WEBVTT 00:00:00.514 --> 00:00:27.774 - It's 5.30 PM and I'd like to call to order the Monroe County Plan Commission if you would kindly call the roll. David Bush. Margaret Clements. Here. Tron Enroy-Rando. Ferris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Here. David Henry. Oh, I did hear a faint here. 00:00:30.402 --> 00:00:48.126 - He said he was joining us virtually. Yes, okay. Jeff Morris? Here. Edward Ullman? Here. Julie Thomas? Here. Okay, so we have seven members attending in a quorum. 00:00:48.898 --> 00:01:12.926 - 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. I move approval of the evidence as introduced. Second. 00:01:13.570 --> 00:01:41.886 - It's been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Jeff Morris? Yes. Edward Ullman? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. 00:01:42.434 --> 00:02:11.454 - Motion is approved seven to zero. And tech services, if we could turn up the volume a bit, I think we're expecting a few people online and we're not quite able to hear Mr. Henry quite as well. Okay, well, before we approve the agenda, I'd like to ask a question and I believe Commissioner Thomas has a question to raise as well. I know that there are 00:02:11.842 --> 00:02:33.758 - community members who would like to speak on the Bella Vista subdivision section three and also on the North Shore amendment one for requests for extension of performance period. Are there other members of the public or petitioner representatives who would like to speak on other performance period extension requests? 00:02:36.482 --> 00:02:59.262 - If there are people online who would like to speak on other items on the agenda, please raise your hand. Otherwise, I'd like my colleagues to consider whether or not you would like to approve staff's recommendation wholeheartedly and group these requests for extension of 00:02:59.458 --> 00:03:28.926 - performance period with the exception of SIA-22-28 and SIA-22-5. And so what I'm asking as far as the agenda is concerned is to group together the requests for extension of performance period if you're willing, except for in the cases of Bella Vista and North Shore, if you're willing to accept the staff's recommendation. 00:03:29.314 --> 00:03:58.526 - So, would you please consider that when we approve the agenda? If so, we need a motion to combine the request for extension into one item with the presumption being that we would accept the staff's recommendation unless the presumption is that we reject all of them. So, is there any discussion on that proposal or is there any ideas? Yes, Mr. Ullman. 00:03:58.978 --> 00:04:25.918 - Um my my only concern on this and I don't know what you guys have more experience with me on typical you know adjusting of the agenda is there any concern about the potential of members of the public seeing these things a little later in the agenda and expecting them not show up right at 5 30 you know maybe they were intending to show up at 5 45 6 o'clock whatever it is and I I just I only 00:04:26.114 --> 00:04:53.310 - question that since you asked about the presence of people in the public you know maybe there was something else somebody was planning on commenting on but wasn't planning on being here right at 5 30 since they saw it later in the agenda wonder what my colleagues think about that we typically don't have a lot of public discussion about the extension of performance period it's really a financial agreement 00:04:53.666 --> 00:05:18.686 - with the developer and with the planning department. So I wouldn't anticipate that. I think we could open anything if somebody did come. I think we could reopen anything we wanted to. But I think it's a good idea to combine them. Well, then is there a motion to change the agenda as such? And I would say as far as the 00:05:19.362 --> 00:05:48.574 - items to be grouped together, it'd be SIA-22-21, Freeman Field Subdivision Phase 2 Request for Inflation Adjusted Performance Guarantee Grant, Freeman Field Subdivision Phase 3 Status Update Request for Inflation Adjusted Performance Guarantee Amount, Deckard Sliding Scale, SIA-23-17, a Request for Performance Guarantee Release. 00:05:48.738 --> 00:06:15.646 - SIA-22-9, Holland Fields, major subdivision phase one, subdivision improvement agreement and a request for performance period extension and a request for inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount, final hearing. The Holland three lot minor subdivision request for inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount. That's item number SIA-22-18. 00:06:16.610 --> 00:06:46.174 - and the road name change would have to go separately. I would just stop there. Yes. I would just stop there. You got anything in unfinished business and administrative? There is one last one, the Eagle Cove condominiums phase two, the point, performance period extension request. And this is the preliminary hearing with the waiver of final hearing requested. So we would group those together under one item on the agenda. 00:06:46.306 --> 00:07:16.254 - Does staff have any hesitations about that? The only hesitation is items two, three, and four are under administrative business, which does not call for public comment. Items one and two and five under an unfinished business, they do have the ability to speak for those items since those are hearing items, not just administrative. Like speakers on any of them, I think. 00:07:17.474 --> 00:07:45.694 - If we can go in that order that you suggested, and I would just do maybe the two, three, and four together, and then one, two, and five together. Okay. Okay. So that is technically a motion to adjust the agenda for this evening and expedite the proceedings. Okay, so if you would kindly call the roll on that. The motion is to amend the agenda. 00:07:46.082 --> 00:08:14.238 - To move item number five Eagle Cove condominium space to GPU D 23-2 under unfinished Or the first thing under new business is what this would be a vote. Yes is a vote to approve the amendment to the agenda Rudy fields David Henry 00:08:16.674 --> 00:08:43.134 - Jeff Morris? Yes. Edward Ullman? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Motion is approved seven to zero. And tech services, is it David Henry's audio that is the issue or is it the room? Do we know? Okay, thank you. 00:08:43.682 --> 00:09:10.046 - Commissioner Thomas, did you have a question? I do have a question about an item on our agenda that was withdrawn, if I might, just for our edification. And that would be under new business item 2 SPP-24-4 Southern Meadows. I'm wondering if you could tell us what it means that it was withdrawn by the petitioner. What is the status of the project as a result of being withdrawn? 00:09:10.498 --> 00:09:33.726 - Sure. So this was an amendment just to the approved written commitments that were previously approved. So they withdrew it and they would like to keep the amendment, the written commitment amendments that were previously approved by the plan commission, but that we had a judicial review filed for. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. 00:09:37.218 --> 00:10:04.734 - There are no minutes to approve and there is item number one that is still on the agenda for the CDO amendment prioritization list. And this will be an update by Ms. Nestor-Gellin. Yes, real quick. We do not have anything yet drafted in terms of a text amendment for an update, but we have been speaking with the ordinance review committee and expect one or two text amendments to be coming through the plan commission soon. 00:10:05.314 --> 00:10:30.046 - Okay and as Commissioner or as Director Jelen has recommended we'll group together items 2, 3 and 4 under administrative business and that's SIA-22-21, SIA-22-23 and SIA-23-17 and these have to do with 00:10:30.402 --> 00:11:00.318 - performance guarantees amounts and adjusting for inflation and for a performance guarantee release. And in the report documented by staff, their recommendations are pretty clear. So is there a motion to approve those three items under administrative business? Yes. I move that we approve as recommended by staff SAE 00:11:00.706 --> 00:11:19.806 - 22, 21, SIA 22, 23, SIA 23, 17. Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve all three items, SIA 22-21, which is to have the petitioner 00:11:19.906 --> 00:11:31.390 - post a new total amount for performance guarantee of $476,463 and 59 cents as agreed upon between staff and the petitioner. 00:11:31.522 --> 00:11:56.126 - SIA-22-23 which is for phase 3 and the amount to be posted is $476,878.97 and then SIA-23-17 which is a release of funds of $8,050 in return for the completion of the East Fox Lane 00:11:56.226 --> 00:12:23.422 - improvements. A vote yes is a vote to approve all three items. David Henry. Jeff Morris. Yes. Edward Ullman. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Scott Paris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. Motion is approved seven to zero. 00:12:24.866 --> 00:12:53.502 - Okay, and I got a little confused here because if it's acceptable, I do see attorney Allen in the audience. If it's acceptable under unfinished business to group items one and two, which are SIA-22-9 and SIA-22-18 together with, in order to expedite the program, if that's acceptable to do, 00:12:53.634 --> 00:13:22.622 - and Mr. Allen has shook his head yes. So if there's a motion to group those together in order to accept staff's recommendation. Yes, Colonel Farris. Motion to approve and combine SIA 229 and SIA 2218. And I just see that Mr. Henry's hand is raised. So do you mind pausing for a moment? And Mr. Henry, if you'd turn on your camera, 00:13:22.946 --> 00:13:52.606 - Oh, it's up there. Okay. Yes. First of all, if we can get the chat turned back on, because we are having video and audio problems in the room. So I have no way to communicate if I keep getting cut out. It's a year end, not mine. I just wanted to make sure we have a way to communicate because I keep, the now you keep dropping in the meeting and it's clear other members of the public are losing it too. 00:13:53.410 --> 00:14:22.750 - Can we get the chat back on so at least I can communicate in? Okay. We're told by tech services that there was a technical issue that's since been resolved. Can you hear us okay now? Yeah, that's fine. But yeah, just as long as there's a way to get some message into the room, because I keep getting cut out and now chat has been turned off as well. So if we can get that steady, that's fine. 00:14:23.010 --> 00:14:49.694 - Thank you. I'll see if we can turn the chat back on for that purpose and maybe just have tech services monitor that until the technical issue is resolved. I'm not sure we can use chat. I'm not sure we can legally use chat. I just need to be able to let you know it's off, right? Because I just missed a whole section of the agenda where I was unable to make a comment. So I just need some way to let you know it's out so I can participate. 00:14:52.866 --> 00:15:20.222 - Okay, so we have a motion. Is there a second? I did second. Okay. And so Director Nestor-Gellin, if you would kindly call the roll on these two items under unfinished business. Okay. So this is for SIA-22-9 and SIA-22-18. I'll go ahead and go through the staff recommendation and then call the roll. 00:15:20.386 --> 00:15:47.614 - The staff recommendation on SIA-22-9 is to continue the petition to September 25th, 2025. And the recommendation on SIA-22-18, which is the Holland three lot minor, is similarly to continue it to September 25th, 2025. You want me to go ahead and call the roll on that? Yes, please. Okay. I will go ahead and call the roll. A vote yes is to 00:15:47.746 --> 00:16:17.278 - continue both items to September 25th, 2025. Jeff Morris? Yes. Edward Ullman? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Motion is approved, seven to zero. Now we'll proceed to the GPUD-23-2, item number five, 00:16:17.794 --> 00:16:45.662 - under new business this is the eagle cove condominium space to the point performance period extension request um with a request for final hearing a waiver of final hearing requested and i want to just double check is there any member of the public who would intend to speak on this today if so please raise your virtual hand or let us know here in this room if not is there a motion by 00:16:45.826 --> 00:17:07.646 - anyone of my colleagues to approve this with staff's recommendation? Yes, Colonel Farris. I recommend that we accept staff's recommendation and approve CPUD 2322. I'm sorry, two. With a waiver of final? Plus a waiver of final hearing. Okay. Second. 00:17:09.346 --> 00:17:39.262 - Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve GPUD-23-2 with a waiver of final hearing requested. And the vote is to extend the performance period until March 1st, 2029 and post a new letter of credit amount with the Planning Department in the amount of $29,754.89. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Julie Thomas? 00:17:40.546 --> 00:17:55.006 - David Booker, Margaret Clements? Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Edward Holman? Yes. Motion is approved seven to zero. 00:17:55.362 --> 00:18:22.494 - Okay, so now we're back to the road name change from West Gordon Pike to West Fullerton Pike, beginning West of Clearview Drive roundabout for Fullerton Pike connection. And this is item number RD-25-1. And this is the preliminary hearing with a waiver of final hearing requested. And Mr. Brown will review this with us. Thank you. 00:18:23.394 --> 00:18:52.926 - So the purpose of this is to rename a section of West Corden Pike to West Florton Pike, most notably the area near the Monroe County Public Library to the west and towards the west. The petitioner was the Monroe County Highway Department, and they requested that planning staff facilitate this petition. So they're requesting approximately 2,500 linear feet for the portion from where 00:18:53.218 --> 00:19:18.750 - West Gordon Pike intersects with South Clearview Drive to what was West Gordon Pike's western terminus. I believe now that it's directly connected to West Fullerton Pike as of the new construction that was completed. Additionally, there is a new segment of approximately 2,100 linear feet of road recently built that requires naming and is also requesting the name of Fullerton Pike. 00:19:19.330 --> 00:19:44.894 - So the petition is being requested because of that new roundabout being installed at that intersection. Indiana state statute 36-7-4-405 gives authority to the planning commission to assign street names and numbers. The only comments we have from county departments at this time is from the planning department in regards to addressing the requests 00:19:45.570 --> 00:20:10.302 - It appears that only one existing address will be impacted along this section of roadway, that being 1401 West Gordon Pike. While final determination for our new address is petting the establishment of official road ranges, staff's initial proposal is that the address be changed to 1401 West Fullerton Pike. And here is the petitioner letter from the Monroe County Highway Department. 00:20:13.602 --> 00:20:39.358 - as well as some images of the current construction. The image on the left shows the new roundabouts where the proposed road name change is suggested to begin and continuing into the image on the right, which is further construction. And in this slide, the image on the left shows where what is currently West Gordon Pike connects to West Fullerton Pike. 00:20:39.682 --> 00:21:06.942 - And the image on the right is the sole property that will be impacted by address changes should this road name change be approved. And here's just an aerial view showing what part of West Gordon Pike will be affected. The property whose address will be changing if this is approved is outlined in light blue. And here is the image showing the new extent of West Fullerton Pike. 00:21:10.722 --> 00:21:38.718 - and so I will answer any questions. Yeah, for the record and as you know, the presider over this meeting, I see that Mr. Enright Randolph has arrived and that he's present, his hand is raised. So, and he was here at the beginning of your presentation. So we will continue with the agenda and I will ask my colleagues, do you have any questions for staff at this time? 00:21:40.130 --> 00:22:09.150 - No. Are there members of the public who would like to speak on this issue about the road and address, road name and address change for one residence? There are no members of the public who would like to speak. So is there a motion from the plan commission? Yes, Mr. Fields. When you were asking questions, I didn't. Yes. Is anyone upset about this? 00:22:09.922 --> 00:22:39.902 - We have not received any remonstrance or support for this petition. Yes, Mr. Morris. Yeah, I had a question, too. This may be for Highway, but I support the petition. But I'm just curious if there's been any conversation about renaming the entire stretch of Gordon Pike to Fullerton to provide some continuity. I believe there has been, but one of the hesitations has been that there's going to be numerous addresses 00:22:40.034 --> 00:23:08.190 - east of the library that gained access from West Court and Pike and thus would cause a number of addresses to be changed. And then you'd have to add in rural road as well. I believe Lisa Ridge is online too if you want the highway department to comment as well. Lisa Ridge if you would like to give us any additional information we'd be glad to hear you. Good evening can you hear me? Yes. 00:23:09.378 --> 00:23:39.198 - I don't really have anything to add. Daniel did a great job. We were just wanting to try and be consistent of, you know, traveling on a road and the name changes like three times, but I would love it if it narrowed down to just a couple of names, but we thought this is kind of the best avenue at this point. With that being said, is there a motion? Colonel Paris. My turn this month. 00:23:39.842 --> 00:24:09.406 - The motion that we approve RD 25-1, which is a roandame change from West Gordon Pike to West Fullerton Pike, beginning west of Clearview Drive roundabout for the Fullerton Pike connection. And this is also approving the waiver of a final hearing request. What about that address change for 1401? Absolutely. Yes. Support. And would put the motion to take and include that. 00:24:12.866 --> 00:24:42.846 - All right, the motion is to approve the road name change from West Gordon Pike to West Fullerton Pike beginning west to Clearview Drive roundabout to Fullerton Pike connection. This is RD-25-1. A vote yes is a vote to approve the road name change. Margaret Clements? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. 00:24:43.842 --> 00:24:59.518 - Jeff Morris? Yes. Edward Ullman? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Motion is approved, seven to zero. Ron Enright-Randolph is here. Oh, I'm sorry, Ron Enright-Randolph. Thank you, and my apologies for being tardy. Yes. 00:25:00.258 --> 00:25:27.390 - Motion is approved eight to zero. Okay, so we've wound up now to only two items left on the agenda. And that would be item number three under new business, SIA-22-28, Bella Vista subdivision section three, a request for extension of performance period. And this is the preliminary hearing and there's a request for waiver of final hearing concerning 50 parcels on 85, 00:25:27.490 --> 00:25:38.750 - plus or minus acres in section 15 and 16 of Clear Creek Township at the 2300 block of Strain Ridge Road. And Ms. Nestor Jelen, if you would review this with us. 00:25:40.034 --> 00:26:10.000 - Sure. So we have been speaking with the petitioner's representative on this request. And I believe they'll be on to speak. Angela Parker will be here to speak on this. But I'll give a brief overview since we've been working with the petitioner's representative. So this is Bell Vista Section 3. It was recorded on November 30, 2006. And on the preliminary plat that was approved, it included sidewalks and street trees. 00:26:10.000 --> 00:26:32.542 - The subdivision has been primarily built out in this section and so there are a lot of homes that are existing. The yellow on the screen here is the location where there are sidewalks to be placed if they were to follow the preliminary plat. 00:26:32.642 --> 00:26:50.622 - So what we've asked from the petitioner's representative is that they give us an updated amount of performance guarantee to complete the improvements as originally approved and as approved by the Planning Commission in 2006. 00:26:50.722 --> 00:27:07.998 - The issue is that because the time period has lapsed or the time period since 2006 to today, inflation has taken a large amount of that funds that we have currently, which is about $50,000, and made that 00:27:08.162 --> 00:27:37.534 - inadequate for completing the project if they were to default. So what we're considering tonight is one of the options under chapter 833, which is to provide the petitioner with an additional one year time period and to update the letter of credit amount to meet current day pricing, which would be $628,382.24. 00:27:37.666 --> 00:28:07.632 - Now, in speaking with the petitioner's representative and the neighbors in this subdivision, several neighbors have expressed that they do not want to see sidewalks in their established neighborhood. One reasoning is that in order to put in this sidewalk segment, it would disrupt the already existing drainage ditch that's on either side of the road. And also, a lot of people's driveways would have to likely be 00:28:07.632 --> 00:28:10.270 - be taken out and reinstalled. 00:28:10.402 --> 00:28:40.368 - because this is only considering the performance period and the update to the guarantee amount, the Plan Commission under this SIA cannot waive the sidewalk requirement that would have to come back to the Plan Commission as a plat amendment. So that's a separate process, but I believe that the petitioner's representative would like to talk through something that they would see as a possible alternative, and we can answer any questions 00:28:40.368 --> 00:29:05.662 - questions that you might have. I know in speaking with a lot of neighbors out here many of them are wanting to speak or might be concerned about the sidewalks and street tree requirement so I've sent them all this report and since this is part of a public hearing they do have the opportunity to to speak on this as well. Take any questions. Well I think in Mr. 00:29:06.754 --> 00:29:35.582 - Carmen is expected or? It's Angela Parker. Angela Parker. And she is online. Oh, great. So let's hear from the petitioner's representative. And Ms. Parker, you'll have 15 minutes to review your case with us. Good evening. I'm sorry, I'm remote tonight and not there, but I'm getting my grandson off to kindergarten in Florida. So I'm here and not, so I apologize 00:29:35.714 --> 00:30:05.566 - Otherwise, I would definitely be there in person. I appreciate the opportunity to address the issues. This petition filed by the county is asking us to up our bond from $50,770, extend the time to do the sidewalk, which I think there's a little bit more work beyond the sidewalk, but that's the main cost here. And the initial estimate for that was $147,000 00:30:05.890 --> 00:30:30.590 - $111, give or take. And we were trying to work within the confines of that estimate to reach some kind of an agreement with planning and talked with the county legal as well to try to find a path forward. There's a lot of feedback. I don't know if coming through or if there's feedback on your end, but at any rate, 00:30:30.978 --> 00:30:56.862 - Then there was a reevaluation as we were discussing our options to move forward on this and the reevaluation moved that estimate to over $628,000, which is just not feasible and is frankly not reasonable. So we're at the point now where the developer is Bellavista Corporation 00:30:57.154 --> 00:31:25.438 - It is wholly owned by Dr. Polling, is not in a position currently, been given consent to share this information with the commission, is not in a position, he's nearing 90 years of age and is not in the greatest of health and is therefore not in a position to try to move forward with a Platt Amendment or further 00:31:25.602 --> 00:31:54.334 - opening this up to further review on the side rock requirement or some relief from that requirement. And so what we have tried to work through is to reach some agreement with the county. It seems evident that the county, if there is a default on the bond, let me just say that, and the county drew that financial guarantee, first of all, would not be sufficient. 00:31:54.434 --> 00:32:19.294 - to develop the sidewalks. And the second thing is that it's not reasonable to do that. And I understand that that is not before the commission tonight. So I'm not asking you to necessarily weigh in on that other than to disrupt, I think it ends up being 38 people's driveways, excavation elevations, ditches, every single person that we've heard from 00:32:19.618 --> 00:32:48.638 - in the neighborhood, many of whom are either online and some there, 100% of the people that we've heard from object to that occurring in this very well established neighborhood. They're very long time residents there and they don't want that kind of disruption or sidewalks in the neighborhood. So as a result of all the circumstances that exist, which are a bit unique in that this has rolled forward 00:32:48.994 --> 00:33:17.758 - for 19, I mean, it's been years since 2006 that we're now at a point where it's not feasible for us to look at doing a plat amendment that the developer is not able to do that. And so we are proposing to the county that it take the financial guarantee 00:33:18.114 --> 00:33:43.838 - that we agree on certain improvements like the street trees and other assistance with the highway department on road maintenance and things like snow removal and settle it by the financial agreement with a commitment about what those funds would be used for after conversation with planning, which they can respond to as well. 00:33:43.970 --> 00:34:09.310 - seems clear that planning doesn't have the funds, the county doesn't have the funds to install sidewalks and maybe doesn't have the appetite to do that. And the developer is not in a position, the sole owner of the developer is not in a position to take that on and so cannot do so. So our proposal is to settle the matter by drawing on the financial guarantee 00:34:09.570 --> 00:34:37.662 - and completing agreed upon improvements to the extent the guarantee is available to do that. Thank you. Thank you. Do members of the Planning Commission have questions for Ms. Parker? I have a question for staff. Okay. Would you like to ask that question of staff now, or do you want to? Oh, this would be great if it's okay. 00:34:37.954 --> 00:35:07.358 - Mr. Schilling, I mean, it seems like, hey, well, we've waited this many years and we didn't do what we promised. And people bought lots based on the promise that it would be finished and completed per the plat. And now we're saying, no, we're just waiting it out. And now there's money sitting on the table. You take the money county and you're never going to install sidewalks. What are your thoughts on this? 00:35:08.002 --> 00:35:31.582 - Well, Justin has been the attorney dealing with this, but I haven't looked at the HOA documents to see if a suit could be initiated against the HOA or any of the property owners at this point to get those sidewalks completed. I mean, I think that would be something to look into. 00:35:32.482 --> 00:35:53.950 - I think it's a, it's my understanding that the county has accepted that road into the county inventory. Okay. Well, let's hear from the public. Oh, Mr. Enright Randolph. And this is just to help. Is there an address or something within this subdivision I can use so I can kind of zoom in? 00:35:54.242 --> 00:36:23.806 - And I won. Sure. The very eastern corner, you could look up 1656 East Tierney Street, T-I-E-R-N-E-Y. Got it. Thank you so much. Can I just note one thing very quickly that was mentioned earlier? Yes. There is no HOA in this subdivision. So there are just the owners, obviously, but there is no formed HOA. 00:36:24.898 --> 00:36:49.662 - Okay, thank you for that piece of information. We're going to turn to the public now. Madam President, I have just one more question and it's to staff and I think I just want to make sure that we repeat this and maybe say in a more simple way, but Director Nestor Jelen or Assistant Director Behrman. 00:36:51.394 --> 00:37:09.502 - We're not here to discuss sidewalks today, regardless of the position that we may feel that is not in the purview of our conversation, correct? So the discussion tonight is simply about the performance period. 00:37:09.666 --> 00:37:35.454 - And that has lapsed. So we're recommending one more year. But as such, under Chapter 833, there are recommendations for how we move forward. So one option is to extend the performance period. Another option is to draw the financial guarantee. Another option is to complete all or some of the improvements as funding allows from the withdrawn financial guarantee on file. 00:37:35.746 --> 00:38:05.086 - Another option is sue the developer for any funds necessary to complete the improvements and fund a maintenance bond and lastly seek any remedy necessary to achieve the purposes of this chapter and as allowed by law or this ordinance so staff has recommended a performance period extension But I believe that the petitioners representative is seeking more on the item of drawing the financial guarantee Okay, and I just wanted to ask that due to your 00:38:05.762 --> 00:38:27.870 - highlight of neighbors wanting to talk about sidewalks that would be a whole different process. Thank you. Okay Mr. Ullman. I apologize in advance for my miss maybe lack of understanding but when you say draw the financial and I want to make sure I guess I also understand petitioner 00:38:27.970 --> 00:38:51.646 - are we saying that that money is going to the county or are we saying that that money is going back to the petitioner or the developer however you want to refer to the mess when we draw that money we would have that as the county completing those improvements what we have on file though is is not sufficient to complete the estimated cost of improvements required and so like 00:38:52.322 --> 00:39:21.502 - I want to make sure I'm understanding the petitioner's position where is or she's in essence saying that that's what she wants us to do is draw that as opposed to the recommendation of extending. Okay. Because originally my misunderstanding was that she was asking for us to like, hey, it's not going to be done. So why don't you just give me my money back? Not us, the county keep it. So I'm glad I asked that question. Thank you. I apologize. Thank you, Mr. Allman. We'll turn now to the public. 00:39:21.634 --> 00:39:51.614 - Are there members of the public who would like to speak on this issue? If so, please come to the podium and sign in. And you'll have three minutes to address us. Hi there, my name is Tony Fox. I live at 8316 South Ann Avenue in Bell Vista. I'm the very first lot leaving phase two into phase three. 00:39:52.226 --> 00:40:21.854 - And I think I'm speaking for everyone that's here. So I've lived there 17 years. At the time, I built my house. Of course, we created a site plan, submitted, got a building permit. My site plan didn't reflect a sidewalk. And actually, I was unaware that there was even to be a sidewalk. And I think it's 00:40:22.434 --> 00:40:45.950 - are feeling as far as the residents of the Bell Vista. Bell Vista 1 or Bell Vista 2 do not have sidewalks. There's residents that walk from one end to the other, and they basically walk on the side of the street just as they do through Bell Vista 3. 00:40:46.402 --> 00:41:15.422 - Like Angela was saying, everybody's got an established yard. They've got their own landscaping. They've got driveways. They've got drainage ditches. And it's kind of hard to conceive how 17 years later, one is going to actually go through there and create a sidewalk with everybody's condition. 00:41:16.674 --> 00:41:46.142 - I'm not saying the developer is right or wrong or responsible or not, but I don't feel at this point that it makes any sense to try to achieve this with what's currently there. I think it would be better served if an agreement could be made between the developer and the county for some kind of monetary amount. 00:41:46.754 --> 00:42:16.702 - And the road does need repaved all the way from phase one, phase two, phase three. The roads need repaved. I would strongly suggest working something out on resurfacing the roads with that money. And I know there's legalities and there's procedures. And so I know it's sometimes not that easy, but it's going to be a nightmare and trying to create 00:42:17.026 --> 00:42:46.782 - a sidewalk in phase 3 as drawn on the current plat map. So that's all I'm saying. I mean, I think it comes down to a little bit of what's feasible and what's not, if one was to actually walk through there and drive through there or whatever. Because I don't think there's a single person I know that's here that supports putting a sidewalk in. I'm not speaking for the whole phase 3 neighborhood, but I don't think there is. 00:42:46.914 --> 00:43:16.638 - And so that's really all I had to say. Thank you so much, Mr. Fox. Thank you. Are there other members of the public? Yes, sir. Please come up and sign in and tell us your name. You'll have three minutes. Thank you. My name is Matt Alley, and I echo exactly what Mr. Fox says. I just want to say it for the record so that you're hearing it from multiple folks and Ms. Parker too. So she understands as well that 00:43:16.834 --> 00:43:43.262 - I think that's the common theme across the neighborhood. I think it disrupts the aesthetics of the entire neighborhood. It wouldn't match the entire neighborhood, disrupts the drainage, the landscaping. I've never seen a neighborhood that actually has a sidewalk that ever is maintained and looks well done and looks well kept after years. So I know this isn't, 00:43:43.458 --> 00:44:12.798 - tonight, the topic of do we do them or not? I know it's about whether we extend it or not or some other resolution. I just want it to be heard. The resolution proposed by Ms. Parker, I would be curious just as one of the residents of the neighborhood to understand what's being discussed as far as taking the guarantee that exists and applying that towards some amount of improvements. If that's being proposed, I think we'd probably all like to understand what exactly that means. And then for what it's worth, 00:44:12.994 --> 00:44:42.526 - you know, considering that nobody does want those improvements that have been documented. So nothing new or different than what Mr. Fox said. Just wanted to echo it and make sure it's heard. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ailey. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this issue? There's one hand online and I can't see. It's Anthony Tadaro. Mr. Tabaro, if you could unmute yourself. 00:44:42.946 --> 00:45:10.366 - You'll have three minutes to speak to us. Yes, hello. I echo what everyone else just said that I think installing sidewalks in our neighborhood, I live on Tierney Street, I think installing sidewalks in the neighborhood, it just doesn't make sense. The sidewalks are just going to end in the middle of the neighborhood, right? When you go to the other sections of the neighborhood, the aesthetics not there, you're going to have to rip out trees and other custom landscaping that people have done. It's just 00:45:10.466 --> 00:45:36.990 - It doesn't make sense, this is a low traffic neighborhood. So I'm firmly against adding sidewalks to the neighborhood and the county will, whoever will just reconsider that. I understand that this is just about a delay right now, but I just think it's a totally unnecessary change to the neighborhood. People have been living here for many years and I don't know of anyone that's for it. 00:45:37.794 --> 00:46:04.670 - So that's all. Thank you, Mr. Tabaro. Yes, Mr. Allman. Oh, okay. Are there other members of the public who would like to speak on this issue? Either for or against. Do you see anyone? One person with the first or last name Hammond. Okay. Mr. and Ms. Hammond, could you unmute yourself? 00:46:06.754 --> 00:46:32.286 - You'll have three minutes. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Hi, this is Chris Hammond. I live at 8427 South Ann Avenue. I'm I echo what the other speakers have said with and then they mentioned a lot of the other 00:46:33.378 --> 00:47:02.558 - a lot of the other issues with putting the sidewalks in, a lot of the pictures that are getting shown in here, it kind of, it makes it look like it's relatively flat and easy to get those sidewalks in, but it's not actually gonna be that easy. And then I would also like to add that my wife and I are avid walkers. We walk every night in the neighborhood. And so we walk pretty much the entirety of phase three every night. 00:47:02.946 --> 00:47:32.062 - And to be honest, the addition of the sidewalks would be completely unnecessary because it wouldn't really add anything to the safety of the neighborhood. As Anthony stated, it's a very low traffic neighborhood. So that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hammond. Are there other members of the public would like to speak? 00:47:33.026 --> 00:47:58.142 - Do you see anyone? Okay. Are there members in opposition to what is being requested? We see none. So there's no rebuttal necessary, Ms. Parker. And so- I'm sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to clarify one question that came up. May I do so, please? 00:47:59.586 --> 00:48:28.126 - There was a question about what is our proposal and I had submitted a proposal to planning after speaking with Justin Roddy and with Jackie Nestor-Gellin this morning, specifically setting out what our proposal is. And I just want to review that very quickly because I realized that you might not have the benefit of having that information since it was just discussed this morning. So it is to draw on the financial guarantee in favor of the county 00:48:28.770 --> 00:48:56.126 - that the funds would be used. There are some street trees, I understand, that could be planted or replaced that would take some of that money and that the balance of those funds would be provided to the Highway Department for road maintenance and even snow and the back is needed. So the proposal that the petitioner, or I guess we're not the petitioner, sorry, the developer has here, 00:48:56.418 --> 00:49:25.918 - is to designate those funds for those purposes. Just wanted to clarify that, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Parker. Okay, so I returned back to the plan commission for further discussion. I'm gonna start on my left. Mr. Ullman, you have your hand raised. Yeah, my question mainly is for staff and Mr. Schilling in particular. I understand that this petition isn't necessarily 00:49:26.274 --> 00:49:52.702 - like our ruling is not based on the sidewalk directly but I do feel like it's kind of the understanding of what the county is allowable or what is the county allowed to do with said funds is important for the ruling that we settle on and in particular I'm kind of curious on you know your comment earlier was you know 00:49:52.802 --> 00:50:21.310 - landowners purchased into this subdivision on the basis that the platting gave them some you know the plat the adopted the adopted plan was that they were going to be having a sidewalk and now that's being defaulted on in essence but we're clearly hearing that that's not an that's not their interest you know their interest isn't something else so if that were the case the county pulls this money in 00:50:21.858 --> 00:50:50.750 - what how much flexibility does the county have to deviate from the plan based on what they hear their members of the county desire for that subdivision you know that money it was supposed to be designated for sidewalks but if the whole neighborhood together comes together as a petitioner and says hey you know we'd rather you take this money and refinish the road or something like that does the county have the flexibility to after the fact make 00:50:51.074 --> 00:51:16.574 - decisions and deviate from the original plan as they please? I believe that those funds would have to be used for what is listed in the subdivision improvement agreement which is thermoplastic stop bar sidewalk street trees and stop signs so it need to be used for those what's something some of those things within that subdivision. 00:51:16.706 --> 00:51:46.334 - as Ms. Parker pointed out, there doesn't appear to be a homeowners association, but the covenants and restrictions require the homeowners to install the sidewalks on their lots. And so those covenants are enforced by the lot owners themselves. So I think that the best the county can do to find some relief would be to sue the developer who could then sue the lot owners. 00:51:52.162 --> 00:52:21.534 - I think I'm gonna have more questions, but let me meditate on that one for a little bit. Thank you. And then Mr. Morris. Yeah, I just wanna clarify with staff. So what I'm hearing is even if everybody in this room agrees to not put sidewalks in, we still have a plat that lists sidewalks. So we somehow have to go through the plat amendment process to remove that to get to a point where we don't. That's correct. And the petitioner's representative does not 00:52:21.634 --> 00:52:50.398 - I think that the petitioner would like to go through that Platt Amendment process and the county cannot undergo that process for them. So I think it could be that if the neighbors feel strongly that they could undergo that process to amend the plot and remove the sidewalks. And that would also give us the ability to reopen the itemization of the estimate and go through and say what things need to be maybe addressed. But because this is already in the county inventory, 00:52:50.530 --> 00:53:16.478 - you know, there's also funds through the highway department that could be utilized for some of those things. So I wanna be, you know, I think that conversation is better had under the plat amendment process. Yeah. So either the petitioner or the neighborhood or somebody needs to modify the plat or we need to put in the sidewalks is what I'm hearing. The money that we have would be limited to 00:53:16.706 --> 00:53:40.190 - the items that Mr. Schilling brought up. And the stop signs have been put in. I don't believe the county highway recommends the thermoplastic stop bars. So that would leave street trees and sidewalks. So that would be the money that we could use it for. Thank you. So I think my opinion then is the best answer is to extend this for a year to sort through the next steps. 00:53:41.602 --> 00:54:10.782 - Their financial guarantee does expire on their letter of credit does expire on October 27th, 2025. So I would recommend maybe continuing this for one month. There is a possibility that the petitioner and their representative just do not renew that letter of credit, in which case that sort of forces the county's hands on which decision is made. 00:54:11.842 --> 00:54:30.558 - Ms. Mr. Jelen, could you tell me without a homeowners association, how would a group of neighbors in their neighborhood undertake a plat amendment. I mean, in terms of funding the request or. 00:54:30.914 --> 00:54:59.038 - in terms of requesting the Platt Amendment so that the sidewalks could be vacated if that's what they wish. So that the funds that are in the account are not put toward the sidewalks they do not want. I think that if somebody in the neighborhood would be willing to spearhead the effort that staff could certainly try to help them. It's just that we can't author the request because it's a private development. Okay. 00:54:59.970 --> 00:55:29.886 - I'm sorry? Oh, Mr. Schilling. Yeah, I just wanted to correct something I said. I mentioned taking an action against Dr. Polling, but actually this is owned by Bell Vista Incorporated. So that would be, I want to make that correction. That would be who any enforcement action would need to be taken against if it is still in existence. I see. And then to my right, Mr. Enright Randolph. Thank you. I guess I'm pretty 00:55:30.850 --> 00:55:55.198 - certain I might know a lot of the answers to these questions, so bear with me. As far as the extension goes, the party has to be in agreeance because we're wanting to increase the dollar amount. I think that if they're not going to update the letter of credit to that amount, it would be 00:55:55.778 --> 00:56:25.758 - I mean, the performance period could go for a year, but it would not have a commensurate amount with it. So that is true. If we look at the options under 833-7, accept the developer's application for performance period extension pursuant to, and that's the inflation adjustment amount. Right. Now, these improvements were probably 00:56:25.890 --> 00:56:55.262 - meant to be installed decades ago, which means the cost of that would be significantly less. Imagine if it wasn't sidewalks and these were like stormwater features and other things that the petitioner as they were going through this development project promised the lot owners. What we're here in my opinion today is hold them accountable. Now to go through a process to have the 00:56:55.394 --> 00:57:23.006 - sidewalks vacated which seems like a pretty large process because I think property owners can only represent their property unless maybe there's ability to put petition and one person come and represents the whole subdivision of where these potentially sidewalks will be vacated. Outside of that I feel like and you know I hope no one takes hard feelings that we're somewhat 00:57:23.266 --> 00:57:52.990 - ask, like, not even ask for discussion or negotiation, but almost to ultimatum. And I don't like that. Here's what we have, take it, do the improvements you've got and be happy with it. But the options that we do have stated by our legal attorney is to sue the developer and then the developer sue the law owners. And all that money is coming out of your pocket to put the sidewalks in you don't want 00:57:53.666 --> 00:58:21.662 - So to discuss sidewalks versus what was presented to this commission and what was promised to the lot owners and hold them accountable, we're getting quite ahead of ourselves. So I don't know the right solution here because it's being stated that they're not going to be able to adjust this dollar amount. So that means all of the infrastructure that isn't just focused on sidewalks may be inadequate. 00:58:22.434 --> 00:58:51.870 - And that's going to be on the lot owners. It's going to be on some of the people that came and spoke and showed their thoughts. I'm not saying, I'm not compassionate for your situation and I won't give that a fair consideration, but right now we're completely out of context of what we need to focus on and how we need to make sure that we hold folks accountable when they say they're going to do something. So we're not sitting here with what I feel like is an ultimatum or a bait and switch. Thank you. 00:58:53.122 --> 00:59:18.750 - Colonel Farris, do you? Yes. So, let's go back to the very beginning. What are we reviewing here tonight, and what is it exactly you want us to approve? I mean, I have empathy for the discussion about the sidewalks. I do. I mean, I live in the county, and I've seen similar situations. 00:59:19.714 --> 00:59:44.062 - The sidewalk discussion, as best I can tell, is totally irrelevant to what we're talking about. So my question for staff, and I'm reading what you recommended here, and it says, staff recommends one extension of the performance period until October 27th, 2026. Do you still hold true on that, or do you want to modify that period of performance? I think that the... 00:59:44.290 --> 01:00:08.958 - time if they do wish to do a Platt Amendment to do that Platt Amendment process. So I do think that still holds true. Let me finish, please. And a post amount commensurate to the current day pricing of whatever the amount you have stated there, 620 K plus some change. But what I heard here is the developer or Bell Vista Inc. 01:00:10.882 --> 01:00:40.798 - has not worked with the staff to say that, in fact, they're going to take and work toward that level of credit. Is that correct? That is correct. So what is our legal process here? Let's assume that we approve the extension, the period of performance, and we also agree to them posting them out to 628k plus. But yet they have not worked with the staff to take and actually bring those monies forward in a letter of credit. What is our next step? Do we sue? 01:00:41.314 --> 01:01:07.038 - Does the county sue? Yeah, yes. I thought, okay. So coming back to where I started, I have no problem supporting a new period of performance. I have no problem stating what the commensurate amount should be. I have no problem stating what you recommended. But this is not the end of this story. 01:01:08.002 --> 01:01:29.118 - This is going to move forward and things are going to happen. And I would suspect that the homeowners in that neighborhood would in fact come forward and request some sort of amendment to the plan, which I would encourage them to do. It makes perfect sense to me, but it's going to be, in my terminology, a drill. It will be a drill to do all of that stuff. 01:01:30.882 --> 01:01:53.278 - What we're working from though is the approved preliminary plat that we have. So we don't really have anything else to work from in terms of being able to settle or negotiate. We really just we're working from the itemized estimate that we have because I share your concern too that if we take a certain amount and then people want us to resurface the roads, we really aren't 01:01:53.410 --> 01:02:21.342 - allowed to do that with that money based on how the Subdivision Improvement Agreement is written. So we could do this for a time. Maybe they could post this for a time, the new amount. Maybe they don't. And we cash the $50,700. We can go into the process of possibly filing litigation. In the meantime, the neighbors could file the Platt Amendment. If that gets done and approved with a new estimate, 01:02:21.826 --> 01:02:51.806 - that would maybe resolve the litigation part or it could come back to us and they still might need more money. But at which case, when the neighbors take on the Platt Amendment and the developers no longer included, it kind of takes any money beyond $50,700. The onus of that would be on the neighbors, not on the developer because they're saying at this juncture they're not willing to go under the Platt Amendment process. So in my opinion, what you have just explained is a course of action. 01:02:52.290 --> 01:03:21.470 - that will probably most likely take place. And it will have to take place if the homeowners in that neighborhood want to take and see something different than what we're seeing presented today. But I support the extension of the period of performance to the 27th of October, 2026. And I support the dollar amount as indicated because I don't think you have any other choice. I think there might be one other choice. OK. OK. And that was something that our 01:03:22.114 --> 01:03:51.230 - wonderful director recommended early on, and that is that we continue this until October, our October hearing, you had a date, a specific date, and have the neighbors go home in their neighborhood and have a meeting with the homeowners, realizing that right now it's the Bella Vista Corporation that is liable for not installing the sidewalks. 01:03:51.330 --> 01:04:14.654 - but you should figure out do you want to go through the plat amendment process as a neighborhood and resolve this issue about the sidewalks so that the plat reflects what you want and that the monies that are there in the account don't go toward something you don't want so if we just continue this until october um 01:04:14.882 --> 01:04:42.014 - So another meeting before October, we could do, or we could continue to the administrative meeting. The letter of credit does expire on October 27th, 2025. So we could, the administrative. If we want to move a little bit quicker, we could by moving this to administrative meeting. But this is something different than they were expecting, it's clear. They thought that they would be able to influence the plat 01:04:42.338 --> 01:05:11.038 - And that's not on the agenda tonight. So you guys have, in my opinion, to go home, talk about it, call planning, because ultimately, if you don't go through that process, it will be you, the property owners who are responsible for paying for something you don't want. So the Platt Amendment cannot go undone. So if you want to achieve your goal, 01:05:11.138 --> 01:05:35.518 - That's my yes. Commissioner Thomas. Um, we have meetings in September. Yes. Yep. So I would rather do this in September, honestly. Um, but, but here's the thing, um, to be clear, just coming in with a plat amendment is not a done deal. 01:05:35.746 --> 01:06:02.974 - And it may be if they remove the corporation's responsibility, Bell Vista Corporation from the plat and they take that on, they may be responsible for putting in those sidewalks. I mean, we're not, we can't vote on it now. So they have no idea. I, I, I will ask Ms. Parker to please refrain from telling us what we need to do with the money and not do with the money that's there. 01:06:03.586 --> 01:06:29.342 - I find that really disrespectful. I don't think that was intended, but it felt that way. You put us in a bad position, but more importantly, the homeowners are in a bad position. So I just want to make that statement that we can't even tell you how we're going to vote on a Platt Amendment and that there is a risk involved there. I am so angry. 01:06:29.922 --> 01:06:57.470 - that this happened. I'm angry on behalf of the homeowners to the developer. But I will tell you that as the surveyor pointed out, these plats are a promise. These plats say there will be sidewalks, there will be street trees, there will be retention ponds, et cetera, et cetera. And to not have that diminishes the value of property. But I will tell you, the very first 01:06:57.634 --> 01:07:27.358 - pedestrian accident with a car in that neighborhood is going to be terrible. And I'm glad it hasn't happened. But I don't know that not putting in sidewalks is the answer here. But I certainly know county residents, taxpayers should not, from across the county, should not be paying to fix what a developer has failed to do. This is a failure of the developer. I'm going to say that clearly. 01:07:27.746 --> 01:07:53.150 - I'm not going to sugarcoat it. Oh, he doesn't want to come. Well, you know what? Send someone else to do this. Because this work has to get done according to the plat. How we're going to vote, I don't know. But that is a risk for those homeowners to come in. What would be good is to have them do that process because every 01:07:53.506 --> 01:08:22.398 - resident in the neighborhood would be served with a letter so they know what's at stake. So if somebody can step up and do that, I would be willing to consider waiving the fee for their petition, by the way. That's very gracious. But I think we should have that as part of a, because they didn't ask for any of this. This developer made money when they sold these lots in these homes. 01:08:23.938 --> 01:08:53.278 - That's the business arrangement. And this developer has a responsibility to these homeowners that they have failed to do. We see it again and again. And people wonder why we follow through and ask people to do things. Because this was agreed to when this plat was originally approved. We didn't say, oh, you have to do site. Maybe we did. 01:08:54.114 --> 01:09:22.878 - I'm not sure that if, at the original time of this plat, somebody had said, hey, we don't think sidewalks are necessary, we probably wouldn't have put them in there. So it's not fair to us. It's certainly not fair to staff. It's not fair to Highway, who is already, according to Ms. Ridge, they've accepted the roadway. They're removing snow and doing those things. Do not tell us what to do with those funds, because that is part of the plat. 01:09:23.266 --> 01:09:50.942 - and that's part of the agreement. So I would be willing to postpone this a month or even into the October meeting if need be, admin meeting if need be, whatever staff thinks is best. I think postponing this a month may be too soon for some of the petitioners to pull something together. I don't know, but I certainly don't want to be in a position 01:09:51.266 --> 01:10:20.542 - where we have the representative of the developer who has walked away from their responsibilities telling us what to do with money or not do with money. I think we have to do what's best for this community and this neighborhood. And we can't consider it today until we have that petition in front of us. It's not quantificating. Thank you. Mr. Allman. First of all, I appreciate the comments made by Margaret and Commissioner Thomas. 01:10:21.378 --> 01:10:47.518 - The passion was brought forth there. I appreciate that. But directed towards Jackie, the comment about the neighborhood coming together and filing a petition if we were to extend this. And I'm just curious on more so right now in my mind, I'm trying to wrap my head around how far do we need to extend this. Let's say they go home tonight, they get to talk 01:10:47.618 --> 01:11:15.614 - and they get things ironed out, they show up in your office on Monday morning with a petition. How fast could we get that plot amendment through? What would that look like in terms of what status would that be in September administration meeting, September's regular meeting, October's admin meeting? Where would that be at? I just want to know because if we're in the same boat we are in today, a month from now, 01:11:15.842 --> 01:11:27.550 - What's what was the point in extending, you know, I'm just kind of I do want to just double check the CDO's requirements for preliminary plat filings, you know, if 01:11:27.810 --> 01:11:57.776 - Like for instance, the neighborhood banded together and they just brought us a preliminary plat and kind of either went to the original surveying company and just erased the sidewalk, or if they actually have to reflect some of the as-built conditions, the driveways that are there, things like that. I think we would need the latter, which no surveying company could do that amount of work in even a month. So if for any reason we could accept a plat where it just 01:11:57.776 --> 01:12:26.494 - simply erases or omits the sidewalk, and we work with them on other details as they file the absolute fastest, even if they could file by the next deadline, which is September 3rd, two weeks from tomorrow. We could try to get them onto, or sorry, September, yes, September 3rd would be the filing deadline. I don't know if we meet the notice requirement. One, two, three. 01:12:29.410 --> 01:12:54.142 - September 16th is, or sorry, September 25th because of the council. So September 25th is the regular meeting. So if they filed by September 3rd, the fastest we could absolutely do it would be September 25th. Madam President. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Thank you for the clarity. Yes, Mr. Anne Wright-Randall. Yeah. 01:12:59.330 --> 01:13:27.902 - I guess I want to be extra clear, and I ask this, unless the developer agrees to what is being proposed, and from my understanding of asking this last, they have not agreed to the extension and the increased amount. We only have what is available now, which would be 01:13:28.226 --> 01:13:57.982 - sorry, I moved from that page, 50,000 plus dollars to address all improvements that are needed. Maybe not even the sidewalks, just maybe even some more drainage features, which I'm not exactly sure what is considered incomplete on here. Is it only sidewalks? Is there other improvements that have not been completed? The only items listed in the subdivision improvement agreement 01:13:58.178 --> 01:14:24.798 - that were remaining are what we're able to expend the funds on. So that's sidewalk, street trees, and then what they had listed was thermoplastic stop bars, which we don't do anymore or not needed, and stop signs, which have since been put in. Okay. But to my point is if they don't agree to the extension and the increase, we only have that 50,000 plus available 01:14:25.026 --> 01:14:55.006 - And so regardless of trying to figure out how to reduce any burden on the property owners and maybe even accommodate what their goals are for their subdivision, but that's going to be a tall task to get consensus. And I also share in Commissioner Thomas's feelings about the first time there is an incident without having sidewalks, but that's a different conversation. I would really like to understand 01:14:55.298 --> 01:15:12.190 - what direction planning is going to take if the petitioner will not accept the extension in the increase as we move forward and I had the next administrative meeting on September 3rd and then the regular meeting on September 25th 01:15:12.482 --> 01:15:36.670 - and there's a lot of moving parts here so I would like to pay attention to these moving parts because eventually this might get kicked up to the executive committee to figure out if they're going to take legal action or not but again we might just be stuck with those 50,000 plus dollars that is still available and that's why I feel like instead of trying to figure out what could work 01:15:36.866 --> 01:16:05.438 - where we could maybe extend this, maybe where it gives the developer opportunity to come back and maybe address the sidewalks and maybe release some of the funds because if that's not what it's meant to go towards, we're in an ultimatum to decide, you know, or not even to decide. Like we get the 50,000, we try to do some moderate improvements or we go to court. 01:16:05.570 --> 01:16:33.118 - And I don't like that position. That doesn't allow the intent or the consideration of the people that's impacting that live there. And I'm very saddened to understand that that is what was presented in my opinion today. Thank you, Mr. Enright-Randolph. Commissioner Thomas? This is more of a legal question, Mr. Schilling. If we were to take 01:16:33.986 --> 01:17:00.830 - control of the dollars that are in the letter of credit for failure to complete. Would that in any way negatively impact our ability to complete, go to court to try to get the rest of the tasks completed that are on the plat? In other words, by taking that money, 01:17:01.698 --> 01:17:29.054 - are we accepting a partial payment, and that's all we get? I don't believe so. Could we postpone this to the September admin meeting, and you could give us a better idea of what it is our options are? Is that possible? Because that's not a petition, that's just an administrative task. 01:17:29.154 --> 01:17:58.462 - Is that helpful? That's good, but I have a question, OK? Because I'm sitting here thinking about everything that everyone has just said. And it's clear to me that it's the developer who should pursue the Platt Amendment, if I'm not mistaken, except we've been told by his attorney that he is unwilling to do that. Somehow or another, that Bella Vista Corporation, if they were 01:17:59.042 --> 01:18:09.790 - If it were possible, it would be more elegant for the homeowners to take, then for the homeowners to take it on. Could the Bella Vista Corporation do the amendment? 01:18:10.690 --> 01:18:36.094 - Could they, so they could just go home, talk to the developer and the Bella Vista Corporation, talk to Angela Parker, and they can tell us how they're gonna pursue it. And if we give them time to the admin meeting in September, then maybe all the burden isn't on these people who are living peacefully in this house and the developer who knows how to get this stuff done can get it done. 01:18:36.386 --> 01:19:04.382 - you know, that would be, you know, let's just continue this if possible to the September admin meeting and have Ms. Parker and the homeowners and Mr. Poling as the president of Bella Vista Corporation come together, figure out if Bella Vista is gonna continue and if they need somebody else at the helm, but could Bella Vista take care of this and help these homeowners get 01:19:04.514 --> 01:19:33.150 - the flat amendment that they desire. I think that that would be a very elegant solution for the homeowners. So let's continue this if we could have a motion for that. Yes, Mr. Ferris, Colonel Ferris. Trying to ask the question, but I'm not so sure I heard it. Can you move forward with a new period of performance and a new amount 01:19:33.730 --> 01:19:57.470 - for a line of credit without the developer's concurrence. Can we do that? In the code, it does say accept the developer's application for performance period extension. They have not requested the performance period extension, but they have agreed with us to an extent that the primary or preliminary plat 01:19:57.858 --> 01:20:22.782 - does need amendment, they do believe that sidewalks would be, that they could seek out, not they, but someone could seek out a preliminary plot amendment to remove the sidewalk requirement. So they agree with the need, but they don't necessarily agree with the amount. Do they have to agree with the amount? The amount and the period do go together. 01:20:24.674 --> 01:20:52.958 - Because it says, accept the developer's application. So the answer to my question is that yes. Yes, they do go together. Or are you asking, yes, we can approve it without their consent? Yes. That's it, the latter. The latter. To me, it's really a gray area when what you're saying here. Right. I agree. And so legal. 01:20:53.058 --> 01:21:21.886 - That's what can be determined on September at the September meeting they they need to research this September 3rd. The September 3rd admin meeting. I support September. I have September 2nd. Yes, I support the September 2nd. OK, anybody else? More information will have to figure out. I think you know options. Mr. Allman. Alright, this is my last question for Mr. Schilling. 01:21:22.050 --> 01:21:51.614 - And it's kind of a reiteration of Commissioner Thomas's question. But if we were to draw in the line as is currently, the 50-some-odd thousand, there would still be an option for us to then say, this is not enough, and pursue a legal direction that would get us those remaining funds, equally as if we asked them 01:21:51.906 --> 01:22:16.318 - extend the line and they not post it, we would have an option to pursue legal. And both are in essence weighted equal. There's not one is more favorable legally or is that not maybe an answer you can give? Well, I'm not sure. I'm just not sure which one. Okay. 01:22:16.482 --> 01:22:37.022 - It's unusual, but I'm able to do it. Ms. Parker has her hand raised. I believe that if I recognize her, it will be more expeditious in the long run. So I'd like to recognize Ms. Parker. Thank you very much. And I'm sorry to interrupt the discussion, but I did want to raise a couple of points. One is, 01:22:37.346 --> 01:23:03.326 - We in no way, shape or form, intend to be disrespectful to this body. So to the extent that that appeared that way, I certainly apologize for that. That's never been my intention, and those of you that know me know that I would not approach anything in that manner. So I wanted to clarify that. The second thing is that the real difficulty in this case, and it is a very difficult case because it's been going on for so long, 01:23:03.714 --> 01:23:27.070 - and has created a difficult set of circumstances that also involve the fact that it's not as much an issue as the owner of the corporation's unwillingness to do it. He's simply unable to do this because of some significant health issues and it has created 01:23:27.394 --> 01:23:53.054 - I don't want to be overly dramatic about it, but it has created a lot of suffering. I'm not trying to excuse the discussion that's happened tonight, but it has been extremely difficult and he is physically unable to continue to try to work this forward. So it's not, I'm working actually mostly with his daughter who lives in another state. 01:23:53.410 --> 01:24:14.206 - to try to work through some of these issues because he's just simply unable to do so. So I just wanted to be clear that there's not a defiance or an unwillingness here as much as there is a difficult set of circumstances that we're trying to navigate on behalf of this corporation. So I just wanted to clarify that. 01:24:14.338 --> 01:24:36.542 - We're certainly happy, not happy. I don't want to say happy. And I know that was mentioned earlier about just be happy and accept it. We're not happy about this either. No one is. It's been difficult for all of us. But if we need to come together and meet to discuss some further resolution, certainly we will do that. Also, I just wonder, you know, 01:24:36.834 --> 01:25:05.086 - could he not name another person to the board of directors of the Bella Vista Corporation? Or could you not yourself work on behalf of him so that we could get this plat vacation going without disturbing all the homeowners? That's one thing for consideration and why we are continuing this case until the September 2nd meeting, admin meeting of the plan commission. Those are two 01:25:05.410 --> 01:25:27.870 - items. We are sympathetic. We understand that Mr. Polling and Ms. Polling have been really wonderful leaders in our community, and we are sorry and saddened to hear that he is not well. But that being said, administratively, there could be and perhaps should be some solutions that could help 01:25:28.002 --> 01:25:57.968 - move the resolution of this issue toward a flat vacation. Maybe one of the members of the neighborhood could be named to the corporation and it would be the most expeditious route in my opinion, but that's for your deliberation with your client and with the neighbors deliberation together and with plan commission. So September 2nd is when we will deliberate. We're going to continue this item to the September 2nd meeting of the 01:25:57.968 --> 01:26:20.510 - Plan Commission and please give our best wishes to the polling family. We're sorry for what he's going through. Okay so is there a motion? For case SIA-22-8 I move that we hear this at the September 2nd administrative meeting of the Plan Commission. Second. 01:26:21.538 --> 01:26:50.558 - It's been moved and seconded to continue SIA-22-28, Bellevista subdivision, section three request for performance extension, performance period to the September 2nd, 2025 meeting. A vote yes is a vote to continue it to that meeting. Tron Enright-Randolph? Yes. Scott Ferris? I just stepped out. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? 01:26:51.458 --> 01:27:18.942 - Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Edward Ullman. I'm going to defer my vote to the end if you don't mind. Okay. Julie Thomas. Yes. Mark Cummins. Yes. Edward Ullman. Not to get long-winded in my vote, but I do want to say that, and I hadn't shared this with the plan commission yet, but my position on this board is in lieu of 01:27:19.074 --> 01:27:46.942 - my position in office as the county extension educator through Purdue extension and I'm going to be vacating that position in the time between now and that meeting so I'm not going to be available for that vote or be on this board or eligible to be on this board but I do want to echo and ensure that some of the statements that were made tonight about you know holding the developer accountable ensuring that 01:27:47.618 --> 01:28:08.798 - the county as a whole is not having the taxpayers of this county are not having to burden take on this burden and ensuring that the homeowners in the subdivision are not are not wrongfully treated due to the lack of commitment by the by the developer. So I know that the 01:28:09.186 --> 01:28:36.926 - plan commission will do well in upholding those statements as they've been discussed today. But yeah, and along those lines, I will vote yes for the continuation. Motion is approved seven to zero. So this will be back on September 2nd at the administrative meeting. We heard your news. We wish you the best of everything in your next position. And thank you for your service, Mr. Allman. Yes. 01:28:37.250 --> 01:29:06.814 - We have reached now the last item on the agenda, which is, and I want to thank the public for coming out. You will obviously need to talk with Jackie and talk with each other first, and then talk with the planning department about what you need to do. And hopefully Ms. Parker, the attorney for Mr. Polling, will talk to the family and figure out what they want to do. But we appreciate your bringing your desires to our attention. Thank you. 01:29:08.034 --> 01:29:11.710 - Okay, so we move now to. 01:29:11.810 --> 01:29:40.702 - The last item on the agenda, which is item number four, under new business, which is SIA-22-5, 25, I'm sorry. And this is the North Shore Amendment 1, a request for extension of performance period. This is the preliminary hearing and the waiver of final hearing has been requested concerning one property at 9554 East North Shore Drive. And Ms. Nestor-Gellin, if you would kindly review this with us. Sure. 01:29:41.282 --> 01:30:10.814 - So this is for North Shore Amendment 1 final plot. It was recorded on October 29, 2008. And we have a letter of credit on file for $42,000. That letter of credit is due on September 19, 2025. But the Subdivision Improvement Agreement performance period requires attention. So we are recommending a one-year extension. 01:30:10.946 --> 01:30:28.062 - Um, I do see that the petitioner is online and has their hand raised. I don't know. We'd like to recognize the petitioner. If you would please tell us your name and, um, and also you have 15 minutes to review with us your request. 01:30:41.378 --> 01:31:07.966 - Mr. Werner, I think you might have to unmute yourself because tech services has unmuted you from this side. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Now can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Thank you, everybody on the Planning Commission. Yes, we've worked with the department to get a one-year extension. We have put in a 01:31:08.066 --> 01:31:36.702 - There were some things that need to be worked out with, you know, surveyors getting them to get anything done. It's months of lead time at this point. And I think some feedback's been given to our surveyor to try to dial that in. We just need more time and our letter of credit would be for coextensive for the request. So it's no change in the letter of credit, but we are trying to go through 01:31:37.570 --> 01:32:05.278 - and platen in the process as recommended by the staff. And they've already put in that formal request and started the process. Is that it, Mr. Werner? Yes. Okay. I'm going to ask now, are there members of the public who would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this petition? Please raise your virtual hand or 01:32:05.410 --> 01:32:29.438 - There's nobody left in the room. So please raise your virtual hand. There's no one. So I'd like to come back to the plan commission for further discussion and or a motion. Yes, Mr. And right Randolph and then commissioner Thomas. Kind of goes back to the same question I asked. Uh, the petitioner has requested the extension and is willing to put in the adjusted amount. 01:32:30.690 --> 01:33:00.606 - In this case, it's actually going to be an amount that's sufficient. And the prior posting of the amount in 2008, we actually included some private improvements, which are not supposed to be included in a subdivision improvement agreement. They're supposed to be limited to public improvements. So they actually don't have to adjust the amount. It's just been adjusted based on only addressing the sidewalk. Okay. Basically they're willing to work. 01:33:00.706 --> 01:33:30.686 - with us to yes they just need more time to put in the installation at some point there has to be a a backstop where we don't just always continuum but you know unless I'm compelled otherwise I'm I'm willing to support this. Okay and then Commissioner Thomas and then Mr. Ullman. That was actually my question because the amount posted then was forty two thousand we're asking forty thousand and ninety nine dollars and some change 01:33:30.786 --> 01:33:59.550 - So do they get a little money back right now, or do we just hold on to it and we just keep going? I'm perfectly fine with it. I just wanted it to be clear that this isn't an additional amount of money, that this is actually matching what is on file. Right. Thank you. Yes, thank you. And I apologize. With the petitioner raising their hand, I didn't know if they wanted to speak first, or I didn't actually get to the presentation portion. 01:33:59.650 --> 01:34:28.702 - That's okay. Under exhibit three, I'll just note really quickly that originally we had included items such as landscaping and paving of the private parking lot into the subdivision improvement agreement amount, which we're not able to, and we do not want to take the funds for doing so. They actually just need to complete those improvements or seek another planning process to get 01:34:28.802 --> 01:34:37.822 - variances or waivers or what have you. So the amount that the staff is recommending is that it be 40,000 01:34:37.922 --> 01:35:05.502 - Ninety nine dollars and eight cents total. So the amount post is forty two thousand They could decrease that amount to just forty thousand ninety nine dollars and eight cents If they choose because it's easier to just give us forty two thousand and hold on to it What we would be looking at is that forty thousand amount forty thousand ninety nine dollars and eight cents and that would be good for one year they also my understanding is they do want to pursue a 01:35:05.794 --> 01:35:28.702 - preliminary or primary plat amendment to try to waive the sidewalk requirement. So the one year is really for them to do that waive waiver process to try and get that waiver. It's not a guarantee, but it just gives them a year to figure that out because they do have a application pending. It's just needing some attention as Mr. Warner stated. 01:35:33.378 --> 01:36:00.542 - Jackie actually answered my question through her statement there, but otherwise I'm ready to make a motion. Let's have one. Let's have a motion. Well, in the case of, oh, I lost my letter code. SIA 22-25. SIA 22-25, North Shore Amendment 1, I suggest a movement in 01:36:00.642 --> 01:36:18.046 - in favor of staff's recommendation of a one-year extension to the period of September 19th, 2026. A waiver of final hearing. A waiver of final hearing. Thank you. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve SA-22-25. 01:36:18.146 --> 01:36:47.390 - which is a performance period extension until September 19th, 2026, and a performance guarantee in the amount of $40,099.08 with a waiver of final hearing. A vote yes is a vote to approve with the waiver. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? 01:36:48.002 --> 01:37:17.598 - Edward Oman. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. Mark Clements. Yes. Ray Randolph. Yes. Motion is approved eight to zero. I appreciate everyone's indulgence of not following strictly the rules of procedure. We got a lot done. We got through a difficult one and I think we did our best service to the community and to the public servants who work here. So thank you so much. 01:37:18.690 --> 01:37:48.510 - any reports? Any reports? I do not have any reports. Just want to thank Edward Ullman to his service to the Planning Commission and wish him the best moving forward. I do have, I do actually have a question is I'm just going to say this to staff. If you feel like, if legal feels like we need to have an executive committee meeting about this agenda item that we discussed ad nauseam today, I would say I'm, 01:37:48.610 --> 01:38:18.078 - I'd be happy to meet in that context if that would be helpful. I'm not sure it would be, but I just wanted to throw that out there. My mind's want to know what are you doing next, Ed? I will be serving for the American Bird Conservancy as the Southern Indiana Birds Gate Corridor. Great job. Horse management and birds, two favorite things. That's it. Well, congratulations. 01:38:18.242 --> 01:38:28.222 - we move to adjournment let's do it I'll move to adjournment okay thank you everyone