- We'll call to order the reading of the Altsville Plan Commission for Thursday, December 4th, 2025. Pam,
- would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? Yes. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States
- of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty
- and justice for all.
- Renee, roll call, please. David Drake? Here. Dr. Michael? Here. Dan Swaffer? Here. Pamela Samples? Here.
- Pat Resolowski? Here. Ryan Skaggs? Here. Steve Hale? Here. Okay, the first item on our agenda is the
- approval of the minutes for the November 6th meeting. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second.
- All those in favor say aye.
- Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Does anyone have a conflict of interest that they need to report for the
- items on our agenda this evening? Seeing none, we have no old business. New business primary plan approval
- for four lots. Oh, okay. I shouldn't put my glasses back on. Okay.
- We wanna approve the meeting dates for 2026. Motion to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second.
- All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Now back to primary plat approval for four
- lots, totaling 24.64 acres in the Ripley minor subdivision.
- 4601 West McNeely Street. The petitioner is Mike Ripley. Case number is PC25-31. Please. Thank you.
- The only new business on the agenda tonight is a request by petitioner Mike Ripley for primary plat
- approval for Ripley Minor Subdivision for a total of four lots and a total of 24.64 acres and it is
- located at 4601 West McNeely Street.
- The lots are zone AG. As you know, a few months ago, we just annexed these parcels into town. Minor
- subdivisions are permitted in the agricultural zoning district. Subdivision will be accessed from West
- McNeely Street. The lots meet all size and dimensional requirements under the unified development ordinance.
- All lots will be on a septic system and will be serviced by Ellsville Water.
- Lots one and two will share a common driveway. Purchasers of the lots will be responsible for putting
- the driveway in according to the UDO standards. Pursuant to the UDO, minor residential subdivisions
- for fewer lots under 5.3C, there are to be no public right-of-ways, public improvements or utility main
- extensions are proposed or required. Sidewalks and trails are optional.
- Plan commission's act, as you know, on a primary plaque can be in the form of approval, approval with
- conditions, denial or to continue the hearing. Plan commission has the final say in these matters. It
- is a staff opinion that the proposed primary plaque will meet all required zoning and minor subdivision
- regulations. Therefore staff recommends that the plan commission approve the primary plaque for the
- Ripley minor subdivision. And this is the primary plaque
- and A.J. Willis with Bynum Fannie and Associates represents the petitioner and he is present in the
- meeting. Okay, so how many homes can be put on each one of these lots? Just one on each lot under the
- current zoning? Yes, in the agricultural zoning it's a minimum two acre requirement per lot and only
- one house can go on it.
- So in order to put more houses on lot three and four, it would have to be subdivided again. Correct.
- Okay. So right now, what we're looking at is a maximum of four new homes as currently zoned and subdivided.
- Correct. Okay. Anybody else have any questions or comments for Denise? I do have a question.
- except existence, how close is the nearest sewer line through there? I thought any new divisions had
- to hook on if they were in so many feet of a existing line. AJ may be able to answer that, but I just
- don't know. I really don't know what to answer about that. I think it would be possible for them if
- they did sewer at some point,
- They're going to be permitted. Didn't we have an ordinance though that says if any new development came
- on, it had to go on our sewer system. So one place that says for building permits, you can have something
- and then under the zoning district.
- List it says it has to be sewer and this is agricultural with two acre lot so I agreed for them to put
- in septic, but I think they're still going to come to BCA and get approval for the septic. So they do
- have to get a variance for it. They don't have to. I was willing to let them go ahead because the size
- of the lots and like I said, I got talked to Darla because the UDO is in conflict with it. Okay.
- And do we know how close a sewer line is to that property? I know. Maybe AJ does when he gets up to
- speak. OK. OK, and we have questions or comments for Denise. OK, let's hear from the petitioner.
- AJ Willis, Bon opinion Associates.
- So right now we're just subdividing the land. There's no plans for construction of any homes or development
- or anything like that. There'll be no new driveway connections. The petitioner just wanted to subdivide
- the land so he has the ability to sell certain parcels of the land. He has no plans to develop it right
- now. He has no plans to sell it. He just wanted to have that ability to since he's had people approach
- him in the past.
- For the sewer, I know the sewer is west of lot one. I don't know exactly how far it is from the subdivision.
- Now, with there being no development, we wouldn't have to extend any sewer at this time. And with the
- septic systems, no septics will be installed until somebody purchases the property and decides to build
- a house on it.
- Or if the owner wants to build a house on it, then they would have to go through the permitting process
- to get all the necessary permits. For right now, it's just a subdivision of the land to give the owner
- the ability to sell certain parcels of that property. So is it fair to say that when they start to develop it,
- Yeah, so that would be, I believe if it's somebody just applying for a building permit to build a single
- family home, I think that goes just to the building department. We wouldn't come back for that unless
- it was a larger scale development with multiple homes. It comes back through anyway though. Yeah, but
- it would come back through the town that it's built.
- Yeah, so if they do decide to go with septic, we wouldn't be able to approve a building permit until
- they provided the permit from a drug handling for septic. So is that on the town then to make the decision
- to extend the sewer? Like, do you want to offer that? No, it would be up to whoever's doing the building.
- Or in this case, if Mr. Ripley decided to further develop and that's how he wanted to go, he could make
- that decision. But he would have to come back to you
- because he would be changing his plan and he would have to have engineer drawings for the ceiling. But
- if we approve it now though, if they only build one home, the septic from us is already done, right?
- Or they wouldn't have to come back to us for the septic permit, they would just have to go for the building permit.
- Right, they'd come back with a building permit, but they would have to provide a septic permit from
- Monroe County in order to construct the septic, and we wouldn't approve the building permit or release
- it until we do that. Okay, any more questions for Denise or comments for Denise? I'm sorry, I meant
- the petitioner. A house off of Main Street got built with a septic
- Yeah, because I just think years ago we wanted this to happen to where everything was hooked on to our
- sewer system.
- if any kind of development happens, so that's why I questioned it. This really isn't development per
- se. I mean, if we're talking about a major subdivision, it probably would have to. No, if it was a major
- subdivision, they would have to go on a similar. Right, that's what I meant. I think the difference
- would be if they were developing it personally, not just selling it off sometime in the future, basically.
- What's the limit on a major development in minor? I can't remember. Is it? So a minor subdivision is
- four lots or less. And then a major is five lots. And then your major kicks in. The sewer, sidewalks,
- roads, right away. All right. Thanks. Sure. Anybody else?
- Thank you. Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this proposal? If you do, you
- have three minutes. That doesn't sound like much, but you can say a lot of three minutes. That doesn't
- give me a lot of time. Does it start now? Can you hear me? Three minutes for each question, Ann Marie.
- Three minutes for each question? No, the three minutes will start when you start talking.
- My name is Anne Marie Thompson and we live on Union Valley Road and our neighbors with the Ripley's
- and I want to first acknowledge that the Ripley's have been wonderful neighbors. So my comments today
- are more concerned with the slippery slope of development. You've already answered some of my questions
- but is the current property still rural reserve agriculture?
- And a minor subdivision talks about four lots, but it doesn't talk about density. How large are the
- lots? Does that make sense? Well, that's what we're creating now. The lots are two acres, 2.5 acres,
- 8.85 acres, and 11.34 acres. Those are the lots. Okay, could you please say that again? Two, 2.45, 8.85,
- and 11.34.
- So those are the specific lots that the Ripley's want to build one house on if they were going to sell.
- Yes, one house to go in each one of those lots. So as I understand it, the Ripley's are asking for this
- minor subdivision. So I appreciate that. If this request is approved, then do the Ripley's automatically
- have the right to
- apply for a secondary plat approval for a major subdivision? Is that the next step in the process? What
- happens next? I mean, would it not have to be rezoned first? No, so what happens next is if it's approved
- by the Planning Commission, then they will do a secondary plat that doesn't come before the Planning
- Commission. It just comes before me.
- Well, I think she means want to subdivide it further and create more houses. And that would have to
- be rezoned. Or would these have to be subdivided? No. Let's say the eight acre parcel, he could further
- subdivide that into four two acre lots. If he so desired has another phase. But he would have to come
- back here to do that. Correct. Okay. When you can't build like a massive apartment
- No, not under agricultural. So currently the zoning is what on that property? Rural reserve agriculture?
- No, it's agricultural. Okay. Agricultural rural reserve I think is a county designation. Agriculture
- is a town designation. Okay. But you can still build one house on agricultural.
- on a two acre minimum. On a two acre, but no more than the two acres. That's correct. At this point.
- Right. So our interest is in... Time's up. Okay. Are you almost done? Seriously, it does seem to me
- that as a public citizen, I have the right to finish what I'm saying. If it's short, you can.
- So there are, I'm thinking ahead for the commission and for the planning commission's Ellitsville strategic
- plan and to what extent do you historically value the agricultural land that makes Ellitsville so unique
- compared to other municipalities. We also have significant objections for any further high density in
- the rural areas.
- such as Union Valley. And a third objection that we have for further development, which this whole experience
- for me has suggested that there are steps, step by step, to where development can become major residential.
- That seems to be how it works.
- progresses and my question or concerns to the commission is will you please consider the other values
- of making Ellitsville unique and with all of its special rural areas in this instance, the Union Valley.
- My other concern is the safety of Union Valley and McNeely. Right now
- According to the American Association of State Highways and Transportation Standards, Union Valley is
- not safe. And it has grown in the number of cars. It has grown exponentially. So as you're thinking
- about development and as the Ripley's think about development, that road is increasingly unsafe.
- I almost had an accident today. My concern is please consider keeping this property at a minor subdivision
- and be careful of the slippery slope. Thank you for listening to me. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?
- Come on up and tell us who you are.
- Just a comment up front, and that is that I think the three-minute rule is, Jim Perry from 867 North
- Abigail Lane. The three-minute rule is, I think, counterproductive, but I will sort of save that for
- a town council meeting when I speak to Dan and his colleagues. Two issues. One is that Denise referred
- to the fact that the UDO, which was just passed, I believe,
- and approved was in conflict. Could you explain what that means? It just meant that one portion said
- that it required sewer and then another part of it said that sewer was permitted with a building permit.
- So we have one part saying yes and one part saying no. Well, I think that's something we need to clarify.
- I'm sort of sympathetic to Dan's point. That is that if we have an ordinance that says sewer,
- then we ought to expect sewer and we ought to sort of put into motion the fact that the developments
- will be grounded in sewer, not septic. But I think, I would rather, we don't go ahead with this unless
- we can clarify that we're going to, you know, I'm not happy that the UDO, which was just approved, is
- in conflict.
- and that we could go a different route than the UDO suggests, because that is supposed to be one of
- the outcomes of the Envision-Ellisville. And the UDO was, I think, Dan, you suggested to me at a recent
- meeting that that was one of the products of Envision-Ellisville, and that we approved that. But if
- we have a UDO that says we can do x or y,
- You know, that's not consistent with our sort of trying to plan the community. So I think we need to
- have that clarified. But I would like to see something, I would like to see the, if we have an intent
- to go with sewers and to put it on the town system that we adhere to that.
- and we not say, you know, you can do this or you can do that. And some of that might fall to the planning
- department and not have to come back for public comment and public scrutiny, which I think is a problematic,
- but it says something about the sloppiness of the development process. All right, thank you. Anybody else?
- Good evening. My name is Tim Crouch. I live currently on McNeely directly across the, from Lot 4. Okay.
- I just really would be interested in trying to make sure, a point of clarification so I understand.
- This action tonight does not change the zoning on any of these lots. It still remains agricultural.
- At the same time, that say lot three and lot four can be split up into two acre lots under the existing
- zoning. Is that correct? That's correct, but we still have to come back here to subdivide it. Okay,
- because I thought that there was a comment that was made that it just had to go to your planning department
- and that was it.
- No, if they want to subdivide further, it has to come back to the planning committee. Okay, so they
- have to come back. Okay. The other item I'm assuming that is, if seen as this is proposing entry off
- of McNeely, if either of the larger lots would be developed and split into multiple lots, there would be,
- included in that easement development from a standpoint of access, proper access for traffic flow and
- everything else that would be taken into account at that point, is that correct? They would have to
- have studies and engineering plans, yes. Right, including that, okay. The final question I have is that
- the property just to the west of lot three and lot one
- Is that also currently zoned agricultural? Does anyone know? Yes. It is? Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
- Okay. All right. I think we've heard from everyone. Does anyone have a motion?
- May I say something? Go ahead. So in our prior code, before we updated it, septic systems were allowed
- in Ellsfield. And as for the UDO, it's a living document. We knew that there'd be things we wouldn't
- encounter in it, because it's a huge document that we would have to change later on.
- I would just speak to you, sir. We had an issue a couple months ago. What was it? Lighted signs. You
- guys remember? There's something about height or width or something that was in conflict. And I think
- over two meetings, we got it sorted out with Darla. So the size of it, there were some things that we
- acknowledged even when we accepted it that we would have to go back and change. So that's an ongoing process.
- It's not that it won't be corrected. It's just as they crop up, we're going to have to make it all fall
- in line. So I mean, it's not perfect, but we're working at it. OK, I will make a motion. I've got a
- couple of questions, please. By right, if we approve this, by right, can they say that
- We want to put a sewer system in or can we tell them they have to hook up to our system? You could make
- that recommendation that I would recommend that as they be allowed to put septic in. Unless there's
- a sewer running in front or by it. As Danny's saying,
- Well, the petitioner wants to put Seppi in, however, and he's going to be selling the lots, so he didn't
- want to put the infrastructure in because he will be selling the lots off at some point. Why would he
- be putting Seppi in? He's not putting Seppi in. As people purchase the lots,
- So he wants the option to be available for September. Correct. And then, um, they will also share an
- expense to put in the driveway, whoever purchases the line. Do you have any idea what percent of McNeely's
- on septic versus who or not? Really? Like the entire. Yeah. So it's just, it's already next match. And
- this conflict in the UDO, if you get it sorted out, is it going to affect
- that their ability to put sewer or, I'm sorry, septic in? Just to clarify. No, I would like to see septic
- allowed in the agricultural district. So then, yes, there is the potential that our change to the UDO
- could affect their ability to put the septic in? No, my recommendation would be that the septic be permitted
- in agricultural districts, but that will come back to you for further discussion.
- Because, I mean, in the past, it was my understanding, if you were in so many feet of the line, then
- you had to go hook on, and not the septics, because we were trying to get rid of the septics in the
- town. Yeah, I just can't speak to that. Darla, do you remember? I remember having that discussion, but
- I don't remember what the parameters were, what the
- In other words, how many feet did you have to be within a sewer line before you were required to hook
- on? I really don't remember. May I add something about that? So we're not proposing any development.
- So there is, I believe, something in the UDO about connecting the sewer with your X amount of feet.
- But that would be, I guess, enforced whenever a building permit is brought to the town of Eltsville
- for construction. Right now, we're not required to extend sewer to the property just to subdivide into
- a minor subdivision. So let's say like the owner of Lot 1
- if somebody purchased that property and wanted to build a house on it, they would have to bring their
- plans to the planning department and the building department. And at that time, they would look at how
- far they are from sewer and if they needed to connect to the sewer, if they would be outside that minimum
- spacing requirement, would be permitted to have septic. I mean, I also want to completely prevent people
- from putting in a septic, especially in agricultural
- because I mean, it costs a lot of money to run sewer lines. Yeah, for one lot, it would be awfully expensive.
- But that's a very good point, that we're just subdividing the land. Nothing is being built. Yeah, my
- comment was more toward the future discussion. Right. No, but I meant as far as they're concerned. Nothing
- is being built, and the sewer issue
- will have to be determined at a later time whenever they want to build something there. Yeah, but if
- she's gonna sell, if they're gonna sell the lot, whoever's gonna buy is gonna ask the odds. Do we go
- on a city sewer or do we go on a, what's it called? If I'm gonna buy a lot, I wanna know what I can
- do or can't do.
- prior to buying that model. And I think if we approve this, they have a choice, correct? Yes. So they
- would have a choice to put in a septic or a hook-on. Yes, that'd be at their expense, not Mr. Ripley's
- expense. Right, which I understand that. But I'm saying if we pass this tonight, they have the option
- whether to go septic or hook-on. Right. Wow.
- Go ahead. They wouldn't necessarily have the choice to do either because we're not, the request wasn't
- to approve septic, the request was just for subdivision. But wouldn't they, if somebody buys it and
- it's the lot one and the sewer's west and if they wanted to go to the expense to bring sewer to that
- lot, then they could. Yeah, they would have to bring plans
- Yes, they would have to, yeah, have engineered plans for it. Well, yeah, we are approving that, though,
- is what I'm saying. We're not approving anything to do with sewer or septic tonight. It was mentioned
- in here. What did it say? It was that they would be putting septic. It says all lots will be put on septic.
- Yes, because that's what my meetings with Mr. Ripley, that's what he said he wanted with the lots. That's
- just the intent. That's not us asking for septic. That was just me telling you. So can we take this
- out of there? Yeah, you can prove it. It's not about, like AJ said, it's not about approving sewer septic,
- it's approving a subdivision. And when they come in with their building permit, that's when
- it would be resolved in either one way or the other. Yeah, I would feel more comfortable if we take
- that out of there. Or put on pending permit approval. That's the issue, right? Yeah, building permit.
- Yeah. OK, so. This is just my staff report, Dan. Yeah. So whatever your motion is, is what will be in
- the record.
- Go ahead. That's Dan. You said that- No, wait, wait, no. Because it was before my time. So did you say
- at one time they wanted everybody to be on sewer? If they were within so many feet of a sewer line,
- they wanted people to connect to the septic. New build, or new, whatever I'm trying to say, new development.
- Old houses were grandfathered in. So as long, and then I think if your septic fell,
- then, and Darla, you can correct me, because you were here when we did this. If their septic failed
- at that time, then they would have to hook on if they were in so many feet. That's the way I remember
- it. I could be wrong. Is there a reason for that? I mean, did Elston not want people on septics? Yeah,
- I think it was just to get everyone on the sewer system. And back in the day, I'm sorry, back in the
- day, there was many, many failed
- septic systems. When we did this and they were health hazards and blah blah blah. So and I think that
- was the reasoning behind it. So I would add you do 5.3 C says for a minor subdivision. There are no
- public right of ways are public improvements are utility main extensions that are to be proposed or
- required to be a minor subdivision. And what was that again? So
- For minor subdivision 5.3c says there are to be no public right away. Public improvements are utility
- main extensions to be proposed or required.
- Okay, does anybody else have any questions from the planning commission? I'll make a motion that we
- approve the preliminary plot approval for four lots in the Richard Meyer subdivision, case number C25-31.
- Second. And I would like to make a motion to amend that to where the line taken out of all lots will be
- put on a septic system and served by Ellisville Water be taken out. Or you can leave Ellisville Water
- in. Just make the amendment that the line taken out of this that all lots will be put on a septic system.
- And what Ryan said was a good one. What would you say again, Ryan?
- I mean, it's probably redundant, because it'll have to happen anyway. Yeah, they'll have to go anyway.
- OK, so I accept that amendment. Do you accept that amendment, Ryan? I do. OK. Was that the right way
- to do that? Yes. Renee, if you got that, we're ready for roll call. Pat Weskolowski? Yes. Ryan Skaggs? Yes.
- Pam Samples? Yes. David Drake? Yes. Dan Swafford? Yes. Steve Hale? Yes. And Zach Micah? Yes. Thank you.
- Okay, motion carries. Planning department update. Next meeting will be in 2026. On January 8th, we will
- have new business, I believe. AJ's keeping you busy.
- I want to thank you all for a good year. You had a busy year. This was our 31st petition for the year,
- and I want to wish all of you and your family a very Merry Christmas, and stay healthy. Happy New Year,
- and thank you for your service. River to the floor. Oh, I'm gonna tell you, that includes Darla too.
- Any planning commission comments? We're adjourned.