Board of Zoning Appeals

TOWNOF~ BrownsDurg BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Minutes Brownsburg Town Hall 61 North Green Street Brownsburg, Indiana 46112 Monday, July 12, 2021 The Brownsburg Board of Zoning Appeals convened at 7:00 PM with a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance. Chris Worley opened the meeting, and a roll call was taken. Members Present: Stacy Risk, Marlon Webb and Chris Worley Members Absent: Maria Andrews and Richard Miller Also Present: Jodi Dickey, AICP- Director of Development Services, Jenna Wertman, AICP- Senior Planner, Tricia Leminger- Legal Counsel and Heather Wetzel- Administrative Assistant A. CALL TO ORDER AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Chris Worley told the Board that three members were present which was a quorum, however all three members would have to vote in favor or in denial of granting an appeal or no action would be taken. B. MOMENT OF SILENCE & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. BZA TRAINING MATERIALS REVIEW 1. Jodi Dickey welcomed new member Marlon Webb. She also reviewed the BZA Training Materials for all members. D. CONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) MINUTES 1. June 14. 2021- Regular Meeting Motion: Stacey Risk made a motion to APPROVE the June 14, 2021 regular meeting minutes, seconded by Chris Worley, motion carried 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. E. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT 1. None F. HEARING OF REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES 1. None F. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. *BZDV-05-21-1917 Northfield Drive Business Park Max. Main Floor Area A request for a Development Standards Variance from Article 5, § 5.30(A)(2) "Maximum Main Floor Area" as it relates to Article 2, § 2.38 of the Unified Development Ordinance; to exceed the maximum floor area limit within the Low Intensity Industrial (I1) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-03-300-004.000-016 1 of 12  Represented by: Brian J. Tuohy, Tuohy Bailey & Moore LLP ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING 2. *BZDV-05-21-1918 Northfield Drive Business Park Landscaping A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.40(d) "Buffer Yard Planting Standards" to allow a reduction of the minimum earthen mound height required within the Low Intensity Industrial (11) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-03-300-004.000-016 Represented by: Brian J. Tuohy, Tuohy Bailey & Moore LLP ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING *Both cases were reviewed at the same time with separate motions held for each. Jenna Wertman reviewed the requests starting with the main floor area variance. As Ms. Dickey reviewed earlier, the Board was looking at three Findings of Fact for development standards. The variance was to allow a structure with more than 150,000 square feet of main floor area in the 11 district. They recently received a rezone and a positive recommendation to 11 from the Plan Commission in June. There was an additional variance for mounding which she would review later. The need for the variance originated from the size of the building. While the 11 district allowed up to five individual buildings that could each be 150,000 square feet on a single lot, the petitioner would like to do a single building on each lot that ranged approximately from 200,000 to 250,000 square feet. She displayed the concept map showing two lots planned with one building on each lot. The North building would be about 125,000 square feet with a potential 75,000 square foot expansion. The South building would be around 230,000 square feet. The site was located at the corner of 136 and Northfield on the northeast corner. Going through the Findings of Fact and that the request would not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and general welfare, Ms. Wertman said the Applicant provided information about the proximity to other industrial uses and said their overall square footage was less than what could be built in separate buildings in the 11 district on each lot. Staff believed this finding could be ruled in the petitioners favor. The singular larger buildings maximized the open space to the east which benefited the public health, safety, morals and general welfare versus individual smaller buildings that might be spaced further apart. For the second finding, that the use and value of the area would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner, the Petitioner provided information that while the buildings were larger individually there were fewer with less overall square footage. There were larger setbacks, especially when the buffers, roads, and open space were considered. All of that preserved the use and value of the area. Staff believed that this finding could also be ruled in the petitioners favor. They did not believe that the additional square footage for individual buildings substantially affected the use and value compared to multiple smaller buildings on a lot. For the third criteria that the strict application of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties, the petitioner stated the 150,000 square foot maximum was not practical for 11 uses. Staff believed this could also be ruled in the petitioners favor because otherwise they would have to build multiple smaller buildings and potentially use open space to the east and be less marketable toward end users. Staff recommended approval of the development standards variance. Mr. Worley reminded everyone that the variance was for a development standards variance from Art. 2 Sec. 2.38 regarding maximum main floor area to allow a building larger than 150,000 square feet. No other aspect of the development was subject review. Ms. Wertman said the second request was for landscape buffers. The same Findings of Fact applied. Sec. 5.40(C) the landscape code required mounds between certain districts to be a certain height, be a certain average height, and they were to undulate. The variance was requested for the southern property border and eastern property border. The size of the required mounds would 2 of 12 eliminate required parking and significantly impact the site. The petitioner was proposing to build a mound that would undulate between 31-41 • Their variance request was to reduce the height to a minimum of 31 and a minimum average height of 31 • That average would be greater once the mound was fully designed. She reviewed the concept map shown earlier with a singular building on each site and large open spaces to the east. There was a rendering that was shown last time that showed the buffer, the mound that was proposed and how that would impact the site visibility from the street. She also showed how much space was taken up by the mound with the full required height and how it would remove a row of parking. She reviewed the parking and said there was quite a bit of parking required. Going through the Findings, Ms. Wertman said the Petitioner stated they were planning to locate the loading docks interior to the site and that was one reason why the mounds could be reduced because those were not on the outside creating a visual impact. Staff believed the finding could be ruled in the petitioners favor. There was a lot of open space to the east and the required landscaping included a lot of evergreens which provided additional buffer for this property as well. For the use and value, the Applicant stated that the thoroughfares, legal drain and separation between the buildings worked for the reduced height of the mound and would not cause a substantial impact. Staff believed that this finding could be ruled in their favor. The distance, placement of the loading docks, plantings and hybrid nature of the south building all balanced out the request for the reduced height. As far as practical difficulties, the building location and spacing was relevant to the maneuverability of trucks and utilizing the site in the most efficient way. The berm at full height would require a width that would eliminate a row of parking spaces. The design with the internal loading docks, large open areas and the parking along the perimeter streets were all preferable to other possible configurations of the site. Staff recommended approval of the development standards variance from 5.40(C) of the landscaping code. Mr. Worley summarized stating this was a development standards variance from buffer yard buffer yard planning standards for incompatible districts. When considering, the Board should use the findings and criteria that the approval of the development standards variance would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. Also that the use and value of the area adjacent to the subject property of the development standards variance would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. And the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. John Moore was there with his client to answer any questions. He had copies of the presentation that was presented last month. John Moore came forward representing Browning Investments, Inc. He noted that the handout was a little different from last month as they tweaked a few of the exhibits to address some of the questions that came up last month such as distance, buildings and so forth. It was also updated because the Plan Commission had heard this and given it a favorable recommendation. The Town Council unanimously approved the first reading and the second reading was July 22nd. Since there were Board members present that night who were not at the previous meeting, Mr. Moore reviewed the presentation. Browning sought to develop 36.79 acres into two commercial industrial buildings. The property was bound by Northfield Drive to the west, 136 to the south, 625 E to the east, and railroad tracks along the north. There were commercial industrial uses to the north and northwest of the site: Sunbelt Rentals, Self-Storage, Ditch Witch and Contract Lumber. They sought to develop two buildings. The first was for a company currently located in Indianapolis that was looking to relocate its corporate headquarters in Hendricks County and they chose Brownsburg, particularly this site. The company was a second generation business that had been in business for over 40 years. The relocation would bring approximately 80 jobs to Brownsburg with pay of approximately $30/hr. The second building would be a spec building for use as an office warehouse building. The use of 3 of 12 the building had yet to be identified. The second building was expected to bring 150-250 jobs to Brownsburg. The total projected investment for the project was $20-$25M. Browning has been involved in commercial industrial development for 40 years and have developed over 25 million square feet of office warehouse. They bring that expertise to the second building to the south. Mr. Moore reviewed photographs of the site and surrounding area. Since the company was relocating its corporate headquarters, he shared a photo of one of their satellite offices in Columbus, Ohio. The new building in Brownsburg would look substantially similar. The initial build would be approximately 125,000 square feet. They asked for the ability to expand that to 200,000 square feet for their offices and warehouse use. He showed a rendering of what the building to the south could look like. There was no user identified yet but Brownsburg had architectural standards in the zoning ordinance and they anticipated what it would look like. He noted the building had more of an office look than a warehouse look. He noted that the loading docks were interior to the site so you would not see them from 136 or Northfield. He another view of the rendering and said it was the 136 side of the building where there was employee parking along the front of the building and two rows of parking. One of the reasons for the variance was that they would lose that second row parking with a 6' mound rather than 3 or 4' mound. He reviewed the variance requests, the first was to allow buildings in the 11 district greater than 150,000 square feet. The 11 zoning classification limited buildings to 150,000 square feet but also allowed five buildings. You could have you could have 750,000 square feet so long as the buildings were chopped up. He would explain how that was not practical for the market today. The second variance was the mound height along the southern and eastern border of the property. Given the layout and the topography they did not think it was necessary and also would be lessened by some extensive plantings on top of the mounds. He reviewed the site plan stating again that the first building to the north was the corporate headquarters which would start at about 125,000 square feet with the possibility of an expansion of 75,000 square feet for a 200,000 square foot building. The building to the south would be 225,000-250,000 square feet. That was what was needed to be competitive in today's market for the commercial industrial type of user they were trying to draw to the site. The 11 standard would limit those buildings to 150,000 square feet. It did not make sense for them to break up the buildings to meet the ordinance. It would make the development of buildings less desirable. Combining them into one building allowed them to maximize the open space. Under the ordinance they were allowed 70% coverage, they would only have 49% with their buildings. That was a better way to develop the site and would draw more attractive customers to the site and optimize use of the acreage. Chris Worley asked Mr. Moore to show the diagram with the berm and said it showed extensive plantings in the landscaping. He did not remember seeing that last time but was glad to see. Mr. Moore reviewed the first Finding of Fact, that the approval of the development standards variance would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. They noted they were in close proximity to other industrial uses including office space. Overall it was below the maximum square footage that could be built in separate buildings in the 11 district. The Staff report noted that the singular larger buildings instead of individual smaller buildings likely maximized the amount of open space on the east side of the development as no additional building separation and site maneuverability was needed. For the second Finding of Fact, Mr. Moore said the development would not substantially affect the use and value of the area adjacent to the property. While the buildings were larger individually, there were fewer proposed than the maximum allowed for the district and they had large buffers when roads, setbacks and buffer yards were considered. Staff agreed they had met the second criteria for the standard. Finally the third standard, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. The 150,000 maximum building size imposed a 4 of 12 practical difficulty. The user who wanted to move the headquarters to Brownsburg wanted the ability to expand from the 125,000 to 200,000 square foot. And given the market today and the expertise of Browning, the second building needed to be 225,000-to 250,000 square feet. If they were to break the buildings into smaller buildings that would negatively impact the ability to market it and then it would be a less desirable development for the Town. Staff recommended the BZA approve the variance for the size of the buildings. The second variance was for the mounding. The ordinance required a 6' mound on the southern and eastern boundary with landscaping on. Given the layout of the site they did not think that was practical and they would have better landscaping with the lower mounding. Along the eastern boundary they were proposing is a 3-4' from existing grade mound. That mound would have landscaping, planting, trees and shrubs on top of the mound. Mr. Moore noted that the Brownsburg zoning ordinance required a Level 3 planting which required 4 points. By taking the mound down from 6' to 3-4' would result in additional plantings on top of the mound because they still had to meet the four point requirement. For example instead of three deciduous trees they would have to have to have four deciduous trees or shrubs. Mr. Moore had an exhibit measuring the distance to the rear property lines to the east. For the eastern boundary those were 710', 615', 570', 557' and 491'. There were virtually two football fields from those rear property lines to the future residential development. It was also across a regulated drainage easement and retention ponds so there was quite a bit of distance. They would also have the 3-4' mounding with the plantings on top. That would provide a visual barrier. He said all loading docks would be interior to the site. He showed a line of sight exhibit for cars along 136. He indicated the two rows of parking. The ordinance required parking for the employees and the employees of the future building to the South. The exhibit showed the sight line with a 3' tall mound and then two rows of parking. From a car on 136, the sight line to the building was shielded by the 3' mound, the plantings on top of the mound (which would be heavier than what you would have on 6' tall mound because of the 4 points requirement.) He used an exhibit to show that if the mound was 6' the sight line was not effected but they would lose that row of parking because the mound had to be graded out no greater than 3:1 so it made it wider. They would lose that row of parking and then the site no longer worked. Mr. Moore added that, as seen in the renderings, these were not the typical white split block buildings. They were nice office-like buildings and would have a nice streetscape, plus the shielding with a 3' mound and the plantings on top. The most effected neighbor to the south, a residential property, had substantial screening existing on the south side of the road from existing evergreen trees. There were questions in the last meeting about headlights, he showed that with the 3' mound that lights were still being blocked. They would have bushes and trees on top of the mound and then there was the existing foliage to the south. Reviewing the Findings of Fact for the mounding request he said that the variance would not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The development was in close proximity to other industrial uses and was consistent with existing development patterns. The loading docks and doors would be located interior to the site, which would lead to the reduced mound height not being injurious. He said the reduced mound would result in additional plantings on top of the mound which would actually increase the trees and shrubs that were on top of them. Staff agreed with that Finding. The use and value of the area adjacent to the subject property of the development standards variance would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The combination of the major thoroughfares and legal drain provided significant separation from surrounding residential and the reduced height of the mound would not affect properties as showed in the exhibit with the plantings and the buffer, and the distances to those in the east and the significant tree line to the residences to the south. Staff 5 of 12 agreed that they had satisfied this criteria for the variance. Lastly, the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. As shown on the exhibit, a berm at full height required a width that would eliminate a row of standard parking spaces and would affect the interior maneuverability of the site, as it was designed for trucks to get to interior loading docks. Staff agreed that the petitioner had met that Finding of Fact. Mr. Moore shared a letter of support here from Renata Henderson, the property owner of this site as well as nearby real estate west and southwest of the site. He showed an excerpt from the TECH from May 20, 2021 where Economic Development staff said "This was a perfect use for this site and a great economic development project." To summarize, he said the development would allow for a company headquarters of a second generation business to move from Indianapolis to Brownsburg. The business would bring approximately 80 jobs at $30/hr. There would be approximately 150 to 250 jobs at the office warehouse building. The loading docks were internal to the site. This development represented a $20-$25 million investment in the property which would mean increased assessed value right for property that was currently assessed as agricultural development. The TECH review committee and Planning Staff supported the development and variance requests. The Plan Commission recommended approval of the rezoning to Town Council who voted unanimously to approve the rezoning at its first reading last week. He respectfully requested approval of the variances. Stacey Risk asked if the Town would consider changing the UDO as far as the 150,000 square feet limitation. Ms. Dickey said that was something they could look at, the 150,000 square feet was a rather small building for the various types of uses that were permitted in that district. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FOR BZDV-05-21-1917 AND BZDV-05-21- 1918 John Rabold. 18 S. Tocovi Ct.- Mr. Rabold was disappointed to see there were only three members again. He said the narrow scope of the first variance was for the variance of maximum square footage only. Having two buildings with a smaller total footage the most logical alternative to having five buildings with 750,000 square feet. He felt the UDO had little foresight for future industrial developments. There was no reason to discuss any other matter other than size of buildings, not traffic or traffic studies, median or curb cuts, suitability of Northfield Drive to handle vehicular traffic, noise from vehicles, headlights from vehicles, or proximity to housing. All of those areas of potential discussion would occur at the APC DPR meetings. The things that were discussed last time were not appropriate. Mr. Rabold said when the UDO was overhauled in 2011-12, there were plenty of questionable areas and in particular the 150,000 square foot limitation for buildings and he said that needed to be changed in order to streamline and facilitate new developments. During discussion in 2011, the Plan Commission said they were sure the BZA would be compassionate and flexible in working with any developer with plans that may not fit exactly. He asked the Board to approve the variance. As far as the buffering variance, the narrow scope was changing the height of the berm to the south and east to allow 3'- 4' versus standard 6'. The Applicant explained what the reasons were and why it worked. Any other area of concern was for the APC to determine later when the DPR was presented. The practical difficulty to the south was because the required number of parking spaces for the proposed building was in conflict with the available space. The sight line was the same regardless whether it was 6' or 3'. The additional landscaping and the distance from the building to the south side of US 136 gave more than sufficient buffering for this project. In addition, there were mature trees that buffered the residence on the south side of US 136. 6 of 12 Ben Lacey. 28 Carnaby Court- Mr. Lacey sated he lived just 100 yards from the potential development and he was in favor of both variances. When he sat on the BZA they had to consider what the hardship was. Mr. Lacey said there were UDO and Comprehensive Plan issues that needed to be addressed and Staff was working on that. This project would have a big economic impact. The current AV was $950 annually in taxes and the proposed project would be about $200,000 annually. That was a big economic jump. It would bring in $230,000 worth of additional employment for the Town. He mentioned buffering and said the Town was going to see more and more of these types of developments and said enhanced buffering was critical. The buffering for this project was above and beyond what was needed, especially with the residential developments to the east. Mr. Lacey said Staff liked to look at trends in the BZA and where the Town could make adjustments in the future. He wanted that to keep that analysis going for future reference so they could make changes as trends changed in the market. Both commercial and residential real estate needed to come to the Town. The Comp Plan and the UDO needed to be evaluated and frequency by Staff was critical. He hoped the Board would approve both of the variances. Travis Tschaenn. 950 Grayson Trail- Mr. Tschaenn echoed the sentiments of his fellow citizens and said the Board should approve the variances. He said changes to the UDO should be looked at by Town Council and in-house Staff so something like this would not have to come forward before the BZA. Brownsburg needed to be open for business; they needed 3% development. This project fit in perfectly and he supported this 100% as it would help the community prosper. Troy Austin. 705 Cabot Cir.- Mr. Austin reviewed the Applicant information as well as the Staff recommendations and completely agreed with the recommendations and felt the variances should be approved. The type of businesses that were moving here were in logistics and transportation and they needed the square footage and parking to fill their business needs. A second generation headquarter wanted to come to Brownsburg and the Town should want them to expand here. He recommended the Board pass the variances. As far as landscaping went, those commercial areas were some of the best well-kept areas within their Towns and they took pride in the outward appearance. Jim Staton. 1789 Woodstock. Mr. Staton said he worked in the field of economic development and was an urban planner by education. He had sat on that side of the table for both Plan Commission and BZA. They had to consider the three statutory items but also consider that a favorable recommendation would draw a preeminent developer to Brownsburg. They were willing to forego 40% lot coverage. Approval of the variances would open the door for Brownsburg to the development community. People like Browning that were investing in Brownsburg were doing it for the quality of the community and were wanting to bring quality development. He strongly encouraged the Board to approve the variances. The result of the Board's actions would set the tone for development in Brownsburg for years to come. Big box buildings did not fit anymore. Developers were making quality campus- type developments. He respectfully encouraged the Board to approve the variances. Tricia Leminger suggested the Board leave the public hearing open since any action by the BZA would take all three votes. If there was no official action, then they could recess and continue the public hearing accordingly. Jodi Dickey told the Board Staff received two emails that requested to be read into the public record. Please see Exhibit A. Seeing no further questions or comments, Mr. Worley opened the floor up for motions. 7 of 12  Motion: Stacey Risk made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-05-21-1917, seconded by Chris Worley, motion passed 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED FOR BZDV-05-21-1917 Motion: Chris Worley made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-05-21-1918, seconded by Stacey Risk, motion passed 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED FOR BZDV-05-21-1918 G. OLD BUSINESS 1. None H. NEW BUSINESS 1. BZDV-06-21-1925 Virgil Park Accessory Structure Front Yard Setback A request for a Development Standards Variance from Art. 5, Sec. 5.63(C)(1) "Setback Standards," to decrease the accessory structure minimum front yard setback required within the Parks and Recreation (PR) District. Parcel No(s): 32-08-30-100-014.000-016 Represented by: Travis Tranbarger, Town of Brownsburg Parks Department ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING Chris Worley told the Board the request was for a development standards variance from Art. 2 Sec. 2.02 Parks and Recreation District Development standards as they relate to Art. Five Sec. 5.56 General Parking Standards and setbacks. Lauren Gillingham skimmed the statutory criteria as previously outlined by Jodi Dickey and Jenna Wertman. Virgil Park was located on the southeast corner of 300 North and 900 East, a little bit southeast of the beacon and was zoned Parks and Rec. The request was to reduce the accessory front yard setback from 30 feet to O which would locate the corners of the curved parking directly on the property line which would accommodate parking and other necessary paving for support buildings. Ms. Gillingham showed an exhibit of where the setback was located. She said the Parks Department looked at other options however none of them really worked. Reducing the parking lot sizes did not work as this was a trailhead and they wanted 20 spaces. They thought about reducing the amount of right-of-way dedicated but that decreased pedestrian safety. Shifting the parking location would increase the impact on the wetlands. Should Board members choose to approve the request, Staff was generally supportive of the proposal and recommended a positive recommendation with the condition of the approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Applicant Travis Tranbarger, Director of Parks and Recreation, had a presentation for the Board members. The Town acquired 6.67 acres in 2013 with the vision of it becoming a park. It was directly adjacent to the north end of the B & 0 trail. Mr. Tranbarger said the B & 0 was expanding eastward and westward with grants from the state. The Town prioritized the design of the park as a result of that growth. He said it was a unique piece of land with a wetland. They wanted to enhance the wetland to conserve it and develop other outdoor recreation amenities. It was designed with the concept of a learning landscape immersing park users in nature. Normally for a park this small they did not have as much parking but since this was also serving as a trailhead they wanted to prioritize restroom facilities and parking for the property. The project had a pending Land and Water Conservation Fund grant of just shy of $370,000; they were currently waiting for word from the Federal Administration, the National Park Service, but the state DNR recommended the project to the National Park Service. In 2019, they took out a Park District bond to fund partially fund this as well as the Stephens Park renovations and White Lick Creek Greenway Phase I. They 8 of 12  also anticipated funding from the Park Impact fees and Food & Beverage Funds. Final design was expected to be completed by the end of this year with bid letting sometime in 2022. Mr. Tranbarger showed a graphic from the Comprehensive Plan, the Parks and Open Space Plan which showed the current Park properties and their service radii. The proposed park was located in the bottom right hand of the screen and where it was marked as an underserved area. As the Town grew with future development, Parks and Recreation amenities would be even in more demand. He showed the overall layout as it currently stood at 60% design. One difference from the master plan that Staff showed was that the most western path and boardwalk was shifted to the south out of the protected wetland. It was important that the park users interact with the wetland in a way where it did not adversely impact wildlife. They would also be enhancing the wetlands with prairie plantings. He showed how the park connected with the B & 0 Trail and how the parking was laid out and the restroom and shelter locations. They anticipated adding natural play features and the traditional post index structures as well as outdoor fitness equipment. The site plan did depict the 30' setback off 300. They accounted for future 300 North expansion, including a roadside trail eventually to help create better access to the park in active and active alternative transportation along the south side of 300. Stacey Risk and Marlon Webb did not have any comments or questions. Mr. Worley said the Findings state that a variance shall not be injurious to the public health and safety. His main concern was moving the setback to O' would put pedestrian traffic along the street in danger. Mr. Tranbarger had stated there may be a future expansion of that 300 North and he asked if there was a sidewalk currently. Mr. Tranbarger replied that there was not currently one but they would install one as part of their development that aligned with the Town's Alternative Transportation Plan. He believed the Plan called for one along 300 coming from the west and heading east toward Ronald Reagan. Mr. Worley got confirmation on the location of the last parking spot. Mr. Worley said he believed that the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the Development Standards Variance would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. He said that the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. That was addressed in the Staff report where the Applicant had stated that a design required to accommodate the full 30' setback would cause features to encroach into the wetland area and shift other amenities further south. With IDNR and the National Park Service conservation grants, conservation was key and not encroaching on the wetlands. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Motion: Stacey Risk made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-06-21-1925, seconded by Marlon Webb, motion passed 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED I. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1. Report From Director Of Development Services None J. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Update To The Rules Of Procedure Ms. Dickey said Staff wanted to review the Rules of Procedure and condense and simplify where needed. She sent the Board language for them to review. She did want to move the meeting start 9 of 12  time from 7 P.M. to 6 P.M. and also codify the order of the hearing as it had been done for the last few months. There are some other updates the board members needed to review and comment back to Staff before the next meeting as a resolution would be prepared. K. CITIZENS COMMENTS RELATING TO AGENDA 1. Debbie Cook. 1789 Woodstock Dr. - Ms. Cook thanked the Board for their thoughtful consideration of all the variances. She said their actions would open the door for future development. 2. Jim Staton. 1789 Woodstock Dr.- Mr. Staton echoed Ms. Cook's comments and said their actions would make Brownsburg proud. 3. Travis Tschaenn. 950 Grayson Tri- Mr. Tschaenn thanked the Board and said it was an important first step to bring new development to Town, Browning is a big developer for the state of Indiana and would help fund more amenities. 4. Ron Mathews. 32 Nelson Cir.- Mr. Mathews thanked the Board and said the requests made sense and that Town was lacking in the commercial 3% and that would lead to more amenities. Mr. Worley also thanked the Board for their preparation for the meeting and keeping their focus on the variances before them. L. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Marlon Webb made a motion to ADJOURN, seconded by Stacey Risk, motion passed 3 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. 8:29 P.M. &~¥ Chris Worley, President ATIEST: Heather We~el, Admi/nistrative Assistant 10 of 12  EXHIBIT A PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS Dear Ms. Dickey, The following is requested to be included in the public hearing for BZAAgemla item: BZDV-05-1917 and BZDV-05-21- 1918. Submitted: July 12, 2021 Ehren T. Bingaman 8836 Wicklc,w Way Brownsburg President, Town of Brownsburg Redevelopment Commi,,ion Thank you for considering my whole hearted support for the requested variances item numbers BZDV-05-1917 and BZDV-05-21-1918 to exceed the maximum floor area limit and to 2llow a reduction of the minimum earthen mound height required, respectively. The proposed development is a crucial part of the Town's continued and essential diversification of the Town's tax base, The proposed project means additionai tax revenue and a redc1ction the bmden of tax carried by residential property owners, The propot,ed development also means an increase in good paying jobs in the Town and the i11ereased associated financial benefit of the spending those employees wiB bring to the Town. Please approve the r·equested variance without delay, Respectfc!lly submitted, Ehren T, Bingaman 317,5138208 Sent from Mai! for Windows 10 11 of 12  EXHIBIT A PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS continued From: Jeff Gracey <jgracey@brownsburg.org> Sent: Mon day, July 12, 2021 4:29 PM To: Jodi Dickey <jdickey@browng:iurg.org>; Debbie Cook <dcook@browngJurg.org>; Al Geans <ageans@brownsburg.org>; Town Council <TownCouncil@brownsburg.org>; Tricia Lemi,ger <Tleminger@brownsburg.org> Subject: Tonight's BZA Meeting All, I will not be able to attend tonight's meeting. So please read this email into the record. Thank you to the members of the Brownsburg BZA for their service to the Town. They, along with all our Boards and Commisi ons' members, provide invaluable support to Brownsburg. The BZA has a singularly unique, and important function in Local Government. They are tasked to adjudicate the issues brought before them for consideration. These issues, generally, deal with zoning change requests submitted by a developer. Additionally, these issues are specific in nature and are spelled out in the agenda items for the current meeting It's not an individual member's job to interject out-of-order concerns to the topic of discussion. Local government also has other quasi-legislative bodies that make decisions on other issues that determine the viability of any given development application. It is the expectation that these bodies will fairly, and openly consider the issues brought before them . And, only those issues . Thank you again for your commi1ment to your position and your Community Respectfully, Jeff Gracey Brownsburg T own Councilman, Ward 2 317-443-2070 Jgracey@brownsburg.org Brownsburg 12 of 12