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?