Ms. Fritch asked if Mr. Wilson felt there would any issue with screening and privacy.

Mr. Wilson stated no. He stated that the pond area where the previous owner created a levy around and a tennis court and that would be the area for the ceremonies and they could place a tent if needed. He stated that most event would be in the barn at the north of the property which all had paved sidewalk and there would be no one in the front yard or near the road.

Ms. Swackhamer stated that in the case analysis there were some suggested conditions provided by Tom Fouch, the Building Commissioner. She stated that this had become a trend where people want to use a residential structure for business activity and Mr. Fouch wanted to make it clear that there were many other approvals that would be needed. She stated that this Board could approve the request and other agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Fire Department, the Health Department, and Building Commissioner would all have rules and regulations that would need to m=be met. She stated for example, if this Board approved for up to 150 people and the Fire Marshall stated 100 people, that would be their limit which was why a few of those conditions were added as a reminder to the applicant. She stated that Mr. Fouch was very good at working with people to get them the information they needed to contact those agencies.

Ms. Fritch made a motion to approve BZA 01-26 the appeal filed by Aaron and Julie Wilson and Stone Bridge Farm, Inc., with the hardships as stated in the application with the following conditions: 1) That the variance is for the applicant only and will not transfer with the property; 2) That a construction design release from Homeland Security be obtained before business starts; 3) That all necessary approvals, such as from DNR, Fire Department, Health Department, Building Commissioner, etc., be granted before business starts; and 4) That the business be capped at 15 events per year. Ms. Knapp seconded the motion. Voting in favor: Mr. Billington, Ms. Fritch, Mr. Ivy, Ms. Kaiser, Ms. Knapp, and Ms. Mathewson. Voting against: None. Motion carried, BZA 01-06 approved.

OTHER BUSINESS:

RULES OF PROCEDURE:

Ms. Swackhamer stated that she had provided the Board with a redlined copy, and that she had a few notes to go over. She stated that on page 3 she would like to clarify what an Independent was defined as.

Mr. Wiseley stated that the current version of state law regarding party affiliation, to be considered a member of a party, the 2 most recent primaries in which a potential member has voted, or a letter from the party chair if they had never voted or if their vote was split. He stated that the issue could be if a person had a split voting history, and while serving on the Board voted, that could potentially change the balance of the Board.