[PAGE 1]
SHELBYVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES
March 10, 2026
Vince Bradburn: Good. All right. We'll call to order this March 10th Board of Zoning Appeals
meeting. Mr. Secretary, could you do the roll call?
Mike Evans: Yes. Mr. Claxton - here. Miss Newkirk - here. Mr. Bradburn - here. Mr. Cassidy -
here. Mr. Garrett - here.
Bradburn: Welcome Mr. Claxton to the board. Thanks for serving with us this evening. Next
item on the agenda is approval of minutes from February 10th.
Doug Cassidy: Like to make a motion to approve the minutes as presented to the board.
James Garrett: Second.
Bradburn: Motion and a second. All those in favor indicate by saying “Aye”.
Unison: “Aye”.
Bradburn: Those opposed to the same sign. Okay. Minutes passed. Moving on to old
business. Mr. Secretary, we still have what case number is that? 2025-16 carrying over from
previous old business.
Evans: Yes, the petitioner would like to continue this again. He has a different petition that's
coming to plan commission later this month. So we should see this either go away and be
rescinded or it'll continue on.
Bradburn:Gotcha. Thanks. Seeing no other old business, let's move on to our new business
this evening. We got one on the agenda. It looks like 2026-03. Mr. Secretary want to?
Evans: Yes. I'd like to point out that there was a typo. This is actually BZA 2026-03 for POET
Biorefinery and they are here for development standard variance. The petition by POET
Biorefining for three development standard variances at the property located at 2373 West
300 North in Shelbyville, Indiana 46176 to expand the existing production facility from 98
million gallons per year to 193 million gallons per year. It is asking for relief from the following.
The first one is UDO 504AS-01 for accessory structure heights. The second one is UDO 523
1

[PAGE 2]
heights of primary and accessory structures. C is the UDO 546 for outdoor storage
standards to allow crushed stone and gravel.
Bradburn: Excellent. Thank you and thanks for the correction. We have three standard
variances on the docket this evening, not use variance. Mr. petition or petitioner or
representative wants to take the podium and speak your name for the record and give us a
presentation.
Tanner Schweer: Am I muted? Green is good. Is that better? Okay. Tanner Schweer, project
manager for code design and construction. will be leading the overall effort for the buildout
on site at POET Shelbyville over the next 18 months as well as have been leading the
engineering team effort at our corporate office over roughly the past year as well. So do you
guys typically just want me to kind of run through the individual requests or?
Bradburn: That'd be great. Yeah.
Schweer: Perfect. So the first UDO variance that was requested again is 504 ASO1. So
exceeding the maximum number of accessory structures permitted. Really the rationale or
reasoning behind that is we have several different processes on site and we'll be duplicating
those. It's very difficult to put all those under one roof, one primary structure effectively,
efficiently and there are many design reasons why we may not want to. You know, we have a
grain receiving building that doesn't fit well with a distillation processing building, right? So,
we have intentionally segregated some process units from one another which ultimately
leads to many structures on site. So my records indicate we have roughly 12 different
structures on site today. I tried to list out in our letter of intent all of the structures that I
thought would be accessory structures, which sums to 23 additional structures. So any
questions on that one or?
Bradburn: Actually if you want to just roll through the kind of get an overview of the whole
project and then the board we can we can address all of them kind of at once.
Schweer: Thank you. so the second variance that we have requested is UDO 532 H01. So
maximum height of a primary and/or accessory structure. This one really comes down to
process equipment. Again, you know, we have some very large process equipment items.
Our ring dryers are primary examples that go above and beyond the current code.
Unfortunately, we don't really have a lot of alternatives out in the marketplace to spec and
source a piece of processing equipment that can do the same thing for the rates that
match the design that we're trying to obtain and meet those limitations. I think we have five
total instances that I believe will be exceeding the maximum height. So the dryers, our inlet
2

[PAGE 3]
ducting for our auxiliary boilers which generate steam for most all the processes at the
facility. Our evaporation building structure is going to exceed code. The unit processing
units that go inside of that building again are very tall, very much driven by the process
parameters needed for this design. Distillation building structure. Same story. The
processing units inside of that building are sized specifically for this size of expansion and
are very tall. And then we have a regenerative thermal oxidizer processing piece of
equipment whose discharge stack exceeds code maximum height. In addition to that we
have a few accessory structures that will exceed maximum height. We're calling those our
dried grain silos, which are storing the distiller's grain, our grain receiving leg, and then the
new steel bends for corn storage. The last variance that we have asked for is the installation
of an outdoor gravel storage area. Typically we reserve a fairly large laydown area for
mobilization of contractors during large shutdown turnaround activities. large maintenance
activities, staging of large pieces of equipment when we're going to plan for replacement or
upgrades. Truthfully, that one is really a cost driven decision to pave 25,000 additional
square feet for contractor parking and things like that is really what's driving the world
behind requesting that one. So I think that's it.
Bradburn: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. We'll have the board ask questions then. Let's begin.
Mr. Garrett.
Garrett: Yes. just a sorry, just a general question about this project. This is because you guys
are the need for this expansion because you guys are seeing a lot of farmers come in during
harvest season to unload their grain with you guys and this is to help accommodate more
farmers. Correct?
Schweer: I would say that that's definitely part of it. We will be accommodating more
bushels sold into the local area as a result of the expansion. POET is forecasting growth in
ethanol sales volumes out into, you know, maybe a five or 10 year time frame. So, we're
trying to position ourselves kind of ahead of that. But yes, we're effectively doubling the
bushels that we'll purchase out of the local area. And with this project, we'll be basically
doubling our receiving capabilities to meet those additional bushels coming in, additional
truckers and farmers coming in as well.
Garrett: Thank you.
Bradburn: Okay, Mr. Cassidy.
Doug Cassidy: I asked this before. The buildings aren't going to be any bigger than what they
are now?
3

[PAGE 4]
Schweer: Correct
Cassidy: Okay.
Schweer: Yep. In all instances, we have planned to be at or below existing heights. Okay.
Cassidy: Have you had any I know there's been talk of when you first came everybody was
worried about safety and everything. Have you had any events out there that I mean any
spillage or anything like that or anything?
Schweer: None to my recollection.
Cassidy: Okay.
Schweer: Yeah.
Cassidy: Okay. How many people will you add?
Schweer: I believe the number is somewhere in the 20s.
Cassidy: Okay.
Bradburn: All right. Thank you. Moving on. Miss Newkirk.
Blake Newkirk: Sure. So one question. I know I've heard from a couple people that there is
currently kind of at times a backup onto the road of trucks coming in and out of the
property or I guess more so in the property. So with your expansion, will that help alleviate
some of that?
Schweer: I believe it will. We'll be adding an additional inbound scale which should help
expedite trucks moving onto the site and then we're actually more than doubling our total
bushel per hour receiving capabilities. for grain into the facility.
Newkirk: Gotcha.
Schweer: Hope to see that improve.
Newkirk: Okay. Thank you. And my second question might be more for Adam or Mike. so, I
know that the rule is that there's no more than five accessory structures, I think. Is there a
4

[PAGE 5]
particular reason why it needs or why it was originally intended to be five only? And is there
any issue that you see in exceeding that? I mean, they already do obviously.
Adam Rude: Yeah. Um, not knowing the exact I'll say this, I will speculate what the intent
likely was at the time of of writing the ordinance, I would imagine it was to kind of limit a
bunch of small one-off storage buildings kind of mini barn style on cause their zone general
industrial like the whole rest of the industrial park and Knauf and a lot of our industrial
partners throughout town. So they are subject to the same zoning standards as all those
other entities. Um looking at this case that specific part of the ordinance does not scale
well to larger facilities that are sitting on 100 plus acres being held to that same you know
five structure standard that a smaller maybe 4 acre development would also be held to. So
to answer the other part of your question, we don't see any concerns there. because you
again they're sitting on such a large parcel. We feel that it's an appropriate scale.
Newkirk: It does seem like the nature of this business requires multiple structures. So okay,
thank you. That was all I had.
Michael Claxton: I'm just it's just a curiosity question. How many trucks do you have coming
in and out a day? Typically.
Schweer: I might have play on the team.
Claxton: I'm just curious.
Nathan (?): Yeah, Nathan (?) lead civil engineer for I think right now it's around 250.
Claxton: A day?
Nathan (?): Yep. With primarily corn and second would be DTGS and then I think after
expansion we'll see around 500.
Claxton: Oh my gosh. Wow. Okay. I'm just curious.
Nathan (?): Yep.
Bradburn: Other questions? All right. It brings me to me and it may be for staff and kind
maybe combination. of the petitioner. Just interested in what the allowable height was with
the initial standard variance.
5

[PAGE 6]
Rude: Yeah. So are you asking back in 2016?
Bradburn: Correct Yeah. Thank you.
Rude: Okay. 2016. I had pulled the files. I believe it was closer to 130 ft. It wasn't clear. I didn't
read through all the minutes, but I believe it was closer to 130 is what they were granted
back then. and now they're requesting 120?
Nathan (?): 130 would be the bins. If I recall right from the previous one, our limit on tall
structures is actually limited by the FAA right now because of our location to the airport. So
that's as tall as we can go. So actually our bends are actually shorter at this site than other
sites. So we go much higher at other sites. So that's really our limiting factor. That's but that
max height everywhere.
Bradburn: So there you go. That's the civil engineer. He's got it. Thank you. Yeah. We'll take
the FAA's word on that. Right. Thank you. All right. No other questions for me. Thank you.
We'll close the petitioner's portion of the hearing and then open up to anyone in the public
wishing to speak either in favor or as a remonstrance. Come on approach the podium the
same thing if you would state your name and then speak. Go ahead. Thank you.
(?): Will we experience more particulate or soot on our property with this expansion of this
equipment? Seems to be having a great deal of soot that’s evident either failure not being
maintained. I think, is that a question you can answer?
Bradburn: No, we can, you're opening up. Go ahead.
Rude: I was going to say after the public comment period the petitioner can get back up
and the board can ask them that question at that point. Yeah.
Newkirk: Hi. So, is that something that you've been experiencing for a while? This is the first
I've heard of that being an issue. So, is that something that you've been experiencing for a
while or is that a new experience?
Inaudible (?):
Newkirk: Okay.
(?): If it's maintenance again, that's a question I have for you.
6

[PAGE 7]
Newkirk: Yeah, absolutely. And is that something that you're noticing like you notice it
actually seeing it in the air? Are you noticing it on your, you know, your vehicles and around
your property?
Inaudible (?):
Newkirk: Okay.
(?): Anything that's outside.
Newkirk: Gotcha. Okay.
(?): It makes it very. It's not something you can spray off with a pressure washer. You have to
wash it off your vehicles.
Newkirk: Okay. Thank you for letting us know.
Inaudible (?):
Garrett: Sir, if I don't mean to interrupt. Can you please turn your mic on? There we go.
(?): All right.
Garrett: Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.
(?): No, no, that's fine. Truck traffic. We were assured that while POET said they couldn't keep
the trucks, the farm trucks from bringing product in from West 300, they assured us that
the trucks leaving their facility would not be turning left. So, we're seeing a lot of tanker
trucks on a two-lane black top. I was always led to believe that it'd be exited out towards
the right and out Tom Hessen. I think there's even a sign there, but we're experiencing a lot
of truck traffic. Not necessarily farm trucks, but tanker trucks. So, if there was something
that we could do about that, do you have an answer for me or?
Newkirk: Okay, Is that something we can find out?
Bradburn: Absolutely. Absolutely.
(?): Go ahead.
7

[PAGE 8]
Bradburn: Yeah. No, could you repeat again on which road you are seeing them turn?
(?): Okay. It's their main entrance only. Okay. So, when the tanker trucks exit to the left,
there's a sign there that says they're not to turn. No trucks turn left. But we're experiencing a
lot of trucks exiting left or to the west out of the facility. And what they're cutting through
the country and cutting down to 44.
Bradburn: And that's on 300. That's on 300 north?
(?): Yes. 300 north. With this expansion, will there be access from the next road's 200, I
guess. Will there be an entrance? Was there a proposal for an entrance off of 200 to this
expansion?
Bradburn: We will pose that to the petitioners. I'll let them answer that one. Keep coming.
Keep the questions coming. Yeah.
(?): Okay and my last question. I'm sorry. Pardon me. Oh yeah. Yeah. There had been mention
of planting trees around the facility to kind of deaden some of the sound. that was early on
in their proposal. There's one other item I'm struggling with, you’ll have to forgive me. We
talked about the entryway off of 200 exiting to the left. The particulates. I'm sorry I didn’t
bring my notes with me. I guess if I could get those answered, I'd feel a little bit more
comfortable. I mean, we're ready to accept the expansion. There's just some concessions
that I think need to be thought about and maybe asked before this expansion takes place
or, you know, to make it a little bit better for us for the folks that live around that area.
Bradburn: Absolutely. Absolutely. Remind me, you've probably already said it, but is there
currently signage on 300 North directing trucks a certain way?
(?): The last time I was there, there was signage as you leave their facilities. No truck, no
trucks to the left. So, and like I said, we were assured that trucks carrying their product
would not be turning left and we accept the fact that, you know, grain trucks coming, they
have no control over that, but they do have control over the trucks hauling their product.
But the infrastructure, oh, I know what it was now. Uh, the bypass, will there be expansion for
the bypass to access? Can we expect that anytime soon?
Bradburn: Tom Hass Hessen, is that what you're…
(?): Yeah. Yeah. From 200 further south. And that's supposed to tie into 44 and limit the
trucks having to come up through the country on the two-lane black tops?
8

[PAGE 9]
Bradburn: Gotcha. How about staff?
Rude: Yeah, on that one, I can talk a little bit. Obviously the second phase between 300 and
200 W road was finished last year. The third phase is set to go to design and possible
construction in the next year or two. Which would take it all the way down to Mausoleum.
Beyond that, there's no concrete timelines because the most complicated and expensive
piece is going to be crossing the river. So, once the city gets it down to Mausoleum. We
intend to start studying the piece from Mausoleum all the way down to 44 to kind of figure
out how to phase that in. So to answer your question, there will be expansion down to
Mausoleum. Which could help somewhat, but expansion all the way to 44 is not in the near
future.
(?):Okay. Yeah, I would guess that goes back to my question. Can the trucks not exit to the
west? I know it's a hardship for them, but uh, the infrastructure is just not there for them to
come in and out. And especially if we're going from 250 trucks or we now have 250 trucks
too I don't know how much that road's not going to last very much longer. So are there any
expectations of widening that road or fixing that road? I mean gravel along the side I've seen
done in the counties. That's really not an answer.
Garrett: Yeah. I have a question for the staff now. Was that a condition that we imposed
originally? The turning no turning left on 300 West or is that a condition or is that a
condition that we need to add?
Rude: I believe the signage there was either part of the conditions or it came up throughout
the process and it was part of the plans that went through. Um, I'd like to be able to maybe
have a conversation with the city engineer on some other possible solutions there. Because
beyond signage I I don't have that exact expertise and he might be able to speak to what
other improvements or or changes to that design might make sense to help alleviate some
of the left turning.
Garrett: Okay. So I guess that'll be a condition for plan commission.
Rude: Correct. Yeah. but you know I've taken a page and a half of notes here. All of this we'll
take all this back to tech review and try to address the items that we can't address this
evening we'll try to address before plan commission or at least have some better answers.
Newkirk: Adam on that obviously I know that truly enforcing if they are not legally supposed
to turn left there then our either sheriff or police can enforce that. So, do we as the BZA
have any sort of ability to send a message along to our police department and remind them
9

[PAGE 10]
that that should be monitored? Because I know for weeks when the square was changed in
its traffic pattern, they sat there for actually I think a couple months to try to monitor those
semis coming through. So I'm just curious if we can ask for some more monitoring there.
Rude: Yeah, we can as a staff, we'll definitely pass that message along. and the city's police
department sits on that technical review committee, so they'll be part of that discussion.
because between them and the engineer, the city engineer, I think they'll probably have
some better ideas than me on best ways both from a construction standpoint, but also a
policy enforcement standpoint how to address some of this. Yeah.
Bradburn: Excellent. I have one more question maybe and if you have any other things at
this time? Make sure you ask any more questions you have as well. but in terms of the
original project, buffering and screening was one one of the issues brought up. I assume
we're all up to code currently on the UDO of meeting those standards.
Rude: Yeah. So at the time we were under a different set of landscape standards. They met
those back in 2018 two years ago, maybe three years ago. We updated our landscape
standards and more or less doubled requirements. So they will through this process be
adding a significant number of additional trees and plantings and those types of things
because the standards have changed. All of the new additions will be the new landscaping
standards that will be applicable to the new expansion that they're going through. So
Garrett: Adam, just for clarification, that'll be a condition plan commission adds to correct
the landscaping standards?
Rude: It will be reviewed by PC. It won't even need to be a condition because it comes from
the update in the UDO.
Garrett: Okay.
Rude: So it's just a completely new set of enhanced standards that happened a couple
years ago.
Garrett: Okay.
Rude: Yes. It will. They're the body that enforces. Yeah.
Garrett: Okay. Enforce that. And then I guess stupid question but who enforces that?
10

[PAGE 11]
Rude: If it doesn't actually get installed or? So we can withhold CofO, Certificate of
Occupancy, which is our biggest tool. Any condition that should be done during
construction or imposed by this body or plan commission that's kind of our last piece of
leverage. And then if it's not, you know, upkept or if it's removed later on or if there's
changes on any site, not just this one, any site that violates the UDO, then there's normal
enforcement measures that fines and then we go to court over it. So, we have all those tools
in case it weren't. But we have some nicer tools beforehand. That CofO piece is the big one.
Garrett: Perfect. Thank you.
Newkirk: And Adam, back to that part about the sound buffering. And this might be a dumb
question, but when you have a piece of property that is, you know, already done and we
want to expand what's currently there. I hear what you're saying that now they need to bring
that up to new standards for the sound buffering. So, will that will the new standard be
applied to the entire property or will there be any I guess what I'm wanting to know is are
there going to end up being any gaps in the property where really there needs to be some
more buffering but it doesn't necessarily fall under that requirement because it's in the old
section of the property. Does that make sense what I'm asking?
Rude: Yeah. And I might not have a perfect answer for you because there's certain
thresholds in the ordinance. If it's completely new construction, that's easy. You meet the
standards of that day. There's certain thresholds where expansions under certain
percentages, certain parts of the landscaping standards don't apply or you don't have to
bring the whole thing up to today's standards and to your piece. It would only apply to the,
you know, so many square feet that are being added. So there's not a super straightforward
answer because I would have to sit down and do some math to figure out exactly what
applies. But what we can do as a staff and and because we've got time between now and
plan commission we can advise the petitioner and try to position those plantings in a way
to achieve some more potential sound buffering. I'll say, some of that's going to naturally
happen from the requirements, but, if we can do some, you know, the other plantings that
they have to do on site, if they're maybe clustered or or whatnot, on that western side, it
might accomplish a little bit more, you know.
Bradburn: No, great questions. Thank you. Anything else? Yeah, please.
(?): With the planning of this expansion. I know there was a study done as far as to see if it
was feasible or meritable to store CO2 underground. Will that be part of this expansion?
11

[PAGE 12]
Rude: I'll let the petitioner answer, but I believe the answer is no on this expansion. So, I
believe this is just an expansion of the production facility, but when they get back up here, I
think that'd be a great follow-up form.
(?): And then I guess I'd be interested in knowing what the buffer zone is for that, you know,
and how close we live to the facility if there is in fact underground storage that's going to
happen.
Rude: I don't have an answer for you but we can do some research and follow back up. If you
stick around after the meeting, we'll get you one of our cards so we can maybe exchange
emails.
(?): Okay. That's all I have for now. Thanks.
Bradburn: Well, there you go.
(?): All right. Thanks for your time.
Bradburn: Excellent. No, thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Still have the public portion of
the hearing open. Anybody online? No. Anybody else in the room? Excellent. So, we'll close
that portion and then ask the petitioners if they'd like to address any of the concerns. These
are the questions. You I don't know paper, rock, scissors to see who's doing it, I guess. But
step on down. How about we begin with let's see. So, I think that the buffer gave us a bit.
Tom Hessen we’re good on that. How about signage? Can you speak to current signage out
there or?
Schweer: Yeah. Truthfully, I represent a team responsible for construction. Sure. something
that I can definitely bring back to the operations team to the general manager on site to try
and review what we have posted and why we may or may not be following those postings.
Fortunately, I'm not able to answer today if truck traffic is turning to the west and there's
signage in place there not.
Bradburn: Got it. Is there anything else you can add?
Nathan (?): Yeah, I was going to say we could probably take that back to our operations and
marketing guys that need to drive that home with.
Bradburn: Excellent.
12

[PAGE 13]
Nathan (?): Same as flyers as well.
Bradburn: Thank you. But the next one was a question about entrance. Any additional
entrance and I don't know if we have if you could put up the map maybe of the plan of
changing the entrance or adding another entrance was the question I think.
Schweer: Yeah. So there are no plans to modify the entrance. In fact in the original build that
was one of the variances we requested was to substantially exceed the entrance allowance
to try and accommodate the truck traffic we were expecting, which we did secure and
executed on that construction plan. So.
Bradburn: I don't know if it'd be quick for you to get up this one so we can see what the
proposed proposal will look like here in the room. No worries.
Inaudible (?): I would add that. There is no additional curb cut.
Bradburn: Yeah. Yeah. So, I don't know if the mic picked up that, but there's no additional
curb cut into the property. The existing entrance will remain the entrance. Most of the
expansion is to the south of the property, it looks like. Yep. Yep. What am I missing?
How about the CO2 question? Underground storage.
Schweer: Yeah. So, there are currently no plans to construct underground storage for CCS
as part of this expansion project.
Bradburn: Any other questions? Okay. How about the issue or the question about the
particulate or the soot on adjacent properties. Can you speak to that please?
Schweer: Yeah. I guess my feedback there would be that POET has since the beginning while
permitting this project and through operation followed all state IDEM requirements for air
permitting regulations. I'm not aware of any breaches in that today. Again, unfortunately
that's more of an operational discussion that I can't bring immediate answers to. So we'll say
with expansion that would not change at all. We will meet all requirements, regulations that
IDEM sets forth for us.
Newkirk: Is that anything that any of the others is that anything that anyone else from POET
can answer to?
13

[PAGE 14]
Schweer: We could probably follow up with their environmental team on what exactly those
standards are and get back to you. But yeah, that's more the operations and plant side of
things and environmental permitting side of it.
Newkirk: Okay.
Claxton: I just wonder if any of the other people living in the area have ever had the same
issues as these people here have had. I'm just curious.
Rude: I'll just generally state like I mentioned before we're taking notes of all these and while
the BZA is just hearing these three variances on these limited items this will go to plan
commission later this month. So we'll have some follow-up discussions both with city staff
and with the petitioner to try to address some of these. I've already got some thoughts on a
few of them, but I'll try to get some answers or some clarification before that plan
commission meeting.
Bradburn: Do you have that date off hand? The 23rd.
Rude: 23rd of this month.
Cassidy: Is there if you're getting 500 trucks a day, is there any of this property around
there that you own that you could have a staging area to get those trucks where they're not
lined up on 300 or either way coming east or west? But to take some of the pressure off of
300 to is there any room on your property to have a staging area? And then you call those
trucks in as they come. I don't know if you own like between Hessen Boulevard and your and
your property here. Do you own that little field to the north of that it would be well if it
comes in off of 300, you know, like here or here that they could pull some of those trucks
that are waiting to get in. And I realize with another, you know, in another gate house to get
them in, they may move a little bit quicker, but if you're getting that many trucks in a day to
alleviate some of the truck setting on 300 cuz it's still a well-traveled road for people
coming from the west to, you know, is that something that have you looked into that or can
you look into that?
Nathan (?): I don't think we don't own any property that would really accommodate a Q area.
So unfortunately we're unable to do that.
Cassidy: Okay.
14

[PAGE 15]
Nathan: When we first designed this property it provided a fair amount of Q space.
Unfortunately you know farmers like to get there first thing in the morning. So that's
probably your biggest pile up first thing in the morning but throughout the day those
operations you know are pretty consistent. Um yeah.
Cassidy: Okay.
Garrett: Then I have a quick question. so currently right now it's essentially is it four lanes?
Four lane drive.
Schweer: I believe we are a six lane.
Garrett: Okay. Six lane.
Schweer: You got a through lane commodity lane and then like three corn and one DDG.
Yeah. Yeah. So we have a one lane dedicated through trucks. We have a lane dedicated to
our CO2 and bioethanol and denutrient traffic which would be tankers and then the other
ones are dedicated to corn and feed.
Garrett: Okay. So will there be any I know you're expanding the scale area. Will there be any
expansion of the lanes widening?
Schweer: Not planned. No. with you know the thought with the addition of the scale is we
would get them through that much faster not be an issue.
Garrett: Thank you. That's all I had.
Bradburn: Any other questions from the board? No. Okay. We will close that session. Thank
you. We'll open it up for board discussion. So feel free to speak freely if you know you have
any questions or concerns or or like I said discussion we can open that up or whenever
we're ready we can maybe move to any motions that you'd want to entertain.
Newkirk: I mean I would say I'm definitely concerned hearing you know how it's impacting
the neighbors. I'm glad Adam that we have some routes that we can take to kind of address
some of that before the expansion takes place. So thank you for being willing to kind of look
into that. In terms of what was proposed to me, all of that makes sense and I don't see any
issue with those items. Just some of the other concerns that we can't really address as the
BZA it seems like are more concerning, but it seems like out of our wheelhouse for today.
15

[PAGE 16]
But thank you for bringing that to our attention. and it sounds like we'll have some avenues
to address that.
Claxton: Can I still ask the petition questions?
Evans: Yeah.
Claxton: The material that these people are concerned about just exactly what it is or can
you answer that question?
Schweer: Yeah, I guess without having seen it firsthand, it would be very difficult to say what
that material is or confirm that it's coming from the POET site.
Claxton: Okay, I understand that. Yeah. Okay. All right. Just curious.
Cassidy: Could someone from your organization get in touch with the Millers to go by their
property? It's not that far from me and take a look at what they're talking about. Okay.
Claxton: Have you had other neighbors with the same concerns? I've never really been out
there, so I don't know just how many houses are out there. Have other neighbors spoken to
you about this? Okay.
Garrett: Are there any more questions? With that, I would like to make a motion to approve
the requested development standards variance from UDO 5.04-AS01 general accessories
structure standard to allow construction of more than five accessory structures as part of
the expansion project in accordance with the documents submitted pursuant to the
findings fact presented in the planning staff report.
Cassidy: Second.
Bradburn: Got a motion and second. Please cast your ballots by paper.
Evans: All right. This is for BZA 2026-03A for UDO 5.04-AS01 accessory structure height
exceeding. Mr. Claxton votes yes. Miss Newkirk votes yes. Mr. Garrett votes yes. Mr. Cassidy
votes yes. And Mr. Bradburn votes yes. So that one passes.
Bradburn: Thank you. On to B, the height of primary and accessory structure height.
16

[PAGE 17]
Cassidy: I'd like to make a motion to approve the requested development standard variance
from UDO 5.23HT-01 height of a primary structure to allow new structures to exceed the
allowable maximum height according to documents submitted.
Newkirk: Second.
Bradburn: Miss Newkirk has a second on that. Got a motion in a second. So, please cast your
ballots via paper.
Evans: You pass those forward. Oh, we're fine. I understand. Make sure I didn't set them down
and forget. This is for BZA 2026-03 POET bio-refinering for B UDO 2023 HT-01. The height
of primary and accessory structures exceeding the maximum. Mr. Claxton votes yes. Miss
Newkirk votes yes. Mr. Cassidy votes yes. Mr. Garrett votes yes. And Mr. Bradburn votes yes.
So that one also passes.
Bradburn: Thanks. Moving on to the last one there. Proceed with the outdoor storage
standards.
Garrett: Like to make a motion to approve the requested development standards variance
from UDO 5.46 OS.03.A outdoor storage standards allowing the use of gravel/crush stone in
a proposed outdoor storage area in accordance with a document submitted pursuant to
the finding of the fact presented in the planning staff report.
Cassidy: Second.
Bradburn: Got a motion and a second. Please cast your ballots.
Evans: This is for BZA 2026-03 POETbio-refinering C UDO 5.46 or OS-03 outdoor storage
standard. Mr. Cassidy votes yes. Mr. Garrett votes yes. Miss Newkirk votes yes, Mr. Claxton
votes yes, and Mr. Bradburn votes yes. So, that one also passes.
Bradburn: Passes. Excellent. Thank you. I want to thank you for obviously your attendance
here this evening, but your continued investment in our community and as well as your
continued commitment to being a great neighbor for us. So, thank you and thanks for your
comments this evening. That closes our new business for this evening. Moving into
discussion.
Rude: I will just state we originally had put Paul's and Shine LLC on the agenda for
discussion. It was a potential special exception use request that wanted to kind of
17

[PAGE 18]
informally speak with the BZA. They were not able to make it this evening. And then the
second item, the annual joint plan commission BZA meeting. I mentioned it in our
permeeting, but we're going to push that a couple months out at least past the April
meeting regarding the annexation for the proposed data center. That project is consuming
most of our life right now. So we have not had any time to work on the annual meeting
materials and report and all of that. So it might be a midyear meeting to discuss last year's
report.
Bradburn: Christmas in July.
Rude: Exactly. We'll feed you. Whatever day it ends up being, we will feed you.
Bradburn: Mr. Garrett's smiling. Let the record reflect.
Rude: Yeah. But I will stop trying to have it in the first quarter of the year because that was
impossible. I now realize so. That's all though.
Bradburn: Excellent. Thanks. No more discussion. Adjourned. Thank you everyone.
18