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.