Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

BZA MEETING RESULTS ZIONSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS NOVEMBER 4, 2020, 6:30 p.m. (Local Time) MEETING WAS FACILITATED BY REMOTE ATTENDANCE NO IN-PERSON PARTICIPATION BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OR THE PUBLIC OCCURRED Members of the public shall have the right to attend BZA Public Meetings via the following forms of electronic communication: Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85047962512 Or join by phone: +1 646 558 8656; +1 301 715 8592; +1 312 626 6799; +1 669 900 9128; or +1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 850 4796 2512 International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kcc41LIynv Members of the public shall have the option of recording their attendance at BZA Public Meetings via electronic roll call at the start of the meeting or via e-mail at wdelong@zionsville-in.gov. The following items are scheduled for consideration: I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Attendance III. Approval of the October 7, 2020 Meeting Minutes IV. Continuance Requests V. Continued Business Address of Item to be considered Docket Number Name Project None November 4, 2020 VI. New Business Docket Address of Item to be considered Name Number Project Approved as presented and filed with exhibits and per Staff Report - 5 in favor, 0 opposed. Petition for a Use Variance & a Development Standards Variance 2020-30-UV & 9385 & 9445 to provide for a private, residential storage building to be C. Hodges 2020-32-DSV Rosston Avenue constructed on commercially zoned parcels (not permitted); zoned Local Business - Rural (LB); with review of the “Development Plan” being assigned to the Administrator as the parcel is proposed to be improved with a “Class 2” structure. Approved as presented and filed with exhibits and per Staff Report - 5 in favor, 0 opposed with the condition of recording a “Right to Farm” Commitment (Waiver of Notice Requirements granted). 2020-31-DSV J. Bennington 1861 S. 700 East Petition for Development Standards Variance to permit: 1) Accessory Uses exceeding the square footage of the primary structure; and 2) Accessory structures are taller than the existing primary structure. VII. Other Matters to be considered: Docket Address of Name Item to be considered Number Project 2020-14-DSV LRC II, LLC 7655 E. 550 South Negative Findings of Fact Unsigned Findings of Fact If you need technical assistance in logging into Zoom for this meeting, please contact Roger Kilmer, rkilmer@zionsville-in.gov or 317-690-6539. Please note that a quorum of the Zionsville Town Council may be in attendance at the meeting. If a member of the public would like to attend a Board of Zoning Appeals Public Meeting but cannot utilize any of the access methods described above, please contact Roger Kilmer at rkilmer@zionsville-in.gov or 317-690-6539. Respectfully Submitted: Wayne DeLong AICP, CPM Town of Zionsville Director of Planning and Economic Development November 4, 2020 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 4, 2020 In Attendance: John Wolff, Laura Campins, Jeff Papa, Steve Mundy, Larry Jones. Staff attending: Wayne DeLong, Roger Kilmer, Darren Chadd, attorney. A quorum is present. Wolff Wayne or Roger, do you think we’re ready? Kilmer Mr. Wolff, we are ready to go. Wolff Let’s go. Good evening and welcome to the November 4, 2020 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. As you can tell, we are continuing to meet virtually for everyone’s safety. With that in mind, the first item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance which I will lead. I will also cover my camera. Thank you, Wayne, for the flag. All Pledge of Allegiance. Wolff Thank you everyone. The next item on our agenda is attendance. DeLong I can take care of that. Wolff Thank you, Wayne. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Present. DeLong Mr. Mundy? Mundy Present. DeLong Mr. Jones? Jones Present. DeLong Mrs. Campins? Campins Present. DeLong Mr. Wolff? Wolff Present. Thank you, Wayne. The next item on our agenda is the approval of the October 7, 2020 meeting minutes which were submitted to you in your packet. Is there any conversation or discussion amongst the group regarding those minutes? If not, I will entertain a motion. Mundy I move to approve the October 7 minutes of the BZA meeting as presented. Wolff Thank you, Mr. Mundy. Is there a second to that motion? Page 1 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 4, 2020 Jones Second. Wolff Thank you, Mr. Jones. We probably should continue to do roll call votes just for clarity’s sake. Wayne, will you facilitate that? DeLong Certainly. Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. DeLong Mr. Mundy? Mundy Aye. DeLong Mr. Jones? Jones Aye. DeLong Mrs. Campins? Campins Aye. DeLong Mr. Wolff? Wolff Aye. Thank you. The motion, or the meeting minutes are approved. The next item on our agenda is continuance requests. We have two items, or two dockets on our agenda today. Do either one of those petitioners wish to ask for a continuance to get more time? If so, please kind of raise your hand in the audience there, the virtual audience. Mr. Kilmer, do you see anybody raising their hands? Kilmer Mr. Wolff, there are no hands raised. Wolff Very good. Then, we’re going to move on to continued business which there is none. DeLong Mr. Wolff? John? I do want to interrupt. I do want to create the opportunity for anybody in the public who would like to raise their hands to get their attendance right in the record, please do that now. Wolff Wayne, you would think after doing this for six, seven, eight months, three years, however long it’s been that I would remember that but apparently not. So for those audience members who wish to be recognized, please raise your hand and we will read your name aloud and record it that you are participating in our conversation today. Kilmer Mr. Wolff, the hands raised are Sally Zelonis, John Tousley, Michael Andreoli, Charles Hodges. Wolff Thank you, Roger. Moving on to new business, that brings us to Docket #2020- 30-UV as well as Docket #2020-32-DSV for the property located at 9385 and 9445 Ralston Avenue. Could we promote the petitioner? Page 2 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 4, 2020 Kilmer I’m going to promote Mike Poppe who is, I believe, the son-in-law of Charles Hodges. I’m also going to promote Mr. Hodges. I’m not sure which of these two gentlemen will actually be doing the presentation, so I’ll promote both. Wolff Very good. Mr. Poppe or Mr. Hodges, will one of you please state your name and address for the record as well as, in your words, describe what is in front of us tonight? Poppe My name is Mike Poppe. My address is 1409 Helena Drive in Lebanon, Indiana. I’m speaking on behalf of my father-in-law, Charles Hodges, who owns the property in Ralston. Currently, there is a barn on the property in Ralston that we store boats and trailers in. That barn has been there for over 50 years. My father- in-law and I recently purchased a RV and we would like to store it on that property as well but the current barn structure is not large enough for it, so we were asking to build a separate barn to be able to store the RV in. Wolff Okay, very good. Can you give us a brief description of the size of the barn? It is in our packet but just so we have it in the public record. Poppe Yeah. It’s a 40 x 52 barn. It would be 16’ height inside for the RV because it will have two overhead doors, 14’ tall, so the RV can come in. It’s all new construction and it would be basically solely for that purpose. Wolff Mr. Poppe, will there be any plumbing or HVAC fixtures in this structure? Poppe No, there would not be. Wolff Is there any intent to use it—without putting in a HVAC, it’s difficult to imagine there be an intent to use it for residential. It would strictly be a storage facility, correct? Poppe It’s strictly a storage facility. There would—we’d run electrical for some lights and to plug the RV in but that would be it. Wolff Okay. What other questions do we have for the petitioner and the petitioner’s representative at this time? This is a little bit of an unusual petition, so I do have some questions for staff but in our order of procedure, let’s—if there’s no other questions for the petitioner at this time, let’s ask if there’s anyone here that would like to speak for or against this particular project. Mr. Kilmer, if you’ll let me know if you see any hands go up. Kilmer Mr. Wolff, there are no hands raised. Wolff Okay, very good. Wayne, will you be providing the staff report? DeLong Yes, I will. Kilmer Okay. Would you jump into that because this one gets a little unusual for me? Page 3 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 4, 2020 DeLong Certainly, happy to do that. Staff is supportive of the petition as it’s been filed this evening. We’re working with the petitioner for a few months here to get to this point. In summary, and petitioner has provided an excellent summary of the matter at hand, it’s a property that looks to be improved with an outbuilding to support a private use. The oddity here is that you have a—it’s a commercially zoned property in this area. It looks to be used for not residential purposes but certainly what we could call and the state of Indiana calls a Class 2 building. With that in mind, this is private storage on a commercially zoned piece of property. It’s not residential. Staff finds that request supportable. Certainly, it’s an interim use for a number of years most likely as this area, change will come eventually to different parts of Zionsville and certainly this area being out this far. I mean, I would probably say another decade or so before you see any real infrastructure to assist with things that you’re focused on residential development of this area potentially. All this in mind, certainly staff is supportive of the petition as it’s been filed. The two points of this, first, the use request and the second part is the variance request. The variance request is primarily designed because this is a Class 2 structure. The zoning would require that the project be then taken to the Plan Commission and signed off on. What staff has suggested because of the private use of this structure that that approval process be designated to the administrator, our department, to be taken care of during the normal course of review of the building permit. With all that in mind, again, staff is supportive of the petition as it’s been filed and I’m happy to answer any questions. Wolff Thank you, Wayne. I have a couple. I’m going to put you on the spot and I should have thought of these earlier and let you know. This is surrounded by residential. I’m sure grandfathered in from a long time ago, but do you know what those other parcels—is the whole area zoned commercial or is it just this back lot? DeLong I believe just this strip itself along the old railroad line is the commercial. Then, you have the Ralston plat itself which is residential. Then, you do have commercial uses along 421, the Ralston Cup, some other uses. There is some commercial zoning out that way but the predominant use is residential within the plat of Ralston. Wolff Is the railroad line immediately to the south? DeLong Correct, the former line, yes. Wolff Yep, understood. So, that’s how we ended up with this being—okay. What other questions do we have for staff at this time? Mundy Wayne, I think I understand the review of the development plan being assigned to an administrator but could you explain why we need to do that. I know that you said the Plan Commission typically would have to see this. So, what does this do and how does it work? DeLong Well, in this particular case, it would—the ordinance does require this petitioner because of the commercial zoning to file a development plan with the Plan Commission which would be a public hearing and a process and several steps. Page 4 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 4, 2020 Instead of the public process being facilitated in a manner that actually causes a hearing, we would actually facilitate the same process but just in-house, if you will. Now, that would—this is not designed to reduce public participation and not designed for any other purpose other than to streamline the process and the experience of the petitioner specifically because we are dealing with a Class 2 building, a non-commercial structure to be used for private, residential type purposes, not occupancy but certainly private storage. In essence, the same process would be facilitated just internally without the conducting of a public hearing. Mundy Does that require notice, public notice, be given? DeLong It would not but certainly this board could require that as part of your hearing process if you were to approve this petition to require the petitioner to give notice of the filing of their improvement location permit if that is a step you would like to see facilitated. Mundy Thank you. Wolff Any other questions for staff? Mr. Jones or Mr. Papa, I certainly appreciate your efforts on the Planning Commission. This is a little bit unusual. Do either of you from your perspective on both boards, have any concerns with this? Papa For my part, I think this is good use of this property. I’m familiar with this area here. At least—as Mr. DeLong said, at least in an intermediary period, I think that’s a very good use of the property. Wolff Okay. Jones I agree, the same. I don’t see any reason to kind of delay or put additional burden on the petitioner to go back through the building commission for anything. It’s a pretty straight-forward situation. I’m sure at some point, somebody had a grand plan for the town of Ralston and you know, the fact that it’s getting some activity is a good thing. Wolff Very good. If there’s no further discussion, we do have two separate, well essentially one petition but two separate motions we need to make. I think we should treat them separately for transparency sake. At this time, I would entertain a motion. Jones So, we’re going to do one at a time, then? Wolff Yes, sir. Jones I move that Docket #20—I move that Docket #2020-30-UV, a use variance to allow a private residential storage building of 2,080 square feet as filed be permitted within the local business rural LB district be approved based on the findings and based on the staff report and presentation. Papa Second. Page 5 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 4, 2020 Wolff Thank you. Who was the second? Mr. Papa was the second. Thank you, Mr. Papa. Wayne, will you facilitate a vote? DeLong Certainly. Mr. Mundy? Mundy Aye. DeLong Mr. Jones? Jones Aye. DeLong Mrs. Campins? Campins Aye. DeLong Mr. Wolff? Wolff Aye. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. Wolff Very good. Motion carries. We have one more on the floor. I would entertain another motion. Mundy I move that Docket # 2020-32-DSV, a development standard variance to allow the review of the development plan approval to be assigned to the administrator for a private residential storage building of 2,080 square feet as filed within the local business rural LB district be approved based on the findings of fact and based on the staff report as presented. Papa Second. Wolff Thank you, Mr. Papa. Wayne, I’m going to turn it back over to you. For note, Mr. Papa was the second. DeLong I believe that’s correct. Papa Yes. DeLong Okay. Mr. Jones? Jones Aye. DeLong Mrs. Campins? Campins Aye. DeLong Mr. Wolff? Page 6 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 4, 2020 Wolff Aye. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. DeLong Mr. Mundy? Mundy Aye. Wolff Thank you. Motion carries. Mr. Poppe, Mr. Hodges, congratulations on your barn and good luck with your RV. Papa Mr. President, we don’t need to do anything with notice, right, because they used certified mail? Wolff Did—Mr. Papa, good question. Papa Looks like they used certified mail. Wolff It does look like certified mail. So, I believe you are correct. Thank you for pointing that out. Jones Then, I did have a quick question. So, at the Plan Commission, Wayne, will you kind of bring up that we put this through? DeLong Right, I believe that’s a good thing to share with the Plan Commission when these actions are taken but I also do think that going forward, we would want to think about expanding this type of service in the future. Jones Okay. Wolff All right. Mr. Poppe, Mr. Hodges, you’re good. Enjoy your RV, enjoy your barn. Next item on our agenda is Docket #2020-31-DSV for the property located at 1861 South 700 East. Will the petitioner’s representative please come forward? Kilmer I’m promoting Mr. Andreoli. Wolff Good evening, Mr. Andreoli. Would you please state your name and address for the record? Andreoli Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. For the record, my name is Mike Andreoli, 1393 West Oak Street. I represent Jay Bennington, trustee of the Bennington Trust, who is seeking tonight a variance. Variances that I will get into in a second. Before I forget some of the housekeeping matters, this was a notice by first-class mail. We would need a waiver of that as Mr. President indicated in question of the last applicant. We did give notice by first-class mail. So, we’d need that waiver for variance request granted. Quite honestly, the Benningtons have been involved for a little while now on doing some estate planning. They have, had a 40-acre tract out there. Essentially, Page 7 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 4, 2020 what they wanted to do and what they’re seeking now is to go ahead and parcel off a 7-acre tract of that 40 acres. In order to go ahead and sell that, they’re keeping most of the tillable acreage as far as their estate is concerned. They do own other acreage from a trust standpoint in the area but with regard to this particular parcel, they want to divide it, parcel it out to 7-acre tract. It’s in the agricultural area. Had they done that and were able to accomplish this by 10-acre tract or 20-acre tract, two 20-acre tracts or 40, they’d be classified as a farm and we wouldn’t need any special dispensation from the Board. Given the fact that this is going to be a 7-acre tract, there are old out buildings on the property that served as accessory structures. There’s a very old farm house that was built in the 60s, approximately 1,602 square feet, and there is a garage that is attached to it as well that was added later. The original farmhouse is quite small. It has a small porch on it. It was built, as I said, many, many years ago. So in essence what occurs if you do that split, we will need to obtain a variance from the Board in order to go ahead and see that the accessory structures that now exceed not only the height but the square footage of the primary structure, the old farmhouse, would be approved in order to make sure we have not only the lot but the structures on the lot conforming to your requirements. So it’s no more elaborate than that. I sent pictures. This is out on a gravel road. Hopefully, you have pictures of the farm house and the original old farm building, talking about the barn, and then the newer barn as well. That should be in your packet, hopefully that you had to be able to look at that. I took pictures of the farm house in two directions, one showing the newer attached garage to it that’s a much more substantial structure than the actual farm house itself. So, three of the structures that were out there that showed up on the actual sheet that we get from the assessor’s office was a lean-to of 588 square feet. A second lean- to, same square footage, and a milk house of 80 square feet. Those have been removed. Those are no longer on the property just the other structures with regard to the farm building, the second barn and then the attached garage, and then of course the garage, and then the porch of 128-square-feet accessory structures. The combined number of those exceed this small farm house substantially. So, we’re here to ask for your approval both as to square footage as well as the height because the picture there would show you that the old farm barn itself is much, much taller than the houses. Thank you. Wolff Thank you, Mr. Andreoli. I would note that the home is a ranch which contributes to it’s height which makes your height problem with the accessory structure more challenging. In addition, I had one—what is—it’s in here in the packet and I’m just not looking very closely. What is the height of the proposed structure? Andreoli In terms of the height, the accessory structure, I did not measure them but clearly the farm house itself, the primary structure, is a one-story building and the roof doesn’t even appear to have a normal slope to it. So, I suspect it’s probably maybe 20 feet maximum, maybe not quite that much. It’s very, it’s very small. Wolff The challenge is when you build an accessory structure such as a barn with a limited height, you get into some really challenging roof spans which limit what you can do structurally. Page 8 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 4, 2020 Andreoli Yeah. If you take a look just with an eyeball at this picture, we did not measure it but I suspected its upwards of 32 feet. The actual old barn itself, the triangular- shaped barn is probably at it’s pitch maximum height maybe 32 feet. It’s up on— it has a second loft on it. So it’s much higher,of course,than the old farm house, substantially. Wolff Understood. Do we have any questions for the petitioner’s representative at this time? Jones Just a couple. One, just to confirm, this isn’t a request to build anything new on the property, it’s the fact that it’s being parceled off. It’s going to be 7 acres, so what was previously acceptable as when it was a farm over 20 acres, is now running into the need of a variance. Does that basically sum it up? Andreoli That is absolutely the case, Mr. Jones. In fact, we have shared with the petitioner that if in fact the board saw fit to grant these two variances to the extent that anybody seeks to build an additional accessory structure out there or any additional work with regard to the old farm house, that they need to seek approvals and need to consult with the Zionsville planning office with regard to that because this only approves the structures that exist on the property, no other additional structures. That’s our request. Jones Then, when you’re talking about 7 acres, on one of the plans, it kind of shows the lot with the house and the two outbuildings. Then, on one of the exhibits, it shows sort of a larger parcel that goes all the way down to the, we assume, that’s a legal drain or something there on the south end of it. So, is the—is that accurate? Andreoli Yeah, I think it is. I think so. This is—the 7 acres is carved out of the original 40. So, in essence other than the gravel road that it’s on that it accesses, you have acreage on either side of it that still belongs to the Bennington Trust. So, it’s essentially carved out of that. Jones So, the 40-acre parcel really is the land on both sides of the gravel road. Correct? Andreoli Yes. Jones Okay. The last item I’m thinking is, while we’re doing this, we might as well put a right to farm in it because obviously the intent is to sell the homestead portion like you said and maintain the farm land which will continue to be farmed. Andreoli That is true. Yes. It’s farmed and as a practical matter, it really has no other topographical features that would make it particularly attractive for another type of home site on it or anything of that nature. It’s just pure tillable acreage. The reason they want to keep that is because of the income that’s generated from that as far as the estate planning that they’ve embarked upon here. Jones My last question will be for Wayne. So we approve this, somebody comes along and they want to buy it and then demo the existing single-story house and build a larger home and then have the advantage of the two bigger outbuildings. Basically, what we’re doing is we’ll approve anybody buying the property and Page 9 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 4, 2020 going forward would not have to come back in front of us for any additional approvals for these other two buildings. Is my question making sense? DeLong Yeah, the challenge is with the residential process is only approved by special exception. So if someone is coming in and wanting to redevelop an ag parcel, we would talk to them about the need to go in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals to secure a special exception to protect that right in perpetuity. So if someone wanted to redevelop the existing residence into a brand-new structure, that would end up in front of a board on it’s own. Andreoli I tend to agree with that, Mr. Jones, wholeheartedly. In fact, if they would seek to raze the old building, even build a new building, I think what he has suggested kicks in. They then, since it’s a brand-new structure, they would have to seek special exception to locate a single-family residential structure in that ag district because that other house no longer exists. That’s pre-dated some of those requests. This house is 1960, so they would have to seek another—they would have to seek special exception to locate a residential structure if they tore this one down to rebuild. Wolff Any other questions for the petitioner’s representative? Seeing none at this time. Mr. Kilmer, are there any members of our public who would like to speak about this particular petition. Please raise your hand in the audience. Kilmer Mr. Wolff, there are no hands raised. Wolff Thank you, Roger. Wayne, I think it’s probably appropriate for us to have the staff report at this time. DeLong Thank you. Yes, staff is supportive of the petition as it’s been filed. This is a unique petition in the fact, several different factors. One of which is the splitting of this land can occur by right. It’s an exempt subdivision based upon the rural standards. With that happening, and that does happen from time to time, the recorder’s office is compelled to accept anything that’s presented to that particular office. In this particular case, a party would split this acreage off, move on down the road, and this petition could be presented later on. 7-acre tract seeking a variance to allow for perpetual uses that are there currently. In this particular case, you’re being asked to consider this in advance of the split, certainly appreciated. Certainly, again, focusing on the mere fact that your ordinance already allows this to occur by right without a conversation with the Plan Commission. So in fact, this petition looks to preserve the improvements that are there today in the framework that allows the farmstead to stay in the form of a 7-acre discussion. Certainly, as noted the replacement of the dwelling if that were to every occur, would require a petition with the Board of Zoning Appeals, again if that were ever to occur. With all these factors in mind and the fact that this board has seen these petitions before, the board has generally been favorable to these items. This is atype of petition that we would want to embrace and think about differently in the form of a form-based code as we move forward, different conversation, different day. With all those factors in mind, staff is supportive of the petition as it’s been filed and I’m happy to answer any questions. Page 10 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 4, 2020 Wolff Thank you, Wayne. Are there any questions for staff? All right. Any discussion amongst the group? Mr. Chadd, as Mr. Papa brought up earlier and also the petitioner’s representative in the previous, we do need to acknowledge the first- class mail? Chadd Yes. Wolff What is the appropriate mechanism to do that? Chadd Normally, we’d just approve the waiver from our rules to allow for notice by first-class mail. Wolff Okay. Do we need a motion for that? Chadd Yes. Wolff Okay. Is there a motion to approve the waiver of the to accept the first-class mailing as acceptable notification for this particular petition? Papa So moved. Wolff Thank you. Is there a second? Jones Second. Wolff Thank you. Yeah, Wayne, I don’t know how to do this. I think we should probably just continue to do a roll call vote. I know it’s tedious but I think it’s important. DeLong Happy to take care of it. Mrs. Campins? Campins Aye. DeLong Mr. Wolff? Wolff Aye. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. DeLong Mr. Mundy? Mundy Aye. DeLong Mr. Jones? Jones Aye. Wolff Okay. So we now have a motion that has been approved to accept the waiver of the typical notification requirements. In addition, we have heard the petition. If Page 11 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 4, 2020 there’s no further discussion, I would entertain a motion on this particular petition. Campins I move— Papa I move that—oh go ahead. Campins Go ahead. Okay. I move that docket #2020-31-DSV development standards variance to allow accessory structures which one, exceed the allowable accessory square footage and two, deviates from the required maximum permissible height associated with accessory structures in the rural general agricultural zoning district be approved based on the findings and based upon staff report and presentation. Wolff Thank you, Miss Campins. Is there a second to that motion? Papa Second. Wolff Thank you, Mr. Papa. Wayne, I’m going to turn it back over to you. DeLong Very good. Mr. Wolff? Wolff Aye. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. DeLong Mr. Mundy? Mundy Aye. DeLong Mr. Jones? Jones Aye. DeLong Mrs. Campins? Campins Aye. Wolff Thank you. Motion carries. Mr. Andreoli, thank you very much. Andreoli Thank you, Mr. President. Good evening, board. Papa Mr. President? Mr. Andreoli? Sorry. Andreoli Yes? Papa Did we cover Mr. Jones’ question about the right to farm? Jones I just thought about that. Page 12 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 4, 2020 Andreoli Pardon me? Jones About adding the right to farm act language to the motion. Andreoli If you want to go ahead and add that in, I’d be happy to go ahead and do that by way of a commitment from the property. We have the legal description for it, so if the board is so inclined and we have a right to farm act language that they customarily use, send it to Mr. Chadd, Mr. DeLong, and Mr. Kilmer for their approval. No problem if you seek to add that. Wolff I’m amenable to that. Do we need a motion on that? We do. Jones We need to make a motion to amend the previously approved motion to add the right to farm act language. Chadd Yes, that would be best. Jones I’ll make a motion that we amend the previously approved motion for Docket #-- oh, shoot, now I’ve got to find it. Mundy 2020-31-DSV. Jones Thank you. To add the right to farm act language to the previously approved motion. Wolff Thank you, Mr. Jones. Is there a second to the amendment? Campins I second. Papa Second. Wolff I saw Miss Campins first. Thank you. Campins thank you. Wolff Wayne, I’ll turn it back over to you, hopefully for the last time tonight. DeLong Very good. Mr. Papa? Papa Aye. DeLong Mr. Mundy? Mundy Aye. DeLong Mr. Jones? Jones Aye. DeLong Mrs. Campins? Page 13 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 4, 2020 Campins Aye. DeLong Mr. Wolff? Wolff Aye. The amended motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Andreoli. Andreoli Thank you. Members of the board, if I would have been thinking a little quicker, I would acquiesced into Mr. Jones’ suggestion because since my clients can own the agricultural acreage around that, they’d probably be happy to have a right to farm covered with regard to the 7 acres that they’re selling off. So, thank you for that amendment. Good night. Wolff It was a good catch. Mr. Papa, thank you for your attention to detail. Other matters to be considered, we do have some unsigned findings of fact, etc…Wayne, I know you’re a little understaffed right now. Should we kick the can down the road on these items? DeLong I think we can work to—with Town Hall being open, it’s been opened for several weeks now full-time, certainly provides an opportunity to set some items up and just let the board members come in when it’s convenient to sign away. Wolff Okay. I would be amendable to that. It’s fairly easy for us to do. Would the proper mechanism be that when they’re put in a pile, wherever they are, that we’ll receive an email about coming in. DeLong Yes. Wolff Very good. So, I will look for an email as we all will. Are there any other matters to be considered? Any other things we should discuss? DeLong Yeah, I was just going to provide a quick update. Last couple months, we’ve talked about form-based code, mentioned it again tonight. Certainly, with the town’s budget being approved, we’ve also moved through some interviews with some form-based code providers. Certainly, just continuing to work on that opportunity. More news later, but again just a quick opportunity to provide an update to you. Another item on our radar, your 2021 filing schedule. Board members certainly recall that of late we adjusted your hearing schedule to move your meeting to the first Wednesday of the month. That’s worked out really well however, we didn’t amend our own filing schedule to compensate for the adjustment of moving the date of the meeting a few days forward. All works well, but at the same time with the amount of work that we’re seeing, amount of petitions that we have, and just overall case load, I feel that it would be advantageous to adjust our filing schedule, the deadlines of the date that someone files a petition, the cut-off date, out a few days to help us facilitate a 35-day filing schedule instead a of a 30-day. Certainly, to the extent we need to amend the rules of procedure or anything like that, we can certainly talk about those things but that’s the details. Roger, if I’d missed anything specific, you’d like to add. Roger’s been doing the bulk of the work to prepare for this. Certainly not here to take credit for Roger’s efforts. Page 14 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 4, 2020 Kilmer Thank you. In reviewing the rules of procedure, it is stated that any filings can be—they have to be filed at least 30 days prior to the public hearing. So all we are looking to do is really have a filing date of about 35 days prior to. So we would still be in compliance with your rules of procedure. It’s just a matter of what we have run into this year is that occasionally a filing deadline is falling on the same day when we are required to get packets out to you that being a Thursday or Friday in the week. So, we’re looking to move that filing deadline to the Monday of that same week. Just to give us a little bit of a breather as new projects come in. Wolff You know, just as a discussion point, I would be certainly amendable to that. I think it would, one, we have more and more projects going on with the town and that’s a good thing for all of us. I know you are very busy so if it allows a little more leeway for our staff then I would definitely be supportive of that. Wayne, do you have a concept or an idea of what our neighboring communities—not that we should mirror those-but what their filing schedule looks like? Darren, maybe you do? DeLong I know that we have a pretty robust process and it’s pretty fast. Other jurisdictions, I know that they have a little bit longer fuse if you will. Roger, may have a bit more familiarity given some previous experiences and certainly Darren as well, Mr. Chadd, here. I’m certainly happy to defer that question to a different person. Chadd Yeah. I would just say I’m not always familiar with all of those filing deadlines but moving from 30-35 days, you’re still a pretty quick process, quicker than most still. Kilmer I would add that having worked with a number of other municipalities very close to us geographically, many of them are anywhere from 35-45 days from date of filing to hearing date. Wolff Mr. Chadd, Roger referenced the rules and procedures earlier. So, we would just need to have an amendment, make a motion and have na amendment to our rules and procedures. Is that how that would work? Chadd Yes. Wolff Okay. Chadd I’ll tell you, I have not reviewed our rules about this issue. I’d be happy to take a look at it. If we need to make a formal amendment, we can get that on the agenda next time, I think, to do that so long as everybody’s okay with moving forward. We can take a look at it and get it done. Wolff I certainly would be in favor of it but I think if anyone else has any thoughts or concerns, let me know or let us know. With no further matters to discuss, this meeting is adjourned. Page 15 of 15