VANDERBURGH COUNTY

REZONING BOARD

JULY 18, 2006

The Vanderburgh County Rezoning Board met in session this 18^th day of July, 2006

at 4:35 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex with President Cheryl Musgrave presiding.

President Musgrave: Call to order the Vanderburgh County Rezoning Board meeting of July 18, 2006.

President Musgrave: Do we have minutes to approve?

Bev Behme: Right. Do you want me to do what I did last time?

President Musgrave: Would you please?

Bev Behme: Okay, yes. Beverly Behme, Area Plan Commission. We need a vote to approve Rezoning minutes from the May 16, 2006 meeting.

President Musgrave: Is there a motion?

Commissioner Nix: So moved.

Commissioner Shetler: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

Bev Behme: We have two items on the agenda. VC-11-2006, 5300 Woodhaven Drive was a change from agricultural and R-1 to C-4, that petition has been withdrawn.

Bev Behme: We have one final hearing tonight. That’s docket VC-12-2006, Hugh Hazlewood, 8100 Pollack Avenue. Mr. Hazelwood is requesting to change the zoning of a portion of his property, located at 8100 Pollack Avenue, from R-1 to C-4 with a use and development commitment. This is a 2.2 acre site located on the north side of Pollack Avenue, just west of Indian Mounds Boulevard. The use and development commitment prohibits use of the site as a package liquor store, and prohibits adult special uses on this site. This petition was continued from last month’s meeting, at Mr. Hazlewood’s request. He has filed an amended use and development commitment and a new site plan, which is part of this petition to rezone. The amended document now includes a statement that no trailer, tractor trailers will be allowed on the premises. Mr. Hazlewood has also submitted new pictures, that have been made part of the record, which demonstrates that he has erected new informational signage on his building which indicates, “No Semi Trailers”. I have copies of those for you. Pollack Avenue at this location has no curbs or sidewalks, and the property is currently graveled to the street. Future commercial use of the site will require review and compliance with site review committee recommendations. County Engineer, John Stoll, and Evansville MPO have both raised concerns regarding the use of this small site for any use that might require semi truck traffic. The site on Pollack Avenue was a former location of Knight Township Fire House number seven. The original block garage on this site was built in the mid 1930's and was certified as a legal non-conforming commercial, neighborhood retail use by the Area Plan Commission in 1982. In December of 1989 the fire house was established on this site by approval of a special use permit by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The legal non-conforming commercial classification was abandoned by the owner of the site upon conversion to the public building use, the fire station. Two additions were made to the fire station during their occupancy of the site. This is a request to rezone the vacant site to C-4 with a use and development commitment to allow re-establishment of commercial use on the site. The comprehensive plan future land use map designates this area as residential and undeveloped. Surrounding area is completely agricultural and residential. Area Plan Commission on July 13, 2006 voted to recommend to the Commissioners to deny the petition. There were ten negative votes and two abstentions. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hazlewood are here to present the petition.

President Musgrave: Is there something wrong with the projector?

Bev Behme: Oh, it’s pink.

Commissioner Nix: That’s purple?

Unidentified: It’s not purple on my screen.

President Musgrave: Well, it’s very purple on that screen. Maybe your light bulb is burning out.

Bev Behme: Did you want this?

Edward Johnson: Yes, thank you very much. Good afternoon. I’m Edward Johnson, and I represent Hugh Hazlewood, who’s here to my left, who owns the property. He also owns the property just to the east of this property. If you’ll look over there, there’s a house right there on the corner, that’s where Hugh lives. He owns that property, and he lives there. He’s lived there for 18 years. He owns the property also, right next door, that’s subject to this rezoning into a C-4. We just, I don’t want to repeat what Beverly said about the history, but there are just a couple of things that I want you to know that I think are important. Number one, this property has been commercial, or a fire station, which certainly isn’t residential, since the mid 30's. It was used as a neighborhood store, like a convenience store, except we didn’t call them that back then, a country general store, another kind of commercial store, it was a bicycle repair shop for awhile, and an auction barn for awhile. Then, so, it’s had a history. This isn’t a piece of residential property. It might be zoned R-1, but this is not residential property that we’re here to ask to have a C-4 zoning for and a commercial use. This, make no mistake about it, this is and has been commercial property. I know you’ve all seen it, but I would step forward just to show you again what this property looks like. If I could go ahead and pass it around.

President Musgrave: Okay.

Edward Johnson: That’s fine. We wouldn’t be here today, we would still have a tenant, Knight Township Fire Department Hose House Number Seven would still be our tenant, and we wouldn’t be standing before you but for the November 6^th tornado. When that tornado came through, it tore off the roof of the fire station, did major damage to the roof. Hugh went out and got it replaced, made the repairs, but in the process, Knight Township decided they couldn’t wait. They couldn’t leave their fire trucks there and get rained on, and they couldn’t operate it with the roof in the condition that it was. So, they left. That was their prerogative. They have another fire station that they are going to, or are in, and that’s their business. But, they would be with us today, as our tenants, and we wouldn’t be here before you, except for the tornado. So, now we are here, and now we’re faced with the situation in which we have a commercial building on a small piece of property which we’ve had commercial use for a long time. We’re asking permission to do C-4 so that we can lease the property to B-Dry. B-Dry is a well known name in Evansville. They’ve been in the basement waterproofing business forever. They’ve been here for a long, long time. They have an excellent reputation. But, more importantly than their reputation and how long they’ve been here, is what they plan to do with the property. It’s like, if you had to pick a commercial use, you could not pick one less intrusive than B-Dry. They have six employees. They have two dump trucks. The two dump trucks are going to go in the bay at night. They are not going to be visible for people going down Pollack Avenue. They are out in the day servicing customers. When they’re not servicing customers, they’re going to be kept in the bay, with the bay doors shut. The, so, of the six employees, four of them will be on the dump truck, two of them sell. They go out and make bids on jobs, on basement jobs primarily. There is no walk up traffic. You don’t drive to a B-Dry building and walk in. You call them and they come to your house so they can see your basement and see what your problem is. So, they’re not going to be there during the day. There’s plenty of parking for the six people who will drive their automobiles there for the day, and with no walk up parking, it’s, as I say, it’s like a dream come true. It’s an opportunity for Hugh to be able to use this building, obtain some form of rent off of the building, and have somebody there to take care of it, so we don’t drive down Pollack and see a...if you look, go down there now, some vandals have been in the Coke machine. It’s turned upside down. So, that we don’t have an empty piece of property, it’s a perfect opportunity. We asked for that reason to have that C-4 zoning. Now, I know the neighbors will tell you, or at least one of the neighbors who’s here will tell you why it might be the kind of zoning where it’s C-4 today, there will be another one and another one and another one. No way. It’s Pollack Avenue. It is basically a residential neighborhood. No question about that. But, this particular piece of....for whatever reason, it’s the only one out there, has been commercial since 1934, or a fire station, which certainly isn’t residential. So, and close to commercial in use. The uses that have been there certainly were traffic generating. You have a bicycle repair shop, or an auction barn, you have people driving in. With B-Dry there isn’t going to be anybody driving in. So, it’s not going to be creeping commercialism, because there aren’t any other lots out there like this. We bought the property, we didn’t start it commercial, we bought this property about 18 years ago, and then did the, we thought were doing the community a favor by leasing it to Knight Township Fire Department, so they would have a fire station out there, let them build and construct that bigger of the two bays. So, we feel like the history supports it, the use has got to support what we’re asking for. Now, I know Mr. Roberts and some other people are here from Angel Mounds. Mr. Roberts will tell you, “Well, we’re concerned that having commercial ventures near the entrance to Angel Mounds.” Let me say this, first of all, we wouldn’t want to do anything adverse to Angel Mounds, a real community asset. Absolutely, no doubt about it. We’re a quarter of a mile away from the entrance. You can’t see us from inside Angel Mounds. You could if all the vegetation were taken down, but if you drive out Pollack, as you go toward Warrick County, you go eastbound and our property is there on the left hand side...the right hand side, like right across the street is Angel Mounds property, but the trees and the shrubs are so high, there’s no way. You can go over there and stand, there’s no way you can see it. You can stand on our property, all you can see is the vegetation across the street. So, it isn’t going to affect Angel Mounds in any way, shape, or form. The idea that we shouldn’t have commercial near a beautiful, outdoor type park like Angel Mounds, there’s nothing we can do with that with the building that’s there and has been there. We can’t put a Disney World on there, or a roller coaster or a Ferris wheel, or any other kind of commercial. It’s too small. Can’t do that. What you see is what you get. The other thing that occurred to me as I drove home from the Plan Commission, Angel Mounds has been there since the Indians were there. It’s been a park for a long time. That commercial use was there in the ‘30's and in the ‘40's and in the ‘50's and in the ‘60's and the ‘70's and in the ‘80's, up to 1989 and nobody ever said, “Well, we can’t go to Angel Mounds because there’s a commercial establishment at 8100 Pollack Avenue.” It didn’t have an adverse effect on Angel Mounds then, and it won’t have now. Hugh, you will say, “Well, how come you want to lease it to B-Dry? What if B-Dry leaves and you have a C-4 use? How do we know that that C-4 is going to be compatible?” Well, several reasons. Number one, it’s too small to have much of a commercial use. That’s why we were so lucky to get B-Dry to come in and offer to lease this property from us. This was going to be a difficult property to lease, it’s so small. Secondly, and the second reason that you know that this property is going to be compatible, Hugh lives right next door. He is not going to let that property be used in a manner that is going to depreciate his house. You think the neighbors are worried, that’s his home right there. Hugh’s put his whole life, the last 18 years, in it. He’s put his money in it. He can’t afford to let that house have something detrimental next door to it. That’s another reason that we know that the use is going to be a very credible use in the neighborhood. At the Plan Commission somebody said, “Well, but you could zone to R-1, you don’t have to use it for a fire station or the B-Dry, we can use it as, rehab it as a single family. You can put a single family.” Well, it doesn’t look very single family to me, but there’s a more serious issue of why we can’t do that. Plan Commission advises me today, staff advises me that it would be, from a legal standpoint difficult, if not impossible, at least difficult, I don’t want to overstate what Beverly told me, difficult to use it as an R-1 for some legal reasons about the way the title was taken a long time ago and how the parcels were joined. So, we’re not going to rehab it and turn that into a beautiful Pollack Avenue condominium, even if we could. We’re not going to be able to use it as an R-1. And the question presents itself, what do we do with that? As we drive down Pollack Avenue, what do we do with it? Do we want to leave it empty? Hugh’s not going to let it get it trashy, because he lives next door, but Hugh’s not going to have any money to put into painting it, and locking up the Coke machine so the vandals don’t continue to mess with it. What are we going to do with it if we don’t give him an opportunity to recover from the tornado and use it in a productive manner? Again, I think that the B-Dry use is just, to me, I mean, I can’t believe that, when he called me, and, you know, you had to slap yourself in the face that he really found somebody that could use this productively, lease it from him, and have the least possible intrusive use, as far as the neighborhood is concerned. Now, we are prepared today, we would like for you to vote favorably for it. We think it’s in the best interest of the neighborhood to put this to a productive use. We think it’s in the best interest of B-Dry, to the neighborhood to have B-Dry in there. We are prepared today, if you feel uncomfortable, for any reason of giving a C-4 zoning, we are prepared to go back and give another use and development commitment. We’re prepared, and I hope I speak for Hugh, if I don’t, you can kick me as I speak, but we’re prepared to say no use is acceptable, a B-Dry storage facility or a fire department use. There’s a possibility, I mean, it’s thin, but a possibility a fire department might someday want that back. So, without a complete rezoning, we could only use this property for a fire station, or for the B-Dry storage. Let me say one more thing, so, we’re willing to do that. We’re that committed and that serious to keep B-Dry there, and to get a use for this property and make it productive and not have a vacant building next to Hugh, and a vacant building while I’m on my way to Angel Mounds, see that building with a seven on it just sitting there vacant. We are prepared to do that if that’s something that this body would be, if you feel for any reason uncomfortable about the C-4 zoning.

President Musgrave: Okay.

Edward Johnson: We would be willing to do that. Final statement, and I’ll sit down, B-Dry stores stuff in the building, but they don’t have any chemicals. They don’t have any walk up, and they don’t have any chemicals. They store plastic pipe, they store concrete bags, they store sand, pea gravel, they store things like that, some tools, and, of course, in the bays they’ll have the new dump trucks that they go out to the homes and businesses with. So, we ask you to give us a C-4, a favorable C-4 vote. The alternative, we ask that we be allowed to get a use and development commitment that would show you just how serious we are about making sure that this is used by B-Dry or a fire station. Thank you.

President Musgrave: Thank you.

Edward Johnson: Hugh is here, if you have any questions. He is the owner. He’s lived at this property, and he would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.

Hugh Hazlewood: Well, that would be B-Dry, a fire station, or residential.

President Musgrave: Okay, Commissioners, do you have any questions of the petitioner?

Commissioner Shetler: Of course, I mean, you may not be able to answer the question since neither one of you are with B-Dry, but you did mention that they would have certain products that they have to use in their process, and I’m not familiar with, I’m not familiar with the company, the name of it, but I’m not familiar with the kind of products that they use in their business, but you said cement bags and things like that. I assume that there are some deliveries that are made then occasionally?

Hugh Hazlewood: They have their own trucks.

Commissioner Shetler: To re-inventory their supplies and stuff?

Edward Johnson: They take the pipe and the sand and the pea gravel in by their own trucks. That’s basically what they do. They don’t, as I understand the business, they have a drainage system outside of the basement, and that’s why the pipe, the PVC pipe they use that and then they use the pea gravel and the sand over the top of that. So, they make their own deliveries. The County Engineer indicated Pollack is too small to have semis come in there. That’s not a good idea. So, when Hugh filed this, he also had a use and development commitment, one that is right now before you that says no semis. He posted a sign that is visible, it isn’t on that one, but it’s visible on what I gave you, “No Semi Trucks”. So, we want to make sure, and the County Engineer is right, the use of semi trucks, the property is too small for that.

Commissioner Shetler: They did also point out, I think, as well, though, that even vehicular traffic of any kind, smaller vehicles, may have to back out onto Pollack Avenue, because there isn’t enough circular flow there to allow for, you know, a car or a small minivan type thing to be able to pull around there, to park, pull around and go out forward and stuff. You know, it’s a terrible dilemma, I think, right here, because we’re looking at a situation that I don’t know what you would necessarily do with the property, but at the same time it appears that, you know, what was done in 1930 isn’t what we can get by with today, because things have changed. You know, we have 53 foot trailers that are hauling things today. You had 32 foot trailers in 1930. So, everything has changed. The width of the trailers are now 8.4, whereas, in those days they were 7.6. So, when you start looking at all those factors, it was something that, then it could work, and today it does make it difficult. We have a difficult dilemma here, I think, as far as trying to decide what are you going to be able to use this property for? But, at the same time, do we take a 1930's building and try to fit it into today’s environment when it doesn’t seem to fit, safety-wise, for backing out onto the street and things like that.

Edward Johnson: Can I address that?

Commissioner Shetler: Please.

Edward Johnson: I would like to address that, but I would like to go over here and do it. Here’s what I think–

President Musgrave: Mr. Johnson? There’s a microphone that you can travel with, or do you have the pointer with you? Okay, will that work?

Madelyn Grayson: Testing. Or you can use this cordless mic.

Edward Johnson: I’ll just stand here. I’ll just stand here. The parking can be in front, that’s where the, you could park it here, since there won’t be any traffic coming in, it will only be the six working people that come everyday. They can back out this way and then out. Or, what I prefer to do, see them do, is back into here and use this area as a turn around. You also could park over here, I don’t, and someday we may have to park over there, we can’t, heck, we can park in the back. We’ve got enough room in the back, but you could use this as a turn around, you could park in the back. Clearly, you can run out the front. I don’t think that it would be backing onto Pollack Avenue. I think there’s enough concrete in the front of that building that we’ll be, and enough room on the side that we’re not going to have any, and we’re only going to have six cars. I don’t think we’re going to have any problem backing around and driving out front ways.

President Musgrave: Area Plan is sort of indicating they might want to respond, but you will have to come to the microphone.

Bev Behme: I just wanted to add that site review will address the parking, and the access in and out of the property. I mean, they could submit a plan, but it would have to go through the process.

President Musgrave: We’re here to consider the zoning tonight–

Bev Behme: Right.

President Musgrave: –and not the parking.

Bev Behme: Exactly.

President Musgrave: And I understand there are three remonstrators. We have three signed in. Is it Michael Roberts? Please state your name and address for the record.

Michael Roberts: My name is Michael Roberts. I live at 11229 Reynard Drive. I am the president of Friends of Angel Mounds. I spoke at the Area Plan Commission. I do not plan to go over all of that again. But, I think the point was made very clearly a minute ago. This building was built in the 1930's and the situation was drastically different than it is today. I have in my possession a picture that came to me this morning. I don’t have copies of it, but I would be happy to show it to you. This is Angel Mounds neighborhood about 1940, 65 years ago. And two things jump out at me, and should jump out at you. Number one, on Angel Mounds site there’s not very many trees, and today we have hundreds of acres of trees there. But, another thing that’s very apparent is, there’s almost no houses, there’s no anything, there’s very few structures. Today that is a complete, residential neighborhood. This is a residential neighborhood, and I would like to point out that I don’t think there’s any commercial zoning for two or three miles in Vanderburgh County. I mean, you have to go all the way to Green River Road, to the best of my knowledge, to find any commercial zoning. The question I have is, does a commercial zoning designation, or any other designation last forever? If we put something as commercial zoning in 1900, does that mean it’s appropriate for 2006? I don’t think so. We are very sensitive to not having a commercial zoning here, because there are other pieces of property down the road that could conceivably ask to become, you know, commercial zoning. Whether that will happen, I don’t know. But, I have seen things happen that I never would have imagined before, one of which was the trailer park at Lynn Road and Pollack Avenue that I know somebody came before the authorities 30 years ago and asked to put a trailer park in there and was denied because it was in the flood plain. You know, things change. My point is that what you may do today could be, you know, changed down the road. I understand Mr. Johnson’s position and Mr. Hazlewood’s position about trying to lock in just the B-Dry company in there now. Can we guarantee that? Once this property is sold, or given to somebody else, will that last forever? Or will we have, you know, somebody else here? I do need to repeat this, yes, Angel Mounds Historical Site is sensitive. We have 603 acres, and we are very sensitive to what happens around us, especially in a commercial way, because as I said last week, it’s happened all over the country where commercial ventures have gone in next to, you know, places like us, and it’s had an adverse effect. I do not doubt Mr. Hazlewood’s desire to use his property, but I have a strong feeling it should not be for commercial development. I understand it might take some real money to make his building attractive for some other purpose. I understand that, but the question may very well be, as time passes, you know, property on, is it appropriate? We do not feel it’s appropriate for a C-4 zoning, for commercial development at this property. Thank you.

Commissioner Nix: I have a question. If this was to just be specifically used for this operation, and no other operation at all, and everything that has been talked about here today was done just exactly the way it is, with the understanding that if anything changes, the board, I guess, the whole process would have to be started all over again, would you have an objection to that?

Michael Roberts: You mean to make it for B-Dry?

Commissioner Nix: Specifically for that, with the understanding that there won’t be any semi traffic, that there won’t be any outside storage, that there won’t be any retail, the people that are there are the people that work to come and go during the day, the six people, would you have an objection to that?

Michael Roberts: The problem I have with that, and I understand where you’re coming from, is can you legally bind a County Commission in the future to that kind of agreement? Say five years from now or ten years from now if this changes hands and there’s a desire to change it to something else. That’s part of my concern.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: The covenant would bind, would run with the property, and would be binding on all future County Commissioners, unless there is a new petition to rezone, which would come before those County Commissioners, in which case, of course, they could rezone it, if they wanted to. But, they would be faced, presumably, with you or your successor coming in and making the same statement you are tonight, knowing that it had had that very special designation, and then they would have to decide whether they wanted to relieve the property of that covenant or not.

Commissioner Nix: I guess, the concern I have is, and this probably goes without saying is that properties that aren’t rented, that don’t draw income, have a tendency to devalue other properties in the area. I know that this isn’t what you would call someone else’s house across the street, but my concern is that if it’s not rented, will it be kept up? Then you get in the situation where, another whole different situation then. Just a thought.

Michael Roberts: To be honest, I’m not sure.

President Musgrave: Okay. Questions?

Commissioner Shetler: I don’t have a question of Mr. Roberts, but I do have a question, I guess, of Mr. Ziemer. It appears that had this, maybe I’m incorrect on this, correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears had they not converted this to the fire station, that it would have continued on with the legal, non-conforming use?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well, I would have to ask–

Commissioner Shetler: Would that not change the status of things?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Let me ask Bev. Is this, was the fire station a legal, non-conforming use?

Bev Behme: No. It had a non-conforming use, a legal, non-conforming use when the fire station came in.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay, you mean the store or whatever was there before was legal, non-conforming?

Bev Behme: Was legal,non-conforming.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Okay.

Bev Behme: When the fire department got the special use, that legal, non-conforming was abandoned. Then it was, the special use was before the Board of Zoning Appeals, and they granted the special use for the fire station. From that point on, as long as the fire station was there, it was a special use.

Commissioner Shetler: So–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Go ahead.

Commissioner Shetler: Well, okay, so the owner, the current petitioner was the owner at the time, and he petitioned–

Bev Behme: For a special use for the fire station.

Commissioner Shetler: –for a special use for that, and he was advised at that time that he would lose his grand fathering? I guess, would be a more layman’s term.

Bev Behme: I’m not sure what he was advised at that time, but I don’t know if it was vacant before then, but once the fire station went in, and was used for that use, it lost it’s commercial, legal, non-conforming. So, now it’s just a vacant property. Because when the fire station goes, the special use goes with them.

Commissioner Nix: What would you consider the zoning on this parcel now?

Bev Behme: Well, the zoning is, it’s R-1.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: With a special use for a fire station?

Bev Behme: With a special use for the fire station. You could have a fire station in there.

Commissioner Shetler: And before was it considered, had it, would it have been considered a C-4 had it been legally brought up back in 1982 when the code was changed?

Bev Behme: No. It was granted a legal, non-conforming.

Commissioner Shetler: Right. I understand.

Bev Behme: The zoning still stayed, but you could use a commercial use of whatever it was at the time it was brought up.

Commissioner Nix: That was specifically for a fire station period.

Bev Behme: The special use?

Commissioner Nix: Right.

Bev Behme: Yes.

Commissioner Nix: So, the process that we’re talking about now would be the same process that should be gone through possibly?

Bev Behme: Well, no, the special use provision is before the Board of Zoning Appeals. The zoning doesn’t change. A special use is just stacked on top of it.

Commissioner Shetler: I’m really kind of talking about that area of ‘82 to ‘89.

Bev Behme: Okay.

Commissioner Shetler: That gap in there.

Bev Behme: Right.

Commissioner Shetler: The use that it was, at that time, would that have been considered a C-4 usage at the time?

Bev Behme: Yes.

Commissioner Shetler: Okay, but because he went for a special use, it reverted to an R-1 zoning, but a special use of the fire station. Now, I guess, my question would be to you, since you petitioned that, at the time were you informed that, did you understand what you were going through?

Hugh Hazlewood: No, I did not. I thought I would get it back.

Commissioner Shetler: Did you have legal counsel?

Hugh Hazlewood: No, I didn’t. The fire station took care of it. They filed the whole petition.

President Musgrave: Okay, we have two more remonstrators, if you’ve made your points, Mr. Roberts. I’m sorry, I can’t read this. Is it Jo Kaetzel?

Sheryle Mills: She wishes not to speak.

President Musgrave: Okay. Sheryle Mills?

Sheryle Mills: Yes.

President Musgrave: Okay, thank you. I’m sorry I didn’t get your name right, probably, but I can’t really read it.

Sheryle Mills: Hi, my name is Sheryle Mills. I live at 8200 Pollack Avenue. We moved in our home in 1985. It was built in ‘85. We moved in at the end of ‘85. At that time there was no business in there, in the fire department building at all. Then Hugh moved in a couple of years later, and at that time I believe it was still zoned C-4, but, all I remember being in there was, he called it Ten Little Indians, it was like a little store that he had there. Then, it wasn’t too long after that that it was zoned R-1, and then the fire department was in there for, I believe, 12 years. I really don’t have a problem with B-Dry going in there, as long as that’s all that will go in there. But, when you make it C-4, you’re opening the door to so many different businesses. I have a listing of all the businesses that can go in there, there’s 174 businesses I believe that can go in there. I just don’t want to open that door to where we can have anything and everything going in there.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: The legal effect of the use and development commitment, which they would have to make, saying that it would only be B-Dry, means that none of those other uses can be in there, unless the petitioner comes back to the Plan Commission and petitions to rezone that property for some use other than B-Dry.

Sheryle Mills: Right.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: So, your problem would be addressed if they file that use and development commitment for B-Dry only.

Sheryle Mills: Right.

President Musgrave: Are you finished with your remarks?

Sheryle Mills: Once again, there were several issues that were of concern, and I think that most of those have been addressed, but I still would like to go over them again.

President Musgrave: Please do.

Sheryle Mills: Traffic, we’re, all the neighbors are worried about the traffic. There’s a bus that stops six times, and I addressed this before, but I will again, it stops on the corner of Indian Mounds Boulevard and Pollack Avenue, on his corner the bus stops six times a day. That’s in the morning and the afternoon. That concerns me with there being extra traffic there. The programs that have increased at Angel Mounds, they’ve increased, they have more programs now than they’ve ever had. I know that the traffic’s picked up from there, so, you know, we’re not wanting more traffic. Angel Mounds is great for the community, I’m glad they’re there, and that’s one of the reasons why we moved in our house is because Angel Mounds was there, and we knew nothing would ever build there. So, when we moved in, we were thinking, “Oh, no commercial, all residential, this is great!”. Because, at that time, there was nothing in the fire department building. Parking, that was our other concern, because there is very little parking. The neighbors keep up the boulevard. We all mow the boulevard, we all take sections and we all mow it. If there’s not enough parking, a lot of times people will park on the boulevard. That did happen when the fire department was in there, but it was so less often that that happened, that we weren’t really that concerned about it. But, if it was on a daily basis, that would not do very well. I know it’s owned by the county, but we do keep it up, and we want to keep our neighborhood nice. It’s a residential area. A lot of the families are trying to rebuild after the tornado. Our house was hit very hard, so we’re all trying to rebuild. Then we’re worried about property values. You know, if something goes in there, what’s it going to do to our property value? Another issue is all the homes in that area are on well water and septic, and so is the fire department area. Then, the insurance on the building was another concern, because that’s one of the reasons why Knight Township moved out is because there wasn’t insurance on the building, and when the building was damaged, they were worried about their equipment. So, the equipment was taken to the people’s houses, instead of being stored in that building. So, that makes you wonder what’s going to happen? Who’s going to insure it? You know, maybe that’s none of my business, but I would like to know, because I live right across the street from it. If B-Dry is going to sign a long term lease, that’s one of the things that, you know, I would like them to come to the table saying, “Oh, we have a lease, tentative lease signed that he is going to stay here for 18 years, or for 15 years, or for 10 years.” You know, that way I could accept that more with that business going in there. The fire department was in the building, I believe, 12 years, and it was zoned R-1 at that time. From the way I understood it, when the fire department went in there, it was zoned C-4 and the special R-1 zoning, and then it no longer, the C-4 was dissolved. Now, he’s wanting that back. That’s all I have to say.

President Musgrave: Thank you very much.

Sheryle Mills: Thank you.

President Musgrave: Commissioner Nix, did you have a question or a statement? Commissioner Shetler?

Commissioner Shetler: I do have a question, and that is since Mr. Johnson is coming forward, the B-Dry do they intend to store that gravel and sand and stuff inside that building or outside or both?

Hugh Hazlewood: I think, they didn’t say anything about any sand.

Edward Johnson: Go ahead.

Hugh Hazlewood: At the back of the parking area along the side of the building they wanted to put a pile of gravel there. That would be in a fenced in area.

Commissioner Nix: That’s around the back of the building, or on the side?

Hugh Hazlewood: Not around the back, but at the back of the side.

Commissioner Nix: So, straight back at the end of where the rock is now?

Hugh Hazlewood: Back where that black barrel is, the black barrel.

Commissioner Nix: Okay.

Hugh Hazlewood: Back in that area we had planned to extend the fence across the back, a privacy fence, and toward the front for about 20 feet, and that was to store their gravel and their concrete mixer, and I think they’ve got a generator.

President Musgrave: Okay. I sit on Area Plan, and I know that the folks who sit there and listen and vote month after month on petitions do this quite diligently. While I was late in returning from Indianapolis, and was not able to hear all of the testimony that was said either by you or your client or the remonstrators, I did come in at the tail end, and I could tell that things had become quite passionate, and every member of the board voted against this, except for me and another gentleman who had arrived late, and he also abstained. I find this to be a difficult case. You did have a business there, and you lost the zoning due to the zoning laws, but this is a piece of property smack in the middle of entirely residential property. I’ve not voted for any spot zoning like that on any other petition, and I can’t support what you’re asking here today, even though my fellow Commissioners may support you. I just wanted to explain to you that it’s because of the spot zoning nature of this. It’s not because I don’t support B-Dry, a wonderful business here that I someday may hire myself to keep my own basement dry. It’s because of the nature of this property, and where it’s located. So, I did want to say that on the record before the discussion moved forward.

Edward Johnson: Could I respond and then I’ll let you guys vote? The only thing I wanted to say, it seems to me when you listen to the complaints, or concerns more than complaints, concerns of the neighbor and of Angel Mounds, which we don’t take lightly. It is a nice neighborhood and Angel Mounds is a community asset, no question, but when you listen to it, it seems like that nobody really has a problem with B-Dry going in there. They don’t want, because there’s not traffic generated, you know, all the things that would be, could be a problem if there was a different use on that small piece of property are obviated with B-Dry. What I would ask you to do....I sit there and listen and I’m thinking, we’ll give you a use and development commitment, and we’ll limit it to a single family, a fire station and the B-Dry company, with six employees, no outside storage that’s not fenced in. I can’t do that unless you vote, as I understand from what Bev told me, in order to give us an opportunity to put this property to use and give you that kind of use and development commitment that would be binding, that would give the neighbors and Angel Mounds a certain, a great level of comfort.

President Musgrave: I’m going to ask you to take a pause here while we change the tape.

(Tape change)

Edward Johnson: You would need to vote affirmatively to send it back to the Area Plan Commission so that we could amend our petition by, probably the tightest use and development commitment you’ve ever seen.

President Musgrave: Well, I’m willing to send it back to Area Plan for further consideration. I have no problem in doing that.

Edward Johnson: Well, I guess, that’s what is. Now, Hugh, this is your property, it’s not my property, is that what you want?

Hugh Hazlewood: Yes, I believe so, at this point.

Edward Johnson: And you understand that you would have to file a use and development commitment, in writing, within a certain period of time?

Hugh Hazlewood: Yes.

President Musgrave: And Area Plan might not agree to that, and when it comes back here we might not agree to that either. There’s no guarantee here of any action.

Edward Johnson: I understand. That’s our request.

Commissioner Nix: It’s my understanding now that this has been to Area Plan that no matter what happens, unless we waive this, not the hearing, but, Beverly, I don’t know if you can help us with that or not.

Edward Johnson: I’m sorry, Bev.

Bev Behme: What you could do tonight is send it back to Area Plan Commission so Mr. Hazlewood can amend his use and development commitment. You cannot vote on anything, on a final decision, unless it comes out of Area Plan Commission.

Commissioner Nix: And because Area Plan has already denied this, there’s no year?

Bev Behme: No, they have 90 days.

Commissioner Nix: Okay.

Bev Behme: There’s 90 days from Area Plan’s vote. So, if you would send this back to Area Plan for Mr. Johnson to do a use and development commitment, it will go back to Area Plan. Now, I tried to check to see if it could go in August, and I wasn’t able to, the person that does that wasn’t there. So, it may be back in September, but that would still be within that 90 day period.

President Musgrave: Okay.

Bev Behme: With your vote, that would start the 90 days over again, to go back.

Commissioner Shetler: Obviously, this is the category it has to be in, but why? I mean, what constituted and necessitated the fact that it had to go to a C-4, instead of a C-1 or a C-2?

Bev Behme: Well, I’m not sure what Mr. Hazlewood had in mind when he originally filed it. But, this particular use would have to go in a C-4. It has some outside storage, it’s a contractor’s office, that is specifically listed in a C-4. So, if this company, I forgot what the name was–

Commissioner Nix: B-Dry.

Bev Behme: –wants to be in that location, it would take a C-4. They couldn’t go in a C-1 or a C-2.

Commissioner Shetler: And can we specify something with a use and development that tight?

Bev Behme: Yes, yes.

Commissioner Shetler: That tight, without, I mean–

Bev Behme: It’s been done before.

Commissioner Shetler: And it holds up in court?

Bev Behme: Yes, it has.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: The Commissioners wouldn’t be specifying that, the petitioner would be specifying that, and the Commissioners would be faced with, after the Plan Commission, voting on whether to approve the zoning with that use and development commitment.

Commissioner Shetler: Alright.

Bev Behme: And that use and development commitment is attached to the zoning. It’s going to travel right through any ownership, and each owner would have to abide by that use and development commitment. If someone else, and we’ve had this happen a few times, it’s not real common, but we have specifically for a company or a use, and if they move out and somebody else wants to go in, they have to go through the whole process again.

President Musgrave: I don’t want to give the petitioner any false hope that going back through it would change my mind about B-Dry or spot zoning. Even if you made it just B-Dry, I still do not feel inclined to support that, particularly when you tell me you have six employees, piles of gravel, that just, it just, that use and that neighborhood just does not work for me. So, I just want to be on the record and clear that if you want to take 90 more days and maybe you would come up with something else, I’m not sure what that would be, but if you want 90 more days to work on something, I’m more than happy to give that to you.

Commissioner Shetler: Let me ask this, does that work for you all? Do you think that there’s a possibility that something out there could fit? My fear is kind of like what Bill had mentioned earlier, and that is I’m also fearful from the fact this thing sits vacant, what will it turn into? That could be, you know, a worse scenario than B-Dry being there as a commercial activity, limited as it is. You know, as one that’s really been concerned about, you know, keep Evansville and Vanderburgh County beautiful, I certainly don’t want to be doing something that may, you know, work against that effort.

Michael Roberts: Mr. Shetler, I understand exactly where you’re coming from. We’d be happy, you know, to think about it, but, as I said, we have a real concern with any C-4 designation on that property or any other property in the neighborhood. I also have a question, and I don’t know the answer to this, when something is zoned or a change of zoning, is there an inspection made on that physical property, the physical integrity of that property?

President Musgrave: I think to get a–

Commissioner Nix: It’s complaint driven, usually.

President Musgrave: You might want to check with the Building Commissioner on that. I don’t know if he took out permits when he did his repairs, and had inspections as a result of that.

Michael Roberts: I’m not implying that the building is going to fall down tomorrow. But, I am saying it’s a 70 year old building that did go through a tornado, and I’m sure this is something the neighbors would be concerned about. What we would be concerned about is how is this building going to hold up over the next few years? Whatever is done with it.

Commissioner Nix: I didn’t know if you wanted to address that?

Hugh Hazlewood: Yes, I think I would. I did get building permits when I had the roof rebuilt. I did have a structural engineer, the same structural engineer that built the Vanderburgh County jail, he came out and told me what to do in the way of repairs, and approved the repairs after I had made them.

President Musgrave: Commissioners, are there any more questions, or any more comments?

Commissioner Nix: I guess, just getting back to that, just to make sure, on Commissioner Shetler’s question to the remonstrators, I don’t think it’s the C-4 issue, it’s the issue of B-Dry, this company being there, is that acceptable, from your standpoint?

President Musgrave: Make sure you come to the microphone.

Michael Roberts: Speaking for my board and the instructions I’ve got, no.

Commissioner Nix: Okay.

Hugh Hazlewood: There’s one more comment I might make, and that’s if the building remains empty, it will be uninsured, and probably just deteriorate.

President Musgrave: Is it insured now?

Hugh Hazlewood: No.

President Musgrave: Alright, Commissioners–

Hugh Hazlewood: I might add that with B-Dry in there, it will be.

President Musgrave: I do live in a neighborhood where a piece of property almost at the end of my block was given a special use permit some years back, and it’s particular to this current occupant, and that settled down some discussion in the neighborhood for a long time, until everybody realized that not in our lifetime would it ever go back to being a house. So, giving somebody a license to use something for awhile to accommodate a current situation, in my mind, is not good planning, and we ought to look to what we’re supposed to do here, which is to look for a plan. Having said that, maybe we can have more discussion, or we can have a motion.

Commissioner Nix: One more thing, and just to say something, there’s a lot of facilities that were built long before this zoning issue ever was in place, and I think that we’ve got to be sensitive to those issues also, that people have invested money in that long before, you know, once again these were in place, and it’s something that we should be cautious of when we either approve or deny these things as we go along.

President Musgrave: I am willing to give them 90 more days to see what they can work out.

Commissioner Shetler: Do we need a motion for that? I do have, I find it is a real dilemma. You get the dentist offices that were built in neighborhoods, they look like houses, you know, they are houses, and they are easy to convert, if they would get denied zoning, because the dentist moves out you want to put it into some other kind of commercial use, like an insurance office, and the body, the legal body would vote it down, it could be converted into a home rather easily. This structure is not going to be converted into a home. I mean, there’s just no way. So, I mean, I’ve got both sides of it here. I’m really concerned that it’s going to deteriorate and going to be an eyesore for the neighborhood, on the other side of it, I don’t feel comfortable with a C-4 zoning myself. So, I’m willing to go the 90 days, but–

President Musgrave: Is that a motion?

Commissioner Shetler: –there are no promises. That’s a motion.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor.

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: Motion carries.

Edward Johnson: Thank you.

Commissioner Nix: I make a motion we adjourn.

President Musgrave: Is there a second?

Commissioner Shetler: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

(The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.)

Those in Attendance:

Cheryl Musgrave                      Bill Nix                                      Tom Shetler, Jr.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.          Madelyn Grayson                     Bev Behme

Edward Johnson                       Hugh Hazlewood                      Michael Roberts

Sheryle Mills                             Others Unidentified                   Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

REZONING BOARD

Cheryl A.W. Musgrave, President

Bill Nix, Vice President

Tom Shetler, Jr., Member

Recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.