Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We have a roll call, please. Roger, here. William Hud here. Cynthia Hassel here. Dan Faulner here. Kathleen Hill here. Vice President, we have a forum. We have the minutes for August 26, 2025. Do we have a motion to accept or a motion to deny? I make a motion to accept the minutes of August 20 26. Do we have a second? Second. Do we have a roll call vote? Yes. Yes. Cynthia Hassel. Yes. And Faulner. Yes. Kathleen Hill.

Yes. Five. Zero. Motion pass.

Okay. Do we have a motion to table the minutes for October 28th, 2025? I'll make that motion to table the minutes of October 28, 25. Second. I have a second. Roll call vote. Roger. Yes. William Hutton. Yes. Cynthia Hassel. Yes. Faulner. Kathleen Hill. Yes. Five eyes. Zero. Motion pass. Okay. The next item on the agenda is old business. We have none appearing. Do we have any that came up? There's no old business.

Okay. Um, new business. We have Z-25-9 sufficient of Dollar Tree, Inc. for developmental bearing from zoning ordinance to allow a wall sign greater than 54 square ft. A I would assume NYC to the shopping center district located at 3514 169 street within the city of Hammond Lake County, Indiana. Have all the notification requirements been met? Yes, they have. Okay. Do we have the petitioner here? [clears throat]

Good evening. My name is Gary Pototts. I'm the owner of Professional Permits. Our office is located at 58171 Dragonfly Court in Oola, Indiana. Here today on behalf of the property owner. Would you put sign in, please? And put Okay, you got your address in there, [clears throat] too. I did. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Um yesterday on behalf of the property owner and uh Dollar Tree who is the lei in the space they're looking for a variance to install a 96 square foot wall sign uh where the code is allowed 54 square ft. Um the uh other signs in the shopping plaza are kind of similar in size. So, we uh are hoping to have something that will kind of keep the aesthetics the same uh with the remaining businesses in the shopping center. Um the fact that it's a perpendicular sign or a parallel sign to the road does lend it to less legibility if it were perpendicular to motorists. So, that's one of the rationale that we were asking for a larger sign on top of the um the just over the wall journal aesthetics of the tenant space. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions that you have at this time.

Board members have any questions? I don't. I do. When you say similar, are you saying the other signs are similar to 54 square ft or the other signs are similar to 96 square feet? Uh, there is they most there's six businesses at least that are over the 54 square foot in the shopping center.

Thank you. Mr. Hutton, if you look at the um the spreadsheet of the in the packet that we added, you know, that is an evaluation of the signs in the shopping center based on their calculations. Um, I think the other important thing or more specific thing to call out is that the O'Reilly, which is immediately east of this site, has had or received a similar variance. I don't think it's exactly 96.5 or whatever, you know, it's it's it's very close to that. That's just under 100 square feet for for the sign that we've located in a similar location on the on those facades.

Thank you very much. This is a lot of work. Thank you. Um, it's been [clears throat] a five-year exercise of keeping track of that. Thank you. Any other questions?

Um, shall we open up for public comments? Anybody in the public or anybody online? I don't see anybody's speaking up online and I don't see anybody in the public. We will give one more chance. Any public comments? Bo or Khan? Hearing none, we will close this session of public comments. Um, any other questions from board members?

No questions. No, I don't. No. And we will move into the request for the staff report and any of the recommendations for Z-25-9.

Thank you everyone. And I just wanted to um point out the updated version of the staff report. All that really went on on that was on when we finished totaling up the chart, we realized on page two that there was a two square foot difference in the total square foot remaining. um originally said 455.5, it's 453.7 um square ft remaining in this other capacity, which a little bit more complicated in the sign ordinance, but um you know, it applies to C2 shopping centers and how much extra quote unquote signage they can have beyond their initial identification sign. But um and in that chart, we also updated it to so there's a lot of erroneous addresses being used in the Brier East Shopping Center. there years ago, Brian worked with the owners to figure out unit addresses that made sense. So, we kind of updated the ones where needed to be put. We also included a number of the vacant units that have been um vacant for a number of years at the shopping center just so that everything is accounted for. Just so you understand, those were the only real changes. Um and [clears throat] you know, a lot of that survey data came from uh we looked at permit records. We also looked at self-reported records and and things like that. Um information that came in earlier this year and more recently. So, we tried to make it as accurate as we could. Obviously, there's a few missing spots, but um anyway, for the recommendation of Z219, if um no other comments, uh staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BCA grant the developmental variance should the board feel the petitioner has met the standards. Um there's a one page findings of fact following that [clears throat]

um um your survey and tally of the survey you have allowed a hundred I will assume a 100 square feet for each one of these even though some are vacated. Does that indicate that that is what the BCA is recommending or this is why? No, actually that is not relevant to what the BCA is recommending. The 100 square feet is reflective of what the zoning ordinance allows for each tenant.

And therefore, if they have more signs greater than 100 square feet, that goes into the other category. And if you and if you that section of the ordinance it sets a capacity for all other signs to enable to get a variance.

It's no it has nothing to do with granting a variance. It has everything to do with avoiding half a variance because even once once each tenant goes above their 100 square feet, then everything goes into the category. It goes into a pool that is available to all tenants within the shopping center. It's based on a calculation on the front primary frontage of the property. And this is a tally. So we know at what point in time that all of these extra signs go beyond the capacity that's been established. At that point it may trigger variances.

Okay. Thank you for explaining it. Yeah. But in this case we're talking about just the individual sign size. Yes. All right. Any other members have any questions about the report? I don't. I don't. Okay. [clears throat] We have proposed findings of facts and we have no additional recommendations from the staff. Any questions, comments in regard to the proposed findings of fact? I don't no

no question. No. All right. Do we have a motion to adopt the staff report and the proposed findings of fact is presented and it's staff report as amended because he corrected that number of square footage.

Oh, okay. As amended. did not note that in the comment. All right. So, we have a recommendation. Okay. So, do we have a motion to accept the staff report as amended and the proposed findings of fact as presented as the official findings of fact? I'll make the motion to accept the staff report with its amended changes and standards as findings effect.

We have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Cynthia Hasso, yes. Dan Faulner, yes. Roger. Yes. William H. Yes. Kathleen Hill, yes. Five, zero. Zero descent. Motion pass. Okay. Do we have a motion to approve the developmental variance for Z-25-9 for a for the sign greater than 54 square ft for

the dollar tree? I'll make the motion to approve the developmental variance for Z2 Z-25- with the recommendation. Yep. I'll second. We have a motion in a second. Roll call vote. Cynthia Hassaw. Yes. Dan Faulner. Yes. Roger. Yes. William, yes. Kathleen Hill, yes. Five, [clears throat] zero. Motion pass. Thank you very much. [clears throat]

Thank you. Next item on the agenda is D-25-20, petition of DBR Construction LLC for developmental variance from zoning ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot size for N6,250 square ft required for a two family attached dwelling in a R1 single single family residential district located at 2619 167th Street in the city of Ham in Lake County, Indiana. Have our requirements been met?

Yes, they have. May I um just make mention on the agenda, uh it should be in a R1U urban single family residential district. Um pardon. Just so you know, it the agenda should read in R1U urban single family residential district. R1U. Um, but the staff report and elsewhere does reflect R1U. Okay. The staff report is correct though, correct? All right. Thank you.

Is there a need to make a motion to upgrade the agenda? I don't think that's necessary. We just we'll just we'll just make the correction as noted. I think Dave shook his head. So, all right. Has all no all notification requirements been met? Yes, they have. Okay. Do we have any petitioner that would like to come forward? No, the pet. No, the petitioner. Petitioner. Yeah. So Jeff should be online. I see. I am I am online.

Okay. All right. Mr. Callahan, would you make your presentation, please? Um yes. Uh my name is Jeff Callahan. Um Mr. Carolyn, I'm sorry, Mr. Call to interrupt, but but um under state law, you have to have your camera on. Okay. Um one moment, please. Okay. Thank you. Um, so you need to you need Go ahead. I'm sorry. You need to state your name and address, please.

My name is Jeff Callahan. I'm representing DBR Construction, which is the company that I own and that owns this property and that's uh requesting the developmental variance. Um, the address is 332 South Michigan Avenue, sweet 121-J450, Chicago, Illinois 6064. Thank you very much.

Um, I'm here requesting a developmental uh variance to reduce the minimum square footage that's required to build a duplex on the property. the property is uh properly zoned to be a duplex. It meets the required um width of the lot. Uh it re it meets all the required setbacks on the front, back and sides, but it falls short of the total square feet required to um build the duplex. Um, I did some research in the area and found a few nearby duplexes that also fell short of uh the square footage. And I'm here today just asking if um the board would consider uh the same for our property.

All right. Any questions from board members? I don't. No question. Okay. Um, just to state for the record, the reduction being requested is for 6,250 square feet down to 5,295 square feet, which basically is 125 changing 125 foot depth of the lot to um, and Tom help me. What is the depth of this lot? Uh, it's 106 feet. six feet which is common in this particular subdivision area of the city. May I ask if the tree on the lot

the the tree on the lot will be uh removed as well as there is some old part of an asphalt driveway that was left behind from a previous owner. Um that we will also be um removing and um filling with landscaping. Any other questions? I do I do have a question. Okay. I'm not seeing on your drawings here. I'm not seeing anything for uh foundation depth. What is it? I don't see any dimensions. Do you?

Um I can find that for you. And uh but I believe I I don't want to be quoted exactly but I believe it's 48 in is the uh the foundation depth but I would like to verify that. Um is that the top or the bottom of what part of the foundation? It'd be from the the bottom of the footer to the top of the wall. Thank you. Of the foundation. Welcome. Um, do you have the I'm not sure what you have in front of you, so pardon me, but do you have the house plans in front of you?

Yes, that's what I was That's what I'm looking at. And I didn't see any elevation marks or any dimensions on here. So, I'm not sure how complete these drawings are. It mentions it mentions the sizes of individual components but not like the overall height you know I think is what you're getting at or the overall depth the depth sorry yes that's all right thank you just just asking that's all

sure I'm quite certain that it's 48 in and it's uh below the the frost line and it's something that um the building department during we haven't gotten to the building department for a review yet but once we do um they do a thorough um review of the plans as well and we would correct them if it didn't meet the requirements that um that were for the project. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions? I don't I don't

we don't say we will open a period of public comments. Anyone in the public that is here, present or online that would like to speak for or against? Would you like to come forward? State your name and your address and please sign in. My name is uh Robert Clicks, CL I CK. I am the I live on the corner. I'm a cook in 167th. And uh the problem is I said one uh the property is not big enough for what he wants to do with the property. And the the problem is we're having right now is flooding. when they tore down the house, they filled it in with so much fill that is flooding my property and then the lady beside me, her property, too. So, it's flooding both our houses. Now, what what problem how we going to fix this with what they going to put on and have enough room for everybody to live there? Because if the foundation the h house is so high then the runoff's going to come right in our yards for the you know the roof and uh roof itself that if you have it uh two duplex and you're going to have the parking where's the parking going to come out? They got two parking places on that property. That's it. If you got two two families, four cars. So there you go. that's going to start rolling over into our property and her property, too. So, it's going to be, you know, it's you're putting too much in one small compact place. That's what I'm thinking.

Any questions? [laughter] No, but we will give the petitioners time to address your questions. Okay. Okay. All right. Don't leave. All right. The main thing is the flooding, too. It's We've had flooding ever since they tore down that house. Did you have flooding before they tore down the house? Never had no problem flood. I've been there since 1978.

Okay. You want to sit down and see the the property beside the That's the lot. I had to go out there and dig a trench to run the water out to the alley so I didn't get water into my garage and stuff. So, that's how bad it was. And like you say, they start filling in more. It's just gonna create more problems for me, right? Okay. Good. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else like to make comments for or against?

Please sign in with your name and address and state it for us. Uh, I was wondering if they were going to take the tree down, but I'm glad that they're going to take the tree down. You need to state your name and address for the record. Betty Wheatley, 2615 167th Street.

All right. I was wondering about the tree, but I'm glad to hear that they're going to tear the tree down. Uh, it's just like Mr. Click said with the water. When they tore the house down, they put fill in so the water runs both ways. And I'm going to be living in a fishbowl with a two-story house next to me. Uh, I don't know what we could do about it. We don't like it and we don't want it, but can't fight city hall. But you're in the parking. You can state your views.

Pardon me. You may state your views. I'm sorry. I said you may state your views. We welcome your comments. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?

[clears throat] All right. Would you petitioner, would you like to address their concerns? Actually, Miss Brazil, you have to close the public comment period first. Sure. All right. Um, according to mine, it the petitioner has an opportunity to ask a question to answer the questions in number seven. He's going to answer them, but you need to close the com and then it says close the public. Okay. All right, Miss Hill. Okay. So, they changed the order. Yes, I'm changing the order.

Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I was just looking at my agenda. All right. And I guess hearing no other comments, we will close public comments and we will have the petitioner address their concerns.

Um hello and thanks for um bringing up your concerns and comments. Um I'd like to to first off say that I'm I'm a I'm a new owner of this property. I um I've only owned this property for a few short years. Um, I was not responsible for the last home that was on it. I was not responsible for the last um the demolition of the last home that was on it or the back filling of the lot. Um, I inherited it this way. Um, so I I'm sorry to hear that you're having water runoff problems. Um, but if we move forward with this project, um, we'll do our best to address any water coming off of our property onto your property. Um, and you know, the the lot will be professionally graded per the site plans and um, we will direct, you know, water flow uh, away from your properties as best as we can. just like I'm sure you would um as being a good neighbor to each other. So, um I I wanted to start off by saying that um I hope that addressed the water concerns um and uh parking came up from both of you guys. And I I also wanted to um let you know that um we actually have um four parking spaces on the across the back of the lot. So, um you're right. If there's two cars per family, um they'll each have a a parking spot in the back of the house. Um and there is also street parking up front, but you know, that's open to anybody. But I guess what I was

trying to say is that there's not going to be um four cars or an extra a ton of extra cars parking out front um because we are going to give them um four parking spots on the property in in the back. Um and then I also heard your concern about the tree and yes um we are removing it and um we uh will have that taken care of. Uh again, if and when we uh move forward with this, if we're approved to move forward with this project, um I hope uh the size of this home too is is 2100 square ft. Um it is not um beyond the re the the maximum required square feet, you know. um it's it's definitely within our our um within the Hammond's requirements to build that size of a home on that lot. So, um again, we you know, um if you take a look at the plans, you'll see the square footage. Uh there's no covered garage as well, which is not going to run water off of the top of the roof there either. So, um I I would say it's probably comparable to a small single family home with a detached garage. the size of of our property. Um, so that's that's my comments and um hopefully they address your concerns and if you have any more um I'm happy to try to address them for you.

Yeah. And just to be clear, the footprint of the house is uh 1100 ft. That's correct. It's two stories. So that's why it's 2,000. That's correct. So it may even be smaller than a small single family home with a detached garage. So it would be smaller than a single family home. It the roof the the total roof area where the rain would run off of that they were bringing up about the water cons water concerns. Roof area or footprint is what you're referring to. That's correct. Sorry. Yeah.

Any questions from board members? I do. Yes. Mr. Novak, have you seen a site plan how this house is going to be positioned and the parking is going to be located? We have. It's in your packet. What? Yeah, we we we have provided one in packet, but yeah, there there is a there is a site plan. Um it's not a finalized site plan, but it does show the setbacks and locations. should Well, I don't know much about drawings, that's for sure. But yeah, I it's Can you It's It's on the plat of survey. Yeah, there's two. One says one is just pl one is the drawing.

It's labeled site plan. Um yeah, sorry. Well, I'm going to talk to Mr. Tinga about delineation. Thank you very much. I stand correct. Thank you, sir. Oh, okay. And of course, we'll we'll expect more details on the site plan when construction draws come. Sorry. Thank you. No, it's okay. Sir, when you mentioned as far as the parking, there are four places in back that there will be parking for four cars. Will that be it will not be a covered area, but it will be a concrete stone or will it also allow drainage for any water too? It'll be I'm sorry if I should I can I address that? Go ahead. Yes, please. That's

okay. I didn't want to interrupt you. Um so there's a there's going to be a 20x40 parking pad in the rear of the house. It'll either be concrete or asphalt. Um if you look at the site plan, if if you have the site plan open, you'll see uh arrows. Uh that that's the um that's the way the the pad will will tilt. So the water will drain towards the alleyway and not towards one of the neighboring properties. And if you look in the um towards the front of the house too, you'll see arrows and it it shows the directions of of um water and and you could see the uh the elevations of the ground how they go down in scale too. [snorts]

Any other questions? I don't. Yes. Well, I'm not gonna ask you again. Well, go ahead. Thank you. No, thank you. You're our expert. I have one more question. Yes. Um, how much? Sir, welcome to Sir. Hey, we he closed public comment. We said, so if you're going to allow him to speak, you have to reopen public comment. I'm sorry. I raised my hang on, sir. Would anybody have a problem if we reopen public comments? I don't have a problem with that. We open reopen public comments. You may speak. All right. I'm sorry.

The property between the houses, how much footage are we going to have between each houses for, uh, you know, for the runoff? [clears throat] Because if the house is always, you know, two or three feet from the property, like I say, the roof, the roof is going to slow the water down. Ain't no way around it unless you got five, six feet of property on each side of the house. So you would like to know the house itself, how much square footage is between each of your two off the property line. Correct. On the property line. All right. Any other questions? You may be I think that' be it. Thank you. Okay. Then I guess we have to close public comment again. And would you please address that, sir?

Did you hear us question? Yes. Okay. Yes. Um so again based on the site plans here um that you can see uh it should be 5 and a half ft and um it's also um pretty similar to the same uh distance of your house to our property line on both sides of us. So we have equal space uh on our side that you do on your side uh from our property. Um and the property that is actually um on the west.

Uh yes, west. I believe just the the fence is a little bit kind of I believe the fence might be uh intruding onto our our property a little bit which may make it look like it's a little bit different but it is uh per the survey. Um correct? So in other words you are stating that there's five feet from the property line to the next house. So they also then have footage on their part as far as their property line.

Correct. I would say approximately 10 ft from home to home total. Yeah. If

actually the plat survey shows the house on the left is 11 ft look like 11 1/2 ft from their property line and the house on the right looks like and looks like it's six and a half ft from their property line. So that would be 11 ft between houses on the right and 16 17 feet on the left. Is my math correct? You are you are correct. So I Wait a minute. 17 on the left, 12 on the right.

Yes, you are. You are correct. Okay.

All right. Any additional questions from board members? No, I don't. Um, did you close the second part of the public hearing? That's why he could talk. That's why he was able to talk. Yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure. Okay. Just making [clears throat] following different rules.

All right. Since we have no additional questions, um, will we have the staff report and any other changes that they might make?

Yes. Um, I don't believe there's any amendments or changes to the staff report from what you were presented last week. Um, so in the case of Z2520 2619 167th Street, staff recommendation read, "Staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BCA grant the developmental variance concerning lot size. Should the board feel the petitioner has met the standard subject to the following two conditions? One, technical review and final approval of all building and site plans by city staff. and two, the removal of the non-necessary curb cut, [clears throat] which as you may have earlier, he references a somewhat buried asphalt driveway that he's removing. We're asking that he also remove the curb cut so people aren't tempted to drive on the grass later. So,

can I answer that? Oh, if you want to make Anyways, I I am agreeing to that. I just didn't know if you were asking if I would do that. Oh, no, no, no, no. We were just Okay. And then there's a onepage findings of fact as well attached. Proposed. All right. Any questions from this for the staff at this time? No. Okay. We will move to the proposed bindings of fact that we've been presented. Any comments? I don't.

Any changes? Anything? All right. Do we have a motion to accept the staff report in addition with the recommendations and the proposed findings as prepared by the staff? I'll make a motion to accept the um standards and uh conditions and the staff report as findings of fact and the recommendation and recommendations of course. Okay. Do we have a second? A second. We have a motion and a second. Do we have a roll call roll, please?

Cynthia, yes. Dan Faulner, yes. Roger. Yes. William Hutton, yes. Kathleen Hill, yes. I zero nays abstensions. Motion pass. Not sure if our visitors are aware that the recommendations that the final approval of all building and site plan will be have to be approved by the city staff. All right. Yes. We will we will pay attention to the concerns you expressed when looking at the plans.

All right. Did you hear him? that they will the staff will consider your concerns during the approval process. So your voice was heard. All right. Do we have a motion to approve or deny the developmental varian for Z-25-20 and approve it as far as with the staff recommendations and including the staff recommendations and the findings of

I'll make the motion to approve developmental variance for Z25-20. I'm sorry. Could I couldn't quite hear what you said. Oh, I'm sorry. I believe you made a motion to approve the developmental variant. Yeah. With the standards and conditions for Z25-20. Okay. Thank you. All right. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote. Hasso. Yes. Faulner. No. Roger Rob. Yes. William Hutton. Yes. Kathleen Hill. Yes.

Four eyes, one nay. Zero extension. Motion pass. Okay. The motion passed. And I am counting on this staff to take any concerns into consideration for final approval. That is the matter of course. and the all the questions that they raised are fall under the inspections department and the building commissioner. Okay. Can they make sure that the We are Yeah, that is the normal protocol.

Okay. We're just checking for them to let them know what the procedure is. Okay. [clears throat] All right. Good luck everyone. We will move to Z-25-21 petition of a reliable properties and development LLC for developmental variance for a zoning ordinance to allow a reduction in minimum lot area for N7,500 square ft requirement to build a single family home in a R1 single family residential district located at 505 through 077th Street in the city of Ham and Lake County, Indiana. Have all the notification requirements been met?

Yes, they have. Okay. Do we have a petitioner here for that? Who's online? Hello. Good evening. Yes. Uh Jesse Rodriguez uh on behalf of Reliable Properties and Development. Address 6824 Cal Avenue, Hammond, Indiana 46324. That's our office address. Have any particular questions for me? No. You will have to state what you want to do.

You want you want to tell us what you would like to do.

Okay. Go ahead. I okay uh sorry about that. I intend to uh build single family home on this lot. Uh this lot uh unfortunately it's uh does not meet the minimum lot size which is 7500 square foot and it's about 7,272. So we're sure like about 228 square foot. So uh other than that we meet all the requirements. We um the the width of the lock is 60 ft. Uh we submitted um a preliminary site plan with model home that we built already in uh in Hammond as well. We built one house and we another house that it's uh under construction and I believe uh you know we we meet all the setbacks. So uh but basically we we we plan to build uh single family home. We are a local contractor. We uh been in business for about 10 years and uh we've done this before. So

all right. Anything else you'd like to inform us about? Um I would like to add al also that uh there are other lots on this area particular area that does not meet the minimum lot size. So we our lot is not the only one. So uh actually only a few lots that um actually meet the minimum size. So what we're doing here is not it's it's uh it's kind of common for the area. Any questions from board members? I do. Okay. Does this Does this house have a basement or a crawl space?

So, what we propose uh does not uh it's it's a slap home. We also have the optional crawl space. So, uh the house that we uh probably you have a copy in front of you uh does not have the base that particular house. We might sh go back and uh maybe propose a deep print house. Uh but at this point that's what we are planning on building in that uh particular lot. Back to my question, does it have a crawl space or a basement?

No basement. Um we have two options, crawl space or slat. So it will have a foundation with the slat. the same house that was built in in in Hammond particularly. It's a slap it's a slap hole. The reason so no basement. The purpose of the question is I don't see a foundation system in here. So that's why I was asking the question. So you you've answered it. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. One of the one of the for the petitioner's sake, one of the considerations you you need to think about is that even though the levy has put this property out of the flood plane, you really need to think about um the in case you know is a slab really the appropriate house in that area should um there be a breach of the levy.

So yeah. So, but basically um this this particular home that we submitted for for review um we we have ops we typically we have option this flap home crawl space that particular home is not a B we have an option for a basement but um if if it is if this get get approved the next step for me it will take it that to engineers and survey here. So they can actually uh figure out what's appropriate the elevation of the house and based on that we will make a decision about you know most likely slot home is not going to be an option there. So in that case we will we will do a crawl space.

Okay. If we stay with that house we can always switch to a different model home that we uh built in the past as well. I think that's a a terrific statement Mr. Poland. It really is. Yes. And And I [clears throat] Thank you, Mr. Hutton. I' I'd raise it. And then that just so we're clear, that is one of the conditions is to look at the design of the home and to consider other um other revisions that can be made to it.

Yeah. Um so are we still at board member questions? Sorry. I don't have anything else. Okay. I don't Thank you.

All right. You ready to move into public comments? Okay. We open public comments at this time. I don't see we do have a gentleman back there. Any comments from those present or online? If you're online, remember you have to unmute to speak. Should be a microphone icon on your screen to unmute. [clears throat] because we have two other people on there. Any comments online? Any comments? Any comments? Any public comments?

I think if you're on the phone, it might be star six to unmute. Could try that. Who are you talking to? I'm trying to There's someone on here who's on the phone, so I'm trying to advis them on how to unmute if they're not sure. Do we wait or do we move on? Have you made the request three times? Okay. No, that was a question. Have you made the request for public comment three times? Uh, any com. That's someone trying to speak.

Any other comments for Z-25-21, the development developmental variance on 177 Street? Any other comments? Any other comments? Any other comments? Hearing none, we will close this period of public public comment [snorts] and we have now a staff report.

Yes, thank you. Um since we have a staff report here for Z2521 um I think another important distinction um to mention is that if you look at the parcel it is 60 by 125 except for the northeast corner was taken by the state of Indiana for the highway. So you know if it wasn't for that rightway loss at the northeast corner this property would be the proper size to build. Um I'll also note that there is a 10-ft easement from the 1976 plat. it's reflected here and the garage does stay off of it. Um, and the garage does make sure to meet its setback as well. Um, whatever its final design will be, it will meet that 20 foot setback from Harrison Avenue. Um, and just so you know, we did have did have a discussion with Jesse, you know, about maybe considering um given the prominent corner location and given the location of the levy, maybe some revisions or different things of the house. So, we will be discussing that. Um but again of course the question today is the size um of the lot and whether that size is okay to build. So um our staff recommendation in Z2521 reads as [clears throat] staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BCA grant the developmental variance should the board feel the petitioner has met the standards subject to the following condition. One, consideration be given by petitioner to final design of home in relation to its prominent corner location and following any such revisions, final technical review made and final approval granted by city staff of all finalized building and site plans.

Hey, any questions from board members? I pardon. [clears throat] No questions. I do. Um, this area has four lots. Yes. Two two parcels but four lots in the original platting. Yes. And but we have if this is approved we will have three other lots available for building. Well at this time those three other lots are combined into one parcel. I'm sorry I was coughing.

That's okay. That's that's all right madam president. Um so the other three lots are combined into one single parcel right now. I do not know what that owner's intentions are, but you know, theoretically he could split them back into three parcels and we'll approach that when that happens if it does. Okay. I further reviewed the zone ordinance for Z1 district and it's very limited as far as even varants or exceptions or anything else that can be built there except houses, hospitals, daycare centers, schools, things like that. Correct.

There are there are a couple conditional uses as well. Yes. That are non-residential but they're limited. Yes. But they're nonresidential. Yes, there's some conditional uses that are non-residential in an R1, but they are limited. Okay, but this is basically the only residential thing that can be built there on a lot under 20,000 square feet. I believe this is the only thing. Okay. So, there would be no other exceptions for any other type of residential building. Correct. Well, I mean, theoretically, someone can ask for a variance, but well, the variance would be very like as far as if you built a condo or something like that, it would not be allowed.

A condo is a form of ownership. It has nothing to do with what what the house is. I know that, but that's why I'm saying that's why I'm asking there are really no other types of building. And my answer your question, condo is irrelevant to the to your question. It's either a single family house that is what the the district states as its primary use, whether it's rented, owned, condoized, or owned by um a trust is irrelevant to what zoning is. That's an ownership question.

All right. Thank you. I there are no other questions. I don't I don't All right. We have findings of fact to consider. Any questions, comments, changes?

I don't. All right. Could we have a motion to approve or deny the Well, first we have to approve of the staff report [cough] with its recommendations and the findings of fact. I'll make a motion to approve the staff report with the standards and conditions.

We have a motion, a second. Roll call vote. Cynthia Hassa, yes. Dan Faulner, yes. Roger, yes. William Hutton, yes. Kathleen Hill, yes. Five eyes, zero nays, zero extensions. Motion pass. [clears throat] Do we have a

Do we have a motion to approve or deny the developmental variance, including the staff recommendation? I'll make a motion to approve development or variance as long as the petitioner uh follows the standards and conditions in the staff report and the recommendations and recommendations of course. We have a second. I will second. For the record, their conditions. For record, the staff report states conditions, not recommendations. Conditions. Okay. Okay.

Yeah, I second. Yeah, there's a second. Roll call. Vote. Cynthia Hasso, yes. And Faulner, yes. Roger, yes. William Hud, yes. Kathleen Hill, no. Four eyes. One nay. Zero extension. Motion pass. All right. Thank you.

Um, commissioner comments, any comments? No comments. This is meeting. I wish everybody a happy holiday season. Happy holidays. Thank you. And I will assume our staff comments will include the proposed meeting schedule. Oh, yes. Everybody receive one. Yes, ma'am.

Since it is now December 2nd, does anybody have any known conflicts to from these dates? I guess we have one option of Tuesday, May 26 or Wednesday, May 27th or Tuesday, June 2nd. Tuesday. Could we question why is that so far as Memorial Day? Memorial Day and that pushes other meetings over. and uh and that would affect as far as when all reports are to do

as far as a date. If if you recall this past May for that meeting, we made a decision in April to move that meeting to the first Tuesday of June. So what we're asking is if that's what you want to determine now rather or do you want to wait until March or April to make that decision? I would say making it in April will make it difficult as far as for the deadline for which is why I said March and April. I'd like to wait till March. I will too. That's fine. March.

March meeting. Mark be on the agenda with Okay, that's fine. We can revisit this in March if you know that's fine. Okay. Yeah. Just want to give you the option in case somebody absolutely like, "Oh, I'm out of town for Memorial Day." No way. Yeah, cuz No, I might not be here. Oh, he might not be here. Yeah. Or staff may or Mr. He staff may not be here. [laughter] No, you'll always, you know, we have to figure it out, right? None of us may be. I'm always here. All right. Do we have any

So, any anything else from the staff? So, um technically speaking, um you need a motion to approve the schedule with the understanding that we will make a decision in March about the May meeting. I will make that motion to accept this schedule of meetings for for next year that the staff so diligently put together with the caveat that in March we're going to review the final May meeting. Second. Thank you.

We have a motion, a second. Do we need to state uh that Everybody understand it? Then we have a roll call vote. Cynthia, yes. William, yes. Sorry. Dan Faulner, yes. Roger. Yes. Kathleen, yes. Five eyes, zero nays. Motion pass. Okay. Anything else? Staff um staff has comments. Yes. Okay. because I had that was still under commissioner comments but my my statement. Okay.

So staff comments is that um we look forward to seeing you on January 27th because we have cases that we expect to be at that agenda.

But that ones we didn't have tonight. We are talking well I will address that in a second but uh we are talking about two new cases that we um discussed today that potentially will make it. Um the other possibility and it may not be in January maybe in February was if you recall at the last meeting I said that we were expecting a lot of cases for this this agenda and some circumstances occurred where those cases were delayed. Um and so obviously they're not on the agenda. Um it's a conditional use in seven variances and um we are not sure when they're going to come back. It um it might be February. It may be January, but we'll we'll know soon, but at least we have the potential of two cases for the January agenda. And

when's the deadline? I can't hear you. When is the deadline for the January cases? Right before Christmas 24. No, it's more like the week before. Okay. All right. Should we also explain why they don't care why Z2518's missing? They don't care, do they? Any additional staff comments? Merry Christmas. Happy New Year. No public comment. Wait a minute. Are we done with the staff? I He said he was. Actually, I didn't. [clears throat] He jumped and said, "Merry Christmas." before I could make the statement of Merry Christmas.

Thank you. All right. And happy new year. Yes. Now I'm done. Thank you. I move for adjournment. We have a second. I'll second. All in favor signify by saying I. I.