Board of Zoning Appeals

Browns.uurg TOWNOF~. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Minutes Brownsburg Town Hall 61 North Green Street Brownsburg, Indiana 46112 Monday, April 12, 2021 The Brownsburg Board of Zoning Appeals convened at 7:00 PM with a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance. Michael Neal opened the meeting, and a roll call was taken. Members Present: Maria Andrews, Stacey Risk, Richard Miller, Mike Neal and Chris Worley Members Absent: None Also Present: Jodi Dickey, AICP- Director of Development Services, Jenna Wertman, AICP- Senior Planner, Lauren Gillingham, AICP candidate- Planner, Heather Wetzel- Administrative Assistant A. CALL TO ORDER AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM B. MOMENT OF SILENCE & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. CONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) MINUTES 1. February 8, 2021- Regular Meeting Motion: Chris Worley made a motion to APPROVE the February 8, 2021 regular meeting minutes as amended for an error under Election of Officers, seconded by Richard Miller, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. D. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT 1. None E. HEARING OF REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES 1. *BZDV-11-20-1861 Redwood At Brownsburg Maximum Primary Structures A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 2, Sec. 2.18 to exceed the maximum primary structures permitted within the Medium Density Multiple-family Residential (M2) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-02-120-012.000-026 Represented by: Russell Brown, Clark Quinn Moses Scott & Grahn LLP ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 2. *BZDV-11-20-1862 Redwood At Brownsburg Front Yard Setback A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.63(()(1) "Setback Standards," to encroach upon the front yard setback required within the Medium Density Multiple- family Residential (M2) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-02-120-012.000-026 Represented by: Russell Brown, Clark Quinn Moses Scott & Grahn LLP ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 1 of 10  3. *BZDV-11-20-1863 Redwood At Brownsburg Architectural Standards A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.17(A) "Architectural Standards," to reduce the minimum percentage of brick, stone or other decorative masonry required within the Medium Density Multiple-family Residential (M2) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-02-120-012.000-026 Represented by: Russell Brown, Clark Quinn Moses Scott & Grahn LLP ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING Mike Neal said the developer requested to postpone the cases indefinitely since the Plan Commission had requested a water study and traffic study. The cases would require a new public notice once they were ready to proceed. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AND CLOSED FOR BZDV-11-20-1861, BZDV- 11-20-1862 AND BZDV-11-20-1863 F. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. None G. OLD BUSINESS 1. None H. NEW BUSINESS 1. BZDV-03-21-1890 365 Fountain Drive Lot Coverage A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.21(A)(3) "Lot Standards," to increase the maximum lot coverage permitted within the Low Density Single-Family Residential (Rl) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-03-376-002.000-016 Represented by: Daniel L. Stapp, Homeowner ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING Lauren Gillingham told the Board that they were redoing the meeting process to have Staff present first and then the Applicant would follow. Staff would frame the type of request so that the Board members knew what type of request it was and what things they needed to consider; this was being done for both the Plan Commission and BZA. Mike Neal asked if the Rules of Procedure needed to be changed and or suspended as it stated the Applicant went first. Staff had no issue with that motion. *Motion: Mike Neal made a motion to SUSPEND the Rules of Procedure, seconded by Stacey Risk, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. Ms. Gillingham reviewed the case for the Board stating 365 Fountain Drive was located in the Arbors of Northridge and was zoned Low Density Single-family Residential (Rl). The Applicant requested a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5 § 5.21(A)(2) Density and Intensity Standards, Maximum Lot Coverage to increase the permitted maximum lot coverage from 25% to 28% to permit an in-ground pool. The Applicant wanted to build an in-ground pool however, his lot was too small in order to keep under the 25% maximum lot coverage. The lot coverage before the pool was around 21 % but with the addition of the pool it would put them at 27.2% so rounded up he was requesting 28% lot coverage. Pursuant to Art. 9, Sec. 9.12(E)(l)(a) of the Brownsburg Unified Development Ordinance and statutory regulations of Ind. Code 36-7-4-918.5, The Board of Zoning Appeals shall make findings of fact on the following criteria; The approval of the Development Standards Variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community: Staff did not 2 of 10  believe that it would be injurious as the pool would be not be in the right-of-way, was outside of the drainage easements and would have the required safety cover. The use and value of the area adjacent to the subject property of the Development Standards Variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner: Staff also believed that was true. He was not proposing any additional outbuildings. Northridge did not have a community pool. Most lots were large enough to accommodate a pool without going over 25% lot coverage. Backyard pools had become an established part of the neighborhood's development pattern and would not have any effect on the surrounding area. The strict application of the terms of the ordinance will result in practical difficulties: The strict application of the UDO would result in the Applicant being denied the privilege of owning a pool. Making the pool smaller was not an option because both the Indiana State Building Code and International Swimming Pool and Spa Code had minimum health and safety regulations, which become very difficult to meet if the pool was under a certain a size. Ms. Gillingham showed the site plan and where the Applicant was requesting to place the pool. She added that the drainage was far back in the lot and far away from any drainage easements. Upon reviewing all of the materials provided by the Applicant, a review of the site, and the applicable Town regulations, Staff recommended approval of the Development Standards Variance, subject to and conditioned upon the following: 1) The Development Standards Variance be valid for the subject property and that the new Maximum Lot Coverage shall be 28%. 2) The variance approval shall expire on April 12, 2023, two years from the date of approval if building permits have not been issued for the construction of the project. 3) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. John Smith came up on behalf of his brother-in-law Daniel Stapp who was out of town. Stacey Risk did not have any questions or concerns. Chris Worley said it would be a nice addition with the included landscaping. He asked if there were any complaints or issues from neighbors and learned there were not. Richard Miller asked if there were any stormwater issues in that section of Northridge. Ms. Gillingham said not that she was aware of. The homeowner had a rather large drainage easement and showed the Board where that was located as well as an in the back corner. She said the area was modern enough that it should have well sized drainage facilities for the neighborhood. Maria Andrews and Mr. Neal did not have any comments. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Motion: Maria Andrews made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-03-21-1890, seconded by Richard Miller, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 2. **BZDV-03-21-1891 Bailey Park II Parking Setback A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.56(B) "Parking Standards: Setbacks," to encroach upon the minimum parking setbacks required within the Medium Density Multiple-family Residential (M2) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-02-465-001.000-016 & 32-07-02-400-018.000-016 Represented by: Gordan D. Kritz, Stoeppelwerth & Associates, Inc. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 3 of 10 3. **BZDV-03-21-1895 Bailey Park II Driveway Definition A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 11, Sec. 11.02 "Defined Words: Driveway," to edit the definition of "driveway" to permit a driveway to convey access to no more than eight dwelling units in a multi-family residential building within the Medium Density Multiple- family Residential (M2) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-02-465-001.000-016 & 32-07-02-400-018.000-016 Represented by: Gordan D. Kritz, Stoeppelwerth & Associates, Inc. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING **Ms. Gillingham said the variances were both for Bailey Park section two which was directly adjacent to Bailey Park one. As the Applicant was headed towards the primary plat, Staff discovered some issues and they were now trying to fix those issues so they could move forward with their project. The property was zoned Medium Density Multi-family Residential (M2). The first issue found had to do with the parking setback. The Applicant was requesting a development standards variance from the setback standards for the M2 minimum side yard setback requirements. They would like to reduce the accessory side yard setback from 10' to O' in order to allow for required parking island across a walkway. Ms. Gillingham said this resulted from how Brownsburg did multifamily zoning and the multifamily maximum primary structures. She showed a site plan and said the Applicant was proposing six buildings. This being an infill site, the only way to make the site circulation work while meeting the UDO requirements for parking and drive aisle width was for the "tum-around" island to fall directly on the lot line dividing the two lots, necessitating the O' side yard setback. Pursuant to the UDO and Indiana code, the BZA shall make findings of fact on the following criteria; The approval of the Development Standards Variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community: Staff believed that was true as the drive island was required in the first place to stop people from having to back up into oncoming traffic in order to turn around. It would also help fire trucks and ambulances as well. The use and value of the area adjacent to the subject property of the Development Standards Variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner: Staff also believed that was true. Splitting driveways and parking areas between lot lines was relatively common for developments that would stay under single ownership, such as apartment complexes. The strict application of the terms of the ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property: Staff believed that was true. The total area was smaller than Bailey Park I and was confined to a single entrance, necessitating some way to turn around. Without a variance, there was no way to satisfy the development standards without removing a building, making the project financially unfeasible while also wasting land that could be instead become senior-targeted apartments. Upon reviewing all of the materials provided by the Applicant, a review of the site, and the applicable Town regulations, Staff recommended approval of the Development Standards Variance, subject to and conditioned upon the following: 1) The Development Standards Variance be valid for the subject property and that the new Accessory Structure Side Yard Setback shall be O'. It should apply only to lot lines shared by the two lots, not externally. 2) The variance approval shall expire on April 12, 2023, two years from the date of approval if no Development Plan has been approved. 3) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Ms. Gillingham then reviewed the second variance requesting a development standards variance from Art. 11, §11.02 Defined Words- "driveway" requirements of the Town of Brownsburg Zoning 4 of 10 Ordinance to permit a driveway to convey access to more than five dwelling units in a multi-family residential building. The variance was required in order to call the paved area connecting their multi-family buildings a driveway and thus stay within the requirements of the Simple Subdivision type. Staff realized that there was a tlaw in the UDO subdivision standards. I he Simple Subdivision type was the only one that allowed residential development on fewer than 5 lots, however, it did not allow internal streets, only drives. According to the driveway definition, buildings with more than 5 units must be connected by streets, not drives. Meaning there was no way to easily develop this type of apartment at this scale. While waiting for the issue to be fixed, Staff felt the easiest way to get around that was to change the definition so that it was in line with a simple subdivision. Pursuant to the UDO and Indiana code, the BZA shall make findings of fact on the following criteria; The approval of variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community: Staff felt this was true, because it was largely a procedural requirement. The requirement that developments over a certain size must be serviced by roads stems from concerns about fire and ambulance access on narrow driveways, however, the internal drives as proposed follow the same requirements as private streets. The use and value of the area adjacent to the subject property of the Development Standards Variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner: There will be no effect on the use and value of the area adjacent since this was largely procedural. The strict application of the terms of the ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property: Without this variance, the applicant will need to apply for a design waver, requiring the public notice documents to be updated and resent and for Staff to again continue the case. Upon reviewing all of the materials provided by the Applicant, a review of the site, and the applicable Town regulations, Staff recommended approval of the Development Standards Variance, subject to and conditioned upon the following: 1) The Development Standards Variance be valid for the subject property and that the UDO definition of "driveway" be amended to allow it to convey access to more than five units but no more than eight units in a single multi-family residential building. 2) The variance approval shall expire on April 12, 2023, two years from the date of approval if no Development Plan has been approved. 3) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Applicant Gordan Kritz, Stoeppelwerth & Associates, Inc., was present as well. Maria Andrews asked Staff to review the five unit scenario. Ms. Gillingham said that to avoid potential safety issues with having just driveways, the UDO states they must be either public or private street which then had design standards. Ideally the simple subdivision type would allow internal streets, which was something that needed to be changed. So to get around the shortcoming in the subdivision type, Staff would change the definition from 5 units to 8 units. Ms. Andrews said she was concerned that there was only one way in and one way out for all six buildings and each building had six to eight units. Traffic was an issue, especially for emergency vehicles coming in and out. Richard Miller had the same concern and asked if the design had property proper ingress and egress for emergency vehicles. Mr. Kritz said they used autoTURN to confirm that. Unfortunately they did not have other access points and really no place to connect. Mr. Miller said with that he did not have any concerns but thought this issue should be added to the list of UDO improvements and the building density. Chris Worley asked the Applicant if they expected traffic to be designated as one way around the traffic island. He asked if people would be backing out of the parking lot and going both ways. Mr. 5 of 10  Kritz said it was wide enough for two way traffic, they have not designated it. Once they went through the review process that would be discussed further. Mr. Worley asked him to keep that in mind. Stacey Risk asked if there would be signage or policing of the property to make sure that people were not parking on the road. Ms. Willingham said that during the development plan review process usually Fire or Streets request "no parking" signs. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FOR BZDV-03-21-1891 AND BZDV-03-21- 1895 Cindy Hohman, 15 Tyler Court- Ms. Hohman asked if a fire truck would be able to turn all the way around the island and learned they would. Ms. Andrews asked if the buildings were for regular apartments and not senior citizens. She said senior citizens tended to have less cars in the parking lot than regular folks living in the apartments. Ms. Gillingham said they were senior targeted but they were not restricted only to seniors. It would fit under the established rules and they were trying to make it fit so they were not breaking the rules and procedures of the UDO. Mr. Neal said the Board had to think about how misshapen the properties was and that it had been tough to put something there. It was certainly unique and was why it was before the BZA. Motion: Chris Worley made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-03-21-1891, seconded by Richard Miller, motion carried 4 In Favor/1 Opposed (Andrews)/0 Abstained. Motion: Mike Neal made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-03-21-1895, seconded by Stacey Risk, motion carried 4 In Favor/1 Opposed (Andrews)/0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED FOR BZDV-03-21-1891 AND BZDV-03-21- 1895 4. ***BZDV-03-21-1892 Banyan Construction Services Lot Coverage A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.48(A)(3) "Lot Standards," to increase the maximum lot coverage permitted within the Employment Center (EC) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-02-454-004.000-016 Represented by: Nathan A. White, Benchmark Consulting, Inc. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 5. ***BZDV-03-21-1893 Banyan Construction Services Arch. Standards. Roof A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.18(B)(3)(b) "Architectural Standards," to reduce the minimum eave overhang required within the Employment Center (EC) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-02-454-004.000-016 Represented by: Nathan A. White, Benchmark Consulting, Inc. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING ***Jodi Dickey reviewed these cases for the Board stating the next two requests were for development standards variances and required a public hearing. The Board could approve, approve with conditions, continue or deny the requests. For the first one, the Applicant wished to construct a new 6,000 sq. ft. office building on an existing lot, there was an existing parking lot on the site but no building as of yet. Employment Center zoning allows a maximum of 65% lot coverage. Because there was a parking lot already there, the addition of the building would make the lot 75%. Therefore the request was to increase lot coverage to 75%. Ms. Dickey noted this was an infill project, and the site constraints did make it a little bit difficult to develop the 6 of 10 site. It was smaller than what would normally be allowed in the EC district because it was platted prior to that zoning. Staff was recommending approval. She showed a picture of a site located on Patrick Place. There were three criteria for a development standards variance: The approval will not be injurious to the community, the use and value of the area adjacent will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner, and that the strict application of the terms of the ordinance will result in practical difficulties in developing a site. Because the Applicant had met the findings for all three, Staff was recommending approval. The next request was for architecture. EC zoning architectural standards require 18" eaves on the building. The owner wanted to have an 8". The business park was already existing and was pretty much developed. All of the other buildings had smaller overhangs. Ms. Dickey showed a picture of the architecture and the elevations. She also showed images from Google Earth to see the other existing buildings. She stated the new proposed building would blend in with the surroundings. She repeated the variance criteria for approval as cited above and said that the 18" overhang did not go with the architecture of the building that they wanted to build and was not in character with the surrounding site. Staff was recommending approval as all three findings had been met. Applicant Nathan White, Benchmark Consulting, stated Banyan Construction was planning to expand their business and grow their existing facility to build a new building. He said Ms. Dickey covered everything he was going to speak about and was happy to answer any questions. Stacey Risk did not have any questions. Chris Worley asked the Board if they had received the email that included the detailed statement of reasons. In that statement Mr. White had said that due to the master drainage plan, the higher lot coverage variance would not create a condition that was detrimental to the public. Mr. Worley asked whose master drainage design plan that was. Mr. White replied that it was done for the Brownsburg Business Park created by Tripod Engineering in 1995. That report assumed 90% impervious area and they would have something closer to just over 70%. The same was found for a second report. Richard Miller was glad the impervious area was accounted for. He asked Staff if there were any drainage issues in that area. Ms. Dickey was not aware of any. Mr. Miller asked about the eaves and said the examples shown looked larger than 8". Ms. Dickey said she had not measured the eaves on each one but thought an 18" eave was fairly generous and did not look like what was on those buildings. Mr. White stated he had gone out and showed an aerial with those highlighted locations that were the only ones over 18" and most had less. Mr. Miller said that if that was not an industry standard then it should be looked at as part of the architectural requirements in the UDO. Maria Andrews said since they knew the surrounding eaves, they should consider staying consistent with the rest of the surrounding area as several of them had 14" and 12". ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FOR BZDV-03-21-1892 AND BZDV-03-21- 1893 Cindy Hohman, 15 Tyler Court- Ms. Hohman agreed with Ms. Andrews and said 8" was not the norm out there either, there were at least three that were the 18" but no one was an 8". That was a lot smaller than the 12" and 14". Why go so small. 7 of 10  Nathan White did not have any last comments. Mr. Miller asked the Applicant if they would agree to a 12" ease as a compromise. Mr. White said it was not the architectural style that his client wanted to build. He could probably get him to agree to 12" but anything larger than that he would have to have him answer. Mr. Worley mentioned the housing standards and anti-monotony standards that were required so that no two house that were exactly the same were right together. He wondered if that could be applied in a business application so there was a variety of different architecture styles in businesses the same that were required in housing. Mr. Neal agreed with that and said if everything looked exactly the same, there wouldn't be any uniqueness. He acknowledged that this would be the smallest eave. Ms. Andrews felt there should be some consistency for businesses so it wasn't hodgepodge and there was a cohesive community. Mr. Miller did not have a concern with the 8" ease but did not want to set a precedent. Ms. Dickey replied that the board members did not set precedent; it was a case-by case-basis and they did not need to give each subsequent Applicant the same variance. Motion: Richard Miller made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-03-21-1892, seconded by Chris Worley, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. Motion: Stacey Risk made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-03-21-1893, seconded by Mike Neal, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED FOR BZDV-03-21-1892 AND BZDV-03-21- 1893 6. BZDV-03-21-1896 ALDI Arch, Standards, Masonry A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.17(A) "Architectural Standards," to reduce the minimum percentage of brick, stone or other decorative masonry required within the Medium Density Moderate General Commercial (Cl) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-02-479-001.000-016 Represented by: Aaron Hurt, Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING Lauren Gillingham handed out samples of Nichiha for the Board to examine, which was a fiber cement panel. She reviewed the site stating it was 4.31 acres located between 1-74 and E. Northfield Drive next to Belle Tire and across from the Post Office. They previously received development plan approval for a grocery store at the last Commission meeting. The Applicant was requesting a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.18(B)1 - Commercial Architectural Standards to permit a minimum of 46% masonry on the front and side facades of the building. The need arose from the UDO's limited definition of masonry. The UDO defines masonry as "Individual construction units which are laid in and bound together by mortar. The acceptable materials of masonry construction are brick, building stone such as natural stone, travertine, cast stone, and concrete block. EIFS, fiber cement siding and the like are not considered masonry." Ms. Gillingham said she would argue that the insistence on brick does not accommodate changing architectural trends. ALDI, like many other modern retailers, periodically change their store design to follow suit with trends and architectural styles. ALDI recently started doing a new store design which incorporated darker brick, metal accents such as their tower feature, Nichiha wood panel which was a type of fiber cement product. They then fell under the 75%/50% masonry requirements. Without the variance, ALDI would have to recreate their fac;ade just for Brownsburg and redesign the store from scratch which would cost more money, take more time and come at the expense of their established work. 8 of 10  Ms. Gillingham reviewed that they were proposing and showed where they complied (the side facing 74) and where they needed the variance for. She noted that even if they replaced the Nichiha fiber cement board and replaced il with masonry on the front fa<;ade, they still would not meet the requirement because of the metal tower feature. Staff determined that they met the criteria for approval. The approval of the Development Standards Variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The use and value of the area adjacent to the subject property of the Development Standards Variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The strict application of the terms of the ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. Upon reviewing all of the materials provided by the Applicant, a review of the site, and the applicable Town regulations we recommend the Board of Zoning Appeals approve the Development Standards Variance, subject to and conditioned upon the following: 1) That the amount of required masonry be reduced from a minimum of 75% on the front fa<;ade and 50% on the side facades to a minimum of 46% on both the front and side facades. 2) The variance approval shall expire on April 12, 2023, two years from the date of approval if building permits have not been issued for the construction of the project. 3) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Applicant, Aaron Hurt with Civil & Environmental Consultants, stated they had been through the Plan Commission and had received drainage approvals and this was the last step. John McClain with ALDI was there as well. Maria Andrews asked why the back was not included in the recommendations and Ms. Gillingham said the back was at 75% masonry and only 30% masonry was required. She said that was something they could include if she wished. Richard Miller did not have any concerns, he thought the building looked fine and met the standard architecture of new buildings. He noted Bill Estes did not really jump out at him as a masonry building. He asked what material the gray color area was and learned it was masonry. Chris Worley asked if ALDI was doing the metal tower entrance at all of their new stores. Mr. McClain stated the photos shown were from a Fishers store and a Fort Wayne store. Stacy Risk did not have any comments and said the building looked nice. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Motion: Maria Andrews made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-03-21-1896 subject to staff recommendations and adding the requirement that the back fa<;ade meet or exceed 50% brick, stone or other decorative masonry, seconded by Stacey Risk, motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED I. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1. Report From Director Of Development Services Jodi Dickey announced Development Services had hired a new Planner, Jenna Wertman. Ms. Wertman introduced herself stating she previously was the senior planner in Greenfield and was familiar with the BZA and Plan Commission. She was excited to jump into the projects going on. 9 of 10 J. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Member Resignation Mike Neal informed the Board that May would be his last meeting as he was moving away from Brownsburg at the middle of May. The Town Council was aware and they would have to replace his seat on the Board. He said he had been on the Board almost 2 V2 years and had been President for over a year and it was quite a pleasure. He had learned a lot from Staff and from all of the Board. He appreciated the opportunity to serve. 2. Rules of Procedure Change Mr. Neal addressed the change in the meeting order and asked Richard Miller his view of that change as seen on the APC. Mr. Miller said it worked fine, it was a change to get used to. Chris Worley said he thought it would have a public benefit for people attending the meeting, or other interested parties, that they could hear what the Board was looking at as far as criteria. Mr. Neal said the future President and Board could decide but he felt that the change caused the Applicant to not have to present their case. It could also set a negative tone if the Staff presentation stated the Applicant did not satisfy the criteria or if Staff did not agree with the Applicant, all before the Board heard from the Applicant. Chris Worley said neither board had yet adopted the change to the Rules of Procedure. Ms. Dickey said that was planned. Mr. Neal said if the issue came up at the May meeting he would not vote on it as he was leaving. Maria Andrews said she did not think the change was a big deal, but then she noticed that the Applicants were not saying much. It made her think a little bit more broadly and has got her thinking. She also said that she did not know about the change ahead of time and felt it would be helpful to get notification if there was going to be a proposed change. K. CITIZENS COMMENTS RELATING TO AGENDA 1. Cindy Hohman Ms. Hohman thanked Mike Neal and wished him good luck. She said she agreed with Maria Andrews and felt Staff could have discussed the possibility of changing the Rules before the meeting. L. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Maria Andrews made a motion to ADJOURN, seconded by Stacey Risk motion carried 5 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. 8: 13 P.M. ATTEST: Heather Wetzel, Administrative Assistant 10 of 10