So it's 5.30. If staff is ready, I'd like to call this meeting to order. Ms. Nestor Jelen, would you kindly call the roll? Sure. David Bush. Here. Mark Clements. Here. Tron Enright-Rando. Come back. I see he's online. Scott Farris. I think people are here. Here. Rudy Fields. Here. David Henry. Here. Jeff Morris. Here.
 Edward Oman, Julie Thomas here. OK, so we have seven members in person and one online that I'm not sure if they're having technical difficulty. But nonetheless, we have an in person quorum.
 Okay, great. And just as a courtesy, I'd like to just mention that the first two items on our agenda concerning Southern Meadows have been continued by the petitioner. And so that involves new business SPP-24-4 and SIA 22-28. So those cases will not be heard tonight, just as a courtesy to let you know. Okay. And would you kindly introduce the evidence, Ms. Nesterjellen?
 I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance has adopted and amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan has adopted and amended. The Monroe County Planning Commission Rules of Procedure has adopted and amended in the cases that were legally advertised and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's agenda. Move approval of the evidence. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Margaret Clements. Yes. John and Ray Randolph.
 Scott Ferris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Motion is approved, seven to zero. Okay, I believe Mr. Henry Randolph is present and his camera is turned on so he could vote to approve the evidence if you call upon him.
 Yes. Okay. Motion is approved eight to zero. Thank you. Is there with that caveat that under new business items one and two have been continued by petitioner. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? Second. Been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as published. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Tron and Ray Randolph? Yes. Ferris? Yes.
 Yes. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Motion is approved 8 to 0. There are minutes that are requested to be approved. Is there a motion for June 17th? I move approval of the June 17th, 2025 minutes. Second.
 It's been moved and seconded to approve the approval of minutes from June 17th, 2025. A vote yes is about to approve the minutes. Scott Ferris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. John Henry Randolph. Yes. Motion is approved eight to zero.
 Okay, we're going straight to administrative business. And the first item on the agenda is CDO amendment prioritization list. Ms. Nestor Jelen, would you update us on your progress, on all of our progress, I mean? Sure, so the last amendment to this was done on June 11th. So since our last meeting, there hasn't been any new updates, but we have been able to,
 complete or substantially complete many items on the list and if you follow that link it will be in red text which items have been completed the ordinance review committee is continuing to look through the remaining items on this list are there any questions for staff no okay I would like to move on then
 to number two, the findings for SPP-24-4 Southern Meadows Major Subdivision Preliminary Platt Amendment number two. Thank you very much. Dave Schilling from the legal department. These are proposed findings in fact, which you're required to consider and approve in some form for the blind squirrels case, the judicial review action.
 so all all of your decisions must be supported by written findings of fact and these are those and and we're asking you to consider them and approve them if you agree with them and they will be submitted as part of the record to the reviewing court i believe within two or three days okay yeah so is there any discussion among the plan commission members i'm going to start to my left no to my right
 Mr. Henry. Thank you. I just want to be clear. I know we talked about this in the administrative meeting two weeks ago, but have we just in this draft rectified the the parties? Because I know we had some confusion about two different organizations in here. Is that cleared up to your satisfaction? I think we had referenced the owners of Blind Squirrel and then Blind Squirrel and then another firm. But does that do you all recollect that?
 It was one change since the administrative meeting, and that was regarding a request to spell out C-I-N-L. We left a, we put in parentheses what that was referencing, and that's the name of the Blind Squirrels development plan for two phases. So I can find. Yeah, I appreciate which page just to direct our attention. Thank you. It's on page
 Nine of the packet, and it's number 28. Thank you. That's all. Any other? I can't see online if anyone has his hand raised. No. Yes, Mr. Shelley. I would note in finding number 13 on page seven of the packet,
 It should read approximately 26% of phase three remains to be completed. So if a motion is made to approve this, could the motioning person amend it by correcting item number 13 to say phase three?
 And also, if a motion is made to approve this, then authorization must also be given to the person you would like to have sign this document. And it's defaulted to the Planning Commission President, which would be Margaret. Yes. So there are two modifications of what is before you if a motion is made. I think the published packet does have just Margaret's signature on it. That's in page 12 of the packet.
 So moved? Yeah, so moved as staff articulated. Second? Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve the findings for SPP-24-4, Southern Meadows Major Subdivision Preliminary Platt Amendment 2. In your recommendation for approval,
 commission member Henry, does that include the approval to change the item listed? Okay. As, as, as articulated by staff. Okay. Item 13 changed to phase three and then it's authorized. Uh, president Clemens for signature. Okay. Thank you. All right. A vote. Yes. Is a vote to approve the findings and, uh, with the changes as mentioned by staff. Rudy fields. Yes.
 David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Tron Henry Randolph? Yes. Did his camera go on? Okay, great. Scott Ferris? Yes. Motion is approved, eight to zero.
 Okay we have no unfinished business and as I said before under new business the first two items have been continued by petitioner so we're to item number three already for si a-22-24 the final plat amendment for one king's crossing
 subdivision this is a request for extension of performance period um this is the preliminary hearing and a waiver of final hearing has been requested concerning 33.99 north finance road in richland township section 24 miss bareman yeah i'm gonna go ahead and just orientate ourselves um as to where this unfinished subdivision is um
 the King's Crossing subdivision here at Arlington Road and Highway 46. And if you just kind of traveled through that stop light, this is Finance Road. They had two lots that have been developed. This one more recently, I believe in 2008, it's in the report. And this lot 9B has not been developed yet, and hence this part of the road has not been completed, which is supposed to be the public improvements.
 So currently have posted a letter of credit for $43,730, which matches an estimate from when they originally reduced in 2014. They originally had a $90,000 plus letter of credit. They reduced it that one time back in 2014. The plat had been recorded December 5th, 2013. So this subdivision is more than 10 years old. So actually there's a part of the,
 the CDO, the County Development Ordinance, that we can look at here under 833-7 for failure to complete improvements, and that's very specific to if it's a 10-year-old plus subdivision. We've been communicating with this developer, and they've been excellent. They've been doing all the things they need to do. There's not even a question here as to what's going on, so they are pursuing
 the renewal for a performance period extension, which kind of requires them to do a few things. One of those is to submit a new estimate, which they did do. Took some iterations and some communication with the highway department, but we came to an agreed upon estimate amount, which is $101,608.
 92 cents. And then they also agreed upon a performance period of three years. They're going to anticipate that with market and how that's going that it might still be some time before they sell that lot and develop it. So with that, then we put interest into the calculations. And the interest turns out to be about $33,632.
 which then highlighted there is the letter of credit that we're gonna be requiring be submitted on September the 12th, 2025. We will also be asking them to update their performance bond document before then, and also their letter of, yeah, the performance bond document. And I think we'll also be updating the subdivision improvement agreement as well, because they did add a year from when we last talked with them in the fall.
 So yeah, just within the packet, just kind of have a summary of completions. They've done two of their three lots. There's one remaining. There's a road and an eight foot side path that needs to be completed. We saw where this is located. This is the new estimate that was kind of
 with the developers engineer and the highway department is where they came up with the agreed upon estimate number this does not any longer include a 10% maintenance bond we used to include those in the letter of credits we're not doing that anymore that will come later but it's just a communication we still kind of kind of state what it will be once the road is accepted into inventory so
 Yeah, I think that's about it with that. Let me go back to the recommendation here. Staff recommends a three-year extension of the performance period until September 20th, 2028, and post an adjusted inflation amount of $135,241.47. That's based upon the updated estimate in exhibit two.
 and the amount moving forward will not include maintenance bond amount. That will be required at the time of the acceptance into the county inventory and the highway department will be managing those funds at that time. And just to reiterate, the developer has been communicating an interest in completing these improvements, but they stated that they have to sell the lot first and it's a commercially zoned lot. So that's kind of where we're at with this one.
 Okay, wonderful. If the petitioner is here or online and would like to speak, please come to the podium and sign in. I see Jim Register with his hand raised. Wonderful. So if he could be promoted or allowed to speak. I think you might have to unmute yourself, Mr. Register, if possible.
 Thank you. Can you try speaking so we can see if we can hear you? The show's unmuted and that he was moved to a presenter. If you would please try to speak so we might maybe
 Your microphone volume is down or something. We aren't hearing. I need to leave and rejoin the meeting. Mr. Register, unfortunately, we think that you might have to leave the meeting and rejoin it in order to, for us to be able to hear you. So if you don't mind logging off and checking back in.
 through that Microsoft Teams link. We hope it works. Oh, he said in the comments that he has no further comments. Oh, there you go. Wonderful. Thank you for writing that in. Now we'll open to the public. And if the public has any comments, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand to be recognized.
 We see no one. And is there a member of the public who is opposed to this request? If so, please raise your virtual hand or come to the podium to speak. And if there's none, I turn back to the members of the plan commission and I'm going to look to my right to see if there are any questions. No. And to my left. Okay. And online. Oh, Mr. Enright Randolph has his hand raised.
 Yes, just with some of the new rules, I just want I wanted to make my comment before we went to a vote and just say thank you for working well with the planning department with getting their support and being willing to kind of add the inflation amount to this request. And I returned to members of the plan for commission for a motion.
 For case SIA-22-24, I move approval of a three-year extension of the performance period until September 20th, 2028, and a post-adjusted inflation amount of $135,241.47, based on the updated estimate in exhibit two. And a waiver of final hearing? And a waiver of final hearing. Great. I'll second.
 Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve SIA-22-24, which is the final plot amendment one King's Crossing subdivision for the information as stated in the packet and as reiterated by commission member Morris. A vote yes is a vote to approve with the waiver of final hearing. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush?
 Margaret Clements. Yes. Tron and Ray Randolph. Yes. Scott Ferris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. Motion is approved eight to zero. Thank you Mr. Register. Okay we're on to item number four which is ZOA-25-4 amendment to the county development ordinance to reflect SEA
 This is a preliminary hearing, and a waiver of final hearing has been requested. And if you would please review this with us, Ms. Nestor Jelen. Jelen, do you want to present as well, or do you want me to take it? This is one of the many interesting changes that the legislature has
 given us to deal with this year and this relates to certain electric generating facilities and where they can be located in Monroe County or in any county and the legislation authorizes counties to put a
 I would say a moratorium of up to one year on the establishment of these facilities. And there's not a lot of information on this, but it appears to be related to electric generating facilities associated with data centers and possibly nuclear electrical generation.
 So if the facility is regulated by the Utilities Regulatory Commission, then they're not subject to zoning anyway and they can go wherever they will, wherever the Utilities Regulatory Commission approves them. So these are non-Utility Regulatory Commission regulated public utilities. And so this ordinance is designed just to put a one-year moratorium on that to give the county a little bit more time to
 find out what's going on and consider any regulatory responses it might have. Hey, well, are there members of the public who would like to speak on this? If so, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand, either for or against this ordinance that would create a temporary moratorium, right?
 Okay. Are there members of the plan commission who would like to deliberate on this? If so, I'm going to look to my left to see if there are questions or comments. Yes. I would like to give one comment. I think I'm going to support the one-year temporary prohibition.
 because this is happening way, way, way too fast for my utility background, and it's still very fast. So I will probably. Thank you for sharing your insight. And I'll look to my right to see if yes, Mr. Henry. Thank you, President Clemens.
 Mr. Schilling, I guess, just so I understand, and I'm for, I agree, I'm for whatever we can do to take the pause here to explore what this really means, because it seems like there's a lot of opacity from the state. But Mr. Schilling, so just, I did have a basic question. So do you view the way the language is written here, that when we get into this business about the construction or deployment of facilities that would be using the generation of electricity, that wouldn't, like,
 stop substations from being built at this point, right? Like even though a substation in theory could move electricity along from a facility, but we can still build, like if, and I guess if a utility under the control of the utility commission, they would be able to put a substation in the county anyway. So this has nothing to do with that aspect of this. Right. All right. And that's what we believe, but we don't know because they don't really give us any directions in the statute. It's pretty, pretty vague.
 Yeah, and I appreciate the clarity you gave earlier about what these could be in terms of a private enterprise providing their own generation through something that's fossil oriented or small package nuclear oriented, which I know that has been explored at the state. So yeah, I very much agree with the pause. I'm sure we're going to be wrestling with this for the next year anyway. So thank you. Thomas?
 And just to be clear, this does not include wind or solar generating projects. Right. Electricity generated by wind or solar. Sorry. So it leaves that out specifically. And so we really are talking about these other kinds of generation of power projects and the dangers they can pose to our community. So thank you. I can't see if Mr. Enright Randolph has his hand raised or not.
 Okay, so is there a motion on this item? Along with the consideration for the waiver of final hearing? Yes, did I do a public comment? I can't keep track.
 For case ZOA-25-4 I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the amendment to the county development ordinance to reflect SEA 425 and I also recommend a waiver of final hearing. Second. Okay it's been moved and seconded to approve ZOA-25-4 now let me
 leave in here this is also going to go to the board of commissioners so we're forwarding a recommendation for their final approval and this amendment would be at first an ordinance outside of the CDO but anticipating it to be reflected within the CDO in the future. This vote is a waiver of the final hearing and if you vote yes it's a vote to send a favorable recommendation. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes.
 David Bush. Yes. Mark Clements. Yes. Tron and Ray Randolph. Yes. Scott Farris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. So yes. Yes. Yes. OK. Motion carries 8 to 0. OK. Well, do we have any reports from planning or from legal or from anyone? No?
 Well, is there another motion we'd like to hear? I move we adjourn. Okay. Anybody object? Great. Have a wonderful evening everyone. Thank you for all of your good efficient work.