►
From YouTube: Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals, April 20, 2023
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
A
E
F
Thank
you,
Jackie
Scanlon
development
services
manager.
We
want
to
let
you
know
that
the
last
petition
on
the
agenda
tonight
AAA
1423
Chris
Duncan,
Sheil,
Sexton
Co.
It
will
not
be
heard,
so
we
are
actually
withdrawing
that
notice
of
violation
and
working
with
the
petitioner
on
a
resolution,
and
so
the
administrative
appeal
has
been
withdrawn.
So
that
is
why
he
isn't
here-
and
that
will
not
be
heard
this
evening.
A
So
my
understanding,
then,
is
the
administrative
appeal.
1423
is
completely
off
the
docket.
It's
not
a
continuation,
just
to
be
clear,
correct!
Thank
you.
We
do
have
one
petition
that
has
been
continued
to
May
25th
2023,
that
is
an
administrative
appeal,
aa-17-22
Joe
Kemp,
Construction,
LLC
and
Blackwell
Construction,
again,
that'll
move
to
our
next
meeting.
A
Beyond
that
we
will
be
hearing
today,
one
two,
three
four
petitions,
the
ministry
of
appeal,
aa-08-23,
Leo
and
I-
will
ask:
is
it
pilachowski
or
pilikowski.
A
Ciao,
okay,
billochowski.
We
have
variance
v-09-23,
Bryn,
Shore
development,
administrative
appeal,
aa-12-23,
Leo
pelechowski.
We
have
a
variance
v-13-23
Leo
pilachowski.
Those
will
be
what
we
hear
today
unless
I.
If,
unless
there
are
any
ears,
let
me
know
now:
no
okay
and
then
let's
go
ahead
and
move
to
the
first
petition,
which
is
the
administrative
appeal,
aa-08-23
Leo
pilachowski
will
call
you
to
the
podium
when
we're
ready
go
ahead
and
relax
until
we
hear
the
report.
Thank
you
staff.
Please,.
G
G
G
So,
as
you
mentioned,
this
petition
site
has
three
cases
before
us
tonight.
So
I
will
go
over
some
of
the
basics
of
that
with
this
and
then
on
the
the
subsequent
petitions
kind
of
be
a
little
bit
more
expedient
on
this.
G
So
this
is
for
a
property
at
the
southwest
corner
of
East,
First
Street
and
South
High
its
own
single
family,
residential
and
the
petitioners
came
for,
or
the
petitioner
came
forward,
for
a
building
permit
in
2021
to
construct
a
new
single-family
resin
evidence
on
the
property
as
part
of
the
construction
of
the
new
single
family
residence.
One
of
the
requirements
from
the
unified
development
ordinance
requires
a
sidewalk
and
Street
trees
along
the
High
Street
Frontage.
The
petitioner
showed
the
required
improvements
along
that
Frontage
and
constructed
the
house.
G
The
petitioner
was
notified
by
staff
that
those
improvements
were
not
in
improved
were
not
provided
on
the
property,
and
so
the
petitioner
has
come
forward
with
a
series
of
requests
to
deal
with
some
items
related
to
those
improvements,
so
the
petition
site
was
previously
vacant.
It
was
undeveloped
to
the
east
of
this.
All
surrounding
properties
are
single-family
residential
in
nature.
The
Binford,
Rogers,
School,
District
or
school
campus
is
just
immediately
to
the
east
of
this
to
the
north.
You
have
several
churches
and
schools
as
well.
G
So,
as
I
mentioned,
with
the
site
plan
for
the
new
single
family
residents,
a
sidewalking
tree
plot
and
Street
trees
were
required
along
High
Street,
and
so
the
petitioner
is
here
tonight
to
request
an
administrative
appeal
of
the
staff's
interpretation
or
application
of
the
Udo
that
the
petitioner
is
required
to
install
those
improvements.
As
the
board
is
aware,
with
various
petitions
that
come
forward
with
approval,
there
are
a
variety
of
site
improvements
that
are
required.
G
Those
can
range
from
Landscaping
to
bike
racks,
to
sidewalks
to
any
number
of
things,
and
so
those
are
all
required
to
be
installed
by
a
petitioner
prior
to
occupancy.
For
a
particular
building
or
for
the
site
in
this
particular
case,
the
planning
department
does
not
issue
recommendations
of
final
occupancy
for
single-family
residences,
and
so
the
the
petitioner
has
been
in
the
building
or
using
the
residence
for
a
while
and
was
notified
by
the
planning
department
that
the
required
improvements
along
High
Street
needed
to
be
installed.
G
G
So
the
unified
development
ordinance
in
chapter
four
outlines
the
situations
when
a
sidewalk
is
required,
as
the
board
is,
is
probably
aware
from
various
petitions
that
it
has
heard
over
the
years.
There's
very
specific
language
in
the
Udo
of
when
a
sidewalk
is
required.
G
That
is
required
only
along
classified
streets,
and
if
there
are
existing
facilities,
then
the
sidewalks
can
be
required
as
well.
So
High
Street
is
a
classified
street,
so
the
sidewalk
and
tree
plant
are
required
along
High
Street,
as
I
mentioned.
G
They
showed
that
on
the
required
site
plan,
so
the
petitioner
is
specifically
appealing
that
he
is
required
to
install
the
improvements,
and
instead
there
is
a
provision
or
a
allowance
in
state
code
called
the
Barrett
law
that
allows
for
a
community
to
install
certain
public
improvements
and
then
build
a
petitioner
accordingly.
For
those
improvements,
however,
this
is
not
something
that
has
been
Incorporated
within
Bloomington.
G
We
do
not
have
anything
set
up
within
our
our
local
Financial
mechanisms
or
any
of
our
administrative
processes
for
other
departments
for
them
to
carry
forward
this
action
and
then
Bill
a
petitioner
for
those
improvements.
So
that
is
something
you
know.
The
use
of
this
mechanism
is
something
that
really
is
made
and
decided
by
the
administration,
as
well
as
other
departments,
whether
or
not
we
want
to
provide
for
this
mechanism.
G
This
is
not
really
something
that
is
dictated
or
guided
or
required
in
any
means
by
say
code,
as
I
mentioned,
it's
just
an
allowance
that
if
a
community
wants
to
do
this,
they
can.
We
are
never
obligated
to
do
this.
It's
simply
a
possible
path
that
a
community
could
follow
if
they
want
to.
G
However,
the
Udo
does
require
that
the
property
owner
install
any
necessary
site
improvements.
You
know
the
funding,
for
that
is
not
something
that
is
under
the
purview
of
the
board
of
zoning
appeals.
The
board
of
zoning
appeals,
especially
the
administrative
appeal
process,
is
to
deal
with
any
ambiguities
in
the
Udo.
In
regards
to
interpretations
of
that,
however,
the
Udo
is
very
clear
that
property
owners
are
required
to
install
improvements.
G
G
The
petitioner
is
also
appealing
a
section
of
the
unified
development
ordinance
that
deals
with
the
preservation
of
existing
vegetation.
So
in
our
Landscaping
section
there
is
a
citation
that
allows
for
existing
vegetation,
trees
or
shrubs
if
they
are
preserved
on
a
property
that
they
may
be
counted
for
required
Landscaping.
G
So
we
see
this
oftentimes
in
situations
where
you
have
a
property
where
somebody
is
keeping
a
large
tree
or
several
large
trees,
and
they
have
a
requirement
throughout
the
site
to
plant
additional
trees
to
meet
our
site,
Landscaping
requirements
or
parking
lot
Landscaping
requirements.
G
However,
the
street
tree
provision
or
the
street
tree
requirement
in
the
unified
development
ordinance
is
not
requiring
a
a
certain
number
of
trees
per
se,
but
a
spatial
requirement,
so
Street
trees
are
required
every
40
feet,
so
we
have
never
applied
this
preservation
of
existing
vegetation
towards
counting
as
a
credit
for
other
Street
trees.
G
You
know
the
intent
of
Street
trees
is
to
provide
a
uniform
streetscape
along
a
property
which
is
different
than
you
know,
a
certain
amount
of
trees
that
are
required
within
the
property
itself,
so
the
staff
in
our
initial
or
interpretation
did
not
count
any
of
the
existing
vegetation,
specifically
the
trees
that
were
close
to
the
street
as
counting
as
a
credit,
certainly
the
trees
that
are
in
the
tree
plot
area.
G
We
count
those
as
Street
trees
on
a
one-to-one
ratio,
but
there
cannot
be
Street
trees
more
than
every
40
feet.
So
that
is
what
the
petitioner
is
appealing
to
the
board
of
zoning
appeals.
So,
as
we
have
consistently
made
present
to
the
bza
during
these
administrative
appeals,
we
do
not
have
a
findings
or
you
know
a
recommendation.
We
are
simply
presenting
the
facts
for
the
bza
for
their
consideration.
So
with
that
I
am
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Certainly
once
the
petitioner
has
a
chance
to
give
their
presentation.
A
A
The
time
that
you
do
not
use
at
this
point
will
be
retained
and
you
will
have
the
opportunity
to
use
that
time
before
the
end
of
your
appeal.
The
second
part
is,
there
will
be
questions
and
answers.
We
ask
that
you
only
respond
to
questions
that
are
presented
to
you
and
to
not
interrupt
I'm
going
to
swear
you
in
I'm
going
to
ask
for
your
name,
swear
you
in
and
then
I'll
have
you
start
your
presentation
is
that?
Okay,
yes,.
A
Do
you
affirm
that
the
testimony
you
are
about
to
give
will
be
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth?
Yes,.
H
H
Mr
grulich
explain
pretty
much
what
this
is
and
what
I'm
doing
I
would
like
to
make
one
correction:
the
November
1st
the
letter
preceding
letter
interpretation
proceeding,
the
the
February
interpretation
preceding
the
March
letter
of
a
notice
of
violation
was
the
first
notice
that
I
had
that
the
the
city
was
going
to
act
on
a
violation
at
this
time
and
that
there
was
a
violation.
H
H
I,
don't
contest
that
there's
off-site
sidewalk
is
required.
I,
it's
required.
My
contest
is
the
manner
of
which
That
Sidewalk
the
requirement
is
done
and
and
who
has
to
install
it.
I
did
my
due
diligence
when
we
bought
this
lot.
I
talked
to
the
planning
director
at
the
time,
Tom
Makuta
at
that
time,
for
particular
situations-
and
this
is
one
of
them-
one
could
contribute
to
a
sidewalk
fund
instead
of
building
a
sidewalk
on
places
where
sidewalk
wasn't
needed
or
were
for
some
other
reason.
H
H
H
I
have
a
right-of-way
license
bonding
in
the
insurance
to
actually
build
the
sidewalk
okay,
it's
I've
budgeted
the
money
that
a
private
contractor
would
take
to
do
that.
Sidewalk
I've
approached
a
city
about
this
for
the
last
two
years
before
I
even
applied
signed
the
contract
for
the
house
to
tell
about
the
Barrett's
law
and
what
I
think
applied
the
city
and
the
City
attorney
never
answered
me
after
we
created
requests
to
talk
to
me
about
this
and
at
least
give
me
an
appealable
determination.
H
So
if
I
could
go
to
the
bza
and
then
take
it
to
court,
if
necessary,
okay
I
have
done
everything.
I
can
to
try
to
resolve
this
issue
during
the
construction
phase
and
afterwards
I
even
took
a
an
appeal
to
this
board
last
year
in
July
that
had
to
do
with
a
curb
that
would
have
led
to
the
same
thing,
but
because
the
city-
wouldn't,
let
me
do
my
driveway
without
doing
the
curb
I-
did
the
curb
at
the
same
time
stupidly
and
they
claimed
I
didn't
have
any
standing
anymore.
H
So
I
didn't
appeal
that
I've
done
everything
I
could
and
the
only
time
I
got
a
request
answer
in
the
Barrett's
law.
That
I
could
appeal
other
than
from
the
city
attorney.
Who
said
I
couldn't
appeal.
It
was
in
February
of
this
year.
I
immediately
filed
an
appeal,
so
right
now,
I
would
like
to
talk
about
the
tree
plot.
Okay,
can
you
please
show
the
second
slide.
H
The
Udo
clearly
says
you
to
get
Street
trees
for
required
Landscaping.
The
question
is:
how
does
that
apply?
There
are
two
types
of
trees
in
the
Udo
interior
trees
and
Street
trees.
Street
trees
are
required.
Landscaping.
There
is
no
exception.
It
doesn't
this
this
exception
for
putting
together
a
substitute
for
existing
mature
vegetation
for
required.
Landscaping,
there's
no
limit
and,
in
fact,
under
the
under
the
list
of
what
you
can
possibly
do,
what
trees
you
can
do.
They
clearly
list
in
the
section
daily
list:
Street
trees,.
H
Now
I
told
Eric
gulitch
this
before
I
submitted
a
site
plan
before
I
did
the
building
plan.
It
was
part
of
my
email.
It
was
a
May,
9th
2021
email.
He
never
responded
to
it.
Okay,
okay,
then,
on
my
site
plan,
can
you
please
show
the
next
page,
which
will
show
the
site
plan?
Please
one
more
page
see
in
the
upper
right
hand,
corner
existing
West,
Walnut,
et
cetera,
hickory
trees
will
count
as
a
thing.
That's
on
the
site
plan,
that's
on
the
approved
site
plan.
H
So
when
Eric
didn't
tell
me
anything
about
this,
I
assumed
that
was
approved,
okay
and
I
operated
under
that
circumstance
and
saved
a
couple
of
the
trees
on
the
interior
that
the
contractor
really
wanted
to
remove
because
it
made
us
we
had
to
store
Dirt
off
site
at
the
time
before
we
could
bring
it
back
to
do
the
backfilling
effect.
That's
the
the
two
trees,
the
the
Honey
Locust
and
the
Walnut
just
to
the
south
of
the
house
plot.
H
Unfortunately,
we
had
to
remove
the
100
foot
tulip
poplar
because
it
was
diseased
and
we
couldn't
keep
it.
I
would
have
loved
to
have
done
that.
Can
we
go
back
to
the
okay
now?
Can
we
go
back
to
yeah
Eric
actually
approved
the
site
plan
with
me,
sent
me
an
email
on
7
7
2021
that
will
approve
this
site
plan.
All
I
gotta
do
is
write
in
that
genius.
Six
foot
wide
sidewalk,
okay,
concrete
sidewalk
in
the
course
of
this
emails.
H
He
also
stated
that
if
I
built
the
sidewalk
with
a
six
foot,
sidewalk
I
would
only
have
two
feet
between
the
sidewalk
and
the
curb.
That's
not
the
legal
tree
plot,
so
there
wouldn't
be
any
trees
required
in
that
plot.
The
Udo
requires
the
trees
to
go
outside
the
plot
onto
my
own
personal
property.
At
the
time,
that's
fine,
I
I
knew
that
and
I
actually
plan
on
putting
trees
when
all
this
issue
was
solved,
but
the
requirements
for
the
code
were
approved
in
the
site
plan
that
I
could
do
Street
substitution.
H
The
text
of
the
Udo
is
quite
clear:
there
is
no
limit
for
Street
trees.
Just
as
Eric
pointed
out,
hey
area
is
different.
You've
had
35
trees
per
acre.
You
can
reduce
that
number.
Well,
if
I
have
a
tree,
every
40
feet
or
I
have
every
40
feet
with
a
separation
frame.
You
can
also
reduce
the
number
just
the
same
way.
Linear
dimensions
are
the
same
as
area
Dimensions
they're
just
once
two
Dimensions
one
is
one
so
I
believe
that
that
the
code
is
written
in
such
a
way
that
you
can
do
the
substitution.
H
If
that
is
not
what
the
city
wants
to
go
back
to
the
city
council
and
have
the
Udo
changed,
the
clear
text
of
the
code
says
that
you
can
substitute
for
any
required.
Landscaping
Street
trees
that
require
landscaping
and
they're
listed
in
the
substitutions
which
are
allowed
in
the
code
and
since
the
two
foot
tree
plot
cavity
trees.
I
cannot
violate
the
Udo
by
not
having
a
tree
plot,
because
you
can't
there's
no
five
foot
tree
pod
available
on
the
property
at
all.
The
code
knows
about
that
and
puts
it
on
the
property
itself.
H
Can
we
bring
the
slide
up
that
talks
about
the
manner
of
construction,
one
two
more
slides
that
one
right
there?
Yes,
this
is
the
meat
of
the
appeal
here.
H
The
idio
considers
there
could
be
conflicts
between
the
state
code,
Federal
code
and
the
city
code,
the
udl
judges,
those
conflicts
on.
What's
a
stricter
provision.
Unfortunately,
the
state
code
says:
tough:
luck
were
the
state
we
take
in.
In
some
aspects
we
take
precedence
over
the
city
law,
I
realized
that
you
have
a
hard
time.
H
H
The
fact
is
that
particular
Barrett
law
process
in
the
state
law
is
actually
the
method
that
follows
the
U.S
Constitution
for
how
a
property
owner
with
a
building
permit
can
be
restricted
or
required
to
build
off-site.
Okay,
the
Udo
here
does
not
do
that,
but
we're
not
arguing
a
constitutional
issue
here.
We're
arguing
whether
or
not
the
city
should
follow
the
manner
that's
in
the
state
law.
Now
the
Udo
clearly
states
that
you
can
judge
between
conflicting
Things
based
on
strictness.
H
It
also
allows
the
city
to
request
that
anybody
build
a
sidewalk,
not
just
new
development,
that's
stricter
and
if
you
want
to
look
at
another
way,
if
the
state
says,
if
you
don't
follow
this
manner,
you
can't
require
the
proper
donor
to
build
a
sidewalk.
That's
definitely
stricter
too
so
I'm
asking
the
city
in
this
particular
case
to
rule
that
the
the
Barrett
law
is
actually
stricter
and
that
in
that
respect,
the
Barrett
law
should
be
take
precedence
over
the
Udo
and
in
a
finding
that
I've
asked
for
the
finding.
H
Is
that
the
the
BCA
can
recommend
that,
because
you
can
find
that,
and
it
could
also
find
that
the
planning
department,
if
they
wish
a
sidewalk
to
be
built,
could
ask
the
public
works
administrator
to
request
it
from
me
and
do
so
now.
I
like
that,
just
add
something
that
it's
going
to
come
up
a
little
bit
later
and
I
just
got
a
text
about
it,
but
I
won't
read
it.
There's
a
meeting
tonight
for
an
mup,
a
corridor
study
and
actually
it's
the
mayor
and
Council
has
funded
this
or
will
fund
it.
H
A
pedestrian
Corridor
upgrade
on
High
Street
from
south
of
Hillside
to
Third
Street
they're
talking
about
tonight.
My
neighbors
wanted
to
come
here
tonight,
they're,
not
here,
because
I
said
that
they
should
come
to
that
meeting.
That
meeting
is
much
more
important.
They
come
here
to
support
me
we're
going
to
get
that
done
anyway.
The
city
is
going
to
build
That
Sidewalk
anyway,
probably
on
my
west
side,
so
I'm
going
to
get
what
I
want
in
the
in
what
I
think
and
I'm
going
to
get.
H
What
I
really
need
is
the
sidewalk
continuous
from
first
to
Maxwell.
That's
the
reason:
I
don't
want
the
liability
and
can't
actually
build
the
sidewalk
there,
but
once
we're
going
to
do
a
whole
sidewalk,
that's
fantastic!
Okay
and
I
will
build
my
section
right
away,
even
if
I'm
not
required,
because
the
city
will
ask
me
to
do
it
and
I'll
do
it.
H
So
therefore,
I
asked
the
city
right
now
at
the
board
to
rule
in
my
favor
on
this
okay,
because
you're
going
to
get
a
sidewalk
anyway
and
you're
going
to
get
a
sidewalk
without
charging
me
105
000
a
week
in
fines,
five
million
dollars
a
year
in
fines,
while
this
matter
goes
to
the
courts
and
when,
if
I
take
it
that
way,
because
I
cannot
build
That
Sidewalk
with
a
liability,
I
lose
my.
My
liability
insurance
will
not
cover
it.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
I
appreciate
it.
A
Okay
and
again,
the
remainder
of
your
time
can
be
used
later
on.
First,
it's
back
to
the
board
for
any
questions
you
might
have
of
Staff
or
of
the
petitioner.
So
please
stand
by
and
what
I
would
suggest.
Jackie
is,
let's
check
online
first
to
see
if
our
member
who's
joining
us
has
a
question
before
we
ask
here
in
in
Chambers.
F
Okay,
great
Autumn,
do
you
have
any
questions
and
you'll
have
to
turn
your
video
on
when
you
speak.
A
I
C
A
C
Well,
I
guess
for
the
petitioner
just
to
make
sure
I'm
understanding
exactly
what
he's
wanting
I
understand.
He
doesn't
want
to
build
the
sidewalk
now
for
liability
purposes,
but
was
there
also
with
the
existing
trees?
They
want
that
to
be
sufficient
enough.
Yeah.
H
As
in
this,
as
an
approved
site
plan,
the
the
three
I
used
three
of
the
existing
trees
on
the
site,
not
all
of
them.
They
count.
They
give
credits
for
at
least
nine
approved
nine
trees
and
I
wanted
those
credits
to
take
the
place
of
the
street
trees.
H
So
we
can't
really
do
that
until
we
solve
the
sidewalk
issue,
but
I'm
going
to
tell
you
right
now,
I'm
going
to
put
non-street
trees
on
the
interior
and
the
interior
of
my
lot,
the
block
at
I
plan
on
doing
that.
I
haven't
done
it
yet
because
we
have
to
solve
the
sidewalk
issue
before
I
know
what
the
Landscaping
is
going
to
be
completely
done.
And
yes,
it's
not
that
I,
don't
want
to
build
a
sidewalk.
H
C
H
Not
not
at
all,
we
we
decide,
we
decide
if,
if
the
city
has
to
build
a
sidewalk
I'm
going
to
put
Street
trees,
the
streets
The
Substitute
of
Industries
on
my
property
anyway,
but
I,
don't
want
the
requirements
of
of
what
kind
of
trees,
because
they're
not
going
to
be
on
the
street
anymore
they're,
going
to
be
on
my
property
and
and
whatnot
and
I
want
to
solve
this
street
tree
Problem
by
just
taking
the
credits
and
the
Udo
clearly
states
that
I
can
take
the
credits.
G
Real
real,
quick,
Mrs,
McCoy,
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
you
know
we
have.
We
have
three
petitions
on
the
agenda
tonight
and
each
kind
of
deal
with
specific,
separate
items,
so
this
exact
petition
right
now.
This
administrative
appeal
case
that
we
are
hearing
right
now
is
regarding
who
is
required
to
install
the
sidewalk
and
who
pays
for
it
and
the
third
or
the
second
is
are
we:
are
we
required
to
count
the
existing
trees
and
as
a
credit
towards
other
required
Street
trees?
G
It's
not
about
you
know
where
the
street
trees
are
going
or
are
they
required?
It's
are.
We
are
we
required
do
we
have
to
approve
the
credit,
a
credit
for
existing
Street
trees
to
count
as
multiple
Street
treats?
G
So
there
are
two
separate
Topics
in
this
exact
appeal
who
pays
for
a
sidewalk
and
are
do
we
have
to
require
or
allow
for
a
credit
for
these
Street
trees
to
not
require
additional
Street
trees
to
be
installed?
So
I
know
it's
hard
to
to
keep
that
separate
from
some
of
a
lot
of
the
information
that
was
kind
of
relayed,
but
it's
important
for
each
petition
to
keep
those
two
keep
the
facts
separately
of
what
exactly
each
administrative
appeal
is
regarding.
C
G
G
Well,
so,
as
of
right
now,
I
think
that
there
are
two
trees
and
I'll
I'll,
just
kind
of
go
back
to
my
site
photo.
You
know
there
are
two
trees
at
the
far
back
of
the
property,
oh
I'm,
so
I'm.
So
sorry
I
need
to
share.
G
So
there
are
two
tree.
You
know
there
is
a
clump
of
three
trees
at
the
far
south
end
of
his
property.
You
know
there
there
may
have
been
some
others
along
the
front
ends,
but
those
were
all
removed.
So
the
petitioner
is
basically
saying
that
you
know
the
the
Landscaping.
The
preservation
of
existing
Landscaping
says
that
we
may
approve
the
substitution
or
a
credit
of
existing
vegetation
towards
counting
towards
required
Landscaping.
G
So
you
know
we
have
taken
the
position
that
we
are
not
approving
the
preservation
of
these
three
trees
to
count
for
the
entire
Corridor
and
the
required
trees.
Every
40
feet.
G
With
the
sidewalk,
so
in
our
conversations
in
my
conversations
with
Mr
pilachowski
from
the
early
on
you
know,
we
had
talked
about
preserving
existing
trees
having
those
count
as
existing
Street
trees
and
the
location
of
the
sidewalk.
We
were
happy
to
work
with
him
to
keep
existing
trees
if
those
wanted
to
be
used
as
Street
trees,
and
that
was
something
that
we
were
going
to
deal
with
when
it
came
time
for
the
sidewalk
installation.
G
A
To
your
arm,
if
we'll
keep
our
eye
on
you
any
questions.
J
E
H
H
If
I
got
the
text,
they
got
a
preference
right
now
and
because
my
wife
said
that
meaning
essentially
so
but
I
like
to
correct
one
thing:
if
I
well,
I'll
correct
it
later,
when
I
have
more
time,
but
yes
that
that's
there
is
a
plan
there
and
I
and
later
on
you're
hearing
I'll
show
you
the
letter
for
that
plan,
but
that's
not
applicable
to
this
part
of
the
hearing,
as
Eric
said,
and
we're
getting
off
track
of.
H
Well,
I
will
be
paying
for
it.
Okay,
the
the
the
the
the
the
Barrett
Law
requires
you
to
pay,
for
it
I
think
that
that,
even
if
the
city
does
it
they'll,
probably
approach
me
that
anyway,
for
that,
but
but
my
problem
is,
is
the:
is
the
I
can't
build
it
unless
there's
the
sidewalk
to
go
south
of
me
to
connect
both
Street,
you
know
to
connect
first
to
to
Maxwell,
and
then
the
sidewalk
won't
end
in
the
middle
of
the
block.
H
H
E
H
It
won't
cover
anything
that
happens
there
because
of
the
end,
it's
called
the
reasonable
person
exception
to
liability
insurance.
If
a
real
person
thinks
something's
dangerous
that
you
do,
we
don't
cover
it
and
and
that
they
clearly
told
me
that
both
insurance
companies
have
my
commercial
insurance
and
my
homeowners
insurance.
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
H
And-
and
it's
even
more
complicated
than
that,
the
the
walnut
tree
there
is,
we
show
the
picture.
The
property
line
goes
all
the
way
through
the
center
of
it.
So
who
who's
is
that
the
city's
walnut
tree
or
mine?
Okay,
the
hickory
tree
to
the
north
of
that
is,
is
mine,
okay,
but
to
extend
the
sidewalk
and
to
go
into
my
property.
H
Let's
say
to
preserve
those
two
trees,
the
the
sidewalk
will
have
to
extend
20
feet
into
my
property
because
it
will
destroy
the
root
system
of
the
other
trees
in
that
group
that
you
saw
from
the
picture
and
it
will
go.
You
know
more
into
my
my
neighbor's
property,
so
that
wall
sticks
into
the
right-of-way,
but
it's
grandfathered,
because
it's
been
so
there
so
long
and
it
was
before
the
city
took
the
right
away.
So
it's
really
a
complicated
situation.
So.
A
G
So
we
we
have
not
looked,
you
know
at
the
specifics
of
the
location
of
a
sidewalk
in
regards
to
what
is
happening
on
the
adjacent
property.
You
know
right
now
we're
just
kind
of
working
through
the
the
basic
fundamental
steps
of
you
know.
A
sidewalk
is
required.
G
The
petitioner
is
required
to
install
that
sidewalk.
We
are
happy
to
work
with
him
on
the
specifics
of
where
that
sidewalk
might
stub,
where
it
might
be
located
on
their
property
to
keep
existing
trees.
So
we
kind
of
have
to
work
sequentially
through
this
order
of
operations.
G
You
know
the
wall
as
I'm
aware
and
I'm
trying
to
pull
it
up
on
street
view
to
get
a
little
bit
more
information
on
it.
You
know
it
doesn't
really
look
that
substantial,
but
you
know,
like
I,
said
we're
happy
to
work
with
property
owners,
and
we
deal
with
this.
All
the
time
of
you
know
exact
locations.
Yes,
we
understand
that
something
might
terminate
at
a
property
line.
G
You
know
and
when
that
adjacent
property
is
required
to
install
something
you
know
that
wall
can
be
removed.
You
know
that'll
be
at
their
ability
because
it's
adjacent
to
their
property.
You
know
this
wall,
I'm
sure
has
no
encroachment.
A
So,
what's
the
city's
position
that
the
petitioner
is
claiming
it's
a
loss
of
insurance
or
an
increase
in
liability
if
they
stub
the
sidewalk
I'll
speak
to
that.
Thank
you.
K
L
Look
right
of
way
on
to
private
property
owners
who
are
adjacent
to
the
public
right-of-way,
but
that's
something
that's
simply
not
allowed
by
Indiana
law
that
that
has
been
something
that
cities
have
tried.
Many
times,
they've
passed,
Provisions
to
say:
look
we're
going
to
make
adjacent
property
owners
responsible
for
maintenance
by
making
them
responsible
for
maintenance.
We've
actually
passed
liability
for
injuries
to
persons
who
use
the
right-of-way
onto
those
adjacent
property
owners
and
courts
have
just
said.
No,
you
have
not.
L
The
city
is
responsible
for
making
sure
it's
right-of-way,
it's
sidewalks,
its
streets
are
maintained
and
designed
in
a
reasonably
safe
condition,
and
if
they
are
not,
the
city
is
liable.
For
that.
That's
the
city's
number
one
claim:
that's
every
City's
number
one
claim
is
slip
and
Falls
and
and
adjacent
Property
Owners
simply
can't
be
liable
for
it.
L
A
D
So
my
question
is
to
staff:
is
there
a
time
limit
to
construct
the
sidewalk?
Obviously
there's
different
different
issues
happening
in
this
particular
location?
D
Is
there
or
is
there
a
sidewalk
sidewalk
bond
that
you
can
put
on
him,
put
a
bond
on
him,
so
he
you
know,
the
sidewalk
will
be
constructed
at
a
certain
time.
I
just
want
to
know
about
timing,
because
it
he's
not
contending
that
he
will
not
build
the
sidewalk
so
of
what
he's
concerned
is
with
the
timing
here,
because
there
are
not
other
sidewalks
that
will
connect
to.
F
It
I'll
let
Eric
answer
that
question,
but
I
just
want
to
clarify
he's
absolutely
contending
that
he
does
not
want
to
build
the
sidewalk.
He
will
pay
for
someone
else
to
build
it.
He
does
not
think
that
he
he
does
not
want
to
be
responsible
for
building
it.
So,
just
to
be
clear
on
that
point,
But
Eric
can
you
answer
flavia's
main
question.
There.
G
Yeah,
so
in
terms
of
the
timing,
you
know
we
had,
we
had
actually
Incorporated
with
this
when
we
approved
the
building,
permit
a
note
to
the
Monroe
County
building
department.
You
know
to
let
us
know
before
occupancy
is
given,
because
there
was
a
sidewalk
that
was
required
adjacent
to
this
Frontage.
G
G
You
know,
as
we
deal
with
various
enforcement
activities,
you
know
we
we
try
to
take
into
kind
of
wide
range
of
things.
Certainly
with
this,
we
were
aware
that
the
city
is
going
through
a
process
right
now
to
determine
what
types
of
pedestrian
facilities
might
be
appropriate
along
High
Street
and
the
timing
for
that.
G
You
know
I
I,
without
speaking
for
the
entire
department
I
think
we're
happy
to
be
flexible
to
some
degree
to
let
that
process
play
out
over
the
next
month
to
figure
out
what
side
of
this
Street
things
are
going
to
be
happening
on,
but
I
I
think
there's
a
little
bit
of
flexibility
at
staff
level
of
when
he
would
have
to
put
it
in,
but
it
does
need
to
happen
soon.
H
Okay,
the
this
appeal
is
that
I
don't
have
I,
have
the
option
of
not
building
the
sidewalk
if
I'm
requested
by
the
the
Public
Works.
Commissioner,
okay,
that's
what
this
appeal
is
about.
I
have
that
option
to
choose
to
do
so
or
not.
The
reason
that
I
have
would
choose
that
option
at
this
time
is
because
this
sidewalk
doesn't
connect.
H
If
the
city
does
build
a
sidewalk
there
on
that
between-
let's
say
south
of
my
property-
to
go
down
to
to
Maxwell
and
only
builds
that,
okay,
which
I
don't
expect
to
happen,
I,
don't
think
they
can
I'll
explain
it
later
in
the
hearing
another
hearing,
then
it
becomes
my
option.
The
city
asked
me
to
build
it
I
make
even
by
the,
unless
the
twins
for
me
to
build
that
sidewalk
and
for
the
city
to
contract
it
out.
H
Okay,
I
can
I
can
do
it
for
three
thirty,
three
thousand
thirty
five
dollars
on
materials
because
we
have
the
equipment.
We
have
the
forms,
six
thousand
dollars
if
we
hire
Subs
to
do
everything
so
I
can't
tell
you
the
answer
to
the
question
until
we
got
so
miss
Scanlon
is
right.
I'm
saying
that
I
don't
I
have
the
option
of
choosing
not
to
do
so.
I
can't
tell
you
whether
I'll
take
that
option
in
the
future.
A
F
Jackie
development
services
manager
I
just
want
to
make
a
point
just
because,
since
we
have
three
petitions
in
Mr
pilachowski
tonight,
but
they're
all
kind
of
related
to
the
same
issue
and
a
lot
of
really
good
questions,
some
that
may
be
more
appropriate
for
the
variants
that
we're
talking
or
that
will
inform
your
discussion
of
the
variants
as
well.
So
this
first
one
in
Eric,
Mr,
greulich
or
Mr
Rooker
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
F
This
first
administrative
appeal
is
that
Mr
pilachowski
is
saying
that
we
should
that
he
has
the
right
to
invoke
the
Barrett
law
and
not
that
he
has
the
right
to
vote
the
Barrett
law.
One
we've
told
him
that
we
don't
and
Mr
that
he
doesn't
and
Mr
Rooker
can
speak
more
to
that
and
that
two
he
has
the
right
to
substitute
those
plants
for
his
street
trees.
So
Mr
grulich
made
a
point
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
it
landed
that
the
Udo
allow
allows
us
to
let
people
do
that.
F
It
doesn't
require
it.
So
we
talk
about
that
a
lot
where
a
shall
or
a
May-
and
it
says
the
planning
and
transportation
department
may
allow
substitutions,
and
so
typically,
as
Eric
has
said
in
the
past,
we
have
not
done
that
for
Street
trees
for
allowed
trees
on
site
to
count
for
Street
trees.
F
A
Well
than
I
could:
okay,
that's
fine!
We'll
come
to
that.
If
needed,
however,
you
did
bring
up
the
the
next
question.
I
had
I'm
back
to
you
in
a
second
okay.
The
question
I
had
I
think
goes
to
Eric,
which
is
I
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
the
notation
that
was
on
the
site
plan
that
indicated
that
the
trees
would
be
accepted
for
substitution.
That
was
a
that
was
stated
by
the
petitioner.
Could
you
address
that?
A
G
Your
reply
absolutely
so
so
in
that
site
plan
you
know,
there's
a
note
about
trees
to
be
preserved
and
there
are
two
that
are
shown
on
the
south
side
of
the
site.
G
G
You
know
we
can
count
some
of
those
trees,
but
it
was
not
something
where
we
I
said,
or
we
said
you
know
that
that
these
three
trees
or
these
two
trees,
because
there's
really
only
two
trees
at
the
south
end
that
are
even
in
the
tree
plot
or
close
to
it.
You
would
count
as
all
of
the
street
trees
along
here.
G
You
know
it's
just
a
notation,
that's
a
sidewalk
details
to
be
determined,
so
that
is
where
we
were
going
to
go
into
the
conversation
of
what
was
actually
preserved
on
the
site.
Where
is
the
sidewalk
literally
going
to
go
and
are
there
any
trees
that
were
preserved
during
the
construct
question
that
can
count
towards
that
requirement?.
H
Mr
gurlish's
interpretation
is
not
my
understanding.
All
of
our
conversations
with
this
were
done
in
writing.
An
email
they're
all
part
of
the
evidence
that
I've
submitted
that
I
did
not
selectively
quote
anything
when
I
made
this
presentation.
Okay,
the
site
plan
was
approved
with
that
notation
on
it
and
with
my
earlier
emails
explaining
that
notation,
okay,
there
is
no
question.
Mr
grulich
did
ask
me
on
July
7th
of
20021,
to
modify
this
type
plan
to
add
to
the
site
plan
that
the
sidewalk
would
be
six
feet
in
contract
and
concrete.
H
Excuse
me,
I
added
that
in
you
can
see
that's
the
hand
notation
there,
because
I
was
in
Wisconsin
at
the
time.
Didn't
have
my
computer
never
asked
me
to
change
anything
else?
Okay,
he
had
the
opportunity
to
ask
me
to
remove
that
notation.
He
had
the
opportunity
to
tell
me
that
it
wouldn't
be
acceptable.
None
of
the
emails
show
that
none
of
also
show
that
the
the
problem
is
when
we
talk
about
the
preserving
of
trees,
the
location
of
the
sidewalk
preserving
in
that
the
hickory
tree
and
the
walnut
tree
of
the
South.
H
We
did
talk
about
that
with
the
location
of
the
thing,
but
the
I
do
not.
The
walnut
tree
is
not
used
as
the
calculations
for
the
for
the
vegetation.
Only
the
Hickory,
the
West
Walnut
and
the
Honey
Locust
are
used.
Okay
and
the
reason
I
didn't
use.
The
Walnut
is
because
I
didn't
know
who
owned
it
and
who
could
count
it
where
it
was
I
know
the
other
trees
were
on
my
property.
It
could
be
used,
so
it's
a
little
more
complicated
than
that,
but
the
bottom
line
is
that
they
approved
it.
H
No
question:
it's
noted
on
the
site
plan
and
it's
noted
on
the
emails
that
I
have
it
was
approved.
If
it
was
a
mistake,
admit
it
was
a
mistake
and
go
on.
Okay:
I
can
go
out
and
buy
the
trees
and
plant
them
right
away.
I,
don't
know
where
to
plant
them,
but
I'll
plan
them
on
my
property.
That's
not
a
problem.
They
may
have
to
get
torn
up.
A
Are
there
any
further
questions
before
we
go
to
the
public
for
comments,
so
the
procedure
then,
for
the
petitioners
will
go
to
the
public
for
comments
if
there
are
any
and
then
at
the
after
that,
you'll
have
an
opportunity
to
use
the
rest
of
your
time
to
address
any
issues.
Do
we
have
no
other
questions
autumn.
C
I
do
have
a
question.
Thank
you.
I
was
there
seems
to
be
a
contradiction
between
the
petitioner's
feeling
of
his
liability
with
regard
to
the
sidewalk,
and
the
attorney
saying
he
has
no
liability.
I
need
clarification
on
that
which
one
is
it
Michael,
because
if
he's
I
mean
I
mean,
if
he's
if
his
insurance
company
is
gonna,
not
cover
him.
If
he
puts
that
sidewalk
in
then
he
has
a
problem,
but
the
attorney
said
that
he
doesn't
that
that's
not
I
I
thought.
L
Just
to
be
clear,
so
Michael
Rooker,
City
attorney
when
a
facility
is
installed
in
the
public
right-of-way,
the
municipality,
that's
responsible
for
that
right-of-way,
whatever
town
city
county
is
responsible
for
maintenance
of
the
right-of-way,
is
responsible
for
making
sure
that
it's
maintained
as
a
safe
public
way
for
the
Public's
use.
That
means
that
it
has
to
be
properly
maintained
and
properly
designed
to
be
used
safely.
L
If
somebody
is
hurt
on
a
sidewalk
in
a
slip
and
fall
or
some
other
incident
or
on
a
street,
the
municipality
that's
responsible
for
the
public
right-of-way
is
liable
to
that
person.
It
is
not
somebody
else
who
can
be
held
liable
for
the
defective
condition
of
a
sidewalk
or
a
road.
There
are
any
number
of
cases
all
throughout
the
long
history
of
Indiana
that
state
this.
L
There
is
a
statutory
requirement
that
municipalities
keep
the
right-of-way
in
a
safe
condition
for
public
travel,
and
if
they
don't,
the
municipality
is
the
party
that
is
liable,
not
the
adjacent
property
owner.
It
is
not
atypical
at
all
for
private
parties
to
design
and
build
public
facilities
within
the
public
right-of-way,
but
once
those
public
facilities
are
part
of
the
municipalities
inventory
of
of
spaces
in
the
public
right-of-way,
which
is
something
that
happens
pretty
much
immediately
after
it's
installed.
There
is
just
no
question
about
liability
at
that
point.
None
whatsoever.
A
And
while
we're
waiting
for
that
just
to
comment,
there
be
five
minute
limit
to
anyone
who
wants
to
speak
from
the
public.
A
Thank
you,
then,
at
this
point
we
will
return
to
the
petitioner.
How
much
time
does
he
have
left.
H
However,
there's
a
caveat
I
don't
have
the
cases
to
site
in
Indiana,
there's
a
particular
case
that
the
insurance
people
cited
to
me,
but
it
doesn't
matter
whether
it's
a
case
or
not
what
the
insurance
companies
want
to
do.
But
here's
the
problem,
there's
two
problems:
Mr
Roker
says
that
that
the
city
is
responsible
for
maintaining
it,
but
they,
but
they
pass
that
maintaining
Duty
onto
the
adjoining
property
owner.
H
If
the
adjoining
property
owner
doesn't
maintain
the
property
correctly,
let's
say
they
don't
there's
a
crack
and
they
don't
level
it
correctly.
Then
they
were
the
one
who
did
the
repair
work
to
do
the
to
fix
the
crack?
Maybe
the
city
didn't
get
yet
to
look
at
it
and
approve
it.
Somebody
gets
hurt,
the
city
is
going
to
get
sued
and
the
homeowner
is
going
to
get
sued
no
question
on
these
types
of
lawsuits.
H
It's
the
expense
is
not
just
the
payout
of
the
lawsuit's
won
or
lost
it's
the
expense
of
of
of
actually
trying
the
cases
and
and
handling
the
cases.
Okay,
with
respect-
and
that's
an
important
point
to
make
also
in
this
particular
case
the
responsibility
for
this
sidewalk
in
the
city,
the
city
built
it
they'd-
have
to
meet
the
pro
AG
Ada
indot
and
indot's
Indiana
design
manual
guidelines,
recommendations,
best
practices.
H
The
design
manual
clearly
states
that
when
you
work
on
a
sidewalk
and
you
you
do
it
the
recommended
best
practice-
and
this
is
what
you're
going
to
get
hit
on-
is
that
the
sidewalk
goes
to
logical
Termini.
In
this
case,
it
would
have
to
go
between
the
two
intersections.
It
can't
stop
mid
block
okay.
Now
what
we
can
talk
more
about
this
later
at
the
other
hearings,
but
that
practice
means
that
that
mid-block
thing
is
dangerous.
What
my
insurance
company
would
say
it
says
to
me,
has
nothing
to
do
with
who
has
responsibility.
H
For
my
Commercial
Insurance
I'll
tell
you
right
now:
they'll
cancel
the
insurance
but
and
we're
going
to
let
them
do
it
for
my
liability
insurance
that
reasonable
insurance
has
been
explained
to
me
the
same
way
if
I
build
something
that
can
be
thought
of
as
by
a
reasonable
person.
It's
dangerous.
Okay,
whether
or
not
determine
whose
responsibility
and
to
take
care
of
this
case
is
expensive.
They
don't
want
to
do
it,
and
so
that's
my
problem
and
it's
and
so
it's
a
complicated
situation
and
I'm.
Sorry
I.
Don't
have
that
particular
case.
H
I
want
to
talk
to
about
a
shopping,
Center,
building
a
sidewalk
that
was
obviously
dangerous
and
is
responsible
for
that
sidewalk.
Even
if
it's
on
the
city,
property,
I.
Don't
have
that
case
right
now
in
front
of
me,
I,
apologize
and
I
think
that's
all
I
have
to
do
tonight.
I,
it
I
have
some
news
about
the
mup,
but
it's
not
particular
to
this
case.
I
would
except
to
say
that
if
it's
built
as
proposed
right
now,
any
sidewalk
that's
built
would
have
to
be
removed.
A
Thank
you,
I'm.
Sorry,
thank
you
and
at
this
point
we
can
go
one
of
two
ways
which
is
we
can
have
additional
questions
or
comments,
or
we
could
entertain
a
motion
and
then
we
will
have
time
for
comments
or
questions
following
emotion.
D
Can
you
this
is
for
Mr
Rooker?
Can
you
explain
the
Barrett
law
in
way
we
don't
practice
the
Barrett
law
and
in
Bloomington.
L
Sure
I'm
happy
to
do
my
best
to
explain
what
the
Barrett
law
is.
If
you
wanted
to
understand
why
the
Barrett
law
is
not
used
as
a
particular
funding
mechanism
in
Bloomington
for
public
improvements
that
are
in
the
public
right-of-way.
That
sort
of
question
would
probably
be
better
directed
to
the
city
council
or
the
Board
of
Public
Works,
as
they
are
the
bodies
that
would
have
to
approve
that
sort
of
funding
mechanism
for
public
improvements,
but
I
think
Eric
summarized
it
correctly.
L
The
Barrett
law
is
one
way
to
fund
public
improvements
where
a
municipality
would
adopt
the
Barrett
law
and
then
build
public
improvements
out
and
then
assign
based
on
a
certain
amount
of
Street
Frontage,
a
liability
I
say:
liability.
I
shouldn't
use
that
word
in
the
context
of
this
case,
but
they
would
charge
back
the
cost
of
that
to
property
owners
over
time,
potentially
so
the
various
people
who
would
have
Frontage
and
would
benefit
from
that
particular
public
Improvement.
This
is
not
mandatory.
L
Contrary
to
what
you
see
in
some
of
the
submissions
from
Mr
pelechowski,
one
of
the
things
he
said
is
that
this
is
the
the
only
manner
in
which
a
municipality
May
request
an
abutting
property
owner
to
construct
an
off-site
sidewalk.
That
is
not
the
case
to
the
extent
that
this
board
thinks
that
we
should
be
debating
an
interpretation
of
the
Barrett
law
and
whether
or
not
that
is
in
fact,
the
exclusive
mechanism
for
funding
an
off-site
improvement
like
this.
L
That's
probably
something
that
would
more
appropriately
be
sorted
out
through
a
declaratory
judgment
in
front
of
a
judge
or
the
court
of
appeals
or
the
Indiana
Supreme
Court
in
terms
of
interpreting
the
exclusive
and
mandatory
nature
of
that
funding.
Provision.
I
will
tell
you
that
there
are
no
municipalities
in
Indiana
who
are
treating
the
Barrett
law
as
a
mandatory
and
exclusive
exclusive
funding
mechanism
for
public
improvements
in
the
right-of-way.
We
get
things
built
in
the
right
of
way
through
all
sorts
of
different
means.
The
Barrett
lives,
not
the
only
one.
C
I,
don't
think
I
have
any
questions
right
now,
I
think
so.
Okay,.
H
A
E
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion,
so
we
can
just
continue
discussion
but
I'll
move
that
case
a
a-08-2-3.
A
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
at
this
point.
We
have
an
opportunity
for
further
discussion
or
explanations
if
you
would
so
choose.
E
So
I
guess
this
is
really
I
mean
a
question
in
terms
of
the
actual
numbers
behind
what
the
cost
is
going
to
be.
Here's,
so
I
guess
I'm
addressing
this
to
you,
Mr
polachowski,
you're,
saying
you'll,
you'll
pay
for
it,
no
matter
what,
but
really
am
I
interpreting
this
right
when
I
think
what
you're
saying
is,
but
I
want
to
Outsource
it
to
the
city
to
do
it.
Now,
that
has
to
be
a
pretty
big
cost
difference.
I
would
think.
H
I
budgeted
fifteen
thousand
dollars
for
the
sidewalk
okay
at
the
time
I
budgeted.
That
was
the
cost
if
the
city
went,
was
the
cost.
Basically,
the
square
foot
price
that
one
of
the
contractors
who
normally
bids
on
these
for
the
city
takes
yeah.
It
was
fourteen.
Fifty
a
square
foot,
I
used
fifteen
dollars
a
square
foot,
there's
a
thousand
eighty
square
feet:
that's
fifteen
thousand
dollars,
yeah
I
budgeted
that
so
that's
the
that's
the
cost
of
doing
the
sidewalk.
H
Okay,
if
you
go
to
a
private
contractor,
the
cost
of
materials
is
a
little
over
three
thousand
dollars.
If
you
do
it
yourself,
my
cost
of
the
the
if
I,
subbed
out
the
flat
work
and
the
building
of
forms
and
even
subbed
out
using
my
equipment
to
do
the
stuff
it's
about
six
thousand
dollars.
If
we
do
it
ourselves
and
I,
have
the
RO
I
have
the
license
to
do
that,
so
I'm
willing
to
pay
the
premium
to
do
the
other
way
not
to
have
to
build
it.
H
C
C
It's
not
really
been
talked
about,
there's
just
nowhere
for
them
to
go
except
for
the
street.
So
I
don't
know
if
it's
appropriate
at
this
point
in
time.
I'm
not
sure.
But
you
know
it
seemed
like
the
talk
needs
to
be
about
continuing
the
entire
sidewalk
for
safety.
That
seems
to.
For
me,
safety
needs
to
be
the
most
important
thing
and
if
it's
right
at
the
school
and
where
people
are
walking
all
the
time,
where
are
they
going
to
go,
but
the
street
or
I
guess
in
someone's
yard?
That's.
G
Yeah,
so
so
I
certainly
understand
that
question.
It
feels
like
that
might
be
most
germane
to
the
last
petition
for
the
variants,
which
would
go
into
the
criteria
of
whether
or
not
a
sidewalk
would
be
required,
but
you
know
to
to
get
to
what
you're
you're
kind
of
getting
at
you
know
within
the
within
the
city
of
Bloomington.
You
know,
as
I
mentioned
at
the
beginning
of
the
presentation,
there
are
site
improvements
that
are
required
on
properties
all
the
time
when
they
develop.
G
You
know
we
we
encounter
this
situation
all
the
time
where
you
have
an
isolated
property
that
develops
and
they're
required
to
put
in
a
sidewalk.
They
do
it
properly
line
to
property
line.
It
may
not
connect
to
something
on
either
end,
but
you
know
we
get
those
improvements
when
they're
required
when
a
property
develops
and
and
they're
required
to
do
that.
So
it's
certainly
not
unusual.
G
You
know
for
a
sidewalk
to
stub
at
a
property
line.
You
know
you
look
at
a
corridor.
People
are
walking
in
the
street
or
they're
walking
on
the
grass
now
so
providing
a
sidewalk
at
least
gives
them
a
safer
place
to
walk
for
a
better
portion
of
a
street.
A
A
So
do
you
err
on
the
side
of
having
no
sidewalk
at
all
that
that
provides
this
suggested
safety
while
they're
on
the
sidewalk
or
do
you
just
say?
Oh
we're
not
going
to
have
anything.
Let
them
continue
to
walk
in
the
street,
so
it's
it
is
a
an
issue
that
we've
dealt
with
many
times,
I'm
just
saying
that
there
is
no
precedence,
so
I
don't
want
to
suggest
that
but
I'm
saying
that
your
question
is
valid.
It
comes
up
a
lot,
but
both
the
question
of
does
it
not
create
a
safety
hazard.
A
C
C
I
would
just
like
to
you
know,
hope
that
maybe
someday
can
be
extended
to
Maxwell,
so
it's
an
even
safer
sidewalk,
especially
since
it's
around
a
school,
so
I
better
understand
it
seems
like
it
would
just
be
better
to
go
all
the
way
to
Maxwell
kind
of
an
all
or
nothing.
Maybe
but
I
do
understand
now.
C
A
C
C
L
I'm
so
I'm
happy
to
address
this.
This
is
where
I'll
offer
as
a
complete
an
explanation
as
I
can.
So,
if
you
do
not
shovel
your
sidewalk
during
a
snow
event,
the
city's
recourse
is
to
send
you
a
notice
of
violation
and
find
you
for
violating
the
municipal
code.
If
there
is
ice
on
your
sidewalk
that
should
have
been
dealt
with,
and
it
has
lingered
for
days
and
days
and
days
and
created
a
dangerous
condition
and
somebody
slips
on
that
ice
and
breaks
their
leg,
because
the
sidewalk
was
dangerous
as
an
adjacent
property
owner.
L
You
cannot
be
liable
to
that
third
party,
the
injured
person
only
the
city
can
be
liable.
So
we
can
find
you
and
say
you
should
have
shoveled
your
your
sidewalk
and
gotten
the
ice
off
of
it.
You
should
have
put
some
salt
down,
but
what
we,
what
we
can't
do
is
transfer
liability
for
injuries
to
third
parties
from
the
city
to
you.
It
is
ultimately
and
fundamentally
our
responsibility
to
make
sure
that
the
public
ways
are
maintained
in
a
safe
way.
So
there
are
a
million
cases
that
say
this
quoting
from
one.
L
C
H
The
insurance
companies
can
make
their
own
decisions
okay
in
this.
In
this
case,
what
I've
been
told
and
I've
looked
at
it
for
several
years
at
this,
is
that
they
would
call
an
exception
on
my
homeowner's
policy
as
the
real
one
person
exception,
it's
written
in
the
policy,
they
would
call
that
they
would
do
that
discussion,
whether
or
not,
and
they
pointed
out
to
an
Indiana
law
for
like
court
case
that
I
don't
remember
so
whether
the
city
accepts
your
liability
or
not.
H
The
insurance
company
still
is
worried,
I'm
worried
about
it,
because
I
do
land,
I,
have
done
land
use
planning
for
for
many
years
and
represent
people
in
land
use
stuff
and
in
civil
in
civil
engineering,
and
these
things-
and
matters
like
this
so
I
have
a
knowledge
of
what
what's
what's
going
to
happen,
and
so
that
makes
me
even
my
insurance
company
makes
things
I'm
even
more
responsible.
So
we
have
an
argument.
The
city
thinks
they
have
it.
H
Won't
be
liable.
I
will
not
be
liable
at
all
if
the
City
built
it,
because
I
would
not
be
responsible
for
that.
But
the
problem
with
my
insurance
company
I
want
to
explain
this
problem
is
in
Germany.
It's
there's
no
sidewalk
there
now
and
they
don't
care
about
that.
Okay,
whether
they
it's
dangerous
to
walking
Street.
No
one
walks
there
anyway.
What
they
care
about
is
If
somebody
walks
on
that
sidewalk
and
gets
to
the
end
of
that
sidewalk
and
doesn't
turn
around
and
come
back.
H
They
then
they
go
into
the
street
and
more
people
will
be
into
the
street
jaywalking
or
whatnot.
If
the
Sidewalk
Ends
in
the
middle
of
the
block,
then,
if
there's
no
start
to
get
to
that
sidewalk
from
First
Street,
which
means
there's
no
sidewalk
there,
because
people
just
cross
the
street
and
walk
on
the
other
side.
But
now
they
don't
know
the
sidewalk
stops.
Okay,
it's
actually
180
feet
and
I
require
five
trees.
H
But
the
the
point
is:
that's:
that's
the
and
it's
it's
nuanced
I
agree,
but
I
don't
get
to
make
some
of
those
decisions
about
my
liability.
Insurance
I
get
to
make
decisions
about
myself
and
I.
Think
it's
dangerous
and
the
liability
people
can
make
their
own
decisions.
I.
Think
that
it's
dangerous
myself.
A
E
I
think
just
real
quick
I
mean
part
of
my
motion.
Here
is
one
defaulting
to
Mr
rorker
in
terms
of
the
law
itself
and
what
it
states
in
the
clarity
you
provided
so
I
appreciate
you
doing
that
to
the
petitioner
I'm
just
say:
maybe
shop
around
for
a
different
insurance
company
like
if,
if
they're,
if
this
and
you
don't
have
to
respond
to
it,
I'm
just
saying
I-
think
if,
if
that's
what
you're
stuck
on
I
think
there's
other
options
out
there,
because
we
have
seen
several
of
these
cases.
E
E
So
I
think
that's
at
least
for
me
pretty
clear
on
why
I'm
going
to
vote
for
the
Nile.
This.
Thank
you.
A
If
we
have
no
further
comments
or
questions
from
the
board,
we
do
have
a
motion
in
front
of
the
board
for
Action.
It
is
to
deny
the
appeal
that
the
property
owner
is
required
to
install
required
sidewalks
and
Street
trees
and
that
the
credit
toward
preservation
is
16.
Landscape
does
not
apply
towards
the
street
trees.
A
I'm,
sorry
that
was
the
request,
and
so
we
are
voting
to
deny
the
administrative
appeal
that
would
say
that
that's
not
going
to
be
required.
A
C
L
Yeah,
so
there
are
some,
as
staff
has
pointed
out
a
couple
of
times,
there
are
two
other
appeals.
Excuse
me
two
other
matters
on
the
docket
with
Mr
pilachowski.
This
would
simply
be
a
yes
vote
is
to
deny
his
appeal,
so
that
would
mean
that
his
interpretation
of
the
Udo
regarding
that
he
is
required
to
design
and
build
the
sidewalk,
is,
is
denied
and
then
that
the
credit
towards
Street
trees,
the
credit
of
trees
and
other
parts
of
the
property
would
not
count
towards
Street
trees.
Sorry
I
get
mixed
up
as
I'm
speaking.
C
F
C
A
Just
just
to
restate,
then
so
this
a
yes
vote
is
to
deny
this
particular
administrative
appeal.
A
What
we're
voting
on
is
the
denial
of
the
argument
that
that
he's
not
required
to
install
the
sidewalks
and
the
trees.
F
A
A
To
if
you
vote
Yes
to
the
administrative
appeal
to
the
motion,
then
you
will
be
saying
yes,
he
has
to
do
that.
Okay,.
F
So
you
will
be
this.
This
is
the
final
jacket,
Scanlon
development
services
manager.
This
is
the
final
petition
tonight
specifically
about
the
street
trees,
so
that
will
close
the
book
on
that
conversation,
no
matter
what
the
vote
happens
here.
The
final
petition
for
Mr
pilachowski
tonight
is:
he
is
requesting
a
determinate
sidewalk
variance
which
would
allow
him
to
not
build
the
sidewalk
for
some
amount
of
time
based
on
the
discussion
here.
So
the
question
about
whether
or
not
he'll
have
to
build
the
sidewalk
isn't
being
finally
answered
with
this
vote.
F
Well,
the
thing
that's
being
answered
is
whether
or
not
his
whether
or
not
his
interpretation
of
the
Barrett
law
is
whether
or
not
you
all
are
agreeing
that
he
is
correct.
With
with
that
and
and
saying
that,
the
description
that
Mr
Rooker
has
described
is
incorrect,
am
I
getting
it
yeah.
A
G
A
G
Appeal
for
the
the
Barrett
law
is
simply
strictly
related
to
who
pays
for
it,
so
denying
this
means
that
he
has
to
pay
for
it
as
Jackie
as
Mrs
Scanlon
mentioned,
we
will
discuss
with
the
last
variance
whether
or
not
a
sidewalk
is
required,
or
not.
This
administrative
appeal
is
simply
who
pays
for
it,
and
we
are
saying
that
the
Barrett
law
does
not
mandate
the
city
to
pay
for
it
and
that
he
would
have
to
pay
for
it.
If
it's
decided
later
that
a
sidewalk
is
required.
C
Okay,
I
understand
so
I
agree,
yes,
on
the
trees.
A
A
The
administrative
appeal
has
been
denied.
A
M
Yes,
I'm
Gabriel
holbro
zoning
planner
for
the
city
of
Bloomington
I
have
some
slides
to
pull
up.
So
let
me
do
that.
M
M
Okay,
that
is
not
what
I
wanted
to
show.
I
think
please
bear
with
me
here.
M
Okay,
here
we
go,
this
is.
M
M
This
portion
is
going
to
be
bounded
by
Roger,
Street
and
1st
Street
and
then
there's
a
proposed
new
Jackson
Street,
which
will
be
on
its
west
side
and
then
a
proposed
new
alley,
which
will
be
on
its
north
side.
It's
roughly
where
that
red
rectangle
is
shown
on
the
screen.
The
area
will
be
approximately
0.85,
Acres
give
or
take
a
little
bit
depending
on
how
that
exactly
shakes
out
in
the
subdivision.
M
It's
zoned
mixed
use,
medium
scale
mm
and
it's
within
the
transform
Redevelopment
overlay
that
was
created
for
the
Hopewell
District
in
the
comprehensive
plan.
It's
a
mixed,
Urban
residential
feature,
land
use
area
and
the
existing
land
use
is
it's
vacant
as
you've
probably
seen
if
you've
gone
by
it's
a
bit
of
a
not
construction
but
destruction
site.
M
At
the
moment,
the
core
building
is
is
being
preserved
and
by
the
time,
there's
construction
on
anything
that
is
allowed
to
go
forward
after
variances
tonight,
it'll
be
a
Clear
Sight
with
the
core
building
and
then
in
addition
built
onto
it.
So
this
is
a
just
to
give
you
to
refresh
your
memory
of
this
site.
Hopefully
you
know
about
the
site
from
walking
by
driving
by
this
is
the
core
building.
This
is
I
took
this
from
Google
street
view.
This
is
from
First
Street.
M
Looking
up
the
building
main
building,
you
see,
there's
the
core
building
behind
it.
You
can
see
some
of
the
old
hospital
buildings
which
do
not
exist
right
now,
so
it's
a
little
bit
up
a
hill
from
First
Street
and
from
Rogers.
M
M
This
is
a
site
plan.
I
think
we'll
come
back
to
it
as
we
talk
about
some
of
the
variances,
but
here
on
the
right
is
the
West.
That's
Roger,
Street
to
the
bottom
South,
that's
First,
Street
to
the
left.
West
is
the
new
proposed
Jackson
Street
to
the
north
is
the
alley
and
you
can
see
sort
of
in
the
middle
is
the
existing
core
building
and
then
the
part
of
that
H,
roughly
h-shaped
building,
is
the
new
proposed
Edition.
M
M
Do
that
just
go
over
that
first
and
then
go
back
to
each
one,
explain
what
the
variance
is
or
touch
on
what
the
variance
is
and
the
specific
recommended
findings
for
for
that
one
and
go
through
go
through
all
nine.
That's
a
lot.
We've
already
been
here
for
a
while.
So
I
want
to
be
thorough,
but
quick.
M
If
there's
anything
that
you
want
more
information
on
and
you
feel
like,
I
went
too
fast
through,
please
ask
during
The
Question
time
so
that
we
can
go
over
it.
So
with
that
the
first
criteria,
as
your
Criterion
as
you
know
for
variances,
is
that
the
approval
will
not
be
injurious
to
the
public
health
safety,
morals
and
general
welfare
of
the
community
status
proposed.
Finding
is
that
it
will
not
be
injurious,
and
the
reason
is
for
each
of
the
Udo
standards
that
the
petition
is
requesting.
M
Relief
from
the
proposed
project
achieves
or
addresses
the
goals
and
purpose
of
that
standard
by
other
means
and
we'll
go
through
how
each
of
them
achieves
that.
So
that's
the
status
purple
is
finding
for
it's
not
injurious.
M
The
second
Criterion,
the
use
and
value
of
the
area
adjacent
to
the
property
will
not
be
affected
in
a
substantially
adverse
manner.
Staffs
recommended
finding
is
that
it
will
not
result
in
substantial
adverse
effects.
None
of
the
requested
variants
will
limit
the
current
use
or
future
Redevelopment
of
any
of
the
surrounding
properties.
M
So,
let's
back
up
again
and
go
to
the
first
variants.
So
these
are
numbered.
These
numbers
are
not
significant
or
legally
binding
in
any
way.
We
just
number
that
way.
So,
if
we're
talking
about
it,
we
can
know
what
we're
talking
about.
So,
if
you
want
to
call
it
something
other
than
variance
one,
that's
totally!
Okay.
As
long
as
we
know
what
we're
all
talking
about,
first
one
has
to
do
with
the
front
parking
setback.
So
how
far
does
parking
have
to
be
set
back
from
a
street
what's
required
in
the
mm
district?
M
M
Well,
in
the
interest
of
time,
what
I'll
do
is
is
I'll
just
I'll
just
say
that,
and
if
you
want
to
see
that
in
more
detail
on
the
site
plan,
we
can
go
to
that.
I
will
just
highlight
that
the
materials
that
were
in
the
packet,
the
site
plan
and
the
renderings
and
the
elevations
that
were
in
the
packet
have
been
slightly
updated
and
what
was
approved
by
the
historic
preservation
commission
last
week
is
we
we
have
received
that
and
it's
slightly
different
from
what
was
in
the
packet.
M
If
you
want
to
that,
we'll
we'll
put
that
into
the
public
record,
and
if,
if
you
have
any
questions
about
it,
want
to
look
at
it,
we
can
do
that
as
well.
I
will
tell
you
that
it
is
the
petitioner's
understanding
and
it
is
staff's
understanding
that
none
of
the
changes
affect
any
of
the
variances.
So
all
the
variances
are
still
the
same.
There's
some
changes
to
the
facade
design,
but
so
first
variance
parking
needs
to
be
set
back,
20
feet
behind
the
front,
the
structures
front
wall,
it's
set
three
feet
behind.
M
M
So
it's
not
meaning
the
letter
of
the
Udo,
because
it's
only
three
feet
where
it
should
be
20.,
but
given
the
constraints
on
the
site
is
located
in
the
least
conspicuous
Place
possible,
so
it's
meaning
the
intent
of
a
Udo
for
the
third
criteria.
The
Practical
difficulty
is
found
in
the
topography
peculiar
to
the
site,
the
northwest
corner
of
the
site,
where
the
parking
is
proposed
as
the
only
location
on
the
site
that
can
be
made
Flat
enough
and
close
enough
in
height
to
the
building
floor
level
to
accommodate
required,
ADA,
Compliant,
accessible
parking
spaces.
M
M
The
build
to
range
in
the
mixed
use
and
non-residential
Zoning
districts
in
the
transform,
Redevelopment
overlay,
so
what's
required,
is
0
to
15
feet,
meaning
that
the
primary
buildings
on
the
site
must
be
between
0
and
15
feet
from
the
edge
of
right-of-way
what's
proposed.
Is
the
existing
core
building
is
approximately
92
feet
from
the
East
front
property
line
along
Roger
Street.
M
The
existing
core
building
is
where
it
is.
It
requires
a
variance
to
stay
there,
but
meeting
the
variants
would
require
moving
and
practically
speaking,
demolishing
the
core
building
which,
at
the
very
least,
has
not
been
approved
by
the
historic
preservation
Commission.
M
M
M
So
moving
the
core
building
or
adding
an
addition
in
front
of
its
eastern
or
Southern
facades
would
not
be
appropriate
to
the
historical
context
I
do
want
to
highlight
in
the
staff
report.
It
mentions
that
the
right-of-way
may
change
due
to
required
right-of-way
dedication
when
this
parcel
is
subdivided
at
this
time.
We
do
not
know
what
the
setbacks
will
end
up
being,
certainly
at
92
feet
from
Rogers
Street,
the
core
building.
M
Will
it
will
they're
never
going
to
dedicate
that
much
so
that
that
so
that
setback
will
become
compliant,
it's
possible
that
the
South
Side
will
become
compliant
due
to
right-of-way
dedication
but
in
any
case
the
in
essence,
literally
speaking,
the
petition
is
requesting
a
variance
for
this
setback
and
for
whatever
future
setback
is
created
practically
just
sort
of.
In
essence,
what
they're
asking
for
is,
can
the
building
be
where
it
is?
Can
existing
buildings
stay
where
it
is?
Is
the
in
essence
what
it's
asking
for
third
variants?
M
The
use
specific
standards
for
multi-family
dwellings
include
that
ground
floor
dwelling
units
must
be
kit
or
cannot
be
located
within
the
first
20
feet
of
the
building
facade.
This
has
ground
it's
all
residential,
so
ground
floor
units
are
located
zero
feet
behind
the
building
facade
facing
Roger
Street.
M
So
the
first
Criterion
this
UDS
standard
is
intended
to
provide
privacy
from
busy
roads
and,
at
the
same
time
provides
space
for
retail
and
other
public-facing
uses
that
can
activate
the
street
and
the
great
difference
in
setback.
Distance
of
the
existing
core
building
ensure
that
the
ground
floor
dwelling
units
have
adequate
privacy
from
Rogers
Street.
At
the
same
time,
the
existing
grade
difference
in
setback
distances
prevent
the
building
from
directly
activating
the
street,
even
if
it
contained
public-facing
uses
for
the
third
Criterion.
M
The
proposed
finding
is
the
Practical
difficulties
found
in
the
existing
width
of
the
core
building
and
the
proposed
width
of
the
proposed
Edition,
which
is
designed
to
be
compatible
with
the
historic
building.
There
would
not
be
room
for
any
ground
floor
dwelling
units
if
the
standard
were
strictly
applied
because
the
building
is
there's
not
enough
room
to
go
back
20
feet
and
still
have
room
for
for
a
dwelling
unit
so
effectively.
Losing
one
entire
floor
for
residential
use
would
make
the
entire
project
infeasible.
M
The
fourth
variants
also
for
multi-family
dwellings,
floor
elevation
in
the
tro
transform
Redevelopment
overlay
that
the
ground
floor
dwelling
units
in
the
front
building
ground
floor
dwelling
units
with
a
front
building
wall
facing
a
street
should
be
raised
two
to
five
feet
above
sidewalk
level.
M
The
floor
level
is
set
by
the
floor
level
in
existing
core
building.
So
that's
so
we're
kind
of
working
with.
What's
there
for
the
first
Criterion,
the
existing
grade,
difference
from
the
sidewalk
level,
all
already
provides
the
Privacy
for
dwelling
units
that
the
standard
intends
to
achieve
and
practical
difficulty
is
found
in
the
existing
ground
floor
level
of
the
core
building
that
doesn't
currently
need
a
standard
for
accessibility
throughout
the
entire
proposed
building
the
ground
floor
level,
for
both
the
ReUse
of
the
core
building
and
the
proposed
Edition
is
set
by
the
existing
floor
level.
M
M
We
can
see
that
or
I'll
just
zoom
up
here
for
a
minute
you
can
see.
There
are
no
Patty.
There
are
no
porches
and
awnings
because
there
are
no
porches
or
Runnings
on
the
existing
core
building
and
the
new
edition
is
proposed
to
match
so
for
the
first
Criterion.
M
This
project
is
achieving
the
purpose
in
another
way
by
providing
communal,
Court
Courtyards
in
the
North
and
South
sides
of
the
center
of
the
building
which
exceed
the
minimum
area
outdoor
space
required
by
the
standard.
They
would
count
actually
if
each
dwelling
unit
had
Direct
access
onto
those
Courtyards,
but
because
it's
a
multi-story
building
and
the
courtyards
are
just
on
the
ground.
Not
all
the
units
have
access
direct
access
to
the
query,
but
there
is
access
to
the
courtyard
for
the
third
grade.
M
Okay,
now
we're
getting
into
specific
requirements
for
exterior
facades
that
apply
to
all
buildings
in
the
tro
first
upper
story:
windows.
M
The
standard
is
that
a
minimum
of
20
percent
of
the
total
facade
area
and
upper
Story
show
contain
Windows.
To
do
shorthand
and
what's
proposed,
is
16.4
percent
of
the
West
facade,
20.2
percent
of
the
East
facade
nine
point.
Eight
percent
of
the
north
facade
and
9.6
percent
of
the
South
facade
I
will
ask
the
petitioner
to
address
if
any
of
those
numbers
have
changed
in
any
case,
even
if
they
have
changed,
we
know
that
some
of
them
are
not
are
going
to
be
not
compliant.
M
Oh
so
I
was
saving
the
the
recommended
findings
for
for
the
end,
because
six
and
seven
go
together
still
exterior
facades
windows
on
ground.
On
the
ground
floor,
residential
facades-
again
it's
20
percent
and
what
they're
proposing
is
less
than
that
on
the
east
and
south
facades.
M
Also
on
those
ground
floor,
residential
facades,
canopy
or
awnings
are
required.
As
we
talked
about.
M
Sorry
not
as
we
talked
about
but
they're,
there
are
some
canopies
and
awnings,
but
it's
less
than
the
required
on
the
west
facade
and
the
South
facade.
So
the
proposed
findings
for
both
six
and
seven
for
those
elements
of
the
facades.
M
Okay
variance
eight
building
floor
plate
maximum
in
the
tro.
The
building
is
allowed
to
have
5
000
square
feet
a
building
floor
plate
without
incentives,
ten
thousand
square
feet
with
either
the
affordable
housing
incentive
or
the
sustainable
development
incentive
or
fifteen
thousand
square
feet,
with
both
incentives.
So
what's
proposed,
is
a
little
less
than
13
000
square
feet
with
the
affordable
housing
incentive.
M
As
an
all
affordable
project,
the
the
whole
purpose
of
the
project
will
meet
the
affordable
housing
incentive.
So
that's
that's
a
given,
but
they're
a
little
over
what
that
limit
would
be
for
the
first
Criterion,
the
design
of
the
building
into
two
identifiable
Wings,
the
historic
core
building
and
the
new
addition
with
two
Central
Courtyards
breaks
up
the
massing
of
the
building
and
avoids
creating
an
impression
of
an
imposing
monolith,
Beyond
human
scale.
M
So,
even
though
the
floor
plate
is
more
than
the
maximum
they're
using
the
building
design
to
achieve
to
to
avoid
the
the
harm
to
the
Urban
landscape,
that
a
giant
building
could
provide
it
could
could
cause
and
that
this
standard
is
trying
to
avoid
for
the
third
Criterion
practical
practical
difficulty
is
found
in
the
layout
configuration
and
location
of
the
existing
historic
building
and
the
Topography
of
the
site.
In
theory,
the
addition
to
the
building
could
be
achieved
with
a
smaller
Fuller
plate.
M
However,
that
would
require
that
the
building
be
taller
and
out
of
scale
with
the
existing
historic
structure.
In
deference
to
the
historic
structure,
the
addition
is
fewer
stories,
but
has
a
larger
floor
plate.
So
this
is
again
related
to
practical
difficulties
caused
by
having
to
meet
the
historic
context,
given
the
designation
as
a
local
landmark
onto
the
ninth
variants,
there's
a
standard
for
the
maximum
lot
area
that
can
allow
backup
parking
into
an
alley.
M
So
the
parking
that's
on
the
north
side
of
the
site
is
accessed
directly
from
the
alley
and
cars
either
need
to
nose
into
the
parking
spaces
and
then
back
out
into
the
alley
or
theoretically
they
could
back
into
the
parking
spaces
either
way.
That's
a
situation
which,
as
you
might
imagine,
is,
is
a
a
good
solution
in
some
cases,
but
not
in
others.
So
the
code
says
that
well,
if
you
got
enough
lot
area,
you
should
have
to
create
a
parking
lot
where
you.
M
Actually,
you
know
where
you
do
your
turning
around
in
the
parking
lot,
because
you
got
enough
lot
area.
So
that's
where
the
standard
comes
from
in
order
to
have
backup
parking.
The
maximum
loud
lot
area
is
20
000
square
feet.
What's
proposed
is
37
a
lot
area
of
37
450
square
feet
and
give
or
take
with
that
with
backup
parking.
M
In
this
case,
though,
we
don't
have
room
anywhere
on
the
site
to
create
a
new
parking
lot,
because
the
proposed
pipeline
uses
significant
portions
of
the
available
lot
to
preserve
the
particular
established
streetscape.
With
the
sloping
lawn
and
trees
in
front
of
the
core
building.
So
the
parking
lot
would
it
would
not
be
desirable
for
the
parking
lot
to
be
located
there
there's
less
room.
There
are
fewer
places
where
the
parking
could
be
located,
and
this
in
the
north
west
corner
is
the
best
available
Choice,
which
involves
backup
parking.
M
So
the
third
Criterion
for
this
one
practical
difficulty
is
found
in
the
topography,
topography
peculiar
to
the
site.
The
northwest
corner,
including
abortion
20
feet
from
the
West
Front
building
wall,
which
was
the
first
variance.
It's
the
only
location
on
the
site
that
can
be
made
flawed
enough
and
close
enough
in
height
to
building
fluid
level
to
accommodate
the
accessible
parking.
M
Based
on
all
that,
the
department
recommends
that
the
board
adopt
the
proposed
findings
and
approve
the
requested
variants
of
requested
variances.
With
the
following
conditions:
note
in
the
staff
report,
it
said
with
the
following
condition
and
then
listed
two.
Obviously
it
should
be
following
conditions:
plural,
first,
the
projects
will
earn
the
affordable
housing
incentive
established
in
the
Udo,
as
demonstrated
in
an
approved
site
plan.
M
Staff
does
not
anticipate
that
this
will
be
difficult
for
the
petitioner,
because
that's
the
whole
point
of
this
project
is
providing
affordable
housing
and
second,
the
variances
related
to
the
distance
from
the
right-of-way
are
valid
for
the
existing
distances
and
are
valid
for
those
distances
that
will
occur
once
the
property
has
been
subdivided
just
to
take
care
of
any
uncertainty
about
where
exactly
the
line
will
be.
Thank
you
thank.
A
You
at
this
point
is
the
petitioner
here
come
forward.
I'll
ask
your
name
and
then
I
will
swear
you
in
give
me
your
name,
please
Todd.
N
A
N
Thank
you,
Todd
rottenman,
with
rotman
college
Architects
on
this
project.
We
are
teamed
up
with
spring
Point
Architects,
the
Bloomington
Housing
Authority
for
ensure
Development,
Center,
Stone
and
Bledsoe
rigor,
Cooper
and
James.
As
the
civil
engineers.
Our
team
was
awarded
this
adaptive
reuse
of
the
core
building
through
the
city's
RFI
process.
Back
in
2021,
our
project
will
contain
38
units
of
affordable
housing.
It
will
be
a
hundred
percent,
affordable
housing.
N
Since
2021
we
have
been
working
with
the
city
through
various
meetings
and
Communications.
There
are
First
Street
improvements
that
are
happening.
There's
the
new
Jackson
Street,
that's
going
to
be
happening,
and
there
was
the
necessity
to
determine
where
our
North
property
line
would
be
and
how
that
would
interact
with
the
proposed
alley
to
the
north,
as
well
as
the
property
that
eventually
will
be
developed
north
of
that
alley
as
well.
So
this
site
plan
has
come
about
through
multiple
iterations
and
changes
and
coordination
with
the
city.
N
To
get
to
this
point,
staff
did
a
great
job
going
through
the
variances
and
the
different
reasonings
behind
them.
So
I'll,
just
kind
of
reiterate
the
point
that
these
variances
are
basically
a
result
of
the
existing
conditions
of
the
core
building,
as
it
sits
today
and
the
site,
and
we
want
to
be
respectful
and
cohesive
in
our
design
of
the
new
building
in
relationship
to
the
historic
core
building.
N
One
clarification
or
modification
I
do
want
to
make
on
variance
number
one.
It
was
mentioned
that
we,
our
parking,
would
be
three
feet
behind
the
West
face
of
the
building
on
Jackson
Street.
It's
actually
zero
feet,
I
think
the
three
feet
is,
you
know
off
of
the
property
line.
If
you
look
at
this
site
plan,
that's
not
something
that
has
changed.
I
think
it
was
just
kind
of
a
typo,
but
it's
a
zero
feed
our
parking
lines
up
with
the
West
face
of
the
building.
A
Thank
you
and
then
for
Autumn's
sake.
I
know
you
mentioned
this
is
your
first
meeting
I
do
want
to
just
stress
that,
for
a
variance,
what
we're
looking
at
is
an
approval
of
a
variance
based
on
peculiar
conditions,
which
means
essentially
there's
something
about
the
particular
site
that
we're
looking
at.
That
does
allow
us
to
Grant
a
variance.
That's
that's
kind
of
it
in
a
core
I
hope.
I
summarize
that
clearly
so
with
that,
we
will
go
to
the
board
for
any
questions
of
the
petitioner
or
the
staff.
C
Yes,
so
may
I
ask
has,
has
the
has
the
project
already
been
for
the
affordable
housing,
which
is
a
broad
statement
in
Bloomington
Indiana?
Has
that
been
approved
like?
Are
they
able
to
build
this?
First
of
all,
so
that's
already
been
approved,
correct
or
that's
part
of
what
we're
doing
approving
this
entire
project
right.
N
So,
in
order
for
us
to
apply
for
affordable
housing
tax
credits,
we
have
to
have
all
variances
in
place,
as
well
as
any
design
approvals.
So
last
week
we
received
HPC
approval
of
the
project
tonight
we're
seeking
the
variance
approvals
and
then
our
submittal
for
the
tax
credits
for
the
affordable
housing
will
occur
in
June.
M
Ahead,
so
that
that
is
exactly
correct.
After
funding,
we
anticipate
a
petition
or
a
a
filing
for
minor
site
plan
review,
which
is
a
staff
level
review.
It's
non-discretionary,
meaning
that
if
they
meet
all
the
standards
in
the
Udo
which
so
far
they
well
I
mean
with
with
variances
so
far
they
will.
M
Then
then
we
must
approve
the
site
plan.
So
there
there
is
the.
There
is
a
stage
of
site
plan
approval
after
this,
which
is
anticipated
to
occur
after
funding,
but
that
will
be
non-discretionary.
In
other
words,
if
they
meet
the
standards,
the.
A
Thing
is
also
appropriate
to
say
I
because
of
the
way
you
worded
the
question
on
them:
we're
not
approving
the
plan,
we're
only
being
asked
as
to
whether
we'll
Grant,
the
variance
as
part
of
that
plan
I
just
want
to
say
that,
because
of
the
way,
the
question
was
presented,
okay,
that
that
I
believe
is
under
planning's
purview,
not
our
we're
not
looking
at
the
entire
site
plan.
Okay,.
D
Yes,
can
you
review
the
variance
number
three
please.
M
M
So
the
very
third
one
we
gave
number
three
is
that
in
the
tro
multi-family
dwelling
dwellings
that
ground
floor
units
cannot
be
located
in
the
first
20
feet
of
so
actually
on
the
on
the
slide.
I
cut
out
a
little
bit,
let's
find
the
the
full
text
of
the
standard.
J
M
For
for
structure
is
located
with
for
structures
with
Frontage
along
a
street
identified
in
the
transportation
plan
is
a
main
street
shared
Street
or
general
Urban
and
structures
along
the
beeline
Trail.
Each
railing
unit
located
on
the
ground
floor
should
be
located
at
least
20
feet
behind
each
building
facade
facing
the
public,
Street
or
B-Line
Trail.
So
I
skipped
over
the
point
that
this
only
applies
to
Roger
Street,
because
it's
the
only
one
that
is
it's.
It's
General,
Urban
and
First
Street
in
the
proposed
Jackson
Street
First
Street,
is
in
Jackson.
M
Street
will
be
neighborhood,
it's
called
Neighbor,
connector
I
think
anyway,
it
will
not
be
General
Urban,
so
this
standard
doesn't
apply
to
those
streets.
So
it's
just
for
from
Roger
Street
and
if
you
look
on
the
let's
see,
is
my
mouse
show
up
here
on
the
right
side?
This
is
the
east
facing
Rogers
Street
we've
got
a
unit
here,
we've
got
a
unit
here.
These
are
both
within
the
first
20
feet
of
the
building.
M
M
Ultimately,
that's
that's
for,
for
the
board
to
determine
staff's
recommended
recommended
finding
is
that
the
Practical
difficulty
is
found
in
the
existing
width
of
the
core
building
and
the
width
of
the
proposed
Edition,
which
is
meant
to
match,
took
away
20
feet.
M
There
wouldn't
be
much
left
and,
in
addition,
you,
the
constraints
on
the
site
make
this
make
this
use
as
all
residential,
even
without
the
the
you
do.
Your
requirements
there's
just
practical
difficulties
with
using
the
building,
and
so
this
is.
M
Okay
yeah,
so
so
this
this
what's
proposed
is
is
trying
to
make
the
best
out
of
the
Practical
difficulties
that
are
there,
but
you,
the
the
design
sort
of
has
to
pick
its
poison
about
what
variances
it
requests
or
what
you
know
how
it
gets
around.
So
this
is
one
of
the
things
where,
in
order
to
make
this
happen,
those
have
to
be
residential
units,
and
so
it
cannot
meet
the
strict
application
of
the
Udo.
M
One
the
proposed
finding
there
will
not
be
enough
room
for
ground
for
for
any
ground
floor
dwelling
units
if
the
standard
were
strictly
applied
effectively.
Losing
one
entire
floor
for
residential
use
would
result
in
the
entire
project
becoming
infeasible.
Is
the
proposed
finding
for
that
Criterion
for
that
variance.
F
Just
to
add
to
that
Jackie
scale
and
development
services
manager.
So
when
we've
discussed
this
for
other
sites,
you
know
and
as
Joe
mentioned
earlier,
we
don't
set
precedent
with
these,
but
we've
discussed
it
for
other
sites.
You
know
one
of
the
things
we're
looking
for
is
interaction
with
The
Pedestrian
realm,
and
this
building
is
so
far
set
back
from
Rogers
that
you're
not
going
to
have
that
interaction,
no
matter
what
is
on
this
first
floor,
so
I
I
think
the
characteristics
of
the
site.
F
As
is
you
know,
we
can't
they
can't
do
an
addition
on
the
front
to
bring
the
building
closer
to
Rogers
because
of
the
historic
nature
of
the
building,
and
so
the
commercial
use
in
the
building,
because
of
the
state
of
how
the
building
actually
is
physically
would
be
difficult
to
do
because
of
when
it
was
built
and
its
characteristics.
F
So
the
actual
state
of
the
site
and
building
lens
toward
residential
and
the
things
that
we
normally
come
to
you
and
discuss
related
to
that
commercial
and
the
or
non-residential
units
in
the
first
20
feet
aren't
going
to
happen
here
either
way
because
of
how
far
back
the
building
is
from
the
right
of
way
of
Rogers.
So
we
think
it
is
appropriate
to
support
the
variants.
Does.
O
N
So
the
way
the
Udo
and
the
overlay
District
are
set
up.
Our
facade
is
supposed
to
be
between
0
and
15
feet
away
from
the
property
line
which
basically
pushes
it
up
against
the
property
line
and
I
think
this
provision
for
residential
units
being
20
foot
back
was
a
privacy
issue.
They
don't
want
residences
right
up
against
the
sidewalk
where
strangers
are
going
to
walk
by
and
look
in
well
we're
92
feet
off
the
property
line.
So
that's
really
not
an
issue
here.
A
A
See
it
looks
like
one
has
shown
up
here:
do
do
they
have
you
have
the
ability
for
them
to
speak?
Yes,
yes,.
I
P
A
P
Have
50
minutes?
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
one
point
about
the
the
financing
of
this
affordable
housing
development.
P
We
along
we're
the
co-developer
with
the
Bloomington
housing
authority,
and
we
brought
this
project
through
the
state,
Housing
Finance,
Agency
ihcda's
special
program
two
years
ago
to
put
special
needs,
housing
and
integrated
into
an
affordable
housing
development
and,
as
a
result
of
passing
through
this
program
and
successfully
graduating
from
the
program.
Ihtda
has
guaranteed
that
if
we
make
a
successful
application,
they
will
smile
widely
upon
it
and
they're
very
much
looking
forward
to
receiving
this
application
in
June
so
that
they
can
award
this
project.
P
They
are
very
aware
of
the
project
and
it's
going
to
be
something
that's
very
important
to
the
state
of
Indiana
and
they're.
Looking
forward
to
financing
it
and
I
just
also
wanted
to
say
that
the
city
of
Bloomington
has
been
wonderful
to
work
with
at
every
step
of
the
way
of
this
really
important
project,
it's
a
very
difficult
project
and
we're
looking
forward
to
getting
it
started
as
soon
as
we
get
the
financing
lined
up.
Thank
you
very
much.
P
A
A
All
right
that
that
note
up
there
is
not
a
person
right,
very
good,
thank
you
and
no
one
in
the
chambers.
Okay,
so
thank
you
for
that
now
we'll.
We
simply
are
counting
that
last
comment
as
part
of
the
petitioner's
time.
It's
back
to
you!
If
you
have
any
further
comments,
the
rest
of
your
time
is
available
to
you,
which
is
about
what
17
minutes
18.
A
You
we're
back
to
the
board
for
action.
A
Adopting
the
proposed
findings
and
approve
the
requested
variances
with
the
following
condition:
the
project
shall
earn
the
affordable
housing
incentive
established
in
Udo,
section
24.04,
Dot,
110
c,
as
demonstrated
in
the
in
an
approved
site
plan
and
two.
The
variance
related
to
distance
from
the
right-of-way
are
valid
for
the
existing
distances,
as
well
as
those
distances
that
will
occur
once
the
property
has
been
subdivided.
A
E
E
We
know
that's
a
fluctuating
thing,
I
think
being
able
to
see
this
in
action
where
at
the
Planning
Commission
last
month,
we
saw
a
group
getting
ready
to
put
up
an
eight
story
up
on
North
Walnut,
with
a
1.4
million
dollar
contribution
in
Louvre
towards
the
affordable
housing.
While
I
was
supportive
of
that
and
I
think
that's
fantastic,
I
think
being
able
to
see
an
entire
building,
especially
in
what
Hopewell
is
going
to
become
as
a
Cornerstone.
E
It's
it's
exciting
and
I
am
very
much
in
supportive
of
this
and
I'm
glad
to
see
it
here.
Finally,
so
thank
you
are.
M
J
M
Allow
I'd
like
to
make
a
short
little
comment
about
the
the
distance
for
the
variance.
A
A
M
A
Very
good
v-s09-23
is
approved.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
thank
everyone
for
the
comments
we
now
will
move
on
before
we
move
on
we're
going
to
take
a
very
short
break.
Five
minutes
only
we'll
be
back
here
at
five
minutes
before
the
hour
bathroom
breaks
since
we've
been
at
it
for
over
two
hours.
Thank
you.
A
G
Yes,
thank
you
again.
This
is
a
case
or
a
petition
from
Leo
pilikowski
for
a
property
at
2028
East,
First
Street.
The
petitioner
has
filed
an
administrative
appeal
of
the
staff
issuance
of
a
notice
of
violation,
so
briefly,
as
we've
kind
of
gone
through
a
lot
of
these
Basics.
G
Previously,
this
is
for
a
property
that
received
a
building
permit
to
construct
a
new
house
and
as
part
of
that,
there
were
improvements
that
were
required
along
the
High
Street
Frontage,
specifically
the
sidewalk
and
Street
trees
that
were
mentioned
previously
during
the
course
of
our
daily
activities.
We
noticed
that
the
building
had
been
occupied
had
been
fully
constructed,
had
been
occupied,
but
the
improvements
along
High
Street
had
not
been
installed,
so
we
reached
out
to
the
building
department
to
find
out
if
an
occupancy
permit
had
been
given.
G
We
found
out
that
it
had,
and
we
told
the
the
building
department
that
we
had
an
issue
with
the
science
that
there
was
a
site
Improvement
that
was
required
with
the
construction
of
the
new
house
that
had
not
been
implemented.
The
building
department
reached
out
to
the
petitioner
and
told
them
that
the
petitioner
contacted
me
and
said:
hey.
G
You
know:
I
received
a
information
from
the
building
department
that
there
might
be
a
possible
violation
on
the
property
and
wanted
to
find
out
some
information,
I
informed
the
petitioner
via
email
that,
yes,
you
know
we
would
be
issuing
him
a
formal
notice
of
violation
soon.
Regarding
the
occupancy
of
the
house
and
the
lack
of
a
sidewalk
that
had
been
installed
along
High
Street,
the
petitioner
immediately
filed
an
appeal,
although
we
had,
even
though
we
had
not
formally
issued
the
notice
of
violation.
G
So
about
two
weeks
later
or
so,
we
did
Issue
the
formal
notice
of
violation
on
March
10th,
but
the
petitioner
believes
that
his
filing
of
the
appeal
prevented
us
from
issuing
him
a
notice
of
violation,
specifically
there's
a
section
of
the
Udo
referenced
on
the
screen
here
in
regarding
a
state
day
of
proceedings,
and
it
says
that
an
appeal
stays
all
proceedings
from
further
action.
G
Unless
the
planning
and
transportation
director
determines
that
a
state
would
create
adverse
impacts
to
the
health,
safety
or
or
welfare
of
the
city
or
neighborhood,
so
the
city
asserts
that
the
formal
issue
of
the
notice
of
violation
was
not
a
proceedings.
You
know.
The
purpose
of
this
section
of
the
code
was
to
state
that
fines
are
not
accruing
from
the
time
period
that
an
appeal
is
filed
to
when
definitive
action
is
taken
on
that
appeal.
A
H
Thank
you,
I
and
I
have
slides
again
and
I'd
like
you
to
put
up
the
first
slide.
If
you
don't
mind,
my
name
is
Leo
pilachowski
I'm,
the
owner
of
the
property
at
2028,
East,
First
Street.
The
evidence
submitted,
that's
in
the
record
for
AAA
823
I'd
like
that
to
be
part
of
the
record
for
this
appeal,
as
well
as
these
slides
and
some
notes
that
I
gave
to
Miss
Scanlon,
and
that
was
the
same
request
I
made
earlier
okay.
H
Okay,
the
notice
of
violation
was
issued
after
an
appeal
of
the
administrative
determination
that
was
of
administration
terms,
made
I
believe
on
two
17
of
February
17th
of
this
year
before
any
notice
of
appeal
was
an
email
telling
me
with
essentially
email
give
me
the
interpretation,
the
determination
that
I
had
been
asking
for
for
two
years.
Okay,
I
needed
a
determination
to
carry
the
thing
further.
I
finally
got
that
after
two
years
many
many
emails
you
see,
80
pages
of
that
I've
submitted
in
the
evidence.
H
H
The
second
point
which
Eric
Groves
did
not
mention
and
that
I
did
mention
in
my
position,
is
that
I
cannot
have
a
violation
of
the
certificate
of
zoning
compliance,
because
I
was
never
provided.
That
I
was
provided.
No
access
to
that
in
any
way
shape
or
form.
I
was
provided
no
notice
that
there
even
existed
a
certificate
of
zoning
compliance
and
I
will
explain
more
than
that
again
now
I,
don't
the
petition
that
I
filed
really
gives
all
the
details.
H
If
you've
read
the
petition,
it
gives
the
details
of
how
I
discovered
that
there
was
a
the
certificate
of
violation,
the
Mississippi
of
zoning
compliance,
how
I
checked
to
see
if
I
had
one
how
I
finally
found
one
I
asked
the
city
actually
miss
Burl
I,
don't
know
if
she's
related,
but
she's,
the
one
who
handed
the
the
notes
of
I
asked
you
to
send
me
one
I
emailed
me
when
I
didn't
get
one
I
finally
got
one
through
the
building
department
after
it
was
found
and
I
can
explain,
I'll
explain
that
so
I've
appealed
those
two
points.
H
H
The
second
slide
actually
says
about
the
law
and
Udo.
The
first
thing
I
want
to
make
is
clear:
is
that
there's
a
definition
of
how
to
define
things
in
the
Udo
and
they
say
terms
not
defined
here
and
shall
have
the
meetings
meanings
customerly
assigned
to
them
in
common
ordinary
language,
except
that
legal
or
technical
terms
shall
be
interpreted
into
legal
and
Technical
sense.
H
Is
a
proceeding
and
if
you
look
back,
I
have
copied
on
this
page
page
29,
the
administrative
manual,
which
is
the
rules
for
the
BCA
and
I,
haven't
given
anything,
but
it
says
notice
violation.
Then
it
says
purpose
and
it
says
process
and
the
process
is.
The
second
thing
explains
how
it's
done:
Rogue
is
the
source
and
all
the
sources
make
it
synonyms.
The
word
proceeding
is
a
synonym
for
the
word
process
and
process
is
a
cinnamon
synonym
for
the
word.
Proceeding.
H
H
So
I
don't
think,
there's
any
question
that
the
notice
of
vitalizing
processes
are
proceeding.
Now.
This
part
of
the
UDA
which
says
Udo
excuse
me
that
says
that
a
stay
of
all
proceedings
when
I
filed
a
case
with
the
BCA
is
also
a
matter
of
state
law
and
that
state
law
does
apply
to
the
bza,
because
it's
how
the
bza
works.
H
Board
of
zoning
appeals.
So
there's
no
question
that
that
I
should
not
have
been
issued.
A
notice
of
violation.
In
fact,
I
tried
very
hard
for
two
years
for
two
years
to
start
to
resolve
this
issue
in
front
of
the
bza
before
there
was
a
notice
of
violation.
So
there
was
time
to
bring
this
forward
if
I
needed
to
take
it
to
the
Circuit
Court,
if
I
needed
to
take
a
further
time
to
resolve
this
issue,
the
city
waited
until
the
last
minute.
H
To
give
me
an
appealable
decision,
Mr
Roker
did
give
me
what
the
city's
point
was
going
to
be
last
July
and
then
in
February
of
this
year,
but
his
emails
to
me
were
distinctly
by
his
own
statement,
not
appealable,
because
they
weren't
done
by
planning
staff.
They
weren't
an
appealable
order,
so
I
tried
really
hard.
I
was
really
worried
about
the
fines
accruing.
While
this
whole
process
started
in
emails
to
Eric
broker.
H
I
said
we
have
to
solve
this
problem
this
thing
during
the
construction
process
before
the
occupancy,
and
they
did
not
that
didn't
happen
so
I.
That's
why
I
immediately
filed
an
appeal
of
notice
of
violation,
I
merely
fought
appeal
of
the
of
the
determination
and
then
on
the
pile
appeal
now
of
the
notice
of
violation,
because
I
don't
want
those
fines
to
accrue
while
this
matter
gets
settled.
O
H
H
So
that's
my
reasoning,
I'm
not
trying
to
say,
but
the
the
terms
are
quite
clear
appeal
is
stops
everything
and
if
you
take
a
look
at
the
language
that
they
had
before-
and
let
me
see
if
I
have
that
here,
I
don't
have
the
language
that
that
was
in
the
I
apologize
I,
don't
have
the
language,
but
the
state
of
proceedings
that
we
talked
about.
Let
me
make
a
quick,
no
I
don't
have
that
language,
but
you'll
notice
that
there
was
more
to
it
than
just
the
stay
of
proceedings.
H
It
said
that
there
wouldn't
be
a
state
proceedings
if
there
was
something
that
was
hazardous
to
health.
The
city
is
claiming
that
the
stay
is
only
of
the
fines
well
having
the
fines
or
not
having
fines
is
not
Hazard
of
the
house.
So
the
stay
of
proceedings
applies
to
things
other
than
fines,
because
it
applies
to
things
that
to
stop
the
state
or
not
have
a
stay
for
those
things
that
that
are
hazardous
to
health
and
Welfare
of
the
community,
and
that
was
in
there
and
I
apologize
for
not
having
that
in
front
of
that.
H
So
therefore,
I'm
asking
the
board
to
declare
that
the
notes
of
violation
was
should
not
have
been
issued
because
it
violated
the
stay
in
Udo.
The
second
thing
I
want
to
talk
about
is
the
certificate
of
zoning
compliance.
I
did
not
receive
it
now.
I
have
a
copy
if
I
think
the
next
slide
should
have
Eric
roach's
email
in
it,
I'm
hoping
it
does
hoping
I
didn't
screw
up
and
do
that
yesterday.
No,
it
didn't
I
apologize.
Oh
okay,
I'm,
sorry
that
was
in
an
earlier
slide
before
I
apologize.
H
Misty
deckards,
you
know
I
I'm,
sorry
I
didn't
include
that
email
you'll
have
to
trust
me
that
I
didn't
I'm
telling
the
truth
on
this.
Oh,
yes,
I'm.
Sorry,
it's
a
last
slide.
I
apologize,
I
got
him
out
of
order.
Excuse
me
for
doing
that.
Okay
Eric
said
that
the
city
does
not
typically
send
the
cdz
to
applicants.
H
H
Although
I
had
sent
a
copy
of
that
site
plan
to
Eric
as
soon
as
I
applied
for
the
building
permit
with
the
site
plan,
I
did
send
him
one,
but
it
the
city
never
answered
and
approved
the
plan
and
I
after
three
weeks,
I
finally
said
to
Eric:
why
don't
you
guys
approve
it?
It
usually
takes
less
than
this.
We
never
got
the
site
plan,
so
I
was
in
Wisconsin.
He
said,
send
me
the
site
plan
and
also
put
it
up
on
the
make
sure
it
gets
on
the
the
the
county.
H
The
county
made
a
mistake
and
didn't
send
it
to
the
city.
They
didn't
send
the
whole
thing
I
did
send
it
to
Eric.
So
we
know
the
county
makes
mistakes.
Okay,
it
turns
out
that
the
county
the
city
did
send
the
certificate,
was
only
compliance
to
the
county
and
that
certificate
of
zoning
plan.
It's
a
scan
of
that
did
get
entered
into
the
County
permit
database,
the
whole
Cloud
database.
H
H
They
did
not
give
you
anything
else
if
we'll
go
back
to
the
second
slide,
I
have
a
email
from
Misty
Deckard
who
handled
the
issue
at
that
time.
Let's
go.
Excuse
me.
The
third
slide
I
apologize
for
that.
Okay,
you'll
see
that
they
said
it
was
paperless
and
they
just
told
people
to
go.
Look
on
their
website.
If
there's
any
approvals
or
anything
else,
they
needed
to
see
on
the
permanent
website.
H
I
will
tell
you
I've,
religiously,
looked
at
that
permit
website,
because
I
was
handling
the
permit
for
my
contractor
I
applied
for
the
permit
and
I
handled
all
the
details.
They
they
called
for
the
inspections
but
I
handled
all
the
all
the
paperwork.
Okay,
I
did
deal
with
message
Deckard
directly.
She
did
not
hand
me
a
paper
copy
of
that
thing
and
she
said
it
wasn't
the
problem
so,
but
she
told
me
to
look
in
the
look
in
the
website
for
it.
I
looked
in
the
website.
H
H
Number
two:
when
I
finally
got
told
there
was
one
and
and
Eric's
email
said
there
was
one
I
wanted
to
see
it
so
the
next
day,
which
was
the
14th
at
nine
about
9
20
in
the
morning
I
called
up
building
Department
I
talked
us.
Mr
jacket
was
no
longer
working.
There.
I
talked
to
some
other
lady
okay,
I
said
I
can't
find
this.
Can
we
look
for
it?
She
looked
for
it
and
she
couldn't
find
it.
She
said.
Let
me
look
somewhere
else.
I
think
she
went
and
looked
in
the
paper
file.
H
H
H
You'll
see
that
this
says
one
story:
this
is
the
building,
permit
one
story
and
it
says,
add
an
attachment.
It
comes
at
the
end,
so
it
would
be
listed
here
go
to
the
next
page.
Please
you
see
that
it's
not
listed
at
all.
If
you
look
at
the
date
on
the
top,
it's
a
time
I
made
the
screen
print
out
when
I
saw
the
change
was
9.
26
am
and
I'm
very
careful
about
this,
because
I
was
really
concerned
about
what
happened.
H
H
H
H
Five
minutes:
okay,
okay,
I
I
have
to
do
an,
and
the
code
says
I
have
to
do
or
mulch
or
seed.
That's
the
sixth
one.
The
seventh
one
says
that
I
can't
occupy
the
building
until
the
sidewalk
is
built,
but
since
I
thought
the
city
was
going
to
occupy
it,
I
mean
build
it.
If
it's
my
contention,
why
would
I
agree
to
that?
Had
I
seen
that
certificate
of
zoning
compliance
in
July
of
2021
I
would
immediately
appealed
it
and
stop
all
this.
Thank
God.
H
Everything
I
wanted
got
an
appealable
determination
immediately,
but
I
didn't
do
it,
and
if
the
city
really
thought
I
got
this,
they
should
have
said
by
five
days
are
up
I
can't
appeal
the
thing
anymore.
That
was
two
years
ago,
so
I
should
not
be
held
for
a
violation
of
the
of
the
Civic
and
Zoning
Appliance.
H
So
what
I'm
going
to
ask
in
this
case
is
that
the
board
find
that
the
notice
of
elation
was
issued
after
the
appeal
was
done.
The
state
was
there
and
the
notice
of
violation
is
invalid
and
number
two
that,
for
the
purposes
of
any
other
future
violation,
I
cannot
be
held
to
a
violated
the
certificate
of
zoning
compliance
when
I
built
and
occupied
the
property,
because
I
never
saw
it
now.
H
So
that's
why
I'm
asking
for
those
two
findings
and
I
depreciate?
Your
concern,
just
one
quick
thing:
I've
tried
to
do
this
for
two
years:
I'm
venting
now
I've
tried
to
do
this
for
two
years,
and
I
have
to
give
notice
a
violation
to
do
be
able
to
do
it,
even
though
the
city
knew
of
the
issues
with
the
billing
department,
instead
of
contacting
me
directly
when
they
thought
there
was
a
notice
violation,
they
had
the
building
department
instead
of
contacting
me
directly
with
this
certificate.
H
Okay,
they
had
my
email,
they
have
my
phone
and
they
can
contact
me
why?
Why
not
contact
me
directly
and
and
then
the
process
for
the
the
notice
of
violation?
There's
usually
three
steps,
a
written
warning,
a
written
notice
and
a
written
for
fines.
All
three
of
those
were
combined
in
one
letter
for
me
now
they
can
do
that,
but
it's
not
the
usual
practice
and
that's
not
the
steps
in
the
process.
They
were
all
content
at
the
same
time
and
then
they
started
the
fines.
H
The
day
after
the
hearing
that
we
were
going
to
have
last
month,
which
you
know
and
the
and
the
novs
are
supposed
to
mention
in
the
process
that
there's
a
variance
apply
for
variance.
They
never
mentioned
that
in
those,
although
I
knew
that
so
I'm,
sorry
about
the
venting,
but
not
getting
this
thing
if
I
would
have
had
that
two
years
ago,
we
would
not
be
here
tonight.
Whole
matter
would
be
solved.
A
A
That
we
will
have
questions
for
you
as
well,
so
so
just
hang
out
there
all
right.
So
with
that
we'll
go
to
questions
from
this
from
the
board
to
the
staff
or
petitioner
and
I
just
want
to
reiterate
again
that
this
is
a
request
to
appeal
the
issuing
of
the
notice
of
violation
so
that
that's
what
we're
discussing
now
any
questions
from
the
board.
C
Well,
I:
was
there
a
mistake
on
the
side
of
the
city,
I
mean
was
there
you
know,
looking
at
all
these
papers
and
documents
and
timeline
stamps,
you
know
we
all
have
air
could
was
there
misfiling
was
things
maybe
not
sent
appropriately?
Is
that
even
an
appropriate
question
because
it
seems
to
be
his
biggest
concern,
is
that
he
wasn't
notified
in
an
appropriate
timeline
for
his
issue?
So
could
there
have
been
a
mistake
on
the
city
Side.
N
G
G
Yep,
thank
you
very
much
so
every
year
the
handling
of
building
permits
is
something
that
is
outlined.
G
Well,
I,
guess
let
me
back
up
a
little
bit
so
when
people
apply
for
a
building
permit
within
the
city
of
Bloomington,
they
apply
to
the
Monroe
County
building
department,
the
Monroe
County
building
department
takes
in
those
permits
and
then
they
ultimately
issue
those
permits
once
they
receive
a
certificate
of
zoning
compliance
from
the
city
planning
department
for
the
projects
within
the
city.
So
we
have
an
interlocal
agreement
that
is
signed
every
year
between
city
and
county
officials
that
outline
this
arrangement
of
the
building
department
takes
in
the
permits.
G
C
You
did
what
you
were
supposed
to
do,
but
if
the
county
didn't
do
it
they
were
supposed
to
do.
Then
it
doesn't
work
together
right
because,
if
you're
you're
giving
thing
you
said
you
you
gave
your
stuff
to
the
county,
then
the
county
comes
back
correct,
so
you've
always
had
to
work
in
tandem,
correct,
correct.
G
So
we
we
worked
in
tandem,
you
know
so
so,
as
Mr
pilachowski
pointed
out
in
the
email,
you
know
my
can.
The
condition
of
approval
on
the
certificate
zone
of
zoning
compliance
was
simply
reiterating
the
same
thing
that
was
shown
on
his
site
plan
that
a
sidewalk
is
required
and
a
tree
plot
is
required
along
High
Street.
This
was
not
a
new
condition.
Okay.
This
was
already.
P
G
C
G
I
I
I
can't
attest
to
his
knowledge,
but
he
did
have
that
information.
The.
D
I
question
for
the
staff
in
terms
of
the
process
was
the
process
of
the
notice
of
violation.
Did
you
follow
the
steps
that
he
said
so
was?
Did
he
receive
a
notice
that
he
was
going
to
receive
a
notice?
Was
there
you
know
there
was
there
time
in
between
different
steps
before
he
received
the
formal
notice
of
violation.
F
I
can
speak
to
that
and
Eric
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
He
had
been
communicating
with
Mr
grulich
informally,
and
you
know,
as
they
both
have
said,
was
told
that
an
nov
would
be
coming
and
then
an
interview
was
issued,
so
the
nov
wasn't.
You
have
to
build
and
it's
in
your
packet,
but
just
to
for
the
record
it
wasn't.
You
have
to
build
this
sidewalk
by
X
state.
It
was
you
need
to
provide
us
a
timeline
for
review
of
when
you're
planning
to
come
into
compliance
by
X
date
by
March
24th.
F
So
you
know
I
mean
the
timeline
could
have
said
I'm
planning
to
do
it
in
five
years
and
we
would
have
said
okay,
let's
keep
talking
about
it.
We
needed
to
move
forward
with
what
is
what
is
your
plan
here
so
yeah?
It
was
not
as
he
mentioned,
oftentimes
we
issue
a
warning
and
then
an
nov
and
then
a
fine
letter.
F
But
in
this
case
we
just
issued
one
letter
combining
those
which
we
do
in
some
cases,
especially
if,
in
this
case,
as
you
can
tell,
there
was
a
lot
of
previous
communication
with
Mr
grulich
about
the
situation
here
at
this
site.
So
we
felt
that
the
petitioner
was
pretty
knowledgeable
about
what
was
happening.
D
F
How
that
all
works,
so
our
typical
practice
is
that,
if
an
appeal,
if
we
have
said
that
we
will
start
fines
on
a
certain
date,
but
you
have
contacted
the
department
to
work
toward
a
resolution,
then
we
do
not
accrue
fines
during
that
time.
We
can
go
back
and
accrue
fines.
We
don't
really
even
have
to
tell
you
know
as
long
as
we
know,
you're
in
violation,
we
can
issue
a
fine
for
you
on
those
days,
but
the
practice
of
the
department
is
much
more.
F
We
work
with
people
much
more
even
on
sites
large
sites
that
accrue
large
fines
once
compliance
is
met
because
that's
our
final
goal,
we
always
bump
them
down,
I
would
say:
I'll
use
the
word.
Always
we
just
the
the
goal
isn't
to
you
know,
amass
a
large
fine
and
collect
it's
to
find
compliance
with
the
Udo.
F
So
no,
we
are
not
accruing
fines
right
now
we
could,
but
we
aren't,
because
that's
not
the
practice
we
do
and
then
we
would
discuss
fines
at
the
end
if
we
felt
that
was
still
appropriate
if
compliance
is
met.
Sometimes
we
don't
even
end
up
issuing
fines
if,
even
if
they
were
discussed.
A
Any
other
questions:
okay,
seeing
none
at
the
moment
again,
the
board
will
still
have
opportunity
for
comments
or
questions.
Anyone
in
the
public
see
none
in
the
chambers.
Anyone
online
who
would
like
to
make
comment
there.
A
H
If
I'm
the
applicant,
there's
no
question
that
I
should
get
it
okay,
if
the
county
is
the
applicant,
the
yodeo
clearly
requires
that
there's
conditions
for
the
certificate
conditions
for
anything
that
the
person
that
conditions
the
facts
be
given
the
conditions,
not
verbally,
but
the
written
conditions.
The
seventh
written
condition
here
is
different.
It's
extremely
different.
It
says
that
I
cannot
occupy
the
property
prior
to
the
installation
of
the
sidewalk.
H
If
I
think
the
city
has
to
install
the
sidewalk
and
I've
been
arguing
that,
why
would
I
agree
to
that?
I
would
not,
and
I
would
have
appealed
it
had
I
known
it,
I
would
have
peeled
it.
Okay,
I!
Don't
think
that
if
and
I
actually
think
the
fault
is
partly
the
city,
partly
the
county,
there
was
a
mistake
in
the
county
that
they
didn't
get
in
my
my
file
correctly.
Obviously,
the
building
inspectors
didn't
see
it
because
they
issued
the
occupancy
permit
and
I
moved
in
the
mistake.
H
That's
wrong
costs,
no
money
in
no
time
to
make
me
a
copy
when
they
sent
it
to
the
building
property.
Cc
applicant
I.
Believe
the
due
process
requires
that
I
think
the
city
lost
the
case.
The
Underwood
case
recently
that
you
can't
have
a
third
party.
Do
your
due
process
notices
the
city
should
do
it.
So
that's
where
I
am
and
I
did
not
know
about
this
one.
If
I
had
known
about
this,
one
I
would
have
appealed
it
to
the
court
up
to
you
immediately.
That's
six,
that's
command.
H
A
A
Understand
you
mentioned
that
the
fault
line
Parks
partly
with
the
county,
partly
with
the
city,
would
you
agree
or
disagree
with
the
statement
that
there's
fault
with
the
petitioner
in
that
you
provided
the
site
plan?
That
said,
you
were
going
to
build
a
sidewalk
and
plant
the
trees
and
you
didn't.
H
I
didn't
say:
I
would
build
a
sidewalk
on
the
side
plan.
I
set
details
to
be
determined,
I
I
showed
the
site
plan,
as
Eric
said,
show
it
and
we'll
work
out
everything
later
on.
Okay
and
with
the
trees
I
clearly
stated
on
the
planet.
What
I
wanted
to
do
about
the
trees?
I
mean
the
plan
clearly
stated
those
things
okay.
H
So
if
you're
going
to
claim
I
I
misled
people
with
that
site
plan,
I
didn't
because
I
ex
every
time
that
something
was
on
that
side
plan
I
also
explained
it
in
emails
that
I've,
given
okay,
so
I,
don't
think
that's,
there's
no
fault
about
not
following
the
site
plan.
I
think
I
have
followed
the
site
plan.
Thank.
A
No,
no
okay,
you've
answered
my
question.
You
asked
that
okay,
thank
you
any
other
questions
before
I
entertain
a
motion.
If
there
are
no
other
questions,
I
will
entertain
a
motion
and
if
a
motion
is
to
come
again,
it
would
be
either
to
approve
the
appeal
or
to
deny
the
appeal.
D
A
A
G
Thank
you
so
again,
this
is
a
request
from
Leo
pilachowski
for
a
property
at
2028
East,
First
Street.
So
this
petition
is
a
request
from
for
a
determinant
sidewalk
variants
for
the
sidewalk
requirements
along
High
Street,
so
I
will
forego
I,
guess
kind
of
the
location.
Information
I
think
we're
familiar
with
where
this
is
so
just
for
overall
view
again
to
remind
everybody
kind
of
the
situation.
So
the
location
is
on
Southwest
Corner,
first
and
High
Street.
G
It
is
surrounded
by
single
family
residences.
Immediately
to
the
northeast
of
this,
you
have
several
schools
and
churches,
so
this
property
is
along
High
Street
and
with
the
petition
that
was
submitted
for
the
site
plan,
approval
for
the
building
permit,
the
petitioner
showed
the
required
sidewalk
along
High
Street,
and
so
this
was
brought
about
by
the
construction
of
the
new
house
on
here
and
fulfillment,
with
requirements
of
the
Udo
that
deal
with
when
sidewalks
are
required.
G
So
real
briefly
for
the
history
of
those
of
you,
the
requirements
for
sidewalks
with
the
construction
of
new
single-family
houses
is
something
that
has
been
discussed
and
revised
and
altered
many
many
many
times
over
the
years,
and
so
the
language
that
we
have
in
the
in
the
current
zoning
code
for
the
unified
development
ordinance
is
very
specific
and
it
says
that
sidewalks
are
not
required
on
existing
legal
lots
of
record
on
non-classified
local
streets
and
if
there
are
not
sidewalks
on
the
adjacent
properties.
So
this
property
has
Frontage
on
both
First
Street
and
High.
G
Street
High
Street
has
a
functional
classification
of
primary
collector,
so
it
is
not
exempt
from
being
required
to
install
a
sidewalk,
but
first
street
is
a
non-classified
local
street,
so
it
is
not
required
to
have
a
sidewalk,
even
though
there
is
one
already
present
there.
So
the
presence
of
the
sidewalk
on
First
Street,
as
well
as
the
Frontage
on
High
Street,
with
High
Street
being
a
classified
Street,
requires
a
sidewalk
along
High
Street.
G
G
You
know
we
certainly
saw
lots
of
situations
previously
when
sidewalks
were
required
for
new
construction
of
single-family
houses
in
every
instance,
and
so
it
resulted
in
a
lot
of
situations
where
you
just
had
an
individualized
segment
of
sidewalk
on
a
local
Street
that
that
really
was
feeling
like
it
wasn't
accomplishing
a
lot
of
the
goals
of
the
community
for
getting
sidewalks
installed
in
situations
where
it
was
very
unlikely
that
it
was
going
to
be
heavily
used
or
that
you
know
further
improvements
along
a
quarter
might
be
possible
or
probable
to
get
those
installed.
G
So
we
significantly
narrowed
the
scope
of
when
sidewalks
are
required
and
requiring
sidewalks
on
classified
streets
was
one
of
the
the
main
triggers
for
when
a
sidewalk
is
required.
So
this
is
important
because
you
know
the
classified
streets
are
the
more
heavily
traveled
streets
within
Bloomington.
These
are
streets
that
have
higher
traffic
volume,
higher
pedestrian
volume,
in
fact,
High
Street
along
this
location
here,
has
well
over
5
000
average
daily
trips.
So
there
are
a
lot
of
cars
that
move
along
High
Street,
so
the
presence
of
sidewalks
provides
obviously
safety
improvements
for
pedestrians.
G
You
know
pedestrians
will
walk
along
corridors
regardless
of
whether
or
not
there
are
sidewalks.
So
installing
sidewalks
along
streets
always
improves
the
safety
for
pedestrians.
The
presence
of
sidewalks
and
Street
trees
also
serves
to
slow
vehicle
speeds.
This
is
something
that
has
been
demonstrated
in.
A
lot
of
studies
is
that
the
presence
of
these
sidewalks
and
Street
trees
does
slow
traffic
speeds,
which
also
equates
to
pedestrian
safety.
G
So
with
this
you
know,
as
I
mentioned
in
the
previous
discussions,
the
petitioner
showed
the
required
sidewalk
along
High
Street,
with
the
approved
site
plan
and
the
tree
plot.
You
know,
as
we've
mentioned
several
times,
some
of
the
specifics
of
the
tree
plot
width
and
the
location
of
the
sidewalk.
You
know
we
left
open
to
work
out
with
the
petitioner
at
the
time
that
the
sidewalk
would
be
installed.
G
You
know
in
this
situation
of
having
to
keep
certain
Street
trees
that
were
on
the
property.
Previously,
you
know,
as
we've
kind
of
mentioned
and
discussed
you
know,
a
lot
of
those
trees
have
been
removed
and
there
were
only
two
trees
at
the
end.
But
again,
you
know
we're
still
happy
to
work
with
the
petitioner
on
the
sidewalk
location.
G
You
know
to
to
preserve
any
existing
trees
and
to
stub
it
to
a
property
to
the
South
at
a
at
a
situation
that
makes
the
most
sense
so
with
variance
criteria
you
know
there
are.
There
are
three
criteria
that
we
have
to
make
positive
findings.
For
you
know.
The
first
is,
though,
is
that
the
approver
will
not
be
injurious
to
the
public
health,
safety,
morals
and
general
welfare,
and
this
is
something
that
I
I
touched
on
earlier,
with
the
the
basic
requirement
of
sidewalks.
G
So
you
know
what
we
are
here
today,
as
part
of
this
variance
process
is
not
to
question
the
logic
for
when
sidewalks
are
required.
That
was
already
handled
with
the
city
council
and
the
Planned
commission
hearings
that
came
up
with
this
language.
So
they've
already
said
the
policy
and
the
law
has
already
been
said.
When
you
construct
a
single
family
house
on
a
classified
Road,
you
build
a
sidewall
we.
G
This
is
a
situation
that
we
want
this
for
all
the
reasons
that
I
mentioned
for
volume,
I'm,
sorry
for
pedestrian
safety,
lower
traffic
speeds,
and
so
the
granting
of
this
various
will
be
injurious
because
it
will
further
those
goals
that
I
previously
mentioned.
You
know
it
will
force
pedestrians
to
walk
in
the
street
to
walk
on
the
the
grass
and
this
property
has
almost
200
feet
of
Frontage
along
High
Street.
So
this
is
a
significant
stretch
of
road
to
be
able
to
install
you
know
sidewalks
on.
G
In
addition,
you
know
this
is
Media
almost
immediately
adjacent
to
several
schools.
You
know
this
is
on
a
route
to
school,
that
people
will
be
walking
so
that
place
is
an
even
higher
need
for
a
sidewalk
along
this
Corridor
to
provide
Safe
Transportation
opportunities
for
people
walking
to
areas
within
this
this
vicinity.
G
G
G
You
know,
criteria
that
that
negated
that
one,
the
third
one-
and
this
is
this-
is
the
criteria
that
we
deal
with
the
most
it's
it's
the
hardest
and
really
is
you
know,
should
be
one
of
the
main
basis
of
a
variance
is
that
this
strict
application
of
the
terms
of
the
Udo
will
result
in
Practical
difficulties
in
the
use
of
the
property.
So
you
know
what
this
is
saying
is
requiring
this
thing
will
prevent
this
property
from
being
used
in
a
manner
for
which
it's
zoned.
G
So,
in
this
case
here,
why
does
the
installation
of
a
sidewalk
prevent
this
property
from
being
used
with
a
single-family
residence?
So
it
doesn't,
you
know
with
it
whether
the
sidewalk
is
there
or
not.
You
know,
doesn't
or
I'm
sorry
the
lack
of
the
sidewalk
there
doesn't
prevent
them
from
using
this
house
and
living
there.
G
You
know
the
second
or
the
second
part
of
this
is
that
the
Practical
difficulties
are
peculiar
to
the
property
in
question.
So
what
is
it
about
this
property
that
is
unique?
You
know
that
does
not
allow
the
petitioner
to
install
a
sidewall,
so
you
can
see
on
the
site
photo
here.
You
know
there
are.
There
are
no
environmental
constraints,
there
are
no
steep
slopes.
G
You
know
there
are
no
sinkholes.
You
know
there
are
no
physical
impediments.
There's
nothing
unique
about
this
Frontage
that
prevents
the
petitioner
from
installing
the
sidewall,
and
so
you
know
that
is
the
the
fundamental
basis
of
a
variance
is.
It
has
to
be
something
unique
about
a
property
that
doesn't
allow
you
to
meet
code,
and
so
this
is
where
we
we
just
do
not
find
any
findings
for
this
third
criteria.
G
You
know,
we've
stated
that
we
will
work
with
the
owner
to
locate
the
facility
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
the
corridor
to
preserve
existing
trees,
to
stub
it
to
the
South,
but
we
do
not
find
any
practical
difficulties
associated
with
the
use
of
the
property
for
a
single
family
residence.
You
know
there
are
properties
all
over
Bloomington
with
single-family
residences,
with
sidewalks
in
the
front
and
and
they
work
and
they
function
just
the
same.
G
G
So
with
that,
we
do
recommend
that
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
adopt
the
proposed
findings
and
recommends
denial
of
the
variance
and
with
that
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank.
A
You
for
the
petitioner!
Thank
you.
It's
to
the
petitioner,
please
again,
I'll
restate
for
the
record
that
he
is
already
sworn
in
and
you
have
20
minutes
my.
H
Name
is
Leo
pilachowski,
I
reside
and
own
the
property
at
2028,
East,
First,
Street
and
I
have
a
I
have
slides
for
this
too.
The
vast
majority
of
my
neighbors
wanted
to
be
here
tonight
to
support
this
fragrance
and
I
asked
them
not
to
come
mainly
because
a
variance
is
not
a
popularity
contest.
I
know
that
it's
making
a
findings
on
the
requirements
of
the
law
but,
more
importantly,
I
wanted
to
go
to
the
meeting
for
the
High
Street
Corridor
in
up
to
see
what
was
going
on.
H
H
The
staff
report
recommended
annihilated
variants.
Okay
tonight
I've
been
made
to
look
like
the
bad
guy,
because
I've
I've
argued
with
things
but
I
I've
misled
people,
maybe
on
my
site
plan
and
whatnot
I
I,
don't
think
I
have.
H
But
let
me
say
this
I
realized
that
this
board
here
does
not
set
precedences
on
their
variances.
I've
realized
that
for
a
long
time,
I
was
chairman
of
the
Planning
Commission
in
Tucson,
I,
I,
I,
I
know
these
things,
but
the
staff
reports
and
the
staff
recommendations
should
be
consistent
throughout
the
process
over
reasonable
periods
of
time.
H
The
staff
report
recommended
nihilist
variance
in
part
because
the
petitioners
requesting
to
determine
sidewalk
variants
to
not
require
any
pedestrian
facility
along
a
High
Street
Frontage
I'm
not
doing
that
I'm
asking
for
determinate
variants.
Okay,
so
that
at
the
time
that
it's
appropriate
to
do
a
sidewalk
on
that
section
of
High,
Street
and
I
think
it's
appropriate
when
they
will
do
the
whole
block.
H
H
H
They're
talking
about
the
sidewalk
in
the
frontage
would
need
to
be
when
you
do
a
connection
between
the
streets.
That's
the
time
to
build
it,
that's
what
they
talked
about
in
their
in
in
their
finding
for
their
proposed
finding
number
two.
Then
the
portion
of
the
sidewalk
book
will
be
installed
to
complete
the
system
at
a
later
time.
H
H
So
maybe
it
may
be
safer
to
walk
on
a
sidewalk,
but
right
now,
no
one
walks
on
that
area.
Okay,
on
that,
no
one
walks
on
that
area.
It's
unsafe
to
get
people
in
the
middle
of
the
block,
with
a
false
promise
that
the
sidewalk
is
going
to
continue
to
come,
go
in
the
street,
especially
children,
so
putting
the
stub
sidewalk.
There
is
adverse
and
worst
condition
than
we
have
right
now.
H
H
If
you
go
into
that
street,
you
jaywalk,
or
you
walk
with
your
back
to
traffic.
Those
are
both
illegal
actions
under
the
Indiana
code,
pedestrian
laws
I'm
worried
about
the
attractive
nuisance
of
that.
So
therefore
I
think
that
putting
the
sidewalk
there
makes
it
more
adverse
makes
the
situation
worse
than
it
is
now
because
it's
a
busy,
Street
and
and
whatnot
so
I
think
that
that's
something
we
have
to
look
at.
H
Of
course,
the
property
presents
no
time
topological
issues,
it's
flat,
it's
easy
to
do,
but
for
the
third
criteria
that
there
are
tragical
considerations
and
conditions,
particularly
my
site,
you
just
don't
look
at
the
topological
situation.
You
get
to
look
at
four
other
ones
that
they
have
listed
in
the
staff
report:
B
C,
D
and
E.
H
H
The
two
above
continuing
to
talk
about
are
true
and
it'll,
be
true.
Until
the
proposed
mup
or
corridor
site
is
planned
and
implemented.
The
mayor
council
plans
to
implement
it
at
that
time
the
mup
will
handle
increased
traffic
and
any
other
pedestrian
facilities,
and
there
will
be
pedestrian
facilities
built
on
the
West
Side.
H
That's
part
of
the
plan
or
well
that's
what
part
of
the
planet
was
told
me,
but
they
haven't
decided
that
yet
they'll
include
a
continuous
sidewalk
between
first
and
Maxwell,
which
is
what
I
want
to
do
my
part
of
the
sidewalk,
so
you
could
find
those
two
findings.
D
the
location
of
the
tract
is
such
that
a
complete
pedestrian
network
is
present
on
the
other
side
of
the
street
in
the
same
block.
H
That's
true,
there's
a
sidewalk
on
the
other
side
on
the
east
side
of
High
Street
that
people
take
now:
okay,
no
one
walks
on
the
okay,
I
can't
say
no
one
very
few
people
walk
on
the
other
side.
More
people
are
going
to
walk
if
they
get
to
see
the
sidewalking
walk
in
the
middle,
so
that
finding
can
be
made
too
okay.
H
But
in
addition,
there's
the
Clifton
side
path,
which
is
300
feet
to
the
West
that
provides,
and
it
was
built
specifically
for
the
school
children
south
of
First
Street,
to
get
those
children
up
to
First
Street
to
a
new
sidewalk
that
was
built
in
the
mid
90s
on
the
north
side
of
the
street,
so
they
could
get
to
cross
Second
Street
and
get
to
the
Rogers
Binford
School
complex,
specifically
built
instead
of
the
sidewalk
on
First
Street.
To
do
this
so
we
have
a
complete
pedestrian
Network
in
that
area.
H
H
These
practical
difficulties
are
particular
to
the
property
because
the
property
is
located
along
an
area
where
the
city
has
not
yet
been
able
to
design
the
desired
alternative
transportation
system.
The
granting
of
the
determinant
variants
will
allow
the
city
the
opportunity
to
devise
a
plan
for
the
corridor
as
a
whole
and
can
require
the
Slavic
to
be
installed
at
a
future
date
after
study
is
done.
H
I
have
proposed
findings
up
here
on
the
first.
Let
me
make
sure
I've
got
the
right
number
of
pages
here
on
two
pages
here
after
post
findings:
okay
to
meet
the
and
I
I'm,
not
going
to
read
them
all
off,
but
it's
not
injurious
to
their
health,
because
there's
already
a
sidewalk
on
the
east
side
of
sight,
because
there's
a
sidewalk
on
the
east
side
of
High
Street
and
the
mid-block
stub
will
attract
people
to
walk
on
it
and
will,
if
the?
H
If
it's
only
that
stub,
it
will
be
more
dangerous
than
not
having
it.
The
city
has
already
said
that
the
use
and
value
of
the
adjacent
property
is
not
adversely
affected.
They're,
not
seven
percent,
because
there's
no
sidewalks
already
there,
and
if
we
implement
the
corridor
plan,
we're
going
to
get
the
probably
get
a
sidewalk
between
first
and
and
Maxwell,
the
strict
application
was
it
the
one
they've
done
strict
application.
H
I've
said
the
strike.
Application
will
result
in
Practical
difficulties
because
Iraq
yourself
without
a
plan
for
the
corridors,
the
whole
result
in
the
city
may
result
in
the
city.
You
have
to
remove
the
sidewalk
in
the
future,
and
I've
explained
that
already
I'm
also
going
to
do
the
B,
the
pedestrian
traffic
anticipated
is
less
and
C.
H
H
H
So
in
that
particular
case,
the
staff
recommended
an
approval.
In
my
particular
case,
the
staff
recommends
a
denial.
That's
an
inconsistency
that
I
see
the
staff
can
do
that
I'm,
just
pointing
that
out.
I
think
in
this
particular
case,
to
wait
until
there's
a
corridor
plan
and
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
complete
sidewalk
between
First,
Street
and
Maxwell
is
the
best
optimum
solution
for
the
city.
The
stub
sidewalk
goes
nowhere.
It
won't
be
used.
It
may
have
to
be
removed
in
the
future.
H
If
a
bike
lane
is
put
on
the
west
side,
that
sidewalk
would
have
to
be
removed
because
the
bike
lane
would
take
the
street
is
only
22
feet.
Wide
travel
Lanes
now
they'll
have
to
take
another
nine
or
ten
feet
of
right
away
to
do
that.
If
a
sidewalk
is
put
on
that
side
or
an
mup
they'll
also
have
maybe
you
especially
have
to
take
more
so
something's
going
to
be
done
in
the
future.
H
H
I
support
this,
but
I
want
to
I
just
wanted
to
lay
this
until
we
and
get
a
complete,
systematic
sidewalk,
and
especially
one
of
the
Supreme
first
and
Maxwell,
once
we
do
that,
we
can
solve
the
wall
problem,
because
the
city
will
do
that
with
my
neighbor
and
we'll
solve
lots
of
the
problems
so
I.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
I'm
hoping
you
can
give
me
consideration
and
experience.
This
variant
solves
a
lot
of
the
problems.
H
D
G
G
That
goes
with
the
property,
so
the
future
owners
know
that
this
determinant
variance
has
been
approved
and
that
the
city
can
call
it
in
and
require
a
sidewalk
to
be
installed.
You
know
essentially
at
any
at
any
time
in
the
future,
so
there's
not
a
time
limit.
You
know
it
goes
on
forever.
G
You
know
I'll
just
say
that
yeah
I'll
just
leave
it.
There.
G
You
know
I
mean
I'll
just
point
out,
you
know
some
real
world
complexities
of
you
know
a
property
changes
owners
and
somebody
else
comes
in
and
we
call
them
and
say
Hey
you
you've
got
to
put
in
a
sidewalk
they're
going
to
say
we
have
no
idea
what
you're
talking
about
you
know
that
that
makes
it
much
more
difficult.
G
You
know
we
we've
always
found.
You
know
and
the
reason
for
the
requirement
when
there's
new
construction
is
that's.
When
things
are
happening.
You
know,
money
has
been
a
portioned
for
certain
things.
You
know,
you've
got
construction
equipment
and
workers
on
the
site.
You
know
it's
easier
to
get
things
installed
when
you've
got
new
construction
happening,
then
trying
to
get
it
installed
at
a
later
time,
but
the
determinant
variance
you
know
provides
us
the
opportunity
to
still
require
that
legally
at
a
future
time.
L
Briefly,
with
a
point
of
order,
I
do
want
to
remind
the
board
that
the
board's
rules
indicate
that
a
German
happens
at
9
00
PM
for
all
petitions.
So
you
would
just
stop
this
petition
at
9
pm
and
we'd
all
go
home
unless
the
board
wanted
to
vote
to
suspend
the
rule
that
a
German
happens
at
9
pm.
That
vote
would
have
to
be
unanimous
and
everybody
would
have
to
agree
to
extend
the
board's
meeting.
Beyond.
A
Right
and
the
complexity
to
that
is
this
clock
is
running
slow,
so
I
kept
looking
at
the
clock,
but
I
look
at
my
watch
now.
I
see
that
we
only
have
five
minutes.
It
is
8
55,
yes,
and
so
thank
you
for
bringing
that
to
my
attention,
because
I
thought
we
could
be
done
by
nine
according
to
that
clock,
which
is
not
not
accurate.
So
at
this
point
this
is
a
procedural
issue.
Can
I
have
a
if
it's
desired?
I
will
take
a
motion
to
extend
through
the
end
of
this
petition.
A
Second,
okay
and
again,
it
needs
to
be
unanimous
for
us
to
continue.
Please
call
Laurel,
please.
A
Yes
and
as
on
the
record
I'm
not
going
to
believe
that
clock
as
we
move
forward.
Okay,
so
with
that
said,
we're
still
at
the
point
where
the
board
is
asking
questions
of
the
staff
or
of
the
petitioner.
Do
we
have
any
further
questions.
G
Yeah,
so
that
was
something
that
was
addressed
in
our
our
notice
of
violation.
Is
that
we
were
requesting
a
schedule
from
him
of
when
this
would
be
installed.
But.
G
No,
that
was
something
that
the
the
notice
of
violation
was
trying
to
initiate
that
conversation
to
get
it
into
compliance.
So
you
know
as
I've
as
I
think
we've
said
you
know
we're
willing
to
be
flexible
on.
You
know
when
that
is
going
to
need
to
be
done
by.
We
certainly
understand
and
recognize
that
there
is
a
process
right
now
to
involve
Engage,
The
adjacent
residence
to
determine
and
and
discuss
a
corridor
Improvement
project
along
here.
G
You
know
from
indications
in
in
conversations
with
staff.
We
hope
to
be
able
to
have
some
decision
on
that
within
the
next
month
or
so
so
you
know
the
we
hope
to
have
that
kind
of
Direction
on
that
very
soon.
C
G
So
so
certainly
you
know
we
we
are.
We
are
understanding
of
this
process.
That's
going
forward
currently
and
we
are
happy
to
be
flexible.
G
You
know,
I,
don't
want
to
speak
completely
out
of
turn,
but
I
believe
that
you
know
we're
happy
to
be
flexible
to
let
this
process
play
out
to
see
what
the
implications
of
that
are,
for
you
know
the
corridor
and
the
petitioner
and
then
continue
to
work
with
the
petitioner
to
come
up
with
the
timeline,
whether
to
install
their
Improvement
or
you
know,
to
work
with
the
city.
If
there
is
a
city
project
that
would
involve
something
on
his
property.
G
So
also
what
I'm
saying
is
from
a
from
a
staff
level.
Okay,
you
know.
So
what
is
before
the
board
denied
is
whether
or
not
you
want
to
Grant
a
determinate
variance,
you
know,
and
what
I'm?
What
I'm
saying
is
you
know
we're
still
happy
to
work
with
them.
You
know,
even
if
the
the
variance
is
denied
to
work
with
him
on
you
know,
a
timeline
in
keeping
with
the
city's
plans
for
Community
involvement,
correct.
A
Just
to
put
a
fine
point
on
it,
Eric,
if,
if
we
were
to
deny
the
variance
the
what
what
I'm
hearing
you
say
is
the
staff
would
then
still
be
cognizant
of
these
ongoing
discussions
about
that
Corridor
and
would
work
to
see
which
direction
it's
going,
whether
the
city
is
going
to
put
it
in
or
not,
and
then
at
that
point
you
would
then
make
a
reasonable
decision
about
moving
the
homeowner
towards
finishing
the
sidewalk
that
was
promised.
Is
that
what
I'm
hearing
from
you?
Yes,
okay,.
A
I
understand,
but
essentially
to
to
go
off
of
what
Autumn
was
saying.
What
we're
really
talking
about
is
we
can,
we
can
still
say
no,
we
don't
want
to
provide
a
variance
okay,
so
that
it
is
on
the
record
that
that
sidewalk
is
still
necessary
if
the
city
down
the
line
chooses
to
build
it
great,
but
if
they
don't,
the
homeowner
is
still
required
to
do
what
the
Udo
calls
for
correct.
The
statement
I've
made
is
correct.
Yes,
thank
you.
So.
D
So
if
we
approve
the
determinant
sidewalk,
if
we
approve
the
the
variance,
do
we
have
the
same
end
result.
D
F
Don't
know
if
the
project
goes
forward
on
High
Street,
we
don't
know
yet
whether
or
not
the
city
will
build
it
on
the
West
side
or
the
east
side,
so
they
had
their
public
meeting
tonight.
I
think
the
first
one
to
gauge
you
know
to
get
input
from
members
of
the
public.
Letters
were
sent
to
Property
Owners
along
the
potential
route
and
then
ultimately,
engineering
you
know
in
in
conjunction
with
the
administration,
will
if
they
go
forward
with
the
project,
we'll
decide
which
side
to
build
it
on.
F
So,
if
you
issue
a
determinant,
sidewalk
variance
and
they
decide
to
build
it
on
Mr
pilachowski's
side,
then
when
that
project
goes
through
which
won't
be
for
years,
you
know
it.
The
process
takes
a
long
time.
Then
we
could
call
the
determinate
sidewalk
variants
and
Mr
pilachowski
be
responsible
for
the
funding
of
his
portion.
F
But
if
they
decide
to
build,
if
you
issue
the
variance
and
they
decide
to
build
it
on
the
East
side,
then
there
isn't
a
trigger
there
and
we
think
that
this
portion
of
sidewalk
is
valuable
enough,
that
he
should
have
to
build
it.
Whether
or
not
it's
a
connection
to
the
South
or
not
so
and
I
mean
I
can
go
into
why
again,
if
you
want
but
no
yeah.
So
that's
why
it's
different
yeah.
E
Quick
to
Eric
I
think
for
clarification
purposes,
I
think
when
the
question
was
raised
about.
Does
this
carry
over
once
if
the
Property
Transfers
ownership
you're,
basically
saying
that
that's
that's
attached
to
the
property,
but
there's
no
way
to
enforce
that
really
legally
to
be
done.
No.
G
It
is
still
attached
and
it's
legally
enforceable
on
future
owners.
I
just
meant
I
was
trying
to
say
that
you
know
from
a
perception
standpoint.
It
could
be
harder.
You
know
if
we're
dealing
with
two
owners
down
the
line.
G
You
know
for
a
house
that
was
built
10
years
ago
and
you
know
now
we're
trying
to
get
them
to
cough
with
the
money
for
a
sidewalk.
When
you
know
the
petitioner
as
part
of
the
building
a
house,
you
know
already
had
that
into
the
budget.
G
G
Correct
so
hopefully
you
know
they
do
their
due
diligence,
they
do
their
deed
research
and
they
discovered
the
zoning
commitment.
But
but
yes,
that
is,
you
know
somewhat
of
a
hazard.
Okay,.
A
H
I
would
much
prefer
a
determinate
variance,
because
then
we
can.
We
put
this
off
until
the
city.
The
end
result
is
the
same.
The
city,
if
it
the
city,
can
call
in
the
marker
no
question
about
that.
I
would
hope.
They'd
call
in
the
marker
I
get
to
feeling
they're
not
going
to
when
we
can
have
a
complete
sidewalk.
H
In
fact,
I
will
tell
you
the
amount
of
time
I've
spent
on
this
it'd
be
cheaper
for
me
to
build
a
sidewalk
myself
all
the
way
from
first
to
Maxwell,
but
I
can't
because
it's
other
people's
property
involved
in
it
and
and
and
there's
a
lot
of
complications
involved
in
it.
Okay,
and
it's
also
not
right
away
not
in
front
of
my
property,
and
it
takes
a
city-
it's
not
easy
to
do,
but
it
would
have
been
a
lot
cheaper
for
me
and
time
and
money
just
to
do
that
than
to
go
through
this
mess.
H
The
cities
I've
been
told
that
no
matter
where
they
put
the
mup
there'll
be
a
sidewalk
on
the
west
side
in
the
future.
They
say
he
wants
to
do
that.
I've
also
been
told
tonight
that
that
one
side
this
the
mup
there
will
also
be
a
black
Lane
on
High
Street
they're,
going
to
take
another
nine
or
ten
feet
of
right
away.
Any
sidewalk,
that's
built
now
on
the
east
side
and
that's
where
they
might
want
to
put
the
bike
lane
will
have
to
be
taken
off.
H
H
H
Okay,
but
it's
recorded
they'll,
see
it
in
the
title
report.
They'll
have
to
sign
off
on
it.
It
will
be
in
the
title
report
that
that's
a
restriction:
okay,
there's
no
doubt
about
that,
and
the
price
of
the
property
will
be
sale.
Price
will
be
reflected
in
that
people
at
a
reasonable,
confident,
buyer
and
realtor.
If
they
look
at
that,
so
I'd
rather
have
that
done.
The
time
scale
for
this
project
is
not
going
to
be
a
month.
H
You
won't
know
in
a
month,
what's
going
on
this
first
starting
meetings,
you're
beginning
right
now
and
they're
just
beginning
that
right-of-way
acquisition
will
not
begin
to
2024
and
until
you
can
do
the
right-of-way
acquisition
you're
really
not
going
to
know
a
lot
of.
What's
going
to
be
going
on,
because
you
don't
know
what
property
you
can
obtain
really
quickly
to
tell
you
between
Maxwell
and
South
Downs,
the
city
does
not
own
the
High
Street.
H
So
a
determinate
variance,
although
it
has
the
same
final
effect,
the
sidewalk
will
get
built
and
I
will
be
responsible,
is
a
more
flexible
for
me
and
safer
for
me
and
I.
Think
in
general,
it's
better
than
having
an
agreement
that
with
the
city
we
don't
know
what
the
city
is
going
to
do
or
we
can.
We
make
a
decision
in
a
month
and
whatnot.
This
gives
me
a
determinate
variance.
It
gives
me
some
legal
means
to
say:
hey,
I,
don't
have
to
build
it
right
now,
so
I'd
ask
you
to
do
that.
H
Determinate
variance
and
those
findings
that
I've
given
are
findings
that
have
been
used
in
the
past
they're.
Quite
reasonable
findings.
Okay
and
as
I
say
at
stubbed,
sidewalk
is
not
with
the
school
kids.
There
is
not
safe.
It's
safer
to
have
no
sidewalk
than
to
have
the
sub
sidewalk
and
it's
safer
to
have
a
complete
sidewalk
between
first
and
Maxwell,
which
is
what
my
neighbors
would
like
to
have,
which
is
what
I
would
like
to
have
so
I
I.
Do
ask
you
to
to
do
that
for
me
and
I.
A
We
are
back
to
the
board
for
action
or
we'll
take
either
a
motion
or
additional
discussion
before
motion
is
put
forward.
A
And
I'll,
just
before
a
motion
is
made
I'll
just
say
that
this
this
doesn't
seem
to
Warrant
the
need
for
a
granting
of
a
variance,
because
that
complicates
things.
The
sidewalk
by
the
Udo
needs
to
go
there
and
granted
variance
is
just
going
to
complicated
and
make
it
a
little
more
muddy
than
it
needs
to
be.
This
staff
has
been
pretty
clear
that
should
the
city
decide
to
build
on
that
side
that
they're
going
to
work
with
the
with
the
homeowner.
A
My
opinion
is
that
you
know
just
let
the
let
the
homeowner
understand
that
no
variance
of
any
kind
is
given
that
the
sidewalk
must
go
in
for
the
site
plan.
Make
that
really
clear
and
then
let
the
city
in
the
homeowner
work
out
in
the
terms
of
the
timeline.
That's
my
opinion
before
emotions
made
any
other
comments
or
questions.
A
E
I
think
I
just
want
to
add
what
kind
of
you
said
already,
but
I
think
just
having
finality
to
this,
for
you
I.
If
I
can
speak
to
you
frankly,
I
I,
you
put
so
much
time
and
effort
and
energy
and
probably
money
into
the
last
couple
years
of
doing
this,
and
while
I
plugged
you
for
your
your
cause
and
what
you're
fighting
for,
because
we
all
have
those
things
I
just
feel
like
this
needs
to
be.
This
needs
to
be
finalized,
and
this
is
the
best
way
to
do
it.
E
And
that
way
everybody
can
move
forward
with
this.
And
if
and
if
the
city
and
we've
had
these
before
and
we've
deter
made
determinations
before
in
the
city
and
the
city
planners
their
willingness
to
work
with
individual
Property
Owners.
We
know
that
happens
so
I
think
we
can
probably
give
some
Assurance
to
that
as
well,
that
what
Mr
grulk
is
saying
is
you
put
it
in
if
we
have
to
put
it
in
we're
going
to
work
with
you?
If
the
corridor
does
end
up
happening
and
that'll
be
my
reason
for
supporting
the
denial.
C
A
I
have
nothing
more
to
say.
Thank
you
hearing
that
again,
a
vote
of
yes
is
to
deny
the
request
for
the
variants
May.
Will
you
please
call
the
roll.