►
From YouTube: Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals, May 20, 2021
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).
B
Here
and
burrell
here,
thank
you.
Okay,
we
have
approval
of
meeting
minutes
from
november
the
19th.
C
Have
a
second
I'll
second,
okay:
can
we
ever
will
call
please.
A
A
Reports,
resolutions
and
communications:
we
only
have
one.
This
will
be
cassandra
husky's
last.
B
Evening
with
us,
and
so
we
just
want
to
say
thank
you
very
much
for
serving
and
it's
been.
B
A
pleasure
and
wish
it
could
be
longer,
maybe
sometime
again
in
the
future,
but
we
will
be
of.
B
Course,
looking
for
another
member
but
thankful
thanks
to
her
for
taking
this
on
and
being.
B
With
us
for
this
last
couple
years,
thanks
right,
thank
you,
cassandra,
we'll
miss.
You
miss
you
guys.
D
A
Have
a
number
of
petitions
that
are
continued
to
our
june
meeting?
They
are
as
follows:
cu.
A
A
We
have
two
petitions
we'll
be
hearing,
they
are
aa-02-21,
acacia
investments,
llc
and
then.
A
Aa-03-21
whitehall
associates.
Can
we
please
have
a
staff
report
for
the
acacia
investments
case.
E
Yes,
I
am
liz
carter
I'll
be
doing
your.
E
E
All
right
is
that
working,
hopefully
it
is
yep
okay.
So
this
is
an
administrative
appeal
from.
E
E
E
E
In
july
of
2019
for
the
parking
lot
and
some
other
site
work,
the
work
included,
repaving
and.
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
And
so
here's
our
notice,
the
violation
warning
basically
just
that
the
the.
E
A
compliance
deadline
and
also
a
date
by
which
it
needed
to
be
appealed,
and
this
is.
E
The
section
of
the
code
that
we,
that
the
notice
of
violation
was
referring
to
simply.
E
That
trash
receptacles
dumped
dumpsters
things
like
that
need
to
be
enclosed
on
all
sides
and.
E
That
that
enclosure
needs
to
be
a
minimum
of
six
feet
so
that
adjacent
either
parcels
or
public.
E
Rights
of
way
cannot
see
into
the
dumpster,
so
it's
not
visible
to
the
neighbors.
Essentially.
A
Thank
you,
liz
no
problem.
Is
there
a
petitioner's
representative
here
this
evening.
A
F
F
Please
let
me
know
if
you
still
can't
hear
me,
is
that
any
better
can
can
others
hear
christine.
A
F
Great
all
right,
I
thought
it
might
be
helpful
first
to
give
you
an
idea
of
how
this
project.
F
The
property
looked
like
before
this
work
was
done.
As
you
can
see,
it's
a
parking
lot
that
needed.
F
A
lot
of
work:
this
is
an
older
building,
as
liz
mentioned,
it's
at
the
corner
of
15th
and
fairview.
F
F
F
Back
here
they
would
have
just
been
butted
up
against
each
other
and
that
that
wouldn't.
F
F
The
the
new
enclosure-
we
we
admit
it
does
have
this
opening
like
I
said
it
was
an
intentional.
F
F
F
F
The
concerns
about
the
aesthetic
we
contend
shouldn't
shouldn't
really
be
an
issue.
F
F
Just
has
right
up
next
to
the
house,
and
I
was
there
just
last
week.
This
has
been
the
same.
F
A
Okay,
thank
you.
We
are
to
the
board
for
questions
for
staff
or
for
petitioner.
G
G
Within
code,
the
moving
of
the
dumpster
required
an
upgrade
for
it
to
be
in
code
okay,
so
they.
G
G
Without
any,
without
any
fencing,
theoretically,
yes,
so,
okay,
second.
G
G
That
it
was
clear
that
there
was
no
no
door
or
or
wall
there.
How
did
that
get
through
sure,
so
the.
B
B
In
the
plan
that
show
the
height,
we
did
not
know
what
the
height
of
the
retaining.
B
Wall
was,
but
we
do
know
what
the
requirement
is
in
code,
and
so
I
believe,
an
assumption.
B
Was
made
by
the
staff
member
that
that
would
be
met
with
the
retaining
wall,
so
that
was.
G
B
Yeah
I
mean
I
do
think
I
think
there's
a
point
to
be
made
that
even
if
you
all
or
we
thought.
B
Feet
and
we
had
accidentally
approved
that
it
doesn't
meet
code.
And
so
when
we
figure
out
that.
B
G
Being
next
to
the
houses,
are
they
rule?
Are
they
viewed
by
the
city
the
same
as
dumpsters.
B
Correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong,
okay,
I'd,
not
believe
so,
no,
no
with
the
toters
that
the
city
issues
to.
E
G
G
E
E
E
So
as
we're
looking
at,
can
you
guys
see
this
okay,
mm-hmm?
Okay,
as
we're
looking
at.
E
This
enclosure,
you
can
see
that
it's
not
that
the
wall
and
the
fence
are
really
separate
and
if.
E
E
The
gap,
if
you
will
from
the
neighboring
property,
okay,
the
thank
you
for
those.
G
Responses
and
thank
you,
barry,
that's
all
sure.
Anyone
else
at
this
time
have
questions.
A
Yes,
susan,
yes,
how
many
tenants
are
are
residing?
I
I
it's
fairview
terrace,
correct.
C
A
I'll
ask
a
question
of
the
petitioner
extending
the
screen
on
top
of
a
wall
just
in
sort
of
a.
A
Little
l-shape
to
lap
over
would
not
and
inhibit
in
any
way
the
handicapped
accessibility
aspect.
A
Of
the
design
which
is
you
know,
we
see
around
town
quite
a
lot
actually,
where
you
just
have.
A
People
to
get
in
and
around
without
having
to
manipulate
a
door
or
something
like
that
would.
A
F
F
Enclosed
with
a
gate,
it's
now
just
a
different
shape,
but
yeah
that
that
would
not
inhibit
the.
A
You
please
clarify
whether
that
would
be
acceptable
to
the
city
and
me
meet
the
ordinance.
E
Sure,
I
think
absolutely
it
would.
We
do
see
other
other
developments
that.
E
E
E
A
A
F
Thank
you
again
we're
just
asking
that
the
bza
grant
our
appeal
on
this,
as
I
showed
this.
F
F
Grant
or
appeal
on
this
matter,
okay,
thank
you.
We
are
back
to
the
commission
for
action
for.
A
Discussion,
susan,
I
certainly
have
empathy
for
the
petitioner
in
that.
What
is
there
now
is.
C
Their
improvements
were
done
on
a
voluntary
basis.
That
is
compelling.
On
the
other
hand,
I
think
a.
C
To
that
enclosure
and
still
be
able
to
keep
that
that
entryway
for
accessibility,
I.
G
I'll
put
a
motion
on
the
floor
for
denial
of
administrative
appeal
dash
03-21.
Is
there
a
second.
G
Because
it
was,
it
would
with
the
movement
of
the
dumpster,
which
is
what
the
property
owner.
G
G
Question
about
it
is
up
to
the
builders
to
know
what
the
code
is
and
and
as
susan
just
stated,.
G
Okay,
I
just
want
to
add
that
I
commend
the
owner
for
going
that
little
bit
farther.
A
Distance
to
make
the
property
to
be
better
neighbors
with
than
the
surrounding
properties.
A
And
moving
the
dumpster,
and
I
think
that
there
is
a
a
fairly
easy
modification
that
can.
A
Want
to
to,
I
will
be
voting
to
deny
this
administrative
appeal
as
well.
B
So
the
motion
on
the
floor
is
to
deny
administrative
appeal,
aa0221.
B
H
H
So
this
appeal
is
for
the
property
located
at
3477.
H
H
So
the
background
for
the
the
pud
is
that
the
pud
was
allowed.
H
Four
pole
signs
to
be
developed.
Three
of
the
pole
signs
were
permitted.
H
And
existing
on
the
site,
since
the
you
know,
1980s
or
so
the
fourth
and
final.
H
Had
been
completely
used
up,
so
no
new
signage
could
be
permitted
at
that
time
and.
H
And
this
was
the
sign
that
the
petitioner
applied
for
that
was
denied
and
so
based
on
the.
H
H
I
I
Was
approved,
looked
very
by
design,
looked
very
similar
to
the
one
denied,
because
what
this
is
not.
I
A
request
that
whitehall
associates
be
given
any
special
dispensation.
There's
not
a
this
is
not.
I
Deny
the
the
signed
permit
application
the
white
house
associates
had
submitted.
I
I
I
Okay,
all
right,
so
this
is
the
the
the
staff
action
denying
that
the
report
that
started.
I
I
The
it's
one
way
is
easier
to
get
lose
track.
That
is
that
liberty
drive
did
not
exist
at
that.
I
I
I
I
I
Owned
in
part
by
brian
rentals
is
now
asking
first
second
to
the
second
of
the
four
pole
signs.
I
I
I
I
I
This
is
what's
in
the
staff
report.
I
obtained
a
copy
the
same
thing
on
a
public
records
request.
I
I
More
to
the
point,
the
in
the
end,
the
staff
in
the
packet,
the
last
few
pages,
it's
actually
pages.
I
I
I
I
I
There's
nothing
in
keegan's
in
the
staff
report
or
keegan's
recitation
of
facts
that
indicates.
I
Pud
that
then
it's
the
standards
for
the
sign
that
the
pud
provides.
I
Staff
files
they're
available
different
ways.
This
document
is
find
the
page
for
you.
I
Then
the
planning
director
very
long
time
planning
director
in
the
for
the
city
of
bloomington.
I
Formatted
a
little
differently,
but
it's
to
tim
regarding
this
pud,
the
phasing
of
the
development.
I
I
I
I
I
Of
what
was
being
proposed
for
this
rezoning
as
as
a
pud-
and
this
is
all
by
whitehall-
associates.
I
You
don't
see
brian
reynolds
or
anyone
else
involved.
This
is
white,
also
she's
as
the
developer.
I
You
can
see
the
for
the
first
time
on
appointment
here.
We're
gonna
find
it
again.
I
I
I
I
I'm
going
to
jump
ahead
and
take
you
through
every
page
here
to
page
39
in
the
packet.
I
I
I
I
I
This
just
happened
to
be
that
in
the
brian
reynolds
application
was
in
the
packet
again.
This.
I
I
There's
loads
of
there
at
the
top
this
so
we're
not
adding
the
number
and
to
the
force
full.
I
World
of
sources
associates
to
become
the
kmart
plaza
to
make
use
of
one
of
those
four
signs.
I
You
there
we
go,
that's
it
actually
right
there.
I
will
try
to
enlarge
this,
make
it
easier
to
read.
I
It
it's
in
your
packet
in
case
you
want
to
look
at
it
directly
in
your
pack.
You
see
it's
page
28.
I
You
see
in
this
response
from
ms
guthrie
to
them.
You
see
the
andy,
that's
the
reference
to
the.
I
Attorney
for
brian
rentals
she's
responding
his
request.
They're
discussing
the
kmart
sign.
I
I
One,
let's
see
and
get
this
over
here,
so
you
can
see
it.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Someone
was
saying
this
is
a
race
first,
one
to
apply
for
this
sign
will
get
it
issued
to
them.
I
I
I
I
I
Of
everything
else,
but
so
what
we
end
up
with
is
white
house
associates
owns
this
as
a
property.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It
that's
we're
not
objecting
to
that.
We're
not
objecting
to
their
desire
to
put
up
a
sign,
and
but.
I
I
I
The
permit
submitted
by
whitehall
associates
the
application
be
approved
so
that
we
can
draw.
I
To
briana
randalls,
until
this
got
sorted
out,
I
I
do
not
know
they
could
have.
They
still
couldn't.
I
Don't
think
anybody's
here
tonight,
so
you
go
through
any
of
those
staff
papers.
Every
one
of.
I
I
A
Thank
you,
mr
carmen.
We
are
to
the
board
for
questions
of
staff
and
petitioner.
G
Is
how
do
you
respond
to
or
address
the
issue
that
was
outlined
on
page
28
in
the
email
from.
G
J
Of
bloomington
I'm
going
to
be
speaking
some
here
as
well
tonight,
so
in
response
to
that,
I
just.
J
That's
highlighted
by
mr
carmen
that
does
not
indicate
that
white
hall
associates
is
the
owner.
J
J
Staff
would
require
approval
from
the
other
owner.
I
think
that
that's
an
unfortunate.
J
Use
of
the
verb
require
there
and
I
think
that's
a
mistake.
Certainly
we
would
prefer.
J
That
these
two
parties,
these
two
separate
owners,
brian
rentals
and
whitehall-
associates,
speak
to.
A
J
J
Spoken
some
about
this,
you
know
on
some
level
our
strong
preference
would
be
that
brian
rentals.
J
J
J
J
J
J
B
That
that
it
could
be
corporation
corporations,
so
the
regulation
for
four
signs
is
for
the
pud.
B
The
we
feel
like
the
the
allowance
for
the
force
signs
was
for
the
pud
as
total,
so
an.
B
Owner
in
the
pud
requested
a
sign,
and
we
can't
not
issue
that
sign,
there's
nothing
that
we.
B
A
A
City,
no,
we
issued
the
permit.
We
found
no
reason
that
we
should.
We
found
no
reason
that
we
could.
B
And
key
intermite
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
This
beauty
was
rezoned
last
week
in
the.
B
In
the
update,
so
this
you
know
limit
of
number
of
signs
rural
regulations
from
a
40
year
old,
pd.
B
That's
all
gone,
so
any
of
these
sites
can
use
our
existing
current
sign
regulations
and
apply.
B
Is
for
each
site
at
this
point,
but
I
do
know
that
it's
not
number
limited
based
on.
J
J
Is
an
attorney
with
many
more
years
of
experience
than
I
have
if
he
wanted
to
go
and
request.
J
J
Suffer
if
the
sign
went
up
for
brian
rentals,
I
mean
I
asked
a
question
to
staff
along
those
lines.
G
B
Some
are
owned
by
white
hall
associates
lp,
some
this
one
in
particular,
obviously
owned
by.
B
The
brian
rental
group
with
the
crane
and
then,
of
course,
those
along
third
street,
those,
are
also.
B
In
this
pd
they're
all
owned
by
separate
llc's,
typically
or
different
corporations,.
B
Are
rentals
and
others
are
commercial,
and
so
I
think
that
that's
just
their
business
name.
G
Application,
why
was
it
unsigned
and
is
it
common
to
approve
a
permit?
That's
unsigned.
B
B
Koben
times
a
lot
is
done
via
email,
and
I
think
it
was
just
missed
that
it
wasn't
there
and
then
I.
B
J
J
J
J
D
And
also
that
the
use
of
any
of
those
permits
is
just
based
on
first
come
first
serve.
J
B
And
I
would
say
to
the
first
portion,
we
had
been
dealing
with
brian
rental
as
a.
B
User
at
this
site
and
again
you
know
there
are
what
something
like
12
owners
here
and
we.
B
They
all
are
on
different
parcels.
So
when
one
parcel
comes
in
to
request
something,
we
don't.
D
You
know
freddie's
put
their
sign
on
the
planet,
sure
good
question
the
no.
The
code
prescribes.
B
Where
they
can
be
and
the
whether
or
not
you
can
have
off-premise,
for
example,.
B
Particular
related
to
signs
with
a
large
sign
that
is
on
third
street,
that
is
owned
by
one
party.
B
Currently,
in
the
in
current
code,
we
would
only
allow
you
to
put
a
sign
up
on
your
own
property.
D
Yes,
I
don't
know
why
that
came
up
from
speculating
as
to
their
motivations.
A
B
Keegan
you
can
correct
me
if
you
know
the
answer,
I'm
just
not
sure
that
we
have
gone
through.
B
The
steps
of
seeing
what
the
new
options
would
be
you
know
we've
only
had
the
new.
B
The
text
amendments
approved
since
the
last
plan
commission
meeting
and
you
know.
B
H
Wanted
to
add
that
I
have
not
reviewed
the
signed
permit
that
they
applied
for
under
current.
B
Characterization
to
say,
like
a
rush
to
get
the
permit
in
ryan
rentals
applied
for
a
sign.
B
B
You
know
this
is
something
if
you
were
involved.
Susan
sandberg
can
comment
on
something
if.
B
And
we
got
an
application,
we
tried
to
track
down
how
best
to
administer
it
and.
B
We
weren't
encouraging,
or
you
know,
suggesting
to
anyone
that
they
move
quickly
to
get
it
done.
A
Applies
for
something
such
as
this
that
any
there
needs
to
be
any
other
notification.
B
Muddled
a
little
because
there
are
two
permits
that
they
are
appealing
our
decision
to
deny.
B
Tonight
we're
talking
about
whether
or
not
we
could
issue
a
fifth
permit
and
we
couldn't
does.
B
That
make
sense
I
mean
they're,
very
obviously
related,
but
they
can't
appeal
whether
or
not.
B
Here
so
they're
they're
just
appealing
our
decision
not
to
issue
a
fifth
permit.
We
think
the.
B
A
D
D
B
B
B
A
To
understand
right
here
right
so
just
to
put
a
final
point
on
it,
because
this
application
was.
A
A
I
There's
no
vitriol,
mr
rooker
is
wrong
with
that.
You
cannot
spin
language
to
take
out
what.
I
I
I
A
Mr
carmen,
I
would
ask
for
another
minute:
if
I
may
not
do
we
do
we
have
discretion.
A
Jackie,
mr
worker,
is
that
something
they
have
discretion
on.
Yes,
I
think
the
the
chair
would.
J
J
G
I
I
I
G
That
allowance
barry
thank
you,
so
we
are
back
to
the
board
for
further
discussion
or
action.
J
You're
that's
what's
happening
tonight.
I
do
think
that
mr
carmen
would
have
some
rights
on
appeal.
J
Here
to
have
issues
more
carefully
sorted
out,
and,
of
course
I
I
will
say
this-
I
I
hope.
J
I
hope
that
he
does
see
clarity
on
behalf
of
his
client.
That's
up
to
him,
of
course,
so.
B
So
that
so
again,
so
the
issue
before
you
tonight
is
whether
or
not
our
decision
to
deny
the.
B
Fifth,
permit
was
valid,
you
know
had
they
been
able
to
appeal
whether
or
not
the
fourth.
B
Can't
so
they
are
asking
you
whether
or
not
our
decision
to
deny
their
permit
was
valid
and.
D
Four
have
been
issued,
that's
it.
Yeah
four
have
definitely
been
issued
whether
or
not.
A
And
I
have
a
question
so
for
mr
rooker.
J
Somebody
wanted
to
appeal
the
issuance
of
a
signed
permanent.
This
board
believed.
J
Of
the
number
of
permits
permitted,
this
board
could
do
that.
Furthermore,
there
are
rights.
J
G
Okay,
well
before
a
motion
is
made,
it's
still
comments
right,
barry,
so
you
know
we
often
are.
G
Falling
back
on
the
peculiar
ins
into
instance,
and
in
this
case
you
know,
there's
I
can
completely.
G
Understand
mr
carmen's
position,
which
is
you
know,
he's
got
a
lot
of
documentation
that.
G
Supports
that
this
is
convoluted,
we've
we
are
are
a
board
that
could
have
just
said.
Look
you.
G
Know
we're
going
to
invalidate
the
initial
the
fourth
permit,
but
that
time
has
passed.
G
Why
it's
irrelevant
at
this
point,
you
know
again
the
language
from
the
the
legal
counsel.
G
Philippa
guthrie
is
it
certainly
weighs
into
the
decision,
as
does
an
unsigned
permit.
There's.
G
A
lot
of
things
here
that
are
odd,
I'm
sorry
odds,
are
more.
There
are
a
lot
of
things
here
that.
G
Can
be
pointed
to
that
show
that
this
is
really
convoluted
and
peculiar
we're
not.
G
G
That
it's
very
difficult
to
deny
the
request
for
this
appeal,
but
at
the
same
time
I
don't
want.
G
G
G
B
G
B
Mics
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
Secondly,
this
pd
doesn't
exist
anymore,
so
the
rules
about.
B
B
B
B
Four
permits,
but
that
moving
forward
for
signed
permit
requests,
I
believe,
is
irrelevant.
B
Because
it's
going
to
be
zoned,
something
else
now
is
zoned
something
else.
Now
it's
last
week.
B
So
I
don't
know,
we've
also
talked
a
lot
about
this
during
udo.
You
know
we
can't
legislate
them.
B
B
Be
issued
if
mr
carmen
wants
to
you
know
take
that
further
to
try
to
have
the
fourth
sign.
B
Invalidated
that
we
think
that's
the
only
option
to
to
have
that
permit
be
be
invalidated.
We.
B
What
signage
is
there,
and
so
then
we
would
look
at
what
signage
is
there
to
see
if
they.
B
Have
additional
square
footage
available
either
in
freestanding
or
wall
signage,
but
we.
B
Would
we
would
have
to
do
that?
Hopefully,
if
they
were
to
apply
for
one,
they
would
work
with.
G
D
Be
relevant
but
it
wasn't
clear
to
me
whether
the
permits
go
with
the
developer
or
the
owners.
B
Problem
of
puds
right
because
when
whoever
developed
this
a
long
number
of
decades
ago,.
B
Making
the
argument
that
the
developer
owns
those
rights,
we
don't
think
that's
clear
in
the
pud.
B
A
property
owner
can
request
signs
or
a
building
permit
or
a
number
of
permits,
and
then.
B
We
go
to
whatever
the
either
the
regular
zoning
code
or
if
they
have
a
pud,
go
to
those
regulations.
B
Has
signed
rights,
it
is
in
control
of
the
sign
rights
for
the
entire
pud
I'll
note
that
when.
B
We've
done
sign
permits
for
other.
You
know,
we've
that
we've
done
sign
permits
for
other
lots.
B
In
this
pud
as
well,
it's
just
not
typical
for
us
to
then
go
to
the
original
developer
to
make.
J
Of
this,
this
dispute
here
right,
we
do
believe
that
it's
not
the
developer,
but
the
owner
that.
J
J
Would
never
transfer
in
an
old
pud
like
this.
The
way
this
pd
was
crafted.
J
To
anybody
else
and
we're
as
I've
we've
said
from
the
beginning,
if
we
were
to
get
a
subsequent.
J
Order
from
a
judge
agreeing
with
mr
carmen's
interpretation,
we
would
be
more
than
happy.
J
We've
been
placed
in
the
middle
of
a
dispute
and,
as
mr
throckmorton
said
a
moment
ago,.
A
Okay,
so
we
are
at
the
board
for
action.
B
So
a
yes
vote
is
to
deny
the
administrative
appeal
husky.
Yes,.