- Okay, good evening, everyone. I'd like to call to order the November meeting of the County Planning
- Commission. Jackie, to get us started, would you please call the roll? Yes, David Bush. Here. Margaret
- Clements. Tronan Wright Randolph. Scott Ferris. Here. Rudy Fields. Here. David Henry. Here. Jeff Morris.
- Here. Julie Thomas. Here. Joe Vandeventer.
- here. Okay so we have seven members in person and quorum. To get us started tonight Mr. Vandeventer
- I'd like to administer the oath to you so if you could raise your right hand and repeat after me. I
- Joe Vandeventer do solemnly swear. I Joe Vandeventer do solemnly swear. That I will support the constitutions
- of the United States of America. That I will support the constitutions of the United States of America.
- In the state of Indiana. In the state of Indiana. And that I will faithfully and impartially perform my duties
- And I will faithfully and impartially perform my duties. As a Monroe County Planning Commission member.
- As a member of County Planning Commission member. According to the law and to the best of my skill and
- ability. According to the law and the best of my skill and ability. Thank you and welcome to the Planning
- Commission. Thank you. I'm glad to have you here with us. Thank you and glad to be here. Okay, Jackie,
- to continue, could you introduce the evidence for tonight?
- Yes, I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance
- has adopted and amended. The Monroe County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Control 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. Okay, do we have a motion to approve the evidence? Moved.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence about yes is about to approve Scott
- Ferris. Yes, Rudy Fields. Yes, David Henry. Yes, Jeff Morris. Yes, Julie Thomas. Yes, Joe Vandeventer.
- Yes, David Bush. Yes, motion is approved 7 to 0. Do we have a motion to approve tonight's agenda? Moved second.
- and moved and seconded to approve tonight's agenda and just to note we do not have any proposed changes
- to tonight's agenda so as presented is correct. About yes is about to prove tonight's agenda Rudy fields.
- Yes David Henry yes. Jeff Morris yes. Julie Thomas yes. Joe van Deventer yes David Bush yes Scott Ferris
- yes motion is approved 7 to 0 hey we have no.
- minutes to approve tonight. So before we jump into administrative business, I want to mention that items
- one and two under unfinished business and item number one under new business have been continued by
- staff as noted in the agenda. So if there's anyone here to speak on those, those will not be heard tonight.
- So we can move now to administrative business. The first item is the CDO amendment prioritization list, Jackie.
- Yes, as we're closing out coming close to the year we have made some.
- I believe that the ordinance review committee and the planned commission administrative meeting in December,
- so that is the update.
- Thank you for that update. Item number two on the agenda is the 2025 meeting calendar update. Right,
- so this is 2025 meeting schedule and we found out last week that we were not going to have access to
- suite 100 B, which is where we have held the Historic Preservation Board of Review and also the Plan
- Commission administrative meeting. We are going to be holding that in the showers room 224 and that's
- basically us changing the calendar here. So it'll be in our office.
- for the remainder of the year. I think we need to vote on adopting it. I'm going to present the 2026
- at the same time. I could do that one as well. Since it's the same change. 2026. Same thing, we've amended
- the room location to showers 224 for HP board and PC admin. And then we also, because we have the holiday
- schedule from the commissioners, we were able to choose a date for the voting days. So we included those.
- But we still do not have
- the county council meeting dates for the budget hearings. So we'll be adding more dates eventually.
- Okay, thank you, Tammy. Do we have a motion to approve the 2025 meeting calendar update and the 2026
- meeting calendar update? So moved. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve both the 2025
- and 2026 meeting calendars as presented in the packet.
- The vote yes is a vote to approve. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Joe Vandeventer?
- Yes. David Bush? Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Motion passes seven to zero.
- Okay, we'll move on to unfinished business. We will move to item number three, SIA-22-18. This is the
- Holland three lot minor subdivision request for inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount. Right.
- So one thing I do want to note is that there is a representative here tonight. I believe Lana Allen
- is available. However, the engineer that's associated with this and the attorney that's associated with
- this petition will not be available to this evening, but they wanted to keep it on the agenda and moving forward.
- So this is the Holland three lot minor subdivision recorded back in July of 2019. There's still one
- remaining lot open and vacant, which is the Smithville telephone lot. There are public improvements
- associated with this subdivision that need to be completed. One is the sidewalk that runs along North
- South Walnut Street Pike.
- and then also some street trees I think we're we're needing to be completed and this is of course integrated
- with the Highland sorry with Holland fields phase one subdivision so we're working with both those developers
- to try to get them to complete these public improvements and get them adopted into the Monroe County
- inventory.
- So again, just to review, we've got a driveway for lot one, which does not meet ADA compliance. And
- also same with the driveway for lot two. So there's some interesting utilities issues that are possibly
- in conflict, which will make this a costly repair to drop this sidewalk and to correct these driveways.
- But without that, we cannot accept those into the county inventory.
- So I have a bit of a summary. So the original estimate from the 2019 was $5,115. And that was to cover
- the cost of installing sidewalks and street trees. And it was held in the form of a cashier's check
- by the county. Earlier this year, the plan commission agreed to have the developer aim for a performance
- period of June 30th, 2026. So it will be completed within the year, hopefully.
- we also are having the the holland three lot primary plat amendment one was required to be filed and
- that is going to be immediately following this in fact i'd almost prefer that you hold the vote for
- this petition until after you've heard the new business of the subdivision primary plat amendment so
- the request on the primary plat is basically to have them
- change the road width which was originally approved at 32 feet and let it remain at 26 feet which is
- what they built it as and then as a part of that we've been reviewing some of the driveway permits for
- lot one lot two we still need lot three to be filed i think at this point so the big issue is that east
- holland drive was originally constructed at a higher elevation
- and the highway department required that the road be removed and then reconstructed at an acceptable
- lower elevation for safety concerns. The sidewalks and the driveways were never lowered and degraded
- to match the grade of the road, which is what the problem is here. The stated reason by the contractor
- was that there was that potential conflict and the cost for relocating the Smithville fiber utility.
- I did get an email which did not make it into the packet. We got it like I think the day after from
- a representative of Smithville because Blackwell contractors LLC representative met with Smithville
- fiber on site and the resulting email is that the only way to confirm for sure that Smithville's duct
- and fiber cable are not in conflict is for the constructor to spot the duct fiber cable
- Smithville is not in conflict based off of the locator depths if you are just lowering eight inches.
- But as the contractor, you will need to spot the duct fiber to visibly determine if Smithville is in
- conflict. The locators, I guess, can have interference such as rebar in the sidewalks that can cause
- depths to be off. Therefore, if you spot cable and it is in conflict, Smithville will have to create
- an estimate, that estimate to be paid.
- and then the relocation completed before you are able to proceed lowering the sidewalk. Smithville would
- like to have someone on location while spotting the fiber cable and completing this construction. In
- the event there are issues, please contact me. So that's one of the big conundrums we have with this
- location here and getting the subdivision completed.
- So one of the big things that came out of all of our meetings that we've had recently and planning and
- everyone's hard work is that we actually have an estimate agreed to by both sides for the remaining
- public improvements that need to occur out here. The total for the sidewalks, the street trees, they
- are also going to do some improvements with roll curb and gutter and a little bit of tapering out here.
- We did have on file just over $5,000. We are going to be requesting that they have $20,777.88 on file
- and that we will not be charging them interest because they have agreed that they will have this complete
- by June 30th of 2026 from our prior agreement.
- So for this specific petition, I'll go ahead and give the staff recommendation for SIA 22-18, even though
- I think you guys should wait and hear the primary plot amendment first. But staff recommends approval
- of the estimate amount of $20,777.88. With the following conditions, the performance bond document shall
- be signed and recorded by December 11, 2025.
- and a new financial guarantee shall be submitted in the form of either a letter of credit or a cashier's
- check by December 11th, 2025. That satisfies the amount of $20,777.88. So I guess do they need to have
- to agree to not vote on this at the moment and then we move on to new business or?
- The public will be able to speak on this so if you want to hear them both together you will still have
- to call for public comment for each one individually. Okay I can go ahead and call for public call for
- hearing from the petition or public comment and then I can make a motion to table the vote until after
- item number two under new business. Okay. Okay before we continue do any members of the planning commission
- have questions for staff?
- Okay, seeing none, we can turn now to the petitioner's representative. If you're here in the room, you're
- welcome to come to the podium. You would have 15 minutes to speak to this. If you're online, please
- raise your virtual hand. I see Lana is there, but she may not want to speak.
- then we will move on to public comment. If there's anyone here in the room who wishes to speak for or
- against this petition, please come to the podium. Okay, seeing no one, if there's anyone online who
- wishes to speak for or against this, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing none, I will make
- a motion that we table the vote on this and the discussion on this amongst planning commission members
- until after item number two under new business. Second.
- It's been moved and seconded just to hear the new business item SMN-25-5 before hearing a vote on number
- three under unfinished business SIA-22-18 and the vote will be had together. A vote yes is a vote to
- combine those presentations by staff. Julie Thomas? Yes. Joe Vandeventer? Yes. David Bush? Yes.
- Scott Ferris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Motion is approved seven to
- zero. Okay let's move on then to new business and we'll move to item number two which is SMN-25-5. This
- is the Holland three lot minor subdivision primary plat amendment one. This is the preliminary hearing
- and a waiver of final hearing has been requested.
- All right. So this one, we have three owners of the lots that are kind of a part of this petition. They've
- all been noticed. We have the recorded final plat that was from 2019. And this is a primary plat amendment,
- but the changes that are happening at the primary plat level are not going to be requiring that the
- final plat or the secondary plat be amended. So this will still remain as is. It has the proper amount
- of right of way dedicated.
- And yeah, we won't need to be changing this. On November of 2017, a primary plot was approved by the
- Platt committee for the Holland three lot minor subdivision. Let's see, and it was to subdivide a one
- acre lot into three lots totaling 0.97 acres once right of way was dedicated.
- And the petitioner here in this case is requesting a primary plot amendment to the subdivision plot
- so that they would not have to require a road width change. So the road that was approved, this is part
- of the plot, was for a 32-foot width, which allowed for some tapering, a little bit more of a safety
- aspect from a transportation perspective. This road was built and then
- It was required to be removed and rebuilt. And in that whole shuffle of process, it was built back to
- the 26 foot width, which was under the Holland Fields subdivision requirement. So this Platt Amendment
- is basically to allow this to remain at a 26 foot width, which is what it is currently built to at this
- point in time. This is also allowing us
- And this is just some of the other showing the 26 foot width in the field. And then an email back from
- 2017 where the highway department did want to have this flared out from 26 to 32. It just didn't happen.
- It was an oversight during the rebuild, I think. So we have this new primary plot. And it is actually
- allowing us to do some improvements at the intersection of
- South Walnut Street Pike and East Holland Drive. There's going to be a bit of curb and gutter put in
- here, as well as the design of the sidewalk that was required. It's actually going to take a little
- jog to the west, so it will avoid a tree that does still allow it to touch the property line, which
- was a comment that the highway engineer had on this one.
- And then I think we are also having the driveway permits reviewed for lot one, lot two. We still need
- to have a driveway permit submitted for lot three, just to prove that we have access out here because
- of the fiber, because of the slopes, and the fact that the sidewalks are going to be dropped out here
- by the other developer of Holland Fields. So we just want to prove that we have that
- that Smithville will have access to their lot. So those are some of the changes that we're seeing as
- a part of the primary plot amendment. We're correcting some drainage that occurred when they rebuilt
- it. And let's see. And then we did have finally some driveway permits submitted on November 13th, and
- that had been a condition of approval by the Platt committee. So the Platt committee did meet on October
- And forwarded a positive recommendation with a vote of five to zero. There were four conditions of approval,
- but only two of those have been met already and removed from the recommendation. We have the highway
- department's comment actually has been satisfied.
- and the drainage board, they heard this at their October 14th meeting, and they voted unanimously to
- approve this petition. But they noted that the individual property owners will still need to apply for
- variances for their fences that have been installed with implanted drainage easements. And so we have
- also made that a condition of approval. I believe that's the second condition. And so with case number
- SMN 25-5, the Holland Three Lot Minor subdivision
- primary plot amendment one. We're recommending a positive recommendation to the plan commission based
- on the findings that the proposed primary plot meets the subdivision control ordinance. I would say
- the county development ordinance subject to the highway engineer and stormwater program manager reports
- with the following conditions that one, the developer and their engineers show
- corrective measures to the driveways for Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 so that the developer of Holland Fields
- Phase 1 can complete the remaining East Holland Drive sidewalk corrections in order to request right-of-way
- acceptance. And the developer must apply for right-of-way activity permits for all three driveways to
- be corrected and complete the work on or before May 1st, 2026.
- um and they do have and I say this is partially completed because they've got applications for lot one
- and lot two submitted though they have not been fully reviewed they still need to uh do for one for
- lot three and then the drainage board requested that the individual property owners for lot one lot
- two apply for variances for the fences built within the plotted drainage easements I can take um any
- questions on either of those petitions I also have the
- the SIA just right below it as well. So we can look at that recommendation. Any members of the Planning
- Commission have questions for staff? Okay, if there are none, we can turn to the petitioner or petitioner's
- representative. If you're online, please raise your virtual hand if you wish to speak.
- Tammy, do we know if the petitioner or petitioner's representative wishes to speak? Lana Allen is on
- the line listening. I don't think she wanted to speak necessarily. But she might be able to answer a
- question possibly. But again, their engineer and their attorney are not here this evening to also like.
- OK, thank you. We can turn now then to public comment. If there's anyone here in the room who wishes
- to speak for or against this, you're welcome to come to the podium.
- Or if you're online and wish to speak for or against this, you can raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing
- no one, we can come back to the plan commission for discussion. Or if there is no discussion, we could
- turn to a motion. Okay. Um, so.
- If we're going to make a motion, can we combine these two or do we have to do them separately? I almost
- think it's separately because they have different case numbers and different conditions associated with
- them. And I can flip between the two slides if that helps. Let's go with... That's what I was going
- to say. So for case number SM Sierra Mike November 25-5,
- which is the Holland three lot minor subdivision preliminary flat amendment one. I recommend that we
- approve based upon the information provided by staff this request. I'm not gonna restate the two paragraphs
- here, but as stated by staff.
- Motion is to approve. Do we have a second? Second. One quick clarification, Jackie. Is this an approval
- or is this a recommendation to the commissioners? This is an approval. OK. That's us. And is this final?
- It says in the box that this is a request to waive the final hearing. So do we need that added in? So
- I would add also, do we waive the final hearing as well? No, I'll second that. OK. I'm sorry. I had
- it marked down.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve SMN dash twenty five dash five the hall and three lot minor
- subdivision primary plot amendment one with a waiver of final hearing requested and this is including
- the conditions in the staff report which are as follows. That's a approval.
- the plan commission based on the findings of the proposed plot meets the subdivision and county development
- ordinance subject to highway engineer and stormwater program manager reports with the following conditions
- one the developer and their engineer show corrective measures to the driveways for lot one lot two and
- lot three so that the developer of Holland fields phase one can complete the remaining East Holland
- drive sidewalk corrections in order to request right away acceptance the developer must apply for
- right-of-way activity permits for three driveways to be corrected and complete the work on or before
- May 1st, 2026. And two, the drainage board requests or requested that the individual property owners
- for lots one and two apply for variances for the fences built within the plotted drainage easements.
- A vote yes is a vote to approve with a waiver and with the conditions as stated. Joe Vandeventer? Yes.
- David Bush, yes. Scott Ferris, yes. Rudy Fields, yes. David Henry, yes. Jeff Morris, yes. Julie Thomas,
- yes. Motion is approved 7 to 0. OK, so we will move back to item number three under unfinished business
- and I will call for a motion on that item. Alright, with respect to Sierra India Alva 2218.
- which is a request for inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount. I recommend we approve that
- estimate of $20,777.88 with those following conditions as stated by staff and also indicated on the
- board. Is there a waiver? There is no waiver. I do have a second. Oh, that's right, because it's the
- bond. Thank you.
- Okay, we have a second. It's been moved and seconded to approve si a dash twenty two dash eighteen which
- is the hall and three lot minor submission inflation adjustment performance guarantee amount that is
- in the amount of twenty thousand dollars seven hundred seventy seven
- dollars and eighty eight cents with the following two conditions one of performance bond document shall
- be signed and recorded by december eleventh twenty twenty five and two a new financial guarantee shall
- be submitted in the form of either a letter of credit or cashier's check by december eleventh twenty
- twenty five that satisfies the total amount of twenty thousand seven hundred seventy seven dollars and
- eighty eight cents a vote yes as a vote to approve the motion with the conditions as stated
- David Bush. Yes. Scott Ferris. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes.
- Joe Vandeventer. Yes. Motion is approved seven to zero.
- Okay, moving on to item number three, under new business, we have REZ-25-6. This is the Monroe County
- Nature Preserve Rezone from CVR to IP. This is a preliminary hearing and a waiver of final hearing has
- been requested. So Mr. Brown, I will turn it over to you. Thank you. So this is the request is the rezone
- of 409.488.
- acres more or less from Conservation Residential 2.5 to Institutional Public Purpose is that the Monroe
- County Commissioners and the Parks and Recreation Department are interested in establishing the Monroe
- County Nature Preserve at this location. This is a preliminary hearing with a final hearing scheduled
- for December 18th, but a waiver final hearing has been requested and may be approved at this meeting.
- So the petitioner is the Monroe County Board of Commissioners and they are proposing the rezone. A comparison
- of the list of permitted and conditional uses is located in ZIPP at three of the packets for comparing
- contrast between the current zoning and the proposed zoning.
- So a bit of background. In November of 2023, Nancy Huntington passed away. And upon her passing, she
- deeded 409 acres to Monroe County for recreational purposes only to determine the language of the trust,
- including the meaning of the term recreational purposes. A hearing order under clause number 53 C01-212-TR
- the definition of nature preserve only for the uses that fall under the definition of recreational
- Further, the Huntington property changed names to the Monroe County Nature Preserve under Resolution
- 25-2025-32. This was approved by the Board of Commissioners during their meeting on July 24, 2025. There
- are existing structures on the property, including some that were previously used for residential purposes.
- Discussion about the leased buildings and the property were discussed by Commissioner Jody Maderia.
- during the August 14, 2025 Board of Commissioners meeting. Also, these leases did not meet the judge's
- order on the definition of what the property could be utilized for by the county. At this point in time,
- Monroe County has very limited to plans to develop the
- nature preserve. It could include but is not limited to hiking trails, natural areas, and possibly a
- dog park. We recommend that questions about the nature preserve be directed to the Parks and Recreation
- Department by the public. And here is the location map and comprehensive plan map, as well as the zoning
- map. A lot of the property is in the environmental constraints overlay area two, which is in the Lake
- Monroe watershed.
- And the image on the left is a view of the field from State Road 46. And the image on the right is from
- an incomplete driveway that was supposed to connect to Knight Ridge. It is my understanding that Parks
- and Rec has considered developing that and making it a full-on driveway entrance. And these two images
- show one of the currently existing residences on the property.
- The image on the left is of a Bolton board, presumably, or a gate from the driveway entrance. And the
- image on the right is of the house itself. And here is an aerial image of a residence, as well as several
- accessory structures, which connects to State Road 46. 446, sorry.
- And here are the use tables for the Conservation Residential 2.5 Zoning District and the Institutional
- and Public Zoning District. We have had comments from other departments. From the Highway Department,
- Ben Ayers has said no right-of-way activity permit application has been submitted for this petition.
- A proposed driveway entrance was determined back on June 13, 2025 and will be approved off of South
- Knightridge Road.
- please submit a right-of-way activity permit for the new proposed driveway entrance prior to site plan
- review. I do not have any comments or issues at this time. Meanwhile, from stormwater departments, Erica
- Pena says, no comments or concerns regarding this rezone. Stormwater grading permit and state permit
- applicability will be reviewed at the time of development. For letters of support and letters
- of remonstrance, staff has received one letter of support after the packet was published, as shown in
- the image on the right.
- and no letters of monstrance were received. I will leave this up for a moment so that the commission
- could read it.
- And so staff recommends a positive recommendation for a rezone of the Monroe County Nature Preserve
- from Conservation Residential 2.5 to Institutional and Public based on the findings of FACT and the
- comprehensive plan analysis that were approved in the packets. And I will take any questions. If I could.
- I don't have any questions, obviously, but I did want to note for those who have questions on
- the terms of the trust. Our attorney, Justin Roddy, is actively online on Teams. And I thought we had
- somebody here from Monroe County Parks and Rec, but I do not see anyone. Are they both here? Oh,
- here we are. Thank you. There you have been online and now here you are in person. So we have these
- two folks here who can
- to shed some light for Plan Commission members who have questions about any of the aspects of this project.
- Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. Do any members of the Plan Commission have additional questions before
- we turn to the petitioner's representatives? Mr. Roddy, and if you could come- Ms. Whitmer, thank you,
- sorry. If you could sign in and state your name.
- Yes, Justin Roddy, Monroe County Legal Department. And I think we received a pretty good background
- information about the trust as well as
- trust interpretation, so I'm here to answer any questions that the commission may have. Yeah, Council
- Member Henry. Thanks. Thanks, Justin. Is the full copy of the trust available somewhere that we could
- review the entire document? Because we have a snippet here in the packet, but is the full
- I have a copy in my office. Yeah, I'll come take a peek. I'd like to read the whole thing. So my only
- question is really, it seems like the language of the trust for recreational use is more expansive than
- the IP designation in the CDO. Because I think we're, as I see the word fitness center, which seems
- to encompass, I think, what everything the trust is identifying as possible use. Is that a fair way
- to think about it? I mean, because I think under the CDO,
- I think I'm zeroing in on fitness center, which can include sports activities. But then we got language
- with it. I'm sorry. Yeah, it's it's under conditional use. No, it's actually it's actually it's not
- the conditional use one. It's the other one up top. There's an item for I think fitness center as
- Parkson playground is also, yes. And that would encompass, in terms of the trust, is identifying things
- like sports fields, aerial sports, and the like. Is that OK? Because it seems like there's more specificity
- in the trust than what we have in the CDO in terms of what can go on in there is allowable use. I'm
- just curious how that plays out. The trust was written, the trust interpretation, as was interpreted
- by the court in the hearing order, was written in very broad strokes to essentially
- encompass anything that we might potentially do there. It includes things that we frankly have no intention
- of doing in even the relatively long term. It was drawn from cases that both myself as well as the trustees
- council found. So it is a pretty expansive definition. Obviously we'd be limited by anything in the
- IP designation should the commission choose. I think it's more of a comment, but does both staff and
- county legal then feel like there's enough flexibility
- options for use in the two, both in the CDO and then what we have in the definition from the court.
- When I examined the IP designation and Ms. Jelen and I went over that maybe last week, I did not see
- any issues with the limitations there versus what was in the trust, especially for our short-term plans.
- My short-term, I mean two or three decades. That's good. That's it. Thank you. I think you can imagine
- it like a Venn diagram and there's the institutional public.
- there's the trust, where they overlap is what we're planning for now, which is not much. So it's really
- meant to be a nature preserve. So. Are there any additional questions for Mr. Roddy from members of
- the planning commission? Seeing none, Ms. Whitmer, did you want to speak also or were you here just
- to answer questions? Hello, Kelly Whitmer, director of Monroe County Parks and Recreation.
- And we've learned, Justin was, when we write stuff, we want to write it for 100 years, 500 years. I
- don't know what in 500 years this community may want there. But I do know what we want today is a nature
- preserve with many grass trails, maybe a dog park, maybe a shelter someday. But I don't know what 500
- years might hold. So we don't want to limit those people in the future.
- for now and probably for very many decades, lots of trees, lots of grasses, lots of wildflowers. Does
- anyone have any questions? I'm not seeing any questions, thank you. Okay, we can turn now to public
- comment. If there's anybody here in the room who wishes to speak in favor of this petition, you're welcome
- to come to the podium. If there's anyone online who wishes to speak in favor of this petition, please come
- or please raise your virtual hand. Okay, not seeing anyone. If there's anyone here in the room who's
- against this petition, please come to the podium. Or if you're online and opposed to this petition,
- please raise your virtual hand. Okay, seeing no one, we can come back to the Plan Commission for further
- discussion and or motion.
- I want to say thank you again to both Ms. Whitmer and Mr. Roddy for being here today. I appreciate it
- because we had questions come up at the admin meeting and just in case. So thank you both for being
- here. Appreciate you. Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. Any other comments? If not, I believe it's time
- for a motion. With respect to case number Romeo Echo Zulu 256,
- with the request of rezone request to change the zoning from conservation residential 2.5 to institutional
- public in addition to a waiver for a final hearing. The motion is to forward a positive recommendation
- to the county commissioners for approval. Do we have a second? Second.
- It's been moved and seconded to send a positive recommendation for our easy dash twenty five dash six,
- which is the Monroe County Nature Preserve rezone from CVR to IP with a waiver of final hearing. A vote.
- Yes is a vote to send a favorable recommendation and waive the final hearing. Scott Ferris. Yes,
- Rudy Fields. Yes, David Henry. Yes, Jeff Morris. Yes, Julie Thomas.
- Yes. Joe van de Benter. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Motion is carried seven to zero. Thank you. And I will
- echo Commissioner Thomas's thank you to the Parks Department and to legal for making this happen. I'm
- excited to see it come to fruition for the county. So moving on to item number four.
- SPP-25-2. This is the Bella Vista section three subdivision, primary plat amendment two, sidewalk and
- street tree waiver request. This is the preliminary hearing with a waiver of final hearing requested.
- So Ms. Nesterjellen, I will turn it over to you. All right, thank you very much.
- So I'm just going to go over a quick summary of the Bellevista report. Hopefully you had a chance to
- review it. There's several exhibits that I'll touch base on, but it's fully in the report as well. So
- the request here tonight is to amend the Bellevista Section 3 only to remove the requirement for street
- trees and sidewalks. This contains 50 lots.
- The developers wanting to waive the remaining sidewalk subdivision improvements and street tree improvements
- and if it's waived they can receive their funds back that the county has been holding since their approval
- in 2006. So that would amount to $50,770.50.
- So when Bellevista section three was originally recorded in 2006, the developer was made aware of the
- street tree and sidewalk requirements on one side of the road for sidewalks, both sides for street trees
- throughout the subdivision. And the sidewalks have never been installed. The street trees, there are
- some street trees maybe by lot owners own planting or possibly the developer for some of the more vacant lots.
- account today this morning. They were 149 trees.
- There's currently no sidewalks in phases one, two, or three of Bellevista, and this was brought up as
- a discussion point by some of the neighbors when we had the prior subdivision improvement agreement
- discussion with the planned commission about how to move forward with the limited funds of $50,770,
- which would not cover today's amount required to put in the street trees and the sidewalk. So section
- one was approved in 1989, and that was before our ordinance contained
- requirements for sidewalk or street tree requirements so they were approved without those improvements
- as a requirement. Section two received waivers from the sidewalk and street tree requirements however
- they did plat a five-foot easement along the lots for a future sidewalk and section three had only requested
- a sidewalk waiver at the time
- They agreed to the street trees as they did not request a waiver But they were denied originally and
- came back and finally the subdivision was approved with sidewalk only on one side of the road
- So the developers annually renewed the letter of credit since its recording in 2006. And when we contacted
- the developer in October of 2024, as the county development ordinance was underway, we had asked about
- their timeline for completion of these remaining improvements and had a case file for it under SIA 2228.
- Eventually the developer's request was decided For the saa the subdivision improvement agreement at
- the september 2nd 2025 planned commission meeting and Essentially the vote was to request that the planning
- department draw the financial guarantee And work with residents to file primary plan amendment for the
- two waivers for street trees and sidewalks the developer then did
- step up and apply for this Platt Amendment. So they are the applicant in this case, not the residents,
- which is what we originally thought might happen. So the Planning Department has cashed the letter of
- credit per the requirement by the Planning Commission and because it expired on October 27th of this
- year. But again, if the waivers are approved tonight, the developer would be able to be refunded this amount.
- So as of today, under the subdivision, the money that we have would only be able to be used for sidewalks,
- street trees, thermoplastic stop bars, which are no longer a requirement under the highway code, and
- stop signs, which now have been installed for some time. And we estimate that each of these improvements
- are going to total $710,332. Since we did the street tree count this morning, we were able to come up
- with estimates
- of that by itself, which is $81,950 of just the missing street trees. I will say if you have not been
- out to Bellevista, they have several conservation areas between lots and the backs of lots. So even
- where there's not street trees, I was able to easily point out in proximity well-established trees in
- the near area.
- So the big point on this one is that the county did accept Bellevista section three into the inventory
- on December 5th, 2008 by it was a prior highway director and prior leadership. So typically today we
- would not allow for acceptance of roads into the inventory without meeting the requirements approved
- by the plan commission. That's how we get people to finalize and finish those improvements. So the emission
- of sidewalks and street trees in this case should
- have prevented the acceptance, but it did not. So that is why partially the letter of credit was annually
- renewed and no one had too much issue because the county was still plowing the roads and maintaining
- it. And that usually is why people call us. This is an aerial of section three, just the outline of
- it in yellow and then sections two and one are to the north of that area.
- And then in yellow, you'll see the location of where the one side of sidewalks were supposed to be located.
- There are no sidewalks at all throughout. And then we also have the location of street trees.
- The non-highlighted trees are the ones that are missing. So you'll see there's several segments missing.
- But as I mentioned before on a site visit this morning, there are several trees throughout the subdivision
- interior to the lots that
- are there. And then I have some photos from earlier this year where we're just looking at kind of the
- picture of what the streets look like, what Bellevista looks like. I'm standing on East Tierney, and
- this would be a situation where sidewalks would be installed on the right side. And then this is on
- East Michelle Court, sidewalks illustrated in the blue line on this one.
- and that this is on South Stone Ridge Road. And when we spoke with the highway department, some of the
- issues that come up typically when you wait to, if you delay sidewalks until every lot is constructed
- is now you have to possibly relocate utilities, you have to
- reconstruct driveways to make sure that the sidewalks meet ADA. You, in this case, have ditching. They
- got a detention waiver, so they actually rely on ditching in this area and existing vegetation to carry
- their stormwater. So you would have to redo the grading and drainage, which is why it's so expensive.
- And then this is the area facing south on South Stone Ridge. Again, the blue line representing where sidewalks
- would go and then street trees would be every 40 feet on all lots. And then East Tierney the rest of
- the way. And then this was a stub that was approved on South Inn. Actually this lot in the right side
- of the photo and the lot next to it I believe are currently under construction as of now. And then there's
- a view north on South Inn, location of sidewalks again in blue.
- And then here's their amended primary plot, just going through several pages, essentially. The only
- thing that's changing is the removal of showing any street trees and any sidewalks. So because
- the requirements or the imagery of sidewalks and street trees are only on the preliminary plot or the
- primary plot, this would not technically need to be recorded after if this is
- decided upon tonight the primary plot would be either approved or denied and we would be able to move
- forward. They wouldn't have to record this or a secondary final plot. And then the applicant did submit
- a consent letter
- where they had a listing, it says, sign the petition. The petitioners are current homeowners of Belle
- Vista phase three subdivision. We the undersigned are in opposition of the remaining improvements as
- outlined in the subdivision improvement agreement, SIA-22-28, sidewalks in addition of more street trees.
- So we did accept this as their letter from most neighbors.
- And then the reason I have page three again is because they had a copy of it and one person signed one
- version, they didn't sign the other version. But between last meeting and this meeting, we did end up
- sending a special letters to all the owners that we had GIS records for, which is what the rules of
- procedure say to say you are hereby noticed that they're the developers going through this
- process because there were some people that did not sign that document and here's a little bit more
- information so
- Upon, so there's 50 lots in Bell Vista. Upon counting all signatures and comparing that with the GIS
- and also either receiving phone calls and talking to the person or documented voice mails, there are
- three missing in instances where lots are completely vacant and where the lots are completely vacant
- and yet to be built. Many owners own double lots and in those instances at least one signature was obtained.
- There was one instance where renters signed
- not the owner. There were two instances where the person that signed for the address had the same last
- name as the owner but different first name indicating maybe a possible nickname or another family member
- signed not on the deed. There's one instance where the owners of one developed lot refused to sign the
- petition and in some instances where counted 14 only one person on the deed signed the petition and
- or left a voicemail or called us and they were not all
- It doesn't include all owners on the deed. So we did receive some support. We received three calls and
- five voicemails in support for the street tree and sidewalk waiver. One call and two voicemails were
- from residents of section one. One voicemail was from owners of section two and two calls and two voicemails
- were from residents of section three.
- We also received a few emails from people, and this is in the packet. Originally, some people were confused
- and stated street lights. I reached out to every one of them and made sure they understood it was street
- trees and no street lights. And again, these should be in the packet.
- And then we receive one letter of remonstrance from a person that wishes to remain anonymous. And that
- brings me to the staff recommendation. So we recommend, staff recommends approval of the primary pot
- amendment for the street tree waiver, citing that there are several mature trees and there are some
- street trees that exist already in the area.
- And we're withholding the recommendation for the sidewalk requirement, citing that though there may
- be proven practical difficulties in implementing the sidewalk requirement today, those same practical
- difficulties could have been avoided if they were installed closer to the time of recording and platting.
- And originally when this subdivision was approved, it had several conditions of approval.
- went through those with the stormwater program manager, and we would like to carry forward the ones
- that are currently on the screen.
- just to make sure that it's clear with the transition to the CDO for some of those undeveloped lots.
- So for instance, number five states that building plans for all houses constructed on lots with sinkhole
- conservancy areas formerly 25 feet must demonstrate that the house footprints are not located within
- the sinkhole conservancy areas, which we would like to change to karst conservancy areas of 50 feet,
- which matches the county development ordinance change.
- And then since there are a few undeveloped lots, we feel that that would be helpful and important. So
- if there are any other questions on any of these staff or on these prior conditions which we're caring
- for, I'd be happy to take those. Yeah, Commissioner Thomas. We've talked about this petition a lot,
- as you know.
- You know, I had hoped that we'd be able to find some really novel way to utilize this funding for folks
- who want to, to buy street trees or trees for their lots to go ahead and do that. But it seems like
- there's no way to do that legally because it's outside the, right?
- So if we were to, say, keep the 50,000 as I showed in the earlier slide, the street trees that were
- on the plat would equal an amount of about 81,000. So I think the idea that was expressed was if people
- would like to put in the street trees, they could apply. But for our purposes, to enforce
- with the developer, which street trees go in and which do not, we have to plant those. So the timing
- would be off of when, if people would like to have those trees and put those in. Got it. Thank you.
- Well, it was worth talking through. So two questions. The first is if we were to go ahead and revise this and
- do a sidewalk waiver and a street free waiver that money then goes back to the developer? Is that correct?
- Okay. The other question I had relating to this is that we saw something a month or two ago where there
- is a covenant on the properties and it relates to having sidewalks. If
- If this primary plat, if it's amended by this board and it's not recorded, then what happens to all
- of those covenants on those deeds or if this is recorded, does that then impact those? Just curious.
- My understanding is the covenants and restrictions could be amended by a majority of the homeowners.
- I know there's not an actual HOA, but I didn't have any. I don't know if you want to add anything. I
- think by their terms that there's periods where they are automatically renewed or they expire. So it
- has nothing to do with filing recording, sorry, recording this primary plat if those waivers are then
- approved by this board. Thank you. That is correct. OK, thank you. Do any other members of the Planning
- Commission have questions for staff? Yeah, Mr. Ferris. I'm exhausted on this topic. I guess the only
- real question I have, and I think you answered it, but please provide me an explanation.
- If we take and approve the sidewalk and the tree waiver, the 50K is going to go back to the developer
- and nothing will be done with that. There's nothing we can take and do to spend that money on something
- or anything else, as you had indicated. That's correct, because the.
- letter of credit that was at the time was only for sidewalks, street trees, stop bars no longer required
- and stop signs already installed were limited to that list. So I know there were some people that's
- called and stated support for, hey, if we could use that money to repave the drive, the streets, I would
- love that. And unfortunately, because we accepted that into the inventory in 2008, we can't go back
- on that and say now the roads are insufficient. We need that money for that purpose.
- Do we have any examples or any type of petition in the past where we have returned monies back to the
- developer because it couldn't be spent the way it was intended?
- We have returned some funds back to developers, but typically it's because we are able to complete the
- project under the amount that they have. I don't have any examples personally where we've returned the
- full amount because of this situation where we come back and issue waivers. Dave may have more historical
- information than I do on that. No, I think in the past,
- We had the flexibility to use that on other improvements, but I think they tightened the law a few years
- ago, and we can only use it on the improvements that the money was deposited for. Thank you. Yeah. I
- have a question regarding condition number five.
- and I'll read it just so maybe it makes more sense to me. In order to receive improvement location permit
- approval, building plans for all houses constructed on lots with sinkhole conservancy areas,
- formerly 25 foot, must demonstrate that the house footprints are not located within the sinkhole conservancy
- area, which is now being called the Kars Conservancy Area, which is 50 foot. What happens if a house footprint
- is outside of the former 25 foot sinkhole conservancy area, but is now within the 50 foot newly defined
- karst conservancy area.
- because this is now a condition of approval, is that what you're saying? So we would, I believe, just
- take them through the variance process to go to the Board of Zoning and Appeals to state that they're
- subject to the CARS Conservancy Area, and if the Board of Zoning and Appeals can issue a variance to
- allow them between the 25 and 50 feet for their footprint, say they're limited in other area, then they
- could move forward despite this condition. So there is that avenue of relief for them. That's correct.
- But if the house is already built, if I might follow up, if the house is already constructed and it's
- 30 feet away from the sinkhole, there's obviously nothing that happens. Right until they request an
- addition or some sort of modification. Any additional questions? Yeah, Mr. Ferris. And this is exhausting.
- So I'm inclined to
- to approve both waivers. And I'm aware of what the staff has said with respect to no recommendation.
- And I note that the following conditions that should be carried forward. And if I add these things up,
- there's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven conditions. Have you all discussed those conditions
- with the developer, the petitioner, and is there any issue with satisfying those conditions? We have
- not specifically, we might have, it's been so long. I don't believe we've gone through those conditions
- again with them. They're currently in effect on this subdivision. So I think with this process, we're
- kind of cleaning them up, acknowledging that some of them have already been addressed. So I don't believe
- that they have had any
- I think that's opposition to this, because it's already what's on the plot. Thank you. The additional
- questions for staff before we turn to the petitioner. OK, seeing none, we can turn to the petitioner's
- representative. If you could sign in, state your name, you'll have 15 minutes. Good evening. My name
- is Larry Allen, representing the petitioner this evening.
- I only brought 50 slides with me for half an hour presentation. I'm just kidding. I don't want to. I
- think you have you all had an extensive conversation about this and we really appreciate it in terms
- of from the developer perspective just to be.
- really clear in terms of the conditions that are on the plot since that was the last question that was
- asked the conditions on the plot largely as I've interpreted them have just they're largely just updates
- to reflect the realities on the ground so saying that if there's any new development any new petitions
- they do actually have to follow the law as it exists which they would have to do anyways regardless
- of what was on
- So in terms of what the sinkhole thing is, who you're coordinating with, whether it's called an environmental
- director, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So we have read those. We understand those. And I think the
- owners could understand those. And the planning staff would go through that with them. In terms of everything
- else, I think it's been well covered. I don't want to rehash anything. We do have a technical expert
- with us here tonight, Drew Schrand from Bynumfano is here. So if you do have any technical questions,
- he can help answer it. Otherwise, I'm very happy to answer any of your other questions.
- Thank you, Mr. Allen. Do any members of the Plan Commission have questions for Mr. Allen or Mr. Schrand?
- Okay, seeing none, we can turn now to public comments. So if there's anyone here in the room who is
- in favor of street trees and sidewalks being installed, please come to the podium. If there's anyone
- online who is in favor of street trees and sidewalks being installed, please raise your virtual hand.
- That mean that they're in support of the petition, since the support of the petition would be to not
- have sidewalks. Yeah, I was trying to clarify that. I was calling for anybody who would like to have
- sidewalks installed first in opposition of the petition. I think we can just comment. I think we can
- just do any comments. Yeah, it seems like everybody has.
- I think it's too hard to categorize, so. Yeah, if you could sign in, state your name, you'll have three
- minutes and just be clear about what you would like or don't like about the potentials here.
- You're welcome to go ahead. You'll have three minutes, sir. I'm Arielle Axelrod, and I'm a resident
- in Bell Vista, section three. I'm here today to ask that the Planning Commission deny the applicant's
- amended plat petition. I do this because one, the applicant lacks standing before this body to amend
- the subject plat, which is the reason that we kind of had that whole thing about residents maybe doing
- a petition. Standing is satisfied by one of the following. The applicant must own the subject property.
- He does not.
- The applicant can be an agent for all property owners. The applicant is not. The applicant must be the
- legal representative of all the property owners. The applicant is not. Setting aside standing for a
- moment, the objection petition the Planning Department accepted as consent was circulated by some Belvesta
- 3 property owners because they were misled into believing they would be held financially responsible
- for more than $620,000. That was the number at the time. In public improvements the developer agreed
- to 19 years ago.
- And I know because I'm one of those that was approached with this. If you don't sign this, we will have
- to pay for sidewalks. The fear mongering stirred up a frenzy as some neighbors feared being held financially
- liable for the applicants agreements that have been renewed each year for 17 years.
- a review of the objection petition shows 35 addresses in a 50 lot subdivision even if the submitted
- signatures are counted as valid aligning signatures to addresses on the objection petition yields at
- best 32% of all owners as having objected to sidewalks and street trees. In other words 68% of the property
- owners or properties did not. I would be remiss if I did not point out the developer has misrepresented
- 100% consent to the planning department when the commission
- petition was submitted. It states, support for this request is signed by 100% of the current property
- owners of Bell Vista 3. On October 23rd, Monroe County Planning Director notified the applicants council
- that they did not have 100% consent when she emailed. Quote, when we received your petition letter and
- consent letter, we were originally under the impression 100% of lot owners had signed off. As a result,
- we did not require property owners notice letters.
- We will need to continue the meeting to our November meeting and provide you with new letters to send
- out as required. Despite having been notified of the material misrepresentation in the applicant's petition,
- the applicant has not corrected or amended the application, thereby continuing to represent that 100%
- of the current property owners signed the objection petition. Finally, it is the developer who is the
- one that caused the conditions
- he now seeks to use to avoid meeting his legal obligation to install sidewalks and street trees. Therefore,
- I ask that you deny the application. Thank you, Mr. Axelrod. Is there anyone else here in the room who
- wishes to speak either in favor or against this petition? Please come to the podium. If you could sign
- in, state your name, you'll have three minutes.
- Hi, I'm William McGannon. I live on Bellevista, phase three on Tierney Street. I've been there a little
- over 17 years now. So first, thank you guys for all the jobs you guys do. Monroe County is a beautiful
- area, so I really do appreciate you guys taking the time to hear us out and everything. For the last
- 17 years, I've lived there, and sidewalks haven't been an issue. Phase one and phase two don't have them.
- In phase three doesn't really make sense. It wouldn't go anywhere wouldn't connect with the rest of
- The Bell Vista. So it really kind of this congruent with the rest of the development. I think we mentioned
- that There's utilities there. So we definitely don't want to start digging around and putting sidewalks
- in because it will drive the cost up tremendously.
- It's a neighborhood and when people go there, the drive in, it's not a through way, so people aren't
- just speeding through there. So traffic's pretty light, pretty calm. So when people do walk on the street,
- they're not fighting traffic or anything like that. So it's a pretty safe environment. So I don't think
- sidewalks were really needed. There's a lot of different grading issues going on too. So again, a lot
- of construction and things would be needed. So pretty against the sidewalks.
- trees, lots of trees in the area. Get a lot of shade already. Maybe one little section has could use
- a tree, but OK, I'll plant a tree for you if you want me to. But but now we don't need trees or sidewalks,
- so I I'm in agreement that this gets waived as a condition in the money that gets returned. Probably
- not my business, but we were as a resident of Bellevista.
- Phase three, I don't feel that we need the sidewalks or the trees. Thank you. Thank you, sir. If there's
- anyone else here in the room who wishes to speak, you're welcome to come to the podium. If there's anyone
- online who wishes to speak either for or against this petition, please raise your virtual hand. I'm
- not seeing anyone's hands raised. Do you see any? I don't see anyone. OK, thank you. So we can close
- the public hearing
- portion of this. Thanks everybody who came out and spoke and now come back to the plan commission for
- discussion. So let's start on my left. Mr. Bush, do you have any comments to share? Yeah. What a pickle.
- I'm just made that the plan commission is in this box right now that were forced to either accept
- returning the monies back to the petitioner or forced to construct something that the public doesn't
- seem that is desirable and necessary. So I'm not going to be supporting any
- motion that puts any of the cost on the homeowners because they shouldn't have to bear that cost. That
- was a mistake that was made years ago between the county and the developer and no one has held their
- feet to the fire to this point so public shouldn't be forced to pick up slack or pay any of that.
- That's what I've got to say. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bush. Mr. Vandeventer, do you have any comments
- you'd like to share? No, I'm fine. OK. Mr. Fields? Yes, I agree. It's a pickle and it's an ugly situation.
- But at some level, I really appreciate Mr. Axelrod's comments. I think that we have the developer has
- put everyone into a bad position, all of the people.
- but apparently the people knew about the position. He's put this body into a really bad position because
- as this body, if we say, okay, yeah, we're gonna waive all this stuff, we're in a situation where we
- have created a precedent that is, I think, just not workable. This precedent basically says, and from
- everything I've heard,
- is we don't want these because we don't want these. No one has come back with anything that seems to
- have merit to me that says they can't do it. It's just that the can got kicked, and the can got kicked,
- and everything else. And we put ourselves into a situation as a planning commission that we are over
- a barrel. And I don't see a way to do this.
- other than to say, no, street trees, I'm fine. We've got enough trees that we can work around street
- trees, I'm fine with that. But this sidewalk thing, I see nothing that says that this is something that
- we should waive for the stated purpose of we don't like it. Thank you, Mr. Fields, Commissioner Thomas.
- It is difficult. I started looking at this as an error that was made in previous administration of the
- planning department rather than looking at it as something the developer did or didn't do or that the
- residents did or didn't do.
- think through this a little bit differently because, yes, we are, you know, painted into the proverbial
- corner and we have to do something just to solve this because it does need resolution. And I agree with
- everything everyone said so far. It makes perfect. I don't want people to be responsible for paying
- for this, but at the same time, my gosh, what a huge expense. And that's who would be responsible for it.
- I actually have a question based on the comment we received a moment ago, and it's for Mr. Schilling.
- And I wonder, Mr. Schilling, if you could speak to the issue of whether or not this petitioner has standing
- to revise the preliminary pledge. He is the developer that has the agreement with the county
- and that's what we would be working to enforce. Got it, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. Mr.
- Ferris, do you have comments? Okay, Council Member Henry. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Thomas, for
- raising that. That was exactly my question too, because if not that, who are we taking the development
- into inventory from, right? I mean, we still have that very long lingering
- space that we're in, and trying to do law on the fly with a presentation like this. My only question
- was, this is the first time this document has been presented, right? We didn't have this in advance.
- That's correct. Okay, so this is the first we've seen it 15 minutes ago. Yeah, so thank you for asking
- the question about standing. I think that was important, because I just didn't know who we'd be receiving
- the development from once the requirements were eventually met. I agree with the comments of my colleagues here.
- a difficult situation. I think I did raise this at my next comment at an admin meeting or a previous
- meeting. I think I did anyway. And this is a question for staff. Do we anticipate that we may bump into
- a situation like this again? If we are setting a precedent, which is a concern, it's a concern that
- we do have other potential developments in the county that could end up this way. It is just a concern
- where we might see
- I guess copycatting, if you will, down the right road. Do we feel like that's a, is there anxiety about
- that at the moment from staff? Well, not anxiety, but we do have some subdivisions that we have accepted
- into the inventory without fully seeing that bond expenditure or those improvements fully made.
- we have been taking a look at that with our highway department and trying to come up with a plan for
- how to go after those next developments to use the money as quickly as possible because as we know inflation
- is making it harder and harder for that money to go as far as it used to so I don't know that we'll
- necessarily be seeing a waiver as much as we'll just have to deal with this situation and work with
- the developer and if the developer doesn't like
- posting more money or completing those improvements, we have options under the CDO, and they could come
- back before you as one of those. I can't worry about too much of the future, but it just reminds me
- of building models as a kid, and you get almost to the end, and it's the one piece that's missing, and
- now I've stuck with that.
- not quite finished thing. And that's really what we're talking about when we get 98% there and then
- we have 98% developments all over the county that never quite got to the finish line. I would just hate
- that we are setting up a whole mechanism to do that. But I appreciate all the comment here. But obviously,
- this is a pickle, I think, is the term of art tonight. So thanks on that. Just to add very quickly,
- I think this is a situation of
- the past that is not going to be replicated in the future because we have new methods for tracking bonds
- but also a much greater awareness among planning staff and the highway department about what
- these requirements are. And so I think what we're doing is hopefully fixing the last few bits so we
- can proceed smoothly. That's my take on it. Thank you.
- And I'll share my comments real briefly. I agree with the majority of what's been said tonight. I think
- that neighborhoods benefit from sidewalks. And I think they build a sense of community in a neighborhood.
- And I think it's disappointing that the developer didn't adhere to the commitments they made to that
- neighborhood years ago. But I think, ultimately, the county made a mistake by accepting this into the
- inventory. And I wouldn't feel comfortable putting that burden back on the homeowners at this point.
- So I'm in favor of granting the waivers.
- Unless there's any additional comments from members of the planning commission, I will call for a motion.
- Mr. Paris. I just want to add that we're cleaning up broken glass here. And that's the best way I can
- summarize this. This issue. So I'm going to let me explain this and hopefully you all agree with what
- I'm going to say, because it gets a little complicated.
- With respect to Sierra Papa Papa 25-2, which is a primary plat amendment with two waivers and also a
- waiver of final hearing, I believe that we need to take and address the street waiver and the sidewalk
- waiver separately with a vote. But in all cases, we need to make sure that the conditions that were
- stated on the board there
- As you see them, they will be carried forward as original conditions for approval. And so saying that
- the motion I'm going to put on the table first is to approve the street tree waiver. Second. It's been
- moved and seconded to approve SPP dash 25 dash
- We're breaking this into two. The first motion is to approve the street tree waiver and the waiver of
- final hearing, and this also takes into account the following conditions of approval, which I'll read
- into the record now and will not read again for the sidewalk vote. So the following conditions shall
- be carried forward from the original conditions of approval.
- In order to receive an improvement location permit approval, building plans for all houses constructed
- on lots with sinkhole conservancy areas, which were formerly 25 feet, must demonstrate that the house
- footprints are not located within the karst conservancy areas of 50 feet. Number six, permanent markers
- describing all the sinkhole conservancy areas shall be installed at a minimum of 50-foot intervals.
- Number nine, where possible runoff shall sheet flow from the road. Number 10, the shallow depressional
- area on lot 49 shall be maintained to drain.
- Number 12, a detail is needed of the typical roadside ditch sections showing the side slopes and depth.
- The roadside ditches shall be over excavated six inches and backfilled with topsoil except for the 500
- feet of ditch which shall be over excavated 18 inches and backfilled with topsoil. This is
- still a requirement for new lots moving forward.
- Number 13, roadside ditches and road embankment slopes of three to one are steeper, shall be stabilized
- with mulch, held in place with netting, with erosion control blanket or other approved method. And number
- 14, the types of vegetation in the roadside ditches shall be subject to approval by the stormwater program
- manager. A vote yes is a vote to approve the street tree waiver with the conditions stated and the waiver
- of final hearing.
- Julie Thomas. Yes. Joe Van Deventer. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Scott Ferris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes.
- David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. That motion passes seven to zero. Mr. Ferris, are you willing to
- make a motion on the second half? I will. Again, with respect to Sierra
- The second motion here is to approve the sidewalk waiver.
- It's been moved and seconded for the other part of SPP-252. This motion is just to approve the remaining
- sidewalk waiver. A vote yes is a vote to approve the sidewalk waiver portion of this petition.
- David Bush? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? No. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes.
- Julie Thomas? Yes. Joe Van Deventer? Yes. Okay, that motion carries six to one. Thank you to all the
- members of the neighborhood who have organized your thoughts and come out to speak on this numerous
- times. Thank you. So that takes us to the end of our agenda tonight. Is there anyone here who wishes
- to speak during the public comment portion of the meeting for any items not on the agenda? So please
- come to the podium or raise your virtual hand if you're online.
- I'm not seeing no one. We can turn now to reports Jackie. Are there any planning reports for us tonight?
- I do have some exciting news to share. We were approved for our hiring of our planner too, so we were
- able to get through the Council and they lifted the hiring freeze for us. So that is great news. We've
- already started posting that and we are going to try and move as quickly as possible and I think we
- will get some very qualified and good candidates. So we're excited.
- Thank you, Jackie, for your work and getting that approved with the council. Mr. Schilling, any legal
- reports? No. No reports. OK. With that, I hope everybody has a great Thanksgiving holiday next week.
- Do we have a motion for a judgment? Motion to adjourn. Second. Thank you all.