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.