David Bush — — here. Harris-Lemons — — here. Tronin Red Randolph — — here. Scott Ferris
— — here. Bertie Fields — — here. David Henry — — here.
Jeff Morris here but I need to leave by six thirty. Joe Van Diemender here. Julie Thomas here. And our
newest member Steve Bishop here. Okay. So we do have all nine members in our city plan commission non-voting
member in person so we have one.
So under administrative business the first item is our board appointments with the planning commission
and other subcommittees for 2026. And I didn't know if we want to just take a minute to welcome Steve
Bishop our non-voting member if you wanted to say something about yourself just like a minute or less
to introduce yourself to the planning commission or if you wanted to. Okay. Yeah. So Steve Bishop I'm
on the city planning commission starting November so excited to be part of this group.
And then maybe we should all introduce ourselves as well. Maybe you can. Sure. Ron and Mike Randolph.
Rural County Surveyor. 20 years in running at the Surveyor's Office and almost 10 years in June as County
Surveyor. Scott Ferris. Retiree. Appointed by the County Commissioner.
Joe Bending Director Assistant Director of Public Works for the City of Belmont. Rudy Fields retired
geologist been on by a year. I'm Jeff Morris. I'm a Minerva County citizen as of about 20 years ago
and I've been appointed by the county commissioners I think this is my third and fourth year.
I'm Margaret Clemens. I've been appointed by the commissioners and I've been on the plan commission
for about eight or nine years. I'm not I don't remember exactly. Dave Bush retired geologist as well.
Monroe County residents and one year appointee. Billy Thomas County Commissioner. Did you see? See.
Drew Meyer senior planner. I'm Jackie Jalen. We've been emailing the director of the department so well.
So first item on our agenda is to go over our elections for this year. I did include in the packet our
prior year so that people would have a reference point of what what committees or subcommittees they
served on. Happy to provide any descriptions of any of the boards to anyone that might be new to one
of them you want to go.
It's also in as well as a procedure as well. So I think we can start by taking nominations for president
and vice president. So I would like to make a nomination for a couple of new faces in leadership roles
this year. I would like to nominate Mr. Perez for president and Mr. Bush for vice president. So I'm
curious if both of you would be willing to accept that nomination.
I second. Those nominations. Okay. So let's do a roll call on that. If it doesn't pass then we'll seek
other nominations. Okay. This is a vote to nominate Scott Farris as President and David Bush as the
Vice President for 2026. A vote yes is a vote to approve both of those members in that position. Margaret
Clemens. Yes. John Enright-Randall. Yeah. Scott Farris. Yes.
Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. JoVan Diemender. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes.
David Bush. Yes. Okay. Motion carries 9-0. Congratulations to our new President and Vice President.
Thank you both for being able to serve in that role. We will move on now to the Executive Committee's
Is anybody having nominations produced. I'll make that a nomination kind of based off of what we historically
did if people aren't good with the slate nomination. Scott Behrs as president. David Henry as the council
representative. Julie Thomas as our commissioner. And we had to one thing where we had to make sure
we had like the representative from the other party which would be Scott Behrs.
Honestly I'm going to walk back to my motion. I don't know who the fourth person would be. I'd like
to continue to serve. Okay then Martyr Clemens. That would be my motion as a slate. Or. Executive committee.
And I think David Bush was the alternate. And David Bush is the alternate. I'll accept that. So. That's
a good idea. So Julie Thomas. David Henry. Martyr Clemens. Scott Farris.
and Alternate David Bush. Okay do we have a second on that. Second. It's been moved and seconded to
appoint the following members to the Executive Committee Scott Beres
David Henry. Julie Thomas. Margaret Clements. And David Bush as the alternate. A vote yes is a vote
to approve all those numbers for the exec committee. John Hennesta. Scott Ferris. Yes. Rudy Fields.
Yes. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Joe Van Deventer. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes.
Margaret Clements. Yes.
Motion carries 9-0. Next up is our VCA appointee. Do we have any aye motions for that. I'd like to nominate
Jeff Morris. Second. I motion to second. I accept the nomination. Thank you. It's so nice to have you
on the VCA. You really do a great job. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to nominate Jeff Morris as the
Board of Zoning Appeals appointing to the Plan Commission or to the Board of Zoning Appeals. A vote
yes is a vote to appoint Jeff Morris to the VCA for one-year term. Scott Farris. Yes. Shirley Fields.
Yes. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Joe Van Deventer. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes.
Mark Thomas. Yes.
Found it on the right hand off. Yes. Okay. Motion carries 9-0. Okay. Next up is our City of Wilmington
representative. Do we have any nominations. I'd like to nominate Jeff Morse. Second. If you're willing
to serve. I would be willing to serve. Okay. Okay. So we have a motion and a second.
All right it's been moved and seconded to have Jeff Morris attend the City of Wilmington Plan Commission
meetings as a non-voting member. A vote yes is a vote to nominate Jeff. Bernie Fields. Yes. David Henry.
Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Joe Van Deventer. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Mark Pummance. Yes.
John Enright-Randolph.
Yes. A motion is approved 9 to 0. Next up is Black Cooney. Do we have any nominations for that team.
Oh is it possible that we keep the same members that Dave Bush Rudy Fields Jeff Morris Tronin Wright
Randolph and Travis Thxton as the citizen member which I think we've already appointed him. We did.
We did. Yeah. We could add Joe to that. We can add Joe to that. Yeah.
Okay. Is Mr. Morris wanting to add another meeting. He'd be willing to drop from that. Oh so Joe. Joe
would you be willing. Would you be willing Joe. Sure. Oh that'd be great. Awesome. So the same just
switching Jeff. Jeff. Okay. Do we need a motion. It is a meeting that meets on Thursdays at 4 p.m. Correct.
Once a month. Do we have a second.
I'll sign that. Okay. And so we move then seconded to nominate Joe. David Bush. Rudy Field. Joe Vandeventer.
John Edward Randolph. And keeps his member Travis Dixon. A vote yes is a vote to nominate all of those
members. And Joe right. And Joe. And Joe. No. Jeff. Yeah my name. Take Jeff out. This is the only.
Oh okay. Got it. David Henry. Yes.
Jeff Morris. Yes. Joe Van Deewinder. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Mark Flemons. Yes. Ronan
Miranda. Yes. Scott Fairs. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. Okay motion carries. Next up is our Indian policy
committee.
Looking for Bezikne and Alternative Foundation. Scott Ferris as the President is the Bezikne. Yes. Correct.
Thank you for that reminder. Yes. And I would like to nominate Barbara Lucille O'Connor. She's continuity.
Yes. I second that. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to nominate Scott Ferris by virtue of the position
of President of the Planning Commission.
And then Martyr Clements as Alternate Building and Mr. Farris is only approved 10. I vote yes and we
vote to approve those two members on the MPO. Jeff Morris. Yes. JoLynn Davidson. Yes. Billy Thomas.
Yes. David Bush. Yes. Martyr Clements. Yes. Donna Ann Wright-Randolph. Yes. Scott Farris. Yes.
Bertie Fields. Yes.
Yes. David Henry. Yes. Motion is approved. 9-0. Okay. Last up we have the Board of Committee. Do you
have any nominations for that one. I would like to continue. I would like to continue. And I so if I
might just recommend that all the people currently serving Julie Thomas Margaret Clemens Scott Fares
Tronin Wright Randolph with David Henry as an alternate
that we that would be the slate for the ORC. —Second. —Okay. It's been moved and seconded to keep
the Ordinance Review Committee the same. As mentioned Julie Thomas. Mark Clements. Scott Farris.
Trondheim-Wright Randolph with the alternate of Dave and Henry. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Joe
Van Deventer. —Yes. —Julie Thomas. —Yes. —David Bush. —Yes. —Mark Clements. —Yes.
—Trondheim-Wright Randolph.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion is approved 9 to 0. Okay. That is the last one. Yeah. I was wondering
did we do the introduction with Mr. Henry in virtual. I don't. No but I know Mr. Bishop in his beard.
Good to see you here. Bumping into you here. Perfect. I just.
heard your voice and then recall if you did the introduction. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, that's fair. Well,
for everybody, guys, I'm Mr. Bishop. Good to see him here. Thank you. Okay, I believe that was the last
of the committee membership points. So thank you all for your willingness to serve on the committees.
I do want to ask before we continue, Mr. Bishop, the vice president, do you want to take over or do
you want to continue?
I'm happy to continue. Let me let me take notes as much. You've got the momentum going. Okay.
Thank you. I may ask you again for stability at 630. That's fine. I'll be happy to accept it. Okay.
So the next item is a discussion of payment of board members under CDO Section 846 statute. Jackie.
Okay. So in the packet you will see that we had a
Basically a text amendment proposal before you just to provide some clarity to a question that we received
and since we just did collections of boards we do have several committees and subcommittees. And as
a reminder we pay land commission members up to three meetings per month which the council did appropriate
funds for. So we're subject to that every year. But the question is whether
We should clarify the meetings for which that payment can extend to, which we typically have not paid
for the Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Committee or the City of Washington Plan Commission
meeting as a non-voting member. So the option one is to include those two meetings since by virtue of
the Planning Commission appointment, you may be opted to serve for those two, or to just leave it to
county meetings, which would essentially exclude
the MPO meeting and the City Plan Commission meeting. Serving on the City Plan Commission for a number
of years and I'd say close to six years. One I also want to say one thing that has been very effective
is just attendance and being present. That's really kind of the one thing I would offer. I also I think
I've had more than three meetings a month on all of it so I've exceeded the limit but
I do feel like it's within, you know, a justification to pay for that representation. Some of those
meetings, like this next one here, they may not attend brain almost until 11 o'clock. And you're probably
having five hour meetings occasionally. And to be effective, being present is very important. So I think
being compensated for that is,
I'm at 100% support. And I would also say that with NDO, I think it's a very bold move. So that's where
I stand on. I'm willing to set a motion or make a motion. And so I think that would be a great concern.
Any other questions or comments? This funding is to defray the cost of travel, particularly.
parking sometimes, but typically the travel that takes actually go to all of these locations and,
you know, review plan before any petitions heard. It's really not, yes, it's by meeting, but it really,
that's what it's for. So I'm fine with it either way. It's fine.
Well, I just have to say something about this. I'm in favor of this. And with all the meetings I attend,
which are usually in excess of three a month or four a month, when I went away in October and didn't
attend a meeting and then to not receive a paycheck for it, it didn't sit so well with me. But that's
OK. I understand. It's not like it's going to make or break me. So I think that.
the city of Bloomington blind commission, especially with the, you know, the, I mean, I would imagine
that travel is important for that too. You've got to go check off the site and the NPO certainly is
in terms of research and printing and coordination and all of that. So I'd be in favor of the text amendment
number one. So is that, and that's one you're in favor of, right?
Yes that's a motion outside. Okay great. Yeah that is a motion. That's okay. It's been moved and seconded
to go ahead and adopt the optional text limit number one. This would be an actual ordinance change but
until that point I've been notified by legal that we can take it as a matter of policy until that point
because it provides clarity depending on the majority vote.
So I will take it as a text amendment. This also provides staff with clarity. Okay. A vote. The vote
is on the table to adopt or to seek a text amendment to see through option one. John and Ray Mendoff.
Yes. Scott Farris. This is what I had to do for last Friday's meeting. So what you're paying for for
that fifty dollars is your parental cartridge.
Yes. On my laser printer which is very good. Exactly. Yes. Rudy Field. Yes. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris.
Yes. Joe Vandeventer. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Robert Clements. Yes. Okay. Motion carried
9-0. Was there a second.
text them in on that too Jackie. There was just two options to choose between. Oh okay. So then chose
option one. Okay so the second item was state legislation brief update. Okay so I'm just going to roll
through these very quickly. I will put this online. This is my own notes so going through the
latest version today of all the house and cent bills that are still alive and then have to deal with
planning. We do have two that have to deal with data centers from the way I have read these different
bills. And then also there is some information about nuclear facilities, firearm shooting ranges, which
is a use in our CDO.
So I'll point your attention to just maybe three of these and we won't go through all of them. So the
first three are the ones I want to touch base on. First House Bill 1001. This has to do with by-right
allowances of creating daddys and duplexes and single-family zones. It also impacts impact
fees which we do not currently have and requires a new housing annual report that we must submit to
the state among other things. So my update here is that we did I did go to the state house and provide
testimony and feedback for clarity in the bill. There are several options that will allow us to opt
out as a county. And so I intend to take that with the ordinance review committee next week.
to discuss some of those opt-out options, and we've discussed with legal how we could do that in an
efficient manner. It would likely go into effect in July, so we could get ahead of it now if we think
that the bill is at its final stages, but we will have to wait for it to officially be approved, but
we believe it will be in its relatively current form. The next one I wanna bring up
as it impacts an item later down on our agenda I believe is that there's House Bill 1058 which is stated
that annexation divided by railroad tracks which I believe also pertains to rail trails rails to trails
that they satisfy continuity requirements if the territory on one side of the tracks is continuous to
the municipality. So this would impact voluntary annexation.
both in the town of Elstville and in the city of Bloomington. Since we do have railroads that go through
those jurisdictions and often are county-zoned those could impact like I said those voluntary annexation
petition moving ahead. I answered a question and maybe need more clarity. Like is one rail road parcel like.
considered like contiguous. I guess what it's concerning because some of the railroads extend for miles
and miles and sometimes they'll annex in the roads to then create a parcel that's contiguous and that's
how we've got those like little flagship type looking areas of a city. So if the railroad is considered
one parcel then anything that's contiguous could
potentially be annexed? Well, I think that you get my question. I do. So like a soda straw, things like
that. So I think that there's still requirements of a certain frontage or one eighth contiguity that
you would have to evaluate along with this. What I'm thinking of is just a situation where you have,
you know, city on one side, a railroad and county on the other side. That's kind of what I'm thinking
they're trying to address, but my concern is they don't. And next thing you know, one,
three miles stretch and then they start annexing at the back end of that which seems concerning and
I want some clarity if that's their intent and make sure that if that's not their intent they don't
accidentally leave little loopholes in there. If I had a visual it'd be a lot easier to follow along
with what I'm saying but
I'm pretty enmeshed in this and it's interesting that this varies from the highway because the railroad
width is usually smaller than a highway width and highways don't necessarily interfere with contiguity.
So this is interesting, but are there other aspects of this bill
Um, do you know its current status? Has it still active? So that hasn't been at this point. There are
other annexation bills though. Yes. So I only reviewed this one because it pertains. Yes. Okay. Great.
Thank you. Sure. The next house bill was or is 1333 and it does a multitude of things.
One is that it extends battery energy storage systems into a prior Senate-enrolled Act 425 that's now
codified which creates energy production zones by right areas where people could put energy production
facilities. But a concerning section within that which I talked to Legal today about in the Soil and
Water District is that it somehow is adding a permitted use
of a data center without having a public hearing variance special exception continued use conditional
use or discretionary zoning action. And it says that it would be permitted on land zoned for agricultural
and comprised of soil and capability classes 4 5 6 7 and 8.
provided by the classification system of the USDA NRCS or Natural Resource Conservation Service. So
I worked with Martha Miller this afternoon just to kind of get an idea of is there a map of these soil
capability classes four through eight that I could pull into our GIS and overlay that with our agricultural
zone. And the answer is no. You have to actually go to the NRCS map.
you have to do an area of interest. And then this white striped area, for instance, you would be crying
for a data center under this code, but not all of the land. So you have to basically do a tool to identify
every property. You can't do it for the whole county. It's too much data. So if there's a four or higher,
then it would be crying for a data center.
So there is we have a soil survey from I believe the 1980s and we are able to find together with the
help of someone from the NRCS who previously was there that we have a total of one hundred nineteen
thousand eight hundred forty three acres categorized in these four to eight categories. But we didn't
totally that obviously with our agricultural zoning that includes town of Elksville and City of Bloomington
of course.
So it's been a close vote on this one. At the third reading it was 56 yes to 43 no. So my question for
the Planning Commission is if they would like me to keep following this if they would like me to potentially
testify against this. An added question that I have is it actually opens the door for more than just
data centers.
It actually says that any development is a permitted use if it's zoned out in any one of these capability
classes. But again we're just trying to with some of these get clarity and then provide comment to you.
So if anyone would like me to continue to follow up on this and potentially testify I would like to
hear that from you all. I need the support of that and that vote took place yesterday and
Also, I think one other thing that could start kind of maybe bringing more potential awareness of impact
is the water stakeholders input workshops that was circulated that talks about the executive order where
basically they're trying to find where these water resources are and the consumers of such large volume of water
Also, I don't think it's related to this bill, but the bill that we were discussing about battery storage
and stuff that was Senator Koch, which is southern Monroe County and further, which basically incorporates
a large portion of Lake Monroe. So I have a very large concern that, you know,
If we don't have local rule here that we could be identified as a prime location. So whatever we can
do to stay active and try to preserve that home rule and that local authority I think is key. Any other.
comments for Jackie. I agree. But there's another House bill. I don't have the number in front of me
that relates to IDEM approval needed for large water use projects. So it's strange to see these. Right.
And then they're also striking a lot of IDEM to make nuclear. Right. Right. Right. It's going to be
thrown for a loop after this. Yeah. OK.
I think they have that in in ASIM's much later committee. I'll pull that up real quick. So I guess the
question for the planning commission is at this point is anyone in opposition or planning to go up and
testify. Please do. Yes please do. I will keep in touch especially with the president and vice president
as well just to make sure we keep on task with that. Okay.
And then the rest I want you to just read through but some of this will be coming through the plan commission
is texting them it's already. We already were working on a lot of this and now it's coming to fruition
because of the Senate and Roll Back. So it's sort of causing us to shift a bit but I think we're actually
really well on top of some of these topics. Thank you. Big thanks to Drew and he's advising our O'Neill
fellow who's been doing a lot of great research on this so I appreciate that.
Who informed me today that he enjoys a lot of the research that he's been doing. So that's an extra
bonus. Bill 277 is the one that talks about item losing its environmental regulations. Okay. Just to
tie together. Okay.
Then item the third item on the administrative meeting which we have a discussion regarding the subdivisions
and performance guarantees. And basically I just want to bring this to everyone's attention. There was
a lot of discussion with the past snowstorm that questions on you know why wasn't my road cloud or you
know who's in charge of
finishing out my development so it can be accepted into the county inventory. And so Lisa Ridge our
director of our highway time this year as well. So basically I just want to touch base to say we do
have it in our county development ordinance and it's also in our highway code to determine you know
when a development especially subdivision is approved with public improvements those roadways
remain private until such time that the developer completes those improvements and requests for acceptance
into the inventory. Under our county development ordinance, one of the things we adopted was the idea
that we would do a 10% inflation adjustment per annual year that they extend that time period.
We have been tracking these and have been trying to bring these to the Plan Commission. A lot of these
are slated to come back before you or come to the Plan Commission this year to reporting. It's very
difficult work to get developers to finish because they will tell you, well, we're not done yet. We're
not done with these lots. We haven't sold them. We don't want to finish the sidewalk. We don't want
to finish the street trees.
And as time goes by that infrastructure does age and so there's a lot of discussion that we've been
having with the highway department about you know when is the time period when we you know start cashing
these we don't renew these and this is also going to be before you all. You know if it's been 10-15
years the discussion of do we cash these amounts and just start doing the work.
But sometimes that amount that we have if not adjusted for inflation is simply not enough to do all
the work. So we're still left with an issue of the money's been expended and the road's still private.
So I wanted to bring this up. And also we do have a web map that our GIS team has provided us with.
So I'll pull that open as well.
And basically what it does is it's taking the public maintained roadways and it's just saying right
now that if you have questions there's a offer for snow plowing. Yes. So there's a contractor list for
snow plowing. Question about if there's you know how to reach the highway dispatch.
But all the bold black lines here on the screen are county maintained roads. So ideally someone could
pull open their address and see if their road is on, or if their house is on a public road or not. So
I'll just do one for example. If you zoom in and label the subdivisions. Right.
And if you click on them, so that they have a fat map link to that too. Right. So they would see beyond
all buyers that they are on a county maintained road. Also, as you mentioned, you can get the flat easily
available to you so you can see that you're in a subdivision. And ultimately, if you are, you know,
seeing this and you're not getting your roads plowed, you might be able to even add a curiosity or you can
put in the address, you can see that some of these roads are not black and bold. Some of them are because
they're state roads or out of our jurisdiction. But to get to a good example, okay, so here's
like Saddlebrook, which is not currently maintained. Parts of the lake, the lake condition was approved,
so it will be in private completely. So all this is private.
And we may not get complaints about this because they for instance the lakes they know it's private
they platted it as private and they file it and people know the goal and it's not filed. But there are
other subdivisions where there are other subdivisions where the developer has since stopped filing and
just has walked away or is aging out.
to be honest. So those are the people that are newly calling us to let us know that the developers stopped
maintaining especially planning the roadways. So with that I'm sure take any questions or any comments.
Is it is it worth it to mark the state roads that the state is in charge of. Is that like in a different color.
you know we can identify that i mean i think it might be useful because if you're looking at the map
right you know 440 is the bypass date yes it is you know what i mean well those lines were dashed i
was like yeah it's kind of looking like roads so you changed into dash i think adding content would
be helpful but it's what content should we add and i think major maybe a different color yeah even yeah
okay thank you and then we can
create a unique pop-up where it says this is a highway maintained by N-DOT and maybe try to get like
some contact information on there so when people use it. People can contact N-DOT. They also have a
web complaint system. Typically this would be used in a platform I think where people are not receiving
plowing and I think that would be most typically subdivision. Yes.
But there are, I've heard complaints about the state roads. So yeah. Okay. I asked the question of since
you brought up the lakes and they currently have private roads and they don't have my knowledge of homeowners
association. But if that is sold, you know, the current owner sells it to another
management company. What happens then? I mean, is it just included in that? I mean, that's a mix. One
of these misuse with condominiums where people actually own and then there are renters. So the renters
pay in there with their fee with their rent.
So the development just to the south, I believe Lisa and I were both contacted by somebody who lives
on Cape Sedge, which is a single family development within a development that has a lot of multi-family
large apartments. So what we found out from the developer was that they were maintaining basically the
roads that access the multi-family, but not the single family. And that the developer had come to the
single family homes and said, hey, pay us HOA dues and we will
go ahead and file that room for you and they opted to not do that. So they, I don't know that they are
in an HOA technically because they wanted to be separated from the apartments. So then they do not have
filing services. It's not. Well, I just like to use this as an illustrative example that when we approve
PUDs that this item needs to come up for discussion because I think it's fair to them.
homeowners and the renters to know what they're getting into. Yeah. And every situation is unfortunately
a little bit different. We did create with us a small one pager from planning's perspective that we
could also put online. Basically just detailing you know if you're in a subdivision it's private until
such time. But every situation is unique.
kind of do the developer's workshops, do kind of some school and water outreach for education, and also
kind of put together that HRA work to talk to folks about the responsibilities. I'll bring this up at
our suite meeting for our school and water education department team, or something like that. It's a
suite meeting. And maybe this is something we could add
to those workshops and that just to bring more attention and awareness both to the developers and the
HOAs. Just I think it would be a low hanging tree in 10 minutes to talk about it quick and more people
being aware of kind of what their situation is. Just kind of a thought there because I think it was
successful with our other efforts with the HOAs with kind of that workshop we put on or I shouldn't
say the it was
kind of a collaboration with the Highway Department in planning this very well there. So. Was this available
before the storm. It was not. This was created today. This was created and finished up. You said that
I didn't hear that but yeah. We have not published this yet so we're waiting for feedback like President
Thomas said to label the state roads. Anything to make it clear or usable we'd like to do that first.
There's also this planner just in case
This isn't 100 percent inclusive. I believe it will be people you know working with appropriate people
but we could take the opportunity because I think one of the offices that will be impacted the most
will be a highway and kind of what your thoughts are making this more readily available because we've
kind of kept it on the down low. So I had emailed with John Baker. And I mean we pointed out one of
his references right off with $10.00
And it's been a while since they annexed this piece of McNeely Street. It still is not shown here as
annexed. And John said, well, that's a problem that's being worked on in the Auditor's Office, but this
didn't happen this year. So it's kind of like that's still putting out information, but it's not correct.
As you can see, McNeely goes county, town, county, town.
But one of the pieces in there is that's been asked by the town. It still shows it's ours,
but it's not. So I don't know how long it takes to work out those issues. Anything I have is public.
I don't care. And again, you have a disclaimer on there. I'm fine with it as long as it's subject to
everything.
We'd be working with the net and make clear that all the information is being moved over from photograph
to the S3. And then also we looked at an old layer called county maintain roads and there was a couple
of areas where the segments were not 100 percent like one was longer than the other. So I think this
is a way we can continue to identify those make sure that they're identified correctly. But I guess
we'll just move on.
probably 15 years ago and created it in my old position. But it's just there's so many highway layers
doing around there on our geo database or our GIS online, and nothing's matching. And if we would all
use one layer, then it would work. One schema, one layer to rule them all. But yeah, based off of feedback
here, we're in no rush to put this out here and cause confusion.
Sorry, Julie. Go ahead. So this reason to issue, I mean, and I think it would be a good idea for highway
to sit down and go through this. Lynette and them are working great. A lot of this. Perfect.
A lot of it. So it's close. Yeah. And there are some instances I know where you've made a swap with
the city or the town where. So we do have an agreement with the town of Ellensville too. Right. He's
worked with them on
Okay, you have sectioned the ratlip and they will continue to annex. So instead of making our plow go
up here, so we sat with them, we drew out a map around the whole town of Ellipsville, what road made
sense for them to plow, what made sense for us to plow, and then it's worked out really well. Our plow,
they're not given double duty, and we might do a whole road of theirs, they might do a whole road of
ours, but it works for the row. Right, exactly.
of getting somebody there. So that's worked out really well. So, but I don't know how to reflect that
on this map. Because if somebody has an issue and they live on a road that's in the town, but it's county
maintained, how will they know that? And so there should be some way to identify that on the map. And
I know that those agreements are everywhere and all over. That could be something that's pretty easy
because we haven't, when we created that, we mapped it.
Yeah. But I think it would be helpful to have that if this is a public facing platform. The other thing
is all of this just highlights to me the fact that we have no idea if filing is such an issue. What
about the retention funds that these major ways are supposed to be maintained? I mean, my God, that
scares the heck out of me because this is just
sort of the visible when it snows problem, but there are others embedded in here that have nothing to
do with the map that we don't know about. And so it really worries me that because of visible piling
became an issue, but really there are many here. And I think ORC should look at
whether we do any more private roads, whether how we do these retention ponds, who maintains them, how
are they maintained, who pays for it. I think we need to take sort of a 10,000 foot view of these issues
and think about what we want to do in the future because, you know, planning has done amazing work,
worked with highway and building and set up this situation where we have
the inflation-based bond system. Thank goodness. But- And the planning commission also. Yeah, yeah,
yeah. The planning commission has done wonderful work. Yeah, for sure. This is all part of that.
And kudos. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That has helped a lot, but there are still problems.
And anything we do only impacts the future. It doesn't impact the past. So we still have things to work
through with a lot of these developers.
So I bring up a really good point and it's I wish there was an easy answer but the private the private
road issue and snow plowing did become a huge problem. But one road. We have a ton of this situation
out there everywhere. Yeah. And it's because that developer quit doing it. We do have other developers
that are still agreeing to their commitment of bringing a subdivision to your board.
You would prove it. They agreed to those stipulations. We're going to maintain it and we're going to
file it until you take it over. There are developers committing to that, but there's so much more that
they are failing at. We have, I have been run a system this week. We probably have over 500 and some
driveway permit applications open and open go. The reason for that is because when a developer puts
in their driveway, it will not go back in and follow the process
ask for that final inspection. So it can't be closed in the system. So it's just all little things build
up. They don't finish the sidewalks. They don't finish the trees. And it just, and then you compound
it to this issue here of a safety issue for somebody on the street that ended up with 15 inches of snow.
And I do sympathize with the people. Is it the realtors that's not telling them? Probably so.
I had a realtor. So we've been working
really hard with Gentry East on one of their bases. I mean, Jackie and Ben and our office spent hours
and hours meeting with the HOA, blocking the project, creating all the bid documents for them to be
able to bid it out, get some work done. BNB got the job, did a great job. There's just a few little
tie-ins to finish. They did not go back and make them
rip the road out and down to today's specs. That was stated last week at a commissioner meeting. That
did not happen. We are not requesting that, but we are working hand in hand with that HOA to get those
roads accepted. And that's, we've gone planning and highway, my staff, not necessarily me, have gone
way and beyond, way above and on time on getting this approved. And it's,
It's a, it is a problem. I think the inflation has helped a lot, but there's so many old ones still
sitting there that is a problem. And on the Gentry East, I had a realtor call me last year and said,
I hear that this section of this road is private. I said, that is correct. Why not? I doubt the buyer
is going to buy. Well, that's why you're not telling them that these roads are private. The property
owners have paid for that.
They're the ones that suffer. And then we take the brunt of it because we're the bad people that won't
file it. Even though in the future it's going to be public, how do you express that to a potential buyer?
And it's not in their covenant. It's not in their deed. How do you make a developer accountable? I might
say you guys aren't alone. Well, the city had the same issues. And a lot of times it's the same developer.
And they are getting older.
Yeah. Make a list and just have it behind it. I would say Lisa and I have the same list. Yeah. And some
of the old ones, like I think the lakes area is one of the old APHA ones that, you know, the city develops
and nothing against the city. That's that was the policy. Right. Sure. And then they don't take the
roads because it's in the county. Right. So then again, the property owners suffer on that. So,
It's a huge issue and I know like I said and Jackie's done great on a lot of it and we were still working
with a lot of developers and we have taken in a lot of development that were problems out there. Emerald
Trace they finally got that bit out and we accepted those rights as soon as it was fixed. So we are
working with them. It's just there's it's problems. Yeah it is problems. And then we love.
Yeah I can have my hand up for a bit and I appreciate the good conversation. So maybe a different
perspective. So land use policy is what drives hazards into disasters right. So when we build in the
environment and exacerbate
natural hazards like snow that's where we end up with situations like this. A lot of what we do here
on the the forward end in terms of retention ponds environmental planning like that's part of good mitigation
right so I hear that and I think those are worth exploring. But the overriding challenge for me is what
we do when we hit a state of emergency right. So regardless of the work of this commission
When we hit a place where public safety is at risk and it's just becomes finger pointing between developers
county whoever you know I think we need to acknowledge how our choices here are setting us up for potential
risk for people in the community. That's what I did say at the commissioner's meeting and I'm saying
it here as well. So I think for me you know one aspect of this is we really do need to understand how
the land use policy is impacting the county's emergency management plan.
And if there are gaps like this that have been exposed where we all we have is sympathy for people that
are caught in a situation where a road has not been taken into inventory and we just cross our fingers
that an individual doesn't end up dying because emergency service can't get in there. I need I think
we need to put a little more focus on this. And it might be rare but it's something that could happen.
So to the extent that this body
works with you know maybe this is putting a Planning Commission member back into the EMAC so that they
can bring these issues to the Emergency Management Planning for the county. We need to do that. I also
think at this point understanding a playbook or a desk reference where decision makers can reference
what their powers are and at what moment and this is really from Mr. Schilling is important here because
there are statutory things we could be doing that
lift some of these ordinances locally to to say look this is the exception because we're trying to make
sure people don't die in these neighborhoods needs to be acknowledged. I don't think we're going to
handle that today but that's what I'd like to see handled in ordinance review. My only other thought
in terms of something to be quickly done is is it possible to get the layer of the bus routes from MCC-SC
superimposed on this so we can better understand what roads
were impacted because I mean part of the reason why the schools were closed for so many days is that
they couldn't get into some of these neighborhoods. And if it is developer responsibility boy I'd like
folks to know if they're upset if their kids are home on day 3 who to call on that one. So it's not
us right. But there's some thoughts I have that I wanted to add to this important discussion. I wonder
if like the bus routes and the snow flow routes would be more internal than that. Yeah. So we could
look at that and overlay that and then.
Well and you know and Jackie not to betray our conversation earlier but you know if if the MCCSE is
not to be driving through private roads and they are then we need to know why there are bus stops in
neighborhoods that maybe shouldn't be and where those kids should be. If it is to walk out to the county
road I really don't understand this part of it. But there seems to be some confusion there too right.
Thank you Mr. Henry. I know Mr. Farris has a comment also and unfortunately I need to leave so Mr. Bush
could you take over. Sure. Thank you. I want to before I leave I want to thank Ms. Ritchie and Mr. DeVane
for all the hard work that your team has put in. So. Thanks Joe. Thank you. I want to say thank you
for your service. Oh you're welcome. Sorry I have to leave early. I'll watch the recording tomorrow.
So I'm going to bring up the the elephant in the room.
And so I'm playing kind of a devil's advocate here. And the issue is compliance and the and our and
our CDO. And we do have compliance measures in place. We've already talked about them. I've read some
I've read some things over the last week or so that have not been very positive. Comments have not been
very positive about this body.
Meaning that maybe our ordinance is not as granular as it should be. My assessment is is that I think
over the last year with the things that have been brought forward from highway into planning we have
done our due diligence to the best job we possibly can to resolve these developers particularly developers
who have issues with compliance. That's plus. There's a lot more work to be done.
I mean we've covered the number of 60 60 developments and there's probably more granularity there that
we don't know about. But we're working on it. The question I have is and it's really for this body to
acknowledge is our is our CDO as it's written right now adequate with respect to answering the compliance
issues. I I believe it is. And if it's not then
again devil's advocate then those are the things we need to take and highlight as a disconnect and work
towards solving. The second point I want to bring up is for those of us who used to be in the resources
business there's such thing as called an unfunded mandate. And I saw it at the government level. This
is when a body requires you to do something but don't throw any money at it. And I think that Lisa can
explain to you where we get the funding for the
for the highway department, but it doesn't come from the county council. And so if in fact you're going
to put a requirement on the table to go out and plow every private drive road in the entire county,
I have one incidentally, I know you have one incidentally, the cost for doing that is going to be outrageous.
That is an unfunded mandate. I understand the safety issue,
I also understand that it's it's it's the developers and others responsibility to tell people and those
homeowners that this is still private property and that roadway is not in the inventory. So the two
items is the CDO as written from a compliance standpoint meet meet a satisfactory solution. And the
other point is just you all should note an unfunded mandate.
is no requirement at all because there's no money against it. I'd like to chime in here because even
though the Planning Commission has been maligned in public comments by politicians recently, I feel
as though we've taken great strides as far as making corrective action. That it was this body who suggested to
to the planning department and the highway that we create some kind of enforcement mechanism for some
safety if the developer walks away. And that's how we decided on the adjustment for inflation so that
we could actually finish the roads. And it's creating some solutions. Now, I also have to commend Lisa
and the legal department, the highway department and the legal department were proactively going to
those, some of those neighborhoods. I don't know if you went to all of them, but I know you went to
more than one and you informed them a big storm is coming. Here's the list of contractors you can call.
You don't have a homeowner's association, but you guys, this is your solution. You can get on the phone
and hire your own contractor. And I,
That is about as much responsibility as we can take in a situation like this. And I commend you for
doing that proactive move. I just had never imagined that I reached out to you about the issue, that
I would have learned that you and County Legal had done so much work in terms of trying to get the issue
resolved on behalf of the homeowners,
I'm just really so impressed with what you've done and how you're handling it. And a lot of
these subdivisions are in litigation. And I commend planning, highway, legal for sticking up on behalf
of the homeowners. And we can't talk about it because of that. But I just think that the homeowner,
it couldn't be better served than what you've done given our constraints.
I really really thank you for that. I think you've done a remarkable job. So thank you. You're welcome.
I just think there's a maybe misunderstanding about I hear all that and yeah but I think there's
a misunderstanding about where the Planning Commission's responsibility ends and where a public safety
activity begins. And I hear Colonel Ferris' comment I think you know you're making sense. Unfunded mandates
an interesting comment. You know when we have a state of emergency declared
at the White House and then in Indianapolis and then here I would I'm presuming you know because that's
the way it works is that there would be funds available to seek for reimbursement for activity. So this
requires really good planning at the front end and I don't mean planned commission planning I mean whole
of government planning.
to understand what the roles and responsibilities are. I don't disagree with anything Dr. Clemens said
there. People performed in their roles as they understand them and did well at it as they understand
them. But these are not decisions that the plan commission is the in the driver's seat to make in a
time of calamity in these neighborhoods. It's a higher order conversation that involves
Board of Commissioners Emergency Management. It does involve highway as a function in that plan and
what your responsibilities are. But but the question if the CDO is what is creating an impasse where
we have a conflict with public safety that's the question I'm drilling into. So I don't know if these
are like parallel conversations but I don't think they're you know there's maligning going on. There's
public critique of.
Government which is the most transparent thing we can do. So I my only comment on this is we need to
elevate it elevate it to the decision makers that actually have authority during times of crisis and
not try to help like ask people especially around the table to try to solve that without the expertise.
I observed that there were people caught in the gaps there and that's and that was worthy of critique
and a public comment by the citizens of the community. And maybe we're talking past each other right.
I think we've belabored it from my end enough this evening. Thank you.
I think we're going to just chime in to say I'm sorry I'm going to have a technical difficulty in about
two minutes so I need to pause the audio for a second while I transfer to a different computer and then
I have to restart this one. So apologies I won't. We're going to go on mute though for those of you
online for a second. It'll digitally be. Yeah we can take like a three minute recess I would appreciate
it. All right. Thank you.
Can I have everybody's attention please. I think our our technological break is over. So Mr. Bush. Yes.
Then I'm fingers crossed we can move on to other portions of the business here tonight. If I may. So
personally I think we're kind of moving
A little outside of the planning commission's ability and purview, but I do think a lot of things are
entangled. And I do think we do have a role. I think that role is serving as the conduit to bring in
the other parties that are necessary to address this as a larger matter. And one of those would be the
highway department and looking at their highway ordinance document and looking at ours. And is there
anything that we're asking
developers to do before you can accept roads in the inventory. And so those are areas we really need
to vet and discuss, and we could do that at the ORC, and I'll wait for people to come together. That
is my only thought on the larger issue. Is there any way that we can lower the bar to add roads to the
inventory, but still get all of what our intent is? And if there's not, then there's not. But what I'm
saying is,
We're in a conversation right now where we have to have all these parties together to discuss it to
be effective unless we look at more strenuous things which somewhat concerns me because you know I don't
want to necessarily prevent folks from managing private roads either. So let's just.
kind of my thoughts on it is, you know, this conversation is a lot larger than the Planning Commission.
Also back to the other like buyer beware comments. I do think we could continue, but again, we'd have
to do it in collaboration with other departments to put information out there.
like our BMP best management practices with stormwater so someone buys a piece of property and they
have some responsibility to maintain that infrastructure that we have like a little raindrop on our
GIS. Now does that mean the realtor is going to disclose that. Not too sure but a lot of people go to
these platforms to look at properties before purchasing. We could try to do a better way identifying
you know private roads versus maintaining roads from.
more of awareness and data being available for people that might make future purchases. I think those
are real areas that we can actually make impacts. But again a lot of those are a little outside of the
purview of the planning mission. So that's my thoughts on it. And I would love to kind of be able to
address these very incremental as the other players come and suggest hey
we're able to change this this could maybe impact that and maybe that could help. But if not then you
know we're kind of where we're at and the other discussions are going to be more like are we going to
allow private drives. And I personally I don't know what the state says about that but I don't want
to go in a direction that causes more oner onerous burden or makes our ordinance even more strenuous
personally.
And from there, I'm going to stop on them. Again, I was very optimistic and hopeful we can move on to
the other business at hand because it's, again, in my opinion, it is a lot more than just the planning
commission, but we do have the active role. So thank you. Yeah. The only thing I can add to that is
I think by lowering the bar is what got us into the math area. Right, right. I'm saying where we can
make sure that we get what we wanted. But if there was anything, I would need
your expertise and your team to identify that. And then Jackie worked with like our ordinances and if
there are ways, then there are, I'm not going to say there are, but no, I don't want to do anything
that's going to pose back in this situation or exacerbate it. But my point being is this is outside
of the purview of the planning commission, because you're working off of your own ordinance and document.
I get that. But you,
The board makes the decisions here. The board approves newer subdivisions when we still have old subdivisions
with that same developer that did not do the process correctly. We're dealing with new subdivisions
right now being built today where that developers are not following the process building roads without
permits putting in driveways without permits. I totally agree and see it.
we're not going to accept again. My point is, is this your ordinance that deems it appropriate to take
into the county inventory after the commissioner support? And if there's ways, sure, I'm not saying
there is, I'm not an expert on that document. What I'm saying is I just feel like we're moving a little past what
we can look at from a zoning or a county ordinance and a comprehensive plan of what kind of choices
we make. Then again also need the adoption of the commissioner. So I'm going to just leave it there.
But those are my thoughts on is we have to work together to try to address any of this or. I think we've
already addressed it. There is our specs. Yeah. Really good bill road. And those specs were updated in 2020.
and how those specs were originated was four or five local engineering firms coming together with our
county's engineer, coming up with good solutions on how that room should be built. And everyone agreed
to that. And those are the engineering firms that are developing a subdivision. So they're not having
an issue with how they're being built or anything. It's just the developers wanting to come in, sell
their lots and get out. I totally understand that.
mentioning that you're the expert that needs to work with Jackie if there is any work and if there's
not that's fine. I'm saying like sit in the office and look at her notes. We set this 40 estates last
summer because they were they were in all that we that the planning department highway had all of our
notes with that developer everything that's gone wrong. The reason why we can't accept it and they
could not believe it because they were not told any of that. I don't have a side here. That's my whole
thing is, is if you don't see anything that we're asking from a plan commission standpoint, that's too
much, then that's fine. But that's my point is like, we need to make sure you're getting what is needed
in a development and planning is, and those ordinance need to work together. And if they do,
that's great. I'm not saying let's go out here
do all of what you have been dealing with and everyone else with some of kind of the public feedback.
But my point being is like I really leave it to your department and planning department if you notice
anything that planning might be asking too much for and it could potentially help other folks get into
the inventory. But if that's not the case then that's not the case and I'll leave it alone. But my whole
point is is like we're not going to solve this problem.
at the planned commission state but we do have a role in it. Barbi. Yes. I just want to reflect on you
know my long years serving on this body. I don't know if County Legal is present or not. They are.
But, you know, when these PUDs come before us and they come in and they ask for exceptions to the plan,
and they ask to make the road narrower and the driveway less deep, and suddenly you have minivans that
wear the back fenders hanging over the street, you know, and, you know, we try to work with the developer.
We tried to stick to our values and we always tried to coordinate with County Highway whether or not
this is acceptable and whether or not the exception is too, it makes the road too narrow for the pows
to get in. And County Legal has reminded us that we cannot hold against a developer his prior past poor
performance because that's a state law.
That's a state statute. If I'm wrong, county legal, please let me know. But Rudy had an idea earlier,
and I don't know, maybe you could state that. Well, I, you know, it kind of goes to Colonel Farris'
thing about the CDO. Does it have the teeth to be able to hold a developer personally responsible?
I, that's a, it's a good question for legal. And I think that we've done everything we can do in the
CEO, but we can ask legal for an opinion on that in the future. In the private sector, this is a lot
of government. You know, in the private sector, I do business with you. You don't do what you do.
I sue you. And, you know, and if you, and I don't let you hide behind an LLC or anything else, I get
personal liability to be able to go after you.
So to answer my compliance point, that's exactly what I would recommend we do is go to legal and say,
take a look at this and see if we've done everything. I just don't think we can do more. I don't think
we can either, but we can always ask the question. Can you take that for action, Jackie? Yeah, sort
of a housekeeping review. I just want to make sure the CDO is doing what the CDO needs to do in situations
like this. That's all. All right. And I don't want any misinformation to get out there, so I'd rather
we just not
discuss this anymore at this point if we could. I have one procedural question to ask. I noticed that
Steve had his Mr. Bishop had his hand raised earlier. Is he allowed to speak at this point? Yeah. Would
you like to comment? Yeah. So coming back to this list, one question and this can be my naivety of being
new to this group. Have any of these letters of credit ever been called?
Was there an expense of calling that letter of credit. No. Well then staff time to go and collect it.
Okay. Because there can be an origination charge when you enact a letter of credit because you're originating
a new loan at that point. So if you were to start calling these is there going to be an extra cost to
the county or whatever body. I guess has that been taken into account.
Yeah. So each one has its own terms when it comes in. But typically we require it to be within a bank
within 60 miles. We don't accept performance bonds which I think have some of those clauses in them.
We've gotten a lot of pushback. Even most recently somebody who is outright refusing to give me a letter
of credit cashier's check and it's a non-starter. So I've probably cashed three in the last
two years and there's been an origination clause, but you have to remember that the cost to, you know,
go cash it, to keep track of this, to cash it, to then bid it, to then inspect it. So there's, there's
what we need in between the codes is there, but we have to formally take an approved plan document,
go on the ground, do all the striping, do all the visual, okay, this is off, we're doing the measurements
across, so if it's off here,
documenting, bidding, finding out we don't have enough money, doing what we can based on a prioritization
schedule. I mean, you're already 40 hours, 50, 60, 70 hours of staff time in, which we take and do when
we have done first entries. And it's just a huge undertaking to do all these at once. Of course,
we can't. So it's not in our favorite catch.
It really is. It's for the developer to finish it because we don't want it to also look like well if
I don't finish the accounting they'll just do it for me. It means they're a better tool then than that
because it sounds like this is an undue burden unto you not the developer. And that's where I think
that the discussion on client commission level about you know when we were doing the CDO again we were
getting knocked a bit for affordability.
by not allowing performance bonds, for instance, or we almost moved to only cashier's checks where we
just have it on file. I don't like that. 10% inflation. I don't like that. So I think that as much as
we can do financially to, I don't want to say burden, but just slightly push the developer to get it
done is better than not. And I do think that with snowstorms and other natural disasters where we do have
issues people are going to become more aware of these and developers might start seeing a higher cost
to keep managing it. So you know I'm hopeful that they just want to kind of acceptance the inventory
but we know I don't I don't know that we have a better tool out there. If you have ideas. We'll be feasible
to put a tax lien on a property instead.
The assessor's office began maybe two years ago assessing vacant lands and funded subdivisions much
higher. And that got one of our developers to sell entire development to somebody. So that worked. I
would say tax liens are things that make banks and banks people pay attention to because they supersede
a lot of other issues. And so this doesn't circumvent that, but something like that might add a little
more teeth to your CDO as well. Just a thought.
Okay, I'd like to interrupt for a second and ask one more procedural question. Heard a lot of really
good conversation. Obviously, it's a passionate subject, fresh in everybody's minds. Is there any way
that we can legally capture some of these comments that other people might have? Because I want to move on.
But if some people still have suggestions or ideas for consideration, is there a way that we can capture
those? They've been writing them down. Okay. You can email me if anyone else has ideas later. So you're
the point person. Yes. Excellent. Okay. So if you've got any other comments, ideas, suggestions, stripes,
Ms. Jelin, Mr. Jelin will be happy to take your, your
This isn't related to the questions just I pulled up the non-voting rule and just pursuant to Indiana
Code 36-7-4-213 the non-mode voting member has every single right that we as members have except the
vote. I've never really used it to make motions or set things just due to it's easier letting the voting
body do that but just
to let you know. I intended to send this to you, but I left your business card at home and never had
it. So, and then the one in the circulation isn't related to the first financial, so I wasn't sure which
one to send it. I'll send this to you. So you kind of have this in here. Thank you. Can we move on to
new business? The first item under a new business is
Just the three zone for 35 someone went south side of the street from EB to high density. Drew is a
planner if you want to provide just like a two or three minute update on this one. Sure. So you've heard
this one several times already. This is slated to go to the February 16th Planning Commission meeting. This one.
is one of those examples that would be impacted by that House bill with respect to the railroad offering
continuity to City of Williamson for possible voluntary annexation. And staff did recently receive a
letter from the property owner themselves that I will include in the next staff report packet on that
does provide their support for wanting to go to the high density
stone and district. So keep the meeting going. I'll open it up for any questions or discussion. The
commissioners had asked for just a 1-8-yard zone instead of high density. Yeah. Just 1-8-yard. Because
it still doesn't fit. I mean you still can't do high density on it because the size of the lot and how
it's situated. So that's why.
We had said that, so I don't know if that's something that's going to be done. So this is the planning
commission authored rezone. So we just want to take a roll call on changing it from HD to Rez. And then
I think that was the last census of the planning commission, because I asked the commissioners on the
timeline in the zone, anyone wants to? And we had said as a body that we prefer the one acre rezone,
because it's going to have to be rezoned anyway, no matter what, because it does fit.
high density the way the lot is situated anyway. So we just said let's just make it simple. We do have
to take it out of the PUD to recognize that. And that's what we want to do and just call it one acre
residential and then see what they want to do with it. So their motion. That's the motion. So it would
be switching the 35.21 South Water Street region from PUD to REZ.
Residential 1 instead of HD. So. — That's my motion. — Second. — Second. — Okay. So it's moved.
— Call the vote please. — Moved and seconded to change the rezone application REZ-25-7 to come before
the Planning Commission. Instead of a rezone from PUD to HD it would be a rezone from PUD to REZ or
Residential 1. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Brady Fields. — Yes. — David Henry.
Yes. I couldn't hear you David. Yes. Well you got to hear us. There we go. You got to hear it. Jeff
Morris says not here anymore. JoVie and Deventer. Yes. Julie Talmadge. Yes. David Bush. Yes.
Martin Clement. Yes. Scott Beres. Yes. The face of the motion passes.
7 to 0. Okay. Thank you. All right. Under the new business the violence PV outline plan parcel E. Again
relevant for tonight's discussion. The developer would like to change this development from having a
flat that says the road is public to switching it to private.
We have talked with the developer of this subdivision which is Weininger Construction and they from
the Ordinance Review Committee we delayed this a month to see if they'd be willing to implement any
of the highway departments recommended or required changes to get into the inventory that weren't going
to impact the structures built on the site.
And they said that if it's going to be private, it's going to be private. I'm not doing anything. So
that is their answer to that in no uncertain terms. So they would like it to be private so that they
can continue to maintain it. We have recommended that it would be a positive recommendation just because
we see that the way that the town homes were constructed and
the setbacks of those townhomes the adult conditions are off. And so there's just no way to meet some
of those ADA standards and to get it accepted. But in return for that we do think South Wickens which
is the connecting piece from Rockport that they had to create is very close to acceptance and that that
could be accepted potentially prior to coming to you all for the discussion of turning range view which
is awful humans right. So that is the discussion that we've been having with the developer and this
would be coming to you before at the regular meeting and then it would be ultimately a commissioner's
decision. That's your payments. I don't like this one. I you know this is all it's terrible.
For all the people who have kids in these townhomes now their kids will not be able to be picked up
by the local school bus. They'd have to walk to the end of the street. Rain or shine. Snow. Of course
not. Sorry are you at the end of the street. I we don't control that. We also don't know that information
right. No but it could be but the bus will not go through is what. But doesn't already is the question.
Oh I don't.
I don't know. I'm guessing not. I'm guessing not because that last piece is just one last piece. The
rest is private stuff. So it would be a nonissue then right. I don't know that. Well you can simply
vote no. They have to do as-bills. So. That's a good point. Avia compliance. Yeah. They. So I guess that's a.
The question of the nearest post stuff I can inquire about that. So they are currently owned by the
developer. There are individual platted lots. I don't know if they are wanting to sell it at any point.
They could sell each of these individually, and people could own it by right for all of these, actually.
The question of whether we deny this, what happens, we have a lot of credit on file for this one.
this would this has lapsed. And so we would be asking them to post a new letter of credit or complete
the improvements to get it accepted. Which like I said without removing two of these town homes and
putting them at a different elevation I don't know that it's possible. That's just their discussion
with our highway engineer.
And I can show just some photos, so it becomes a little bit more steep. They got a setback change to
be 15 feet in the road, so 25. So there's some areas where it seems very flat. It's meeting the cross
slopes. But as you kind of go north and around the curve, you start to see that there are some deficiencies.
And you have very steep driveways, so just
Well, is that baby in a stroller right into the screen? I don't know if it's possible or they could
have been to put the sidewalk closer to the road to fix the cross. So it would be a huge undertaking.
And they are they should be meeting ADA requirements as the developer. It's not it's just that as a
county, if we take something in that woefully is beyond the two percent cross of the sidewalks,
where I think as I've talked to legal before it sounds like we're we could be ineligible for future
federal funds if they find out we're taking in and things in the inventory accepting things that don't
very good meet ABA. So we're trying not to. What type of precedent are we setting if we in fact recommend
a positive recommendation. What type of precedent or what comes down the road
I mean, I'm a precedent guy. I mean, you've got to be careful five years from now when that happens.
I mean, it is a slippery slope. No pun intended. No pun intended. But absolutely. And I do think that
some of these situations, though, they're similar to each other. They're all context-based. It's not
that you are creating mine for you.
case law, right? It's not that somebody who looks at the case and compares their case. If you have dealings,
if you have dealings with this developer in the future, what do you think is going to happen?
In that regard, yes, right. Don't force a certain vote. How does it give this foreign laws before everybody stops it?
So the building department, it turns out, does not have requirements for residential structures for
the driver's seat ADA, which I found out maybe six months ago, because this is a repeat issue. Additionally,
as Lisa talked about, this developer has not closed out their driving permits. We did do land
use certificates as we went along.
but it was mostly for the actual landscaping tree trees, things like that. We didn't know at the time
that they had a bond on file. So we were stuck in a rock and a hard place because you have the developer
wanting certificate of occupancy for which we didn't have a
a great reason for holding that up other than, well, the sidewalks don't meet ADA. But we have a letter
of credit, so we'll eventually get them. But they don't have a driveway permit. Or they don't have a
closed out driveway permit. So we'll get them then to come back into compliance. But then, yeah, it's
been done for four or five years. They're not going to want to do anything. So the state has also put
us in a bind that holding up certificate of occupancy is very challenging.
So if we say no, what happens? They owe us the money amount that would take to make this compliant and
a lot of engineering costs. You said the letter of credit lapsed. Do you still have a letter of credit?
No. Because if you still had it, it's possible you could still use it. Well, we have the physical copy
of it, yes.
Right, but it's been some years, so I don't know that they would let us have you contacted the originating
bank and it's one issue. They don't call me. And I've contacted the developer and this was right at
the time period where highway was transferring it to planning. Yeah.
To be honest, I went on maternity leave the week prior and sent everyone an email saying I expect a
renewal to come in while I'm out and it did not come. So that was really unfortunate. Can I
make a recommendation that you physically take that letter to whatever financial institution it is and
talk to them because as long as you physically have that letter and that financial institution does
not, it can be called. Okay. That's not true. The financial institution will not extinguish that letter
until it has the original
This will copy back. I have a lot of documentation asking for remittals as well. So when we have to
apply our history. I'm not sure what recourse is involved but you do have something that you can at
least. Is the bank local. Yes they're all within 60 miles of Monroe County they have to be. So there's
one that ain't was Jackson County. I will go and double check that. So it's not my board and it's the
60 mile. It is. It's working great. Please don't change that.
I just remember we had a discussion. It's really a question for legal, so that would be the question
for legal is me too. He's a repeat offender and he's going to do it again. Yeah. Does that make sense
for our regular meetings? Yeah, I've asked her to ask legal to please at the regular meeting as to what
would happen. And also the neighbors have to be aware of the
of the meeting. Oh yeah. Because they're taking a room. So we'll add to the report you know if denied
these are the actions. That'd be good. Option 1 option 2. Right. And is there a stating now that they're
unwilling you know trying to tear it to private and unwilling to make the changes even voluntary changes
that were you know it's like a manhole in a painting about the surface or fixing a crack here or there.
If they're stating that they're not willing to do that, this is, yeah. So, okay. And then any other
questions on this one? That's good. It's probably enough. Can you scroll down just a little bit of your
photos? Oh, that's fine. Okay. Yeah, I don't think it's the same ones that are in the packet. Probably
different. Yeah.
There's a there's a school bus in one of the pictures. Yeah. In the packet. Yeah. OK. Yeah. I thought
I saw it. There's actually about three or four pictures that have a school bus in there. Yeah. No it's
not in there. Yeah. Yeah. I'll ask. OK. I'll ask about that. OK. Thank you. All right. You might be
thinking about Ben's. Maybe. It may be Ben's picture. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. That's it.
It's almost toward the end there. This is the inspection report from highway department stating what
would need to be fixed. So this was going out and documenting some of the cracks or the deficiencies
that were brought up. These are raised. There's a great rate around that, not great tripping hazard.
This is the mailbox that's technically in the right way for weekends. We've asked to move that. There's
been some discussion.
This is the sidewalk along with him that they were finishing at the time, but this was three years ago
now, so that's been finished, three trees. And we are planning on going out and getting updated photos.
These were supposed to be parallel-striped, and they're not, so they're very, very short parking spaces.
Parking is an issue. Blacked out bar on the side. That's probably private. Might be.
Yeah, they're not 18 feet. There's not enough. Yeah, those parking spaces are not long enough. Yeah,
this is where the parking is supposed to be, but I think to get more space and then they made them angled. Okay.
Thank you for that. Okay so any other questions that you have leave them to me and I'll send them to
the planners. Okay so. Yeah. The last item on underneath the business is related to the point B. They
the homeowners homeowners association is working with
of Blood Sovereign Cooper and James for a request to add a use for essentially what they're calling
self-stored but it would be to add individual garages and they would like to have those garages be able
to be rentable to those in the Eagle Bay condominium section. So it's currently a basketball slash tennis
court. When we met with the Home Loan Association who are residing down here
They stated that everyone that wants to play basketball or tennis goes to the main area where they're
like pickleball courts and things like that. And that the area in question is rarely used. So and it's
only supposed to be for eagle dive incidents. Upon researching this a little bit as well, this part
is in a different phase than this part.
And so this part was part of a phase with single family development that never was finished. And this
part is the part that was completed. So we're going to come back with a little more research on that
and a chance to talk to legal just because we're in many different phases and where the people that
live there are. But this is just an introduction into that. We are looking for them to give us a little
bit more definition on
what this self storage could be used as and want to make sure they're not intending on it to be used
for like general contractor storage or to be used by other people that don't live in Eagle Bay but they're
going to be bought and sold, things like that. They need to be pretty clear about that. But they are
excited about this because I guess none of them have garages on that piece. And it is a
which from impervious to impervious they didn't have to go to the Drainage Board which they received
preliminary approval for to get just do a detention waiver. Well as I was a little surprised up in the
journey for discussion but with the engineering plan and everything they and the basketball court kind
of all already being kind of impervious surface it was really just the way to mitigate the water and
there was something
down a bit, one of the outlets that was installed, not so good that they were going to fix two. Mr.
Rigger does some pretty good drainage engineering and work, so that's why you have the one extension
on here as well. Yeah, when you brought this up, I almost thought it was already done. We met 5-23-2025.
Is there anything in terms of setback or slope that becomes an issue here? So they are asking to rezone
this entire parcel to add the use. Right. But it's very flat here, actually. OK. But we could condense
that even to a legal description of these two courts, the tennis court and the basketball court. Yeah.
Those are very flat, I mean. But there's no issue with setback at all relating to this. They're going
to have to say that, you know, setback. Okay, so there is an issue. Okay. If they don't want to accept
that, you know. Yeah. And that's the part that to me doesn't look right. It doesn't look right. Right.
I think that they, on their... It's not near a residence.
But it doesn't look right in terms of where it sits on that spot. There. Yeah. This is right on the
line redevelopment of garage. So it would be right on the line of this. I think this is like a rented
space if I'm not mistaken. That's a Kapothosi. Yeah.
shared space community center owner. This is owned by the HOA. And who owns the other piece there? I
think it says Putnam Properties LLC. Okay. And they've been notified. They have, yep, they did send
out. I haven't given a receipt yet. From a different festival. Driving past the basketball park and
it didn't drive past the series of storage buildings. Yes. Okay.
Yeah, I'm just a little bit confused in the terminology because it's going back and forth between self
storage units and garages. And I just don't understand what is actually being requested here. And if
it's self storage, is it commercial self storage or is it limited to owner
I don't understand why it's called self storage. Can an owner then sublet it to somebody who lives outside
the community? I just don't know what we're talking about here. Is it something painted in orange with
lights on all night so that people can come? Is it temperature controlled storage? Or is it a garage
for the people who live there? What is it? I think it's a garage that I have questions about.
vehicle RV and both storage, which I know is something we need to talk about, because being so close
to the lake, you don't want to have a big vehicle storage area without the right. I would rather have
a garage than self storage because that means two by two foot unit versus a four by four foot. I mean,
what are we looking at here? My question.
So you're asking for a clear definition of self storage. Are we asking for usage and that they're really
planning to use it or is that buried in that paragraph and I didn't. If they define something that's
self storage our definition of self storage is convenience storage like you rent the space and put in
your household goods. It's not necessarily garages. I think that their goal is to have them be rentable spaces
for the residents. We did talk to them about whether these would be large enough for RVs. It's been
some time. I don't think that they're tall enough, but I will double check to see it. It might be a
big enough to a boat. Yeah, that's what I thought. I do think a boat in that far is worth it. And that's
an issue. Well, we need to go up on 26.
And then they say there's a range setback from zero on the east side, 10 feet south side, 14 west side.
So that's a concern to give all of my room. I think that. So the question is, can we limit what,
in fact, they can put into bed? And who's going to hit their chin? Who's going to?
Who's going to police that. Who's going to involve that. So it says here. Well Jackie is. Jackie is.
So we can drive out there. She's going to drive. Storage building will be noncommercial and limited
to the storage of the residents' belongings. I mean that's pretty clear right there. Say that again.
I'm sorry. Except for the noncommercial and storage of the residents' belongings. But that has to be
but that it's it's it's in a letter but it's not when we write the P.E.V.
But they've stayed in there at the end, so they're not trying to escape. But it would have to be part
of the team. You'd have to catch them. This is their try and outline plan after several months. Yeah,
I hear you. And the point is notoriously difficult because it was graded conceptually and adopted
conceptually, and now we're trying to get into the mini-grady and it's not there because it's
A lot of it was created in the 70s. Yeah. So yeah, documentation and trying to read lines and ordinance
or document we pulled what we have, but there's more to be desired on this. So we can get more clarity
on non-commercial, yes, but rents and gas. I don't know if they're going to flat it. I can ask about
that. Are they going to buy those units? That's a question. Yeah, that is and whether or not
they could run it to outside folk because that changes traffic patterns in the community. So yeah lots
of lots of questions lots of questions for them. Yeah lighting was a good one that that Margaret had.
Dave just came on camera, I don't know if he got something. Dave, did you have anything you wanted to
add? No, I don't have anything at this point. Okay. All right. I don't have anything else on the agenda.
If anyone has anything questions-wise or anything they'd like me to follow up on any of these if you
think about it later, send us an email. I think I just want to say that for the ORC meeting coming up,
Mr. Schilling I would like if possible to have I know this the legislative session is not over yet but
I would like to have if not at this month's ORC in March ORC if this legislation passes an outline of
the kinds of things we can do about House Bill what is it 1101-1001-1001 and what I learned from the
TAM capital group or lobbyists is that TAM is actually a city councilor in Westfield I believe. And
he said they're actually looking to strike their account plan. He said it's going to force cities and
counties to do really unusual things if it goes through. And so I even if just a preliminary sense of
what we can do to protect ourselves
and protect local government control would be really useful. And I don't know if now is the appropriate
time or March but thank you. Also AIC has their legislative meeting ongoing I think today. So I've reached
out to them. They're always in favor of trying to keep that local. They are on this already. They about
are already on this. Yeah. And Brian the legislative person has actually left the AIC so I'm not sure
if his replacement was.
Long story short, they might have somebody to kind of update. Any other comments before we adjourn?
Motion to adjourn. Thank you all.