I'm sorry about that. Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call to order the May meeting of the Monroe County Plan Commission. So Jackie, to get us started, would you call the roll? Sure. David Bush? Here. Margaret Clements? Tron Enright-Randolph? Scott Ferris? Here. Rudy Fields? And I see Rudy's online. Rudy, are you able to speak? Yes. Okay, here. Thank you. David Henry? Here. Jeff Morris? Here. Edward Olman? Julie Thomas? Here. Okay, so we have six members attending five in person in a quorum. Thank you, Jackie. Could you please introduce the evidence for tonight? Sure. I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Plan Commission Rules of Procedure as adopted and amended, and the cases that were legally advertised and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's agenda. Move approval. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to introduce and approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. He has to be on camera. Yes, just a reminder, Rudy, if you can turn, if you're able to turn your camera on to vote, that would be appreciated. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Okay, so it definitely passed five to zero, and Rudy, are you able to turn your camera on? Are you permitted to do so? I believe I am. Okay. Am I on now? No. I do not see your camera on at this point. Yes, now you are. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, moving on to the approval of the agenda, can we get a motion to approve tonight's agenda? Move approval. Second. Okay, I will go ahead and call the roll on approving the agenda as published. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Motion is approved. Scott Barres? Yes. Motion is approved, six to zero. It's okay. Hey, we have two sets of minutes to approve tonight, March 18, 2025 and April 15, 2025. Do we have a motion for approval? Move approval of both sets of minutes, March 18th and April 15th, 2025. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve both March 18th and April 15th, 2025 minutes. A vote yes is a vote to approve both sets of minutes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morse? Yes. Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. A motion is approved six to zero. Hey, moving on to administrative business. Jackie, are there any updates on the CDO amendment prioritization list this month? No updates. We are continuing on with the prioritization list. There's actually one item on tonight's agenda that relates to this. So just as a reminder, we are reviewing these first at the ordinance review committee, which is a subcommittee of the plan commission that meets the second Monday of each month at four o'clock as presented on the events calendar, so. Hey, thank you, Jackie. Moving on to unfinished business. Are we taking the two Holland Field requests together or do you want to do those separately? Let's go ahead and do those together. SIA-22-7 and SIA-22-9. Okay, and I will go ahead and cover these for Tammy Bierman. And I'll just provide with a few updates and then an updated recommendation. So we do have some updates from the petitioner. They have been working diligently on making some progress to tonight's deadline with the meeting. So, so far we've communicated with them and they've submitted as-builts of phases one and two to the Monroe County Highway Department. They received feedback on those as-builts and then Smith Design, their engineering firm, they were able to get a finished draft of a new design plan and that was submitted back to the developers on May 12th. We do plan to meet with Hybrid Investment Group, the developer in this case, and they would like to meet after tonight's meeting and before the admin meeting to review the new design plans, related cost estimates, and to make sure that we can procedurally move forward without any other planning process. And then they have been working through Smith Design Group with the developers of the Holland Three Lot Miner, which is Blackwell Contractors, Inc. Blackwell Contractors did not meet their deadline, but we have been in contact with them and through Smith Design, I believe we can still make progress on this. So just a reminder, this is an outline of Holland Field's phase two and this is the outline of Holland Field's phase one. And then this right here where my cursor is is the Holland Three Lot Miner. So there is some overlap of public improvements between the Holland Three Lot Miner and the Holland Field's phase one, which is what is primarily needing some of the redesign work. So just another quick update. So we did, the Plan Commission did vote to continue this to April 15th and then again to tonight's meeting and they have completed the requests that we've asked so far. So they did, they have been providing us with updated status reports, both the attorney, the develop, all of them, the developer, the attorney and the engineering firm have provided us updates. They have been meeting with the developer of the Holland Three Lot Miner through their design firm and they do have the new estimate but they are waiting for a meeting to review that with the county to make sure it would be agreeable and then they've identified missing or incorrect requirements and we have received the new letters of credit with another year extension as requested so they do have those, they have submitted both of those for phase one and two and then performance period, you know, pending tonight's decision if it's continued or if it's decided upon, that would be based on tonight's decision or a future night's decision. So we have updated the recommendation after speaking with them to continue this an additional time, ideally because we do not yet have the new design in our hands with the cost estimate and so it's challenging at this point to provide a correct performance period end date and to request a certain financial guarantee amount that includes inflation adjustments. So without the new design and the new cost estimate that we believe they have those in hand, we don't feel that it would be helpful to vote on this tonight. So with that, I could take any questions. Yeah, Commissioner Thomas. Okay, I've just moved my cursor and I've lost my place, but there was something about how this had to be done now. So does that still hold? There was some urgency because of the connection with the other development, sorry, yes. Yes, there was a timeline for the Holland three lot minor to give us a new subdivision improvement agreement to get us new designs, new estimates. We talked with Smith Design, they do have that, but they haven't heard back from Blackwell Contractors that they need to approve of the design and the cost estimate before it can get sent to the county. Okay, so there isn't a deadline with that specifically that is going to be impacted by a continuance here. Right, we have approved a performance period end date for that subdivision till next year, but we're hoping that if we could get some of that information by tonight, we could then vote tonight on this subdivision. Gotcha, okay, thank you. Any other questions for Jackie? Okay, so we can turn now to the petitioner or petitioner's representative. If you're here and wish to speak, you'll have 15 minutes. And we do have their attorney online, Angela Parker. I believe she has her hand raised. Okay, Ms. Parker, if you'd like to speak on this petition, you'll have 15 minutes if tech services could allow you to unmute. I just did, thank you very much. I'm Angela Parker, I represent Hybrid Investments LLC, which is the developer in this matter, as you know. Don Turner is somewhere on this Teams call with us, so if there's specific questions, he can certainly answer those. Our time will not take 15 minutes because we concur with the report as Ms. Dillon has given it tonight. We're working feverishly and I think very productively to get the subdivision improvement agreement, look at the bond and the cost and the site plan and get all of that lined out and approved, which is why we'd like to meet with planning after this meeting but before the next so that we can hopefully get some agreement around those topics and we've met with Mr. Blackwell, we've met with his attorney and they are also working with Smith Design Group so we think this will all dovetail at the end and we'll be able to come up with a plan and an allocation of costs that makes sense, which of course then will also impact the bond determination for those two phases. So we appreciate the opportunity to have an update before the commission. We certainly appreciate our work and I've expressed this to Ms. Gellin as well with her staff but also with the highway department because a lot of what's going on here impacts their review and approvals and I wasn't at the meeting last week but I understand it was a very productive meeting to review some of the detail and some consensus about how to handle some of the site plan improvements that need to occur. So with all of that being said, we would respectfully request that we be given a little bit more time so that we can bring you a more complete final, hopefully with the planning and highway approval agreement about proceeding forward with the performance period to cost the bond and the plan. And with that, we're happy to entertain any questions that you might have this evening and thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ms. Parker. Do any members of the plan commission have questions? Okay, it doesn't look like we have any. Thank you, Ms. Parker. We can turn now to public comment. If there's anybody here in the room that wishes to speak either for or against this petition, you're welcome to come to the podium and you'll have three minutes. If there's anybody online who wishes to speak in favor or against, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing no one, we will come back now to the plan commission for any comments or a motion. Comments, if anybody would be willing to make a motion. So I'll attempt to make a motion. So for SIA 22, seven and nine, I'll make a motion that we continue this petition for 22, seven until 17 June. And the same for SIA 22, nine, we'll continue that to 17 June. Second. That's good. It's been moved and seconded to continue both petitions SIA-22-7 and SIA-22-9, which is Holland Fields phase two and phase one performance period extension to the June, continue this to the June 17th, 2025 regular meeting of the plan commission. A vote yes is a vote to approve the continuance to June. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Motion is approved six to zero. Thank you, Jackie. And before we continue, I meant to mention earlier that case PUD-25-1, the North part two PUD development plan has been continued to a future meeting. So if you're here to speak to that case tonight, we will not be hearing that. I apologize that I just now brought that up, but moving on to the next item on the agenda, we have ZOA-25-2, which is amendments to the CDO. This is the final hearing. Thank you. Okay, so this is an amendment to the CDO regarding the impervious cover maximums. We've heard this at the last planned commission meeting, and this is now the final hearing for this case. We brought back to you some changes that we described in the administrative meeting that I'll go over again tonight, and also a few additional aerials that will describe or illustrate the types of properties that would be able to be approved with the maximum impervious cover square footages that we've now set out. So I did wanna update the planned commission. We did update the cover page just briefly, but importantly, we have taken now 33 variance filings this year, and 16 have included requests for impervious cover. So we are trying to move forward with the new estimates, and again, the goal is not to remove all needed variances, but just to fine tune it to work with the changeover of the CDO and to try and stay with the purpose of the maximum impervious cover for new development moving forward. So I'll go ahead and start with our text amendment, and then I'll go through some of the aerials I think that will be helpful thereafter. So this text amendment, as I mentioned, is working with primarily what we call the two-pagers or summary tables for the different zoning districts. We have amended several of the zoning districts with different numbers, and then we've also amended some of the superscripts for all of the zones. So the biggest change on the screen is that we are recommending breaking out the maximum impervious cover based on lot size, and then also increasing that amount that's permitted based on each lot size and whether it's in a critical watershed or not. So there are those changes there. And then the superscript number two is being added, it did say before excluding agricultural buildings, but now it's going to also point people to chapter 813, which I will go through for some additional exceptions that are for discussion tonight. So these numbers are pretty consistent between the different zones. I will mention that Forest Residential, since it has a five acre minimum lot size, we did take consideration that since the other zone, AGR and CVR have a zero to 2.5 range and then a 2.5 to five range. We tried to meet what the middle ground would be for those properties since they're starting out at five acres. And primarily the Forest Residential and the CVR, the Conservation Residential, those are located more on the east side of the county, which is sometimes also corresponding with the eco area. So that's also in our minds as we look at this. Here's the Conservation Residential, two and a half acre minimum lot size. So very similar to the AGR as well. And then for some of the zones where we didn't make much change to the numbers, we just added, as I mentioned, the C Chapter 813 for exceptions and made sure that it said to exclude agricultural buildings in all zones where there were agricultural buildings from the impervious cover. And then this is for the residential zone. So we have changed those numbers as well. Those have a one acre minimum lot size. And then the footnote would be for most of the other properties. I think there's another change to the community development as well for number change. And then the rest are just the superscript changes, additions there for C Chapter 813 for exceptions. So I will go ahead and scroll down to Chapter 813 at this point. We did not make any substantial changes to the non-residential zones. So I'll skip over those except for the superscripts. Okay, so in Chapter 813, we are recommending a section for impervious cover. We wanted to add a purpose statement, which includes that the purpose of the impervious cover maximum standards are to encourage compact development and therefore reduce overall impervious cover to implement open space requirements on individual lots and possibly reduce negative stormwater impacts, reduce erosion related to excessive sheet flow runoff as a result of greater impervious cover, reduce ponding of water on properties, reduce impacts to adjacent neighbors, protect critical watershed areas, and areas prone to flooding from increased flash flooding as a result of large impervious cover with some exceptions. So if any of these exceptions apply, we would not count these against your total impervious cover. So exception number one is driveways in existence on March 11th, 2024, which is the last update of our flyover aerial that we have on our publicly available GIS system. So those driveways would be exempt as well as, in addition, driveways that had proper approvals for installation prior to December 19th, 2024. And then number two, driveways within access and utility easements or utilized to access another lot of record shall be considered exempt from this provision. And three, sidewalks within private property that are for public use are exempt from the impervious cover calculation. I also want to bring up that we are requesting an edit to the impervious cover definition. This gets rid of some duplication, but also makes it a little bit clear about the types of things that we are looking at counting towards impervious cover. There's been an extensive discussion by the planned commission, and I think at staff level as well, as to whether to include gravel in the impervious cover. So it's still drafted as being in here, including driveways. And so right now we have asphalt or concrete, private access road, driveways, parking lots, decks, patio areas, things like that. So I think that something that we're looking for tonight is just to make sure that the planned commission agrees upon this definition, or if there's any further modification. So I can pause here, or I can go on to some of the visual examples, and then come back to this part. I have a question. Okay, what was the take of the Drainage Board and the stormwater staff, and the stormwater director about gravel? What did they say about that? Yes, and I do believe we do have Erica Penn, a stormwater program manager online. So Erica, if you wanted to answer this question, or I'm happy to answer from my perspective of attending Drainage Board. Yeah, sorry, I just had to move away from my toddler that was playing very loudly. In our perspective, gravel acts as an impervious surface, because it does not allow the full infiltration, and it compacts over time, so it acts like an impervious surface just through the compaction. And Drainage Board was under the same definition. Okay, so to clarify, you believe that gravel should be listed as part of the impervious surfaces in this ordinance. Yes, when we look at impervious cover from a stormwater perspective, gravel counts as impervious. Okay, all right. So Ms. Nesterjellen, on this list, there is previous pavers, asphalt, or concrete, and then it lists a bunch of other things. So it almost seems like if we want to insert gravel, it should go in that section, asphalt, gravel, or concrete, or something like that, right? Okay, all right, I will hold from that, thank you. Yep, Mr. Farris. I still have an issue. And like I've stated the last two times, we've talked about it. I mean, there are gonna be situations, I think others have commented that grass does grow through gravel. If you are going to include gravel in here, you need to define what gravel is, the density, the depth, because there is situations, as we all know, where you see, in rural properties, you're going to see buildings where you have strips of gravel, but not complete gravel, with grass growing in between it. And I can make the argument, like I think I just did, that that is not an impervious service. So that would be my argument. Now, I'm welcome to any other debate around here, to convince me that I don't know. I don't know that we can get into, or should get into width, or depth, or type, because I think that just makes things less clear. I will say, yes, I have moss growing in my gravel, on my driveway, and I'm gonna leave it there, and it's great, I like having it. But I would still consider it an impervious service, because as Ms. Penna noted, water can pool because it's compacted. So, boy, what are your thoughts on that? What are your thoughts on that? So I think that one of the challenges is either you can get the numbers right, or you can get the exceptions right. And I think that right now, we're trying to target the numbers, and the exceptions will help for properties that already have existing driveways. So what we're seeing is really long driveways with a house, and then they wanna add one more garage, but they're already 10,000 square feet over the impervious. Obviously, we can't ask people to pick up their house and move it to shorten up their driveway and then put the garage. That's just not reasonable. But for new development, the way that this would work is that we would hopefully have the conversation earlier to say, is it possible that you could build closer towards the roadway? Is it possible that you could, in some scenarios, prevent more tree removal or more grading or more utility installation? So the goal of this is really to compact people's development in an area that's already disturbed. It's closer to the road. But understanding that a lot of people in the county have longer driveways. So this discussion started back in, I think, 2010. We had a memo with the Drainage Board and the Monroe County stormwater team about what is contributing to most impervious cover in the county? And it was long driveways through and through. So long driveways are pretty consistent. And sometimes long driveways are needed because there's non-buildable area to get to the area that's buildable. We don't have a perfectly flat county. We don't have perfectly square properties. So I think that moving forward, getting the numbers right or trying to get the exceptions right, both would help. And I can go through some of the visual examples with an update if that also helps. I think Mr. Bush has a comment and then Council Member Henry. Thank you. I was one of the members I think initially opposed to counting gravel as an impervious service. And I can think of a whole lot of reasons why it would be hard to lump all different types of gravels together as one. And I'd spent quite a bit of time the last couple of weeks trying to figure out a different way to slice this and dice it to where you could quantify it. And I can't come up with any sort of a reasonable and manageable and enforceable way to do that. So I'm leaning toward counting gravel as an impervious surface. And if a homeowner or a builder wants to contest that, they can request the variance and it will come before the Planning Commission or the Planning Department and Stormwater and they can have a more depth review of that unique situation. So that's my thoughts. Thank you, Mr. Bush. Council Member Henry. Thank you. I think as I'm hearing comment, I'm trying to move away from anecdotal ideas about this and just maybe back to Stormwater to ask, like is there a standard or an engineering standard that says the gravel of a certain quality or depth is impervious? I heard it and I mean, I'm gonna go with what I heard with the Stormwater mentioning this, but I'm just kind of curious what the engineering standard is if there is one we're looking at to say, yeah, gravel is impervious based on X versus not on Y. Do we have a quick answer on that? I'm not sure I have a quick answer. I'm not an engineer, so I don't know at what compaction level it really solidifies itself as impervious. But just over time, back and forth, it will compact and become no infiltration. Yeah, Mr. Ferris. I'm not giving up yet. Can we amplify the word gravel? Yeah, so one thing I wanna add to this discussion is that if we exclude gravel driveways, but not asphalt or concrete driveways, what we're going to have is everyone telling us they're gonna put in a gravel driveway and then converting it to asphalt or concrete because that doesn't require a permit. So I think that if we're going to exclude gravel driveways, I would suggest for ease of our enforcement, for ease of communication, we then just exclude driveways. But I don't think that that's in line with what Stormwater would like to see with, what planning would like to see. So it is tricky. Excellent point. I wish I could argue with that. (laughing) All right. Yeah, Mr. Henry. I just have maybe one more observation that didn't come to me until this week. So do we have examples of like rubberized aggregate or the use of like rubberized asphalt where people are using that in the county for, would we want to count that as impervious? I don't know what a residential use of that would be, but I could imagine other applications where we have that, basically like the high school track material, right? The recycled rubber that's been asphalt, you know what I'm talking about, right? I've never seen that. That would fit under pervious pavers. We would just call it, well, not pavers, it's-- But that's a similar material. Okay, if that's the animal, vegetable, mineral of it, that's fine by me, okay. People use that as an application for to create a pervious paver in commercial settings. And so that's, it would fit with what's up there now, but yeah. I reason to get that. Yeah, you don't see a lot of it though. No. - Yeah. Okay. I'll offer a quick comment before we move on. I'm stuck on the gravel conversation, similar to Mr. Ferris, but I see a lot of value in moving this forward because looking at the number of cases that are coming before the BZA and getting approved, it feels like there's some unnecessary steps that are in place the longer we take to make a decision on this. So my thought is I'm gonna vote in favor of this tonight, but I would also like to see it added back to maybe the bottom of the CDO list for us to revisit six months to a year from now so we can see in that period of time how many people this is really impacting because I'm curious from a real world perspective, just how many people that are truly impacted by the gravel conversation, yeah. Can I comment on that? I think you make a really good point that I think we do need to move forward. But if we move forward, even if we add gravel back in, we're still gonna be ahead because it's still going to change a lot of those variances won't be needed. So, okay, all right, thank you. Just to clarify, I think we should keep gravel in there tonight as in previous. - Oh, okay, okay. But I think we should revisit a year from now. And it may be a quick conversation if none of the outcomes of the variances would have changed if gravel was removed. Thank you. - I agree. So I do have just a quick visual of some of the properties that if they were to be built today, without this exception of the existing driveway, they would be coming up against the maximum previous. So this is still an example here of a property with what would be too much impervious. And then this is an example here, which is a community development zone. We did alter those numbers a little bit, but without that previous exception of existing driveways, it could be getting close. And then this example here, unfortunately, since the driveway just does not serve other properties as well, it's just a long driveway because of the way the lot is shaped. This property here, they were wanting to put in a new proposed pole structure that was pretty significant, 72 by 48. And then with the existing impervious, that was requiring a variance. And if not for the exception of the existing drives, would still require a variance. And then this is also an example. It is a more institutional use in a forest residential zone. This is Camp Rock, but they did have quite a bit of driveways that were coming against impervious. And then this is an example here where there was a new garage built in this area, not off of the existing driveway. So they were building another extension of the driveway. And then there was a question about, well, what will meet the new requirements? So we put in a few green ones. These would be able to be developed new without the need for a variance based on the new percentages and the new numbers. So this example here, this is a residential zone example. So I tried to get one for each zone. This is a forest residential property, forest five. So I added in, along with this driveway and this house, which I counted all the imperviouss here, there was also an ability to add another 100 by 100 structure or impervious area that would still meet the requirements because it was over five acres. So that was showing right about 45,000 square feet of impervious on this lot. And then this is a example in a conservation residential. This is over 25 acres. This is the highest square footage that we're allowing. So anything beyond this was still capped at the same square footage right now, unless a future text amendment were to be proposed or a change, but this is about 55,000 if you exclude the two agricultural buildings on the north side, but count all of the driveways and all other structures. I think that was all my examples. Before we continue, Mr. Fields, did you have any comments that you wanted to make? I know we didn't give you an opportunity a second ago. Oh no, that's good. I struggle with the notion to Jackie's point of the numbers or the exemptions or the exceptions. And it's, I think that gravel is gonna be an impermeable service if it's put in because if it's there and then work gets, even if it's not, work down the road is gonna be, somebody is gonna bring in tri-axles of more stone and that's the way you fix a gravel road is just add to it. So I think that it's a thing where, you know, the whole definition of a driveway, you know, I mean, it's, you know, is there a way to look at this thing to say that, okay, the minimum, you know, everybody has a right to have a driveway to their home. And then is that a fixed thing? And then do you take all the other impervious surfaces and add those together and work on that, excluding the notion of a driveway. But again, what Ms. Jellum said was that it's the big player. So I think if you buy the science and you believe that it's something that we need to do for the, you know, better of our world, I think that's one potential way to do it is with the how you define a driveway. Thank you, Mr. Fields. Any other questions from members of the planning commission? I'll make another comment. So one of the things I thought of as we were talking was, well, maybe what if we count gravel as half, you know? But here's the thing. When you have a driveway on a slope and that slope goes down to the street every time it rains, it's better to have pavement than gravel because the gravel ends up on the roadway and causes hazards. So in some cases, gravel's not the best option. But in some of the examples we saw, there are just these unnecessary loops and, you know, driveways and all, you know, that's the kind of thing that really makes me say, leave driveways in, add gravel, and move on and see what happens with the variance process after that. So thank you. Any further questions? If not, we will turn to public comments. So if there's anybody here in the room that wishes to speak for or against this petition, please come to the podium and you'll have three minutes. Or anybody online, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing none. We'll come back to the plan commission for further comment or motion. I would like to move, first of all, that we modify the ZOA 25-2 in the section on description to add the word gravel to the sentence that has concrete asphalt added in the asphalt or concrete. Asphalt, gravel or concrete, however you want to do it. That would be, my first motion would be to amend this so that we include gravel. Do we have a second on amending this? I see the word there as a point of order. Is it the word already there? I thought it was scratched out. A duplicate. Here's where gravel was removed. It appears at the beginning of the sentence. I'm sorry. I saw it in the later section where it was scratched, so it is there. Nevermind. Sorry. So nice you'll say it twice. Must be, must be my day. Thank you. I saw where it was removed. I'm like, oh, well, it's not there anymore. Okay, are you revoking that motion? I'm revoking it. It's gone. Okay, do we have a motion for approval or denial? That we approve or we forward to the county commissioners, the amendment CDO as we have discussed, and that's ZOA 25-2. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to forward to the county development ordinance for impervious cover to be a favorable recommendation to the county commissioners. This is the final hearing. A vote yes is a vote to forward a favorable recommendation. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Okay. Motion is approved 6-0. Hey, moving on to new business, we have REZ-25-4. This is the Hunter Valley Historic Landscape HP overlay. This is the preliminary hearing with a waiver of final hearing requested. So Mr. Myers, I will turn it over to you. Before he begins, may I ask a question? Since the other part of this is continued, is that okay? Yes. This is unrelated to the development plan. This is just the HP overlay for a portion of the site. All right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So this is REZ-25-4, the Hunter Valley Landscape HP overlay. This is the preliminary hearing and a waiver of final hearing has been requested. It is consisting of two parcels, one of those parcels being 98.6 acres and the other being 9.629 acres owned by Packinghouse Road LLC and Milestone Contractors LP respectively. So here on the screen, you can see the historic preservation area highlighted in green. This comes from exhibit B of their written commitment from the previously approved planned unit development outline plan amendment that this body and the board of commissioners passed. And as you can see on the screen, there is a portion of the site that was originally identified through a multiple property listing by state officials as a area that is eligible for historic preservation designation on potentially the state, national and local levels. So that's what those darker borders are. And working through the channels with the historic preservation board as well as the planning commission and county commissioners, the petitioners for that outline plan amendment came up with this green area and all parties agreed that that area would be suitable for historic preservation overlay on the local level. Now on the screen, we have several images as well as some snippets from comments made by various entities in the county. So on the location map, you can see the property's location. It is northwest of town, just south of the I-69 and State Road interchange. And then on the right side of the screen, we have the site conditions map and you will note, or you might have some memory of this petition, there are a number of cars features as well as some hydraulic features, hydrological features on the property that have received a lot of discussion through the channels. And there's been a lot of debates and conversations with the stormwater and the contractors about protecting those cars features as well as the existing quarry landscape that is mostly in the portion of the site that will be designated with the HP overlay. Ben Ayers from the Highway Department stated that there are no comments at this time, given that it is outside of Monroe County right-of-way. And then Eric Pena, the stormwater program manager, stated that there are no stormwater concerns with the designation of the HP overlay. And as a reminder, the proposed Mass Fill project was part of the Planning and Development Outline Plan Amendment, is required to implement appropriate stormwater pollution prevention measures in accordance with the Monroe County Stormwater Management Ordinance and conditions placed on stormwater grading permits. These additional measures may be required around sensitive geologic features. So now on the screen, we have some historical imagery of the Hunter-Verily quarry field as well as some other quarries, mills that were located in this area long ago. And here on the screen we have an image as well that shows the approximate locations of several mills that were in existence in the area or are still in operation in the area as well. The greater area is often referred to as the Hunter Valley Historic Landscape or Quarry District. And then the next few slides are some information about the Historic Preservation Overlay. This all comes from the County Development Ordinance. So on the screen now is the purpose statement for the Historic Preservation Overlay detailing its purpose, if you will. And I will leave on the screen for a moment just to familiarize yourself for those who are experiencing the HP overlay for their first time. All right. And now on the screen is the criteria for historic district designation coming from Chapter 823. So these are the criteria that are evaluated by the Historic Preservation Board as well as put forth from the petitioner of what items on this can be classified for that particular property to receive designation. So speaking on this topic, a lot of the information that came forth for this designation came from that multiple property listing that I mentioned that is available in one of the links of the exhibits in your packet. And that came from some state officials as they reviewed these areas as part of the I-69 study. On the screen now we have the letter from the petitioners stating their request for the historic preservation overlay. I'll now take a moment to reiterate that all of this came up as part of a condition of approval for that outline plan amendment that I've spoke on. So this is just one of those conditions of approval that was attributed to the approval of that outline plan amendment. So the petitioners are just moving through those motions to satisfy the historic preservation board as well as the other entities that reviewed this request for that outline plan amendment. Now on the screen is another diagram that shows that historic preservation zone. It is 11.45 acres and does extend across those two parcels that I mentioned at the beginning. The larger parcel being the 98.6 acres and then this smaller parcel owned by Milestone has a lot of that area under the HP overlay as well. And then this is just another diagram that will show that shows the proposed contour lines of the mass fill activity that they needed the outline plan amendment to get approval for. And then this is a zoomed in version of that same diagram. You can also see that this hatching on the side here on the western side of the property says development free zone. That is a remnant from the original PUD North Park 2 outline plan. They when they created that outline plan they had decided that this area would be development free. So you can see that a portion of that area is also being captured in the historic preservation overlay. And I will say that the historic preservation overlay does not override any of the underlying zoning. That would be the PUD North Park 2. But it does provide protections for historic structures, historic landscapes, things like that, rather than affect the underlying zoning, which is the PUD with respect to uses and things like that. And then now on the screen I included the original letter that was provided by the historic preservation board of review for that outline plan amendment procedure. So this letter was presented to the plan commission and the county commissioners as part of those meeting packets that kind of generated the discussion and the push to request the HP overlay for this portion of the property. And then this is a historical map of the Hunter Valley limestone district that I spoke on earlier. Also in this presentation, as well as in the staff packet, I included a PDF of the report from the state historical archaeological and research database or shard. So it does have some contributing resources that are located within this area that is proposed to have that HP overlay. So this is some of those structures that will be protected and those other resources that may exist in this area. You'll note on the second side of the screen it says number of contributing resources 18. This survey was conducted in 2014. So things might have changed since then, but at least this is a good report to go off of what number of contributing resources are present on the property and will be protected through this HP overlay. And then finally on the right side of the screen again, it gives an architectural description that gives you a bit of a history of the section of the property with respect to the quarrying that happened there in the late 1800s through the 1900s. Okay. That brings me to the recommendation to the plan commission. Staff recommends approval of the historic preservation overlay request subject to the conditions of approval requested by the historic preservation board of review. And those are number one, the petitioner adds information on the historic preservation exhibit that accurately names and identifies each of the historic resources within the proposed designation area. Number two, the petitioner locates and documents all existing historic structures within the proposed designation area. And number three, the petitioner shall submit a written commitment and work with the legal department to consider the feasibility of the following. Should the petitioner locate any historic limestone quarry equipment outside of the proposed designation area, the petitioner shall arrange said equipment to be given to the Monroe County Board of Commissioners for use in the county owned quarry property on the north side of state route 46. I will now take any questions. Are there any questions for Drew? Hey, doesn't look like we have any. Thank you, Drew. So we will turn now to the petitioner or the petitioner's representative. If you're here in the room, you're welcome to come to the podium or if you're online, please raise your virtual hand. We're expecting a petitioner. I don't see Mr. Butler on the call, but I can say that he is aware of these conditions because he was present for that historic preservation board review meeting where these conditions of approval were generated. And I believe he has already started working on establishing getting some of those satisfied. Okay, thank you. So we will turn now to public comment if there's anybody here in the room or online that wishes to speak in favor or against this, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand. Seeing no one will come back to the plan commission for comments, questions or emotion. Before Mr. Ferris makes a motion, I just want to say I'm really grateful for the way this got done and especially point three, I think that's going to be one of the things we definitely want to include in the quarry in the uplands property is an outdoor quarry historic exhibit and that's that is wonderful. So thank you to everybody for working on that. Thank you. I concur with Commissioner Thomas on that. This does seem like a unique win-win situation for both the parcel owner and the overlay not being too prescriptive or trying to consume the entire parcel. First blush, that's very satisfactory to me. I wish the petitioner were here so I could hear it from them tonight, but I take staff's good word here and obviously good work here with the presentation that things are amenable for all concerned and moving forward here, but no, this is good. I appreciate the work. Any other comments or questions? Okay. I'll also say, you know, the petitioner I think is amenable because of the outline plan condition to do this. So I think that, you know, as far as the additional conditions on this historic preservation overlay, they are amenable to that, but the actual rezone in the historic preservation overlay was a condition to get the use. So, yeah. Yeah. Doesn't look like we have any other questions or comments, so could we get a motion? It must be my week to make motions. With respect to case number REZ254 and county commissioners for approval, a favorable recommendation of the historic preservation overlay request, which is subject to the conditions of approval requested by the historic preservation border review, I will not restate one, two, and three. You all can state what I just said. Does that include a waiver of the final hearing? That includes a waiver of a final request, yes. Second. Okay. Moved and seconded to send a favorable recommendation to the board of commissioners for REZ-25-4, the Hunter Valley Historic Landscape Historic Preservation Overlay. This includes a waiver of the final hearing and the following conditions as stated in the staff report, which I will reread for the record. These include the conditions of approval requested by the historic preservation review board, border review. One, the petitioner adds information on the historic preservation exhibit that accurately names and identifies each of the historic resources within the proposed designation area. Two, the petitioner locates and documents all existing historic structures within the proposed designation area. Three, the petitioner shall submit a written commitment and work with the legal department to consider the feasibility of the following. Should the petitioner locate any historic limestone quarry equipment outside of the proposed designation area, the petitioner shall arrange said equipment to be given to the Monroe County Board of Commissioners for use in the county-owned quarry property on the north side of State Road 46. A vote yes is a vote to send the favorable recommendation with those conditions. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Okay. The vote passes 6-0. Hey, moving on to case SIA-22-20, the Stone Lake Park Phase 6, request for an extension of performance period. Ms. Nestor-Jellen, I think that one's yours. Thank you very much. So this is the performance period completion extension request for Stone Lake Park. This is for Phase 6. This subdivision has a bit of an interesting history, as you read in the staff report. I won't go too deeply into that, but note that this is the only phase that was approved within the county jurisdiction. So it's primarily built out. This is the last phase, and they are working on finishing the final improvements. It has taken a while since it's gone lot by lot of development. I think there's only about two or three lots total left for development, so they're pretty close. So I'm going to go through just quickly some of the findings and considerations that we have. The current letter of credit for this project expires August 15, 2025. We are recommending that the project completion date be extended one year, so August 15, 2026. We hope that by that time period they would be able to complete the remaining improvements, which we understand per the preliminary plat approval, to be sidewalks, street trees, sidewalk, and inlet repair, and then we are asking for vegetation along the pond and swale. So those are numbers that relate back to the original estimate that we have in place. Since this was not further released or reduced, we have an amount that does exceed the amount left of what they have to do. So we are comfortable with the amount, but we are hopeful that we can get this to full completion and that they can get to a point where they ask for a release of all funds on or before August 15, 2026. We did speak with the petitioner, and I believe the petitioner's representative is online, so they may wish to speak. One addition was that the petitioner's representative did submit a letter, which I have included in the packet that gives some information as to why they are requesting an extension due to other circumstances. So we did also have the stormwater team go out and make an inspection, since this is sort of an interesting drain adjustment into a pond situation, since it's surrounding by all homes. We wanted to make sure that that was in good shape. So they did believe that the detention area was adequate and that they had recommended some planted vegetation, definitely in the area of the swale, just to reduce any possible erosion in the future. And then they also made a recommendation around the actual pond to put vegetation, because something I did not know. If you do vegetate the exterior of the pond, it's less likely that geese will inhabit the pond, so it just helps with water quality, as well as other complaints that come along with a lot of geese. So that was something that we are working with them on as sort of a nice thing to have, not necessarily a required thing, but we do see it as something that we could potentially see complaints about in the future. So if they're willing and able to do it out of the estimate that they already have on file, we think it could definitely be covered. And then there was also some erosion issues that our stormwater inspector notified us of and we've included in the report. So it just needs some re removal repair to be able to make sure that this is sustained long term. Now, I did note that the entire loop of Stone Lake Circle is plotted as private. So this is something where we do still require that performance guarantee to install those improvements per the ordinance, but it's not something that if once they complete it and finish it, we would be as the county liable to replace or repair any deficiencies. That said, we still want to turn over to the HOA the best possible conditions and that meet the plans. So yes, that's pretty much the gist of it. We did have part of the roadway is approved in the city jurisdiction. So it's partially city maintained in the yellow. Then it was county approved a certain extension in the blue. And then there's a light blue section here that was plotted as public but did not meet county standards and was not taken in. And so there are some things that we see we may want to work with the petitioner's representative such as the requirement for full installation of sidewalk on the north side of Stone Lake Circle just in phase six. It's currently not there at all. And so I think they would like to work with us to try to see if they can remove that requirement, for instance, and just keep sidewalk on the internal loop of Stone Lake Circle for which it goes all the way around. So with that, I can take any questions and I know the petitioner's representative may have something they'd like to add as well. Thank you, Ms. Nestor-Gellin. Are there any questions from, yeah, Mr. Farris? This is really education for me. Extend the completion date out till 2026 and the line of credit expires a year prior and there's a shortfall of, I don't know, looks like a little over 12K, something like that. How do you address that? So we are taking the performance period end date and using that as our documents that we're having the developer sign. We're telling them, please sign this with a performance guarantee of this amount. The letter of credit, we are working diligently with every developer to renew those, but we want those to be renewed under an active and valid performance period, if that makes sense. So we will renew those letters of credit as, unfortunately, as frequently as every three months with some developers. So you need an updated period of performance before you can do that. Got it. I understand. Any additional questions? If not, we can turn to the petitioner's representative if he could raise your virtual hand. Public services can allow you to unmute. Kevin Shaw has his hand raised. Mr. Shaw, are you able to unmute yourself? There you go. Yeah, I can. You have 15 minutes if you wish to use that time. Well I wasn't really prepared to speak, but yeah, I unfortunately, Mr. Shaw, my father was not feeling well, was unable to attend this evening, but anyway, as far as the extension of sidewalks on the north side, that is a sticking issue because the original approval did not bring into, did not plan for, so that is a sticking point, and also, as far as street trees, often times we wait to complete a construction on, put new street trees in, but often times it conflicts with the construction, plus the possibility of damaging, you know, endeavor to complete, things like that, so that is why there has been a delay, as was brought out, there are two additional lots there, that was the intent, to go ahead and build the structure, but you know, often times, because of demand for housing and plus the market at times, it, we are not able to sit on the wall, generally build several houses and then sit on them, so that is why this development has taken a number, and as far as the repair, that is not a problem, that is pretty much sums up what I had to say about that. Okay, thank you Mr. Shaw, do any members of the planning commission have questions for Mr. Shaw? Okay, I'm not seeing any thank you Mr. Shaw, so we can turn now to public comment, if there's anybody here in the room or online that wishes to speak in favor or against this petition, please either come to the podium or raise your virtual hand if you're online. Seeing no one, we'll come back to the planning commission for discussion, questions or a motion. I have a motion. I don't see any questions, so go ahead Mr. Ferris. All right, with respect to SIA 2220, I recommend that we approve the new period of performance extending to August 15, 2026, so the petitioner can complete all remaining improvements. And so this include a waiver of the final hearing and also, is it up there? Okay. Also wave a final hearing if there's, I don't see it on the form there, but it's been moved and seconded to approve SIA-22-20, which is the Stone Lake Park phase six request for a performance period until August 15, 2026, and this includes a waiver of the final hearing. A vote yes is a vote to approve. David Bush? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Motion is approved six to zero. Hey, moving on to our final petition of the night. This is PUO-25-2. This is the Westgate on third plan unit development outline plan, amendment three. This is the preliminary hearing with a waiver of final hearing requested. So, Ms. Crisillus, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you. All right. So, this is a request for Westgate on third PUD to amend their phasing plan. So, as you're familiar, this is a 37.99 acre property located plan unit development on West State Road 48 or West third. And I have updated this PowerPoint. So, I'm going to stop sharing for just a second, hit refresh. Hopefully, my PowerPoint will be ready. Okay. There we go. So, they are proposing a change to the phasing plan only. Traditionally, we would see a change to the PUD ordinance itself, but with the ordinance under amendment number two in 2024, they adopted a phasing plan that outlines their construction and when they would be able to receive their conditional and final land use certificates, which allows them to occupy buildings. So, the property is one lot of record. It's not platted and it was split up into eight construction phases. So, that's what's on screen. So, throughout the phasing document, there are kind of certain checkpoints along the way. So, you can obtain phase, if you get a conditional use certificate for phase three, for example, you cannot get it before phase, you could not get phase four. You have to get phase three and then four and then five. They've received a conditional land use certificate for phases one and two and are very close for phase three. Throughout the document, there are some checkpoint completion. There's some checkpoint standards within each of the phases that kind of wrap up items that were not completed in the phases before them. So, not everything within phase one has to be done when they get phase one. So, they've described what needs to be done when they can get their occupancy. So, in phase three, point three, they state that landscaping, permanent stabilization complete in phases one, two, and three. That's fine. That's complete. It goes on to say that pond number one, number three A, and number four are fully finished, parentheses including a perforated drain, crushed stone, special soil mix, and pond plantings. It says no more land disturbing activities in phase three. Submit as billed to pond number four for review by the stormwater program prior to the installation of underdrain system and final pond plantings. So, completing a bioretention pond is quite a big task. So, that's moving on. So, currently at this point within their phasing narrative as adopted, they would have to finish three ponds. Number three is pond number four, which is a very large pond. So, because of 2025 and the rainfall that they've experienced, they've encountered some delays with staying on the timeline that they wrote back in early 2024. In order to install an underdrain and finalize a bioretention pond, they have to excavate the pond, wait for it to dry, excavate out the sediment that's run into it and is being held there during construction. They have to install the underdrain, have stormwater, inspect the drain, they complete the installation, and then they add amended soils and then do plantings. It is quite a process that normally requires many days in advance of dry weather and dry soils. Because of the weather, they have not been able to complete the ponds. They have been eager, they have attempted it once before, and then was met with weather that pushed them back. Since they filed this amendment, they have taken active strides with some of the weather on the ponds. I don't know as of now with the rain that just happened yesterday and today if they were able to make any completions, but I know the petitioner is here and they could give us an update. As a reminder, within the entire development plan, it does include eight buyer retention ponds. This is something that could come up again in the future. Planning staff worked with the petitioner and the legal department to come up with language that would offer some flexibility in case of weather delays. They have added the language, "If weather conditions prevent these actions from occurring prior of the completion of phase X, the following shall apply. If the proposed use, building, or other structure is in conformity with provisions of this ordinance except for final landscaping and final stormwater infrastructure improvements, a conditional land use certificate may be granted at the administrator's discretion. The conditional land use certificate shall be valid for no longer than six months, but may be renewed for an additional six month period at the administrator's discretion." They have added this language to multiple points within their phasing narrative. They've added it for pond completion. They've added it for final asphalt surfacing, which they could encounter delays because, as we know, asphalt plants close during the winter and the phases, the construction, the current timing of their end phases could put them in winter. And then also completion of the fountain and fountain walkway. So, planning helped craft this language with the legal department and stormwater has reviewed this language as well and is in support of this. And I have some comments from Erica Pena that I can read off in just a moment. So, I have quite a few comments, but the first one I really like, which is stormwater is in favor of phasing adjustments as it will provide them the flexibility they need to continue making progress and finish requirements under the most ideal weather conditions. And that they want the ponds to be finished correctly and not quickly and that they want to work with the site as much as possible. That they are and have been communicative throughout this whole process and that ponds are currently functional, receiving drainage and discharging as designed. So, adding this into the phasing narrative, there is, of course, the site would have to reach a final completion point. So, at Phase 8, when a final LUC would be issued, we have in that same discussion with legal, it was recommended we do have a letter of credit. Stormwater holds a letter of credit for some infrastructure that could be held if, for some reason, stormwater infrastructure had not been installed to the plan and as approved by stormwater. The petitioner has been working diligently on this, so we don't think it would ever get to that point, but it is a safety net that's already built in. The letter of credit is already held by the county. So staff does recommend forwarding a positive recommendation to the county commissioners for this planned unit outline plan amendment request, subject to the Monroe County Highway and Department reports. Does anybody have any questions? Commissioner Thomas. It's more of a comment. You know, this is concerning because there's construction going on and more impervious surface being put down, yet the drainage isn't complete and that worries me, but however, if since the stormwater director planning staff and legal are okay with this and don't see this as an issue, I'm fine with it and the petitioner as well, of course, so I'm going to vote yes on this. Thank you. Further questions or comments for staff? Thank you, Ann. We can turn now to the petitioner or the petitioner's representative. If you'd be willing to sign in, state your name, you'll have 15 minutes. Good evening, everyone. I'm Ryan Huffman with Sunstone Construction, the general contractor on the project. I don't have much to add this evening. I feel like we have come together as a team and changed the plan. We're working hard to complete construction as quickly as possible. When we drafted this, like Ann said, in early 2024, had an idea but very little understanding of where we would be in terms of time of the year. This is a process that typically does better in the summer or the early fall, but in the last couple weeks since we created this amendment, we were able to get pond 3A. Ann, do you have any of the pictures that we can show that we have been working? We have the pond underdrain system installed, the amended soils sprayed in, as well as blanketing on top. That one is, for lack of a better term, is done. But as Ann has said, pond 4 is a very large pond. It has taken quite a long time to dry out, but we really haven't had it. Every time we try to watch it dry out, it just rains more in it. It's been a very odd and very wet spring, so it's kind of set us back a little bit. I won't add any more than that, but if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. Thank you, Mr. Huffman. Are there any members of the planning commission who have questions? Okay, not seeing anything. Thank you, sir. We will turn now to public comments. So if there's anyone here in the room who wishes to speak for or against this, please come forward. We do have one virtual hand raised, so if tech services could allow you to unmute, you can go ahead. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes, now we can. Oh, hi, Lisa. Hi. I just have a question on the timing of the road improvements and how far that is moved back. The reason why I ask that is because the counties worked really close with the residents out there, the school system. We put a thin layer of asphalt last year at our expense for some of the road improvements, and now we have it out for bid for a full paving for the rest of the project. And I know there's some ponding of water and some issues that need to be addressed at the entrances. So I wondered about the coordination of that with us paving the rest of Park Square. Well, I will say, Lisa, this phasing narrative change will not be impacting any of the road improvement requirement timelines. I was under the impression under the latest LUC, I thought that they, Paul did sign off on the Park Square improvements. So if there are active issues there on Park Square, I think we could work to address those. I wasn't aware that there were still issues on Park Square, so we could work with the developer on those. Okay. And that's fine. They've been good to work with and we've, Lance Asphalt is their paving company and we've reached out to him multiple times on the issues that we've seen. So, and they've been great to work with. I just didn't want to delay something that could come back and harm the condition of the roadway after it's fully paved. Yeah. All the requests for changes of the narrative are internal to the site, so they will not involve Park Square. Yeah. Good question. Okay. I just saw your road improvements to Park Square on there, so. Okay. Thank you, Lisa, for chiming in. Are there? Thank you. Any other members of the public who wish to speak? Okay. Seeing none, we can come back to the Plan Commission for comments, questions. I don't want to ruin your streak of making all the motions tonight. Okay. With respect to case number PUO 25-2, which is a request for Westgate on 3rd PUD Outline Plan Amendment Number 3. This also includes a request for waiver of the final hearing. See, I got it right this time, so. A favorable recommendation to the County Commissioners for PUD Outline Amendment Number 3, which is also subject to the County Highway Department reports. We have a, do we have a second? Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to send a favorable recommendation for PUO-25-2, Westgate on 3rd Plan Unit Development Outline Plan Amendment 3. With a waiver of final hearing, a vote yes is a vote to send a favorable recommendation and approve the waiver of final hearing. Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Okay, motion is approved 6-0. Do we have any planning or legal reports tonight? Not from legal. Great. I do not have anything just for those that sustain any storm damage. We're, you know, obviously happy to talk with anyone on the rebuilding process and hope to make it as easy as we can in terms of any CDO changes. So, happy to speak with anyone on the phone or in person Monday through Friday, 8-4 at our office and answer questions. Thank you, Jackie. Do we have a motion for adjournment? I'm moved. Okay, have a good evening, everyone. (upbeat orchestral music) ("Pomp and Circumstance") ("Pomp and Circumstance") ("Pomp and Circumstance") ("Pomp and Circumstance") ("Pomp and Circumstance") ("Pomp and Circumstance") ("Pomp and Circumstance") ("Pomp and Circumstance") ("Pomp and Circumstance")