- Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call to order the September meeting of the Plan Commission. Jackie,
- could you start us off by calling the roll? Sure. David Bush? Here. Margaret Clements? Tron and Ray
- Randolph? Scott Ferris? Here. Rudy Fields? Here. David Henry? Jeff Morse? Here. Julie Thomas?
- I am here. We have five members in person in a quorum. Thank you, Jackie. And tech services, before
- we get started, the screen directly in front of me is off. I'll get it. Oh, OK. Thank you. We will move
- on then to the introduction of evidence. Jackie?
- 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
- Plan Commission Rules of Procedure has adopted and amended and the cases that were legally advertised
- and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's agenda. Do we have a motion to approve the evidence as presented?
- Motion to approve.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve.
- Scott Ferris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Motion carries
- five to zero. Do we have a motion to approve tonight's agenda as presented? Motion to approve the agenda. Second.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve tonight's agenda as published. A vote yes is a vote to approve
- the agenda. Rudy Fields? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Thank you, sir.
- Scott Farris? Yes. Motion is approved, five to zero. Thank you, sir, for fixing the screen.
- Moving on to the approval of minutes, we have two sets of minutes to approve July 15th, 2025 and August
- 19th, 2025. So do we have a motion to approve both sets of minutes? Move to approve the minutes.
- Or both sets? Both sets at one time? Yes. Second.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve both July 15th and August 19th, 2025 meeting minutes of
- the Plan Commission. A vote yes is a vote to approve both sets of minutes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas?
- Yes. David Bush? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Motion is approved, five to zero. Okay, moving
- on to administrative business. The first item tonight is the CDO amendment prioritization list.
- I'll just bring forward just a quick update on this item. So people can still visit our website Monroe
- CDO calm for the latest information. And we have taken to the ordinance review committee to separate
- text amendments that
- will be coming to the plan commission next month. Those are directly related to the prioritization update
- as well as other code updates that need to happen. So those will be heard during the October plan commission
- meeting and then ultimately get a decision by the county commissioners. Thank you, Jackie. Moving on,
- the next item is a fee schedule update.
- Okay, so I'm going to go ahead and share my screen here for a second. So this information was included
- in the packet. This is including our current fee schedule, and then in red are the changes.
- in terms of pricing. And then yellow are items that we are now able to strike. So I do want to start
- out by saying that the fee schedule changes that we are proposing tonight, this is either for discussion
- or for a vote. And if open for a vote, we are likely going to suggest a bit of a delayed effective date
- just to give us time to communicate to the public what the new fees will be.
- We have not substantially updated our fees in terms of pricing since 2011 What we did to come up with
- these fees was that we use the grids provided to us by council and we estimated a labor cost per position
- to Move these items through the process
- We did not start the labor calculations starting when we took the phone call or that we help people
- understand that they need this process. It's after they actually make the application and then we start
- the clock at that point to understand how much time these take our office. So these are substantial
- changes but like I said we have not updated this since 2011. For many years we were waiting for the
- county development ordinance to pass because as you'll see on the left hand side there's also changes
- to the terminology of how we're relating to these petitions. So this is going to keep us in alignment
- with the county development ordinance terminology and also with the labor costs that are projected for 2026.
- So I'm happy to take any questions you have. Yeah, Commissioner Thomas. I think all of this makes sense.
- I appreciate that permits petitions related to government structures and schools is still zero. I mean,
- there are things that I appreciate that have been held over and continued. And I understand the things
- that have been marked off. My question is,
- regarding logging for urban areas. You have a flat fee in there and I'm wondering if there is a cost
- differential when the lot size is larger than smaller. In other words, does it really take the same
- amount? Because I imagine at some point you end up with
- logging roads, what they call skid trails, you end up with other expenses and other things that have
- to be considered. So I'm not sure, is that still a good fee to have it flat instead of by acre or if
- it's over this many acres it's this much?
- That's a good question. So, prior to the county development ordinance we were and prior to the stormwater
- ordinance in 2024. We had a fee for logging that related to within the eco area and outside of the eco area.
- Since the stormwater changes the state code changes in our CDO changes, it is now logging for urban
- areas which are defined as eight residences in a quarter square mile or quarter mile square. So we're
- going to have to do a calculation to see if we can even ask for a logging permit.
- as people come in. So in terms of the size, we are still going to be working closely with stormwater.
- And if they're reaching the acre threshold, they will then be requiring a stormwater grading permit
- and CSGP coverage. So I do think there is a little bit of a catch for larger sites that might need a
- grading permit. And then that would be the stormwater program to help us with that. Got it. So a large
- lot area would
- find themselves with an additional permitting fee. Potentially. Potentially, most likely. And that brings
- me to my next question. So there are areas that you have where I think we may run into other fees and
- permitting costs, right? And I think
- it's really difficult to capture everything because it gets so granular and is it building? Is it stormwater?
- So I just, I wonder if we could be clearer in that very last statement at the very bottom of the page
- where it says, in addition to any other applicable fees or charges, I wonder if we could,
- I don't know how to do this, but I'm wondering if there's a way, and it won't stop me from approving
- this, but I wonder if there's some other language we can utilize that makes it clear that those may
- come from IDEM or Army Corps of Engineers or our building department or stormwater. You know, it's never
- going to be an exhaustive list, but it might be even just other related county departments.
- or state agencies. I mean, it's something generic just a little bit so that people don't get blindsided
- and think, well, I was told this is the fee. I will say that the nice thing about the permitting software
- is that we collectively go in, each department adds in their fees. And so for one permit, such as a
- building permit, if we know it comprises of a stormwater grading permit, a planning improvement location
- permit, and a building permit, we will
- be transparent about those three fees at the forefront. But yes, we can certainly add something in here.
- This is considered administrative business. So this is something we can bring back at an administrative
- meeting, but we wanted to bring it to you while we had a light agenda and to talk through. And to me
- again, I'm not very concerned about that. And I think if that language, for me, that language could
- be added later and it wouldn't take an amended vote to do that.
- But those are the two main questions I had. Thank you so much. Before we continue, I want to acknowledge
- that Council Member Henry has joined online. Does anybody else on the Plan Commission have questions
- for Jackie? I have one question. Do you have this baked into your 2026 budget or anything, or is there
- any impetus to get this
- passed immediately or is it. So all of our fees go into the general fund for which our budget stems
- from so actually any of the fees that we collect, we don't directly see those
- you know, in our budget unless we request more line items in our budget to council. So I wouldn't say
- that there's an immediate need. I think, you know, as staff was discussing some of these changes, we
- do a lot of what's called predesigns with people where we at the very forefront of the discussion, we
- tell them what the fees are. So to give us time to re communicate to the people we've already started
- talking to about you'll need this or you'll need that. There's been a discussion of at least delaying it
- until the next filing deadline, to make the effective date the Monday after the filing deadline, which
- I believe is October 6th, or even to go so far as to say January 1, 2026. So those are some
- of the discussions we've had as a team, because we don't want people to feel blindsided. We really haven't
- updated this since 2011.
- We do need to update this. That was the basis for my question. I didn't know if you were looking at
- a January 1 kickoff or if you had any specific time set, because it seems like it would be nice to be
- able to forewarn the public that some of these changes are coming, especially for those who are in the
- midst of permitting now.
- Right. And I will say I did use in full transparency, the labor review is based on the twenty twenty
- six labor grid. So that amount would be effective as proposed. You know, assuming it passes as it's
- currently proposed, it would be effective January one. Thank you. OK, Mr. Ferris. I don't have a problem
- with any of your numbers. I just have a basic comment. Some of these fees have doubled. I mean, that's a
- That's a pretty big jump. And I understand, and I agree with your explanation, but I venture to say
- there'll be others who say, why the big jump? And so I think you need to come up a little more granularity
- in why some of the fees jumped as great as what they did.
- Yeah, I would like to have some language that our staff can use because I can see this being a very
- difficult conversation with a lot of people. And honestly, I think that other than doing the labor analysis
- and using that to associate with fees, some of the discussions we've just had as a staff is, where do
- you start that time clock and where do you end that time clock? And I think that we are government.
- We are not a private.
- business. But to the extent that we are charging under what it minimally costs to just write a report,
- present to the BZA or to do a site visit, notice has gone up to bring it to the paper that we're legally
- required to do. So, you know, I just think that we will be able to make that justification in terms
- of costs. And I do have a tab here that I'm
- ready and able to share to show how we did that calculation for something such as a variance but I'll
- also say though the the same point when people are faced with higher fees I do think our our department will be
- I know we're going to get that conversation started. I know we're going to feel that pressure. So I
- do want to make sure that we're also open to the conversation with the public about why the variance
- or what have you is necessary. And bring that back to the plan commission. If we are seeing repeat variances
- that are getting approved, I want to make sure that we address that at
- at the legislative level, too. Thank you. To Colonel Farris's point, I think this is what happens when
- you don't regularly review and update your fees. Is it shocking to people because it's been 10 years?
- So if we could just set a mental clock to look at these again
- every odd number year in the fall, we're going to look at these numbers, whatever it is, just so that
- these increases, rather than be grateful for the fact of what they got at bargain basement prices before
- 2025, people will be upset because of what they have to pay in 2026. So that's just a bit
- on that one. Yeah, I get it. There's a lot going on, though, with the CDO. And that was sort of the
- big, well, once we get the CDO passed, I know. It makes sense. It makes sense. I know how it happened.
- No blame, no blame at all. OK, any additional questions? OK, thank you, Jackie.
- But we could either bring this back to you closer to January 1, or if tonight you feel comfortable voting
- for it, effective date January 1, we could also do that. I'll try it. I'm going to go ahead and float
- a motion to approve the fee schedule as listed to take effect December 1, 2025. December 1, 2025? Yeah.
- OK. Second. Take the date.
- I just thought, yeah. Yep, that work. She said December 1st. Does that work? That works. OK, yeah. OK,
- I'll go ahead and call the role. I think we need to take public comment on this. It's technically an
- administrative administrative. Thank you. Never mind. So thank you. Sorry. OK, so I'll go ahead and
- call the role on the approval of the fee schedule and that would become effective December 1st 2025 as
- A motion, a vote yes is a vote to approve the fee schedule. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes.
- David Bush? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? No. Okay. David Henry? Yes. Yes, okay.
- All right, so that motion does pass five to one. Okay, so moving on to unfinished business, the first
- item on the agenda tonight is SIA-22-9. This is the Holland fields major subdivision phase one subdivision
- improvement agreement. And just for an administrative note, staff does wish to keep items one and two
- separate. So we will hear those two separately. Right, these are two different petitions with two different
- developers, but we are kind of having a similar recommendation, which is going to be to continue these
- into October 23rd 2025 give planning staff time to work with the developer on a revised estimate.
- There was an update September 17th with the Holland field subdivision phase one and that there was a
- meeting on site with Ben Ayers with the highway department and the engineer, the developer and their
- attorney. They're trying to just come to an agreement on the estimate. Is it a full repave? Can they
- do a patch? There was some discrepancies on
- The original estimate included a lot of sidewalks, and staff felt like that was not quite right, so
- they were probably not gonna have to do as many sidewalks. We're basically waiting on a new estimate.
- And we heard from the attorney today, yesterday and Tuesday both, and they're still kind of trying to
- get, they're working on it here for Holland Field's phase one. So that's basically the update I have
- for this one.
- And it's debatable if we wanna, you know, staff recommended continuance to October 23rd, 2020, but we
- might wanna consider even going on into November just to kind of get it, or keep the pressure on.
- Like it's, it's up to you to make a motion. Okay, are there any questions for staff before we turn to
- the petitioner?
- Again, we are already past the current date. Correct. I think this was supposed to be heard back in
- like February, March was when we started. And it's because the two subdivisions are so interlocked and
- intertwined together that we want to make sure that they work together. And it's some significant reworking
- of the infrastructure out there to make it happen. I will say that staff,
- I just offered a few dates earlier today as to like when to meet again with several departments and
- get the Holland fields phase one, you know, just all of us on the same page because they do have three
- phases and they've been renewing their letters of credit, but they're not enough. We need the updated
- estimate so that we can, you know, add the inflation amount to it and then have an accurate amount on
- file for how long it's going to take this subdivision to be completed.
- But you feel like all of the parties are acting in good faith at this time. It seems like, yeah, I would
- say so. OK. Yeah. And yeah, even the Holland Fields three lot minor, which we'll talk about in the second
- one, is working with us. And they have filed a primary plat amendment. And we've, yeah. OK. Any additional
- questions for staff?
- Okay, if not, we can turn to the petitioner or petitioners representative. If you're here in the room,
- please come to the podium. If you're online, please raise your virtual hand and we'll have tech services
- allow you to unmute. And based on email correspondence I had with them kind of late in the day, they
- said that they
- since we were recommending continuance, I'm not sure if they would be attending tonight. It makes sense.
- I'm not seeing anybody raising their virtual hand, so we will turn to public comment. If there's anybody
- in the room who wishes to speak either in favor or against this petition, please come to the podium.
- If there's anyone online who wishes to speak for or against this petition, please raise your virtual
- hand. Seeing no one, we will come back to the plan commission for discussion and or emotion.
- discussion is someone willing to make a motion with respect to si a 22 9 which is the Hollings field
- subdivision phase 1 I move that we accept the recommendation from the staff to continuous but this
- to give the staff time towards the developer to revise the estimate and confirm the performance completion
- schedule, et cetera. I'll second that. We've been moved and seconded to continue SIA-22-9, which is
- Holland Field's major subdivision phase one SIA for continuing to the date of the regular meeting of
- October 23rd, 2025.
- A vote yes is a vote to approve the continuance. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes.
- David Bush? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Okay, motion is approved, six to zero. Okay, moving
- on to the next item, which is SIA-22-18. This is the Holland three lot minor subdivision request for
- inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount.
- Right, so this one we touched on a little bit and it's integrated a little bit with the Holland Fields
- phase one, but it's a different developer. We're asking again for a continuance to the October 23rd,
- 2025 so that we can get an estimate. We are working on making sure that designs are accurate through
- a primary plat amendment, which will most likely be coming here for approval at some point, so by the time that
- those preliminary plat plans are ready. We should have an accurate estimate on file and ready to take
- this with it. One of the things that we have done is requested that they submit right of way permits
- for all three driveways associated with that subdivision to make sure that those are corrected and that
- they are integrated into the phase one
- sidewalk infrastructure that they're required to do. So I think we just want to make sure that everything
- fits together just right. And we know which developer is accountable for which item under their estimates.
- So that's the only update I have for this one. Are there any questions for staff from members of the
- planning commission? A question for staff.
- Excuse me, referencing a letter that was sent out July 28th from Paganelli Law Group. They were indicating
- that they weren't getting a lot of cooperation from the Holland three lot minor subdivision. Developer
- and it's your, your feeling that you are getting good cooperation with them now so that we
- I would say we're working a lot with the engineer, and the engineer actually works for both of them.
- We have discussions sometimes that we are trying to keep this on track and keep it moving forward. And
- I think there is sometimes some slow responses to reviewing estimates or getting
- new information or getting approval from the developers. So I think we're just doing our best to trying
- to get some of this information like teased out of them. But there is a dialogue happening back forth.
- Yeah, that one that was probably an older exhibit with a smaller number. So it's more of a historical
- document from one of the earlier planned commissions this year. Got that. Yeah. Yeah. OK. So thank you.
- Any additional questions? Okay, if none, we can turn to the petitioner or petitioner's representative.
- If you're here in the room, please come to the podium, or if you're online, please raise your virtual
- hand. We expecting a representative, okay? So we will turn to public comment then. If you're here in
- the room and wish to speak, please come to the podium. If you're online, please raise your virtual hand.
- Seeing no one, we will turn back to members of the planning commission for further conversation and
- or emotion. I have a motion to continue this petition till October 23rd, 2025 to give time for the planning
- staff to work with the developer to revise the estimate and confirm the order for the staff to be able
- to calculate the inflation amount required with the estimate.
- and this is with respect to SIA 2218, Holland 3 lot minor subdivision. Second. It's been moved and seconded
- to continue SIA-22-18, Holland 3 lot minor. This vote would be a continuance to October 23rd, 2025,
- the regular meeting of the Plan Commission. A vote yes is a vote to approve the continuance. Julie Thomas?
- Yes. David Bush?
- Scott Farris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Vote is approved six to zero.
- That finishes up our unfinished business. So we'll turn now to new business. And the only item on the
- agenda is PUO-25-3. This is the Petra PUD outline plan amendment two. This is the preliminary hearing
- and a waiver of final hearing has been requested. So Mr. Smith, I will turn it over to you.
- Okay, so the request for this petition is to amend the existing Petro POD outline plan specifically
- as it relates to conditions number two and number three to allow for up to 30,000 square feet of developed
- area and for the existing driveway and parking areas to remain paved. So the purpose would be so that they can
- complete their 1,688 square foot addition to the primary or I should say existing facility. So the board
- of commissioners and that ordinance number is 2001-30. In that ordinance that was approved in 2001,
- condition two states that the total developed area shall be limited to 15,000 square feet. So the petitioner
- is seeking to increase that total square footage
- So right now, if they were to expand that 1,688 square feet, that would put them over the 15,000 square
- foot limit. So by allowing up to 30,000 square feet, it would not only allow that expansion to take
- place, but it could also allow for potential future development of the property.
- But I will note that the petitioners did state that they do not have plans at this time to expand beyond
- their proposed addition. And then also worth mentioning is that the proposed 30,000 square feet of developed
- area is less than the 55,000 square feet that would otherwise be allowed under the underlying zoning
- district, which would be forest residential five.
- And then condition number three as part of that ordinance states that the driveway and parking area
- shall be gravel and the petitioner is seeking to strike this condition entirely. So just some background
- on this outline plan. It was approved on June 1st 2001 to allow for the development of a research facility.
- for a nonprofit organization known as Friends of Craft, or the Center for Research into the Anthropological
- Foundations of Technology. This facility is otherwise known as the Stone Age Institute. And the purpose
- of that research institute is not only to conduct research, but also prepare publications and also house
- a large private research library. And that current proposed addition is also for said library.
- The facility does collaborate with Indiana University, but they are completely autonomous. So they are
- privately funded. They are completely separate from the university itself. And I will say that the original
- PUD plans did also allow for the possibility of including a residence to be built on site. However,
- those plans were never pursued because the current directors live at an adjacent property.
- And the original zoning district for this property was zoned Forest Reserve under the 1997 zoning ordinance,
- which did not allow for a research facility at the time, which is why the petitioners sought a rezone
- to the PUD itself. And this is just a snippet of that ordinance that was approved. And I just
- have highlighted the two conditions that we are looking at amending today. So again, those conditions,
- number two,
- that the total developed area shall be limited to 15,000 square feet. And number three, that the driveway
- and parking areas shall be gravel. And then also on the screen, I just have a snippet of what that ordinance
- looked like as of June 1st, 2001. And then I have in the red rectangle on both sides that represents the zones
- of the permitted uses that they could have pursued on the property and are allowed under their current
- PUD ordinance. So those would be all uses in the agricultural rural reserve and forest reserve zoning
- districts as they were on June 1st, 2001. Just a quick note that the original outline plan did not provide
- a definition
- of what is considered developed area. So for the purposes of clarity, planning staff did propose the
- following definition, which is that developed area, including all roofed structures or buildings in
- any swimming pool facilities, excludes all other uncovered structures such as decks, patios, driveways,
- parking areas, walkways, trails, and landscaped areas.
- The primary issue that planning staff did note when reviewing this petition is that the driveway was
- to remain gravel. At some point between 2003 and 2005, that driveway was paved over. And that does seem
- to correlate with what the petitioner states in the letter that the driveway was paved in 2005. So I
- just have on the screen aerial imagery from 2005.
- 2010 and 2024 so at 2005 is when we first noticed that The driveway and parking areas appear to at least
- partially be paved and then by 2010 It was more pronounced and then by 2024, of course, you can see
- the black top in the aerial imagery So this is located in
- The very northern part of the county and Washington Township, also close to the border of Bean Blossom
- Township. It is right off of West Didmore Road. Zoning map, so it is the only PUD in the area. It is
- surrounded by what would now be called Forest Residential 5. Other adjacent zoning districts would be
- the Agricultural Residential 2.5, as well as the Residential 1
- zoning districts. So it is a very rural area in terms of character. And the comprehensive plan also
- identifies this property as belonging to the farm and forest areas, which is consistent with its rural
- nature. So on the screen, I just have a snippet of the development plan that was submitted to planning
- staff. So on the screen, they did
- outlined the original driveway that was paved roughly around 2005. And then in this next snippet we've
- got here includes their more detailed plans that includes the proposed addition to the south side of
- the research facility. And then they also have labeled where their septic system is, where the parking
- lot is, and then also where their garage is.
- And these are just some site photos that planning staff took. So it is gated off. So you do have to
- request permission to enter. And when you get to, it is a bit of a drive. So you cannot see the research
- facility itself from West Edmore Road. It is heavily forested. And then you get to the entrance here.
- The garage building is located on the right-hand side when you pull in, and then the research facility
- is directly ahead. And then these other site photos, they did go ahead and stake out here on the south
- side of the building, the location of where that addition will take place. And then the bottom picture
- on the screen would just represent, that's facing the driveway, but facing towards West Didymore Road.
- So you also cannot see the roadway
- from the facility. And these are just construction plans that were also submitted to planning staff
- as part of their petition.
- So this does lead me into staff's recommendation, which is recommending forward a positive recommendation
- to the county commissioners for the planned unit outline plan amendment request, subject to the Monroe
- County Highway Department and Stormwater Program Manager reports. With the following conditions, there
- are three. So that first condition, keeping with the original ordinance, that the uses shall be limited
- to the Friends of Kraft Research Facility or a research facility of a similar nature,
- and uses permitted in the Forest Reserve Zone in the Agricultural and Residential Uses subcategories
- of Table 2-1, permitted land uses from Ordinance 1997-36. Number two, that the total developed area
- shall be limited to 30,000 square feet. And number three, that this petition will comply with
- the requirements of the Monroe County Highway and Drainage Engineer Reports. And I can take any questions.
- Mr. Ferris. So, three conditions that you stated there. I just want you to confirm that you have met
- with the petitioner and reviewed those conditions with them and they accept them and agree with them.
- the conditions are part of the original request. And then number two, which is that the developed area
- shall be limited to 30,000 square feet was their request. Yes. Thank you. Any additional questions for
- staff? One of the original requirements was that
- sinkholes be identified. That was in 2001. I know there's some on the handmade drawing. Are you and
- or Ms. Pena, the stormwater program director, confident that we've stayed outside 50 feet of those cars
- features and that others have not been identified near the building site?
- Yeah, so the original request did include a development plan where they did delineate where those sinkholes
- would be. The stormwater program manager did not have any concerns with the request moving forward.
- Any additional questions before we turn to the petitioner? OK, we can turn now to the petitioner or
- the petitioner's representative if you'd like to speak.
- You will have a combined total of 15 minutes if any of you wish to speak on this. If you could sign
- in and state your name. Mary Krupinski with Kirkwood Design Studio, working in conjunction with the
- owners, Friends of Craft, Nick Toth and Kathy Schick, who are also here today. I guess I have
- one clarification to understand, does this
- allow us to continue with the paved driveway? If it's approved, yes. If it's approved. Okay. I just
- wanted that clarification. So now we, I don't know that we have any other questions. We're certainly
- here to answer any questions you may have and appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Do any members
- of the planning commission have questions for the petitioner?
- I don't see any questions, but thank you for coming up. We can turn now to the public to see if anyone
- here in the room wishes to speak for or against this or anyone online. If you wish to speak for or against
- this, please raise your virtual hand. Seeing none, you're welcome to sit back down if you'd like to.
- Once you finish signing in, thank you for coming. We can turn now to planning commission members to discuss
- or make a motion. I just wanted to ask one question. How many acres are in this parcel? It's approximately
- 29.79 acres. OK. OK, thank you. Any other questions or comments before we move to a motion?
- I'll take a crack at it. All right. In case number PUO-25-3, Petra PUD Outline Plan Amendment 2. They're
- requesting approval with three conditions. And condition one would be
- the uses shall be limited to the friends of craft research facility or a research facility of a similar
- nature and uses permitted in the forest reserve zone in the agriculture and residential uses subcategories
- of table two dash one permitted land use from ordinance nineteen ninety seven dash thirty six and two
- that the total developed area shall be limited to thirty thousand square feet and three
- that this petition shall comply with the requirements of Monroe County Highway and Drainage Engineers
- Report and believe they're requesting a waiver final hearing as well. Second.
- Okay. And just to clarify, this will be a recommendation, a positive recommendation to the
- county commissioners. This is a vote on P U O dash twenty five dash three. And as stated well by Plant
- Commission member David Bush, I won't repeat, but they are asking for a positive recommendation with
- the conditions as stated and a waiver of final hearing. A vote yes is a vote to send this as a positive
- recommendation as mentioned to the county commissioners. Scott Ferris. Yes.
- Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Motion is
- approved, six to zero. And just to let you know, Sean will be in touch with the commissioner's schedule
- for you. Thanks. Thank you for coming out tonight.
- Moving on to the last item on the agenda, and that is the public comment period. Is there anyone who
- wishes to speak on anything that is not on the agenda? If you're online, please raise your virtual hand.
- I have one other thing to add to the administrative business after we hear from the public. Okay, I
- don't see any hands. I think we can move on to reports, Jackie.
- Okay, if we could add one item back under administrative business we realize that under one of the ordinances
- that was amended this year earlier was chapter two to five which is the resiliency commission.
- It says that the one employee from the Monroe County Planning Department, as determined by the Monroe
- County Plan Commission, shall serve as a member of this group. So I would like to see if we can add
- administrative business to appoint Tammy Bierman to the Resiliency Commission, which is made up of nine
- members from different departments or groups, and they meet on a semi-regular basis.
- I'm going to make that motion and I appreciate the willingness to serve. Just so folks know, we used
- to have an environmental commission. We ended up being the first county to do a resiliency report, which
- is related to how we manage changing environments and
- for our residents, but also for the business of county government. And so our environmental commission
- became our resiliency commission. So that's what that is. And Ms. Meerman's expertise in floodplain
- matters is a vital cog in this wheel. So we would really appreciate if she would serve. I think we need
- a second. Second. Thanks. Okay. It's been- Thank you.
- It's been moved and seconded to both add an administrative item and vote on the administrative item,
- which is to appoint Tammy Behrman to the Resiliency Commission. A vote yes is a vote to approve that
- appointment, which is a two-year, I believe it's a two-year term. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes.
- Jeff Morse?
- Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Motion is approved, six to zero. Do you have
- any reports for us tonight, Jackie? I do not. OK. And I don't think Mr. Schilling is online, is he?
- So we have no legal reports tonight, OK? Do we have a motion for adjournment? Don't move. Thank you,
- everyone. Thank you. Why did Margaret pick the wrong meeting in this?