Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

All right, we'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. Um, we ask that you uh please turn off all your cell phones or electronic devices. Release silence them uh not to answer them while we're in the meeting. Um we do um advise that uh if you do want to if you do wish to speak um that the testimony that you be giving is recorded and taken under oath. We request anyone wishing to speak will do so when you're called. Um we ask that you face our attorney to the left here and uh you'll be and which would be your right would uh to be sworn in for speaking. Um, you'll be asked to be given your first your full name for the record and please spell your last name so we have accurate minutes. Um, and we ask that you speak into the microphone. Um, times seem different.

Did we say on here saying 10? That's for the planning.

Okay. That's why I was like, "Wait a minute. That's a news to me." Um, we do ask that you conduct yourselves in a civil manner. If, um, issues arise, we do reserve the right to ask you to leave. Um, and like I said, uh, this meeting is being recorded and it's actually being streamed for public use. It's live now, isn't it? So, it's live. Okay. Um then first order of business then will be to adopt last month's minutes.

Motion to approve the January minutes. Are we doing both this time? Okay. Can we handle them individually? Motion to approve the January 29th, 2026 minutes. Second. All those in favor? I. Motion carries. I was absent for the February, so I'm going to abstain from those. Okay, have a motion for February. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Second for February. Second. All in favor? I abstain.

I abain. I abstain too.

Yep. All right. Now, the speaking order. I did forget this real quick. My little rusty. uh government staff will uh first give their um presentation about the uh uh petitions available to us. Then we'll call on the petitioner to give their time and the petitioner has seven minutes. Anybody wishing to speak for the petitioner will have to take part of that seven minutes. Uh once they are done with that, we'll then open the floor up to anybody that wants to monistrate against a petition. Again, that's for 7 minutes in total. Then we'll also open it up then after that for any government officials that need to speak. After that, go right ahead, please. First item on the agenda is Swift Varian. The subject property is located at 3262 West 100 North in Buck Creek Township under the agricultural zoning district. The petitioner is requesting a variance to reduce the required 100 ft front yard setback um in order to be able to install a cover porch. In your packets, you should see um the site plans that the petitioners provided for tonight. Um the petitioners are requesting a reduction of of the required front yard setback in order to allow the construction of a cover front porch. Um in front of the resident, the home currently sits at the 100 foot

front yard setback. Um so the installation of that covered porch would extend into the front yard setback uh requiring them um for the request of the variance tonight. This has been reviewed um by all respective departments and it was stopped in the planning department during our review um where we saw that it wasn't meeting setbacks and it needed to um request a variance for encroaching of the front yard setback. So the proposed cover porch is being attached um and connected to the existing structure of the home. Because of this connection um the of to to the residence, this is considered an extension of the residence. So um therefore it's considered an encroachment into the front yard setback. So as you can see the residence is currently at that 100 foot setback. Um in the agricultural zoning district it states that 50 ft is the minimum front yard setback. Uh we also have to take in uh into consideration the road classification which in this case is a major collateral. Um, so with the 50 foot of the zoning district and the road classification, it makes the front yard setback at 100 ft.

During our review, we didn't see any other issue issues with it um besides me not meeting the front yard setback. Um with that being said, staff is recommending approval with the following conditions. Uh first one being building permit related to the variance must be obtained within 12 months of the approval date and occupancy permit must be obtained within 12 months of the approval. building permit or the variance will automatically expire. The building permit application shall sustainably conform to the site plan presented to the Hancock County Board of Zoning of Appeals. And the last one being that the setback reduction shall only apply to the covered porch.

Are there any questions for staff? In your guys's review of the process, did you happen to see if there were any others sitting in front of the 100 foot setback? I'm sorry. You said if there was any other porches, anything like that along that street? Yeah. So, um, a lot of the porches in that area, some of them are grandfathered in with the setback. Um, because this one is being installed in our current standards. Um, that's why um, the vance is required for this one. Um, but yeah, in the nature of the area, most of them are at that 90 foot setback. Okay. Thank you.

Any discussions about the design criteria for the coverage? Does it matches the overall house? Yeah, it matches the overall house. Um, any staking requirements for this one? No. Any any gutter requirements for this one? No. Thank you. If there are any other questions, I'll turn it over to the petitioner. 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. Brian L. Swift. S W I F T.

Okay. And you have seven minutes. Go right ahead.

All right. Um, so pretty much everything's already been said. This uh you asked about if there's any other houses along there. There's probably 50 between me and Greenfield that are within 20 30 feet closer to the road than what mine is currently. It will be after this. So, it's very common down through there. Zoning was changed in 2022, I think, to make this a problem. It would not have been a problem prior to that. Um I there's not it shouldn't really be any um real problems in the future either. Uh it's not like we're going out. There's an existing we asked for putting a cover on and yes, we'll replace the concrete, but there's an existing concrete slab that was put in in ' 66 that we are not going past. So, this isn't really adding other than it have enough cover over it. So, um that's you have any questions for me, I can answer anything.

Typically ask the applicant if they would agree to the conditions recommended by staff. So there these three conditions that you see building permits must be obtained. Um and and we might sometimes what we do on number two is the building permit application sub substantially conform to the site plan and design presented and then the setback reduction. Any objections to those? Nope. Okay. I'm a professional remodeler so I can meet any of those requirements and anything I do to will exceed anything the building requirements going to ask me anyway. So I don't have a problem with any of that. All right. I do have one quick question for you. Sorry. So that po that that slab that was there, it's at the 16 by 7 foot 9.

It is not as wide, but it is as deep. Okay. So it's a little bit wider because if we're going to go through this process, we might as well make it wider. Yeah. No, and I get that. I just was Yeah, it's no deep. And the main thing was is the distance from the house. Yeah. It's no deeper to uh It's not any deeper to the uh road, but it is wider. Yes. Okay. So, it's just basically a front porch flat work. Front porch. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak for the petitioner?

All right. We'll open it up to remmonistrators. Anybody wish to speak against this petition? Any government officials? Okay. Discussion amongst the board. Thoughts, questions? No, but if you're interested in a motion, I could um probably make one. I'd go for that. Should this receive favorable or approval from the BCA, staff conditions will attach with one amendment. And number two, the building permit application shall substantially conform to the site plan and design presented to the Hancock County Board of Zoning Appeals.

Second. Motion moved, made, and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

All right. Okay, so I got to check those boxes. Okay. In case number 26-2661, the variance is granted a vote of 520. All

right. Thank you. We'll refer you to staff from here on out. Next item, please. Next item the on the agenda is the Carter special exception relocation. The spe the the property is located at 3242 West US40 in the Sugar Creek Township under the commercial neighborhood zoning district. Uh the current use of this property is a moving company and office um which in our land use matrix it is classified as equipment sales and rental. So, the timeline of this subject property was back in September 2024 where staff met with the landowner to review the process for a filing of a special exception through the board of zoning of appeals. In October of 2024, a parking lot was installed without a permit and the property owner attorney was notified. Um, in that same month, the special exception petition was filed and placed on the November BZA meeting agenda.

Um, in November of 2024, the petitioner requested a continuence. Um, and due to the fact that we do not have December's meetings, it was pushed into the January 2025 BCA meeting. Um, in January 2025, the staff met with the petitioner's attorney and Cooper surveying regarding the preparation and submission of revised site plans. Uh, January uh 30th in 2025, the petition was heard at the January BCA meeting and it was granted an approval of the special exception. Um, in your package, you should find a copy of the approval letter with the conditions that were attached to um, the approval. In June of 2025, the change of use remained incomplete. A permit was required. Um, in that same month, the health department indicated um that the SE there was no septus system uh, identified on the property. Um, in November of 2025, a meeting with the property owner attorney um was conducted to remind them of the upcoming upcoming deadline. Then January 30th, 2026, the special exception approval expired um which is the approval of the one year from the date granted. um staff determined that the condition of approvals approval had not been satisfied in February 2026. The property owner attorney requested a continuence of the petition and bringing it this bringing the petition to tonight for um the BCA board to hear this petition.

So in your package you should find the special exception conditions are approved from the 2024 uh petition case condition number 11 where it stated that the petitioner shall work with the hand the county health department within 45 days of the BCA approval to determine a viable viable of septic system and shall comply with all septic requirements within one year or the special exception shall be revoked at a public hearing. Um there also in your packets is a letter from the health department stating that um this was this condition wasn't met in your packets as well. Uh I provided the BZA approval site plan that was part of the 2025 petition. um as well as um the site plan for the parking lot as well. January of this year, our zoning officer did um conduct a uh site inspection where they took some pictures of the condition of the site. Um there also is a packet with some additional photos as well um showing how the site is at its current state. These are some other um images from um US40 looking into the property. Um since then uh the health department has conducted a site inspection. In your packets, there is a report from the

health department indicating their findings um of that site inspection and what they are recommending um for the property. So under our board of zoning of appeals 156.013 013. Um, we are following the procedures for an expir expiration of an approval. Um, where it states a special exception or variance cease to be authorized and is expired if it if the obtaining of an approved approvement location permit or the execution of the approval has not been completed within one year of the date and the variance or special exception has been granted. Um therefore um it leads us to start the process of um termination where it needs to be um heard at a public hearing meeting and the grounds for um termination is under 2B where the execution of the approval is not consistent with any conditions of approval. So, the board tonight has a few options for this petition. Um, in your staff report, you'll see four of the possible um options the board has for tonight. Uh the first one being the revoke the

granted special exception and establish a deadline for the petitioner to cease oper operation and vacate the site. Um two being grant the petitioner a time extension to meet the conditions of approval. Three amend the special exception conditions of approval and then four um continue the petition to the following month to allow additional time for review. Um staff is recommending to revoke the special exception of the moving company and office as a result of a non-compliancy with the conditions of approval. Any questions for staff?

So, were they cooperative with you when you spoke to them about this? So, we had a meeting back in November where um that's when I initially um got involved. Um it where we stated to them that the deadline was coming up of their special exception granted. Um, so we've been working with her attorney to um get this to compliancy, but the deadline happened and um it wasn't met. So

sometimes we can consider perhaps the extension of time. Um but we need to usually see some good faith conformance to the other conditions. We're we're we're noticing on the septic here, but um is there any any ch has been has there been a change to the footprint as originally approved from the 2025 approval? Um I would turn it over to Kayla to speak on that. Got it.

Mr. Carter was in compliance with most of the other um standards. It was really this septic um issue that was a sticking point. So the footprint, the buffer, maintenance, occupancy permit, um it was a same party transfer, outside lighting, the lanes were installed, all those are in substantial conformance.

My understanding is yes. And it was a phase one and a phase two of that project. So phase one, which um Sylvia can tell you more about, um was met. Phase two is something that I believe was going to be a future project just based on my memory of that um of that uh meeting. But um but they have uh the the petitioner has been in our office has replied that way. It's um the septic is really the the issue that we're running up against. Uh, anything else from staff? All right, bring petitioner on up, 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. Um, Sylvia, S I L V I A Miller, M I L L E R, and I represent the petitioner. This is a very peculiar project. So everything that you read from the conditions that was phase one and those have all been complied with except for the septic. The problem we're running into is my client does not own the land. He rents the front corner of it. Um so can I use this? Okay.

Look at the Oh. core the different one sorry the core plan that was part of your packet the site plan from core that we introduced there's a front corner of that property on that shows tree line you look at that area right there the front where you can see it was paved and then there's a portion that is still not paved back here. That's part of phase two and the tree line here. This is what my client has control over. The entire rest of the property is not on him. So, there's a home on the property that's vacant. That's not part of what he leases. There's a trailer on the property that's vacant. That is not what he leases. And the entire back part of the property is not what he leases. He only leases the business. Now, if you've lived in Hancock County for any period of time at all, you know that that U-Haul business has been there for quite some time, right? Um, and one of the most frustrating things that I do in this job is try to help people to comply with ordinances and when they are taking over a business that has ex, you know, existed for 30 years and then they come in and they're told you have to install a brand new septic system because they've never had one. It's very frustrating because you have someone who is trying to comply with all the ordinances, who is trying to follow the guidelines and the rules and right now his biggest impediment is the landlord. So what I have done and Derek if you want to come up here and explain the location issues. Um Derek is uh the one who issued the

letter for the health department. And I actually we just received the letter two days ago maybe because we finally got approval to go on the property for him and the contractor to run all the testing that was necessary to verify the location and the septic and what's working and what's not working. Um, so we received this letter two days ago and we're trying to come up with some options and my hope tonight is that you will allow Mr. Carter to continue his business with a temporary portaotty. This is not there's no public restroom available in this business. People come in, they pick up keys, they leave with the truck, they come back, they drop off the truck. That's it. um for at least 60, we're hoping 90 days if you're so willing, so that he has time to sue the landlord because he is leasing premises that are not appropriate for what they're being used for and what they were sold to him for. Um but also work with the health department to find a solution. Derek, can you explain a little bit of where

I got a couple quick questions for you though real before that? So, you know, the the special exception was granted over a year ago. Yes, sir. Um, and we haven't seen that progress made in a year. So, so with that, the other thing is, you know, he knew he didn't have total control because he is renting. And I I'll give him that he, you know, it is what it is. But on the same token, why did he agree to that at the meeting when he knew he didn't own it and didn't have the authority over it? because the business had been existing in the same location for the same use for over 30 years. I understand.

So when in good faith he said, "Of course I'm going to comply. Of course you can come on and inspect our septic system." But that's our position as well. In good faith if you do this, this is what we expect. And now a year later, this is the scenario that we're in. I think that no one could appreciate the condition of what was on the property until we actually had approval from the landlord to go in and inspect it, which was So, he didn't have that prior to even coming to us? Nope. There was contemplated in January a PSA. There was a contingency in the PSA for purchase, not leasing. We were under the assumption that this was going to be a purchase in controlled property that time. Can we clarify that?

I think so. I think it was just a lease. I think the previous it was a purchase of the business itself, the U-Haul business he is purchasing, but the land location is a lease. So there's two separate pieces. The land location where this is say for the purchase of the U-Haul business or purchase and sale. Okay. And then it was the transferability of an existing um special exception, right? And then that was the Can Can we just get on record confirming footprint hasn't changed? Footprint has not changed. The buffer yard is installed. The buffer yard is growing. Hopefully in over the next few years there'll be nice big trees. The whole 15 acres is being maintained.

The whole 15 acres has been maintained. I think if you look at the pictures that staff put up, my client has been very diligent about keeping the lawn mowed and keeping trash off of that property and it looks nice. Occupancy permit in place. Yes. outside lighting in compliance with the planning or planning department. Um there's not been any subsequent same party transfers or different party transfers. No ma'am for any part of it. Those lanes I don't even know what those were. Some lanes.

So what the department requested was that my client install lanes for when people are dropping off trucks at night. So he has obtained the U-Haul signs for lanes and established those lanes. So, if you go to drop off a truck at 11:00 at night, you know where you're going and how to get in and how to get out. And what is the cost to install a proper septic system? You guys know this, Eric. Yes. Yep. It's where I affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and I do. Tell your last name.

My name is Derek Adams. That's D E R E K A D A Ms. I represent the Hancock County Health Department. Uh in response to your question, um it's very hard to give an answer to that because this would be a commercial septic system that would be run through the Indiana Department of Health and their commercial on-site sewage system program. Uh generally speaking, a residential septic will run you anywhere from 30 to $40,000 anecdotally. um a commercial system is going to run north of that because you're going to have to use engineering documents. Um so if I was going to, you know, stick my neck out and say somewhere in the ballpark of 50 to 60, um but without being a part of the on-site for the commercial side, I can't give you a solid number on that.

And am I reading this report correctly that it's currently dumping either into the creek or 55 gall 55gallon steel drum? So, it's very hard to tell because there's multiple different ways that the sewage is being disposed of by the various different structures on the lot. So, the white house that sits directly west of the business building has a antiquated, we call it a jet irration system. The sewage goes into the septic tank. There is a pump that forces air into the system that intro introduces more oxygen to allow it to digest better. House, right? I have my

correct. Yes, that white house that her cursor is currently on. Um, back when they used to install those and they were approved for direct discharge to creeks. Uh, anymore that has to be part of the national pollutant discharge elimination program or or whatever that ends up being. It's MPDES is the acronym. Um, so that's no longer approved for just residential or general use. Um, the actual business building itself, uh, runs through a plethora of different tile types, which is noted in that report. It comes out in a cast iron, makes a 90, at some point makes a change over to an Orangeberg pipe. There's newer PVC that's been installed as a cleanout. On the corner, um, if you see on this picture here, roughly where that cursor is, there's a stand pipe that is more modern PVC pipe. Uh, but it connects directly to a cast iron. It then makes transition to an orangeberg which then connects to a crushed clay tile that then, judging by the looks of it, runs over to about a 10 or 12 in steel drainage pipe uh that sits just behind this white home a little bit to the northwest. You can't see it on the picture. Um, so effectively it's draining into a drainage tile that's then ostensibly going to to the creek. um not directly associated with this property, but there is a trailer northwest of the white house that's pictured in this picture. It has a 55gallon drum that's sunk in the ground and then it runs directly to the creek as well. So all three of them ostensibly find their way to the creek at one point or another. There's just three different modes in which they find their way there. What I can say is that from our March 20th inspection with um CK Excavating and septics is that the line from the business building to the drainage pipe was in such a state of disrepair that sewage was never making it to the drainage pipe. Uh the pipes had been crushed or collapsed in such a way that sewage was actively backing up

out of that PVC stand pipe right there at the corner of the drive. And I didn't take a whole lot of pictures, but I do have some pictures of sewage standing in the holes that were dug by CK Excavating and septics um from testing that sewage disposal and it just coming up out of the stand pipe. So, as it currently sits, there's no adequate method of sewage disposal on the property. Eric, if you could please explain, you know, given where this building is, which is, you know, if my client has control over this pursuant to the lease, where would the septic have to be installed? C can I can I just interject one thing? You're representing the county, correct?

Yes, the county health department. Okay. So, we have are are you testifying for the petitioner or on behalf of the county? Okay. Well, you have a a time slot for government officials and I'm not sure we were kind of combining testimony. So, I just want to point that out to the BZA that I was just asked to come up and and nobody stopped me. So, I I didn't know you were with the county. Sorry, I'm with the county health department. Okay. Thinking of that now, it probably be best to add. I think we will let Miss Miller continue with the petitioner's case and then we'll bring up government official might bring you up again. Absolutely. Would that make sense? Sorry. No, I'm sorry.

So, um, from what I understand, the septic is going to have to be installed somewhere over here and then have a line all the way to the building. Now, the part that I think bothers me more than anything is if my client hadn't decided to do things the right way and come in here and ask for a special exception and improve the property and clean it up and maintain it and pave it. Nobody would know this. You could have just taken over the BIS because this was not on anybody's radar. It was a transfer of a special exception though, wasn't it? It was a transfer of a special exception requires an annual certification. So if there's a new signer, you would think so. We would have found out about this time.

Well, we do a good job. How long had the How long had the special exception gone without being renewed by Mr. Gibson?

I am not sure about that offh hand. Um I do think that the expansion of the parking lot is the expansion of the special exception use is or even as a non-conform non-conforming use the expansion of that parking lot is what in my when I look at this cues coming back to the BCA Mr. Gibson hadn't been diligent in renewing the special exception or providing the, you know, occupancy certificate. He had received several notices because of the lawn, because of the trash on the property. Um, and my client has cleaned all that up. So, he's trying. We're just in a situation where never in anybody's wild dream would you believe that a business existed for 30 years with this sort of septic condition. So, our plan, well, at least my plan right now is we're going to have to sue the landlord. And meanwhile, he is working with the health department and the contractor to get this resolved because the business has history in this location. He'd like to keep it there. Um, so I'm asking for 90 days. He'll have uh portaotties, which the health department can testify they're okay with for that period of time. Um, because it's one employee, that's it. But we knew that then that's why it was a septic in the special. This was a big discussion point and when the transfer occurred and it was supposed to be within 45 days

and I try to make it happen in 45 days, but there's only so much I can control. We were talking 25 or 26. 25. There's only so much we can do and I tried to, you know, do the best I could with the landlord. But the 45 days from January 25. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So, so this is 20. This is 26. A couple times. I understand. I got lost in my years. But but we're in 20. No, I understand. And this is frustrating. Trust me, not just for you, but for me and for my client as well, because

you know, he has invested. his rent was doubled in the last 3 months and he keeps paying it and he is a little bit stuck right now because there's very little he can actually do to this property without the landlord. So the proposal would be to put a moratorium on utilization of the restroom in the current office. Nothing you can do about the adjacent spaces and put a porta potty on site. Yep. Is it already there?

No. Okay, we were I mean again I received the letter from the health department two days ago so we haven't really had time to really figure out the logistics. There were probably three or four options that were presented by the contractor but after speaking with Derek I think the portallet was something that the health department would be willing to support in this case for as a temporary fix not anything permanent is temporary 45 days or how long is temporary? I'm asking for 90 days. Why 90? Because it'll give me enough time to actually get the landlord in front of a judge. Okay. Say, are you actively pursuing that paperwork now? I drafted it today.

Okay. And when do you plan on turning that in?

Probably next week. I need to get some more information from my client like a copy of his le new lease and things like that to attach to it. This was completely unexpected. Before my client moved in, that house was occupied for years and he kicked people out and cleaned it up. So, we're just trying to clean up the property. I He's doing the best he can. So, I'm just asking for a little grace. And I know it's been a while. Um, but that's where we are. That's the reality of the situation. So, if you have any I'll step aside, let Derek answer any questions you may have. How much time does she have left?

Um, I know we had a lot of questions. Two minutes, but I think we need to hear from um remmonstrators and then we'll go to government official. All right. Anybody here wish to speak against this petition? How's your time?

Hi there. 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. Okay. Please state your name and spell your last name. Shannon Tupe. Last name is T. I think you have seven minutes if there's no one else that wants to speak. So, go right ahead. I live directly behind the U-Haul and I will say that it is not cleaned up. It is always looks like a dump and it's just not a good idea for that business to continue to be there. It's bringing down my property value. Are you on the same have the same landlord? I own my property. I live directly behind it. Okay. I didn't know if it was still on that or because it is a larger property. Is this a point of clarification?

Behind that where they claim there's a tree line, there's not trees behind my house. The privacy fence is what's up against that property and the way it looks and what they're trying to do is going to bring down my property value along with everybody else on Sharon and Welker. Okay. That's really all I have. I just don't think it's a good idea. It's not a good place for the business. Okay. And you for your How do you handle your is it septic? Are you on sept? I am on a septic. Yep. Everybody on that street's on a septic. That's all I have. Anybody else wish speaking of this project?

All right. Government officials and I'll give Miss Miller her rebuttal time after the government official. Nope. Okay. Go right ahead. So just I don't know if uh if you guys had any questions over what we've already covered or if you just want me to move on from where we left off a little bit that I do want a quick question of how did you verify a lot of these pipe types and different things. Was that open excavation or CCTV?

That was open excavation CK excavating and septic opened up. Um one of them is actually readily identifiable. The cast iron that leaves the business building is sticking up above the ground. Could uh identify that. saw picture evidence of the 90 degree elbow that was made in that in the parking lot and then there were some open sections just to use this diagram here um right about where the cursor is CK excavating and septics had opened up several holes uh where you could identify the pipe types that were laying in the ground um and that's how we came to the conclusion that there was cast iron and PVC and uh orangeberg pipe some of that had actually been pulled out of the hole during excavation as well so that's how we identified those Okay.

Are there any other questions? Yes, I have a question. Yes. So, in the letter um from the health department, I can't read the signature and it might be yours. That's mine. Yes. Okay. So, there were three options which is the U-Haul your recommendation.

U-Haul rental business operated by Mr. Carter ceases operation until such a time as proper sewage disposal can be provided to the site. Number two, if allowed by the Hancock County Planning Department and/or the Hancock County Board of Zoning Appeals, temporary sewage disposal options should be pursued until proper sewage disposal can be provided to the site. And number three was relocation or closure of the U-Haul rental business. On number two, the temporary option that's been suggested by the petitioner of 90 days with the um porta toilets. Is that in line with what you had in mind with number two?

That was one of the various different options that I had in line there. There are a couple different temporary options that could be pursued there. One of them being portallettes. The other one we have what's called basically pump and haul where they install a septic tank. All the sewage flows to that and then when it's full they just have it pumped out. It's basically just a holding tank for all sewage generated by the building. One thing I will say is a an issue with that is there are various wellheads on the property. Um, and the current outlet from the business building into the sewer itself, the sewer line that runs out towards its termination period is well within the 50oot protected area around the wellhead that is closest to the business area. So, let me see if I can find it here. right in this general area. I don't know if you can see it on this, but it's actually behind this trailer, right behind the cursor, directly above the cursor. Now, there's a wellhead that sits in that small grassy area in the middle of the driveway, and that's what's supplying water to the business building. There's another wellhead that services house ostensibly. Uh we're unsure because it's currently turned off and it's a setup that none of us had ever seen before. They had the pressure switch inside the wellhead casing itself. Um there is a small pool right in this general area that's been filled in at some point. And then between that pool and this white house, there is another wellhead that currently sits there. So in order to pursue the pumping hall, they would have to find a spot that is greater than 50 ft away from the well, any well, unless that secondary well had been abandoned. And then that changes things. But just for ease of understanding, they need to be 50 ft away from the well. And anything that encroaches on that 50 ft would then have to be an upgrade to the type of pipe that is used for the sewer line. Instead of just being a glued standard schedule

40 PVC, it would now have to move to a gasketed PVC to protect that wellhead from contamination from any sewage that would leave that building. Now some of the things that have now come to light with the uh current situation of the U sanitary system. Has those wells been tested? The wells have not been tested to my knowledge. We don't require well testing upon transactions of property. We greatly recommend it. But at the end of the day, if that's not done through a state program, we don't see the results of that. So to my knowledge, it has not been tested. What are going to be your activities as it relates to this uh creek or otherwise drainage with the other two properties?

Yeah, so with the other two buildings currently being unoccupied, there's not a whole lot that we really can do because our codes are directed towards occupied structures that are currently generating sewage that would be then flowing into a waterway. as they currently sit now, they are not in compliance with Indiana's septic code. But with them being unoccupied and there no further sewage generation, there's no further sewage that's being put into the creek.

So, as long as they are unoccupied, they just kind of exist. If I had it my way, I would have the the homeowner go out, go ahead and abandon those systems in the appropriate way and get that taken care of so that there's not even any threat of that happening in the future. Uh but as it sits now with them being unoccupied structures, they are there. All of the active sewage that you observed is related to this business then.

Yeah. And that was only during testing. There was none that was generated kind of organically. Um the contractor had the the business owner go in and just flush the toilets to check and see what happened. So thanks. Uh could those other issues even though like you said you there's not much you can do because they're unoccupied is it still reportable to IDM? Um especially being this a commercial property.

Yeah, that's a conversation for us to have with IDM and see if there's anything for them to go after. I don't know without them with them not having an identifiable source of pollution because nothing is being generated, thus nothing is being put into the creek. If there would be anything that they could do from that grounds other than say if there ever is any more sewage generated into these systems that direct discharge into this creek, then we'll go after that. No. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Miss Miller has her threeminute rebuttal.

I really don't have rebuttal. I mean, it's really just a plea. I would refer to the photographs that staff provided in their report. I mean, I think what started all of this probably three years ago was the lack of maintenance on the property. It was high grass, junk trash, debris, occupation of that house by individuals who just showed up and took residence. Um, and my client has cleaned all that up. Now, I understand you may not want a U-Haul business right behind your house, but that's not, you know, that was a conversation we had a year ago, and we had neighbors here who spoke for and against it um to this board. So, um no, I think we're doing the best we can with what we have. Nobody expected this to be the mess that it is. I would not expect a business owner to lease out premises without knowing what is on there. So, shame shame on my client for not checking beforehand. Um, shame on me for assuming that it was fine because why wouldn't it be? It's been there for 30 years. Um, so we're just working with the with the information we have now trying to get this resolved for the better of the county. Nobody wants this kind of issue in the county, at least of all me.

I have a question for you. Yes, ma'am. So, the landowner who owns the property, what has been his has he not replied when you got

He hasn't replied. He's been very aggressive toward my client, saying that he wouldn't allow somebody to come on the property and they can't go on the property without his permission to do any kind of excavation or checking. It was It's been a very fairly contentious process. And you know, I've been honestly speaking with my client about trying to find a different location. The problem is that because it's been there for so long, that's where everybody goes. It's one of the highest rated U-Haul businesses in this part of the state. So, we're kind of stuck trying to figure out how do we do this? Um, but all these conversations are happening and I think we need to have a result within 90 days. I I do not blame this board at all if 90 days from now you say, "Okay, you've had enough time and you need to be done." But I think that now that we know what the issues are and how severe they are, we can try to address them here in the next 90 days.

Typically for rebuttal time, we asked for you to address open remmonstrance items, which was um I know you had testified earlier that it's not cleaned. I think it's maybe a definition. We heard testimony there was it's not cleaned up. Um I so according to what the previous pictures were and Kayla can talk about this. U the issues were that individuals were living in that home and there was like washers and dryers outside couches clothing significant amount of trash that was just rotating in and out in front of the property. The grass was knee high and my client has come in and has maintained it clean. I mean, if you look at the photographs that staff provided, it is I mean, it's pretty organized. It's clean. There's no trash on the ground. Is it pretty? I don't think a U-Haul rental business is ever going to be pretty. Um, but that's where that's what it looks like now. You know, it's organized and it's clean. It doesn't look like an eyesore when you drive by. And I would encourage you to drive by it on your way home. It's right off of 40.

What do you think the 90 days is going to get you? The 90 days is going to give him the ability and it's going to get me the ability to negotiate with the landlord. Hopefully with the landlord saying, "Okay, we're going to pay for it. We're going to get it done. Get the contractor in here and do it." Because the contractor is ready to go. It's just a matter of who's going to pay for it. And if this much of an improvement needs to happen on the property, it needs to be on the landlord. So, I think, you know, there are provisions in the lease that would get him out. And if we tell the landlord, fix it, or he's out and oh, by the way, you can't lease this again. That will hopefully motivate him to assume the cost.

Has anybody talked to you about duration? Because if this is a commercial site, you got to go through state release to get that done. You're talking months. Yep. But I think that the contractor is on top of it. That's what I know. I have, you know, I have no Well, I I just I went through this not too long ago. Yeah. And all I can say is good luck if he thinks he's going to turn around and get something done that fast. Okay. Cuz it's it's not that easy. You got to get state ID, county, everybody sign off on it. I've never done it. Yeah. So I can't tell you, you know, I don't know, but

I defer to those who are in that business on a daily basis to provide me with information. So that's that's what I have. On another note, there's a building across the street that's available at the Shel Center West End. There you go. There's a building that just became available across the street at the Shel Center on the west end. Used to be Drainage Solutions. That's less than a quarter of a mile from your place. If I were you, that's where I'd go. Homework for tomorrow. Anything else?

That's all I have, guys. Thank you for your time. I always appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all. I have a question for uh council or staff. Um does commercial neighborhood allow for outdoor storage or does it have to be by special exception? Uh today today um that would be a contract. You're asking about the contractor's storage yard use or the equipment rental. Um if it was equip equipment rental today,

we can find that information. Um but if permitted, typically there are screening requirements for outdoor storage. Um I would have to look at the particular use to find you a better answer on that. If we followed staff's recommendations and said it expires, um like what happens to all the equipment? Is it allowed to be there? Does it have to move like immediately? That's what I'm looking at. So it's just what is the next step because then we just put them right right into violation. Typically there we we do need to talk about kind of a phase out plan in that case and we would turn this over to Dennis for code enforcement at a certain point there as well.

Um basically providing hey you need to have this use gone from this site um by such and such date. Um anything after that constitutes a violation. Note that violations after Mr. Carter leaves the site and really any violations of for that site um as far as property condition go get sent to the property owner not to a tenant. What what if um what if we do follow the staff's recommendation and revoke? What is the relication process or do our rules allow for immediate relication or is it the waiting period of one year? I forget.

Oh, I know. Rhonda, do you have that information off hand? We're in a little bit of different gray area right here. It's um I I can tell you that Maria's provided I know if it's if I remember right it's if it's revoked initially it's a period of one year this was granted and later being revoked right there's provision in 156

103 that says if the conditions of the special exception are not completely and continuously adhered to after granting of the special exception the special except ception shall become null and void upon notice to the property owner from the BCA. So we have that language in the statute in in our ordinance. The f and it also includes a sentence that says the following requirements shall be met and one of those is that can be served with adequate utilities and other necessary facilities. This determination is almost as if are the conditions met and we have language that says it shall become null and void. So

the reapplication was what I'm interested in. Where's the ability to reapply probably be in our rule? So I guess our final disposition of petitions to request petition or appeal which has been decided adversely against the petitioner shall again be placed before the board for consideration within one year of the date of the decision previously rendered. The planning director makes the determination if it's substantially the same. I don't know that we have Okay, I'm in our our amended rules. page seven of eight and then the outdoor storage answer is maybe the outdoor storage answer in CN

without buffering not allowed. Okay. So, I just wanted to follow through if we revoke those are the some logical next consequences. Can I speak on the outdoor storage real quick? I you not let that but that's up to the chair.

Not at this time but thank you. It's very rare. I I have a question for us if we there. It's very rare for us to address septic not in our very rare for us.

It is mainly is it there? Is it adequate? and we typically go with the recommendations of the health department on those situations. Um, as far as enforcing rules against not, you know, for not having it and things of that nature. This is in my tenure. I believe it's my first. Uh but we do make sure in the past that we've worked with the health department and relied heavily on staff in doing so uh to make sure that things are being conditions are being met.

I I I just mention it because it's not in our template, but yet it was in the staff recommendations as early as 2024 to deal with septic. The way that this got to us is was within the original recommendations um back in in variance 24-2556 and staff.

One question I do have for our council. If we were to discuss the 90 days extension, could we require proof of filing of the lawsuit? Yeah. Yeah, you can require like that at pretty much anything because I mean to to me that's just showing that they're doing their due diligence.

Well, I can list you as a service contact so you copy of the filing. All right. Discussion amongst the board about this for us to revoke.

That's I was going to ask about that. So, just as a point of clarification because it's not typical for us to do this once I find my form. Um, there it is. Put it in the wrong wrong spot. Um, so typically on a request for spectral exception, the yeses mean yes, we're going to grant it and nos mean no. In this situation, since this is a petition in a sense to revoke, yeses would mean yes, we are revoking and nos would mean no, we are not. Am I correct in that thinking?

I almost feel like the handwritten note that the staff has provided should almost say like um the continuence of the special exception or something like that in order for these questions to be raised in the proper um manner. what the decision you're making. They're saying we may not have the appropriate ballot. Um, when it says revoke, you would be answering the questions the opposite way, right?

That's that's my that's my point. And then just be, you know, for clarity and making sure we're doing things the proper way to to eliminate confusion and potential other issues. Um, are we set up in a position to where it won't create that? I think we need clarification on the ballot. Did on do you understand what he's what he's driving at here? So, if staff wouldn't mind stepping up real quick, please. on the way the ballot's phrased. So, do you understand what my question is? You know, so typically on a regular special exception form, which is this is, um, if we wish to grant it, we would be checking all the yeses.

Mhm. If we wish to decline it, we'd be checking all the nos. Now, this is one where you've where it's handwritten in to revoke the special exception for non-compliance with the conditions of the approval. So the way I'm understanding this and I'm this is where I'm wanting clarification on is if we check yes on all these that's saying yes we want to revoke it and if we check no that means no we don't. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Would it be easier if the question was to allow the special exception to continue with conditions? Probably. With conditions.

Yeah. If we would that make it more clearing. Okay. So instead of um the way that it's handwritten currently by staff, the wording would be to allow the special exception to continue. Well, and and with conditions if so if you want to add the term continue might be a technical term for us because we can also continue this for 90 days with conditions during that time frame. Wouldn't the 90 days be the because if we take action um Well, and that's kind of where I was kind of building into. Yeah. Yeah. Um like go ahead and finish your statement.

But if if we take action, we have to be very clear about what has to be done in 90 days. A new septic is installed approved by the health department. Otherwise, I mean, why isn't I mean, that's the question about 90 days. If we continue for 90 days, um perhaps we can have a sufficient plan in place. Although if this was known in 24, if this was if this was noticed in June, if this was on the docket and asked to continue between November then February and we're we're here today, it's been 90 days and 90 days several times. So I don't know what can be done in 90 days is is really the question and we're just going to have administrative time in front of this board again. So the question would be if we take action on rev revocation, we would have to agree to the phasing out plan and then we would just maybe allow for an exception if there's a gray area for a reapplication to special exception. That's that that's one of the one of the options because the additional time I I don't I just don't know what we would say needs to be done in 90 days

cuz yeah cuz the you know so yeah they do file the suit. So where does that get us? Because then don't most things have to stop until the suit is settled? We don't.

Oh that's my that's my point with what I'm saying. we don't have to stop but everything they're doing. So then we're leaving a situation existing if you will or incurring more enforcement which no I understand that's not an issue for the board but it's it's still not fixing the situation. So there's a mitigation with the portallet that we're not continuing to um potentially dump sewage into areas or the creek. So there's a mitigation that that we can put into place. Um I think that's probably one of the health issues. That's why the health I mean we should honor first the health department concerns. There's some some mitigations that we could do. Uh but but I think in 90 days you can put a portallet in, but I don't know that a septic can be approved and installed.

No, I agree. I don't think so either. It could have been done from November of 24. 24. Yeah. Um what about the tank? The tank that you're allowed to put in, does that meet the county stuff? Kayla, you said there was a a you put in a containment tank. I would they'd have to get the sewage pumped out. I would defer to the health department on that. So, is that that allowed?

That would be allowed as a temporary measure. So, very much the same as the portallettes. Um, I wouldn't want that to be a continuous use obviously. Um, and I would say just to kind of hearken back to what can be done in 90 days, I would caution that there's slim to zero chance that they're going to get through state approval and an install within 90 days. Let alone, even if it was just a regular septic system, I would be hesitant to say 90 days from today is within that ballpark because spring weather is crazy and we're very dependent on weather to install those things. What they can do is get the ball rolling as far as the engineering is concerned, the state applications are concerned, those kinds of things. Get approval through that installing. I would would not put very many eggs in that basket.

And how long is temporary for you for a tank or portallet? It would really be kind of a case by case situation. I think 90 days would be pertinent. Um especially in this case if they do just decide to install the tank that tank can then be repurposed into the septic system once that gets approved and installed. Um the portallets I wouldn't want to see them there longer than that cuz it's just not a permanent sewage solution. Plus it's going to end up costing the business owner or the property owner whomever would be responsible for those a ton of money very quickly. I just feel like if you give them 90 days they're going to be back in 90 days. They're going to Not again cuz

nothing here is going to happen in 90 days.

There anything further questions for health? Thank you. So, do we have conditions of what we would want if we decide to allow this to go for 90 days?

Probably have to be with a motion on either staff recommendation, one of those four items first, but you would attach it. Portallet suit being filed. Probably want to put a violations on hold. We would want to require ongoing maintenance as well as conformance with all other elements of the original special exception. And if it was if if one of the options as is the step recommendation was for revocation, then we would probably want to have a very clear waiver of a relication time frame. like he's think No, not necessarily. I mean, that's the thing. If we're going to vote on something, it's either to Yeah, I don't know if what's going to get done in 90 days. um other than more of extending beyond um the staff had every right to bring it forth because the conditions have not been met. we are outside of that time frame and that um was my other thought you know so that leaves us I'm really hate starting to see I don't know if we've got many other options at this point in time that's probably where staff was stuck we could also incorporate into a condition if we go with staff recommendation for a 60-day windown period for the business so long as the health concerns are addressed. Um, and in that time frame, they can consider a reapplication for a new special exception if they can address and we can agree to a new set of requirements.

It just gets gets us out of this business. Mhm. And into a Yeah. We need a clear path forward. Yeah.

All right. Do you want to make that? I I I will try for I it I will um should the special exception as presented be approved to revoke the special should should it be um approved to revoke the special exception then the conditions uh the following conditions would attach um there will be a 60-day windown period for the special exception and utilization of the business on site um to be coordinated with staff. That during that time frame, no further health exposures will occur either through a temporary tank or portallet to be confirmed with staff. That a suit be filed as indicated by testimony of councel um to remedy. Uh we will hold all violations during that time frame. um that that might ensue during that 60 days. And um we would wave the any time frame that would apply to reapplication for a special exception for this business.

Can I get a clarification on that? So is that if the the as it was originally written the revoke special exception? Yeah. So it would be approved if it is granted. If it is, so if we say to revoke, if it's if it's granted as as the planning commission has requested to revoke it, those would apply. If we revoke it, we would allow for a windown period. And um but then you you stated the the fact that they could Oh, the suit. The suit. We can we I can strike that. The suit. I guess I'm just confused because we're basically telling them this is saying that they're going to have to shut down,

but then we're turn around telling them that they can do the the septic the So during the wind during the windown period they would have to have a temporary treatment of sewage in order for us to allow that wind down period of 60 days. Yeah. Could be portal letter tank. We can just say revoke and just No, no, I'm not. I'm just I guess we were here arguing about this the doing the

giving them the 90 days and then them to keep trying to keep the business open. Now we're staying that we're going to shut this is going to shut them down and they still have to do that. Um but waving any time frame for relication of a special exception with clear septic treatment and a plan for that. Okay. So I I think I had five things then 60-day windown period to be coordinated with staff. No further health exposure during the windown period. a lawsuit to be filed within that.

I'm okay striking that. Okay. I'm okay. And then there was one that I missed. I think we will hold on all violations in that 60 violations. Yeah. Any violation notices during the 60-day period and then wave any time frame that applies for reapplication relic for a new for for an application of a new special exception. Okay. For the same business just in the event that does apply. And just to be clear, the temporary treatment of sewage would be as outlined by the health department, portallet tank or anything else agreed by the health department. All right, I have a motion. Do I have a second?

I'll second it. All right. All in favor? I I I any all those opposed?

Okay.

Motion carries. Maybe we can can we have a quick clarification again on the vote? Yeah. So, so, uh,

so my understanding the way we've done it, yes, is saying yes, you want to revoke the special exception. No is saying you do not. I think you should vote as as you normally would on this ballot. And if there's any no votes, that means that it's not going to be it's going to be revoked. Does that make sense? That means granted. So if there's any no votes, it means granted because the granting we're granting a revocation.

All right. You were right to attack that quickly, Jason. Yeah, I think at this point in time, there's enough confusion here. Um, I'm actually going to say I think we need a different ballot. Something that's more clear on what we're doing. If we need to continue, we need to continue. Do I have a motion to continue? I second it. I a second. All those in favor? I I motion carries. Easy.

It is. And it's not the most easily thing. And I'll give staff credit for doing what they've done and we just need to work it out better. All right. So, no decision tonight. You want to put a date to the decision? Uh we when we continue it'll go to the next meeting. Next meeting. All right. Next item on the agenda. Thank you. Thank you.

That's it. No. Any other business? Um perhaps we just give clear instruction to staff to u work with council on on getting something that is a an appropriate and consistent petition for us to vote on or instruction one of the two. Okay.

Motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second. All those in favor I