Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Everything's good. Sure. They get to it before me. Good. Good. Good. [Music] not a concern. I guess [Music] I don't know. I know the county subdivision. Okay. All right. Good evening. 6:30. We'll call the meeting of the Hanokai County Board of Zoning Appeals to order. Uh the couple of housekeeping things. First thing I'd like to let you know is everything uh this evening is all testimony is recorded uh and is also video recorded based on a new uh state statute. So uh everything will be uh available online by video. Um, all of your testimony is taken under oath this evening and please only speak when called upon by me and I'll have you face our attorney to be sworn in before speaking. If you're speaking, we'll ask you to give your full name for the

record. You'll spell your last name for us for the meeting minutes. Please turn off all your cell phones, electronic devices, and any any noise makers. Our order for speaking of our cases is that the petitioner um Maria will be given her staff report and then the petitioner is given seven minutes to make a presentation and that is followed by a collective seven minutes for any remmonstrators. We offer then u three minutes for any government officials that would wish to speak and then we give uh three minutes for a rebuttal. We give a twominut and one minute warning as time is expiring. Uh we ask that everybody behave in a civil manner and if we can't do that we reserve the right to ask you to leave. Um we would normally go to adopt our last month's meeting minutes but we don't have a quorum for that this evening so we'll skip over that. Um the other thing I'd like to advise you we're normally a five member board. We have three here this evening. So any action would require all three uh of us to vote the same way. So, if you're not comfortable with that, you would be uh offered the opportunity to uh continue your case. So, when it's your turn, you can you can ask for that continuence if so desired. I think before we get started, I would like to recognize that this evening is Darla's last meeting before she rides off into the sunset and retires from the planning office. 24 years, I believe, and she's seen a lot in 24 years. So, she's um comprehensive plans, new zoning. Uh she even served with Terry for a short time as the interim planning director, gave the reports, did the staff reports, and everything. So, she's been very integral to this department, um to the county really as a public servant. So, we would

like to recognize your service, Darla, with this plaque. And I think what we'll do, you guys get up and get out of the way. We're gonna let the family all come up and take a picture. Got a lot of family here. So apologize to all of the people that have to sit up here. A picture with me. Yes. Who's going to do this? Um, Don or Holly? How about me, too? [Laughter] This is my great family. And I worked together for 22 years. Girls, thank you everybody. Here you get it. Now poor Darla has to go back to work. Time to get back to work now.

All right, with that might just go ahead and ask is there anybody here that is thinking that they might want a continuence due to our short staffed report? So come come on up. Which uh case is this? Number two. Number two. Okay. Last month for the same issue. So um we would just Yeah. My name is Cindy Thrasher. Um and uh so our petition is for 3097 North 600 West and we would just like to um ask for continuance to have a full board. So they continued once before. How many I always forget. They can request one, we can grant one. It's not a full deal. Yeah, I think generally speaking, I think that would be okay. So, all right. Um, do you take a motion to accept a continuance for item number two? Second. All right. It's been moved and seconded to accept the continuence for item number two, Gold Mine Holdings. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. Same sign. All right. Thank you very much. July 24th. Okay. Um so with that we will start with item number one. There one special exception and two variances.

So, the first case for tonight, it is Verizon cell tower special exception and variance. This is located on West 200 uh south in Sugar Creek Township. It is located in a R2.5 zoning district. Um the request for tonight is a special exception for um a new cell tower and two variances under the telecommunication facility standards um in our land use matrix um throughout our whole zoning district. Any cell tower um that is proposed has to go through this board for a special exception. Um therefore they are here tonight. Um the intent in our telecom telecommunication standard it states that um the purpose of this is to provide a um reliable public and private telecommunication service um while maximizing the use of transmission towers and tower sites while also minimizing the adverse and undesirable visual impacts of a tower. Um even though a tower is needed um we need to also consider the design of it. Um this is the landscape plan for the proposed tower. So required doc documentation for a application for a new tower. It includes an engineer engineer report, a letter of intent, proof of compliance, u removal affidavit, a additional insured, uh a

determination of a new tower need, which to the best of our department ability, we have confirmed that it has been completed. They also have um design design requirements that they also have to follow um contextual design, lighting standards, collocation and tower height um inter interface and Fine. Additionally, they also have site requirements. Uh residential areas. No tower shall be placed closer than 500 ft to any property, including a residential zoning district. um on-site staff. All tele telecommunication facilities shall be fully automated and unattended on a daily basis and shall be visited only uh for periodic maintenance in emergencies. Um within this section of the standards, they are requesting a variance for the uh residential area. Um the current tower on the property is located in a um R2.5 residential zoning and it is currently being proposed at um 250 ft from a residential parcel. Um and as our standard states it has to be 500 ft. So they are requesting a reduction in that setback. So, this is another um overview of the site plan for the tower.

Um so the other standards that apply are encroachment, fencing, landscaping screening. Um within this one uh the landscaping screen screening they are also asking the second variance for um camouflaging. They also have construction requirements that a new cell tower has to uh go through the process of verifying um compliance with as well as landscaping standards um for um the cell tower. Um, in the original staff report, there were some concerns with landscaping, but since then, um, the new landscaping plan has been submitted and all our concerns have been addressed um for the So, let's go to Okay. Um for the special exception, we are recommending a favorable um approval with the condition that um during the ILP application, it shall go to um technical committee to ensure in compliance with all of Hancock County's ordinance and that they also um connect with Purdue Extension um to find a substitution for the burning bush that are shown in the landscape plans. So as I stated they are asking for two

variances. One for um to lessen the design requirement for the camouflaging. Um after careful consideration the staff is recommending approval. And the second one is um to reduce the setback um requirement from 500 to 249. Um after considering um some of the uh development standard of variances and the um findings of facts that we have to consider. Um the staff recommends denial of the request of the variance to reduce the 500 foot setback for the telecommunication tower to 249 ft. The request does not meet the criteria for variance as there's no unique hardship that has been demonstrated and the reduction will significantly undermine the intent of the zoning code which is to protect adjacent properties from visual safety and nuisance impact. granting the variance could negatively affect nearby property values and set an unfavorable president for future applications for development. Additionally, the application has not provided sufficient evidence for um alternatives. Are there any questions? There there was originally a question about that 500 ft and the way that that was worded and I know that you guys did some study on that. So we're on a residential parcel. So is the 500 ft to a residential structure or to just the the next residential parcel is that which determination did we make there?

I think we went with structure. able to answer that. I think it says from the property and we struggled with that and hopefully it will be clarified in our UDA. Um so in kind of talking about what we what our best guess is is um that could be it a structure or it could be the property line. Um so you really have to just take that into So we're we're assuming property line. That's what the variance was based on. Correct. Property line. Okay. I think we're assuming property. Yeah. As in any type of No, it's from the residential structure is how we interpreted the word property. No tower should be placed closer than 500 ft to any property included in from any Got it. And so our 250 of the word property. We're interpreting it to being structure as well, real real property then. So, we'll step through our process here, but obviously we'll um we'll want to vote on our special exception first, right? Because of then see how that goes before we move on to the variances. Do we have any more questions for Maria? I I have a question on the um I think I heard you say that as a condition it would go to tech review and that is where we're going to check for the aesthetics and the um interference with public safety radio frequency. Is that your recommendation that tech is it's conditional approval and they will look at those things? Okay.

So, I do have a question. The property that it's going on, um, looking at I'm assuming this is a, uh, GIS on this first page. Mhm. Image. So, looking at that, this is all one property. Is that correct? Uh, owned by one primary owner, correct? Yes. Okay. And this So, I'm assuming there's a lease agreement between the property owner and the um individuals wanting to put up the tower. Correct. I'm I'm sorry. And I'm assuming there's a lease agreement between the property owner and the individuals wanting to put up the tower. Correct. Um I believe so, but the petitioner can confirm. Is that property owner uh Darn Marcelleti or is that just part of Verizon? Uh that's the petitioner, right? That's our petitioner. Okay, that that'll be the next person up. So, okay. Um I also would like to mention that they we did receive letter of remmonstrance and then one letter of support. Um and in were they in in time before the uh uh deadline for our packets? No. Yes. How many letters are monitors? Um there was a total of 12. 12. Mhm. We have copies of those. I have not seen any. I don't think I saw them. Bottom pack. Oh, okay. Okay. Um, if there are no further questions, the petitioner has a presentation. Okay. All right. Thank you.

All right. We'll have the petitioner come up and be sworn in by our attorney, please. Your right hand. [Music] Do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please state your name and spell your last name for the record. Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Bence Williams, W I L I A Ms, land use planner with Clark Quinn, and with me tonight is John Marcela Marciel. I am Marceli. Marcelleti, I so apologize. And he is the acquisition specialist for this site. Um we are requesting a special exception for the wireless communication facility as well as two variances. One for the distance from a residential property improved with the residence and architectural camouflaging of the tower. On this first slide, if you look on the left hand side, you see the area map. And this is the northwest corner of 600 West and 200 south in Sugar Creek Township. and we are on the uh north side of 200. The picture on the right side of the um screen shows an enlarged aerial of the farmstead of the scrums who have a rich history um within this area and landship um stewardship. Um, this shows the location for the site which is just north of the barn and takes opportunities to buffer that tower by the existing large trees and existing buildings on site. This picture um gets into the 500 foot

setback requirement. We are approximately 250 ft from the home that is on the subject parcel. There are three homes south of 200. We are more than 500 ft from each of those homes, but the distance to the district is about 384 ft. The location is to facilitate the um best buffering by as I said the existing structures and trees and to keep the lease area out of the agricultural activity of the site. This both preserves the tillable acreage and also allows the proposed landscaping to be planted in an area not affected by uh pesticides commonly used in crop production. That is the practical difficulty in placing the tower 500 ft from residential use is that this is uh preservation of farmland. The land owners are not only the most affected property owners, they were also instrumental in choosing the location for this tower. On this slide, I'd like to show you the elevation of the tower. We do not have architectural camouflaging, but there's certainly um camouflaging that um uh reduces the impact of the look of this tower. It is only 125 ft in height with a 10-ft erector. There will be no lighting on this tower due to the height. It is designed as a tapered monopole, light gray in color to fade in this uh not be as visible in the sky and placed again behind those existing structures. It allows for the required collocations and the compound will be enclosed by a solid 8ft fence and landscaping.

On this slide, I'd like to show you the larger aerial that shows the red dot is the proposed site and you see the scram cemetery. You also see the Jacob Scrum Nature Preserve that runs all along 600 and buffers the homes on the other side of 600. Um part of this um request becomes the above ground utility infrastructure of the area. We started with telegraphs then we had telephone and electricity. There is already existing in this area across um a large transmission line that crosses the culde-sac at 200 and 600. And there is actually one of those major stansions right at that culde-sac for the power line that runs from the southwest to the northeast imposing much more than our proposed monopole. And there is absolutely no buffering or landscaping around that tower. and it is roughly in the same uh category of height as this proposed tower and is directly in the viewshed of many of these homes in the area. On the next slide, uh the picture on the right shows the um two-mile radius for any other towers to be considered instead of this location. I put an orange line on uh US40 at the top of the circle and Brookville Road at the south. There's one tower at the top of the circle, more like um 100, County Road 100. And then right on Brookville Road on the south. On the left side of the screen, that red square is the search area that the RF engineer was designing for to fill fill a gap that Verizon has. And that's better demonstrated by the propagation maps

here because again you can see Brookville Road and Highway 40 two minutes and on those splotches of color that you see those are existing cell towers that Verizon is already located on. So you see the center of the circle is right where this proposed site is on the left side of the screen. you see what happens if this is approved and it this um Verizon tower goes online. It not only helps the service of this area but the entire community because part of the goal is to offload the existing towers so that they serve um better and more efficiently so that you have less drop calls and more um efficiencies in you know whatever you're sending over the the lines. The next few pictures are photo sims. We took three. This one is from uh the west side of 200 and you see the before picture at the bottom and then I put a red circle around the tower if it were approved so that you see what it would look like. The second one is from the east side of 200. Again, those trees north of the highway there or 200 are the the farmstead. And then you see the red circle again. It really disappear appears here because it does do its job as far as fading into the skyline. And then this is off 600 just south of the nature preserve. And you see the before and after with that circled. We would requestfully ask for your approval on all three of our requests for the special exception of the variances. There's much more information as far as um we have um submitted all of the documentation needed and we'll provide um any detailed information they want. We agree with the condition to change the burning bush to

a different species. I could could you rem you mentioned what you felt the practical difficulty was. Was that the the use of the property for agricultural use? Okay. Prime farmland. And so the question that I was asking the staff earlier was the fi what the interpretation of property is and it appears that although you're you're requesting the the variance are are you feel do you interpret it the same way that we're looking at 500 ft from the property and not from the structures or did you interpret that differently? We acquies to the staff's interpretation. We talked to your um your attorney as well as um the director when we filed it. So we filed it asking for from the property line. So, we've shown you the setbacks from the existing structure on this property, the three structures closest across the property line to the south, as well as uh there's one dimension there on the slide I have up uh to furthest to the left that shows that uh 384 ft to the the district south of 200. Okay. One of the drawings shows three boxes and it notes them as future. Is that future just ground mounted equipment or what is the what is that future use? In order to provide for collocations, you have to plan structurally for the strength of the tower to hold them. Plus, you have to have enough room for uh ground equipment within the compound and within the landscaped area. And all of that ground equipment is screened by the fence and landscaping. Yes, sir.

Cuz it looks like it's taller than the fence in the one in the one drawing. Not that I don't think that that's a requirement, but well, at the time of planting, you'd probably you might see something because there's an ice bridge that runs from the equipment to the tower, but eventually the the landscaping will grow and and cover the ground equipment. In a case like this, who who's responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping and the fence? Is it the the lease the lease or or the lease e? Who's responsible for that? It's the the um it's Verizon. Okay. I mean, we would would depend on the lease to tell us if something happened so that they know if something needs maintenance. But as is required by the ordinance, there's no on-site um employees. It once it's constructed, it'll be an unmanned facility and they only check that for routine maintenance or repairs. But they will be out there to fix it if there's a problem with the landscaping. Okay. So, the petitioner this evening has some agreement with the Shum family, the actual owner of the property and that's how they they are the petitioner the sorry they they have a lease with them and part of the due diligence that we filed was a portion of that lease that shows that if the for whatever reason this tower isn't used that it will be removed. It's it's not only in our commitment, it's in the lease. Okay. Okay. Any more questions for the petitioner? All right. Thank you. Do we have anybody that came this evening that would like to speak in opposition to this petition? Just just one. Okay. Come on up. and you will we will have you sworn in and you will get

if I'll ask one more time before I give him the full seven minutes. Will anybody else want to want to speak? Two. Will you Scott, will you be wanting to speak in opposition or do you want to speak as a government official? Okay. So, we got but we do have another one over here. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So, we have two people wanting to speak and then one government official. So, you'll get three and a half minutes. Are you for opposition? Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, we'll have you swear. We have another person that was speaking in favor. Oh. Oh. Do we have somebody speaking in favor? We were out of time for the petitioners. Ran out of time. Okay. All right. And one other thing I'm having um that was not included in the packet was not linked to agenda and I don't think you guys can get to one drive. So, I'm having them make copies of the letters of her monstrance. Okay. Okay. Let me get to my timer here. Swear you in. Do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay. Please state your name and spell your last name for the record. Uh Jason Fox, FOX. Okay. You have three I'll give you around three and a half minutes to share time with the other person. Go ahead. Great. Thank you. Uh I heard a lot of uh talk about the aesthetics of it. I'm here more to speak about the RF radiation. Uh I've been a pharmacist for almost 20 years. So the health concerns about this tower are utmost important. My mom lives directly across the street. So we are about 677 feet from the tower which is cited in the email we've got from Mr. Marcelleti there. Um, but our research which we submitted on April 17th and then again on June 20th to the board. Uh, I'm not sure if you guys have it. A lot of what I'm going to be talking about is referenced in that research. So, you

guys should have copies of that. But, um, that we show that this tower threatens our health, property values, and um, due to unreliable safety claims according to our research. And so when we look at peer-reviewed studies that I submitted that raises serious concerns about the RF radiation, I've heard a lot again about the aesthetics but not so much about the radiation concerns. Um the World Health Organization's cancer agency calls RF radiation possibly carcinogenic and I even uh submitted a study from a German study showing tripled cancer risk within within 1,312 ft which is over twice the distance from the proposed tower. Our other research links exposure to neurological issues, memory deficits in children, DNA DNA damage, and the list goes on and on, even at 677 feet. Uh, you know, my family's at the pool. We're at the house all the time. My mom lives directly across the the the street, so the health concerns are uh of utmost importance to me. Europe actually enforces setbacks of up to 1,640 ft. Yet even the US regulations are allowing towers as close as 150 ft um leaving us more vulnerable to this increased radiation which was cited in Europe European Parliament in 2021. So while the FCC is claiming their safety data, a 2021 court ruling that their 1996 guidelines are ignoring the RF risks and failing to protect us. This is actually cited in Environmental Health Trust versus FCC in 2021. And so I'm asking the board to prioritize the health over data that the Verizon is citing from 1996. Um, also property value. This tower also threatens property values as was mentioned earlier. Um, homes within 1,000 ft of towers lose up to 9 to 21% of their value with 94% of realators reporting buyers concerns up to 1,320 ft. at 677 feet. My mother's home faces significant

losses um worsened by the tower's visual b uh blight left. Um Verizon is also claiming the tower is safe. I've got uh the the study that they're tiding uh citing, but the FCC guidelines have been unchanged since 1996 and they focused on the thermal effects and ignored the cancer neurological risks and were actually criticized in a federal court environmental trust case of 2021. uh they're they're providing no specific studies, just their 1996 state uh study on their cited website because I looked at it ran uh which was run by the industry and to me lacks credibility according to a study by ouster in 2015. The research actually is downplaying the harm of the RF radiation. 68% are reporting no effects versus 33% of independent studies that are showing significant effects. Again, all this information is cited. So I'm just asking that we take a look at this data and follow what other global standards are. In Europe, their studies are more current as as of 2021, whereas we're still using 1996 data. Imagine if we use 1996 data uh for anything now. So I'm just asking that we use updated standards from across the globe. Thanks. Thank you. All right. Can I ask a question? Um you said you submitted data paperwork. Did that was that submitted by the deadline? Yeah, I submitted it in April. April 17. Did was that in their packets? I'm so sorry about that. We submitted it again on June 20th. Okay. Thank you. Something in addition to this copies of all the and digest all those. I'm not opposed to that because if we've

got 12 remestration letters, we've only seen one. There's no way you can. We've got two people here to talk. Yeah, we'd have to recess and read this and come back. So, yeah. Yeah. Can we go ahead and go and finish up with what we're doing here? Yeah. All right. Uh it was you sir with a second to speak. Yeah. Come on up. You sworn in. Go ahead and take the testimony. Okay. You have about three and a half minutes left. So do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please state your name and spell your name. Gary Borgman. B O R G M A N. Okay. Go right ahead. Um, first I want to say how disappointed I am that the full board does not show up for these meetings. These are elected officials and they don't show up to do their job. I was here the last meeting and you reprimanded the board that was here because they weren't showing up to the previous meetings. This is my third meeting and the the issue that I came to here has been postponed again, but this one just happens to be in my neighborhood as well. Um, you know, you've got these rules and regulations and I don't understand why we can't stick with them. Instead, we're given variances. You know, these setbacks were set up for a reason, and I'm opposed to reducing them. Um, this tower, as short as it is, even as short as it is, it's an eyesore. Um, it's got safety issues. It's not fitting with the area.

Um, I grew up a quarter mile away on the same road. My parents still live there. It's It's not a wanted thing. And I don't understand why these letters aren't being heard by the rest of us. And apparently you haven't read them either. So you're not even here being able to consider them. So how can a a legitimate decision be made without all the facts and information? That's all I have to say. All right. Thank you. Any time left? Um, yes. About a minute and 35 seconds. About a minute and a half. And anybody else would like to speak in opposition? Yeah. Come on up. Speak into the microphone. Sorry. I had a couple more things that were in there. I was trying to rush through it, but I really just want to speak openly right now and say that, you know, as a pharmacist of almost 20 years, I have seen a lot of times where we're given a certain amount of data or a certain set of data that 10, 15 years later is completely wrong. I could cite example out of example from pharmaceutical companies. Verizon then to me is no different. Corporation is a corporation. Their their their bottom line is different. I appreciate that they want to increase the cell phone coverage. There's fields. Put it in the middle of a field. How many times do we drive down the road in our county and see a cell phone tower in the middle of a field? Is it inconvenient? Or maybe there's paperwork. I don't know. But put it where it's not within RF, you know, like like cited studies from the European Parliament, for instance, 1,630 ft, whatever it was. Put it out there in the middle of the field. I mean, it might be inconvenient for the farmers or whatever. Figure that out. Pay for it. You know, you guys got enough money. But I'm just saying as a pharmacist, I've

seen so many examples of being told one thing or we're going by old data and then we find out later on that it's dangerous and I don't want that to happen to my family straight up. So appreciate it. Thank you. Thank Thank you. All right. Uh so I think we had one government official that would like to speak. That would be for three minutes. Mr. Waldridge, do you swear affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but I do. Spell your last name. Uh, Joseph Scott Woolridge, W O L D R I D G E. I I'm a county councilman. I represent the district 4, which is this district obviously. And uh, to the second p the second gentleman's comment that you guys are elected officials, no, nobody up here in the BZA can be elected officials. She can explain that later if she wants. Um in terms of the so the first guy really stole pretty much everything uh you know that I know realizes the say we have been uh all county councilmen and all commissioners have been getting emails regarding this project. Obviously we have no say we have no control. This is independent. You're like judges. Okay. So we have no say on that. Obviously we would know what to do here because it's pretty obvious. Um the 500 feet is about the property. It's about somewhere where they reside. It's about the damage that could be done with RF because it's still unknown and it'll probably never be known or be like cigarettes. We may one day know the damage it's causing to people cancer-wise. Um, so it's 500 ft is what you set the standard of probably because it was a mistake and whoever did it didn't realize the metric system and it should be 500 meters which is 1,620th feet I think or whatever the gentleman said. He said it exactly right. Um, you know, being myself, I know you guys know I've got a law degree and I've got an MBA in MHA, but I also did biology premed. I've been published in five or six medical journals. I can't remember. Um, I can tell you I'm concerned about

the distance. Um, that's the only reason. I mean, I understand there's a height difference and people going to see and people going to not like it or I'm not worried about all the, you know, that stuff doesn't bother me. What I'm worried about is somebody nearby, you know, being a government official and somebody nearby at that house, even if they approve it, suing the county saying, "You guys approve this and they get cancer." So, I urge you to today, obviously, read all the remmonstrators. I I've not seen all those myself. I just get the ones that we get by email. I urge you to uh continue this, read them all, come back next time, and uh I don't need to be here next time. So, uh, just understand that 500 ft rule needs to be at least in place, if not change it to 500 m. That's something we probably need to look at as a, um, as a county to change it to 500 meters versus 500 ft. That's it. Thanks. Thank you. Go ahead. Oh, you have a question. Oh, I said thank you. You're welcome. All right. Okay. Any any discussion? Uh, petitioner has three minutes rebuttal. petitioner get the remmonstrate remmonstrance letters as well ahead of time. No. Yeah. All right. So, the petitioner, you have you have your three minutes of rebuttal time and you said you did not get the letters of remmonstrance. Um that that's a lot to address. I understand that people may feel differently about what the the rules are for setback. We've tried to explain um why the visual impact and the buffering that's in place. I am not an attorney. I'm a land use planner. But I have to say I hope that your attorney advises you on the Telecommunications Act and

what you can and cannot consider in granting this special exception. Um there have been a lot of uh uh European studies stated in the little bit that I've gathered from the testimony and I got a glance at the letters although I haven't digested them all. Um there are that's you can't compare us to Europe the standards that we have in the United States and the and the thresholds that they allow for RF standards. It's important to note the American Cancer Society on their website says this is not a cause of cancer. It also anidotically you get more RF emissions from your microwave than you do living near a tower. You get more from your cell phone utilizing that in your hand than you do from a tower. Um the um towers now a few years ago they bought all the the like radio bands that had been the television bands when we had the rabbit ears and those types of things. they're running on the same frequencies that used to come into our house right into our TVs. So I we also, you know, had we known there there is a way to to um more adequately address these things um and in terms of the property values, we've had specialists come in and do um property values in areas before and after a cell tower went in. and it does not indicate that there's a loss of property value and that's part of people's opinion. Some people want good cell tower um I mean good cell coverage as opposed to just their view. And the the last thing I wanted to say with that was um there there's lots of specialists and

things that that are out there. We we weren't aware of these things, but I do believe that we have presented evidence that this is a good proposal. And you know, keep in mind these are on hospitals, they're on schools, they are on um the outdoor fields at schools. I can name many, many, many. They're on all tall buildings in larger cities. Um they're at Fischer School. They're they're downtown in in um Indianapolis schools because that's where you need them. They're on top of hospitals. Got a couple real quick questions for you. Yes, sir. Uh were you uh part of send mailing out all the uh letters to the above abuing property owners? I was not. John did that. Okay. My question is how many was there? 62. 62 letters in total. Okay. I have the list of given. All right. No, that's good. As long as it's 62. We did send them a second time for the variance and we we sent the same 62. I I mispoke. All right. Thank you. So, everybody was noticed for the special exception and the variance. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you. All right. So, we've got uh special exception and a variance, two variances to consider. Uh if you are so inclined, we could we could address the special exception first and then uh see how that shakes out and we can then address the variances. Or if we're so inclined due to all of these letters, it looks like the letters are basically all the same just signed by different people perhaps. But maybe there's there were Was there any other information? You said there were 12. I'm counting. Did Mr. Fox said he had a packet of

research information with more comprehensive information. Oh yes. And then a package of research information. There was uh one letter of remmon sorry letter of support we received. We got into that yet was Mr. Fox's data. Everything that was submitted by Deborah Fox is what I copied and gave to the board. So this this is the this is the data, right? because this talks about the cancer risks and neurological effects that Yes, that's what we were talking about and finishes with references. That should be the final page. Right. Right. Okay. Okay. Uh this was continued uh once before due to the attendance issues and then uh so they're here again this evening. Uh we could consider another continuance if you would like to try and digest some more of this information, but no no additional notice would be required before we could go ahead and uh vote. I propose we continue it. Second. All right. Do you want your continuence to be for all all three that the special exception in both variances the entire case? Yes. Yeah. Okay. So, it's been moved and seconded to continue uh item number one, special exception and two variances until next month's meeting to give the board adequate time to review the additional information that we did not have in our packets and uh hopefully have a u a full board next month. So, all those in favor signify by saying I. I oppose. Same sign. All right. So, we'll address this again. And that'll be July 24th, I believe. July 24th. Um, and Kayla and Maria, could we make

just make sure that we have a a new link that has everything maybe electronically so that we can make sure that the folks that weren't here this evening also have it and they can be prepared for next month's meeting. Um, I will make I will note uh to uh the public as well, anybody that's here that's um interested, uh our agendas do land on the county's website. And something that's new, uh all the bugs are not quite worked out, but close. Uh each agenda item has a uh blue underlined uh items at the end of it and those are those are live links that'll take you to the same packets that we're looking at here this evening. So you'd be able all that's public information easy to get to uh on our our website. We're still kind of working out the kinks, but should be there 10 days prior to our our meetings complete. You can pull that up now on your phone if you wanted to go to the agenda. You can look at what the paperwork that the board's looking at. Yeah. And Mr. Wridge is correct just, you know, not that it um he stated, but I'll state it again. The members of the BCA are not elected officials. All appointed. Uh we have an an appointment from the town of Shirley and a appointment from the town of Spring Lake because they are areas that are um that do not have planning commissions. So, their planning and zoning services are handled by the county. Uh the other three members are appointed uh in various capacities through the board of commissioners and the planning commission. So all appointed uh folks. So um any any concerns uh that you would want to address? Uh we we don't typically talk to the public in the quasi judicial type role that we're in here. Uh but please uh feel free to contact uh your your county council person in the proper district or any of the three board of commissioners. We'll always take your your calls.

All right, with that I will uh we'll move on to item number three. No, four. Four. Mr. David Beaver of Wilkinson. We have one variance for a front yard setback reduction. So be the petition for uh beaver variance. The petitioner David Beaver is requesting one variance for the subject property um 6879 East State Road uh 234. This is in Wilkerson. Um the variance is to reduce the uh required 120 um front yard setback to 100. Uh this would allow the petitioner to be able to replace his existing home with a larger new home and a septic system. The subject property is currently located um within an agricultural zoning district. [Applause] Uh the petitioner provided a statement of intent. Um the location of the home is required due to the new septic field. The new home will still the new home will not be closer to the road than the existing home is currently. Uh so this is um one of the site plans the petitioner provided. Um he as stated is requesting a reduction in the front yard setback.

And then in your package, you will find um the official site plan where you are able to see um the details about the site. Um he has a 100 foot front yard setback um and the hash rectangle inside the uh rectangle um in bold lining. It is the current existing home. And then the um border black line is the pros new home. Um it is more wider than the existing um home. Therefore, that's why he is requesting the variance because he also will have the septic field um as shown in the site plan. Um for the variance application the the decision criteria um they we considered is for general welfare adjacent properties and practical difficulties. Um after careful consideration uh we did not see any issues. So staff is recommending an approval. Are there any questions? So the the new the new h the the the current house is 100 ft. So the front of the new house is going to be where the front of the existing house is. Am I understanding that right? Proposed residence or is the the hatched area the So the um new home is going to be 100 ft um set back, right? And the existing home

Is that something a little further back than that? It looks like Yes. Okay. Oh, is that number? Okay. Any more questions for Maria? No. I will turn it over to the petitioner. All right. Petitioner, come up, please. Mr. Beaver, here. Bever. Mr. Beaver. Yep. Swear. Are you in? Do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Please state your name and spell your last name. David Beaver. Be e vi. You have seven minutes, and I'll give you a warning when you hit two minutes. Go right ahead. I'm sorry. I'm You have seven minutes to make your presentation. Go ahead. Well, the reason uh this lot is so small, the reason why I uh want to do this is so I have room for this new septic field. The house will not set any The new house won't set any closer than the existing home is today. Mhm. It's uh it's just small. It looked like the health department was comfortable that the new septic system would be sufficient. [Applause] Okay. All right. Any more questions for Mr. Beaver?

All right. Thank you. I Yep. Do we have uh anybody that would like to speak in opposition of this variance? Any government officials like to speak in regards to this variance? All right, Mr. Mr. Beaver, you would have rebuttal period if you have anything else to say, but I don't think you probably do. But yeah, that's all. That's about all I have. Okay, sounds good. Thank you. All right. Any uh any discussion? I got nothing. All right. No discussion. Then I guess we can go ahead and fill out our ballots here on this variance request. All right. Variance number 25-2602 is granted 30. We'll refer you to the uh staff from here on out. Congratulations. Your approach. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Uh moving right along here. We will special exception item number five, town of Shirley. Uh Stanley special exception. The petitioner Stanley is requesting a special exception for the subject property uh 217 Illinois Shirley. Oh, Illinois Street and Shirley. Um, the petitioner would um be allowed a home occupation/inhome daycare. Um, the subject property it is located in a R3.5 residential zoning district. The petitioner provided a letter of intent um stating that uh she would like to open a um daycare at her home in Shirley um and plans to um watch no more than t 10 children u Monday through Friday between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Um she is uh CPR certified and has almost a decade of experience in child care. Uh she has notified her neighbors um and the people of um the town office about her plans. She has not received any complaints and she would be happy to answer any questions. Have you received any? Uh the we received a letter from the town of Shirley. Uh any monitors? We did not receive any.

Um this is a site plan um that the petitioner provided detailing um the layout of the property. And in your package, you should also be able to find um the uh letter of support that we received of the town of Shirley. So this is a special objection and um we've added the decision criteria and other considerations and after careful consideration from a planning staff we recommend approval. Um the staff didn't find it necessary to add any conditions um to the home daycare uh because it would be subject to oversight and regulations that the state would enforce. Okay. Are there any questions? Any questions for Mam? All right. Thank you. We'll have the petitioner up. Is it uh Miss Stanley here? Come on up. If you're both going to speak, we'll swear you both in. Oh, no. Just Oh, you just want a closer look. Okay. Please swear affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Please state your name. Spell your last name. Bailey Stanley. S T A N L E Y. You have seven minutes. Go right ahead. I don't really have a whole lot to add. Um, as stated in my letter

of intent, I have worked in an inhome daycare for almost nine years now. My mom has owned an inhome daycare since I was five. Um, I'm have two kids that are going to be starting school in August and so I just want to be at home more. Um, I am CPR certified. I plan on getting my daycare license through the state. Um, if you have any questions, I don't really know what else to add. Any any questions? Nope. All right. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. We have anybody that'd like to speak in opposition to this variance or this home occupation or four since she didn't use her time. Well, you want to speak four, Miss Hester? She only gets three minutes, though. She's a government official. All right. So, we've got we've got all of our fours have spoken. We have no remrants. Okay. We'll give you the three minutes. Do you swear affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. State your name, spell your last name. Teresa Hester, H Ser. I am the clerk treasure for the town of Shirley. I just wanted to affirm that the uh Stanley's have been at the council meeting and talked with the council about uh what they proposed to do in town. uh they also have been in contact with us along with uh building and zoning on uh the appropriate things to to get state certified and so they are following all the regulations and they have you know they're continuously trying to get the state certifications and all of that. So I just want to verify that and say that we are are as a town the council is for the daycare. All right. All right. So we've had our fours, we've

had our emotions, we've had our government officials. So ready for any discussion? No discussion. And we'll go ahead and vote for the special exception. The special exception has passed 30. We'll refer you to staff from here on out. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you very much. I know this is a growing need in the county as daycare is becoming a little bit of a crisis. So, so good luck to you and thank you. Yeah. Right. That All right. Item uh number six, another special exception for a contractor's storage yard in McCourtzville. Uh Brandon, special exception. This is another special exception request. Um the petitioner James Brandon is requesting a special exception for the subject property 4682 North 300 West in

McCordsville. Um this would allow the petitioner for um a contractor storage yard for a landscaping company to move his business operation closer to home. Um the property is located within the agricultural zoning district um with all four sides surrounded with agricultural zoning as well. The petitioner submitted a uh statement of intent. Um and I would allow the petitioner to um discuss that at his time. They also provided a site plan for the property. Um there is um already a lot of um pre-existing trees. Um so staff is um okay with that in terms of buffer yards um and landscaping requirements. Um they also submitted um building elevations of the proposed um barn. Um they also submitted some information for um in home occupation. Um, but this isn't um a hog occupation, but um we decided to add it. So, um the board could get a little bit of more information. Um they they stated that they'll have around um 15 to 20 um employees. Um the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 700 p.m. with occasionally um overnights during snow events. Um they'll be working Monday

through Friday with an occasional Saturday. Um the customer parking would be um park where the office staff would. Um and there is on-site septic um and they do predict for some signage. Um so uh this is the uh decision criteria for special exception and other considerations and after reviewing this um the staff recommends an approval as presented. What's the current ordinance on parking stall sizes? Um I think we're 9 by 20. You mentioned signage. Um are they have a do they have proposed signage or are they so they in the home occupation um one of the question is about signage. Um they say they if allowed they would um like to place a front yard um sign but that would be a separate um application that the planning staff would have to review. So yeah, so you included that questionnaire just for convenience. It's not They're not living here. Correct. Nobody's living here. This is Okay. Just for more information, right? Yeah. Okay. Oh, it's adjacent to where they live. Okay. Got it.

All right. Any more questions for Maria? No. Okay, we'll have the petitioner come up. Swear affirm the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Spell your last name for the record. Um, Jim Brandon, B R A N D O N. Okay, go right ahead. So, um, I guess a little bit of context. I'm here petitioning for the current property owner. She's also my neighbor. She lives across the street. Her name's Denise Ferris. She's in the audience here. Um, she gave me permission to petition because if we get the variance and we plan to buy this property from her. So, we live in the property just to the south. Um, this is on 300 West. So, we're about a mile south of Tuttles. if you can picture that area there out by the airport. Um, so we've had a home occupancy at our current house for 18 or 19 years. We're actually one of Darla's cases early in her career. Um, so here we are at the last day. It was kind of funny. Um, but anyways, uh, and I believe never had a complaint. Um the company's operated there solely out of there for about eight years and then as we grew we started leasing space in McCordsville. Uh but then this opportunity came about to um move our operations back closer to home and um the company gets up to about 20 employees in season. We carry um 12 to 13 through the winter or full-time employees. Um, we currently operate about I'd say 12 trucks really. Three of them kind of sit. They're sort of backup trucks. Um, and about five trailers with

the proposed barn on the property. Currently, there's a a nice house on it that we would use for our office space. There's a an old barn on the property that we would take down and then build a new barn in its place. We're a licensed contractor, so we're not going to be applying for any variances for setbacks or anything like that. Um, we understand that. And then, um, most of our equipment should be inside the barn. Um, we do have a you, if you look at our site plan, we do have a a bin for salt and a few bins for materials that we would put behind the barn. Like they stated, the property's um got a lot of mature trees along the road. So, in the barn lot, call it. You can see the house from the road, but you can't really see into the barn lot. We plan to maintain all those trees um and you know if anything add a little bit more curb appeal to the property. Um like I said we've lived in that area for 19 years. We like it there. Um we do we have been to all theformational meetings and heard about all the different commercial development plan for the area and we're in the county's long-term industrial planning right there on our road. Um mixed use is the long-term plan across the street. So, um, thinking longterm, this could be a way for us to not be adversely affected by that commercial development because if we ever wanted to just operate our business out of there, I guess in the future and not live there because of all the commercial development, we could maintain our business there. So, we're kind of in a unique position. Um, I think that's all I have. So, what were you saying about the parking? I I think it's 9 by8. I think it's But you're you're thinking it's 10 x 20 is the requirement. Yes. It is loud. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Would you be opposed to increasing that to 10 by 20? Um, no.

There's And you know, I would call this plan pretty conceptual. We pulled this together pretty quick, but yeah. I mean, not at all. Cuz I mean, maybe the office parking, those are smaller cars. The the few spots we're showing in front of the house, maybe not requiring it there, but a lot of our guys that drive to work drive trucks and things, so yeah, I'm not opposed to it. I mean, the reality is it's going to be a big gravel lot behind the barn where most of the guys park and then um we only have three or four people that work in the office during the day. So, everybody else is and that should be reviewed when they do the building permit as well. I say cuz I I do notice a difference. You you wouldn't think it's only a foot wider, but that's a I I do notice a difference when like when I'm in green field versus other parts where it's the you have the 10 by 20. It's it's a world of difference. Yeah. Yeah. No, we're not opposed to that. Okay. So, this says occasional customer. So, how how many customers do you Yeah. So, I didn't mention this. So, we're um a pool installer, landscape company, contractor. All of our guys come to work. They get in trucks and they go. We meet our customers in their kitchen tables or their backyards occasionally for like a design review, you know, handful of times a season. We'll have a client that wants to come out to the office to see it on the computer where we can walk them through the models and things. It's a really rare occasion. So, we're not selling plants to the public. We're not a retail nursery. were a contractor. You're you're um I can't ever remember all the regulations, but the gravel yard and everything. I I'm not sure if that'll allow or not. Once you go to get the building permit, you may have to do some paving here. I talked to the um the building permit guy in the

office. I talked to the highway department about the driveway. Um my neighbors of Ferrises that operate a large commercial farm across the street have a class 3 driveway. They're going to require that for us. Yeah. Um we plan to put that directly across the street from their driveway which the highway department likes. Um so we would abandon the existing drive that's in front of the house. It's a small residential drive. Yeah, I saw you were Yeah, I saw you were going to do the drive, which is good because even when we do allow the gravel lots, we usually require the the paved drive. um to operate the the office out of the house. We have to get a um it's through the state. It's a a permit basically. Um but we're not required to do any updates to it. Um and then I also talked to the sanitary department, whoever looks over septic systems, and they do have they did say that they want us to have the septic tank tested. They're okay with it. And but they did ask us to put a secondary septic site in that backyard there, which we've shown on the plan. Yeah. Um we don't plan to develop the backyard there. Just save it for Mhm. Yep. future use. All right. And I will mention it's farmland on two sides. I'm on one side. Denise is on the other side. And then I've talked to my other neighbors. that they know that we take pride in the area and have made our property better over the years. So, all right, sounds good. Any any more questions for the petitioner? All right, thank you. Do we have anybody here that wants to speak in opposition to this um special exception? None. All right. Did you have any government officials like to speak in favor opposition? None. All right. You'd have some rebuttal time if you have anything else, but I think you've said

everything at this point. You're good. Okay. All right. Any uh any discussion? Good. Go ahead and and vote then. Special section 25-2605 passes 30. Refer you to staff from here on out. Thank you very much. Okay. Item number seven, any Holden. Special exception for accessory structure on adjoining lot. All right. Mr. Holden came to the plan commission to request a special exception in order with with the goal of building an accessory structure uh behind his existing home located on State Road 9 near the intersection I believe with 400 North. This is due south of Blaze Roller Rank. For those of you familiar with the

Maxwell area and the area direct between Greenfield and uh Maxwell is zoned agricultural. The special exception would be to allow an accessory structure on an adjoining lot and one variance to not ex I'm sorry to exceed 1,000 square feet. A statement of intent is included. I will let the petitioner expound upon that if he'd like. Um he's lived at this location for many years, though. Uh this is a um and worked to purchase the property behind him on a separate parcel. This is a lot of record, meaning it um similar to Mr. Beaver's property. Um by keeping the lot exactly as it is, he preserves certain rights on how he can build a property build on it in the future. Um there were a couple different ways to achieve this end goal of building a barn on uh at this site. Um for that reason you'll see um that my staff recommendation is to approve this with no conditions. Um the alternate way that Mr. Beaver could have sorry Mr. Holden could have done this, though it would have sacrificed those lot of record uh rights, would have been to um have a a surveyor or a uh an attorney write a legal description for the entire boundary of a property that he owns and record it in a quick claim deed with the with the auditor and then the recorder upstairs. um basically stating this is the complete boundary of all of the

unplatted land that I own at this location. That in turn would have been collected under one pin number. He can still do one pin number. That's fine. Um but that that quick claim deed would have combined that legal description and made it much more difficult for it ever to be divided again. However, due to the cost of uh surveyor and uh attorney and all of the good stuff that comes with that, Mr. Beaver, sorry, I keep saying referring to the old uh petition, m Mr. Holden chose to go this route with the um variance and special exception. Instead, we have a special section in our ordinance that refers to this special exception and uh includes a number of um restraints on that one being that it be 1,000 square ft or less. Uh so the variance request is from that so he can build a larger poleb barn structure. We did not receive any letters of remmonstrance or support for this particular uh petition. I guess I did have one condition for the special exception and that be that both of the lots be combined under one pin uh with the auditor's office just for tax bill purposes. uh that cleans things up and makes sure that though there are two legals, two deeds, he is receiving uh one tax bill, which should hopefully help any future owner as well from missing one of those tax bills in the future. And that would be for the special exception uh for the variance uh from the 1,00 square ft because if Mr. Holden had done this with uh another method through combining that total boundary

and recording it. We would have just allowed him to pull a permit like any other barn or garage uh builder. Um it did not seem appropriate to put additional restraints on his barn in this situation. Uh if simply by going a different route, he would have only been subject to our standard regulations anyway. So that was the reason that I uh recommended an approval for the variance with no conditions. Um say was a while back that the council did look at the or not the council the commissioners looked at this issue for case in point this property properties in the town of Shirley where there was you were crossing lot lines and if I remember right that's why they allowed it through special exception. Correct. And if they was crossing the lot line, this would have been approved because the barn would have tied the lots together. Okay. However, in the town of Shirley, in similar situations, uh you have a lot of uh platted narrow lots that are all next to each other. So, it's common for a property owner to own lots one through four and have a house. Yes. Um, and so what this does then is allow uh the ordinance specifically would allow somebody to build on that lot um lot four and not have to worry about crossing a property line or a lot line in order to tie it together. It's a similar Yes. So with this special exception, the barn will sit solely on a parcel and the home will sit solely on a parcel. They won't be tied together. So you could Theoretically, one could be sold without the other. Yes. So that's that's kind of the issue, right? And so we're just so we're doing it as a special exception just to save time and money. Is that is that the hardship here? That and to

preserve the lot of record. Preserve the lot of record. Okay. There were some questions about what would happen if the lot of record as it was um say in January 1st 2002 and prior if it changed from its original boundary even to get bigger would maintain those same rights without having to go through the platting process. It would if we were combin if we were combining them we would end up in the platting process. Is that what you're saying? or if there was a change if he needed to build a new primary structure on the site. Yes, it would be required to be platted. Okay. So, I guess in in your opinion, this is this is the best route for the county recordkeeping. It's a route. I w I planner would have preferred the other route. Um but this is that this be all quick claimed together into one parcel boundary. Um but this is this is where we have ended up. Um but as a property owner, this would be better for preserving the rights of the property as they stand. Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm just struggling with that for some reason. So, if he were to sell the parcel with the barn on it, then is then we've he's he sold a par he's sold a property with a barn on it that's an accessory structure. The person that bought that could unknowingly buy that and then not be able to utilize it, right? because it

it is a landlocked parcel as it stands. However, I would argue that there are situations where say the owner of the roller rink might find it an attractive purchase or the person that lives to the south. But yes, it would have to be a neighboring property owner unless that was resolved. But a condition to combine them together under one property identification number that kind of keeps them together from a recordkeeping perspective, I guess. Yes. Pseudo. Okay. Okay. Any more questions for Kayla? No. All right. We'll have petitioner have anything to say. Come on up and be sworn in. Mr. Holden. Do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. State your name, spell your last name. Tony Holden. H O L D N. Okay. Go right ahead. You have seven minutes. I'm just asking to go through with the special exemptions because when I bought the land 10 years ago, I was told to leave it in agricultural and I already did all the survey work for it when I did it originally and I did it way I was recommended cuz I bought the land solely to build a barn, but it's taken me this long to get there. So that's why when I came to the planning commissioner or the board, they asked me to go this route or suggested me to go this route and I just want my barn finally. 33 years is a long time to wait. 32. So it's a So the variance is to exceed the,000 ft. And what's it's a 40x 56 barn. Okay.

Okay. All right. Any questions for the petitioner? No. No. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anybody like to speak in opposition to this special exception and variance? Any government officials of any concern? All right. Any discussion? All right. Seeing none, we will you go ahead and do both both ballots at once or do you want to do the special exception first and then the then the variance? Maybe. I do have a question. Do um one pen is that some Oh, yeah. That would be a condition that we would put on on the special exception. Yeah. So, we could take a motion to do that. That were Mr. Holden, were you okay with uh having it combined under one property identification number for your tax bills? Anything? No. Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. All right. So if you wanted if we want to do that, we could take a motion to to add that as a condition should these be approved. I suppose that we put that all under one identification pin for that both those properties. Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded that should the variance and special exception each be approved, they be subject to the condition that the properties be combined together under one property identification number. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. Same sign. We'll go ahead and vote. You had a question real quick. Hang on, guys. Come up to the microphone here, please. Thank you. What do I have? Do I

have to do anything to make that happen or you guys take care of all that as far as that goes? Just work with the planning staff. They'll tell you what to do. What's that? Work with the planning staff. They'll put you in It's through the assessor's office, right? I think so. auditor's office. I'm sorry. So, they'll they'll give you the instruction on what to do. Thank you. [Applause]

All right. Special exception 25-2607 passes 30. Variance 25-2607 passes 30. All right, you're all good. just check in with uh the planning staff on your next steps directions. So, thank you. Yeah. Okay. Item number eight is a variance for a sideyard setback reduction. Our final petition and note that it is still daylight for uh David Judy. This property is located at 3493 South 500 West in New Palestine, R 2.5 zoning district. Request is one variance to reduce the required 10-ft sideyard setback to three feet for a proposed garage. The subject has provided a letter of intent. does note an important point which is

that there is a 15 foot building setback line included in uh ordinance. So this is uh this property is an home. I believe it was built in the 195th. And you'll note that there is a it is on a subdivision plat. I've got a copy of that if anybody wants to see it. But it's definitely an older um older plat. I got it. Good. Okay. So, Glad Acres was the subdivision name. Built directly on a county road. Uh let's see. Has some drives that go through it. Um and let me see if I can find you a date. 1957 is when it was recorded. The style of the neighborhood is much more in a suburban uh style of that day. The lot is 98 feet wide and it is a a rally a ranch style kind of minimal modern ranch and that home is 57 ft of that nitionally there is a 22 foot I'm sorry 20 foot driveway and it is on septic and well so this takes up additional room on the not given the uh cut to the chase with it. The duties have uh have provided a very nice uh plan for the for the property. Uh we are certainly not against uh investment in the existing homes of Hancock County. Uh, one thing we would say in our

recommendation is that the setback um request be five feet to the edge of overhang. Notably, um, this, uh, in our understanding of building code, and we'd defer to our building inspector for sure, but our understanding is that anything less than five feet to the property line could result in, uh, some different changes to the garage that would require firewall, uh, uh, improvements, no windows, um, things like no overhang, things of that sort. I'm not well verssed in it, but well verssed enough to know that um if we hit that five foot mark as a minimum, then we are kind of protecting all sides. Um and I guess Jason, I'd be curious to know if you have any knowledge of that. It's been a long time. Okay. So I I'd have to do some research. Okay. I would also note that the struct that there is no structure south of this this neighbors a church property. That's what I was going to ask if you could bring up a uh aerial showing this property that doesn't have the uh yellow shading. Thank you. See the the neighborhood and the the neighboring

Is that okay? Yes. All right. Okay. So, your recommendation is a is a approval with the condition that it be changed uh to from 3 ft to 5t to the overhang. Yes. Okay. Any questions for Kayla? All right. Uh, we'll have the petitioner come up. Petitioner here. How many? Just one speaker. Uh, yes. Okay, I'll swear you in. Do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. You state your name. Spell your last name. David Judy. J U D Y. Okay. Go ahead. You have 7 minutes. Um, yeah. So, I you council the area of the property to the north there's an easement there and the septic uh field runs north. Um, and to the south we have the meth the Methodist church which uh I received a call from the pastor of the Methodist church in approval and support. He's totally for it. Uh received a call from the neighbor behind me said he's totally for it. Um, so yeah, I would there's no other place in that yard where it could go. Um, I don't want to move it back any farther

or move it. Uh, that's the best place it needs to go. So, um, I had nothing else to to add. So, how much heartbre to give you to move it in two more feet? It's not the end of the world. I'd like for it to be three feet, but if if I was gonna say, why three feet? I just want to give myself as much room that way to the C because my septic tank, if if if I stick with the 10 ft, I would be 6 feet away from the septic tank. Moving it within the three feet line of the property line, it would be 13 ft. So, that's still pretty close in my opinion. Um, the two feet wouldn't be the end of the world, but I really like that 3 ft. And with that roof overhang, it's probably going to be left a foot to a foot and a half left from the actual property line of the the U overhang of the roof. So what So I guess my question then is I understand you want to stay away from the tank, but why do you need to stay away that far? Well, it's just ease for me. Uh it's the I'm wanting to build it 25 ft from the house. I don't want to really move back any further. There is a requirement to speak. We need to swear you in. You swear affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. Please state your name and spell your name. Madison Judy Judy. Um we did talk to the health department and they informed us that there is a 10t requirement. So if we are to do the um 10 ft requirement for the variant or for the building line then we will be six feet away. So that is now cutting into the health department's problem. So the

reason why we decided to build there exactly was our drive. I don't know if you can see it but it's um in hopes for him to be able to back in one day maybe a boat. he would like to get a bow and so for him to be able to not have to maneuver around the house is really why we liked the three feet. We understand if that's not possible but I think that it definitely at least has to be the 5T because of the 10 ft requirement from the health department for the septic tank. So that's the main reason as to why we're here. If it needs to be a 5T then that's no problem. Okay. So, and you're as planned, your current distance is how far from the septic? Sorry, as shown on the plans, how far again is it from the septic? 13. 13. Okay. Yep. Sorry, I was doing a lot of the background work. He was making the project and stuff. So that you are measured from the overhang. Your 24 foot dimension is the eve dimension or the or the wall dimension. That is the wall dimension. Okay. Okay. One other condition that we often times try to put on this is just a a condition that all of your that you will have gutters and downspouts and that you will point them towards your property and not towards your adjoining property. Well, that's a kind of one of our typicals. So, yep. And then this 24T width, that's a that's a desire or a need or what's the what's driving that? is that you could shave a little bit of that too, I guess, and get get a little closer. It's kind of both. Yeah. Desire and a need, the depth and the width. Um

I I don't own a business, but I have a work truck and work vehicle and I have tools. Um and that height or sorry, the width and the depth is perfect for me for my truck and to park a trailer, both side by side, uh or just straight elongated. So that 24 is a desired and it's kind of a need as well. Okay. Any additional questions for Mr. Judy? Miss Judy, if we Let's So, just to clarify, so you did say if we did decide, okay, you need to have at least a five foot, you'd be okay with that? I would I would really like to get to three, but I would be okay with five. Yeah. To to the overhang. Yeah. I think Oh, you can't do wall. Yeah. So, the issue is really the overhang uh is the location. That's really kind of our drainage issue. I think the the five feet to the Well, that's a good point. 5T to the wall, I think, is where the building department has their issue. Kayla, I think, is the But maybe I don't know why it would be. Say typically, it's always been the wall. Yeah. So, the five feet to the wall that I do remember. foot overhangs. It's probably a foot to probably a foot. Yeah. So, if he did if we did five feet to the wall, then we'd because we really would our if we if we I think traditionally we would do if if they were requesting a three-foot setback, it would be three feet to the fascia. The overhang fascia is what we would want to approve, which was which would push his building into his sight another foot and a half, which then so

if you did 5 ft to the wall, it maybe actually helps him a little bit. Um well, it doesn't help him. It makes it not as as bad for him, I think. Well, and say would So what what's your desire on the overhang? Is it a foot or a foot and a half? Probably closer to a foot. Okay. Because then that would help that. Mhm. Yep. Okay. All right. Any more questions? Okay. I think that's good. Thank you very much. Do we have anybody that'd like to speak in opposition to this uh petition? Seeing none, any government officials like to speak? None. I think he just likes coming to the meetings. Who does? I think he just likes coming to the meetings. Scott spends a lot of time in this room. Yes, he does. One question. If it would it be better to put your motion in reference to the overhang because that's where we mostly measure from. So, I think if if I'm thinking of this right, it would be like four feet from the overhang. Yes. And then it would be that would give Maybe 5t to the wall. Yeah, just throwing that out there. But yeah, I think in the motion to clarify a one foot overhang for that reason. Got this measurement here of three foot. So that's to the wall. Asking for a two foot. That's two feet. Yes. Yeah. But he's said he's willing to go back to five foot from the wall. So you would do a cl and then like I said in motion clarify one foot overhang or feet from the from the from the overhang. Yep. 4 foot set back to the So which doesn't include the gutter which makes it less intrusive. So we can

do that here without a addition right. Okay. Okay. I think we've had all of our testimony. So if we have any motions for conditions, take that. Now I make a motion that should we approve it, it'll be 5 ft to the wall with a 1 ft overhang. So 4T to the fascia and that it'll be a 1T overhang. A second. Okay. been moved and seconded to make the condition that should it be approved it be subject to a 4 foot set back to the overhang. Overhang being a one one ft sophet which would put the wall at 5t from the property line minimum. All those in favor signify by saying I. I oppose. Same sign.

You the variance for the uh barn. has stalled with Paulet and Casey voting for and Mr. Long voting against. So it'll be automatically continue the next meeting. We'll hopefully have a full board get a get a better vote. So So you won't have to renotice. Um do they have to renotice? They would have is an automatic continuous. So you would not have to renotice and you just would come back on you'll be on the agenda for July July 24th. Yes. Okay. Can I ask why you stalled just so I know for next time? So it's we look at the Well, so it stalled because it was a two to1 vote. So we don't have a majority. You needed three yes votes to get it approved. My no vote was it's really in regard to the practical difficulty. I wasn't seeing the the real practical difficulty in the in the variance. What what does that mean? Practical difficulty. It's a it's a desire. Uh the width of the garage at 24 feet. I mean, it's a twocar garage. It's a small lot. You know, you start over covering lots and things like that. So, it just didn't I just didn't see the the real practical difficulty in it. So, my mind could change, but you know, that's just that was the reason for it. Is there anything that we like what would change your mind? Can I ask that? Like I I don't understand what in these small areas these setback variances, they get so tight and the lawn the yards get so small, septic

tanks get to be difficult to deal with. Um if your septic tank goes out, it's going to become a real problem with all the coverage on the lot, those types of things. Um we've just in we've just been historically having a lot of issues with these really close setbacks with structures. So drainage issues. Next meeting there there might be five people here. So the other two will be hearing it for the first time. We'll go through the same process. Yes. And and then they will have to determine whether they think it's a practical difficulty. So yeah, even if he doesn't change the vote could be four to one. It could be 3 to2. Mhm. The zoning code requires you in order for it to be granted to show that you have a practical difficulty like there's some reason that's pre preventing you from being able to build it the way the code states. Okay. And is I I do have a question. Is the um like the health department that's not considered. I mean we can't change the Right. Are you asking like we can still present this? You'll still present it like the same application and we'll go through the same process, but you'll have two more people here to vote to see what they think. Yeah. And the unfortunate thing is the law just does not allow without a with only having a quorum, a simple majority doesn't the law does not allow a simple majority to win. It has to be a quorum of the of the body. You have to get three votes. Yeah. That's fortunate for me, isn't it? All right. Do I need to do I need to

Practical difficulties. All right. Zoning violations. Mark complian sure that they have good afternoon. Sorry. the garage area as well. Sorry, which property was this? Trailers has been working with She needs to What am I doing? Oh, yes. Um, need I need to uh talk with Gre with Greg probably and set up a time with Mrs. Schaefer to go out there and look at that property. I'd like to do it with Scott Williams because the building permit is expired. I'd like to ascertain what's going on in the garage. Exactly. Uh Mrs. Schaefer did not believe that they were made aware of the court date. So there is some tension

there too. So I just need to catch up with Greg's office. I can pull up I've got Odyssey pulled up. I can give you the the dates if that would help. Tuck it here. pulled up and then I think I closed it. So case was opened in March March 19th of 2025. Um the latest action was that um an order granting motion for default judgment occurred on 523 so May 23rd of 2025. Um there was a monetary award a judgment of $2,500 and then attorney's fees awarded in the amount of $1,500. judgment. Um the judgment noted that the property is out of compliance with the Hancock County Code of Ordinances. Um judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff and those amounts that I just mentioned 2500 and then another 1500 for attorney's fees which are due to be paid within 30 days of the order. plaintiff is given permission to enter in and onto the defendant's property and take all necessary steps to bring the defendant's property into compliance. And because the condition of the defendant's property constitutes a nuisance, this judgment refineses an

attorney's fees and the cost of bringing the defendants's property into compliance shall constitute a property tax lean against the defendant's property. Yeah. So, at the inspection then Scott and I should probably ascertain as to what actions could be taken or and how much that would cost basically and if Mr. Schaefer does not do it, how much it would cost the county to pursue that. The order says that you can go in and start So, it sounds like to me you can start hauling stuff away. So, um you'll need to get with Greg. Then you can pile that cost on top. All right. Only once, but I've done it. I think you're beyond the negotiation. I had a feeling they were being less [Applause] What's the uh violations update? And I just wanted to since it's my last meeting and everything you guys a status of where we are and violations, what you're leaving us with. Okay. Who's taking this part over? Do you want to take Do you want to speak up here? No. Who's taking this part over? I don't we as a department are going to be handling it. Um Maria is going to be helping us for sure um with this but also then we're going to be hiring a new person and this will be part of their duties as well. So, you know, with every new hire, it's different set up,

different division. So, mess them up because she pay me out because of my time. I kind of messed them up. I think that I apologize. I have accumulated a lot of time over Um, so I've gotten a lot of it closed. Um, worked with people knowing that my final days were here. Um, I have a couple more that have asked me to come out and uh, close them out before I actually leave them. 77. So, next week I plan to go out. One of um which is Jordan and that's in almost the town of New Palestine and John Merlau um has been working with me as their and they've started to really clean up but it was a lot of just agriculture equipment all over the place. So, he's working and hopefully we can get that closed out that one and then have another one um HLW. I'm hoping that they're going to continue to work with these guys um coming up because they need some variances and I got my Gibson involved in that because they need some professional. So, hopefully that one will be closed out most that I can. So, Link Logistics is closed. Um, everybody that is on here is open. Okay. Everybody. Okay. Um, the logistics one, I believe you're talking about um the WPT. Is that which

one you're talking about? Yes. Yeah. Is um hopefully will be resolved, but it is basically two directional that have logos on them and the building's for sale. Part of it's aband abandoned in the front empty. So there's just a couple of businesses in the back and they still two signs up that are directional violation and with the building being up for Holly before she left and then also with Kayla. Let's let it ride and see if it does iate a lawsuit. All right. What about this one, Shirley? Shirley. Yeah. On 11:25 East. This is your first one on the Oh, Smith. Okay. Um that hopefully will be res Well, that was um son of the Smiths. He was unable to live in their home, not be within a thousand feet of a park. So they thought they would in so only way I could verify anything was he used that as his address with probate. So the sheriff's department called. That's the only way I could tell that you couldn't see. So I only had verification from the sheriff's department and his Whatever happened with the boats? Didn't they? Yeah, they gone. They're

gone until until fall. Hopefully he understands that he can't them there. I'll give him this. That property there off 465 is tight, but something else out. I think he knows hopefully he'll drive by there when we were in the middle of looking at it. Um the Halerman Farm we've been this has been a violation for years on the corner of 50 um 250 west and 200 south and it's actually been turned over an unsafe building. So, he's working with her on an building, but they continue to dump trash. So, she just they just pay the citations and we're, you know, citation after citation and they pay them. They clean it up, but then somebody else will dump. Can we not issue even though they're paying, can we still pursue this in in court? And when you go back out there after they pay, it's usually cleaned up for the weeds. So there's one now. But being that this is just an ongoing issue, yeah, they're paying the fines, but that's not solving the issue. Well, Scott is an unsafe building. they she challenged it and um she says it's not

an essay building and that she had intended to fix it up and so she challenged it. She brought a court case against us and uh it's on hold right now because the the fire department are in negotiations with her to buy the property. they want to do. They want to terrorize it. Even though in the unsafe building code says it's called the unsafe building code, it also means the property can be unsafe. It'd be like an open swimming pool. Yeah. Cuz it's anything that's not anything to do with the building, but that you can that still falls under the unsafe building code. Not if I don't know if the language has changed, but anything that allowed for the intrusion of the person's elements or verit. So like a building person elements it can be the site even if a building is not there you know they they leave a big hole in the ground right or the trash or whatever but if they're cleaning up far as I could ever tell there's nothing of course I'd never trespass walk around the well if the If the trash attracts vermin, then it door huge hole in it broken. And again, that's not unusual that so um I that he told me that the fire department was looking Hopefully that goes through and then it's out of her hair. And Susan called in and let me also to hold off on, you know, she was cleaning it up this

weekend. She was cleaning up that Scott was pursuing it. questions. We got a new clock. Should have filed a petition to have chickens at my house on Darla's last meeting. Yes. I think that's you guys haven't actually met Maria. I guess I have not. So, want to give them your background? She was working in Shelbyville. I'm sorry. Yeah. So, um I went to Ball State for my bachelors of urban planning development. And while I was um finishing up my undergrad, I started um my career up in Shelbyville and was there for 2 years um working under um the planning director. Um and now I'm here, which is um closer to home cuz I am from Accordsville. Um so I was making quite a commute over there. So um happy to be here and look forward to working with you. Thank you guys. easier. Thank you. 24 years a long time. Oh, I will. What else are you going to do with your Thursday nights? Relax. And tune in to the meetings now. Yes.

Watch on YouTube. There we go. Next month. I want to know what happened. So, yeah. You made a friend tonight. Made a friend. Uh-huh. We're still on. Motion to adjurnn. Sorry, I'm not the boss, but do you want to make that? I'll make a motion we adjourn. I second it. All those in favor? I I same sign. Are we off or do we have to walk back there? Yeah. Switch over there. Button. They won't be as quick down further down the road.