Board member Destin Miller read the docket and findings as the City of Martinsville considered an application to operate a dog-grooming business from a 10-by-12 prebuilt shed at 989 East Columbus Street, docket number 25015. "The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community," Miller read from the applicant's proposed findings of fact.

The board denied the variance after legal review and discussion. Mr. Coffey, city counsel, told the board he did not believe the application met three required findings for a use variance, saying, "in my opinion, number 3 is not met" (referring to the requirement that the need for the variance arise from conditions peculiar to the property). Following counsel's advice, a board member moved that the variance not be approved; the board voted in favor of that motion.

Applicants Wesley Bolin and Kylie Bolin told the board the shed is a prebuilt structure already on-site and described how the grooming operation would work. Wesley Bolin said, "It's already on-site now. Yeah." The applicants said grooming would be by appointment, with individual appointments running about two to three hours, typically four to five appointments per day, and that no overnight boarding would be offered. They said the shed has air conditioning and that water, electricity and a sewer connection run to the structure from the house. The applicants also described two filter systems and hair traps in drains to reduce soap and hair entering the sewer.

Concerns raised during the hearing centered on legal criteria for granting a use variance. City counsel and at least one board member argued the application did not show that strict application of the zoning ordinance would constitute a hardship tied to the property itself (finding 4), that the need for the variance arises from conditions peculiar to the property (finding 3), or that the variance would not conflict with the city's comprehensive plan (finding 5). Counsel told the applicants that if the board did not find the required findings satisfied, the alternative would be to seek rezoning through the planning commission and, ultimately, the city council.

Board members and a nearby resident asked practical questions about setbacks and proximity to an alley; the applicants said the shed sits near the south side of the garage, within the rear fence line, and estimated about a 2-foot clearance from the garage. The board also questioned wastewater handling and use of flea-treatment shampoos; the applicants said they would use filters and hair traps and environmentally friendly products.

The board approved a motion to deny the variance. The denial means the applicants cannot operate the dog-grooming business from the shed under the property's current residential zoning; counsel indicated their remaining option is to pursue rezoning through the planning commission and city council. The board noted the next scheduled meeting date as July 22.

Details from the hearing: the application was for a 10-by-12 prebuilt shed placed on skids; the applicant said services would be by appointment only, with no overnight boarding; water, electricity and sewer lines currently run from the house to the structure; drain hair traps and filters were described; the docket number for the request was 25015.