WEBVTT 00:00:00.322 --> 00:00:08.514 - I'd like to call the meeting of the Monroe County Plan Commission to order. Would you please call the 00:00:08.514 --> 00:00:16.626 - roll? Yes, David Bush here. Margaret Clements here. John and right Randolph. Scott Ferris here. Rudy 00:00:16.626 --> 00:00:24.657 - Fields here. David Henry here. Jeff Morris here. Julie Thomas. Here. Jovan Deventer here. OK, so we 00:00:24.657 --> 00:00:28.030 - have eight members in person in a quorum. 00:00:28.354 --> 00:00:34.746 - And would you kindly introduce the evidence? Sure. I'd like to introduce the following items into the 00:00:34.746 --> 00:00:41.139 - evidence. Let the record reflect that Mr. Enright Randolph has arrived. Okay, so we have nine members 00:00:41.139 --> 00:00:47.531 - attending. I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County development 00:00:47.531 --> 00:00:49.662 - ordinance as adopted and amended. 00:00:49.986 --> 00:00:56.854 - The Monroe County zoning ordinance and subdivision control ordinance as adopted and amended. The Monroe 00:00:56.854 --> 00:01:03.657 - County comprehensive plan as adopted and amended. The Monroe County plan commission rules of procedure 00:01:03.657 --> 00:01:10.525 - as adopted and amended. The cases that were legally advertised and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's 00:01:10.525 --> 00:01:14.686 - agenda. Is there a motion to approve? I move approval. Second. 00:01:15.618 --> 00:01:23.294 - It's been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve 00:01:23.294 --> 00:01:30.971 - the introduction of evidence. Margaret Clements? Yes. Tronan Wright-Randolph? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. 00:01:30.971 --> 00:01:38.873 - Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes, thanks. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Motion 00:01:38.873 --> 00:01:44.894 - is approved, nine to zero. And I'd like to move approval of the agenda with one 00:01:45.122 --> 00:01:53.397 - correction and that is under unfinished business number one ZOA-25-3 that this is a continuation of 00:01:53.397 --> 00:02:01.921 - the October 23rd meeting and that this is still the preliminary hearing and I'd like to request waiver 00:02:01.921 --> 00:02:09.534 - of final hearing. Is there a second? Second. Okay is there any other changes to the agenda? 00:02:10.242 --> 00:02:19.061 - or is the rest is approved? Okay. So this is a motion and a second to make only one change to the otherwise 00:02:19.061 --> 00:02:27.389 - published agenda, which is under unfinished business. Item number one, ZOA-25-3, strike final hearing 00:02:27.389 --> 00:02:35.718 - and instead put in preliminary hearing and waiver of final hearing requested. A vote yes is a vote to 00:02:35.718 --> 00:02:38.494 - approve. Trana Ray-Randolph? Yes. 00:02:39.586 --> 00:02:48.245 - Scott Ferris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. 00:02:48.245 --> 00:02:57.751 - Joe Van Deventer. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Motion is approved nine to zero. OK. 00:02:57.751 --> 00:03:07.162 - And we have two sets of minutes for approval. We can either have a motion to approve those together 00:03:07.162 --> 00:03:08.574 - or separately. 00:03:09.410 --> 00:03:18.358 - it together. I move approval of the October 23rd and November 20th 2025 minutes. Second. Okay it's been 00:03:18.358 --> 00:03:27.047 - moved and seconded to collectively approve October 23rd and November 20 2025 meeting minutes. A vote 00:03:27.047 --> 00:03:35.823 - yes is a vote to approve both sets of minutes. Scott Ferris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. Yes. 00:03:35.823 --> 00:03:39.006 - Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. 00:03:40.098 --> 00:03:48.088 - Joe Van Deventer? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Tronin Ray Randolph? Yes. Motion is 00:03:48.088 --> 00:03:56.158 - approved, nine to zero. OK, we have two items under administrative business. And Ms. Minister Jelen, 00:03:56.158 --> 00:04:04.787 - if you would go over those with us. Sure. I'll take item number one first, the CDO amendment prioritization 00:04:04.787 --> 00:04:08.702 - list. There's no changes to this list as of now. 00:04:08.898 --> 00:04:13.438 - I'll take that back. There's one change. We did get a text amendment 00:04:13.506 --> 00:04:21.020 - through the county commissioners on December 11th. So there was one amendment made to the CDO, and that 00:04:21.020 --> 00:04:28.244 - was largely due to staff edits, but also some house bill changes. So that could be classified under 00:04:28.244 --> 00:04:35.830 - the staff edits section of the prioritization list, which is ongoing. But one of the items on the agenda 00:04:35.830 --> 00:04:42.910 - tonight under unfinished business, if approved, could also update that prioritization list. Okay. 00:04:43.714 --> 00:04:51.688 - or if moved on to the commissioners and approved by the commissioners. There's no other updates on that. 00:04:51.688 --> 00:04:59.661 - On the calendar, is there anything? Tammy's going to go ahead and present this one. So we had the county 00:04:59.661 --> 00:05:07.635 - council give the budget hearing schedule published, so now we know where we needed to move things. We've 00:05:07.635 --> 00:05:13.406 - got a BZA meeting happening a week early in August. We have a couple of the 00:05:13.762 --> 00:05:19.632 - PC admin meetings, which are normally on Tuesdays. I think we're pushing those to Thursdays because 00:05:19.632 --> 00:05:25.855 - of voting, the primary and the regular. And then we have two meetings that are altered. I think September 00:05:25.855 --> 00:05:32.254 - 28th or 23rd is a Wednesday and October 22nd will be a Thursday. So those are the main changes we're seeing. 00:05:34.658 --> 00:05:42.676 - It's nice to have this advance notice. Well, let's move on to the first item on the unfinished business 00:05:42.676 --> 00:05:50.540 - agenda and that's item number one zio a-25-3 and this is a continuation of a preliminary hearing from 00:05:50.540 --> 00:05:58.481 - October 23rd and with the waiver of final hearing requested concerning item number one from the county 00:05:58.481 --> 00:06:01.950 - development ordinance prioritization list so 00:06:02.210 --> 00:06:08.963 - Margaret, before we move on, just really quickly, I'm really sorry. We do need a vote on the meeting 00:06:08.963 --> 00:06:15.917 - calendar. Oh, OK. OK. Is there a motion to approve the meeting calendar? Motion to approve the calendar 00:06:15.917 --> 00:06:22.937 - as stated. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the 2026 meeting calendar with the amendments 00:06:22.937 --> 00:06:29.623 - as presented in the packet. A vote yes is a vote to approve the meeting calendar. Rudy Fields? Yes. 00:06:29.623 --> 00:06:32.030 - David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. 00:06:32.610 --> 00:06:43.860 - Julie Thomas? Yes. Joe Van Deventer? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Tron Enright-Randolph? 00:06:43.860 --> 00:06:50.334 - Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Okay, that is approved nine to zero. 00:06:50.658 --> 00:06:58.794 - Okay, thank you for that reminder and for that catch. Okay, so we're moving on then to unfinished business 00:06:58.794 --> 00:07:06.853 - and this concerns item number one, ZOA-25-3. This is a continuation of the October 23rd, 2025 preliminary 00:07:06.853 --> 00:07:14.532 - hearing and a waiver of final hearing could be requested. And this concerns item number one from the 00:07:14.532 --> 00:07:18.334 - county development ordinance prioritization list. 00:07:19.042 --> 00:07:26.226 - Madam chair before staff continues this is a topic that we've discussed several times in previous meetings 00:07:26.226 --> 00:07:32.941 - and I think we've all had an opportunity to weigh in and technically public comment was closed in a 00:07:32.941 --> 00:07:39.790 - prior prior meeting so we would not take a public comment tonight so I would like to move to call the 00:07:39.790 --> 00:07:46.974 - question to move this straight to a vote second I'm sorry do we not get a statement that doesn't seem like 00:07:47.298 --> 00:07:54.370 - um procedure there's been a motion and a second mr roddy if you're here if you could weigh in on this 00:07:54.370 --> 00:08:01.373 - yeah um so trying to cut off discussion about this for the rules of procedure if there is a motion a 00:08:01.373 --> 00:08:08.446 - second and the vote is began to be called i'm asking about rules of procedure as far as prior to that 00:08:08.446 --> 00:08:15.934 - with appropriate discussion i understand that there was a motion and a second but i'm more curious about um 00:08:16.738 --> 00:08:24.655 - our ability to discuss this. And also moved as a continuation seems to be quite of a stretch. And correct 00:08:24.655 --> 00:08:32.347 - me if I'm wrong, because our attorney's online, but I want him to be clear that we actually moved this 00:08:32.347 --> 00:08:40.189 - to the ORC to be discussed. So this seems like a new item in new business. I'm asking for point of order 00:08:40.189 --> 00:08:44.222 - and clarity to the attorney that is not out of order. 00:08:44.322 --> 00:08:50.338 - Roddy has come in so he can address your question and let's be clear of the record that this was motion 00:08:50.338 --> 00:08:56.295 - to the ORC to discuss and then went to the admin and then here. Mr. Roddy could you please clarify our 00:08:56.295 --> 00:09:02.195 - rules of procedure. Yes it's my understanding that based on what's occurred which is that it was sent 00:09:02.195 --> 00:09:08.442 - to the ORC the ORC made minor changes that the motion can be called by the chair at this point the question 00:09:08.442 --> 00:09:09.310 - can be called. 00:09:11.106 --> 00:09:17.279 - We moved the whole item forward to the ORC to be re discussed, moved to the planned commission and then 00:09:17.279 --> 00:09:23.333 - moved back here. I don't see how that's a continuation of the same discussion because we moved it for 00:09:23.333 --> 00:09:29.387 - a new discussion at the ORC. And speaking of Mr. Schilling, he thinks that the motion before the ORC. 00:09:29.387 --> 00:09:35.560 - I think is very much not what I'm looking for. I want definitive legal guidance. At this point, I could 00:09:35.560 --> 00:09:39.774 - at this point, what I can say is I believe the question can be called. 00:09:42.850 --> 00:09:50.308 - I think that Ms. Nester Jelen, could you call the roll to see if this motion for the question passes? 00:09:50.308 --> 00:09:58.132 - Point of order, Madam President. Mr. Henry? Under Robert's rules, it's permitted to challenge the decision 00:09:58.132 --> 00:10:05.445 - of the chair and take a vote on this decision. I have not made a decision. We're taking a vote. I'm 00:10:05.445 --> 00:10:12.830 - challenging the decision about this vote. Mr. Roddy? I'll second that motion. We now have to debate. 00:10:13.122 --> 00:10:17.898 - Mr. Roddy, as I understand parliamentary procedure, we have an opportunity to debate the decision of 00:10:17.898 --> 00:10:22.769 - the chair to decide whether or not we proceed with this vote. I believe that's correct if it's a point 00:10:22.769 --> 00:10:27.593 - of order. That's what I did. I believe that is correct. Typically under Robert's rules, a speaker for 00:10:27.593 --> 00:10:32.417 - and against is permitted. Are you able to verify that? Not off the top of my head, no. Pardon me? Not 00:10:32.417 --> 00:10:36.862 - off the top of my head, no. But I believe it's a point of order. It can be subject to debate. 00:10:42.242 --> 00:10:48.570 - So we have two motions on the table. One is to call the question and the other is a point of order. 00:10:48.570 --> 00:10:54.960 - Could you direct us which way we should proceed? I believe the point of order would have to be dealt 00:10:54.960 --> 00:11:01.415 - with first since it deals with essentially the motion on the floor. So we have to decide on the point 00:11:01.415 --> 00:11:04.958 - of order if that's accepted? That would be my position. 00:11:05.122 --> 00:11:11.579 - Then, Ms. Nestor-Gellin, would you please call the roll on the point of order? Madam President, typically 00:11:11.579 --> 00:11:18.158 - a challenge to the decision of the chair requires a speaker for and against the motion so we can understand 00:11:18.158 --> 00:11:24.250 - why the motion's being made. I'd happily speak for the motion if there's someone that wants just to 00:11:24.250 --> 00:11:29.854 - speak against it, they can. Okay, so no one wants to speak against the motion, that's fine. 00:11:30.114 --> 00:11:37.884 - I think I just concur with my colleague, Mr. Andre Randolph, to say, wow, of course we had a robust 00:11:37.884 --> 00:11:45.888 - discussion. Point of order. We already had it. Go ahead. Yeah. We have two motions. We've got one that 00:11:45.888 --> 00:11:54.047 - is seconded. We have the point of order, which was seconded. And for some of us who do not have Robert's 00:11:54.047 --> 00:11:58.398 - rule of order in our hip pocket, I have a copy at home. 00:11:59.010 --> 00:12:05.949 - but I don't have it in my hip pocket. The process, I want to make clear so I understand the process. 00:12:05.949 --> 00:12:13.025 - Now we have to debate whether we are for or against the point of order, not the substance of the point 00:12:13.025 --> 00:12:19.964 - of order, but whether or not the point of order will continue. Is that correct? Yes, I think they're 00:12:19.964 --> 00:12:27.109 - fairly interrelated, but yes. Yes, which means we're not discussing the topic. We're discussing whether 00:12:27.109 --> 00:12:28.414 - the point of order 00:12:28.898 --> 00:12:34.702 - will proceed or not. Is a valid point of order. Correct. It's challenging the decision of the chair, 00:12:34.702 --> 00:12:40.505 - which was made to call the question. That's the question that we're discussing. I'm challenging that 00:12:40.505 --> 00:12:46.309 - choice as it was seconded. So the discussion is about the motion that was made to call the question. 00:12:46.309 --> 00:12:52.055 - And that's typically procedurally how you would handle a situation where a question is being forced 00:12:52.055 --> 00:12:57.342 - about. I have a point of order. I made no decision. A motion was made to call the question. 00:12:57.474 --> 00:13:02.649 - It was seconded, and no decision has been made. So I object to that characterization. I have not made 00:13:02.649 --> 00:13:07.976 - a decision to call the question. The question has been moved. It's been seconded, and a vote is pending. 00:13:07.976 --> 00:13:13.201 - No, I'm sorry. It's not. There's a point of order on the table. It is not pending until we resolve the 00:13:13.201 --> 00:13:18.325 - challenge of the decision of the chair. It's still pending. Mr. Roddy, you may want to get a copy of 00:13:18.325 --> 00:13:20.862 - the book here, because it's going to be a minute. 00:13:21.026 --> 00:13:28.410 - I mean, but the bottom line is it sounds like the chairwoman has already made an argument against my 00:13:28.410 --> 00:13:36.306 - motion to discuss why we're taking this vote. I'm just correcting the record that I did not make a decision 00:13:36.306 --> 00:13:43.909 - about the calling of the question. That was on the table. The motion was seconded. No decision was made 00:13:43.909 --> 00:13:49.758 - about that. So if you would like to entertain the question that you brought up, 00:13:49.858 --> 00:13:58.208 - I don't know if it's possible or permissible that you dictate the conditions of the discussion of the 00:13:58.208 --> 00:14:06.722 - parameters under which your point of order is discussed, but I would like then to entertain Mr. Henry's 00:14:06.722 --> 00:14:14.991 - question. And if there are people who are in favor of his motion and would like to speak about that, 00:14:14.991 --> 00:14:19.166 - would you please raise your hand to be recognized? 00:14:19.554 --> 00:14:26.522 - Mr. Henry as a middle explaining turn on the timer. I was in the middle explaining the rationale, but 00:14:26.522 --> 00:14:30.142 - clearly this is a unpracticed part of our procedure. 00:14:30.306 --> 00:14:35.300 - But typically, just for the public's understanding and my peers' understanding, that in procedural 00:14:35.300 --> 00:14:40.396 - parliamentary votes, if a motion has been made on the floor and a person at this body disagrees with 00:14:40.396 --> 00:14:45.592 - it, they can challenge the decision of the chair, who is the presiding officer, to now discuss whether 00:14:45.592 --> 00:14:50.687 - or not we should be taking that vote. So the question before you, why I'm challenging, is whether or 00:14:50.687 --> 00:14:55.782 - not calling the question in light of Mr. Randolph's comment, in light of procedurally our ability to 00:14:55.782 --> 00:15:00.272 - discuss the motion before us, regardless of the precedent, regardless of the discussion, 00:15:00.272 --> 00:15:06.098 - is we're removing an opportunity in this room, not the administrative meeting, but this room, to discuss 00:15:06.098 --> 00:15:11.813 - the merits of the change to the CDO. So what I'm asking is that we don't immediately go to a vote, but 00:15:11.813 --> 00:15:17.806 - we take a few moments to discuss the vote before us, which clearly some folks want to move through quickly, 00:15:17.806 --> 00:15:21.246 - and I appreciate that. But rather than taking away that time, 00:15:21.346 --> 00:15:26.474 - and letting a few people speak their mind about the final vote on this very important decision facing 00:15:26.474 --> 00:15:31.502 - our community to take that opportunity away just to rush to the question I feel is an inappropriate 00:15:31.502 --> 00:15:36.681 - use of this body's time. All I'm asking is that we take the time as we would for any other item on the 00:15:36.681 --> 00:15:41.709 - agenda, speak our mind about it, and go to the vote. But since it was clear that from this language 00:15:41.709 --> 00:15:46.887 - up here that we just heard, there's a desire to move very quickly here. That is why I've asked for the 00:15:46.887 --> 00:15:51.312 - point of order to challenge the decision of the presiding officer to move to that vote. 00:15:51.312 --> 00:15:56.706 - voted and seconded. That is procedurally what we do in parliamentary rules. Maybe we need to dust off 00:15:56.706 --> 00:16:02.047 - the book, but that's all I'm asking. Let's just have the discussion for a few minutes. We've already 00:16:02.047 --> 00:16:07.441 - wasted a lot of time on this piece, rather than just simply allowing a few folks to voice their final 00:16:07.441 --> 00:16:12.729 - concerns about this ordinance change. Thank you. Madam Chair, I came into this thinking that we had 00:16:12.729 --> 00:16:14.686 - all had adequate time to discuss our 00:16:14.914 --> 00:16:20.997 - thoughts on this. And this procedure of calling the question is something we've been using at the BZA 00:16:20.997 --> 00:16:27.199 - in the last few meetings on non-controversial topics. So hearing that there are others that would still 00:16:27.199 --> 00:16:33.223 - like to share more thoughts on this, I'm going to withdraw my motion to call the question so that we 00:16:33.223 --> 00:16:39.306 - can focus on discussing the actual ordinance change at hand instead of spending time on procedure. Do 00:16:39.306 --> 00:16:41.214 - you agree with that, Mr. Paris? 00:16:47.138 --> 00:16:55.441 - Act of Collegiality. Yes. Would you withdraw your point of order? If it's been withdrawn, I'm happy 00:16:55.441 --> 00:17:03.745 - to withdraw the point of order. I don't believe we'd have to take a vote if the offending motion is 00:17:03.745 --> 00:17:04.990 - off the table. 00:17:05.442 --> 00:17:13.430 - Okay with that being said we still have a preliminary hearing and a waiver of Final hearing has been 00:17:13.430 --> 00:17:21.338 - requested for item on the agenda number one zio a-25-3 and this concerns an amendment to the county 00:17:21.338 --> 00:17:30.037 - development ordinance and It pertains to the sliding scale subdivision As set forth on our list of priorities 00:17:30.037 --> 00:17:33.438 - now those people who had spoken before are 00:17:33.666 --> 00:17:41.070 - On the CDO prioritization list and on this sliding scale subdivision question have they some of them 00:17:41.070 --> 00:17:46.494 - have already spoken and they would not be allowed a second three minutes. 00:17:46.754 --> 00:17:54.332 - to voice their opinion and at some point if someone thinks that the Questions have become or the statements 00:17:54.332 --> 00:18:01.419 - have become redundant and that there's no new material being offered we can Close the public comment 00:18:01.419 --> 00:18:08.436 - session. So with that being said Ms. Nester Jelen, would you review this item number one with us in 00:18:08.436 --> 00:18:11.102 - terms of what's recently happened and 00:18:12.610 --> 00:18:17.981 - Sure. And I just want to make sure I hear the point of order correctly and what you are wanting to do. 00:18:17.981 --> 00:18:23.457 - So it's still preliminary hearing continuation from October twenty third waiver final hearing requested. 00:18:23.457 --> 00:18:28.671 - There's two components to that. One is public comment and the other is planned commission comments. 00:18:28.671 --> 00:18:31.070 - So do you want to open both of those back up. 00:18:31.490 --> 00:18:39.824 - We could vote on whether or not we open up public comment. So we open public comment We can just take 00:18:39.824 --> 00:18:48.076 - this as a final hearing and no waiver requested since that was from the prior meeting Okay, is there 00:18:48.076 --> 00:18:56.573 - a motion to either open up public comment or close it down? Yes, Colonel parents We have discussed this 00:18:56.573 --> 00:18:58.942 - topic Eight times at the ORC 00:19:00.322 --> 00:19:07.951 - three times at the planned commission admin meeting, and we have discussed it at one planned commission 00:19:07.951 --> 00:19:15.506 - meeting, this being the second. If I add all that up, including tonight, I think that's 13 times we've 00:19:15.506 --> 00:19:23.355 - talked about this. The public has been involved in those discussions. I would move that the public hearing 00:19:23.355 --> 00:19:26.142 - portion be closed. Is there a second? 00:19:28.802 --> 00:19:34.202 - I'm not sure we need to vote. If the agenda has been amended to make this still preliminary hearing 00:19:34.202 --> 00:19:39.710 - with the final waiver requested, I just want to make the point of order was not to, I think the point 00:19:39.710 --> 00:19:45.326 - of order was only to allow planned commission comments. So we would not call for public comment. That's 00:19:45.326 --> 00:19:50.888 - still closed. And I can still present what's before us if the plan commission would like, or you could 00:19:50.888 --> 00:19:56.342 - just move straight to comment. And I'll go right to the source of the issue. Mr. Henry, what is your 00:19:56.342 --> 00:19:56.990 - preference? 00:19:57.634 --> 00:20:04.099 - I'm not a source of this issue. I don't have an opinion about it. I didn't second or I'm one way or 00:20:04.099 --> 00:20:10.759 - another. Whatever for public comment. I don't have an opinion one way or another about public comment. 00:20:10.759 --> 00:20:17.548 - Thank you. There's no second to the motion right now, right? Would anyone like me to present the packet? 00:20:17.548 --> 00:20:24.013 - OK, I'm seeing some head nods. I will go ahead and do that. So I got a question. So procedurally, I 00:20:24.013 --> 00:20:25.694 - put a motion on the table 00:20:26.242 --> 00:20:32.329 - You're saying the motion is not required. Do I need to withdraw the motion? Yes, you can do that. OK, 00:20:32.329 --> 00:20:38.356 - I withdraw the motion then. Banking on the fact that we will proceed with comments just from members 00:20:38.356 --> 00:20:43.070 - of the planned commission, correct? That's how the approval of the agenda was. 00:20:44.066 --> 00:20:50.981 - Thank you. Yes. Okay. So the plan commission has asked before they provide some comments and or a motion 00:20:50.981 --> 00:20:57.566 - that I go ahead and re-present the text amendment before you. So I will do that briefly. So this is 00:20:57.566 --> 00:21:04.284 - in your packet under exhibit one is the beginning of the text amendment. The items in red are showing 00:21:04.284 --> 00:21:11.001 - you what is being added or changed based on the text amendment. So one of the discussions was that it 00:21:11.001 --> 00:21:12.318 - would be helpful to 00:21:12.418 --> 00:21:18.732 - illustratively see the difference between the different subdivision types. So we've now added example 00:21:18.732 --> 00:21:24.923 - of a minor subdivision, which is four lots or less, each creating 10 acres or larger lots. And this 00:21:24.923 --> 00:21:31.546 - is situations where they're connected to private sewage disposal systems, in other words, a septic system. 00:21:31.546 --> 00:21:37.984 - This is another example of a minor subdivision, four lots or less, but they're able to meet the minimum 00:21:37.984 --> 00:21:40.894 - lot size requirements for the zoning district. 00:21:41.186 --> 00:21:48.029 - So they are able to have smaller lots because they're connected to public sewer or public sewage disposal 00:21:48.029 --> 00:21:54.484 - system. And then this is an example of a sliding scale subdivision where you get to have three lots 00:21:54.484 --> 00:22:01.004 - that meet the minimum two and a half acres of the rural zones. And the parent parcel remainder is at 00:22:01.004 --> 00:22:07.524 - least 55% of the total. In this example here, the lots created are exactly two and a half acres. And 00:22:07.524 --> 00:22:10.558 - then the large parent parcel is the remainder. 00:22:11.586 --> 00:22:18.170 - And then just an example of a major subdivision where they're connected to public sewage disposal systems, 00:22:18.170 --> 00:22:24.754 - sewer, and it's creating more than five lots, creation of roadways and utilities and other infrastructure. 00:22:24.754 --> 00:22:31.031 - So the next change that's being proposed is to add two items to the purpose statement. The discussion 00:22:31.031 --> 00:22:37.308 - for adding items to the purpose statement is so that when the public comes in, these are more talking 00:22:37.308 --> 00:22:38.846 - points for understanding 00:22:38.946 --> 00:22:45.574 - why the sliding scale option is different than, say, the minor subdivision option, and what the goal 00:22:45.574 --> 00:22:52.202 - of the text is, especially given the 25-year reservation on the parent parcel. So we've added number 00:22:52.202 --> 00:22:59.289 - seven, which says to allow the flexibility to create smaller residential lots or by private sewage disposal 00:22:59.289 --> 00:23:05.524 - systems, i.e. septics, while also preserving a majority of the original track for agricultural 00:23:05.524 --> 00:23:07.230 - or conservation purposes. 00:23:07.458 --> 00:23:14.636 - And then number eight we've added to the existing text which says permit development in rural areas 00:23:14.636 --> 00:23:22.030 - that will not overburden existing infrastructure and services and to not adversely impact existing low 00:23:22.030 --> 00:23:29.710 - traffic roadways police and fire coverage emergency service response times and other governmental services 00:23:29.710 --> 00:23:32.510 - and then if you go down the change the 00:23:32.642 --> 00:23:39.901 - Section here under number two design standards for the parent parcel remainder lot Notably under to 00:23:39.901 --> 00:23:47.306 - be there is no change to the text which was discussed at length during the CDO hearings Which is that 00:23:47.306 --> 00:23:54.638 - the designated parent parcel remainder shall not further be subdivided for a period of 25 years from 00:23:54.638 --> 00:24:01.534 - the date of recording but we did make an change to the second paragraph of B which states that 00:24:01.922 --> 00:24:10.334 - And in short, as a matter of legislative policy, C ordinance 2015-02, 00:24:10.402 --> 00:24:17.210 - Which is the original ordinance at which time the size scale option was created and this is included 00:24:17.210 --> 00:24:24.152 - in tonight's packet as well as one of the exhibits as well as the minutes from those meetings from the 00:24:24.152 --> 00:24:31.027 - plan commission and several examples past examples that we've had so encourage people to look back at 00:24:31.027 --> 00:24:35.678 - some of the discussion the history that we've had regarding this and 00:24:35.810 --> 00:24:42.884 - Also note on the cover sheet for tonight's meeting, it was discussed at the administrative meeting at 00:24:42.884 --> 00:24:50.374 - length and two key takeaways. It sounds like there's interest among some members of the Planning Commission 00:24:50.374 --> 00:24:57.794 - keeping the size scale 25 year reservation on the prioritization list for the CDO amendments. We discussed 00:24:57.794 --> 00:25:01.886 - adding an addendum of items to the CDO prioritization list 00:25:02.178 --> 00:25:09.566 - which will be discussed at the January 6th Plan Commission Administrative Meeting. These include discussions 00:25:09.566 --> 00:25:16.344 - about partial plat vacations and re-subdivisions in the section of the ordinance under Table 1-830, 00:25:16.344 --> 00:25:23.325 - added under the CDO, and the possibility of adding another subdivision type to the CDO. Both items are 00:25:23.325 --> 00:25:26.782 - subject to a majority vote by the Plan Commission. 00:25:27.010 --> 00:25:33.103 - And then number two, there's still a need to discuss the 25 year reservation of the parent parcel with 00:25:33.103 --> 00:25:39.077 - the public. So they're clear on their options. Once the 25 years has passed and why is originally in 00:25:39.077 --> 00:25:45.347 - place, staff will utilize the images added under this text to pictorially explain the differences between 00:25:45.347 --> 00:25:51.321 - the subdivision types and the purpose statement of the subdivision size scale subdivision to explain 00:25:51.321 --> 00:25:55.166 - the 25 year reservation. So with that, I can take any questions. 00:25:55.970 --> 00:26:06.590 - I turn to my colleagues on the Plan Commission for further discussion and or a motion. Mr. Henry. Thank you. 00:26:06.850 --> 00:26:12.589 - Dr. Clements. I'll keep it brief because I agree with Colonel Ferris that we have spent a lot of time 00:26:12.589 --> 00:26:18.271 - talking about this. And part of the reason why we spent a lot of time talking about it is because it 00:26:18.271 --> 00:26:24.067 - still clears mud how we got 25 years as a standard in our community. So we sent it back to RC, we have 00:26:24.067 --> 00:26:30.199 - discussions, we look at meeting minutes from previous bodies, and that's why we keep having this discussion, 00:26:30.199 --> 00:26:35.038 - because we're about to pass something into the CDO that sits on a foundation of sand. 00:26:35.234 --> 00:26:40.424 - My dissent and my no vote rests on evidence and fairness and clarity. And since the meeting minutes 00:26:40.424 --> 00:26:45.769 - of these meetings matter and are referred to in the future, I want to make sure somebody 15 years from 00:26:45.769 --> 00:26:51.114 - now can point to what I'm saying. First, the amendment states that the county legislatively finds that 00:26:51.114 --> 00:26:56.408 - a 25-year restriction is reasonably necessary, but the ordinance it cites does not explain why the 25 00:26:56.408 --> 00:26:57.342 - years was chosen. 00:26:57.442 --> 00:27:02.787 - There's no study, no data, no generational standard, just a reference back to a prior decision. This 00:27:02.787 --> 00:27:08.291 - creates a circular reason or justification in the CDO. The commission legislatively finds and concludes 00:27:08.291 --> 00:27:13.794 - it because they voted on the CDO and that becomes the basis of the legislation. To continue a reference 00:27:13.794 --> 00:27:19.139 - to 2015-02, which actually doesn't provide the evidence-based information here, is nothing more than 00:27:19.139 --> 00:27:23.902 - an appeal to tradition and is basing this on a logical fallacy that's not evidence-based. 00:27:24.162 --> 00:27:29.007 - Secondly, much of the defense of the rule relies on a false choice that without the 25 year freeze, 00:27:29.007 --> 00:27:34.095 - rural Monroe County will be immediately overrun by dense development. That is a charge that's been made. 00:27:34.095 --> 00:27:37.438 - This is a straw person argument. It's another logical fallacy in the 00:27:37.762 --> 00:27:43.159 - decision the code already contains multiple safeguards minimum acreage infrastructure requirements 00:27:43.159 --> 00:27:48.828 - discretionary review we discussed all that in our administrative meeting but reducing the timeline does 00:27:48.828 --> 00:27:54.497 - not eliminate protection it restores it proportionally and when we review past minutes we find the same 00:27:54.497 --> 00:28:00.003 - debate has been repeated for decades with no new evidence added third the practice does not preserve 00:28:00.003 --> 00:28:00.766 - farms it does 00:28:01.186 --> 00:28:06.770 - I think mythologize our farm community in some ways, but what it does do is incentivize large lot of 00:28:06.770 --> 00:28:12.353 - state development, which is the least affordable and the least environmentally friendly housing form 00:28:12.353 --> 00:28:18.103 - we have in the county. While looking out for workers in the county that needs 2000 housing units a year 00:28:18.103 --> 00:28:23.686 - added to house our community, 67% of which rent in the city of Bloomington, just to stabilize costs. 00:28:23.686 --> 00:28:27.390 - What this produces is not rural preservation, but rural feudalism. 00:28:27.522 --> 00:28:32.564 - It's our largest housing form out there. We're not preserving farms with this. Finally, the argument 00:28:32.564 --> 00:28:37.406 - that the moratorium is needed for infrastructure planning is just unconvincing we could instead. 00:28:37.762 --> 00:28:42.660 - work with partners in the community to identify development patterns and projects that protect 00:28:42.660 --> 00:28:48.021 - our environment and our watershed and allow more people to share in this county's prosperity, not least 00:28:48.021 --> 00:28:53.332 - of which from my Stephen County Council to collect the income tax revenue we need from people that are 00:28:53.332 --> 00:28:58.745 - commuting here every day and taking their Monroe County income wages home with them instead of providing 00:28:58.745 --> 00:29:04.106 - that tax base back to the community and the roads they use to move forward. So look, I've heard in this 00:29:04.106 --> 00:29:06.014 - body that this has been politicized. 00:29:06.370 --> 00:29:12.675 - but the very act is political. The 25-year moratorium is a political statement, and that is the original 00:29:12.675 --> 00:29:18.679 - argument. Everything about it and the community that is concerned about passing this can be painted 00:29:18.679 --> 00:29:24.563 - as political, but the original sin is that, it's political. For those reasons, I'll be voting no. 00:29:24.563 --> 00:29:30.928 - Thank you. Ms. Nathachalan, I did not see in the packet the results of our ORC discussion on this matter, 00:29:30.928 --> 00:29:34.110 - especially the definition of the 25-year moratorium. 00:29:34.274 --> 00:29:41.073 - I did not see that in the packet. Could you direct me to where I might've missed it? Or could you give 00:29:41.073 --> 00:29:47.674 - the colleagues on our plan commission a review of what had been decided and recommended by the ORC? 00:29:47.674 --> 00:29:49.918 - Sure. Let me pull up those notes. 00:31:07.682 --> 00:31:14.728 - So I had some high level information from the ordinance review committee where this was forwarded or 00:31:14.728 --> 00:31:21.844 - continued to on December 8 2025. As a result of this discussion, there were no changes directed to be 00:31:21.844 --> 00:31:27.006 - made to staff to bring back to the plan commission for tonight's hearing. 00:31:27.138 --> 00:31:34.380 - But there was a breakdown of the different discussion topics based on the motion that was originally 00:31:34.380 --> 00:31:41.406 - sent to the ordinance review committee. So there was a discussion based on the capabilities based 00:31:41.698 --> 00:31:49.141 - discussion regarding whether we could move from a timeline discussion to more of a capabilities based 00:31:49.141 --> 00:31:56.439 - discussion. And the discussion that that was more of a military term and it was not really suitable 00:31:56.439 --> 00:32:04.028 - for this type of discussion. It was not provided with enough information or evidence for them to really 00:32:04.028 --> 00:32:11.326 - break down that discussion further. And then there was a request to define or redefine generational 00:32:11.426 --> 00:32:19.646 - There was a discussion on this and Miss Clements provided just a quick definition via. 00:32:19.906 --> 00:32:27.084 - you know what we can find online quickly and it says in population biology and demography generation 00:32:27.084 --> 00:32:34.263 - time is the average time between two consecutive generations and lineages of population being linked 00:32:34.263 --> 00:32:41.725 - to biological life cycles and human populations generation time typically has ranged from 20 to 30 years 00:32:41.725 --> 00:32:46.558 - with wide variation based on gender and society. So there was not a 00:32:46.722 --> 00:32:55.151 - Discussion from that to move to a different Safeguard other than the 25 years and then there was also 00:32:55.151 --> 00:33:03.415 - a discussion about Mr. Schilling the legal representative at the last meeting about why we added in 00:33:03.415 --> 00:33:11.927 - that second paragraph about a legislatively find and that it's important to keep that in there for the 00:33:11.927 --> 00:33:15.646 - reasons stated by mr. Schilling and that the 00:33:19.362 --> 00:33:27.550 - that this has met the spirit and the intent of what was meant to occur with the 25 year sliding scale 00:33:27.550 --> 00:33:35.578 - and the purpose of the sliding scale. So look back at the purpose statement of the sliding scale to 00:33:35.578 --> 00:33:44.008 - determine as part of the commissioner's decision as to why that is legislatively found. My recollection, 00:33:44.008 --> 00:33:45.854 - we had a discussion of 00:33:45.954 --> 00:33:52.953 - further discussion of the capabilities based approach and that the sliding scale subdivision actually 00:33:52.953 --> 00:33:53.982 - preserves more 00:33:54.178 --> 00:34:01.519 - capabilities and future harnessing of opportunities for larger tracts of land because nothing prohibits 00:34:01.519 --> 00:34:08.719 - a PUD from being developed or from another zoning request from being developed on the larger tract of 00:34:08.719 --> 00:34:15.919 - land that is preserved by the sliding scale subdivision. That was an important feature of what we had 00:34:15.919 --> 00:34:19.166 - discussed. With that being said, I'm going to 00:34:19.266 --> 00:34:28.040 - returned back now that we're fully briefed on the ORC committee's deliberations. Mr. Enright Randolph 00:34:28.040 --> 00:34:37.072 - and then I think Mr. Ferris. Okay, thank you. We got some clarity, still don't know as far as continuing 00:34:37.072 --> 00:34:45.502 - forwarding, but a lot of the discussion that took place where we couldn't actually get a majority 00:34:46.178 --> 00:34:53.236 - outside of moving it back to the ORC was to allow folks time to reconsider and think through this. And 00:34:53.236 --> 00:35:00.362 - then we're here today to potentially with the first motion to approve it without the ability to discuss 00:35:00.362 --> 00:35:07.214 - it or make any recommendations or motions. So I'm just a little baffled and a little heartache, but 00:35:07.214 --> 00:35:10.366 - I'm sure we all can see it in different ways. 00:35:10.658 --> 00:35:16.795 - I see it in a different way too. I think a lot of these ordinances, when you say preserve, I also do 00:35:16.795 --> 00:35:23.054 - think Mr. Henry brought up a good point where it does incentivize people to do larger developments too 00:35:23.054 --> 00:35:29.131 - so they don't get stuck in a 25 moratorium as much as it does provide opportunity for them to carve 00:35:29.131 --> 00:35:35.390 - off those 2.5 acres. So it's really what the landowner wants to do and what they wanna develop it. I'm 00:35:35.390 --> 00:35:40.190 - gonna go to my prepared statement now. I have discussed this topic extensively 00:35:40.322 --> 00:35:47.151 - We need to ensure that we are making sound decisions for the entire county several several factors have 00:35:47.151 --> 00:35:52.798 - bottlenecked our ordinance, for example, obtaining city sewer service for the county. 00:35:52.898 --> 00:35:59.042 - is critical since everything in our ordinance relies on either septic systems or sewer connections. 00:35:59.042 --> 00:36:05.370 - If sewer is unavailable, a minimum of 10 acres is required for all types of subdivisions. However, the 00:36:05.370 --> 00:36:11.575 - sliding scale subdivisions allows, now I'm going to refer to table 4-831, that's part of the packet. 00:36:11.575 --> 00:36:15.998 - I'm also going to refer to the vacation table too, just if you want to. 00:36:16.386 --> 00:36:23.549 - kind of key that up. But if you would move to that table, that would be great. I think do you mean table 00:36:23.549 --> 00:36:30.644 - 1-831? No, 4-831, the original parent partial scale. So on here, you know, there's this perception that 00:36:30.644 --> 00:36:37.466 - you're going to get the multiple 2.5. You actually need, if you don't have 10 acres, you can add an 00:36:37.466 --> 00:36:38.558 - additional lot. 00:36:38.786 --> 00:36:47.204 - That's very important. From 10 to 19.99 acres, you can only add one additional 2.5 lot. From 20 to 30 00:36:47.204 --> 00:36:55.622 - or 29.99 acres, you can add two additional lots. You have to have a minimum of 30 acres or greater to 00:36:55.622 --> 00:37:02.142 - even add those three additional lots we're talking about. Yes, Colonel Farris. 00:37:03.650 --> 00:37:10.250 - And if you say this is repetitive, I want to make sure that we all know that the admin meetings is not 00:37:10.250 --> 00:37:16.785 - the official record. This is our time to make an official statement. So I think that is a discussion, 00:37:16.785 --> 00:37:23.257 - and this is that. So please. There's a point of order, and I think that Mr. Colonel Ferris has asked 00:37:23.257 --> 00:37:27.998 - a question to ask. That was my question. Again, we have talked about this 00:37:28.770 --> 00:37:35.699 - I have not referred to this. You're insinuating something that's incorrect, sir. I haven't even finished 00:37:35.699 --> 00:37:42.563 - my sentence yet. I'm not insinuating anything. All I'm saying is we've talked about this on 12 separate 00:37:42.563 --> 00:37:49.229 - occasions, agnosium. And all I'm asking here, are you presenting new information at this point? Yes, 00:37:49.229 --> 00:37:56.158 - there is new information presented about my mistake that was corrected at the admin meeting. This is all 00:37:56.258 --> 00:38:03.436 - contingent off of my realization of some of what I was going to get to, which I would be finished now. 00:38:03.436 --> 00:38:10.893 - But please make one last thing. If you made a mistake, tell us your mistake and tell us what your comments 00:38:10.893 --> 00:38:18.002 - are after. This is not the first time I've been stifled to make comment. I take exception to that. So 00:38:18.002 --> 00:38:25.598 - this is a valid point of order because for one, I've never showed this and talked directly about this table. 00:38:25.826 --> 00:38:33.409 - That's all new. And please proceed, but do not repeat yourself, please. So then you look at the design 00:38:33.409 --> 00:38:40.991 - standards for the parent parcel. You need at least 55% of that parcel to even go through these sliding 00:38:40.991 --> 00:38:49.310 - scale options. That's point A. Point B brings the reservation also that was referred to moratorium for 25 years. 00:38:49.762 --> 00:38:55.519 - after the 25 years, the possibilities of the development after going through the sliding scales and 00:38:55.519 --> 00:39:01.564 - waiting the 25 years is very limited. This is where I got some clarity at our last discussion. I thought 00:39:01.564 --> 00:39:07.493 - there was more options to vacate where you could have done a minor. Your only option, and if you could 00:39:07.493 --> 00:39:08.990 - go to table 1830, please. 00:39:18.658 --> 00:39:25.325 - These are the vacations. So after you go through the sliding scale, the only thing you can do is a major. 00:39:25.325 --> 00:39:31.614 - It says administrative, but administrative subdivision does not create new lots. It's basically for 00:39:31.614 --> 00:39:37.904 - lot line adjustments. So if you choose the major and you go through it, the only option you have is 00:39:37.904 --> 00:39:44.508 - a major. If you have 50 acres that you put in your parent parcel to achieve those three small lot, those 00:39:44.508 --> 00:39:48.030 - three 2.5 lot acres, you can't do anything but a major. 00:39:49.826 --> 00:39:57.441 - And again, based off of the ability to get sewer septic, if you can't get sewer, 10 lot minimum acres, 00:39:57.441 --> 00:40:04.983 - that's an issue. I feel in my opinion that we are getting ahead of ourselves, putting the cart before 00:40:04.983 --> 00:40:12.598 - the horse, but that is my perspective. 11 years ago, the plan commission couldn't support the proposed 00:40:12.598 --> 00:40:19.326 - amendments to the county ordinance and this was one of the major topics. Also the 10 acre, 00:40:19.874 --> 00:40:27.606 - Minimum was introduced at that December 16th, 2014 meeting, which was passed by a vote five to three. 00:40:27.606 --> 00:40:35.337 - Near the end of the meeting, around the three hour, 14 minute mark, a motion was made to rescind this 00:40:35.337 --> 00:40:42.993 - provision by a member who initially supported it. However, that motion failed due to a split vote of 00:40:42.993 --> 00:40:48.830 - four to four. Yes, the plan commission has nine members, but sadly, in 2014, 00:40:49.378 --> 00:40:57.653 - There was only eight and no ninth member was appointed until 2015. Kevin Enright, former plan commission 00:40:57.653 --> 00:41:05.848 - member, raised this issue of the missing member at least four times in public meetings and even walking 00:41:05.848 --> 00:41:14.044 - out of an organizational meeting. I'll refer to the HT article dated February 18, 2005 or 2015 if you'd 00:41:14.044 --> 00:41:18.142 - like to know. Then the plan commission forward this 00:41:19.138 --> 00:41:27.416 - the amendments to those ordinances with no recommendation, no recommendation. That's the only way they 00:41:27.416 --> 00:41:35.050 - could get five votes because they couldn't agree and then move forward with no recommendation. 00:41:35.050 --> 00:41:43.087 - March 13th, 2015, the Board of Commissioners adopted it at a two, one vote, two, one out of a board 00:41:43.087 --> 00:41:46.462 - of three. As the elected county surveyor, 00:41:46.594 --> 00:41:54.102 - I believe it is critical for the public to understand my position, even if some people think it's repetitive. 00:41:54.102 --> 00:42:01.133 - Talk. This is the opportunity to address any concerns, and I believe those concerns should be resolved 00:42:01.133 --> 00:42:08.027 - before we move it forward to the board of commissioners. I don't know the next time we'll be able to 00:42:08.027 --> 00:42:15.262 - talk about this. I know we want to discuss some of the things that Director Nestor Jelen had referred to. 00:42:15.490 --> 00:42:23.753 - But that doesn't mean we're going to it or that's not a guarantee. And what I see is this is the opportunity 00:42:23.753 --> 00:42:31.409 - to discuss what is concerning in this particular sliding scale subdivision option now before we move 00:42:31.409 --> 00:42:39.141 - it forward for adoption. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. And right Randolph. Is there anyone else? Yes, Mr. 00:42:39.141 --> 00:42:45.054 - Van Deventer. I know that you folks have discussed this way more than I have. 00:42:45.186 --> 00:42:53.812 - But I still feel like 25 years is an overreach and cumbersome for landowners. We have an age-old rural 00:42:53.812 --> 00:43:02.186 - community. Our school enrollments are dropping. And I just don't think this would help that at all. 00:43:02.186 --> 00:43:10.728 - I just wanted to be on the record saying. Thank you, Mr. Van Deventer. Is there anyone else who would 00:43:10.728 --> 00:43:14.078 - like to comment? Yes, Mr. Morris. Yeah. 00:43:14.402 --> 00:43:20.977 - appreciate the comments that I've heard tonight. And one of the common themes that I heard during our 00:43:20.977 --> 00:43:27.680 - public hearings last year was commentary about the 25 year rule. And so at that point, I felt like this 00:43:27.680 --> 00:43:34.512 - warranted further conversation because at that point I felt too that 25 years was too long. And so that's 00:43:34.512 --> 00:43:40.958 - why I was in favor of continuing this conversation into 2025 so we can discuss it further. However, 00:43:41.634 --> 00:43:47.534 - that time that we've been discussing it, I have since learned that the sliding scale subdivision with 00:43:47.534 --> 00:43:53.376 - the 25-year rule is only one option that people would have if they want to subdivide their property. 00:43:53.376 --> 00:43:59.449 - So my understanding from staff, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that when somebody comes to the planning 00:43:59.449 --> 00:44:05.118 - staff to discuss this, they're presented with what all of their options are. So they are aware of 00:44:05.250 --> 00:44:11.310 - the rules around each of their options. So this 25 year rule is a condition of one of the options. So 00:44:11.310 --> 00:44:17.369 - they have other options. In the meantime, over the past year, I have also heard from people, a couple 00:44:17.369 --> 00:44:23.429 - of people that live in very rural areas that are very much in favor of the 25 year rule. And that led 00:44:23.429 --> 00:44:29.430 - them to purchasing the property that they did because they knew that a large tract of land near them 00:44:29.430 --> 00:44:31.390 - could not be subdivided. So that 00:44:31.938 --> 00:44:40.346 - extra knowledge that I have gained over the past year has led me to be in favor of the language tonight. 00:44:40.346 --> 00:44:48.434 - So I wanted to provide a little bit of context about why I was supporting it. Thank you, Mr. Morris. 00:44:48.434 --> 00:44:56.842 - Are there any other comments? I can't see if Julie Thomas has her hand raised. Yes, Commissioner Thomas. 00:44:56.842 --> 00:45:01.086 - Yes, I'm waiting for my mic. There we go. Thank you. 00:45:01.346 --> 00:45:11.381 - just have a couple of quick comments, and I won't belabor the point. To be clear, what Mr. Morris said 00:45:11.381 --> 00:45:21.805 - is accurate. There are other options, and those are available to residents if they choose. And the 25-year 00:45:21.805 --> 00:45:29.502 - moratorium on additional subdivision was misunderstood, maybe purposefully so. 00:45:29.602 --> 00:45:38.172 - and it became part of the talking points that were not accurate. It's only one option. If you don't 00:45:38.172 --> 00:45:47.256 - want that, then choose a different one. The only thing we're really changing on this piece of legislation 00:45:47.256 --> 00:45:55.997 - is an explanation that says you have the option, minor, major, sliding scale. That's really what this 00:45:55.997 --> 00:45:58.654 - is. Let's be clear that that's 00:45:58.882 --> 00:46:09.412 - all that we're voting on is what is the amended language that's here. Counselor Henry claimed there 00:46:09.412 --> 00:46:20.467 - isn't data, but I'm also going to challenge something that was thrown into the mix, which is this random 00:46:20.467 --> 00:46:24.574 - number of 2,000 homes needed per year. 00:46:24.834 --> 00:46:31.269 - There is no evidence of this. We don't have a housing inventory. This is something we asked staff to 00:46:31.269 --> 00:46:37.832 - work on. But while we're belaboring the same points over and over again, they can't do this other work 00:46:37.832 --> 00:46:44.268 - that we really need. We need to understand what the current housing inventory is and what is needed. 00:46:44.268 --> 00:46:50.767 - That's the question we should all be focused on. I think it's something it sounds like it's something 00:46:50.767 --> 00:46:54.526 - we're all interested in learning. I look forward to having 00:46:54.658 --> 00:47:11.375 - that discussion in the future. So thank you, everyone. Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. Are there other 00:47:11.375 --> 00:47:23.710 - comments or emotion? There's no motion. Yes, Colonel Ferris. I move that we 00:47:25.442 --> 00:47:33.931 - forward a favorable consideration to the county commissioners for the amendment, specifically the siting 00:47:33.931 --> 00:47:42.177 - scale, that is identified as item one on the CDO prioritization list. And we, like I said, we move it 00:47:42.177 --> 00:47:50.342 - for a favorable consideration of the county commissioners. I second that. Does that motion include a 00:47:50.342 --> 00:47:54.142 - waiver of final hearing? And of course it can. 00:47:54.306 --> 00:48:04.436 - Yes So there's a motion and a second to send a favorable recommendation to the County Commissioners 00:48:04.436 --> 00:48:14.768 - for zoa-25-3 Which is changes to the subdivision section of the CDO? namely the sliding scale section 00:48:14.768 --> 00:48:19.934 - and it also includes a waiver of final hearing and 00:48:20.226 --> 00:48:32.711 - A vote yes is to send a favorable recommendation and to approve the waiver. David Henry. Jeff Morris. 00:48:32.711 --> 00:48:44.951 - Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. Joe Van Deventer. No. David Bush. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Tron and Ray 00:48:44.951 --> 00:48:48.990 - Randolph. No. Scott Ferris. Yes. 00:48:49.794 --> 00:48:56.766 - Rudy fields. No. Okay, the motion is approved by a vote of five to four. 00:48:57.378 --> 00:49:04.382 - Well, I just want to thank all of my colleagues on the plan commission. This is difficult. It's clear 00:49:04.382 --> 00:49:11.661 - that there's there are differences of opinion, but I really respect the way people shared their opinions, 00:49:11.661 --> 00:49:18.528 - their background and their input on on this difficult decision. So we have forwarded as a result of 00:49:18.528 --> 00:49:20.382 - this kind of of this vote. 00:49:20.514 --> 00:49:29.872 - To the commissioners another opportunity for them to consider it and their decision will be final So 00:49:29.872 --> 00:49:39.231 - thanks for all of your good thoughts and work on this on this particular item So we move now to item 00:49:39.231 --> 00:49:48.126 - number two on the agenda Which is si a-22-9 and si a-22-22 Holland fields major subdivision one 00:49:48.450 --> 00:49:56.479 - a phase one subdivision improvement agreement. Let the record reflect that Mr. Henry has left the meeting. 00:49:56.479 --> 00:50:04.132 - So let the record reflect that. And this is a request for performance period extension, a request for 00:50:04.132 --> 00:50:11.711 - inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount, and a request for reduction of financial guarantee. 00:50:11.711 --> 00:50:18.014 - And this is the final hearing considering a property at 700 plus East Holland Drive 00:50:18.114 --> 00:50:25.463 - and 4200 plus or minus South Windmill Lane in Perry Township section 21. Ms. Baierman, would you kindly 00:50:25.463 --> 00:50:32.600 - review this with us? Sure. So we have kind of three things that we're covering. It's the performance 00:50:32.600 --> 00:50:39.808 - period extension, the inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount, and then the reduction for the 00:50:39.808 --> 00:50:44.542 - financial guarantee. And that financial or the reduction is really 00:50:44.674 --> 00:50:52.062 - part of the SIA-22-22, but we're gonna cover these together. They're very intertwined. They do have, 00:50:52.062 --> 00:50:59.522 - well, this is for Holland Fields, phase one. These are the 19 lots that we're discussing here, and it 00:50:59.522 --> 00:51:06.837 - does include that East Holland Drive all the way to South Walnut Street Pike and the sidewalks that 00:51:06.837 --> 00:51:08.446 - are within this area. 00:51:10.594 --> 00:51:18.206 - They have a letter of credit on file that expires May 14th, 2025, in the amount of $123,000 and some 00:51:18.206 --> 00:51:26.043 - change. They have an estimate that they submitted, and the highway department actually agrees with this 00:51:26.043 --> 00:51:33.731 - estimate for the remaining improvements, and that's for $106,845.96. So what that means is that there 00:51:33.731 --> 00:51:39.006 - is actually a bit of a reduction that they can request, and they are. 00:51:39.266 --> 00:51:47.277 - should this be approved they would be eligible to resubmit a letter of credit for a lesser amount and 00:51:47.277 --> 00:51:55.680 - that would then reduce what they currently have on file for $16,284.58. We are not including any inflation 00:51:55.680 --> 00:52:03.769 - calculation into this estimate amount because the developer has assured us that they are going to have 00:52:03.769 --> 00:52:08.638 - all the improvements completed by May 14th, 2026. I hope that 00:52:08.770 --> 00:52:16.239 - the asphalt plans when everything's up ready for spring that they hit the ground running to get this 00:52:16.239 --> 00:52:23.634 - done because they do need to get this accepted into the inventory. So this is the estimate that was 00:52:23.634 --> 00:52:31.325 - agreed upon by both the developer and the Monroe County Highway Department and planning staff and again 00:52:31.325 --> 00:52:33.470 - it does not include interest 00:52:33.922 --> 00:52:41.157 - And it also does not include a maintenance bond. We don't have a maintenance bond requirement in the 00:52:41.157 --> 00:52:48.534 - CDO. That happens afterwards at this point. One of the things that needs to be completed is that these 00:52:48.534 --> 00:52:55.984 - sidewalks along East Holland Drive need to be ADA compliant in order to be accepted into the inventory. 00:52:55.984 --> 00:52:57.918 - Kind of in that upper left 00:52:58.594 --> 00:53:04.882 - Picture you have a different subdivision, which is the Holland three lot minor that had a preliminary 00:53:04.882 --> 00:53:11.292 - plot amendment last month that you guys all approved And an SIA that was approved last month And a part 00:53:11.292 --> 00:53:18.073 - of that approval was that the developer was going to correct the driveways. They were going to be responsible 00:53:18.073 --> 00:53:24.360 - for the three driveways they are not responsible for the sidewalk along the stretch that is a part of 00:53:24.360 --> 00:53:25.470 - this petition and 00:53:26.946 --> 00:53:34.171 - The big issue again I covered this last month, but that you know this Holland drive was built incorrectly. 00:53:34.171 --> 00:53:41.059 - The highway department requested that they remove the road and reconstruct it to the acceptable lower 00:53:41.059 --> 00:53:44.638 - grade for safety reasons so that they cars were not. 00:53:44.866 --> 00:53:52.073 - coming in at a steep angle into South Walnut Street Pike, especially with considerations with rain and 00:53:52.073 --> 00:53:59.349 - ice. So the road was lowered, but the sidewalks never were because there was a Smithville fiber utility 00:53:59.349 --> 00:54:06.626 - through there. And last month we went over Smithville's email. They did have somebody come out and look 00:54:06.626 --> 00:54:14.462 - at it, but they really need to get just digging in there to see if they're gonna have enough slack in the line. 00:54:14.690 --> 00:54:22.290 - something that we hope can be worked out by May 14th. We do have the revised plans that are in the packet. 00:54:22.290 --> 00:54:29.749 - And again, this is the portion that's lot one, two and three of the Holland three lot minor subdivision. 00:54:29.749 --> 00:54:36.994 - They are responsible to correct those driveways by May 1st. So that is before this one is required to 00:54:36.994 --> 00:54:40.830 - have their improvements completed, which is May 14th. 00:54:42.498 --> 00:54:49.202 - And these are some of the other sidewalks that were impacted and some of the other ADA ramps along the 00:54:49.202 --> 00:54:55.971 - sidewalks that need to be corrected. And we have identified maybe a couple of street trees in here that 00:54:55.971 --> 00:55:02.545 - also need to be replaced. And then we have corrected this pond here within the as-built. We realized 00:55:02.545 --> 00:55:09.250 - that they only provided about half the amount of storage that they needed. So they have redesigned the 00:55:09.250 --> 00:55:10.942 - bioretention and planning 00:55:11.170 --> 00:55:18.100 - determine that they do not need to have extra landscaping installed. I am including the driveway report 00:55:18.100 --> 00:55:24.763 - from the highway department for phase one, just as a reminder that in order to be accepted into the 00:55:24.763 --> 00:55:31.760 - county inventory, the driveways do need to be compliant. So it's important to know that at Holland three 00:55:31.760 --> 00:55:38.556 - lot minor, they need to have those three driveways corrected. And then also any other driveways which 00:55:38.556 --> 00:55:40.222 - are on this list need to 00:55:40.578 --> 00:55:48.990 - have an inspection and make sure that they're compliant. So we have a staff recommendation finally. 00:55:48.990 --> 00:55:58.160 - And this is in regards to both SIA-22-9, which is the performance period and the new estimate and inflation, 00:55:58.160 --> 00:56:06.573 - and then SIA-22-22, which is the reduction request. So the performance period extension date of May 00:56:06.573 --> 00:56:07.582 - 14th, 2026, 00:56:07.682 --> 00:56:16.086 - the inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount of $106,845.96, and the request for reduction of 00:56:16.086 --> 00:56:24.573 - the financial guarantee in the amount of $16,284.58, which leaves approximately $106,845.96, with the 00:56:24.573 --> 00:56:33.393 - following required conditions, subject to the highway engineer reports and the stormwater program manager 00:56:33.393 --> 00:56:35.390 - reports. Condition one, 00:56:35.522 --> 00:56:44.077 - Performance bond document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. Number two, a subdivision 00:56:44.077 --> 00:56:52.550 - improvement agreement document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. Number three, a new 00:56:52.550 --> 00:57:00.858 - financial guarantee may be submitted in the form of either a letter of credit or cashier's check for 00:57:00.858 --> 00:57:03.326 - the total amount of $106,845. 00:57:03.778 --> 00:57:13.718 - $1,845.96 if the new posted amount is desired prior to the completion of the required public improvements. 00:57:13.718 --> 00:57:23.194 - And number four, that the petitioner apply for a right of way acceptance on or before May 14th, 2026. 00:57:23.194 --> 00:57:26.910 - Does anyone have any questions on this? 00:57:27.042 --> 00:57:33.731 - Maybe we'll go first to the petitioner, if that's okay with everyone, and hear the petitioner's testimony. 00:57:33.731 --> 00:57:39.294 - I assume that's you, Mr. Allen. If you would come to the podium, you'll have 15 minutes. 00:57:55.938 --> 00:58:01.196 - Good evening, Larry Allen representing the petitioner hybrid investments. I just want to keep this incredibly 00:58:01.196 --> 00:58:05.977 - brief and I'm going to open it up if I can answer any questions for you all. I think you've heard a 00:58:05.977 --> 00:58:08.606 - lot about this this petition over the past few months. 00:58:08.738 --> 00:58:13.982 - extend some appreciation to staff working with us. This has not been an easy project and we're trying 00:58:13.982 --> 00:58:19.227 - to get a lot of these wrapped up. And so we are appreciative of the ability to work with them and the 00:58:19.227 --> 00:58:24.471 - fact that they took time out to actually visit the site and to remeasure some of the sidewalks and to 00:58:24.471 --> 00:58:29.150 - go over some of those details, which is exactly what brought us to this reduction tonight. 00:58:29.282 --> 00:58:35.791 - So just want to extend our gratitude for that and we have extended the requirements that are here to 00:58:35.791 --> 00:58:42.494 - the contractor, who is the developer of the three lot minor. They are well aware of all the things that 00:58:42.494 --> 00:58:49.455 - need to get done and when they need to get done. So thank you. Thank you. Do members of the plan commission 00:58:49.455 --> 00:58:51.646 - have any questions for Mr Alan or 00:58:52.034 --> 00:58:59.532 - for staff at this time. Okay, thank you. Are there members of the public who would like to speak in 00:58:59.532 --> 00:59:07.029 - favor of this petition? If so, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand and you'll have 00:59:07.029 --> 00:59:14.677 - three minutes to talk. Are there members of the public who are in opposition to this petition? If so, 00:59:14.677 --> 00:59:19.550 - please come to the podium and or raise your virtual hand online. 00:59:20.578 --> 00:59:30.468 - We come now to the members of the plan Commission for further discussion and or a motion I Can make 00:59:30.468 --> 00:59:40.656 - a motion, but I don't want to cut any way off if there's comments Yes, mr. And right Randolph just I'm 00:59:40.656 --> 00:59:43.326 - really I guess looking for 00:59:43.746 --> 00:59:51.090 - the plan commission to bring us any concerns as far as deadlines, timelines, really weighing a lot of, 00:59:51.090 --> 00:59:58.220 - I guess, the responsibility of making sure we get these improvements in on the plan commission. And 00:59:58.220 --> 01:00:05.492 - I'm here to support what's needed. There's a lot of moving parts here. And I just also want to extend 01:00:05.492 --> 01:00:12.622 - appreciation of kind of figuring out a way to move this project forward because it was very complex 01:00:12.622 --> 01:00:13.406 - in nature. 01:00:13.986 --> 01:00:20.218 - Thank you, Mr. and right Randolph. Mr. Morris, if you'd like to continue with your motion for cases 01:00:20.218 --> 01:00:26.700 - SIA dash 22 dash nine and SIA dash 22 dash 22. I move approval of the performance period extension date 01:00:26.700 --> 01:00:33.057 - of May 14th, twenty twenty six and the inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount of one hundred 01:00:33.057 --> 01:00:40.286 - and six thousand eight hundred and forty five dollars and ninety six cents and the request for the reduction of the 01:00:40.354 --> 01:00:49.243 - financial guarantee in the amount of $16,284.58, leaving $106,845.96, with the following required conditions 01:00:49.243 --> 01:00:56.094 - subject to the Highway Engineer Reports and the Stormwater Program Manager Reports. 01:00:56.162 --> 01:01:02.345 - One, a performance bond document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. Two, a subdivision 01:01:02.345 --> 01:01:08.648 - improvement agreement document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. Three, a new financial 01:01:08.648 --> 01:01:14.653 - guarantee may be submitted in the form of either a letter of credit or cashier's check for the total 01:01:14.653 --> 01:01:20.896 - amount of $106,845.96 if the new posted amount is desired prior to the completion of the required public 01:01:20.896 --> 01:01:26.128 - improvements. And four, the petitioner apply for right away acceptance on or before May 01:01:26.128 --> 01:01:34.704 - to approve a motion to approve a motion to approve a motion to approve a motion to approve a motion 01:01:34.704 --> 01:01:43.280 - to approve a motion to approve a motion to approve a motion to approve a motion to approve a motion 01:01:43.280 --> 01:01:51.856 - to approve a motion to approve a motion to approve a motion to approve a motion to approve a motion 01:01:51.856 --> 01:01:54.686 - to approve a motion to approve a 01:01:56.386 --> 01:02:06.683 - Joe Van Deventer? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Mark Clements? Yes. Tronan Wright-Randolph? Yes. Scott Farris? 01:02:06.683 --> 01:02:17.080 - Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Jeff Morse? Yes. Motion is approved, eight to zero. OK, thank you. We have three 01:02:17.080 --> 01:02:26.078 - items under new business. We'll start with the first two under item number one, SIA-22-7. 01:02:26.370 --> 01:02:35.075 - and SIA-24-6. And this is the Holland Fields major subdivision phase two final plan, request for performance 01:02:35.075 --> 01:02:43.220 - period extension and request for reduction of financial guarantee. And this is the final hearing. Ms. 01:02:43.220 --> 01:02:51.366 - Berriman, if you would kindly review this property at 4,400 South Windmill Lane and 700 plus or minus 01:02:51.366 --> 01:02:55.838 - West Crestline Road in Perry Township section 21. Sure. 01:02:56.066 --> 01:03:05.056 - So again, this one is much the same as the previous one. It does have a letter of credit on file for 01:03:05.056 --> 01:03:14.490 - $112,082.85. This letter of credit expires a little bit earlier, which is April 18, 2025. So we're hoping 01:03:14.490 --> 01:03:22.590 - that this project can be kept on that timeline since the developer is not requesting to go 01:03:22.914 --> 01:03:30.659 - They don't want to pay any interest on the letter of credit, so they're going to have to hustle to get 01:03:30.659 --> 01:03:38.254 - this one done in the spring. They do have an SIM file, but it lapsed back in 2022. So their proposed 01:03:38.254 --> 01:03:45.924 - extension date is April 18, 2026. This is phase two. I think they have maybe two lots that still have 01:03:45.924 --> 01:03:48.030 - not developed yet out here. 01:03:48.866 --> 01:03:55.621 - And again, we just went over their letter of credit. They have submitted an estimate that the highway 01:03:55.621 --> 01:04:02.310 - department has, they inspected the site. They found some things where there was some wiggle room and 01:04:02.310 --> 01:04:09.463 - they generally agree with the estimate. They think they could have actually requested more for a reduction, 01:04:09.463 --> 01:04:16.218 - but we just never got another iteration of plans or estimate from the engineer to review. But I think 01:04:16.218 --> 01:04:17.278 - them, you know, 01:04:17.602 --> 01:04:26.302 - getting a reduction amount of $62,105.89 is acceptable to them. And again, we're not going to be calculating 01:04:26.302 --> 01:04:34.443 - inflation on this one because they have expressed the intent to complete all of these improvements by 01:04:34.443 --> 01:04:39.870 - April 18th, 2026. So this is the revised estimate for the reduction 01:04:40.098 --> 01:04:47.688 - September 24th, 2025. Something to note is that we are going with the subtotal amount on this estimate. 01:04:47.688 --> 01:04:55.206 - They had originally included 10% bonding. We don't require bonding in the financial guarantee anymore. 01:04:55.206 --> 01:05:02.796 - That is something that is paid after the project has been accepted into the inventory. So we don't want 01:05:02.796 --> 01:05:09.438 - to include that in the amount that they need to have on file with the planning department. 01:05:09.538 --> 01:05:15.649 - Include in the packet some of the as built here for the site and I think I remember one time I was out 01:05:15.649 --> 01:05:21.759 - there they were pouring some sidewalks. So they are trying to get these improvements completed I Think 01:05:21.759 --> 01:05:27.751 - a lot 31. This was one where there's a ramp on a driveway and they could read they need to redo this 01:05:27.751 --> 01:05:33.150 - one That was just one of the things I remember from the highway department commenting on I 01:05:34.946 --> 01:05:43.724 - So with this one, staff recommends for SIA-22-7 and SIA-24-6, which is the reduction portion. We recommend 01:05:43.724 --> 01:05:52.255 - that you make a motion to approve the request for the performance period of April 18, 2026, the request 01:05:52.255 --> 01:05:59.966 - for a new performance guarantee amount based on the current engineer's estimate, and with the 01:06:00.194 --> 01:06:07.575 - with an approved reduction in the amount of $49,976.96 with the following required four conditions which 01:06:07.575 --> 01:06:14.815 - are subject to the highway engineer reports and stormwater program manager reports. One, a performance 01:06:14.815 --> 01:06:22.126 - bond document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. Number two, a subdivision improvement 01:06:22.126 --> 01:06:28.382 - agreement document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. And number three, 01:06:28.482 --> 01:06:35.877 - A new financial guarantee may be submitted in the form of a letter of credit or cashier's check for 01:06:35.877 --> 01:06:43.273 - the total amount of $49,976.96. And if that new posted amount is desired prior to the completion of 01:06:43.273 --> 01:06:50.742 - the required public improvements. And then finally, number four, that the petitioner apply for right 01:06:50.742 --> 01:06:54.366 - of way acceptance on or before April 18th, 2026. 01:06:58.274 --> 01:07:04.639 - So with that being said, Mr. Allen, are you also the representative? So if you would kindly come to 01:07:04.639 --> 01:07:11.258 - the podium, you have 15 minutes to review with us this request. I'm going to raise no further comments. 01:07:11.258 --> 01:07:17.878 - I think that was a very thorough report. This one is a little bit more straightforward. Happy to answer 01:07:17.878 --> 01:07:24.306 - any questions that the commission may have. Do members of the plan commission have questions for Mr. 01:07:24.306 --> 01:07:27.998 - Allen? No. Oh, yes, Mr. Fields. I may have misunderstood. 01:07:28.194 --> 01:07:36.377 - something that was said last. These sidewalk improvements, are those on the owners of the properties? 01:07:36.377 --> 01:07:43.678 - No, not all of them. There's going to be a question that we need to sort out a little bit. 01:07:43.810 --> 01:07:49.382 - just to be frank with you about where the driveways have maybe interfered with the sidewalk. And to 01:07:49.382 --> 01:07:54.954 - the extent that someone else put in those driveways, they may end up being responsible because they 01:07:54.954 --> 01:08:00.749 - had to pull a independent permit as noted, they are listed as a petitioner. But the sidewalks generally 01:08:00.749 --> 01:08:06.544 - that are through are part of the public improvements that were on the plat itself. And so to the extent 01:08:06.544 --> 01:08:12.395 - that we're pouring the new ones around the undeveloped lots, we understand that that's part of the plat. 01:08:12.395 --> 01:08:13.342 - Okay, thank you. 01:08:13.442 --> 01:08:21.132 - Any other questions for Mr. Allen? Okay. I'll hear from the public now. Are there members of the public 01:08:21.132 --> 01:08:28.600 - who would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to this petition? If so, please come to the 01:08:28.600 --> 01:08:36.438 - podium or raise your virtual hand in order to be recognized online. No one. Okay. I return now to members 01:08:36.438 --> 01:08:41.022 - of the plan commission for further discussion and or emotion. 01:08:44.738 --> 01:08:55.768 - There's no discussion I move that for cases SIA-22-7 and SIA-24-6, approval of the request for performance 01:08:55.768 --> 01:08:58.654 - period of April 18th, 2026, 01:08:58.882 --> 01:09:03.875 - and a request for a new performance guarantee amount based on current engineers estimate and with an 01:09:03.875 --> 01:09:09.017 - approval reduction in the amount of forty nine thousand nine hundred and seventy six dollars and ninety 01:09:09.017 --> 01:09:14.159 - six cents with the following required conditions subject to the highway engineer reports and stormwater 01:09:14.159 --> 01:09:19.300 - program manager reports one performance bond document shall be signed and recorded by January fifteenth 01:09:19.300 --> 01:09:20.190 - twenty twenty six 01:09:20.258 --> 01:09:26.858 - Two, a subdivision improvement agreement document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. 01:09:26.858 --> 01:09:33.588 - Three, a new financial guarantee may be submitted in the form of either a letter of credit or cashier's 01:09:33.588 --> 01:09:40.124 - check for the total amount of $49,976.96 if the new posted amount is desired prior to the completion 01:09:40.124 --> 01:09:46.595 - of the required public improvements. And four, petitioner apply for a right of way acceptance on or 01:09:46.595 --> 01:09:49.054 - before April 18th, 2026. I'll second. 01:09:49.442 --> 01:09:58.994 - Okay, great. It's been moved and seconded to approve S.I.A. 22-7 and S.I.A. 24-6, which is stated by 01:09:58.994 --> 01:10:08.924 - Planning Commission member Jeff Morris, perfectly, so I will not repeat. A vote yes is a vote to approve 01:10:08.924 --> 01:10:19.422 - as mentioned by Commission member Jeff Morris. Joe Van Deventer? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. 01:10:19.586 --> 01:10:30.447 - Yes. Scott Farris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. Okay, motion is approved, 01:10:30.447 --> 01:10:31.998 - eight to zero. 01:10:32.418 --> 01:10:39.979 - Okay, the next item on the agenda is SIA-21-7. This also is Holland Field's major subdivision phase 01:10:39.979 --> 01:10:47.615 - three final plan. And this is a request for performance period extension and a request for inflation 01:10:47.615 --> 01:10:55.403 - adjusted performance guarantee amount. This is the preliminary hearing and they're requesting that the 01:10:55.403 --> 01:10:58.654 - final hearing be waived. And this concerns 01:10:59.042 --> 01:11:07.561 - property at 4400 South Windmill Lane and 700 plus or minus West Crestline Road in Perry Township section 01:11:07.561 --> 01:11:15.674 - 21. Ms. Behrman. Okay so this one just slightly different there is not a request for a reduction on 01:11:15.674 --> 01:11:23.868 - this one. I think we simply just don't have the information we need to make a determination on that. 01:11:23.868 --> 01:11:26.302 - So these are the lots they're 01:11:26.434 --> 01:11:33.154 - about 14 lots in phase three, 10 of them I believe are built out at this point, even though this is 01:11:33.154 --> 01:11:39.941 - an older aerial, I think these are going up quickly. So there was a letter of credit, and I will say 01:11:39.941 --> 01:11:46.728 - that the staff packet, there were some updates that didn't make it into the staff packet, so I'll be 01:11:46.728 --> 01:11:53.246 - updating you on a couple of things here. One of them is that their letter of credit for $102,000 01:11:53.506 --> 01:12:01.912 - $102,942.28. It has been recently renewed on December 12th, 2026. They did have a performance period 01:12:01.912 --> 01:12:10.567 - that lapsed back December 15th, 2023. There's not a reduction requested because we need as-builts. They 01:12:10.567 --> 01:12:19.306 - did submit some earlier in the year, but they did not contain all the information that we need, so we're 01:12:19.306 --> 01:12:21.470 - kind of waiting on those. 01:12:22.786 --> 01:12:29.643 - There have been so many improvements made out there as far as sidewalks go and buyer retention that 01:12:29.643 --> 01:12:37.049 - the credit, the letter of credit that we have on file now, we think is far going to exceed what is required 01:12:37.049 --> 01:12:43.906 - if we were to apply the inflation based calculations and get a new estimate. The highway department 01:12:43.906 --> 01:12:51.518 - had inspected this area back on October 16th, 2025, and they do agree with the estimate. And then this is the, 01:12:51.810 --> 01:13:00.129 - original estimate in here, which we think exceeds, it does include this 10% bonding, but we're just 01:13:00.129 --> 01:13:08.531 - gonna leave it as is at this point until we do get an accurate estimate on file or they complete all 01:13:08.531 --> 01:13:17.681 - the requirements and get it accepted into the inventory at this point. So staff's gonna make a recommendation 01:13:17.681 --> 01:13:18.846 - for SIA-21-7. 01:13:19.426 --> 01:13:26.716 - staff recommends approval of the one extension of the performance period until december 15th 2026 and 01:13:26.716 --> 01:13:34.578 - to renew the inflation adjusted amount of 102 942 dollars and 28 cents with the following required conditions 01:13:34.578 --> 01:13:42.082 - subject to the highway engineer reports in the stormwater program reports uh one is that the performance 01:13:42.082 --> 01:13:46.942 - bond document shall be signed and recorded by january 15th 2026 two 01:13:47.074 --> 01:13:53.800 - that a subdivision improvement agreement document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. 01:13:53.800 --> 01:14:00.723 - Number three is moot. At this point, this has been completed. And number four, that the petitioner apply 01:14:00.723 --> 01:14:07.449 - for a right of way acceptance on or before December 15th, 2026. They have a little bit of time to get 01:14:07.449 --> 01:14:13.054 - this one completed. OK. Mr. Allen, I think this is you again. It's the same address. 01:14:14.690 --> 01:14:20.490 - Correct. So Larry Allen representing hybrid investments, very similar. This is just the extension for 01:14:20.490 --> 01:14:26.346 - the year. This is the final one. Again, this is a little bit more straightforward, but happy to answer 01:14:26.346 --> 01:14:32.032 - any questions the commission may have. Do members of the Planning Commission have questions for Mr. 01:14:32.032 --> 01:14:37.889 - Allen? No? Okay. Okay. That'll be it. Are there members of the public who would like to speak in favor 01:14:37.889 --> 01:14:43.006 - or in opposition to this petition? If so, please come to the podium in the Nat Hill Room. 01:14:43.298 --> 01:14:50.862 - or raise your virtual hand online. If there's none, we come back to the members of the plan commission 01:14:50.862 --> 01:14:53.726 - for further discussion and or emotion. 01:14:58.530 --> 01:15:06.004 - For case SIA-21-7, I move approval of one extension of the performance period until December 15, 2026 01:15:06.004 --> 01:15:13.698 - and to renew the inflation adjusted amount of $102,942.28 with the following required conditions subject 01:15:13.698 --> 01:15:18.974 - to the highway engineer reports and stormwater program manager reports. 01:15:19.042 --> 01:15:25.395 - One, a performance bond document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. Two, a subdivision 01:15:25.395 --> 01:15:31.503 - improvement agreement document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. Three, a renewal 01:15:31.503 --> 01:15:37.978 - of the current letter of credit or cashier's check for the total amount of $102,942.28. Completed. That's 01:15:37.978 --> 01:15:44.147 - completed. Oh, sorry. Strike that last one. And then the new third one would be the petitioner reply 01:15:44.147 --> 01:15:47.934 - for right of way acceptance honor before December 15th, 2026. 01:15:48.322 --> 01:15:56.154 - and waive the final hearing. I'll second. Is there a second? Great. Yes. So there was a motion and a 01:15:56.154 --> 01:16:04.219 - second to approve SA-21-7, which is the Holland Fields major subdivision phase three. This is a request 01:16:04.219 --> 01:16:12.749 - for performance period extension, inflation adjustment, and it included a waiver of final hearing. Commission 01:16:12.749 --> 01:16:17.790 - member Morris stated it as well perfectly, so I will not repeat. 01:16:17.890 --> 01:16:28.641 - A vote yes is a vote to approve as stated. Margaret Clements, yes. Tron and Wright Randolph, yes. Scott 01:16:28.641 --> 01:16:39.083 - Ferris, yes. Rudy Fields, yes. Jeff Morris, yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. Jovan Deventer, yes. David Bush, 01:16:39.083 --> 01:16:43.838 - yes. Motion is approved 8 to 0. Great, we're. 01:16:44.226 --> 01:16:51.900 - down to the last item under new business, and that's item number three, a rezone request number 25-8, 01:16:51.900 --> 01:16:59.499 - the rezone from light business to agricultural, and this is the preliminary hearing, and a waiver of 01:16:59.499 --> 01:17:03.486 - final hearing has been requested regarding one, six, 01:17:03.842 --> 01:17:11.460 - plus or minus acre parcel in Van Buren Township, section 22, at 7353 West Eller Road. And Mr. Myers, 01:17:11.460 --> 01:17:19.455 - if you would please review this with us. Thank you. To the petitioner of this petition, request to rezone 01:17:19.455 --> 01:17:27.525 - six acres located in Van Buren Township, section 22. It is limited business right now, and they're seeking 01:17:27.525 --> 01:17:32.126 - to rezone to agricultural residential 2.5, or AGR for short. 01:17:32.322 --> 01:17:38.063 - The goal of the rezone is to establish zoning compatibility with the adjacent parcel to the west, which 01:17:38.063 --> 01:17:43.915 - is also owned by the petitioner. Deed records indicate that the two parcels are likely one lot of record, 01:17:43.915 --> 01:17:49.546 - totaling 20 acres. Both parcels appear separate due to a township section line bisecting the two. The 01:17:49.546 --> 01:17:55.342 - western parcel contains 14 acres in Van Buren Township Section 21, while the eastern parcel, the subject 01:17:55.342 --> 01:17:59.262 - parcel of this rezone, contains six acres, like I said, in Section 22. 01:18:00.226 --> 01:18:06.684 - Moving from the LB zone to the AGR zone will allow the commercial structures to be converted to agricultural 01:18:06.684 --> 01:18:12.726 - use that are existing on the property. And the petitioner stated a potential interest in establishing 01:18:12.726 --> 01:18:18.829 - a new dwelling on the six acre parcel, which will be required to meet the CDO for a detached accessory 01:18:18.829 --> 01:18:25.227 - dwelling unit unless a subdivision is pursued. On the screen, I have the definitions for a limited business 01:18:25.227 --> 01:18:29.374 - and agricultural residential. We can come back to these if we'd like. 01:18:30.946 --> 01:18:39.535 - Here we have the location map, Van Buren Township along West Eller Road. Here's the current zoning map. 01:18:39.535 --> 01:18:48.124 - The light pink is the limited business and the green is the agricultural residential. The gold or brown 01:18:48.124 --> 01:18:54.814 - that you see is a residential one. Now on the screen is the site conditions map. 01:18:54.946 --> 01:19:02.258 - showing the slopes of the property as well as the existing structures in the northeast corner of the 01:19:02.258 --> 01:19:09.787 - property along West Eller Road. And then now some site photographs of those structures and the existing 01:19:09.787 --> 01:19:17.171 - driveways off of West Eller. This picture on the left side of the screen shows the existing residents 01:19:17.171 --> 01:19:20.574 - at 7353 West Eller Road on the 14 acre parcel. 01:19:23.746 --> 01:19:31.074 - Just more photographs here of the site. I've also included some snippets from the Monroe County Comprehensive 01:19:31.074 --> 01:19:38.002 - Plan, designating this area as rural transition. So all of this is included in the packet, but I wanted 01:19:38.002 --> 01:19:44.730 - to bring it into the presentation in case we had any questions or discussion on these items. There's 01:19:44.730 --> 01:19:46.462 - two slides here for that. 01:19:50.434 --> 01:19:55.970 - And then now on the screen is the letter from the petitioner stating their request on the left. And 01:19:55.970 --> 01:20:01.506 - then on the right, the letter from the State of Indiana Office of the Secretary of State certifying 01:20:01.506 --> 01:20:07.042 - that the previous commercial business that was operating on the property is now ceased activity and 01:20:07.042 --> 01:20:12.633 - is also one of the reasons why they are seeking to rezone away from limited business to agricultural 01:20:12.633 --> 01:20:15.678 - because the business is no longer active on this site. 01:20:17.602 --> 01:20:23.608 - And now on the screen, I have a side-by-side comparison of Chapter 807 for the limited business zone 01:20:23.608 --> 01:20:29.792 - and Chapter 804 for the agricultural residential zone. These pages from the ordinance indicate the uses 01:20:29.792 --> 01:20:36.035 - that are available in each of the zoning districts. So I kept that here in case there was any discussion 01:20:36.035 --> 01:20:42.160 - between the two with respect to what uses are permitted, what uses are not, what uses are conditional, 01:20:42.160 --> 01:20:42.814 - et cetera. 01:20:47.106 --> 01:20:53.025 - All right, that brings me to staff's recommendation. Staff recommends forwarding a positive recommendation 01:20:53.025 --> 01:20:58.667 - to the board of commissioners for the rezone request, citing its compatibility with the Monroe County 01:20:58.667 --> 01:21:04.641 - comprehensive plan and subject to the highway and stormwater program reports. I'm not taking any questions. 01:21:04.641 --> 01:21:10.394 - Thank you, Mr. Myers. I think we'll go directly to the petitioner. If the petitioner would like to come 01:21:10.394 --> 01:21:15.262 - to the podium and say anything to the plan commission, please just sign in, Mrs. Reese. 01:21:17.186 --> 01:21:26.016 - I just wanna personally thank you for all of your years serving the postal service and to the community 01:21:26.016 --> 01:21:35.271 - with mail delivery. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, 68 years of hauling US postal mail out of Bloomington, 01:21:35.271 --> 01:21:43.422 - Indiana to everywhere. My husband and I decided, we inherited the property from his parents and 01:21:43.586 --> 01:21:52.376 - His mother died in 2000. That's when we inherited the property and the house. And we're done. We're 01:21:52.376 --> 01:22:01.517 - 75 years old. The post office, I'm not going to say too much about, but things are changing. And people 01:22:01.517 --> 01:22:07.230 - are changing and we're done. We don't want it. We use the barns. 01:22:07.618 --> 01:22:15.922 - The one barn is we store stuff in it. The other barn, it has some trailers in it, you know, car trailers, 01:22:15.922 --> 01:22:24.070 - lawnmower trailers, stuff like that. Tractors, we still have to bush hog the fields, you know, and keep 01:22:24.070 --> 01:22:32.218 - the creek good and fix the barn from the trucks that come up the road and hit the barn. Not our trucks. 01:22:32.218 --> 01:22:35.038 - You can talk to Walmart about that. 01:22:35.202 --> 01:22:42.500 - So basically no and and the property will then be inherited by our son who's going to live there and 01:22:42.500 --> 01:22:49.799 - We don't want we just not business anymore at all. I Mean the phone number has been just deleted the 01:22:49.799 --> 01:22:57.169 - the only thing I still have the email because I it's stuff I have to answer but other than that we're 01:22:57.169 --> 01:23:02.878 - done Well, thank you for that and we're going to open up to public comment and 01:23:03.010 --> 01:23:09.894 - And if anybody speaks in opposition to your request, you'll have a chance to return to the podium and 01:23:09.894 --> 01:23:16.710 - explain your point of view. Okay. Thank you. Are there members of the public who would like to speak 01:23:16.710 --> 01:23:23.459 - either in favor or in opposition to this petition? If so, please come to the podium in the Nat Hill 01:23:23.459 --> 01:23:30.208 - room or raise your virtual hand. No one. I return now to members of the plan commission for further 01:23:30.208 --> 01:23:32.030 - discussion and or emotion. 01:23:37.602 --> 01:23:46.224 - Yes. Before we make a motion, I just want to make a comment. I really appreciate your reverting it back 01:23:46.224 --> 01:23:54.597 - to ag. I think that's a noble thing to do. And I was most impressed by the tidiness of the property. 01:23:54.597 --> 01:24:03.219 - I wish my farm looked that nice. I don't know how you do it, but keep up the good work. Thank you. Yes, 01:24:03.219 --> 01:24:05.374 - that's nice. That's nice. 01:24:05.986 --> 01:24:17.265 - So would you like to make a motion then, Mr. Bush? I could, sure. In case number REZ25-8, the address 01:24:17.265 --> 01:24:28.323 - 7353 West Eller Road, requesting a rezone to change LB to AGR, waiver of final hearing. I'd like to 01:24:28.323 --> 01:24:31.198 - recommend that we approve 01:24:31.874 --> 01:24:39.184 - for the rezone request, signing its compatibility with the Monroe County comprehensive plan that's subject 01:24:39.184 --> 01:24:46.084 - to highway and stormwater program reports, and also a waiver of the final hearing. I'll second that, 01:24:46.084 --> 01:24:53.189 - but I guess just for clarity, you want to make that motion not to approve, but move forward a favorable 01:24:53.189 --> 01:24:57.630 - recommendation? That is correct. Thank you for my second stance. 01:24:59.426 --> 01:25:06.646 - Okay, it's been moved and seconded to send a favorable recommendation to the county commissioners for 01:25:06.646 --> 01:25:14.008 - REZ-25-8, which is the rezone from limited business to agricultural residential 2.5. This also includes 01:25:14.008 --> 01:25:21.086 - a waiver of final hearing. A vote yes is a vote to send a favorable recommendation and to waive the 01:25:21.086 --> 01:25:28.094 - final hearing. Margaret Clements? Yes. Tron Enright-Randolph? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? 01:25:28.546 --> 01:25:38.079 - Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Joe Van Deventer? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Motion is carried eight 01:25:38.079 --> 01:25:47.800 - to zero. Well, thank you, Mr. And Mrs. Rees. Thank you so much. Yes. Enjoy the rest of your retirement 01:25:47.800 --> 01:25:53.086 - and happy holidays. We will get some warm weather. Yes. 01:25:53.378 --> 01:25:59.889 - So I'm going to turn now to public comment. We have the last item on the agenda, an opening up of the 01:25:59.889 --> 01:26:06.719 - floor to public comment to items that are not on the agenda. If anyone would like to make a public comment 01:26:06.719 --> 01:26:13.421 - for an item that is not on the agenda, you'll have three minutes to speak, but please come to the podium 01:26:13.421 --> 01:26:19.102 - in the Nat Hill room or raise your virtual hand so that you can be recognized and heard. 01:26:23.298 --> 01:26:30.506 - you see anyone okay are there any reports from planning or from the county attorney well from planning 01:26:30.506 --> 01:26:37.503 - I would just want to thank you all for your attention and time this year I know a lot of you put in 01:26:37.503 --> 01:26:44.641 - a lot of meeting hours and are part of a lot of the subcommittee so I appreciate all of your time and 01:26:44.641 --> 01:26:47.230 - attention as part of that also I was 01:26:47.362 --> 01:26:54.830 - I'm going to put on the agenda for the administrative meeting in January, elections for plan commission 01:26:54.830 --> 01:27:02.513 - members for the seats for chair, vice chair, subcommittee. So please start thinking about which committees 01:27:02.513 --> 01:27:06.750 - you would like to serve on and we will see you in January. 01:27:06.946 --> 01:27:14.279 - Thank you so much and thanks to staff for all you do and to my colleagues here on the plan commission. 01:27:14.279 --> 01:27:21.399 - You know, I really appreciate your patience, your forbearance and your participation because that's 01:27:21.399 --> 01:27:28.732 - how we could become a better community. So thank you. Okay. Well, is there a motion to adjourn? Motion 01:27:28.732 --> 01:27:30.014 - to adjourn. Okay. 01:27:30.434 --> 01:27:38.254 - I think that's a motion and a second all in one. Thanks. Thanks everyone. Happy holidays. Thanks for 01:27:38.254 --> 01:27:40.190 - your service. Thank you.