gave the address of the office. It's 507 Inz Drive, Salem, Indiana. It's top of park. So,

good evening, gentlemen. My name is Zach Bctor. I'm an attorney at Sites and Harbison in Jeffersonville. I represent Mr. Brian.

So, I'll just go over kind of the summary of the the development plan uh on the project. Jake gave a good background summary of of the park. [clears throat] Um Mr. Bryant, he acquired the park uh back in 2019 and finished out the first section which has a total of 31 homes. Um the total property acreage is about 11 and a half acres total. Um we are proposing uh an additional 49 homes for this expansion. Um, we have submitted plans to the state health department which uh they they have the jurisdiction of approving uh mobile home parks in the state of Indiana and they review all the details um as far as the engineering, the layout of the homes, uh storm water, sewer, uh water utilities, access um all of those items are thoroughly reviewed by state uh engineers to make sure they comply with Indiana State Code. Uh as far as all of those items go, um so you'll see on the plan there that uh we're proposing to extend the existing Inz Drive uh which is accessed from Martinsburg Road. That's going to be extended into into the vacant property. uh create a a loop road here that will uh extend to the north that will come out onto Old State Road 60. Um so the entire park when it's completed will will have three access points, three public access points uh from existing roadways. Um all of the utilities that will be tied into with this new section will be tied

into our existing as far as sewer and water um and electric utilities are all existing adjacent to the property. Um the city has signed off on and approved, you know, connection to to the utilities, sewer and water. Um the the state has like I said reviewed uh to make sure the water pressure will be able to uh provide s uh sufficient fire protection [clears throat] and water supply for the domestic demand of of the new homes. Um and so they verified that as well as the sanitary sewer, the wastewater flow uh from the new from the expansion into the existing system. Um they've evaluated the the proposed storm water grading and handling of the the storm water um which will be taken care of and uh internally on the property. the the property drains naturally from south to north uh towards the towards Old State Road 60 and the creek. It's a fairly steep grade. We have a uh an existing storm water detention basin on the north end that currently serves the existing mobile home park. um that detention basin will be expanded um and increased the volume of that to allow for uh the additional impervious surface uh with this expansion. Um and like I said again, all that has been reviewed uh by the state engineers and approved. That was a an approval that we we received in August of this year from the state health department. Um, and as Jake mentioned, the the planning

commission approved a few weeks ago, um, the the the overall site layout and as far as compliance with your zoning ordinance as it relates to mobile home parks. Um, that was also approved. And one of the one of the items that was asked at that meeting was buffering. uh like your ordinance requires um a landscaping buffer that has to be um provided for with evergreen shrubs and trees around the perimeter of the the property. The the height of these trees have to reach 12 feet minimum at full maturity. Um that's also shown on the plan around the entire perimeter um to create this buffer from from the neighboring properties. Um, I think that's that pretty much sums it up. Do you have anything else to add, Tim?

But like that, I do have cameras at the office and of course later I'm going to set my own utility pose and [clears throat] extend uh cameras so I can better watch the property. And I'd also like to add, what lot number is this? 76.

Lot 76. I would like to bring one of my other homes I already got. So, we can be closer in the town and be actually on spot here. I'm pretty much there six days a week. I show up the seventh day, but I'm working six days a week and I'm always there. We We haven't had any crime or anything like that, but I figured cameras are a good way. Of course, we don't let anyone in there that's going to endanger children or anything like that either. We're pretty much on safety and health. And of course, I've even we've got a great set of city here. They they come through, make their presence. What's that? That that keeps crime down. Of course, I mean, I house veterans. I mean, I grew up in this community up on Arthur Street. Like I said at the the prior meeting, you know, a lot of these pillars of our community kind of influenced me to do something. And so, this was I guess the direction I took was trying to house America as my logo. And of course, I've got veterans. I've got single mothers. We've prevented people from being homeless, which we don't need that around here. if we can prevent it. This I mean I've got uh we got some that's on like section 8 programming which is a good program. I mean they're getting pretty tough now. Uh they're now they uh I think Inspire I don't know if anybody's heard of that. They've actually they're overseeing this. They're actually getting stricter. So on anybody I've got on that we are required now to go and put smoke detectors in every single bedroom, every hallway. GFI's got to be added to the kitchens, bathrooms. So, I mean, they're they're getting kind of they're getting pretty tough. So, which when I bring these homes in, um, I normally put a new breaker box, new outlet switches just for safety.

Sure.

I ain't going to rent something if I wouldn't live there. Of course, I don't know how many people here remember that part before 2019, but there wasn't uh too much there. I mean, I've definitely put a lot of money into new infrastructure and trying to improve it. And of course, I take pride in this community. I mean, like I said before, I mean, Jim Bennett was a a pillar of the community. Rody Humphrey, he kind of got me. I don't know if anybody knows him, but anyways, he was part of Ernie Bear. I mean, a lot of these guys, Pete Brown, Marita Sue Jones, Mr. Tre Jones's wife. I mean, she was a school teacher, but she's also friends to family. I mean, real good people have influenced me to do a lot of great things here when as I got older. But I mean, it's not like I'm going to be out of town and let this run down like some previous parts. I mean, I'm here and the state's going to let me know if I'm doing something wrong. They made that very clear.

Sure. I do have um you you acknowledged you know it's come up you seem to have acknowledged the green barrier um something I would like to just comment on there is eventually maturity not less than 12 feet in height but further up in the sentence not less than six feet high after three full growing seasons. Um, so within three years, whatever that barrier, if we were to approve this, the barrier requirements that were six feet or greater within three years with three growing seasons. Um, so just to point that out, you don't think that'll be an issue?

Now, on the south on the south side, I know there's a couple neighbors here. Um, would would they require us to take out that natural barrier and redo all that or just can we leave that alone on that? If there's an existing green barrier that already meets or exceeds the requirement. It's not green. It's just regular trees and stuff. I've got it back by on by on by on by on by on by on by on by on by on by on by Tom side there. So I don't know if that's if he if he's okay with it join the neighbors if they're okay with that.

Yeah. I think what if if you were inclined to [clears throat] entertain that being a possibility, what I would recommend that you do is just make it subject to staff approval. Um so that Ronnie and he can take a look at at what's there and ensure that the intent of the ordinance to provide a you know a vegetative screen essentially visual screen um would be carried out by the existing landscaping buffer. Uh and if not then it could be required to add you know the new you know arborite or whatever that um you know conifer type evergreen tree would be to to meet the the requirements of the ordinance.

Sure. Um one question I had is we're part of this project this expansion is adding in additional private drive additional homes are being added in. Are there any hydrants being added into fire hydrants. Yeah, there's actually an existing hydrants on either end of the property and one is being added internally, one new one. So for fire protection services and is that what was that just by choice of the applicant or did that

the state looked at that and reviewed it uh to meet the code as far as fire protection uh for those homes and the the separation the separation between the hydrants. Okay. Yeah. So it's it's fair to say then that the state says one more hydrant where they've said to place it is enough and if that were to change that's something you have to comply with. Correct.

Okay. Um my other I had just a couple questions. You guys can interject at any time. Um I see I like to see it the the proposed recreation playground area. Um, in the ordinance, the ordinance requires recreation area equal to at least 8% of the area of the park. Um, I'm not the greatest at mental math. um and not to the the the current size I guess of the proposed playground area if that is the sole recreation area. I do not know that as illustrated here that that completely complies with the ordinance as as written.

Yeah. If you take the property as a whole into account the the entire 11 12 acres. So there's an existing where it says existing park area u there on the right side of your plan sheet next to inz drive that's an existing recreational area okay

uh in the existing section and then if you what we're calling out lot number two where we show we actually show a a specific proposed playground area which was required by the state to meet state code. Um but that entire outlaw area that 11, uh 389 square ft, um that entire area is open space or what would be considered, you know, recreational area that would be free of any homes. So that that in combination with the existing park area would meet your ordinance requirement. Okay. Um I know one concern I guess too is as we just as we just expand and add additional roads, additional people, additional vehicles, one concern is parking. are their plans right now to like I know we can see here that each lot has a parking area. However, it's very likely foreseeable that over the course of time people come to visit um people might have more than two cars per household that street parking will be necessary. It's it's got to happen. Is there any plan to either limit or to prohibit parking on one side of the street, say, and only allow it on one side just to make sure that that road has adequate space for two-way traffic? That's certainly something, you know, that we can put into place if the city feels like that needs to be done, you know, as

far as signage that clearly states, you know, no parking on the street. Um, there is off streetet parking, you know, for each home. There's two there's a two vehicle uh pad for each home which is required. Um but I I don't think the intention would be to to allow for parking on the street just for safety purposes. Got vehicles. Of course that concern comes from you know Honda Civic getting through there isn't a problem but should there be emergency responders depending on what vehicles are parked there we may run into an issue. Sure. potent potentially where might have a problem, right? Um

we've also welcomed them to park like off after hours at the office. They're welcome to park up in there anywhere and be out way that way they can stay off. That's what we've been out. Okay. As far as initial question, that's all the initial questions I had. He pretty well covered the ones that also we don't want drugs in there. We've got signs posted on both So, we're definitely about safety.

What's your project projection of filling this up? What's your timeline to think it' be? How long it take you to deal? If it goes as fast as that second side, it went faster. It just it went so fast I could get it. I think we had that filled in less than 10 months. I mean, it was so much I was just dust out. We're gonna try to do this kind of in phases here so we don't get too much erosion going. Do a little bit of time.

Roadwise, you say in phases. Will all of the road infrastructure be put in initially or will that also be in phases? As far as the loop, I'm specifically talking loop. I'm assuming this Timco Drive is going to be pretty immediate because that's where you're accessing from. But Right. Right.

Yeah. So the the intention would be if not the entire road is built at once that a turnaround would be provided at the end of the a stub street um into the new section for emergency vehicle turnaround. Greg, do you have any questions? No, not yet. All right. As right now, it's answered most of them.

All right. So, for right now, I guess we'll go ahead and uh thank you guys for coming up here. We'll likely be calling you back up later, but we're going to go ahead and move on to public comment. Um, the way we're going to handle public comment here is I'm going to go in order. If you still would like to speak, please come up. State your name and address for the record. Um, Gordon uh Dowin. My name is Gordon Dan. I reside at 508 Tucker Street and then you're also the owner of 512 Tucker Street that's bordering the south side of property, Mr. Bryant's property. Thank you for allowing me to come and speak to you tonight. Um, I would like to before I get started into into my concerns here, I'd like to say that I'm kind of hard of hearing, so I couldn't hear a lot of what was being said prior and before and I think the city attorney has expressed maybe some of the concerns that I have here. So, forgive me if I speak to items that have already been addressed. Okay, with that, I'll go ahead and get started. Uh I stand before you today to express my concerns and my opposition to the expansion of the uh Timco trailer park. Uh since Tim Co bought the property, our quiet little home uh country home in the city had been diminished. Uh when we bought the pl property or when we bought our house, it was a field behind there and it was wooded and it was just like living in the country only we get the benefits of living in the city of Salem. Um uh since he has bought the property, uh he has put up a chain lick fence which is uneven and it's not straight. Uh he has built a large twotory pole barn and

he's brought in some large junk golf carts, UTVs, and other items which are stored directly behind our property. Previously, our view of the existing trailer park was obstructed by trees and brush. Unfortunately, Mr. Bryant has cut down all those trees and removed the brush. And now we have a direct view of the trailers and are subjected to more of the noise associated with trailer park. For the last two years, Mr. Bryant has bulldozed along the south border of the property behind our home. He also brought in truckload after truckload of waste material, primarily mulch, uh to fill in these low areas of the property. Uh if Mr. Bryant were to put trailers on that on that ground, uh, I would be it would appear that the ground would not support the weight of those trailers. [clears throat] The constant dumping and bulldozing made it impossible for us to sit on our deck and enjoy the fresh air and the peace and quiet. Uh per state code 16-41-27-22 uh it states that the construction of a new mobile home community and or the alteration of the existing mobile home community shall be made only with plans for the proposed construction or alterations have been forwarded to and approved by the state department. Now I do not know if he has any of these permits but we were not notified of any of them. Uh, now I'd like to point out that the real problem with this expansion is that Mr. Bryan's continuous effort to circumvent the regulations and the goodwill of the city of Salem. About 20 years ago, the previous owners of the park requested to expand the trailer park and the bordering property owners petitioned against it. At the time, there was no mention of any grandfather clauses. The board denied the request. When Mr. Bryant requested to expand the park a few years ago. The board also denied his request, but he

convinced them that he was grandfathered to do so. For this current application, there is no grandfather clause. This is an example of Mr. Bryant circumventing the system with contempt for the city and his neighbors. Another example is Mr. Bryant installed and rented a recreational camper, which is not a residential trailer, on one of his end lots. This was a very unsafe condition. This camper was installed approximately five to six feet high on columns of concrete blocks. A flood or a heavy wind could have had deadly results. His refusal to comply with regulations forced the city to take him to court. And when the situation was resolved, he moved the camper to behind our home. Now, conveniently, since filing for this application, the camper along with piles of tires and trailer axles have been removed. This summer, Mr. Bryant moved two mobile home trailers onto the property and is storing them illegally per city ordinance 156084 and 085. The city advised him of the ordinance to remove the trailers instead filed another lawsuit with the city to go to court and to my knowledge the issue hasn't been resolved. I think that was one of the things we had talked about earlier. Um these trailers were indicate indication of the trailers that he proposes to expand with. They are old trailers of similar age and styles to the existing mobile homes, some of which are up to 50 years old. In summary, Mr. Bryant has had contempt for the city ordinances since taking ownership of the property. He has failed to abide by the rules and refused to comply against city enforcement of regulations. Mr. Bryant will likely come before you and plead his case for approval expansion of the expansion application and give you a story about how he spent tens of thousands of dollars to improve his property in preparation. But he had done that of his own accord prior to his application. That is on him and his those expenses

are not the concern of this board. Uh he opted to do this before filing thea application with the city. I implore you to consider that his prior applications will foretail his future actions and excuse [clears throat] me and he will not comply to future regulations or comply with city requests anymore than he has so far. I ask you please do not to not to reward his disrespectful and contemptful behavior towards the city of Salem and his neighbors with this application approval. Thank you for allowing me this time to speak with you tonight. Next on the list, we have Becky Carpenter. Becky Carpenter is my neighbor. She's kind of uh handicapped and it's hard for her to get out and about. So she asked she had written a letter and asked if I would uh present it to the board. So I'm speaking on her behalf. Thank you to whom it may concern. I purchased my property 22 years ago. My backyard adjoined a beautiful woods and field and a very small trailer park with very few trailers left was on Martinsburg Road with a few left. The property was sold. All trees in the field demolished and it came a large then came a large fence that was over my property but the man moved it. Next came 16 mobile homes. Now he wants to make another major change. I do not want a Southway villa behind my house as it is full of rundown trailers and unpaved roads. I say no more mobile homes. It's noisy now and unkempt. No Southway Villa. Rebecca Carpenter at 506 Tucker Street in Salem, Indiana. Thank you.

Thank you. Next on the list is Jean Don.

I do have some pictures.

Sure. Thank you. My name is Jean Dowin and I reside at 508 Tucker Street and also own 510 and 512 Tucker Street properties. When we moved to Salem in 1993, our property bordered an open wooded field. The small woods blocked the trailer park view and noise. The neighborhood was quiet. In the early 2000s, the mobile home park owner wanted to expand the park. The neighborhood came together and the board denied that request. We were assured that additional trailers would not be allowed on the property. Timco purchased the property and everything changed. Our first dealing with Mr. Bryant was when he decided to put a fence around the property. He ran a guideline near the property line that was within our property border and the property borders of several of our neighbors as well. He was shown indicators of property boundaries, but would not move the string until the mayor got involved. The fence was placed within his property line and he added 1-ft pine trees. Timco continued to alter the property. The tree border that blocked the view and the noise of the trailer park was removed and piles of mulch were placed behind our house. He eventually spread the mulch but did not maintain the area and weeds grew taller than the pine trees and through the fence onto our property. My husband treated the weeds. Timco continued to alter the property. More trees were cut and the mulch was used to level out the property. Timco

added a large pole barn and removed the trees from the fence line behind 506 Tucker and our house. He added a fence in a fencedin storage area for trailer park materials including stacks of tires. The trees were not replaced. Instead, he opted to hang black fabric on the fence to block the view. Timco continued to alter the property. A two-story addition was added to the pole barn. Now, most of the trees have been removed from the property, including the trees along the houses that border Timco property on Bridge View. Those border trees have not been replaced. The area is now bearing ground. All these alterations were done by heavy equipment. The bulldozer revved up around 4:30 p.m. most every day until 7:30 or 8 in the evening and all day on Saturday and Sundays. Dump trucks moved loads of mulch, rocks, and concrete several times a day. We were never made aware of any permits being issued for alterations. My concern is that Timco has not complied with current ordinances, and will anything change when he adds even more mobile homes. I do not look forward to more destruction and noise. I do not want the addition to the mobile home park and I would like a well-maintained dense green belt of evergreen trees or shrubs along the existing property line of the mobile home park as per the Salem code. In the first picture you see September 1st, 2023. This is behind 506 Tucker Street. And uh there were trees planted along there. And when he put the pole barn in, he took all those trees out. And you can see that there is no trees in that storage area. And then on the second page, that's behind our

house. And those are u shrubs and weeds. And you can see that it's not dense. Um they're mostly deciduous trees. And so like right now [snorts]

um you can see right through there because there's no evergreens. On the third page, you can see on June 18th that they decided to put up the fabric, black fabric, which you can see through, and that's behind part of our house and part of 506's house. On the next page, that gives you a broader view of the fa black fabric. And you can see that it doesn't go down to the ground. It only covers part of the fence. And you can see how the fence line is is up and down and that the fence actually is not even with the poles there. The next picture that's June 18th and it shows you what the shrubbery and the weeds are next to the fence line and that the fence doesn't go down to the ground. On the next page, you can see how the fabric falls when you look at it from above half of it there, and that there's no trees down past that fence line. And the next page, you can see from August 2023, um, looking out over the field, you can see all the trees along the Ridge View properties. And you can see that the trees there's a behind there's a shed and our boat and there's like a small pine tree there that that's the dense evergreen. Um and then on the last page I took this today uh November 20th and uh you can see the blue circle shows the black fabric. The purple circle shows the trailers which have been there since May 1st, 2025. And the red circle shows you can see the property line all of the and the backs of the Ridge View houses. He took down all those trees and the that he had

planted and other trees and he has not replaced any of those trees with any kind of evergreen um dense evergreen bushes. So, and then you can see that all the um barren land where all the trees were taken down. So, thank you for letting me speak. Thank you. All right. Next on the list is Jerry. Is there a Jerry? Yep. Longacre. Longacre. Yes. Jerry Longacre.

[clears throat]

Hello, my name is Jerry Longacre. I live at 409 South Bryant Drive. I live in the mobile home park. It's a nice place. Tim's trying to fix it up. He helps out veterans, single mothers, and people that have a, you know, hard time getting by, so to speak. [snorts] And it's a benefit to the community. It'll bring in more more people for sale. You talking about more money, more homes and what trees and fences that happens on construction sites till it's finished. I I know Tim, I know things will be finished the proper way. So, taking pictures, I mean, I understand that. [clears throat] I've been in construction quite a bit in my life. It happens. But when it's finished, it all looks better. I'm just, you know, he gives an opportunity to people that don't have any opportunity, a place to live. It's not an eyesore. I live there. It's quiet. Everybody gets along. There's no problems there. It's a it's a clean mobile home park. So, that's that's about what I have to say. But, he's really helped out a lot of people. And there's a lot of people out there that can't afford 1,500 to $1,000 a month in rent. But he's making it feasible for people to live there, not have to, you know, pay out everything they have just to have a home. Whether you eat or you pay your rent or you pay your utility bills, you know, it's a clean, nice place to live and affordable. That's kind of a main concern. And as far as the mess goes, that'll all be cleaned up. I know, Tim.

Now I know the people that's helping him and they're doing it the proper way, you know, and putting up shrubs for privacy that that could be on the individual on the other side because there's all kinds of land that becomes acquired by other people. They have construction, they rebuild stuff on it, you know, so it butts up in behind their property that that's just part of property line. The matter of fixing is putting up some trees and shrubs, you know, that's that's no big deal either. I don't I don't see what the problem would be. It people's complaining it's an eyesore. Well, all construction sites are eyes. They're finished, are they not? No answer. All right. But you know what I have to say, right?

Yes. This is a pro a progress working and it takes time but people want privacy. I mean they can put up taller fences too and they can put up their own shrub but it's an affordable place to live for people like me. If it wasn't for Tim and Sheila or Tim call wouldn't have a home or place to live. You know they help out a lot of people and it's affordable. That's the main thing. and you're going to bring people into your community, that means more money is going to be spent in Salem around here. That to me is a plus. So, it's about what I have to say. You gentlemen, have a nice day.

Thank you. Is it Donna Neil? Is that Danny Neil? I'm sorry. Danny Hello, my name is Danny Neil. I live at 419 Bryant Drive, Salem, Indiana. I live in the mobile home park that Tim owns. I help and I've been in construction all my life and yeah, it ain't pretty the way it is right now, but I mean that's construction and uh it's affordable. I can afford to live there. I can't afford to live nowhere else cuz it's just it's out of my budget to pay $18,900 for an apartment complex to live in. And uh he made it affordable for me, believe her, with my son. And you know, I think that's a great thing, him trying to help people and stuff. Helps veterans, helps single moms. He's he's all he's all for that. And it um when the park's done, it will be a nice park. We've been planting bushes, shrubs, and learn when you're digging and carrying on. You can't plant nothing because you're going to tear it right back out. But I want to thank you gentlemen for y'all's time.

Thank you, sir. Next, we have Donald. My name is Donald Le 421 Lock 21 Bryant Drive So Indiana. I met him back in 200 23 and uh I needed a place to move that I could afford the place I was at. I couldn't afford to pay that. I didn't want to talk to him. He said, "We'll fix you up." That's what he did. I've been there ever since. I like it there. It's always quiet. No ruckus goes on that place or nothing. And uh they're good people. And I hate to see him lose over some stupid thing, but he needs to he needs to expand to get more people. That's my opinion, you know. that I wish all this thing don't want to do what he's got to do and make more more apartment more trailers for more people to live in. Poor people. We're poor people. We're not rich. We're poor people. We're right on the borderline, you know. And you got to fight for everything you get nowadays. And he's right there helping you everywhere you go. He's right there. He'll help you in any way he can, you know. I appreciate y'all's time. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Tim, is there a Tim? Oh, that's okay. Never mind. John McCree. Yeah, that's me.

Okay. And then attorney's the next one. Was there anyone else in attendance who maybe didn't sign in or have I passed up anyone's name who wanted to speak? All right. Okay. This is on behalf of Connie Pendigranet. She lives at 908 South Ace Avenue. Um, let me try to read her writing. I think she lots of drunks live there when uh when the park started

about four years ago. Um, she said it was a slum area for multiple years. No dust proof drives. uh no park beautifification. Landscaping was non-existent and parking was anywhere. Uh the changes from years ago are astronomical for the better. And that's since Timo has owned it. And then myself, I'm Sheila Thurman. Um I don't know if they put my name on there, but I live um second Street in Campbellburg. And for this park to get approved is very vital for my family. [clears throat] It's very unsafe where we live. At 2:30 in the morning at any given night, you can get up and your whole house is glowing red glowing from a 20 foot fire that's not more than 30 feet from my backstep. Um, I do know that everything is kept well maintained at the park because I do the property management there. Um, I know that the trees that were knocked down, most of them that's behind the, uh, pole barn, um, the tornado, I think it it was in 23 had come down and knocked all of that down. So, we had to remove what was on our side of the property. Um, at that point we did take the fence down to let the neighbors that were behind us bring the trees forth and kept them on our property. Um, so they would be removed out of their yards. Um, I do there there's been a lot of upkeep. Uh, we don't have bad tenants that live in there. We don't have rich tenants, but I don't think that you have to be rich to live here. And for this to be a city, it's amazing to have some country values to it. Yes, but it is a city and it is a growing world and we all have to

have places to live. The people that's in our park are respectful. Um there's no noise after 10:00. If there is, then the tenants will who whoever may be next door or the maintenance guy will go check in to see what's going on. Um there's no crime in there. At one point, we had a a lady who called 911 a lot. She was elderly, very sick. Uh fought with her children. Um her daughter who had been ran over by a car and had something some kind of brain trauma. So they argued a lot. Um and then 911 would get called. She unfortunately we had to evict her but later she passed. Um and that that's that's basically that that's the kind of people we have. We have good people in there. We have respectful. We have clean people. We have poor people. But we also don't have um people who are disrespectful, who trash things, who want to be disrespectful to any of the neighbors around that. That's just how it is there. Um I I don't think any of the trailer parks around that's in town. I I wouldn't want to be there. I don't mind being there at Timmco because it is clean and there are rules that need to be followed and those um those rules are kept by every one of our tenants. So, and that's all I'm about to say. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. May I add just one more thing I forgot to say? Sure. I I am a Army veteran 9 combat medic. I never seen any combat, but I'm a veteran, not a war veteran. And I wanted to say that Tim helps out the veterans, so we didn't have to be homeless. I wanted to let y'all know that, too. Very respectful place to live. Thank you.

[clears throat] Is there any other public comment? If not, we'll go ahead and I'll close public comment for the evening here board. The next next thing we need to do is uh we can if if anyone has the desire we can call the applicant back up. Otherwise, it's on us to discuss this amongst ourselves and make a determination. So, do you guys currently see any need for Mr. Bryant to come back up?

Mr. Bryant, if would you come up if you have anything else to add? I know there's been

if there's anything that else that you'd like to say for the board's consideration, you know.

So, they was talking about a camper previous to this. I just want to get that clarified. Uh, of course you you heard the other veteran mention I'm all about veterans. I had a veteran that was 87 years old. He was a 87 year old Navy veteran, homeless. Uh, he come to me and the the he let me know that the city police let him know he couldn't be living in his car at 87 years old. He needed to do something. So, the camper that they're regarding was this 87 year old veteran that I was trying to help. I mean, let's face it, he wasn't going to live forever. It might not have been the prettiest thing, but I was trying to help this 87 year old veteran. That could have been my grandfather, your dad, your uncle. I mean, I don't know anybody in this room that would have turned down a Navy veteran that that fought for our freedom. And so, I just wanted to clarify that camper was not mine. That camper is is gone now. And of course, the ATVs, uh, there was an incident, I think it was a couple years ago. And of course, that's got to be in legal matter. those ATVs and what's there that they're talking about on that trailer is not mine. I have to get legal action to get possession of those. We actually had a another veteran that ended up somehow end up on the creek and of course he end up deceased. No family. So that's I'm just clarifying what that is. There's a legal process. I'm not sure what all that is because I've never been through it. But I know I've stored it for some time and I know that that's a different process. It has nothing to do with anything really, but I just wanted to let the board know that those ain't mine. And far as the uh the black the blackout fence, I did that as a courtesy so they didn't have to see my maintenance area where I try to keep everything neatly stored. I also fenced that in on my side with gates to keep children out so they wouldn't get hurt for safety. And I mean, I try to keep everything organized. I just wanted to clarify that's a maintenance area.

[clears throat] I guess one one point of clarification I have it was it was brought up and I know not in your testimony but in public comment that stated earlier there was behind where the office pullbar building is there that that area it's correct me if I'm wrong at one point in time there is much more dense vegetation through there and whether by choice of removal or maybe impacted by a storm and and

potentially, you know, some trees fell. And that now at least from current photos it does appear there is a lack of and that is also the area where some of that blackout fence is but it does appear that there is not any vegetative barrier there of an evergreen nature the one that we're talking I think they actually planted some on the opposite side of my fence which that's fine I don't care I just you got the building up close we rocked that for erosion control it's got I think number twos

which and and that's fine if they chose chose to do so. But in the ordinance, regardless of whether they whoever they is, the neighbors choose to on your side, you know, we've we've talked about on this new part over here, and I think we're, you know, you're agreeable there, but any existing part, you know, that doesn't have that barrier that would need to be there. So, do we need to plant that like at the foothill or the next up next to the building? Is that what we need to

I don't know how At least for the current discuss, you know, I guess the specifics of that one area, if there is some uniqueness to the a specific area of land that might require being creative in some way. That's that can be a discussion. Maybe not right this second, but I'm I'm talking more generally of, you know, I I I can I can tell which area you're talking about, but it does appear that there is a more of an area rather than just that isolated area that might also be needing

Okay. the trees trees planted. Is that Yeah. Is that on the south side I was talking about? It's all those start over. Right. So the Right. I'm I'm talking about the south side of the property here. Sure. Yeah. The the requirement for the the foliage is it's applicable to all exterior boundary lines of the property with the exception of established entrances and exits. So the even if a neighbor has put up plants on their side of a property line, it doesn't negate the obligation under the ordinance to maintain a vegetative buffer on your boundary line. I wasn't for sure if we had to put them behind the building because the building's up. Sure.

Anyway, right. And for your This is This is kind of the area I'm talking about right here. Now, I think if you go obviously this hasn't been developed yet. So, this is clear. Obviously, you're planning on according to your plan. Looks like you're going here right here. So that would by the ordinance that would need to continue all the way to here. Now I think correct me if I'm wrong if if such a situation were to arise I mean this this is existing what we're talking about here is existing that's not related to this expansion but

you know that go this I mean to be in compliance with the ordinance as written I would yeah We had to put a building on the side, right? Something. Yeah. I mean something. Okay. I'm assuming it' be okay to wait till spring till they start getting those back out where I can get them available. I think with those questions I would just coordinate that with Ronnie and the staff.

Okay. with Ronnie. I I would though I think it's important, you know, for the record here. Um when obviously you can't plant anything in the dead of winter, it dies. It's a waste of money and effort. Um however,

the existing area needs to fall in compliance period. But in regard also to the proposed expansion in the ordinance, the wording of that eventually they need to reach a mature height of 12 feet. However, they need to be not less than six feet after three full growing seasons. So, I am not a plant scientist. I'm not an expert on which plants grow or what age of a tree you might need to purchase and install, but the ordinance is written as not less than six feet after three full growing seasons, which would, you know, start in the spring of 26, assuming that's when the date starts. So by 29, they would need to be over six feet tall. Um, so just

for the record there with whatever you're putting, you know, were to put in, okay, it would it would need to meet that. Okay. Um, whatever those were, that's what I've got. Harbor Vide.

Yeah, that's what we've got most of the thing now. Um, you guys have any additional questions I believe it. I mean, most of them have been brought up and addressed. What you got, Greg?

Ronnie, what's the line of sight on the uh 060 road where it comes out? The line of sight for that curve good enough for Okay. what the speed of it is.

Okay. You say that there was another fire hydrant that was going to be placed inside the the park. Yes. Can you can you what that you're talking about in the center section here? Is that what you're talking about? [clears throat] And that plan there is a it's an overall site development plan, right?

In the entire plan set, there's another construction plan that's just devoted to the water line um that has an interior hydrant somewhere in this area, this vicinity. Okay. You'll have one one down here. Yes. One down here and then one over here. over here. Yes. Yeah. Actually, this is the existing here's the existing water line and this this gray line coming off there is the proposed right. So, we'll come all the way around back in to the existing.

Would you uh have anything wrong with here when you're talking here to here. Maybe putting one one in somewhere over in this area here to help because you got you got your your building your buildings and things and add another another end. Tim, he's asking you to add right now. We have one here and there's one at each end. You're talking a pretty good delay from here, you know.

He said there's one the one we're proposing right here. Okay. There's an existing high and there's another one over here. Okay. From here. Okay. There. How How big of a distance is that? They they're spaced so that you don't have any more than 400 ft from any point, you know, for a fire truck to pull a hose, right? 400 ft between hideouts either each each way. Right. Each way. Okay. Yeah.

But I don't think he'd have any issue if he felt like there needed to be another intermediate one. But that's kind of that's what the state bases their off as far as the spacing is what we show them. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

That the idea of going through Tim's property, of course, you guys all work for the city and I help Tim. I've done all the the dirt work and all stuff working for Tim. But anyway, the idea of going through that his property down there at the bottom of the road and coming back up through further project for the city down the road to tie in down like the Highland and and future so that we will have adequate water all through that whole whole entire area. But the only fire plugs up is right there at his place on up the road there. There's no there's no adequate fire protection there. And this is a way to get there the cheapest way

as far as the mulch goes in there. is there because you have there for road control. There's not a pile of moss underneath that. It's all dirt. That is just a light layer of you know that's put in there to keep down road and we've got rock in there for you and we got road to patrol dam got rock in there. We've done everything that the city's asked us to do and as well to to make it right. Yeah, I mean in a perfect world we'd have a fire hydrant in front of every house, but you know, but if if if the the distance on the map, it's hard to see distance.

It's hard to picture. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. Right in front of Andy Lip's house, but it's only on the 2 in. So there's no there's no fire protection there for any of that through there. So that's what the mayor and all of us when he done that last edition, you know, rather than trying to come down Martinber Road, you know, where they put that sidewalk, which is going to be astronomically expensive. So Tim come through his property that he's allowed us to come across, even though I work for him as after hours and that's part of my employment, you when I come work for the city, you know, I I can work for different custod.

Thank you. You guys have any other questions? I don't have any right now. I don't. Thank you, gentlemen.

I think one thing important with if we were to consider doing this, you know, to some people I think the thought of well it it may just be trees or a barrier. It may be a small thing to some people. I think it myself being someone who on the other end you know I I can totally appreciate the desire not just because it's a part of the ordinance but just from a good being a good neighbor creating

a a green barrier that is attractive and also keeps some separation between neighbors. fences make good neighbors, I think, is kind of the saying goes. Um, so I I I mean, I think with that, if if we were to consider approving this, um, could it be made a requirement that that be complied with, not just complied with, but complied with first? Is is that at all within the realm of possibility or is that really outside of the

Yeah, I mean I think you can condition the approval on that being addressed within a certain period of time after the approval. Um, you know, I know you made mention of weather and and season being a concern. Um so you may consider that but you know you have the ability with an within an approval to impose reasonable conditions um on the approval and that that could be one of them but you know ultimately I mean I think that may be a bit redundant because it's already required under the ordinance. If we were to approve, I know before one of the conditions of the initial expansion request was the dustproof road surface. Is that something we ought to reiterate?

So, it's my understanding that that's the staff's wish. the uh plan commission as well on their site review. I know that was an important point in that. Um so that would be something to consider for a condition.

Okay. question.

Sure.

What's the special exception we're doing this for? So, a special exception, I guess to explain it more broadly, um, in the ordinance when I touched on this at the beginning, um, essentially a special exception is a use that could in certain circumstances be compatible with the underlying zoning designation, but because of the nature of it, it requires a an additional level of scrutiny to ensure that it does conform with um, you know, looking at the location and some of the specifics of the specific location and the specific use that it is compatible. Um, so that that's just more of my layman's term explanation of it. I can uh reiterate what I guess the standard under the zoning ordinance is is that a special exception is required for uses that would not generally be appropriate or without restriction throughout the district. But if controlled as to number, area, location, or relation to the neighborhood would promote the public health, safety, morals, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, prosperity, or general welfare of the city. I would invite a motion. If you are so inclined feelings about

I mean, I I see all the the thoughts and the concerns of, you know, everybody that's for and against it, different things, but if it would turn out as well as what this map shows and you put the green barriers in, and good grass vegetation, you know, all the way around it. I really can't see anything wrong with it, but that's that's my opinion. So I think that you know concern I have is um whether it's this applicant or you know any other park that were to go in is the the condition especially condition over time and maintenance of the property is is really important

right um on the one hand uh there there's a lot of truth and we we need housing period we need affordable housing period in the city and for the betterment of the city That's something we've long been in need of and are still in need of. However, on the other side of that is what we don't want is we don't want to open the door or allow or facilitate a situation in which either rundown or unsafe or you know

detrimental properties might be erected. Now, with that said, you know, I've I've seen this property over the last, you know, since I've been driving around in a car, you know, 15 years. There's I don't think anyone can argue there's a marketked difference in the condition of this property and the dwellings that are on it from 15 years ago to today. I don't think there's really much other Other concerns aside, as far as the condition and maintenance of the property itself seemingly has done nothing but improve for what it's worth. I've seen in the past down the road, I've seen other trailer parks in the community in the city that were immaculate and then were sold to people out of state and they get run down. We're talking six blocks from the square, you know, and I'm just, you know, we got to look at this in the long run, what it can be now, what it can be 60 years from now, 100 years from now. Is it is it the right place on a hillside for a trailer park?

You know, I know that we need housing. We need a bag. I don't know if this is the proper way and I I can appreciate that. Um there are though prior to there's been one expansion But prior to that, this it has existed for a long time here.

On on the flip side of that, you know, ideally I I agree with you. Ideally, trailer park's not on the hillside. We're not on the slope. You know, it's flat in ideal situation really any housing. I think it's fair. You know, I I can understand what you're saying there. Great. One thing I think that also comes into play is state guidelines. You know, our ordinance does a little bit with saying where and where not potentially things can go. But as far as state code goes, the maintenance and control of the trailer park is the state does handle all that. A lot of potential concerns I think are addressed by the state there and I know they do regularly a little bit on that um note as well. There is in in the Indiana code there there's a line of statutes that essentially reserve that type of regulation of mobile home parks to the state exclusively. Um and while municipalities such as this

this board here um may regulate it from a zoning perspective and land use perspective where um in in what circumstances are are parks permitted. Um but when it comes to kind of the health safety um those types of of things with the the homes and the parks themselves, you know, sanitation, cleanliness, that type of thing, that's regulated at the state level and in the state reserves that authority for itself. I mean, when it comes to where it should go, I guess my mind goes to where else would it go?

I mean, what we have is we it's not pictured on this, but we all know then just right up the road there's another. And then if you keep going on, there's another way further up. Um, as far as the I guess the way I'm kind of looking at this is, you know, we all know there was an expansion granted here, right?

However, before that there there was a park, the existing park that I don't know the original date it was there, but my whole life it's been there. Um, it' be I think I'd think about it a little different if none of our existing existed and just this expansion or the proposal. I think my two cents about it might be different. But because it's expanding on it already, I mean, I don't know where else hypothetically would you want it. than adjacent to where an existing park already is. That's ju just my two cents on the matter. Um I do think though um per the ordinance and just in effort to be a good neighbor. I mean I think the green barrier is really important. That's that's really important to me.

Um I think it's something easy to relatively easy in the scheme of what all going to be have to be done. That's a relatively simple thing and feasible thing to do to be a good neighbor as well as comply with the ordinance. Um, you know, if if we were to agree that I think of course the requirement of treating the gravel road would have to stand as as a minimum. I mean, ideally

maybe at some point in the future something else even be done, but minimum that um it has to be maintained that way too.

Yeah. I mean because I know big concern is gravel spitting out in the road causing a hazard again it's it's a private drive so the maintenance of that is on the property owner. Um even then though I think in in our consideration of things it's relevant that you know that cars not being there. You know that come winter, especially emergency vehicles coming up or winter, plowing, keeping it clear, having cars on either one or both sides of the road, I think is a issue not to be ignored. Quick question for the applicant and the advent team. The treatment, the spray treatment that has been applied to the existing road, it's my recollection that that's like an annual or an every other year type of reapplication. Is that correct?

Correct. It also just depends on the traffic and the weather that year and tear on it overall. I think typically you're looking at one one to two every one to two years. So yeah. So it it would I guess another way of asking that would be you wouldn't anticipate that it would sustain without retreatment longer than two years. like you wouldn't expect it to last three or four or longer.

I guess it's possible that it could just depending on really weather conditions for that year. Yeah, I mean I would say probably no more than three or four years in the maximum, you know,

and I guess if if that's a consideration for the board, I mean, I think just trying to facilitate a resolution of that concern is, you know, would the applicant be willing, you know, in the event of an approval, I guess, to accept a condition or stipulate to a condition that they verify the the applications on a certain periodic schedule with the staff or, you know, maybe agree to have the staff come out and look at it each year and talk about when the next application's going to be just so that there's some visibility on that and ways, I guess, that the the staff can hold the applicant or owner kind of accountable for that continued maintenance so there's not a uh a lack of communication there on the ongoing maintenance.

That's reasonable. Okay. actually is a state requirement.

Separate from that I think we would like to if we were to approve I think it would be appropriate to have a condition that

that's just a thought if if that's a a concern that that may alleviate some of your concern there. Yep. Yep. That would do. We do get Well, I'll I'll make the motion to grant the variance long

special exception. Special exception. Sorry. Special exception. As long as he meets all the requirements that the city and the state ask. And you know, especially with the the the trees and and the green vegetation wrapped around at an early stage of the project. Do you want to include on that the um dust proof surface? Yes. And the maintenance of the dust inspection by the staff.

Yes. May I ask you to consider amending the wording slightly on the green barrier there to be completed at earliest opportunity. Yeah. during the next growing season for the entirety of the project.

The the whole perimeter of of of the property line, all of it to be vegetated and trees planted and and you know well, you know, springtime started. One other just would you consider adding to your motion that parking would be either completely or at least prohibited on one side of the residential street?

Yeah, I would I'd make a motion that we park on. I don't I'll let you pick which side, but yeah, one one side parking on that street to give ample room for everybody to get through. So far, of any of those things, do those raise any compliance issues if those were to be requirements?

Anything that's not been said to be a concern that you might consider adding as a stipulation?

All right. So, the motion's been made to approve the special exception subject to parking being either completely prohibited on the road or limited to one side exclusively on each road. As well as not the compliance of the green belt of evergreen trees or shrubs being planted the entire width or perimeter of the property at the earliest convenience. beginning the next growing season, i.e. 2026. Um, and that the road surface, the installed gravel road surfaces be treated the same treatments as the existing road. As well as you're agreeing to allow the city to ask and request if needed that that be redone from time to time as deemed necessary. Chuck, does that wording cover your motion

adequately? But when when we talk about the green TR as I'm putting in vegetative grass and seed, you know, so many feet the fence on, you know, so that's it's growing up and looking nice with the trees as the construction goes along. Yes. All right. Motion's been made. I'll second it. Motion's been made and seconded. All in favor? I I

All right. Conditional approval has been granted subject to the conditions stated. um that will be written up and you'll be able to get a copy of specifically what those are. Um with that, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearings for this evening. Make a motion. Motion's been made. Second. Second it. All in favor? All right. With the public meeting closed, is there any other business the board of zoning appeals needs to address this evening? You do, Ronnie. Please

tonight.

Yes. So my recommendation is is that if they believe there's a compliance issue with the zoning ordinance or the variance, that's really something that needs to be made at the staff level because the the BCA can't ad hoc revoke a variance. If there's a violation, then that's addressed with a notice of violation from the zoning administrator and adjudicated in that manner

um with the property owner. Um, but other than that, it's, you know, outside of it there being a violation of the zoning ordinance, it's really a dispute amongst neighbors and not there's nothing that this board can do. Uh, the board can't take action on on any of those items. I don't want to give someone the opportunity to speak, but it wouldn't we couldn't do anything. Sure. Yeah. close.

Okay. Thank you, Ronnie. All right. That with that then I would entertain a motion to adjourn the November 20th meeting of the Salem Board of Soning Appeals. Make a motion to close. I'll second. All in favor? I. Meeting adjourned.