Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

First off, I remember you. No,

it's six o'clock. We'll call her the BCA. Nope. So, uh, plan commission. Sorry about that. We was just talking about the BCA. Sorry about that. Plan Commission. And, uh, we will have roll call, please. Commissioner is here. E, here. Here. Longer's absent. Milner's absent. Chuck Schaper is absent. Cord here. Sellers is absent. Webster here. Wendell here. Beast here. Johnson here.

Do we have a motion for our minutes from the last meeting in March? Make a motion we accept the minutes from the last meeting. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Because Commissioner Eids is online, you'll have to do every vote by roll call. Okay. All right. So, we will do it by roll call then.

Yes. Sequort. Yes. Webster. Yes. Wendell. Yes. Peace. Yes. Okay. So, the minutes have passed. We will start out with PC 202605. He didn't do it. Did you swear our new member in? Have you sworn in the new member yet? Oh, well then okay. I could

if if you want to run down and grab the paperwork, get the presentation. When you get back, we can swear. Okay. We can swear. Talk slower. Say I talk fast. Go ahead and do the presentation time. Almost. There we go. Perfect. There's our agenda. So, you only have the two cases tonight. 202 PC5 and PCO6.

Uh, already did the minutes. So, 2026 uh 05 Naylor Brian Dane Acre 12498 Maple Road, Plymouth, Indiana 46563. It's a request for a two lot minor subdivision of 30 acres. The property is located at 12498 Maple Road, Plymouth, Indiana 46563, identified as partial 50321 triple 080018 zoned R1 rural residential district.

So the request, the applicant is seeking uh subdivision approval and creation of an additional lot, a singular additional lot. So, it's a two lot minor sub. Uh, so the name of it is the Naylor Maple Road minor subdivision. Uh, from a procedural standpoint, we brought the proposal in front of the TRC back in the middle of April. Um,

everybody was pretty well okay with it at that meeting with a big part of it being out in the two-mile region of the county. So, there's no uh utility infrastructure that's being extended or anything along those lines. Um here's the subject property, substantially wooded. Um and they're wanting to spill off the house and the barns with that aspect. Um the proposed lots about 275 ft wide and will be able to encompass um the various portions for that structure and the residual will be going to a family member. And here's the uh proposed plat subdividing that portion around the house and the barn with the residual 25 acres.

Zoomed in just a little bit more

up on the 5acre lot. So from an analysis standpoint, the applicant is seeking to sub the 30 acre property located at 12498 Maple Road, also known as parcel 50321 triple 000080018. Uh under the subdivision control ordinance, the plan commission shall determine whether or not the proposal has met requirements and standards of the ordinance and has been substantially met before having a public hearing based on a review of the proposal to create two lots. lot one 25 acres and lot two 5 acres. The technical review committee did not see any issue with the intent. Uh the project would create one new lot. Uh the parcels are located within the 2-mile region also known as the extr territorial jurisdiction. So there are no municipal services that are provided. So for the design criteria uh found under the subdivision control ordinance um there are five of those including the establishment of development standards, coordination of roadways, facility coordination, allocation of services and population and traffic impact. For criteria number one, the minimum lot standards are met based on the R1 rural residential zoning requirements. Criteria number two, there are no new roadways being created. Criteria number three, no extensions have been included for residential development. Criteria number four, for a two lot subdivision, there were no additional areas set aside. And criteria number five, for a two lot subdivision and understanding the intentions of the amount of development sought, there were no minimal additional traffic generated. So for recommendation based on the minor subdivision plan provided uh and review by the technical review committee staff would recommend approval to oppose uh subdivision as meeting the intent of the subdivision ordinance and other associated requirements. So now it is up for board determination

uh with staff recommendation of approval. Any questions uh for staff

hearing? Um, do they have to be here? Is the app not in attendance tonight? I don't know if there's someone else representing them or not. Is there anybody here representing the Naylor case this evening? Yes. Okay. Um, any other questions or anything else along those lines? Hearing none for public hearing. It is a public hearing. Um that would not be an acceptable time to go through the swearing. Yeah. Or you're okay with it. We can have real quicker Christensen sworn in and then she can participate in the votes. Stand up next. Raise your hand and repeat after me.

I I state your name. Melissa Christens. do solemnly swear do solemnly swear that I'll support the Constitution that I'll support the Constitution of the United States of the United States of the state of Indiana of the state of Indiana and that I will and that I will to the best of my abilities to the best of my abilities faithfully and impartially faithfully and impartially discharge the duties discharge the duties of a planning commission member of a planning commission member of the city of Plymouth of the city of Plymouth Indiana Indiana according to the law according to the law so help me God so help me Thank you. Okay. Do we have a motion to open it up to the public hearing?

We approve the Oh, move we open the public hearing. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Anybody from the public have anything to ask about this case or anything else to state? Yes, sir. Let me present you. Yes, I'd like a little clarification. Okay. Please uh state your name and your address, sir. Andy Herbert, 12106 13th Road. Okay. So, is this going to be two houses? How sick is this? Yes, as far as father-in-law will be building a house on 25 acres.

And Alex, could you mute your mic when you're not talking? Thank you. Yes. Is from our knowledge that the I believe it's the father-in-law will be building a house on the 25 acres. Okay. Down the road, can they divide that 25 again and put more houses? Uh there's a what's the ruling on that? Go ahead.

Want me to speak on that? um in relationship to whether or not the property could be divided in the future. It's just like any other property. As long as it meets the guidelines for the subdivision ordinance and it meets the minimum lot size standards, it can be subdivided. But that's every property across the county and across the state. As long as it meets the standards, it's able to be subdivided. But as far as the conversations I've had with the family, this is the only intention was to have their house on the 5acre lot and then for the family member to be able to have a place to live on the second portion of the property. Um, they considered having both homes on the same property, but should one of them want to sell in the future for whatever reason, they didn't want to have both structures on the same parcel as to potentially complicate that land sale. And that's pretty much all they've been looking for. Now, 10, 15, 20 years down the road, could something occur and come up? Yes. But it would come back through this exact same process. Okay. And then my other question is I live south of there looking across the field on this 30 acres. I see two houses in a pole barn. Now halfway back the property is approximately a 600t structure. An accessory structure looks like a house from my place. It looks like a story and a half house. I've never seen lights on. I don't drive back there and look. So, if somebody's going to build another house there, are they going to tear this other one down or am I going to look at three houses and you should be able to see it on that one map because you was right on top of the house. If you move back, some you would see the other structure.

Individuals are welcome to have accessory structures on their property for sheds. And many sheds are continuing to look more and more like cabins. No, this looks like a house. That's I can't across the field. So my concern is I'm going to look out and see three houses now both on it. They're only permitted to have the two unless they get special approval otherwise and they'd if they wanted to have an additional residence on the property. They'd have to come back in front of the BCA. Okay. So you'd be notified as long as you're within 300 ft or two properties away. Okay. That's all. It is that an old old structure that I would say.

At one time there was a This is a long time ago. One time there was a case involving the same piece of property. They wanted to have a a party barn. Yes. A back 40. Is that what that Yeah. It was going to be like the back 40. Is that the building that they were going to do this in? I don't know. I think that was the original barn that they were going to have a event center in. I think I could. Like I say, it only looks 600 square ft. My concern is I'm going to look out the back door now and see three houses.

I guess I don't have a problem with two as long as we don't subdivide this 25 into another one and then subdivide again. So what's the road fronties for this 25? Can they bust that down to different easements and more people build back there? It would get difficult. So what is the limit? Yeah, depends on the size and the scale of belt. Okay. Roadways can go down to 50 to 60 foot right away.

Okay. My other concern, we're in cattle country, agriculture. I hope somebody don't move in there that wants to complain about little manure smell because thankfully the farmers around us keep the people in Plymouth from coming out that way. And I want to keep it that way. That's why I moved there 20 years ago. Sure. So, thank you. Question. I have a question. Are are you in the two-m limit where you're at? No. You are not in the two-mile limit? I can see the pinch room. Okay. And that would be the the county's issued it. So, what do you mean?

Well, it's if somebody's going to complain, it's going to be they're going to complain to the county, not necessarily the city because of down. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, but the farmer was there along the absolutely correct. Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Yep. Uh, anyone else? Go ahead. Come on. Do you want to add anything? Um, unless there's I say there's any questions for us. I'm pretty sure everything's been covered already. Okay. Could you give your name and address for the James Malcolm with Whiteman Associates at 1405 North Michigan here in Plymouth? Thanks.

There being no other, do we have a motion to close the hearing? Make a motion to close public hearing. Second. All those in favor? Uh, can we do that? Roll call. Roll call. All right, we'll have roll call, please. Christensen. Hi. Yes. Yes. Court, yes. Webster, yes. Wendle, yes. Peace, yes. All right, the motion is carried then, but we will go on with PC 2026. That was that was the motion to close the public hearing.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I know the roll call gets confusing. Yep. Sorry about uh do we have a a motion? I move we approve the request as presented. Thank you. Second. It's been moved and seconded. I guess we'll vote by roll call again. Christensen. Yes. Yes. Yes. Se yes. Webster. Yes. Wendell. Yes. Yes. Thanks for correcting. We'll we'll move on with PC 2026. -06.

All righty. EC2026-06 uh

as requested by Eric Carter, 10505 North College Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46280. It's a request for a zoning map amendment of a 6.68 68 acre property located at 2550 North Michigan Street, Plymouth, Indiana 46563 from BP Business Park District 2C3 corridor commercial district identified as partial number 504291301290019 and there's a picture of the property the request is that the opportunity seeking to reszone the property from BP business park district to C3 corridor commercial district. Here's a closeup of the satellite imagery of the property.

It's the economy in right the Red Rock. Red Rock. Oh, Red Rock. Getting ahead of myself there.

Uh here's the property zoomed out. A little bit of context. As you can see, State Road 17 Michigan Street and US30 are bounding it to the west and south. uh the county ditch, the rightly ditch as well as the flood plane. Um on the property, you can see the subject property as well as the property surrounding it to the north and east um are all business park. Across the street of Michigan Street, you have C3 zoning and the you have the industrial property for American American container. And then we zoom out just a little bit more to provide some additional context. You can see um everything on the east side of Michigan Street is all business park all the way up to the park and open space where the golf course is. And then on the west hand side of Michigan Street, it's C3 uh with a little bit of R3 and industrial. We went out and took pictures of the property uh looking north and south and then we pan across the front of the property. travel down to the driveway looking south along the ditch and then pan across the front. The as a part of the application, the applicant was able to provide a uh preliminary site plan for what they're proposing to do uh with that property uh pending um the planning commission and city council approval along with a BCA variance approval as well. um is a truck fueling center. Um kind of a hybrid between a gas station and a truck stop. Um you can think about it like a truck stop without all the amenities of what a

truck stop would be. Um but it would have the uh truck fueling station at the rear uh with gas pumps at the front and a little bit closer uh for that site plant. when you're making your determination, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their proposed use. At the end of the day, the question is whether or not that propertyy's acceptable to um reszone from BP to C3. That's what you're making a recommendation to city council on. So, providing a copy of both the business park district uh development standards as well as the C3 uh development standards. Um the front yard, sideyard, rear yard setbacks. Uh maximum structure height are all the exact same. Uh there's only a 10% difference in maximum lot coverage from 70% to 80%. Um but where the development standards in terms of lot development uh begin to factor in is when you start talking about subdivision of property. Um currently the busiest part uh you if you're going to subdivide you have to have a minimum of 2 acres and 300 foot of lot frontage uh for minimum width and then lot frontage at 100 ft. Whereas uh C3 district minimum lot size is a half an acre uh minimum lot width is 150 which is a 50% reduction and then minimum lot frontage is the exact same as well. So just for context purposes when you're looking at both districts those are the buildable standards themselves. In terms of the list of land uses on the lefth hand side you have the business park land uses. The first column is the permitted uses by right. Those are the uses that are if you were to apply for a building permit and you met all the setback standards and everything else um

you would be able to obtain that building permit. if it's a special use, you have to get special use approval through the Board of Zoning Appeals. And so when you flip over to the C3 district, there's um two full lines of permitted uses and then a longer list of special uses that would be available within that C3 district. So for the analysis, the applicant is seeking to reszone 2550 North Michigan Street, also known as partial 50429130290019. Uh the current zoning of the 6.68 acre property is BP Business Park District which is described as significant employers although development will focus on professional offices particularly in high-tech research and development and other emerging sectors of the economy. The applicant is looking to reszone the property to C3 corridor commercial district which is described as restaurants, large retail stores, intense commercial services service businesses and businesses related to highway traffic and other related uses. Uh corridor commercial development occurs along major transportation corridors as well as in larger uh collections of uses that serve as a regional market. Uh the intention of the applicant and developer at this time is to redevelop the existing property from a dilapidated hotel/moel structure with associated restaurant and turn it into a truck fueling station for passenger and commercial vehicles. Uh the use is similar to that of a truck stop but lacks many of the traditional amenities such as full restaurant and shower facilities. uh the options uh for land use uh that are available for the BP uh district are significantly less than what is available in the C3. The initially proposed use is not permittable within the BP district but is more likely permittable within the C3 district as gasoline stations are a permitted use. The general freight trucking is a

special use but with no directly identifiable use listed within the zoning ordinance. A variant of variance of use would need to be pursued for the truck fueling station. So the decision criteria before you today includes the comprehensive plan which is the city of Plymouth comprehensive plan and any other applicable adopted planning studies or reports, current conditions which is the current conditions and the character of the current structures and uses in each district and the desired use, the most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted. uh property value the conservation of property values throughout the city of Plymouth and responsible growth which respons responsible growth and development. So for criteria number one the property is adjacent to/ a part of the character map designation civic and institutional uses of Plymouth Municipal Airport and the property is found within the traditional mixeduse uh future development character area. Uh transitional mixed use is set to bridge the bustling downtown and adjacent residential neighborhoods. This area combines various housing options, including detached and attached units seamlessly integrated with retail, tourism, and hospitality businesses, fostering a dynamic atmosphere and promoting economic vitality and enhancing social interaction, contribution to Plymouth's unique sense of place, and filled with the spirit of community. This area invites the possibility of combining living and working spaces fostered by flexibil fostered by a flexible convergence of residential and business operations as properties are primarily owned by a single entity. Uh the comprehensive plan further goes on to state the pedestrian friendly environment supports economic growth as local businesses both existing and new join forces to meet community needs. Uh Plymouth values the integration of existing businesses and collaborates to uplift them, fostering a harmonious coexistence. Uh new local commercial enterprises, including boutiques, dining spots, coffee shops, and professional services are carefully planned to complement existing

offerings, promoting a sense of community and support. As these businesses flourish, the area develops a distinct econom e economic identity by attracting investments in job opportunities, making it a vibrant hub for commerce and community life. Furthermore, the area prioritizes walkability and safety with traffic caling measures uh thoughtful on street parking, dedicated bike lane, street furniture and landscaping that enhance the streetscape, encouraging active transportation, exceptional uh bike and pedestrian connection facilities, uh easy movement within the corridor and beyond fostering a healthier lifestyle and a connected inclusive and community. Uh this intentional blend of diverse land uses creates a lively atmosphere where people from various backgrounds come together forming lasting connections and a strong sense of identity and belonging. In review of the priority action program under the collaboration action strategies, there is a plan uh to clear blighted areas to make it ready for redevelopment as well as uh growth action strategy includes the city should maximize existing municipal acreage. Uh usage to increase tax revenue from existing facilities and make best use of city services and enhance gateways to the city. Right. Criteria number two, the property is currently occupied by a dilapidated hotel/moel and adjoining restaurant. The structures are currently under order for demolition but in progress is caught up in litigation. Uh the properties within the associated district are a mixture of uses and a variety of conditions. Uh for criteria number three, the most desirable use of each district is often based on the accessibility and return on investment for the development within a Plymouth market. For criteria number four, the current property values are likely impacted by existing structure conditions and use and proposed potential development based on the resoning would also have an impact on adjacent/neby property values. Per criteria number five, the redevelopment of the property will bring the land use and standards up to current requirements

and development of the property will need to take into strong consideration the safety of accessibility of property along with the future development of the airport and its associated FAA regulations as a gateway into Plymouth from the US30 corridor uh use management and compatibility will be essential. So for recommendation provided uh was reviewed the application was provided and was reviewed by the Denver review committee with no major comments from the fellow representative departments at this time outside of general utility and drainage comments for access and location and review the comprehensive plan and understanding of reasonable growth criteria to amend the zoning map to change the property from BP business parking to C3 corridor commercial district. staff has concern of the subject property and the associated uses that would be available. Uh those associated uses would be more intense in the C3 district than what would be found within the BP district. The redevelopment of the subject property likely will need to take into consideration the safety factor of accessing Michigan Street along with the constraints of being adjacent to the municipal airport. Based on the proposal I submitted and concerns laid out above, staff would recommend denial of the reszoning of the property from BP business park district to C3 corridor commercial district. Now it is up for uh board recommendation to city council with staff's recommendation of denial. Uh the planning commission possible actions include a favorable recommendation, an unfavorable recommendation, no recommendation or table. Um, written commitments uh are listed is within the ordinance as an option but are no longer permitted uh under Indiana code 3674615 uh since it's repealed in 2011. That is everything for that case. Yeah.

Do you have any questions for I I do. Uh the airport's adjacent, correct? The property buzz up against it. Yes. Where is the over airport overlay district set in this? Is it in is this property in part of the airport overlay district? Yes.

It would also be a part of the revised overlay district whenever we get to that because the shape of the airport overlay district is complicated to say the shortest uh based on essentially a bowl like structure that comes up from the from the runway itself, from the front and the back, as well as um coming out from the sides as you go up for protection of incoming aircraft as well as um I think it's like a 10,000 ft uh radius from the edge of the runway. So, there's a very highly protected region. So, height standards would apply to anybody that would construct an event that space. So, since this is in the airport overlay district, should I'm just stating a hypothetical. Uh, should this be approved? Will the FBA have to approve their plans for this?

So, that's real negative. You didn't know I was here, did you? I did not.

I'm Bill Sheiley. I'm the Plymouth airport manager. Um, first, the developer has been I've uh been in contact with me quite a bit um by email and phone. We've had a lot of conversations about several different issues. Um they have applied for 100 foot tall sign um to the FAA. Um and the FAA's habit is to approve everything and then they leave it up to local zoning and state to deny. Um there are state statutes that um if you're not aware, INDOT has a lot of different uh subdivisions. Aviation is one of them. and the INDOT aviation department would um deny that height of a sign. Um they probably would not be able to get anything any taller than the existing signage that is there now because of the way our airspace is protected going away from the runway. Um other things that would be an issue for us other than that um would be uh the potential of uh light pollution which there is already quite a bit there but that's something that INDOT Aviation would look at as well through their engineering staff. Um the uh road that goes across the uh right hand side of that property is an easement that we actually have for the airport to access the solar field. Uh the airport actually owns property on three sides of that property. So the um we own the property behind the storage buildings that appears to be a parking lot right now. Um just a it's just a piece of asphalt. Um so we own the north side, the east side and we own all that property along the bottom of the picture which uh would be the south side. Um that south side is where the the um solar field is at that we have contract um to maintain the property. So the easement is for us to access that. Um we've been in conversation with the developer that they need to be able to

continue to give us uh some type of access whether they want to change the easement. I have um no problems with it being changed as long as it's still some type of an access that we can get there. Um our airspace um as Tai said is kind of bullshaped. Goes out to 10,000 ft and we control um varying stages of altitude going out through that. Um, an example would be that a tower was asked to be put up um at the substation um back across the Yellow River back here and they wanted to put up a tower that fell within our airspace that we controlled. So, it it does stair step up, but does go out 10,000 ft from the end of the runway and we do have say in control of all of that,

but the FAA is in a habit of just approving everything and leaving it to the locals to say no. Well, that hasn't been the way in the past, at least once that I know of. Uh, I'm here to make sure that that happens. Okay. As well as I have I have another question for you. Sure. Uh, so you're in the

Can I just elaborate on what Bill said um specifically? So, the FAA will not deny the request. The FAA will leave it up to the local um, uh, planning commission essentially to control the development around the airport. And if it violates the FAA requirements, then they just penalize the airport. So they they say if if if you want to give up the FAA funding and support, then do what you want, but if you want to continue FAA support, then follow our rules.

The the manual for operating the airport that's written by the FAA includes verbiage that says that is that is supposed to be managed locally. Um they will allow anything. Um, for example, uh, you may not have been aware, but someone tried to put up a 376 foot tall windmill two years ago out of Pioneer, right in our approach path. The FAA, um, allowed it. The state INDOT aviation told them that they had uh, state statutes against it and they would be fined $10,000 a day if they started construction. So, INDOT aviation or INDOT does have some laws that they have some power to control it and help us with it. Okay. My question is, okay, they want to come in here. They want to put this in. Uh, none of us on the board are in the position to know what the future plans are for the airport. Uh, could you elaborate? Would you have any five or 10 year plans that might affect this property?

We actually plan out about we plan out about 20 years typically. Um, I don't really we at this time our plan doesn't have any plan for that property. Um, it's not easily accessible to the runway. Most of the property that we have plans for is going to be off the north side of the the airport because of the new taxi way that we just opened up. That property giving good access to the runway which is the lifeblood of the airport, the golf course area toward the golf course. Yep. And that wooded area that we own a 47 acre woods there as well.

So, so as far as use for that, it would be more use for the city. It it doesn't have much use for the airport itself. That's all I wanted. Okay. Anybody else? While I'm here, I've got scholarships to award here in about 20 minutes that I need to go for. So, um yeah, basically just that INDOT Aviation does have some some rules and regulations that they will help make sure um that nothing's done that's going to to hurt or impede the airport. Yeah. Anyone else? No. Thank you.

All right. Jeff's got a pretty good idea of what we do since he sits on the aviation board for our meetings as well. So, does anyone else Mark don't we need to open it up for a public hearing? I believe the applicants here, they've uh Okay. curated a presentation. Okay. To share additional information, I believe. Go ahead. Come on up. give us your name and address or Good evening. My name's Eric Carter with Wines Engineers. It's 10505 North College Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46280.

Yes. And uh Jason Horowitz of GBT Royal 9010 Overlook Boulevard, Brentwood, Tennessee.

How do I do this here? Flipping through the slides. There we go. That good? I was going to go through a lot of this, but Ty had pretty much explained where the site is and the zoning, everything. So, I just wanted to give some additional information here. And then, um, can you speak up on the mic? Sorry. That's all right. There we go.

Um, yeah, there's a zoning map. Again, we got the C3 uh commercial on the west side, south, and then we're in the business park currently. Then I've got a colored up version of the plan here. Uh just as I explained, we've got the convenience store truck filling in the back, auto in the front. Again, this is not um a truck stop per se. There's no showers. Um but we do have uh commercial filling for your box trucks, some semiis, local deliveries. Um circulation will come in clockwise fuel and then exit. Um, we've got underground storage tanks above the commercial fueling lanes and also for the auto on the west side of the camping with the tension in the back.

I thought you're ready to go. Oh, sorry.

And that shows a c I think what was that storage tank size? The tank size? Yeah. Uh we got 20,000 gallon.

Uh 20,000 and then um there's some split tanks. Wanted to give an example of the convenience store. Uh this is not your typical Speedway that you'd see around here. Um this is new uh 7-Eleven prototype. Uh so yeah, so it's not your typical uh speedway. Um but it's the 7-Eleven Gen 2 uh prototype. Um there's one currently being built on the east side of Fort Wayne and New Haven. I believe that's one of the first ones in Indiana. Then there's a few others that are under construction.

Is this going to be owned by all the speedways? Is it all the speedways all under one umbrella? Is this Jeff? That's correct. Developer built and ran and then it's a lease. Okay. Rental.

And Jason can explain more about that. Your auto canopy is your typical Speedway. Got the Speedway channel letter running S. And then the fueling in the back for the trucks is the seven fleet. more visual there of the signage and then yes we are proposing high-rise and then a pylon sign. We understand we need to go through the FA process. Um we need to go through the BCA process. Um so that that's yet to come here. Um this first step is the reszone. So we're we're we understand that aware of those processes that we need to go through to get that approval. Back to the site plan here. Um, terms of the comprehensive plan, the proposed use will be consistent with the character of the plan. Calls out for traditional mixed use with retail and hospitality businesses. Uh, we feel that convenience stores would fall into this category as they serve the local and travel traveling consumers. Again, this is not your typical truck stop. No showers, no full scale restaurant um in the building. Um, so we don't anticipate high volume of trucks like you would see at Pilot or Loves. Um, but you will have semis in your local box trucks and delivery trucks. Um, the current site is in disrepair. This will bring a nice refresh to the area. Um, again, it's not your typical speedway like you see down the street. It's the new what I showed there. Um, desirable use for the area. This is off a four-way lane highway, freeway. Um there are similar uses around um in this area and C3 is described to allow business related to highway traffic. This is our request and we feel that allowing this reszone for the purpose of the mean store with fueling

it will bridge the gap between the highway and downtown following the comp plan recommendations. Um, currently there's not pedestrian friendly walkability. Um, but we are proposing a sidewalk from the store up to the rideway so that if when the future there is trails or paths installed that there will be contactivity, um, somebody can walk up and get their slurpee or big golf and get going their way. So, we're here to answer any questions and then Jason may want to say a couple things here, too. Yes, thank you, Eric. I think Eric did a great job and thank you, Ty, and commissioners for your time. And we've been working with Tai for months on on the project. Could we go back a few slides? I know there's a lot of of really nice images of the site plan and the store. I think Eric did an awesome job. We're we're trying to show just kind of there there is an end user in mind here, but obviously we are here for a reason. And so, I did want to just go back to the context. I mean we are I I think that one up please. I I think contextually obviously there is single zoning across the street across state route 30 and we are in a business park bound by a an airport and obviously a state route 30. So again you know I understand that in his presentation uh Mr. Tai was talking about some of the intensive uses in C3. Obviously, those uses are in the area already. Um, you know, respectfully understand staff's position, but we would kindly ask that the planning commission vote to reszone this property to C3. Uh, we believe that that makes sense in context for this portion of the city.

You have any questions? Sorry. You have any questions? Have to open it for public. Yeah, we'll have to open it up for you. Ready for that? Yep. Make a motion we open it up to a public hearing. Second. It's been moved and seconded. We will vote by roll call. Christensson, yes. Yes. Hley, yes. Se, yes. Webster, yes. Wendell, yes. Yes. Does anyone from the audience have anything to state for or against this? Yes, sir. Please come up and state your name, please.

Yeah. My name is Bill Merch. I'm the owner of a little storage facility right there beside it. Only thing I'm concerned uh anything we do with that area I'm all for because it's it's kind of a blight on the community right there. But I want to say that uh my property doesn't have a whole lot of extra footage there. It comes out a little bit from the front of it and then I use the access in and out bridge that's there. and say one along is make sure there's still going to be a access or whatever you call that a setback certain amount of setback. So um and there's a like Bill Shay Shirley said that uh there's a road that goes back to the north side or the south side of the airport goes through there. So, um I just want to make sure that whatever you agree to, just make sure keep me in mind cuz I need a certain amount. Even in the winter time, I push out snow uh trying to push it out. I want to block that.

Do you use a common drive there? I used to kind of use the parking lot that's uh on the Red Rock in basically. But do you have an easement across that property? There's an easement there at the end of property. Yeah. You're right behind the auto park or the right behind the Mike Anderson's car lot. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So So we just kind of come in straight in and around there. And then when you push snow out, usually kind of want to make sure we keep that road or area in front of my storage unit um clear. So we kind of push it a little bit out in the edge of that parking lot there. And so you know, I don't know about the easement. I just want to make sure you don't make that easement any less or whatever because I want to make sure that I still have access into my building.

Sure. Sure. That's the only concern I have. All right. Thanks. Anyone else? Make a motion we close the public hearings. Move. We got somebody. All right. We need a second.

My name is Michael Pike. 2401 North Michigan Street, the mobile home park across the street. Um, two concerns I have is the volume of traffic that's already there. Is there going to be potentially a stoplight put in is getting in and out of that mobile home park at times is near impossible. So, if we add, you know, more commercial traffic, that's going to be harder. Then the second question is what about pedestrians? Because right now it's four lanes plus a turn lane. And as prior law enforcement, I can tell you people are crazy. They don't see people running across. So there could be a civil liability action or you know potential there too. So

So there is no uh other sidewalks out here for right now or why would how could you put a sidewalk out from underneath? There is on the west side. There is on the west side. Okay. Yeah. On the west side there is. Yeah. And you you have the mobile home park down by the 31 or 30 right way behind Pioneer Auto. Yep. So my concern is more for pedestrians and people getting in and out of places. The business is there. You know, I agree with everybody that the red rock is an eyesore and but uh more safety than anything being prior to law enforcement.

Yes, sir. Did you have something to add? No, the guy behind you. Sorry, Bill.

I know you wouldn't. Yes, I may just hop up. Thank you. Jason again. Yeah, thank you for the concern. We we actually did prepare a traffic study. Um went ahead and did that a couple weeks ago. Wasn't required as part of the reason, but we obviously are sensitive to existing traffic, creating new traffic, which is always a a question. Um, we'll go ahead and share that with Tai subsequent to this meeting, but uh, we as far as adding a light, we actually met with both the city and and DOT to talk about that due to the proximity of the light a few hundred feet north that wouldn't be allowed here. U, but the traffic study showed that all movements in and out would be safe. And just to kind of piggyback on that to the first gentleman's point, there is actually an existing access easement in the the one driveway there that does go back to sounds like a storage business and the auto business there. So that is to remain. No plans to shut that down. Of course, we wouldn't do that. And then of course to the airport, uh like Mr. Bill said, we're working with them to revise the easement.

Question. You have done traffic study. Yes, sir. In your mind, do you happen to remember how many cars use that 20 in 24 hours off the top of your head? How much crap could you get 24 hours through there? We're typically looking at an additional 60 new trips a day. A lot of I'm looking at right now since you've done the traffic set,

right? Do you have that printed, Eric? You could bring that up. I apologize. I'm going off the top of my head. I know obviously traffic engineers always looking at new trips. I mean there are folks that come through here. So total in and out in a day it looks like 300 anticipated based on the IT that's 24 hours a day. Yes. This would be 24hour operation convenience store gas station. Yeah. peak hour 24 and 26 and but uh go ahead

and there is a recommendation to um add a right turn lane into the site. So that's something we'll have to work with the DOT with with that recommendation. Not much room there. There's not much room there. That's absolutely right. We have met with INDOT, like Eric said, done a lot of due diligence obviously already a lot more to do um you know, assuming they move forward, but uh we we did get INDOT's approval to move that guard rail over to to get that right turn lane into the site just to get folks off off the road into the site quicker.

Is there any other questions or remark? No. Shall we close public hearing first if this helps? According to Mayog's regional traffic counts, um the location almost directly in front of that uh property has uh an average of 8.3,000 average daily trips with peak morning volume at 562 per hour and peak afternoon volume at 813 per hour. The numbers I was looking up. That's what you were looking for.

Exactly. That's if there was a I assume May did the traffic study. Yeah, that's make's traffic count averaged over uh it looks like several years of counts. And that's not with the additional that is that is the observed count um going back to probably with the 2010 most recent in November of 2024. uh resulted in the 8 point 8 8,336 average daily.

Do we have a motion to We have a motion close. No, I second it. Okay, you second it. Okay. Okay, we vote it. Roll call, please. Christensen, yes. Eats, yes. Yes. Secor, yes. Webster, yes. Wendle, yes. Yes.

Is there any other questions from the board?

If not, do we have a motion? This is just a recommendation, correct? That's correct. It's a recommendation to the city council. I I move we accept the recommendation of the plan director and deny this recommendation. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. All right. Yes, sir. If there's another question, go ahead.

Yeah. May I just come up? Um, yes, obviously respect the the uh idea there. Would there be an option to table this for further discussion? Sounds like the recommendation to go along with the staff denial of the reszone is is obviously not not the path that we were hoping to go down. Um, would there be an ability to table this to a another subsequent meeting in a month or two? maybe study further the traffic study or other due diligence items that may uh be helpful. If Mark would want to resend his motion, can that be tabled?

I if that's the the preference of the board if you feel that additional time would be beneficial to you. Um those are your options. You can send it to the council with a recommendation either favorable or unfavorable or you can table it for future consideration. Even even if we were to recommend denial, the city council could still override our denial. Regardless of what you recommend, the city council has the final determination. Okay.

So, your role is to hear all of the evidence at a public hearing and based on that make a recommendation to the city council and then they make the decision. Well, I already have a motion and a second. You have a motion and we have a second. So, we don't have one to table. We have one to recommend to deny. The only way that I can do that is if Mark resends it. So, Mark can resend his motion if he chooses. If not, he can call for a vote on his motion. Call for a vote. Okay.

All right. We will vote by roll call, please. So, if I a favor a yes vote to denial, yes. Christensen, yes. Yes. Yes. Court, yes. Webster, yes. Wendle, yes. Yes. So, that goes with a unfavorable recommendation to the uh to the city. City council. City council. Yes.

All right. Ty, do you have anything else? Uh continuing planning commission. Good. Awesome. Uh Mr. Building Commissioner, do you have anything to update this evening? Nope,

not this evening. Uh moving into the comprehensive plan update. Uh we've received earlier this week the update uh in our coordination with Ball State University for the Northeast uh region. Um, so we'll be processing that and preparing it to bring forward to you at a future date. Um, I don't have that date in mind at this point in time. We want to make sure it's wrapped up and ready to go and we'll take it to the zoning subcommittee as well to discuss the matter, make sure we're all on the same page before uh bringing it in in front of you at the planning commission. Um, outside of that, I have no other business. That be a very long and dry meeting. It's an exciting report. It's really riveting stuff.

I find planning very riveting. Thank you, Mr. Fred. Um, the next meeting uh will be Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026. Um, at the end of this week, we're anticipating uh proposals uh for zoning ordinance amendments to come before you in June as well. So, we will be planning to have our meeting next month on Tuesday. Yes. A motion to do it. Move for adjournment. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Uh roll call vote. Vote. You don't need a vote. You can just adjourn. Okay. The meeting is adjourned. The BCA will start shortly. We'll start about

5 minutes. 7:05. 7:05. about seven hours. Okay. You must have been on it twice. Mhm.

So the owner, you were there. There you are there. Oh, you were you never clicked on.

Okay. No. Um, okay. So, you need to leave the meeting. Just go up there to the X and leave it that way. Maybe. Hold on. Make Hold on. Before you do that, I want to make sure. No, don't. Can I read please? Um, right click on it. Right click. Right. Oh, right click on the on the screen. Right on the right there. Right click with your finger. There you go. Um, let's go ahead and exit from the top. See that button there to the left? Right there. No, the other one. Yeah. See what that is? Undo that. Click and close tab. Just close the tab.

I'd call the order or call to order the meeting of uh May 6th, 2026 Plymouth Board of Zoning Appeals. We have a roll call vote. Garner here. Gley here. Richie here. Wendell here. Jacobs is absent. Seabort here. Have the members reviewed the minutes from last meeting? And can we have a uh I move we approve the minutes as presented? Second. I give it to Brandon. We don't have to keep doing roll call vote now, do we? Okay. Um I'll approve. I

is uh by chance the people with the New Song Community Church present. Are they? Okay. Sorry, I'm blocking do that. Yeah. Yeah. Uh I I move that we amend the order of the cases and move the new song case up to first since all the other cases are all related. I'll second that.

Got a first and second. Do we need a roll call? Uh preferably do a roll call vote. Um, yes. Gibly, yes. Richie, yes. Wendle, yes. Seth, yes. And Ty, if we could have the Go ahead. EZA 2026-23. Uh, Mr. Kyle's going to be gracious enough to quickly slide down all of the slides.

Oh, get to the start of that presentation. There's there's a few pictures and pieces of staff report in between uh now and the beginning of that case. So, he's quickly zooming through all of that. It's a PowerPoint crashing computer. Yeah. I nicely told him there's no way I can email it.

So, PZA 2026-23 New Song Community Church of Plymouth, Inc. Uh 1292 Baker Street, Plymouth, Indiana. 46563. A variance of development standards to not install sidewalks at 1292 Baker Street, Plymouth, Indiana. 46563. The parcels identified as 5032 042021070019 zoned R3 traditional residential district. So the request is the seeking to not install sidewalks at 1292 Baker Street. Uh here's the subject parcel highlighted in light blue. Uh for context, here's the uh property as well as some of the sidewalks within the vicinity. Then the greater context uh to which the property sits at this point in time. Um, as you can see on the site plan here, uh, to break it down in the most simplest terms on the top lefthand corner, um, if you come down just a little bit, you see a essentially a row of boxes going southeasternly. That would be the sidewalk as it ties into the, uh, main entryway there and comes in on the westand side of the, uh, main drive. So, here is a sidewalk extension that the street department was able to accomplish in 2025. Uh, taking it from the intersection with u B with Door Lane to the subject property.

Then the extension would in the sidewalk in question would be from this point to the driveway of the of the church. Do you know what the linear footage of that is? I do not know the distance off the top of my head. No.

So, we went to the driveway. You can see the sidewalk comes out to um the approximate rideaway location and as you can see here, this is the other end of the original picture facing towards the church itself. This is facing back towards Dora Lane. And then continuing on towards RTOR. Um this is the section in relationship to sidewalk requirement for all development within the city of Plymouth as it complies to the city of Plymouth complete streets policy. I'm not going to read the whole thing to you, but for reference, this is where that is coming from. Um so from an analysis the Tennessee is in the process of construction addition constructing additions in the church and parking lot at 1292 Baker Street uh also known as Newon Church. As a part of that construction the zoning ordinance requires that all development shall be required to install public sidewalks along any public street within and adjacent to the development. The code goes on to list out standards for where what size and additional requirements for sidewalk regulation. the applicant is seeking to not have to install them because there are no properties on the south side of Baker Street beyond the location of the sidewalk to be served. Uh they further go on to indicate uh within their application that the persons that attend the church drive to the facility and that is the reason for the construction of the parking lot. Uh this is not a pedestrian site. Uh the applicant indicates that the strict application of the terms of this ordinance will result in practical difficulty and the use of the property. A strict application of the terms of the ordinance will result in a walk that will have little if any use uh there are are no properties on the south side of Baker beyond the location of the new song church to be served. Yet there will be required ongoing maintenance and possible periodic repairs required. Uh for the decision criteria, it's going

to include general welfare, adjacent property, and practical difficulty. Uh for criteria number one, the requirement of new developments uh to put in sidewalks promotes greater public health benefits and the safety for those using them. uh to deny individuals the safety of traveling to this and nearby developments existing in future developments is against the general welfare of the community and why a complete streets committee was formed and why a portion of the ordinance was designed to connect community assets with the members of our community. For criteria number two, the approval to prove this request would have an impact on the use of value of adjacent properties because of the fractured n nature of sidewalks around the community and should not be perpetuated. Uh for criteria number three, the proposal is self-imposed and should not uh impact the use of the subject property as it will be adjacent to a drainage basin. So for recommendation based on the information provided and review of the context of the request, staff recommends denial. The city in 2025 constructed the sidewalk extension along Baker Street west of the subject property with the plans of the church tying into it uh with its sidewalk as approved for construction. Uh there are approximately 60 homes to the east of RTOR road uh that have developed along 9inth and Suda roads and as the comprehensive plan update is in incoming from Ball State University uh that goes over what the northeast region could look like. There are opportunities for additional residential development and pockets of neighborhood commercial that will likely fill out the region uh north of 9A road. It is a responsibility to plan and begin the connectivity work to promote safe access for all uh to the different amenities and greater sidewalks and trails that serve the rest of Plymouth. There are over 140 residences not including the apartments to the north of Baker Street that could walk to the property, but there are currently no amenities to safely do so. Therefore, staff is uh not support of the of the application to not require sidewalks for

this development and would recommend denial of the request. is now up for board determination the staff's recommendation of denial with the uh support of both the street and engineering departments. Any questions for staff to the west of their property? Correct. Is what's what are those Habitat lots in there? There are properties that are owned by Habitat that will eventually probably have houses on them that are under construction uh in the permitting process.

Okay. as well as um there's a replat pending um internal review at this point in time before it comes in front of the planning commission as there's some technicalities we've got to work and fix um that would tie into the southern section of Dora Lane um extending towards uh Baker Street not Baker Street sorry uh Berkeley Berkeley has started with a B. Those properties will be required to put sidewalks in. Correct. All developments are required to put in sidewalks. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that was that was in the right area. Understood. Any other questions?

The applicant to add anything if they Can we have the uh new songs applicant come up? State your name, address,

pastor. Go ahead. Uh Rich Shever, associate pastors Church. And I'm Chad Gamble, uh architect on the project, uh Culver, Indiana. Uh we would just like to make a couple comments for your final consideration. Um, it was pointed out that there's, I think you said, 140 properties on the north side of Baker Street. And where there are properties on the north side of Baker Street, there is a sidewalk to serve those properties going east and west.

Uh, the only entrance to the site uh, for somebody walking would be to come in the same adjacent to where the driveway comes in. If you look in the photo, you can see where the asphalt is. So, the uh entrance to the site from uh somebody on the north side of the street, they would be walking east or west on the sidewalk on the north side of the street and they will have to cross the site the street to come into a sidewalk that has been put in on the site that runs north and south adjacent to the driveway. As far as uh properties on the south side of the street, there is uh a piece of sidewalk that was uh installed uh from the uh that would be the west property line going uh west more to that first uh street to the west was that door street.

But that's the only sidewalk there on the south side. There's no sidewalk from the east side of the church driveway uh going to the east. And when you get from Door Street going to the west, we're hitting the high school.

And there's if you wanted a sidewalk for people, I think you'd want to put a sidewalk all along the edge of the high school where the kids are walking in the grass. Uh because this is uh uh that would be, you know, if you were to connect something to get to the site. So, I just wanted to point out those things. We we just see a piece of sidewalk that's not going to have uh much of any use unless uh the pastor wins everybody on door to come in and make that turn. So, right.

Yeah. And just to reiterate there, um the sidewalk that they did show in the pictures prior to that was just put in last year um when we first started um with our building project. There was no sidewalk there at all. And all that sidewalk does is like I say, it goes directly from the edge of our property to the property, the through the private property there onto Door Lane. It goes no farther. Okay. Um and then everything from there on up all the way up past the high school has no sidewalk on the south side of of Baker Street. they rely on the north sidewalk and then with crosswalks. Now, we would gladly put a crosswalk in at the from our sidewalk across the street um to that north sidewalk if that would be favorable. Um but we're trying to to limit future problems and maintenance and everything with that facil with the facility of putting in the sidewalk there. Hey Todd,

here's what I would ask about this area in here. Is that going to be future housing in there? No. No, that is our property. That is now parking lot. That's a your parking lot. That is parking lot and retention pond at this moment. Good. Yeah, this is a this is an old photo. That was what I was asking about the land in there. Yeah, that is now there's a retention pond that's right along the front side of Baker, right? Whoops. Switching it to

Yeah, retention pond right here. And then our parking lot is all right here. And there is a sidewalk that is running north and south along the uh west side of that driveway for a crossover or a crosswalk to the sidewalk on the north side of Baker Street. Do

you take the idea of putting in a sidewalk into account when either fundraising or through ties and offerings you guys have funded this project? Um we were um but then the then I mean not I mean we did but u with the crazy prices of concrete and asphalt um it's it's a considerable amount and so as such that's the reason we're requesting this variance or whatever you want to call it. Well, the maintenance. Yeah, the maintenance. There's something that won't be used is reason. Yeah.

If it would be used, if we could foresee it being used more than one person walking their dog, I would say, okay, let's put it in. But I don't foresee that. And so, as such, I'm sort of looking at it as almost a waste of funds. Just let you know the uh what's a coffee shop on Jefferson big we made them put a very long sidewalk in because of this ordinance and that's just we do it we made them do it right and we tried to uphold that throughout the city just understand and it's hard to say what's going to be there in five years and right

but I mean like I say I mean I the high school's been there forever sure

I used to teach at the high school for many years. Um, and they've completely rely on on walking traffic that's not either on the either on the grass or on the north side of Baker with a crosswalk down by the soccer fields or by their their entrance there, the high school lot. not a fan of that. But and so, you know, as such, you know, it's like, all right, and we and we we get much fewer if any walking traffic out in our in our part of Baker Street. You guys put that old subdivision in there. There's houses along Baker there, aren't they?

Talking about ninth one east. No, there's this is right. across the street. Oh, cross the street. There's one house that faces Baker Street. Well, there's two. Randy Long and Eckers and then the one on the other side of the street. Uh, and then there's a big gap because there's a large basin there ditch. Okay. That I know the history of that because I was involved. But uh there were some promises made uh by the city to fill that in some and the dirt never showed up. So

that was a long time ago. Wasn't the current administration and it wasn't the previous administration. It's been a long time. Okay. Right. And and I just want to say that I understand your point of view where you want to keep you want to keep zoning the same throughout the city. I I get that. Okay. But I I also want to appeal to hopefully some common sense where this really doesn't make sense. I mean, we can easily put a crosswalk in and it would take care of all of traffic. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Yep. I'd like to entertain a motion to have a open public hearing. So moved. that you would make a motion. Yes. All right. Motion and second made to open the public hearing from this project. Is there any like to speak for Can we uh we all in favor? I

All right. Now, can we start the open hearing public hearing on this project? Is there anybody that'd like to speak for or against this project? Don't rush it once. Motion to close the public. Motion to close public hearing. Motion in a second to close the public hearing. And can we have a vote on this? Yes. I What? I have a question. I'm voting. We got to vote to close the hearing first. I vote to I vote to close the public hearing. Okay. All in favor say I. I. All right. You have some questions.

Well, okay. In the past, I know I think I brought this up once before. Uh, it was at one point, a decision was made that Brandon, I don't know if the microphone is picking you up. You might need to speak up. Okay. So, in the past, like out on Oak Road, I believe. I could be wrong about that. Oak Drive. Yeah. Um there was the option uh or there was the the deal where people were allowed not to put the sidewalk in until development happened and then they were allowed then they were at that point had to put the sidewalk in. Well, the I believe the city was looking for a grant, which we've now gotten on Oak Road and so the idea was we didn't want to

have other people build sidewalk, but then that was that was an option that we offered and most of them did take it. Crossroads Church, I believe, was a church that was developing. They asked us not to. Yeah,

both both of those are somewhat true. So at one point there were properties um beacon credit union is one and storage is next to them. Um they requested and at that time it was a plan commission decision um and we've since amended the the zoning ordinance to make this a a variance um to come before the BCA. those properties uh requested an exemption from the sidewalk requirement and the decision was that they would be exempt until an adjoining property built a sidewalk and then they would be required to put it in. That is a little bit problematic because it's very difficult to enforce especially if property changes hands and and other things change in the future. More recently, because the complete streets committee had been working on plans to install sidewalks up and down the entire length of Oak Drive, um we recommended, the administration recommended, and even before this administration, previously it was recommended that we make an agreement with the property owner that they would not be required to install the sidewalk. um in exchange they would commit to uh donating an easement so that when the city constructs their project they wouldn't have to pay for that additional ride ofway on those properties. That is a um in those situations we have uh required an agreement be recorded so that uh there is a restriction on that property. Um, and that was because the city was actively planning for a project. And it's less expensive to build a sidewalk than to rip out an old sidewalk, purchase the ride ofway, and then build a new one.

Right. So, both of those things have happened in the past under uh previous boards. And in that the first couple cases with the conjoining property case, there is now conjoining property to this one on the west side that has a sidewalk. There is currently a sidewalk on the adjacent property to the west. Yes. Okay. And that was constructed in anticipation of this project and the sidewalk being constructed. like to entertain a motion either for or against this project.

I move that we deny this project and deny the request. Deny the request and take the staff's recommendation. Second. We have a motion and a second. We get a roll call vote. Garner, yes. Gib, yes. Spreadsheet, no. Wendle, yes. Court, yes. It passed and the request has been denied.

Okay. So, now we'll be moving back to the beginning. Yep. Um, Kyle's going to do a great job of sliding back to the top. planning commission presentations in front of it.

Um just as a not necessarily a brief to you but the members of the audience in relationship to the different cases. Um so you were able to see the variance process where I'll give us a presentation and share the information in relationship to the case. You have an opportunity to come up as the applicant to share anything I may have missed, provide additional context, uh whatever it may be. Um and then the board may ask any additional questions um just to get some further clarity before we move on um to the public hearing. The public hearing occurs um the simplest aspect in relationship to the public hearing is keeping comments related to the request. There may be additional thoughts, considerations or feelings or whatever it may be. But if it's not in relationship to the shed itself, it's not necessarily going to help the board make a determination or a decision. You're still free to make the comments, all those sorts of things, but it's not it may not provide any additional assistance during that conversation and decision. Um once the public hearing is done, the board may ask any additional clarifying questions based on the public hearing and then from there they'll make a final determination as to yes, no in relationship to the shed. Um the BCA is now required to um agree with the staff. Staff has made uh recommendations of approval as well as denial. um staff's recommendation all came in relationship to whether or not that shed location would have been approved originally. Now, when the U BCA takes into consideration um many of the uh applicants for the cases you're about to hear um include sketch plans of where the septic system is located as well as sprinkler systems. Um, and there are a

couple properties that are substantially treed. Uh, and so it provides this grand series of obstacles. And so when they make their decision, they'll take all of that into consideration as well as information that you can provide um to make that final determination. Any questions before I proceed? Start with BZA 2026-08.

Excellent. So 11901 Ridge View Drive, Plymouth, Indiana 46563, a variance of development standard to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 ft to 9.2 ft at property located at 11901 Ridge View Drive, Plymouth, Indiana 46563 identified as partial 50329500 3620018 zoned R2 suburban residential district. Uh for the request, applicant seeking to reduce the reard setback from 20 ft to 9.2 ft. Here's the subject property highlighted in light blue in the middle of your screen. Here's the subject property up the front mailbox so I could figure out all the pictures for all the cases uh front of the property. And then we made our way back to the uh accessory structure in question. Here's where the shed is located. There's the arbivide uh behind it. And there's also a fence behind the ARP vida. Uh I put a copy of the uh district regulations for setbacks just for reference uh if the BCA wants to go look at it. Um from the analysis standpoint, uh the applicant is seeking to reduce the rear setback from today's standard of 20 ft to 9.2 ft to allow for the shed to stay in its uh current location at 1191 Ridgeview Drive. The situation began from concern of sheds being too close to property lines which led to violation. Letters being distributed. In response, administrative appeals were filed and later replaced with subject uh variant of development standard. Uh subjects have been long required dating back to before the subdivision was platted and structures were built. Development standards have adjusted since that time uh to what they are today. There have been cases previously, some successful, others not on being able to reduce setbacks. Under the current standards, there are no

differences between primary and accessory structure setbacks and exist in other communities where accessory structures have a smaller setback. Although the shed was constructed back in 1999 based on property card record, uh there is no variance on record for the setback to be reduced. In a perfect world, this would have been discussed and decided at that time, but a violation may exist for a short or extended period. This request is uh a part of a pursuit to rectify a long-standing issue. Sub acts are set in part to properly define properties, protect assets, and allow for maintenance and around uh said structures. Uh for the decision criteria, general welfare, adjacent property and practical difficulty are taken into consideration. Uh for criteria number one, the approval of reduction for this accessory structure should not be interest to the public health, safety, and general welfare to the community. Uh for criteria number two, the use and value of adjacent property should not be substantially impacted by this proposal. And then finally for criteria number three, the ordinance would not have originally permitted the proposal, but the percentage of reduction would not pose significant impact and was accomplished by a previous owner of the property. Uh so for recommendation based on the information provided and review independently of any other accessory structure staff would recommend approval of the proposed reduction allowing the homeowner to keep the shed at the requested location because it maintains a safe distance from the adjacent property along with the ability to still maintain the structure. So now it's up for board determination with staff's recommendation of approval. Now, real brief, this same structure and everything else is going to look the exact same for the next 10ish cases.

Okay. So, if it looks very similar, it's because it does. Okay. But everything's treated individually. Sure. So, I went through it about three times to make sure everything was in the proper case. Okay. Questions for staff on this case?

Yeah. If not, uh, I believe the applicants in attendance. Wait, Dave and Don Tapia. Do you have anything you'd like to add? No, you did very well. Thank you. I appreciate it. Um, she doesn't have anything else. Uh, now be the time for a public hearing. Can we get a motion for a public hearing? A motion that we open it up to the public. Seconded. Any seconded. All in favor say I. I. like to open this public meeting for PGA 2026-08 only. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to come out against or for this proposal?

I'm tell Wel from Wel Builders. I'm the owner and the uh operator of of South Point Subdivision. We started in 19 96 and uh so we've been there 30 years and I I see no problem with any of these sheds the way they're positioned right now. I hadn't had any issues go through the dog. So, and the reason they were positioned where they were is because this the leech field had to be so big and we had to keep the sheds off to the side and people want to shed in, you know, even 20 ft in the yard. They you know, so that there was big reasons why they were set where they were. And so I I have no problem with with where these sheds are.

I I have a I have a question for Bill. Okay. Go ahead. Are the leech fields in your subdivision larger than standard leech fields? No, they're they're they're approved all by the health. Okay. But are they were they required to be larger than what you had originally anticipated? No. Uh most of them out there are 1500 square ft and uh uh of leech field and but the soil conditions were such that they didn't require any additional requirements.

That's right. That's right. No no addition. We had plenty of room. The soils were were great and everything was approved before they were installed. So, but I have no problem with where the sheds are. I think I think it's uh it's it's a great solution. I had a lot of people who wants to be in the subdivision because of the storage sheds. A lot of developments you go into, you can't put storage sheds in. And so as long as they as long as they're done up right and and these and I think what you need to understand, Dell, is that if you as you go forward and you sell a lot going forward, you have to comply with the current rules, right? Okay. These people are asking for a variance because of advice they got

despite the variance, right? Or despite the ordinance, right? Okay. Okay. And so uh any house that's being built from here on come with the variance if they want to build they have to yeah they could come apply for a variance but they got to apply for the variance.

Right. Right. But there's a reason like say the sheds were put where they were. I mean it's it's uh uh well we needed much room liquid for the leech field. The leech fields are the soles were good and we had plenty of room but uh sometimes the leech field has to be on an angle because of the slope of the ground. Okay. And so everything is it's done there for a purpose but I have no problem with it. Thank you. Is there anyone else that'd like to speak for or against? Motion close it. Move that we close the public hearing. Second motion made to close it. All in favor?

I can do I make a motion? Sure. I motion that we take staff's well educated and presented proposal uh and that we approve this variance. Second motion made and seconded. Can we have a roll call vote? Yes. Gley, yes. Richie, yes. Wendell, yes. Seor, yes. BZA 2026-08 passed. Can we go on to BZA 2026? Don, you don't have to stay if you don't want. 09. Thank you.

Excellent point. Once your case is done, you're free to leave if you so wish. If you want to stick around and support, you're more than welcome to do so as well. If you want to send back, it's good where it's at. That one is. Yes. Right. Right. Yeah. It's okay. It's done. It's permitted. All right.

Um EZA09 11860 Red Boot Drive, Plymouth, Indiana 46563. Variance of development standard to reduce a re rear yard setback from 20 ft to 2 ft at the property located at 11860 Redbud Drive, Plymouth, Indiana 46563 identified as parcel 5032 9500470018 zed R2 suburban residential district. So the request is the applicant seeking to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 ft to 2 feet. Here's the subject property highlighted in light blue and you can see the uh central rear portion of the properties where the accessory structure is located. Uh again the address picture for my benefit uh picture of the front of the property and then we took a picture from the rear. There's a collection of fences and distances. How they maintain in between of them is beyond me but they did a great job at it. I don't know who does it because there weren't a whole lot of gates in that area. Um, but you can see the location between the accessory structure and the white picket fence. Uh, again, the development standards for the associated district. Uh, for the analysis, the applicant is seeking to reduce the rear yard setback from today's standard of 20 ft to in or 20 ft to 2 feet to allow for the shed to stay in it current location at 11860 Redbud Drive. The situation began from concern of sheds u being too close to property lines which led to violation letters being distributed. In response, administrative appeals were filed and later replaced with subject with a subject variance of development standard. Setbacks have been long required dating back to before the subdivision was platted and structures were built. Development standards have adjusted since the that time uh to what they are today. There have been cases previously some successful others not on being able to reduce the setbacks under

the current standards. There are no differences between primary and accessory structure setbacks and existing in other communities where accessory structures have a smaller setback. Although the shed was constructed back in 2001 based on the property record card, there's no variance on record for this setback to be reduced. In a perfect world, this would have been discussed and decided at that time, but a violation may exist for a short or an extended period of time. This request is a part of a pursuit to rectify longstanding issue if setbacks are set. And part two, properly define properties, protect assets, and allow for maintenance around and of said structures. So the decision criteria include general welfare, adjacent property, and practical difficulty. Criteria number one, the approval of a reduction uh for this accessory structure should not be injurous to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community. For criteria number two, the use and value of adjacent property should not be substantially impacted by this proposal. Uh for criteria number three, the ordinance uh would not have originally permitted the proposal, but the percentage of reduction uh should not pose significant impact. And now for recommendation based on information provided and review independently of any other structure staff would recommend denial of the proposed deduction to 2 ft which would have allowed the homeowner to keep a shed at the requested location but it does not maintain a safe distance from the adjacent property nor the ability to maintain the structure from their own property. Now it is up for poor determination as Miss Fisher in attendance by chance.

She's not. She's not. Thank you. No. Okay. Yeah. I would recommend to table a request uh to a future meeting. I believe there's some personal matters currently. Oh, you want to do this? I would hold on to the letter that Miss Fischer provided. So, the Fishers aren't available. Correct. Will you tell us before you start reading about it?

Believe me, I'm going to ask the same question in front of all the other cases. Um, so staff would recommend that the board table this request to a future meeting. Um, that future meeting may or may not be June. Um, there are going to be fines imposed if it gets pushed back while it's tabled. No. Okay. I motion we table this until the next meeting to a future meeting. to a future meeting. A second. I'll do a roll call. We'll do roll call. Garner. Yes. Gibney. Yes. Richie. Yes. Wendle. Yes. Se. Yes. So, we'll make contact with Miss Fischer.

That's a letter of support to Can I turn that in now? Yeah, we can. We can get that turned in and add it to uh the file for it and we can read it when the case comes back. Um we're we're unable to attend if the applicant or a representative for the applicant is not able to attend. Are the statements in breath? Thank you. We'll move on to 2026-10. They are here.

We talked yesterday. Um, so 11891 Ridge View Drive, Pumpth, Indiana 46563, variance of development standard to reduce the reard setback from 20 ft to 7 ft and reduce sideyard setback from 10 ft to 8 ft at the property located at 11891, Richview Drive, Plymouth, Indiana 46563 identified as partial 50329500 3610018 zoned R2 suburban residential district. So the request is that the applicant is seeking to reduce their rear set back from 20 ft to 7 feet and sideyard setback from 10 ft to 8 ft. Here's a subject property uh the blue roof and then the blue roofed shed. Um here is a site plan that was provided um that kind of helps indicate why the shed is located in the corner. uh for whatever reason the screen likes to crop off the very top of the uh aspect of the slide but it says 7 ft at the very top. Um as you can see they have the septic tank on the right hand side away from the trees and because of that they've put the shed in the corner itself and unfortunately does not meet setbacks today. So, we went out, took pictures of the property, including the mailbox for my personal benefit to reference everything, uh, looking up and down the roadway, and then, uh, taking a shot back along the perceived property line region, looking at the front of the property, and then we made our way back to the rear of the property, and then looking at the back side of the shed in relationship to a neighboring fence. Here's the uh reference for the uh development standards uh for the analysis. The applicant is seeking to reduce the rear yard setback from today's standard of 20 ft to 7 ft and the sideyard setback from 10 ft to 8 ft to allow for the shed to stay in his

current location at 11 891 Ridge View Drive. The situation began from concern of sheds being too close to the property line which led to violation letters being distributed. Uh in response, administrative appeals were filed and later replaced with subject variance of development standards. Setbacks have been long required dating back to before the subdivision was platted and structures were built. Uh development standards have adjusted since that time to what they are today. There have been cases previously uh some successful others not on being able to reduce the setbacks under the current standards. There are no difference between primary and accessory structure setbacks and existing in other communities where accessory structures have smaller setbacks. Although the shed was constructed back in 2014 based on property record card, there's no variance on record for the setback to be reduced. In a perfect world, this would have been discussed and decided at that time, but a violation makes for a short or extended period. Uh this request is a part of a pursuit to rectify a longstanding issue. Step bags are set in part to properly define properties, protect assets, and allow for maintenance around and of set structures. So for the decision criteria, general welfare, adjacent property, and practical difficulty are considered. For criteria number one, the approval of the reduction uh for this accessory structure should not be injurous to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community. For criteria number two, the use and value of adjacent property should not be substantially impacted by this proposal. Per criteria number three, the ordinance would not have originally uh permitted the proposal, but the percentage of reduction should not pose significant impact. So for recommendation on the information provided and reviewed independently of any other accessory structure, staff would recommend approval of the proposed reduction in both rear and sideyard setbacks, allowing the homeowner to keep the sheds requested at the requested location because it maintains a safe distance from the adjacent property along with the ability to still maintain the structure. Now it is up for board

determination with staff recommendation of approval. Any questions for staff? I know I go quickly. Yep. That's fine. We appreciate it. You want to hear? None. Seeing none. The statements like the state anything say anything? I just want to ask a question. When these buildings were put in, I think I know the answer, but was there a building permit required when they put these sheds in? So under current regulation, any structure under 120 square foot does not require building permit, but is still required to meet setbacks. Okay, that's all I need.

Thank you. Entertain a motion to open the public hearing. Motion we open the public second. All in favor? I I hearing is open. Is there anybody like to speak for or against this proposal? Having none move we close the public hearing. I have another question.

Um just on the chance that you pass it the variance, will we get official notification to put in our records saying that there was a variance made on this shed or any sheds in our area? Do they get a letter saying they passed anything officially? We don't. So, we don't do letters uh that have come out to you, but this case is a part of permanent record for the city. We can go back decades to see old and previous cases. So, we always have it on file. Okay. But we won't have proof ourselves.

No, there was a variance for it. No. If you'd like me to help write something together for you, I'd be more than happy to help coordinate something. 10 years from now, I don't want somebody to come along. Well, you can't have that there. Yeah. It just like we've looked at some of the previous cases with neighbors. We're able to pull that information up. Okay. So, we have pretty Did you build that house? Huh? Did you build that house, Bill? Huh? You bought it and it was the shed there when you bought it? Yeah. I have no idea how long I've been there. Okay. I just we've lived there for what? Eight years, nine years. Seven. Seven years. Okay. And it was there long before we came. So, okay. Okay. That's it.

We had a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor? I I this motion motion that we uh accept the recommendation and approve the variance. Second. Been a motion and second made to approve BCA 2026-10. Roll call vote, please. Yes. Gley, yes. Richie, yes. Wendle, yes. Se, yes. Thank you. Move on to BGA 2026-11. What's the name on it? Oh, the Zimmerman. Zimmerman's.

Just making sure before I get started. Um, so EZA 2026-11. So sorry, one too many. Uh, 11870 Redbud Drive, Plymouth, Indiana 46563. A variance of development standard to reduce the sideyard setback from 10 foot to 1 foot at the property located at 11870 Redbud Drive, Plymouth, Indiana 46563. Zoned as parcel identified as parcel 50329500 3970018. zoned R2 suburban residential district. The request is the applicant is seeking to reduce the sideyard setback from 10 foot to one foot. Here's the subject property. Um, as a reminder to everybody, Beacon property lines are a reference, they are not what is exactly there. U, please always consult your uh, survey of record and property. So just because it goes through the middle of it doesn't necessarily mean that's exactly where the property line is a good start and can be 1 foot 5 foot or 10 foot and more off. So with that in mind you have the house and then to the northwestish you have the subject shed. They were able to provide a uh property drawing showing where the house and garage are and in between the shed and the house is where the septic field is and the variety of dots you see around the property are sprinklers. Uh so pretty well uh restricting where the shed can go. Again, picture this of the property uh assuming and understanding that assumptions only get you so far. Inside of that plastic post is a piece of laugh, which is very the laugh itself is very traditional for um developments to

have stake next to where the property line is. Okay.

Or we're showing where property pins are. Uh assuming it hasn't moved. Um this is as close to square as I could get. uh with the assumed property line uh and then picturing it back with the uh telephone cable box. Here's the uh development standards for the district. Uh for the analysis, the applicant is seeking to reduce sideyard setback from today's standard of 10t to 1 ft to allow for the shed to stay in its current location at 11870 bud drive. The situation began with concerns of sheds being too close to property lines which led to violation letters being distributed. In response, administrative appeals were filed and later replaced with subject variance of development standards. Uh the setbacks uh have been long required dating back to before the subdivision was platted and structures were built. Uh the development standards have adjusted since that time to what they are today. There have been cases previously, some successful, others not. Uh on being able to reduce those setbacks under the current standards, there are no differences between primary and accessory structures. uh setbacks and exists in other communities where accessory structures have smaller setbacks. Uh although the shed was constructed back in 2009 based on property record card, there's no variance on record for the setback to be reduced. In a perfect world, this would have been discussed and decided at that time, but a violation may exist for a short or extended period. This request is a part of a pursuit to rectify a long-standing issue. SubX are set in part to properly define properties, protect assets and allow for maintenance around and of said structures. So for decision criteria, we include a general welfare adjacent property, practical difficulty. For criteria number one, the approval of the reduction of this for this accessory structure should not be interest to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Uh for criteria number two, the use of value of adjacent property should not be substantially impacted by the proposal.

Uh for criteria number three, the ordinance would not have originally permitted the proposal but percentage of reduction should not pose a significant impact due to the undeveloped adjacent property. Uh based on for recommendation based on the information provided and review independently of any other accessory structure status recommended proposed reduction to 1 foot which would have allowed the homeowner to keep the shed at the requested location because it does not maintain a safe distance from the adjacent property nor the ability to maintain the structure uh from their own property. Now it is up for board determination. Um and to remind the board, the board is not required to um follow static recommendation. They were able to take um the three criteria into consideration as well as um site plans uh and information from the applicant as well when making their determination and are able to make independent decisions whether agreeing or disagreeing with staff. Any questions for staff?

Was the denial because it was only one foot. Correct.

Without drawing this out, this this denial because of the one foot that that's because you you can't ma you can't maintain that side of the property without stepping on someone else's property to maintain it. Correct. That's staff's interpretation. If the request were to have come in today for a shed to be placed, that's where uh staff would have made that recommendation. But you're able to make the determination that understanding that where it's located and everything else around it, you could recommend approval with context. So, okay,

they're all factors that you as the board itself can take in consideration and make a determination. Uh, any questions for staff and staff adjacent? Yeah, I'm just going to say if this was to come before me right now, I would deny it because you have to maintain a minimum of five foot from property line for residentials. Okay. If you do not, then you would have to fire rate it because of the way it's constructed. It has to be 5 ft. Any any building, any structure,

any structure would have to be fire rated within the five. If you're closer than 5 foot, it will have to have a fire rated wall. building code as well as reference ID. Any other questions for staff? No.

I assume the applicant would like to come up and give some clarifying information. Yeah, I met the gentleman and uh what I want to bring out is where that pie shape is where the building is, which the line isn't right anyway. Right. So on that side, there's nobody there. That lot been empty for 20 years plus. Is it buildable? Doesn't look very bad. I don't know. All I know is it's been empty and vacant all this time. Dell, do you still own that lot?

Yes, I do. Is it for sale? Yes.

So, that's the only thing I was going to bring up. Okay. That there was nobody Yeah. nearby. And that's why I where I did because if I come too far over I didn't know to get into the septic system. Sure. Okay. Thank you.

Was there a septic drawing for this case? Yes, there was a site plane that was provided. uh we didn't require uh very detailed site plans to be provided because we wanted to make sure everybody had an opportunity to provide the information. And as you can see, the septic system is more or less from the central portion of the house east towards where the shed is located. Um and being on a corner lot, you can't necessarily go left of the house that's south. Um but everything I wanted the words to be oriented correctly for you. Do you know how hard it would be to move one? Um I mean

based on average age for a lot of these structures, especially being wooden in nature, um I would imagine there would be uh significant impact to a lot of them being moved um just due to um weathering and wood foundations not doing well in northern climates. How long has the shed been there? Huh? The I lived there for like 20 years. The shed based on property record card was put there in 2009. So, will it make it 17 years? Yeah. Okay. Quick M like to entertain a motion to open the public meeting.

Motion we open the public meeting. Second. Motion made. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Like to open up the public meeting for the Zimmerman's BP BCA 2026-11. Yes. State your name and address.

My name's Deian Quistle. I live at 11905 Sunset Court, Plymouth, Indiana, in the same subdivision. You know that shed has been there too long. And I understand the variance wasn't done. My biggest point that I want to point out is that if it's unable to be maintained without encroaching on the property next to it, we my husband and I James will help them put in a pavers pavers from the shed where there will be no need to mow or enter that property if it is sold. It can be we can do something with that one foot behind there to keep this couple from having to move the shed. If it comes down to just encroachment, we'll help them fix it. These these cases are tough. They sound simple, but they are tough. And I appreciate what you're saying, but it's not maintaining the gr. Yes, the grass is an issue, but what if you had to get on that roof and you had to put a ladder on that side? The problem it it's where do you put the ladder? You know, I I'm not trying to nitpick, but it's too close for maintenance. I I appreciate what you're saying. I sincerely do. Okay. Well, we all wouldn't be here today if it weren't for one person.

Anybody else would like to speak for or against? I'm not trying to represent Mr. Zimmerman, but this lot has been vacant forever. Yeah. Why couldn't you just I don't know table it and if the lot's ever solved and there's ever a question then come back to it. I don't think we could table it.

Well, that's wrong word but just let it ride for now and if it's ever sold, somebody builds a house then revisit it and may it and may never have a house there. You don't know or might have one tomorrow. But couldn't you come back and revisit it at a later date, 5 years, 10 years, whenever?

Any ideas? So, one option the board could potentially pursue is permitting the existence of this structure uh to remain. And should their structure be tore down or replaced, um it would have to come into compliance at that point in time. It wouldn't be grandfathered to remove this one and put another one same size back in its place. Um that could be an option the board would pursue. So should it dilapidate and deteriorate to a significant degree, the owner wants to replace it for whatever reason, um they would have to relocate the future

uh one in a different location. Does that carry over if they sell the property to someone else? Yes, it carries on for the life till till they decide to remove that structure until the structure is gone, not the right. So you're only essentially permitting this very specific structure to remain and should it be removed for whatever reason and then has to be brought into compliance.

The next structure that goes in even though uh existing standards may allow for a structure to be replaced in the exact same location with no additional uh increase in non-compliance. At that point it would need to be replaced because of the condition that allowed for this structure to remain. So would that be a very specific variance for this structure? This so we would we would word it as as it's only for this

only for this property only for this structure that could be a recommend or not a recommendation but an option that the board pursues. So it's not always approval of a structure to stay in location or to deny location or structure to stay in its location. It could be an approval to permit this specific structure to remain and at such time it is replaced. It needs to come into compliance with the standards of that time. And if a variance is needed to be sought at that time, yeah, it would come back before this board, whether made up of these five individuals or Yeah.

the future five individuals. Even if someone did build a house on vac property, it would still be grandfather. Yeah. It would still be permitted. coming out.

So that in in that scenario, the variance would allow that shed to stay in that location. Um, and I wanted to address that. Going back to what uh Mark was saying, um, my understanding is that Wel Industries, which owns that vacant parcel right now, has granted permission to enter onto their property if it's required for maintenance of the shed or the grass. If that parcel were to be sold, it would be up to the future owner to determine if they would continue to grant that permission or if they wanted to enforce their property rights and prevent any um um access onto their property. That would become a civil matter between those neighboring property owners.

Okay.

So, supposed to be those. So, an option could be um following on Miss Whistle's comment. Um could be a reduction of some of the maintenance needs by setting the pavers, especially if the property were to be sold and a fence were to go up, it would be able to reduce some of the potential maintenance that would come with that structure. So you could begin to combine a series of different pieces to that um for this case and you may find them applicable for other cases that you may hear this evening or in the future uh which there are several next month.

My next thing is we'll remember what we just said on this case for any future cases whether it's today or next year. It's it's all a part of the toolbox of options that you can come up with to find some level of middle ground uh in relationship to development. Um but each case itself is set individually because each shed is set in a very specific location on a very specific property because not all properties uh within the subdivision are corner lots, standard uh square lots with only one frontage

and not all are on a culde-sac. There are a couple on a culde-sac. So, your shape of property, your topography, and everything else all begins to factor into the greater amount. Um, and there's a couple cases where there's significant tree coverage that impacts the location of septic systems and where sheds can go, but we're under the public hearing portion. I motion the public hearing. Second motion second. All in favor? I my public hearing has been closed.

I I motion we grant um a variance to this specific structure as it stands until the time of it deteriorates or is destroyed or eliminated in some fashion at which time the proceeding structure will then have to come under the guidelines of the the code or they could get a variance or they get a variance. Good enough. Second. Motion made seconded. Can we have a roll call vote? Garner. Yes. Yes. Richie, yes. Yes. Yes.

Motion passed. So, brief clarification on that one. The case passed. The shed's allowed to stay. Should it deteriorate, move away, or whatever it may be, the new shed would have to comply with today's standards or get a variance before it goes in. Moving forward, are the copins of it here? Yep. Okay. I like knowing whether we're not whether we're here or not beforehand. We have that way once.

Um 11869 Red Bud Drive, PL Indiana 46563. Varian development standard to reduce the sideyard setback from 10T to 2 foot at the property located at 11869 Redbud Drive, Plymouth, Indiana 46563 identified as partial 5032 9500 39200018 uh zoned R2 suburban residential district. Uh the request is seeking to reduce sideyard setback from 10T to 2 foot. Here is the subject property. Again, property line goes through um there's been amendments previously to adjust property lines. Um amongst several uh platted lots there um but that's not necessarily part of this case, but just for context. Um, here's the subject property uh drawing that was provided for us uh showing where the house and the driveway is all located and then uh where the yard and setbacks are. Um, and how the structures place off to the side because the set big is taking up essentially the right half of the rear of the property. And the circles, as you can see, are sprinklers uh located throughout the property itself. And this lot, similar to the last one, has frontage on two sides, but this is what's called a through lot where you have Redbud Drive and Michigan Road. Um, where roadway is on two opposing sides of property. So, when we were out taking pictures of the property, we're able to identify and locate where that accessory structure was and an approximate uh property line here and then look back across the property and we're able to show relative location of um the relationship between the structure and the property line itself. uh the development standards associated with the district. Further

analysis, the applicant is seeking to reduce site air setback from today's standard of 10t to 2 feet uh to allow for this uh shed stay in it current location at 11869 drive. The situation began uh from concern of sheds being too close to property lines which led to uh violation letters being distributed in response to administrative appeals were lifted or filed and later replaced with subject bearance and development standards. Subexs have been uh long required dating back to before the subdivision was platted and structures were built. Development standards have adjusted since that time uh to what they are today. Uh they have been there have been cases uh previously some successful others not on being able to reduce the setbacks under the current standards. There are no uh differences between primary and accessory structure setbacks and exist uh in other communities where accessory structures have smaller setbacks. Although the shed was constructed back in 2006 based on a property record card, so about 20 years ago, there is no variance of record for uh the setback to be reduced. In a perfect world, this would have been discussed and decided at that time, but violation may exist for a short or extended period of time. Uh this request is a part of a pursuit to rectify a long-standing issue. Setbacks are set in part uh to properly define properties that basics and allow for maintenance around and of said structures. Uh from a decision criteria standpoint, general welfare adjacent property, practical difficulty are taken into consideration. So for criteria number one, the approval of the reduction for this accessory structure should not be interest to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Per criteria number two, the use and value of adjacent property should not be substantially impacted by the proposal. And the improve criteria number three, the ordinance would not have originally permitted the proposal, but the percentage of reduction should not pose significant impact and was done by a previous property owner uh for recommendation based on information provided and review independently of any other accessory structure. Staff would recommended now the proposed reduction

to 2 ft uh which would have allowed the homeowner to keep the shed at the requested location uh because it does not maintain a safe distance from the adjacent property nor the ability to maintain a structure from their own property. Uh so it's coming to the board determination with stat recommendation of a denial. Um but as of minutes ago um some faces in the city of Plymouth's jurisdiction uh there are creative ways to come about identifying how to get to uh intermediary times with sheds uh that may have existed for extended periods of time. Um, so with that, uh, any questions for staff? Uh, does he have anything they would like to add?

Anything you want to add? Yeah, my name is Dave Copelan. Uh we moved there in October of 2025 and everything, you know, had no idea that any of that was done and it's on a concrete foundation. It's it would I guess have to be tore down the move because it I don't know

hopefully it will come to that. Yeah. Yeah. Uh I talked to Gary and you were the neighbors that bought the lot right beside it. and he has no problem with it at all. So that's about all. Okay. Thank you. Hearing it. I move we open a public hearing. Second. Motion made and second. All in favor? I.

Public hearing is open for the Copeland's PGA 2026-12. Is there anybody like to speak for or against? come to the microphone. State your name and your address.

Deian Quistle, 11905 Sunset Court, Plymouth, Indiana. Again, I'm in this subdivision. Um um to reiterate what Dave said, um we are actually close friends with Gary and Julie Hillman. They bought that property right next to them. They are in Florida currently. Um have spoke to both of them, weren't able to be here. um and did say and told Dave that he didn't say. So, I'll repeat it as well that um they have no problem with the shed being there. There's no problem with taking care of anything around that shed being so close because they own that property. It will not be built on. And um he hopes um

will the Hillman's own that as an extra lot? Yes, it isn't as it is already purchased lot and will not be built on. And so the owners of that ladder in Florida, Gary and Julie Hillman, and they have no problem with it and even went as far as to say that if we couldn't win this for him, um Gary would take Dave to civil court and beat it in court. So that's tell Gary I said bring it on. Passing it on. Any else like to speak for against? Wait,

he cost one little uh builder developer. Uh I want to let you know how that really happened there. I didn't build the shed. I in fact I had to build any of these sheds. But uh how that happened is that I built the house and uh the owner there on a weekend before I even could even I told him you got to get a permit if you're going to build that close. Well, when I got out there, he already had the slab poured and and thing was already framed. And I'm saying well so we had we had it surveyed and uh the only thing there it's the overhang is just on hanging over just I think about two inches other than that. But the uh they survey cuz I had it surveyed just to make certain that it was it was uh uh I know it was close. So, but anyway, after we surveyed it and then they uh uh we checked and at the bottom there's 2 in of overhang that's on it, not the shed itself. Okay. Cuz we we

property line, not the back. The property. Yeah. The roof hangs over the property line,

right? The shed is a violation of that I understand that. But I just want to let you know how it really happened because that that would never happen if if uh I was in fact I told the owner you'd have to go get a building per minute if you're going to build you know uh something because I'm not sure what the size of it is but but uh but that's reason how it happened. But but there's no there's really no uh those lines aren't exactly right because I I had it surveyed so I know exactly where that line is. We drew a string on it and that the uh the foundation is not sitting on that lot but the overhang is just is hanging over by a couple inches. Okay, thank you.

Okay, anybody else like to speak for or against this? I motion we second. Motion made second. All in favor? I I'd like to entertain a motion for or against. time motion that we approve this variance for this specific structure until the time since it's still until the time this structure is destroyed, decimated, decayed, an act of God takes it down. Um, in which time the proceeding structure then will be be constructed within the code. Second.

Motion made in second. Can we get a roll call vote? Garner, yes. Yes. Richie, yes. Wendle, yes. Yes. All right. Copeland's passed. Uh, are the Emmens is here? Oh, okay.

We can start with BGA 2026-13. All right. 11862 Redbud Drive, Plymouth, Indiana 46563. A variant development standard to reduce the sideyard setback from 10 foot to 1 foot at the property located at 11862 Redbud Drive, Plymouth, Indiana 46563 identified this partial 5032 9500 406 triple 000018 uh zoned R2 suburban residential district for the request applicant seeking to reduce their sideyard setback from 10t to 1 ft. Um, here's the subject property highlighted in light blue in the middle of your screen. And we've discussed u beacon property lines previously, how they may or may not be so accurate. Here's a uh site plan from the property owner show showing where the uh house and garage are as well as the um accessory structure that's located on the left hand side of the picture and the associated uh sprinkler system that's been installed as well as the septic system that takes up a significant portion of the rear of the property. Here is the front of the property and the front of the house. Then looking down approximately where the property line is located and uh an apparent line of occupation um shown here in rel relationship to the uh shed itself. Uh here's the development standards associated uh with that district. And then for the analysis, the is seeking to reduce site yard setback from today's standard 10 foot to 1 foot to allow for the shed to stay in its current location at 11862 railroad drive. The situation began from concern of sheds being too close to property lines which led to uh violation letters being distributed in response to the administrative appeals uh were filed and later replaced with the subject variance development standard. Subexs

have been long required dating uh back before the subdivision was platted and structures were built. Uh development standards have adjusted since that time to what they are today. Uh there have been uh cases previously uh some successful others not on being able to reduce the setbacks. Under the current standards, there are no difference between primary and accessory structure setbacks and exist in other communities where accessory structures have smaller setbacks. Although the shed was constructed back in 2010 based on property record card, uh there's one this is one of the only sheds in the neighborhood to have filed a variance to reduce a setback uh for 6T in the rear and two foot on the side and was denied back in October of 2004. In a perfect world, this would have been addressed and decided at that time. Uh but a violation may exist for a short or extended period. This request is a part of the pursuit to rectify a long-standing issue. uh setbacks are set in part to properly define properties, protect assets and allow for maintenance around and of said structures. So the decision criteria includes the general welfare adjacent property and practical difficulty. Uh for criteria number one, the approval of reduction of this accessory structure should not be interest to the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Uh for criteria number two, the use and value of adjacent property should not be substantially impacted by the proposal. And for criteria number three, the ordinance would not have originally permitted the proposal and was originally denied by the BCA um to deny a similar request, but the percentage of reduction should not pose significant impact. So for recommendation based on all information provided in review independently of any other structure staff would recommend to now oppose reduction to 1 foot which would have allowed the homeowner to keep the shed at the requested location because it does not maintain a safe distance from the adjacent property nor the ability to maintain the structure from their own property. So now is up for board termination and with staff recommendation of approval the applicant

is in attendance. Anything you'd like to add? I'm going to say something. Y

might be a little hard to hear my voice. Neighbor just moved in just north of me. Had that lion surveyed there. Just hit those two pedestals out in front. He had stakes with a surveyor surveyed it and it missed that building 20 in. That's all I know. So that's what and he had a rope up there which stakes every so often said keep off of my property, private property, so on so forth. I don't care about that. All I ever wanted was peace. And I do know this. I don't know what's right here, but the survey that he just had done, he had a steak, uh, like a plastic steak, and right beside it was a wood stake with the And if I looked, if you go all the way to the back of my property, we have just a little bit of a return fence coming back towards the house. And there's this surveyor steak right there. that's embedded in concrete and it's like a rebar coming up through now that can't be that don't drive with that. Now I don't know what you guys

are you you talk about the blue line around that. Is that what you're talking Yes. Okay. That that that's a computergenerated overlay and we know that those blue lines are not right. They're all you're it's yeah you're you're fine but that those are not accurate. Ty will tell you that they're off by two, three, four feet sometime. 10 feet sometimes. It gives us a general feel of kind of what the property looks like. Well, like I said, I just wanted to know that. I didn't know what the difference was, but and Mr. Winsel's the one who told me where the line was, and he was right on. The fact

is Mr. Winsel wasn't following the rules in the first place. He should have been although I guess in this case there was a variance request but it was denied. But if all these cases I'm going to get on my high horse. I'm going to try not to. But if Mr. Winsel had followed city ordinances and codes these issues wouldn't exist. But he was telling people go ahead and put your shed there

when they should have been request at at a minimum should have requested a variance. this building that we have in our backyard is portable and I was told you don't need a permit and it might be a setback when you use a portable building. The first time it was denied was that we would laid the irrigation out in the back northwest corner of the lot. That's a real small lot. It's 110 ft wide. So, we had to allow for that sprinkler head is to have that building way back there and that was denied. And in a way, I'm glad it was because the way it worked out. So, that's what the denial was about. This building was put in later and it's portable. Oh,

so the this building wasn't the original variance request building. No. Okay. That's what I want to make clear. Okay. Okay. So, askable. What does that mean exactly? A lot of these buildings are on skids. They could be a forklift can go under and lift them up and move them over. Okay, that sounds good. Like that one case that we said the building's 20 years old. You put a put a forklift under it and start to lift it up, it'll come apart. Yeah. Oh, it's all right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We have a public hearing. I open public hearing. Second. Right. Motion made second. All in favor say I.

I. All right, public hearing is now open. Is there anybody like to speak against or hold their voice? Yan Quistle 11905 Sunset Court Public Indiana. We've been there quite a long time and those that I'm we're speaking in behalf are the people we watch over and help through the year, winters, summers, whatever they need. So with Emmens, um I've gotten very close with them due to health issues. Um the issue has arisen because of the neighbor next to him has brought all of us to this and he's is he here? No. No.

Um but keep in mind if Mr. Winsel had given correct instructions in the first place, we wouldn't be here today. You wouldn't have to. And I I can read your I mean I know you're upset with me and I don't want you to be upset with you but I I I I can't say that enough times. I know. But we're just a coach and he's a developer. I know. It's not like a private citizen who doesn't he should have been aware of what the rules were. I totally understand. But because we're in the situation we are. We are in a very tight-knit small subdivision and we look out for each other. And we have never had problems where anybody's shed has sat. Never.

So that is so encroachment on property again we can alleviate that by putting pavers down. There will be no need to um you know mow on that neighbor's yard because pavers could be set. That would not be an issue. That is there there is one suggestion that I agree with you. I mean, I not that I would disagree. I didn't disagree with you on the other ones either necessarily, but yeah, if this nextdoor neighbor can't be neighborly, then probably the pavers are the solution. So, if Mr. and we're happy to do that, doesn't have to ride his lawn mower over on that side of the building.

Yes. And we have already talked about it. It is something that we can get done this weekend if it needs to be done. I mean, just whatever we can do to alleviate all the hardship that especially these older couples are going through and the stress they've been put under trying to go through this process and myself trying to help them through this process. So, I just again, my husband and I are putting ourselves out there to try to alleviate the issue with the neighbor to allow that shed to stay. Sure.

State your name and address. Yep. Chad Hustle 111865 review. Also in the neighborhood. So I want to bring up something about his property is heavily wooded in the back. Correct. Heavily treated in the back. Who's Mr. Emmens? Okay. Um I don't know where his leechfield is, but I'm sure it's in the backyard. Um, there's no other place to put the shed other than where it sits currently and I I don't believe unless it could go in the far corner. So, I just wanted to say that in support of Denny. So, thank you. I would like he's he wants to speak.

He can speak,

sir. Hi, Kurt McMillan, 11866 Redbud Drive. I am the adjacent neighbor. I've been bashed a little bit on this and I'm I'm going to stay away from that. This all started from a lot of different things, but it's not about that in this hearing. His shed is one foot off my property line. all the issues I've had, you've only been told one and it's been minimized. If he comes to me or sends me a letter asking to come onto the property to maintain his shed, I will have no problem with it. But when he drives an ATV through my yard to get to the other side, that's a problem. And that's all I'm asking is him to stay off the property

unless he requests approval. If he requests approval to m maintain his shed, I have no problem with it. I'm not that person that is trying to be portrayed here. But I understand where it's at. I get it. I don't have a problem with it. Next month, I will be in front of you asking for a variance for my shed, which is six feet something off the property line. I will support leaving it where it is contingent on he requests to come on my property instead of just coming on the property.

Thank you. You're welcome.

I just want to comment this is similar to what I was saying earlier. You really have two distinct issues here. the question of the setback reduction uh about the location of the shed in relation to the property line that is all contained on the applicant's property. Um any issue regarding trespassing across the property line that is a private matter between the property owners that really is not part of your consideration. Now, it does create a, as you've already discussed, being that close to the property line creates a practical difficulty to maintain the shed without crossing the property line. But that's the property owner's problem to address, not necessarily your consideration.

Any other comments? Uh, I would like to just put one comment out there. Uh William, you stated earlier about uh a record of a sense for variances and during this case you didn't know that there was a prior variance asked back in 2004 there was a nine. So there is always a permanent recorded about and this is being live streamed as well.

Yeah. Thank you. And and just to clarify that point, um that record is maintained by the city of Plymouth through the clerk's office. It does not become part of the property record through the county recorder's office. So, a future purchaser who might be doing a title search would not necessarily discover that variance request. Um you'd have to come to the city to request those records, but they do exist and they are maintained. Could be found. Yes, absolutely. I um motion we close the public hearings. Second. Motion name seconded. All in favor?

I this time I' like to entertain a motion either for or against. The Emmens is property. I move that we approve the variance request. I see with Mrs. Quistle wanted to say it right. Quistle that can't be part of the motion, but I appreciate what you're saying. So, if you do it outside of the motion, wonderful. But I make a motion that we approve the variance request. I second that. Motion made and seconded. Can we have a roll call vote? Garner, yes. Gibney, yes. Richie, yes. Wendell,

yes. Sequ Mr. We are five more to go. Julie's in attendance this evening. Who's next? Who looks? They are here.

All right. Uh we have 11898 Ridge View Drive, Plymouth, Indiana, 46563. variance development standard to reduce the sideyard setback from 10t to 0 ft uh at the property located at 11898 Ridge View Drive, Plymouth, Indiana 46563 identified as partial 5032 95 triple 03540018 zoned R2 suburban residential percase 2026-15. So for the request, the applicant is seeking to reduce their sideyard setback from 10 foot to zero feet. Here's the subject property highlighted in light blue. Again, property lines and the beacon property lines don't always line up. Sometimes they work out well, sometimes they do not. Um, they provided a location of their septic system, uh, being on the east side of the property and several, uh, sprinkler locations as well. Then an additional uh image of the property uh pictures from the front of the property. And then we went back to the subject property itself. Um the property would be from this point to the left. The chain link fence would be the neighbor uh to the west. West got to face south and opposite directions.

So go back to that picture. This one. So that so if he's at zero right now, right? Then that means that property owner did the property owner who owns the fence who does he own the fence or the neighbor own the fence? The neighbor would be the one. Okay. So the neighbor did not put his fence on the property line. They do not have to. They don't have Yeah, they don't have to. Okay. I have historically recommended that individuals do not put fences on property lines to be able to adequately maintain the fence on both sides. Okay. Now, whether or not they agree with that thought pro process, different advice,

um, and so that's kind of where different thought processes will vary. Um, and so here's the, uh, subject location. Um and when we discuss variances with applicants, we always recommend to reduce to a lower distance than what it may be because as an example, so say he he applied for zero feet in this circumstance and he's actually at 2 feet, he's going to be in an okay position. But if he applied for three and turns out to only be at two, he'd have to come back around and do this all over again with the new information. So, we usually uh try to encourage requesting a greater variance to reduce it to a smaller number than to what it is just in case you have a little bit of leeway there.

So, was your recommendation for zero here? I've had a lot of conversations about few weeks. Okay. Okay. But in general, that's been a rule of thumb that I've worked with. Okay. Uh the district uh yep

development standards for the analysis. The applicant is seeking to reduce sideard setback from today's standard of 10t to two foot to allow for the shed to stay in its current location at 11898 Ridgeview Drive. The situation began from concern of sheds being too close to property lines, which led to violation of uh letters uh being distributed. In response, administrative appeals were filed and later replaced with the subject variance of development standard. Setbacks have been long required uh dating back to before the subdivision was platted and structures were built. Development standards have adjusted since that time uh to what they are today. There have been cases previously uh some successful, others not on being able to reduce the setbacks. Under the current standards, there are no differences between primary and accessory structures um primary accessory structure setbacks and it exists in other communities where accessory structures uh do have smaller setbacks. Although the shed was constructed back in 2000 based on property record card, so 26 years ago roughly, there is no variance on record for the setback to be reduced. In a perfect world, this would have been discussed and decided at that time, but a violation may exist for a short or extended period. Uh, this request is in part of a pursuit to rectify a long-standing issue. SubX are set in part uh to properly define properties, protect assets, and allow for maintenance around and said structures. Now, before I move on, you'll notice that in here I put 10 foot 2 ft. When there may be a conflict in the information provided, it is better to go with the smaller of the numbers rather than the larger just in case a scrier's error on behalf of applications and those sorts of information whether it be the application to the site plan or whatever it may be. Having that clarity and being protective of making sure that the case is still able to be heard. um that's where the advertisement uh was

the lesser number. Additional information was able to kind of bring us back to that twoft number. So just to clarify uh for the board. So the decision criteria on this case includes the general welfare adjacent property and practical difficulty. For criteria number one, the approval of the reduction of this accessory structure should not be interest to the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Uh for criteria number two, the use and value of adjacent properties should not be substantially impacted by this proposal. For criteria number three, the words would not have originally permitted the proposal, but the percentage of reduction should not pose significant impact was done by a previous property owner. And so for recommendation based on the information provided and review independently of any other accessory structure, staff would recommend denial proposed reduction to zero feet which would have allowed the homeowner to keep the shed at the requested location because it does not maintain a safe distance from the adjacent property nor the ability to maintain structure from their own property. Um so for board determination staff recommendation of denial um based on recent case work u within the city of Plymouth under the BCA um they've had made uh approvals in certain instances to allow for sheds to be less than especially when they've been in those locations for a significant period of time but each case stands on its own and should be reviewed as such. Uh any questions for staff?

No. Hearing none. Seeing none. Uh do you have anything you'd like to add? Yes.

He said he doesn't want to add anything. He said yes. Yes. I want two for him. You want two for him? Yes. In the public hearing. Is he going to speak on behalf of Okay. So no additional information from the applicant but um I believe on good word that there's a individual in the audience who would like to speak on his behalf likely in support. Okay. In the public hearing. Yes. All right. Did you put the picture where the fence in the shed is? Yes. First we got a vote open. Yeah. Go. Should we open the public hearing? Sorry. Second. All right. Motion motion made second. All in favor say I. I. Public hearing on the Julie property is open.

Okay. I'm Bill Sten. I just I'm his neighbor. Um the distance between the shed and the fence, Mr. Hulie and the property owner before him has always maintained that strip of grass. the county put the county put that fence up because the previous I don't know five years whatever previous owner was a dog handler for the police department and he kept his dog there okay makes sense that's good

for at least no less five years the owners have maintained that property or that not property but that strip of land So it's not close to any houses. There's no danger fires or anything else. Okay. So I'm just recommending. All right. Thank you. Does anybody like to anyone else like to speak? With no one else coming forward like to entertain a motion. I mean, I can see you're rocking forward.

I move that we close public hearing. A second. Motion made in second. Uh, all in favor say I. I like to entertain a motion for or against this. I motion that we approve uh Marings. Second motion main second. Roll call vote, please. Yes. In the spreadsheet. Yes. Swendle, yes. Seore, yes.

Motion passed, Mr. Hulie. Next up are the quizzles. BGA 2026-16. All right. BCA 2026- What number are we going? 16. Yep. 16.

Thank you. The bar is in the way. Couldn't see it. Uh 11905 Sunset Court, Plymouth, Indiana 46563. Variance of development standard to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to two feet and sideyard setback to from 10 foot to 5 foot at property located 11905 Sunset Court Plymouth Indiana 46563 identified as partial 50329500420018 zoned R2 suburban residential district. Uh for the request, the applicant is seeking to reduce their rear yard setback from 20T to 2 feet and their side yard set back from 10 feet to 5T. Here's a subject property highlighted in light blue and the shed in question is on the lower left hand corner. As you see, this is a part of a culde-sac uh property. So is trapezoidial in nature with a little bit of curve at the front. Um, here's the subject. Um, site plan that was provided. Apologies for its faintness. I did the best in post to darken the lines as much as I possibly could. Not a whiz at that, but um, as you can see, the property itself is inverted in relationship to the satellite image we looked at earlier. The shed located in the upper right hand corner. septic system is located on the opposite side of the property, but there is a series of sprinklers uh scattered throughout the property as well. Um but what was able to be better shown on the during the site visit um was the grade change uh for the property. Here's the subject location of the shed. looking at the side and the rear of it. Um there is a grade change with a pool. Um that's just off screen

kind of to our right in this instance and to the left within this picture. Uh whoever took those pictures uh probably should have took more of the backyard. I don't know why he would have done that. Um, but uh it's probably two or three bricks tall in terms of a paper retaining wall. Um, I'm sure the applicant could fill in on any additional details in relationship to that. Um, this joint property line here is probably one of the biggest clusters of property lines and things where it is not very obvious nor apparent where the property line is located

because um you have a dog kennel in one location, a fence on the other, and what appears to potentially be the property line being between the kennel and the existing shed in question. uh and why a fence is located that far into the property. It doesn't obviously look like the subl location. It very odd how that's all done, but it is what it is. Um but it wasn't most clear like many of our other cases have been. Um, as we've uh have discussed before, here's the subject uh development standards for the uh zoning district. For the analysis, the applicant seeking to reduce rear yard setback from 20T to 2 foot and sideyard setback from today's standard of 10T to 5 foot to allow uh for the shed to stand in its current location at 11905 Sunset Court. The situation began when concerns of sheds being too close to the property line which led to violation letters being distributed in response administrative field were filed and later replaced with the subject variance development standard. Setbacks have been long required dating back before the subdivision was platted and structures were built. Development standards have adjusted since that time and uh to what they are today. There have been cases in uh previously uh some successful others not on being able to reduce those setbacks. Uh under the current standards, there are no difference between primary and accessory structure setbacks and exists in other communities where accessory structures have smaller setbacks. Although the shed was constructed back in 2006 based on the property record card, so about 20 years ago, uh there's no variance on record for the setback to be reduced. In a perfect world, this would have been uh discussed and decided at that time, but a violation may exist for a short for extended period of time. Uh this request is a part of a pursuit to rectify a long-standing issue. uh setbacks are set pro in part uh to properly uh define properties check assets and allow for

maintenance and around of set structures. Uh for decision criteria uh they include general welfare adjacent property and practical difficulty. Uh for criteria number one, the approval of the reduction of this accessory structure uh should not be interest to the public health safety and general welfare of the community. For criteria number two, the use and value of adjacent property should not be substantially impacted by this proposal. And then finally, criteria number three, the ordinance would not have originally permitted this proposal, but the percentage of reduction should not pose significant impact. So for recommendation based on the information provided and review uh independent of any other accessory structure, staff would recommend Nile and would have uh allowed recommended denial of the proposed structure to the two foot to the rear uh which would have allowed the homeowner to keep the shed in the requested location. um uh because it does not maintain safe distance from the adjacent property nor the ability to maintain the structure from their own property. Uh though staff thought uh it would be supportive to reduce uh to 5 foot on the sideyard setback. Um so there's a bit of a split in relationship to this being a different situation, different location than uh previous uh requests have been for the neighborhood. So for board determination staff recommendation of approval and denial for rear and sideyard respectively. Any questions for staff?

The pool looks awfully close to the property line. It's close. Um the measurement of the pool um is behind a large wooden fence. So I couldn't do a good measurement or anything along those lines. So we didn't investigate uh jump into any of that. But uh they should have pulled a building permit at that time many moons ago whenever it may have went in. We didn't research to figure out when it went in. Um but tonight we're just getting in with the shed. I'm not looking to add more. Just kidding. I didn't bring it up.

Any other questions for staff? No. Okay. I believe the applicant is here. Oh, I'll speak. I'll free to take the floor. Uh, I'm James Quizzle. I live at 11905 Sunset Court. When I built the shed, the dog kennel behind the property line is right up against that. Is Is the dog the kennel yours? No. Oh, okay. No, it's a neighbor behind it. uh fences that run across the back of my property line are actually on our side of the property line. Okay? But they're the neighbors fences. They're not our fences.

Okay? So, I built it there. Septics on in this picture would be on the right hand side. Because of the grade fall, we couldn't put it on the opposite side, of course. Um but I built the shed to shed onto my property. I turned it so that pitch sheds the water sheds onto my property so that I wasn't putting water on other people's property. Um, and we also put it there because of the dog kennel to hide that dog kennel from us seeing it cuz we had two young girls when we built the house. Dog was in the kennel, it would be barking.

So, we put it up and the pool did go in at the same time the house went in. So, the pool is as old as the house and it was built in 2005. Um, so when we did put this shed in at in 2006, we really had no other location to do it. And just got that right in there. Push the shed where it calls for 20 foot off, 10 foot off. It'd be right in the middle of the yard on that side. So, okay. Thank you. Thank you. A motion we open the public hearing. Second motion made and second. All in favor I

public hearing is open. Is there anybody like to speak for or against this quizzle property? No one moving too quickly. I motion we close the public hearing. Motion made second. All in favor? I. I'll entertain a motion for or against this proposal. I motion that in favor of the proposal both the rear and the side. Rear and side. Second. Second. Motion made in second for a roll call vote. Garner. Yes. Gley, yes. Richie, yes. Wendle, yes. Cort, yes.

That passed. We're down to three. Helenas, are they here? They're not. Okay. Come on up, Randy. Well, you might as well start heading up this way. Uh, we'll keep it

921 Ridge View Drive, Plymouth, Indiana, 46563. variance of development standard to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 foot to six foot and sideyard setback from 10 foot to six foot at the property located at 11921 Ridge View Drive, Plymouth, Indiana 46563 identified as partial 50329500 371 044018 as zoned R2 suburban residential district. Uh for the request, applicants seeking to reduce their rear yard setback from 20T to 6T and sideyard setback from 10T to 6T. Here's the subject property. We have jumped the property line uh from crystals to the north to the subject property to the south. Here is the uh drawing as provided. Uh forgive the black bar of truth. There is a shed in the upper right hand corner of the property. The red lines represent the septic system fingers and the um blue dots represent sprinkler heads. Um I would imagine at some point in time the property purchased the adjacent property replatted it together and that's why a lot of the development doesn't exist on uh the adjacent but that is speculation on my part but um it's the size of two lots. Yeah,

I I feel pretty confident about that part, but I have no idea when it was purchased or anything along those lines.

Um, so it could have very well existed for uh some time. Either way, getting into some of the pictures of the property, uh, we jump back and we can see the accessory structure back there. Uh, semi hidden by some very large lighting that surround it. Um it's about a third of the way through from the left to the right of this main arbivite uh going up towards the uh property line approximately in relationship to the fence. Uh how close it may or may not be I do not know the answer. Um but you can see here the approximate distance in relationship to the fence. And then we spin around and come to the opposite side um where the shed comes up to the adjoining rear portion of the property line within that area. I imagine the representative may be able to speak a little bit to whether or not it's their fence that's in white. Um and she's able to come up and uh add some additional context. Um here's looking down the property lines. be subject uh zoning district uh district standards uh for the analysis. Applicant seeking to reduce the rear yard setback from today's standards from 20T to 6T uh for the rear and the sideyard setback from 10T to 6T to allow for the shed to stay in it current location at 11921 R drive. The situation began from concern of sheds being too close to property lines which led to violation letters distributed. In response, administrative appeals were filed and later replaced with the subject variance of development standard. Subexs have been long required dating back to uh before the subdivision was platted and structure was built. Um development standards have adjusted since that time and to where they are today. There have been previous cases, some successful, others not uh on being able to reduce the setbacks. Under the current standards, there's no difference between primary and accessory structure

setbacks and exists in other communities where accessory structures have smaller setbacks. Although the shed was constructed uh pre203 based on Google Earth as for whatever reason, I couldn't access the uh property record card. Uh there's no variance on record to uh for the setback to be reduced. Uh in a perfect world, this would have been discussed and decided at that time, but a violation may exist for a shorter extended period. Uh the request is uh part of a pursuit to rectify long-standing issues. Uh setbacks are set in part to properly define properties, protect assets and allow for maintenance around and of set structures. So the decision criteria includes general welfare adjacent property and practical difficulty. Um for criteria number one, the approval of a reduction for this accessory structure should not be interest to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Uh for criteria number two, the use and value of adjacent property should not be substantially impacted by this proposal. And for criteria number three, the ordinance would not originally permitted the proposal, but the percentage of reduction would not pose significant impact. Based on the information provided in review independently of any other accessory structure, staff would recommend approval of proposed reduction in both rear and sideyard setback, allowing the homeowner to keep the shed at the requested location because it maintains a safe distance from the adjacent property along with the ability to still maintain the structure. Is that for board determination of staff recommendation of approval? Any questions for staff?

Nope. We have an applicant representative that may be willing to fill in any additional details that she sees fit. Um if not, that's okay. I don't have a lot obviously. We're all just here for the approval and I knew they couldn't be here. So, I wanted to make sure someone could stand in their place and I'm next or two on your list. So, um, just here for to support them in that. So, okay. Representing, what's your Could you give your name and address? Brandy Sullivan, 111 1928 Richview Drive. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the representative or the applicant? Not this.

Public hearings. Second. A motion made. All in favor say I. I. Public hearing for the Hillas is open up. There's anyone like to speak for or against or abstain. You got to be getting your steps in today. Whistle 11905 Suns at Court Plymouth, Indiana. And we are directly behind them. We have had no issues with their fence, their maintaining of it, their shed, nothing. We would like you to approve them to not have to move their shed. Thank you. Anyone else like to come up?

Um, in these sheds, any any of these sheds, the main concern is a detriment to the neighbor more than the property line itself. Is that true or not necessarily? No. the the criteria is listed up there, you know, the tier criteria on the line 10 foot for whatever.

Yeah. Just so since we're getting variances for a majority of these, this is on the line or close to the line if it's not a detriment to a neighbor or neighbor property. What do I want to say? Um it I think it should be given a variance compared to No, we haven't said no yet. Yeah. Well, I I understand. I'm just saying I would like it to be approved. Okay.

All right. Thank you. Anyone else like to come out and speak? Second. Motion made. Second to close public hearing. All in favor say I. I. I make a motion that we approve this variance. Motion's been made. Second. Second to approve it. We have a roll call vote. Garner. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Se. Yes. This one has been approved.

I have a question for Ty before we go. One more here. If any of these buildings sit across a utility easement, if the utility wants to install new service and these buildings are sitting on a utility easement, do they have to be moved? We do not take utility easements into consideration. um it would be in the best interest that sheds or any structure not be with any utility easement. Um, I cannot speak towards uh utility law and legislation that protects their ability to use their space and whether or not how if you want to add a little bit to that one in regards to law.

Yeah. So, um it it obviously is going to depend on the language in the easement, but typically um anything that is constructed over or on top of or within a utility easement is constructed at your own risk. Okay? Because the easement guarantees the holder the right to access those utilities typically underground. So if for example there were a underground utility underneath one of these sheds and the utility company needed to access it, they would uh either require the property owner to remove the shed or they would probably remove it at uh cost to the property owner. Okay.

So they're not going to come back and point fingers at the city or this board for granting it.

No, they're their easement is going to take precedence priority. Yeah. Definitely don't build and fill any easements. Just a recommendation. Sullivan's upstate Richview Drive, Plymouth, Indiana 46563 development standard to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 ft to 15 ft and a sideyard setback from 10t to 8t at property located at 11928 Ridge View Drive, Plymouth, Indiana 46563. identified as partial 50329500 3570018 uh zoned R2 suburban residential district. So for the request, the applicant seeking to reduce their rear yard setback from 20 ft to 15 ft and sideyard setback from 10t to 8t. Here's a subject property uh until I went out there. I struggled to figure out where it is because it blends up with the trees in the southeast corner. Um so okay yeah learned that one when I went out there um went out took pictures of the property and then we were able to identify the shed which was significantly easier to find in person than through aerial photography cuz brown matches brown. Here's the uh location of the shed on the side and then on the rear as well. Um it's not showing very well in picture, but there is a uh farm fence that is on the right hand side of this picture.

Now whether or not the farm fence is go backward approximately where the property line is is a whole another thing. That's the one they're trying to get down to 8 ft. Um yes. Yeah. Again, not all things are constructed where property lines may or may not be.

Well, that's what we're here to identify. Here are the development standards for the subject district. For the analysis, I look at seeking to reduce the rear yard setback from today's date standard of 20T 15 split and the sideyard setback from 10 foot to 8 foot to allow for the shed to stay in it current location at 11 1928 Richview Drive. The situation began with concerns of sheds being too close to property lines uh which led to the violation letters being distributed in response appeals were filed and later rejected or replaced with the subject variance development standard. Subex have been long required dating back to before uh the subdivision was platted and structures were built. Uh development standards have adjusted since that time to what they are today. There have been cases previously some successful and others not on being able to reduce setbacks. Under the current standards, there are no difference between primary and accessory structure setbacks. in existing uh in other communities where accessory structures uh may have smaller setbacks. Although the shed was constructed in 2004 based on property record card, uh there's no uh variance on record uh for the setback to be reduced. In a perfect world, this would have been addressed and discussed uh at that time, but a violation may exist for a short or extended period of time. The request is a part of a pursuit to rectify a long-standing issue. Setbacks are set in part to properly uh define properties, protect assets, and allow for maintenance and around of said structures. For the discretion criteria for this evening, you have general welfare adjacent property and practical difficulty for the case. For criteria number one, the approval of the reduction for this accessory structure should not be interest to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Uh the use and value of adjacent property should not be substantially impacted by this proposal. And for criteria number three, the ordinance would not have originally permitted the proposal, but this percentage of reduction would not pose significant impact and was accomplished by a previous property owner. So for recommendation based on the information

provided and review independently of any other accessory structure, staff would recommend approval of proposed reduction in both rear and sideyard setback allowing the homeowner to keep the shed as requested at the location because it maintains a safe distance from the invasive property along with the ability to still maintain the structure. Now is up for board determination with staff's recommendation of approval. Questions for staff? Any others? Any questions? Thank you, Ty. Thank you. applicant like to add anything? I have nothing further. I motioned second. Motion made seconded. All in favor?

I like to open the public hearing for the Sullivan property. Is there anyone in the audience like to speak for or against? None coming forward. Thank you. Close that. We close the public hearing to say it. Motion made and second. All in favor? I like to entertain a motion to for or against. I motion that we approve the variance. Second. Motion made in second. Call for a roll call vote. Yes. Yes. Richie, yes. Wendell, yes. Core, yes. And then there was one are the bumpers I see here.

I'm here. Okay. Front row ready to go.

All right. So we have 11 uh BZA 2026-22 uh 11902 Sunset Court Indiana 46563 a variance of development standard to reduce the rear yard setback from 20T to 4T and sideyard setback from 10T to 8T at the property located at 11902 Sunset Court PM Indiana 46563 identified as partial 50329500 3990018 zoned R2 suburban residential district. So, for the request, applicant is seeking to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 foot to 4 foot and the sideyard setback from 10 foot to 8 foot. Here's the subject property. This is probably the most wooded property in the entire subdivision.

How they squeezed everything in there is beyond me. um with septic accessory structures and what have you cuz as you can see uh they provided the uh site plan uh from the original construction um in the upper leftand corner is going to be where the shed is located. So the subject takes up a lot of that space and then they were able to identify all the trees in green and then all the sprinkler heads in red. So, it pretty well covers up everything else. And you can tell just how shaded the property is when we went out and took pictures of the property with all of the uh pretty mature trees. Uh here is the sideyard setback. And then we traveled back towards the rear. Uh the fence doesn't necessarily denote the rear. um they may be able to fill you in a little bit more in relationship to whose evergreen trees they are or are providing both great um here's the district standards for the development standards uh for the analysis the applicant seeking to reduce the rear yard setback from today's standard of 20T to 4T and the sideyard setback from 10T to 8T to allow for the shed standing its current location at 11902 Ridge Drive. The situation began with from concern of sheds being too close to property lines which led to violation letters being distributed. In response, administrative appeals were filed and later replaced with the subject bearing development standard. Subjects have been long required dating back to before the subdivision was platted and structures were built. Development standards have adjusted since that time to what they are today. There have been cases previously uh some successful others not on being able to reduce the setbacks. Under the current standards, there are no differences between primary and accessory structure setbacks and existing in other communities where accessory structures have smaller setbacks. Although the shed was constructed in 2006 based on the property record card, there's no

variance on record for the setback to be reduced. In a perfect world, this would have been discussed and decided at that time, but a violation may exist for a short or extended period. The request is a part of a pursuit to rectify a long-standing issue. uh subex are set in part to properly define properties, protect assets and allow for maintenance around and of said structures. So the decision criteria for this case includes the general welfare adjacent property and practical difficulty. So for criteria number one, the approval of the reduction of this accessory structure uh should not be interest to the public health safety and general welfare of the community. For criteria number two, the use and value of adjacent property should not be substantially impacted by this proposal. And finally for criteria number three, the ordinance would not have originally permitted the proposal but the percentage of reduction would not uh pose significant impact and the structure was accomplished by a previous owner. So for recommendation uh provided and reviewed independently of any other structure, staff would recommend approval of the proposed production in both rear inside yard setback allowing the homeowner to keep the shed at the requested location because it maintains safe distance from the adjacent property along with the ability to still maintain the structure. Staff would have preferred the setback to have not been reduced to less than 5 foot on the rear of the property. So it's up for board determination with staff's recommendation of approval. Any questions for staff? that is also in attendance and could clarify anything you may wish.

Uh yes, hi. Sorry, Luke Bumpus. Uh 11902 Sunset Court. Um just to clarify on the tree line and the fence, uh the fence is like inset in the backyard on the backside because I'm not sure who put the trees there. Uh it might have been the previous owner. Um, but we moved the fence inward a little bit to avoid the tree line there. Uh, because I believe those trees are on that empty lot. So, I think technically I when I talked to Ty, I said 4 foot. I was at work when he called me and asked me how how how much to put it for, but I believe it's closer to five or a little bit more.

Okay. Thank you. We change. Move we open the public hearing. Second motion remain seconded. All in favor? I I public hearing for the bumpus property is open and I'd like to speak for or against having no one coming forward. Motion to close the public hearing. Second. All in favor? I I I'd like to entertain a motion for or against this. I motion. Come on. I motion we grant the variance. Second. Motion made in a second. Can a roll call vote, please? Garner, yes. Yes. Richie,

yes. Wendle, yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Dennis, you have anything? You still with us? Thanks for hanging in there. I know it's been a long night. There's no other uh business for this evening. Uh there are several cases uh that'll be coming forward in June as well. Um I would say we had another four or five that were uh on the verge of being prepared for the meeting this huh more of these. Yes. Okay.

Uh but they elected to um move forward on the June meeting rather than the May meeting. And so we'll have several more to go. You don't have to come if you're not on the agenda. I know. I know. It's thrilling. Wait, are you done? That That's everything I have this evening. So, anticipation of next meeting in June. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you for reading those from that distance. Yeah, every one of them. You're welcome. We adjourn. Second. Motion made in second. All in favor? I