- I'd like to call the meeting of the Monroe County Plan Commission to order. Would you please call the
- roll? Yes, David Bush here. Margaret Clements here. John and right Randolph. Scott Ferris here. Rudy
- Fields here. David Henry here. Jeff Morris here. Julie Thomas. Here. Jovan Deventer here. OK, so we
- have eight members in person in a quorum.
- And would you kindly introduce the evidence? Sure. I'd like to introduce the following items into the
- evidence. Let the record reflect that Mr. Enright Randolph has arrived. Okay, so we have nine members
- attending. I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County development
- ordinance as adopted and amended.
- The Monroe County zoning ordinance and subdivision control ordinance as adopted and amended. The Monroe
- County comprehensive plan as adopted and amended. The Monroe County plan commission rules of procedure
- as adopted and amended. The cases that were legally advertised and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's
- agenda. Is there a motion to approve? I move approval. Second.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve
- the introduction of evidence. Margaret Clements? Yes. Tronan Wright-Randolph? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes.
- Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes, thanks. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Motion
- is approved, nine to zero. And I'd like to move approval of the agenda with one
- correction and that is under unfinished business number one ZOA-25-3 that this is a continuation of
- the October 23rd meeting and that this is still the preliminary hearing and I'd like to request waiver
- of final hearing. Is there a second? Second. Okay is there any other changes to the agenda?
- or is the rest is approved? Okay. So this is a motion and a second to make only one change to the otherwise
- published agenda, which is under unfinished business. Item number one, ZOA-25-3, strike final hearing
- and instead put in preliminary hearing and waiver of final hearing requested. A vote yes is a vote to
- approve. Trana Ray-Randolph? Yes.
- Scott Ferris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes.
- Joe Van Deventer. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Motion is approved nine to zero. OK.
- And we have two sets of minutes for approval. We can either have a motion to approve those together
- or separately.
- it together. I move approval of the October 23rd and November 20th 2025 minutes. Second. Okay it's been
- moved and seconded to collectively approve October 23rd and November 20 2025 meeting minutes. A vote
- yes is a vote to approve both sets of minutes. Scott Ferris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. Yes.
- Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes.
- Joe Van Deventer? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Tronin Ray Randolph? Yes. Motion is
- approved, nine to zero. OK, we have two items under administrative business. And Ms. Minister Jelen,
- if you would go over those with us. Sure. I'll take item number one first, the CDO amendment prioritization
- list. There's no changes to this list as of now.
- I'll take that back. There's one change. We did get a text amendment
- through the county commissioners on December 11th. So there was one amendment made to the CDO, and that
- was largely due to staff edits, but also some house bill changes. So that could be classified under
- the staff edits section of the prioritization list, which is ongoing. But one of the items on the agenda
- tonight under unfinished business, if approved, could also update that prioritization list. Okay.
- or if moved on to the commissioners and approved by the commissioners. There's no other updates on that.
- On the calendar, is there anything? Tammy's going to go ahead and present this one. So we had the county
- council give the budget hearing schedule published, so now we know where we needed to move things. We've
- got a BZA meeting happening a week early in August. We have a couple of the
- PC admin meetings, which are normally on Tuesdays. I think we're pushing those to Thursdays because
- of voting, the primary and the regular. And then we have two meetings that are altered. I think September
- 28th or 23rd is a Wednesday and October 22nd will be a Thursday. So those are the main changes we're seeing.
- It's nice to have this advance notice. Well, let's move on to the first item on the unfinished business
- agenda and that's item number one zio a-25-3 and this is a continuation of a preliminary hearing from
- October 23rd and with the waiver of final hearing requested concerning item number one from the county
- development ordinance prioritization list so
- Margaret, before we move on, just really quickly, I'm really sorry. We do need a vote on the meeting
- calendar. Oh, OK. OK. Is there a motion to approve the meeting calendar? Motion to approve the calendar
- as stated. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the 2026 meeting calendar with the amendments
- as presented in the packet. A vote yes is a vote to approve the meeting calendar. Rudy Fields? Yes.
- David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes.
- Julie Thomas? Yes. Joe Van Deventer? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Tron Enright-Randolph?
- Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Okay, that is approved nine to zero.
- Okay, thank you for that reminder and for that catch. Okay, so we're moving on then to unfinished business
- and this concerns item number one, ZOA-25-3. This is a continuation of the October 23rd, 2025 preliminary
- hearing and a waiver of final hearing could be requested. And this concerns item number one from the
- county development ordinance prioritization list.
- Madam chair before staff continues this is a topic that we've discussed several times in previous meetings
- and I think we've all had an opportunity to weigh in and technically public comment was closed in a
- prior prior meeting so we would not take a public comment tonight so I would like to move to call the
- question to move this straight to a vote second I'm sorry do we not get a statement that doesn't seem like
- um procedure there's been a motion and a second mr roddy if you're here if you could weigh in on this
- yeah um so trying to cut off discussion about this for the rules of procedure if there is a motion a
- second and the vote is began to be called i'm asking about rules of procedure as far as prior to that
- with appropriate discussion i understand that there was a motion and a second but i'm more curious about um
- our ability to discuss this. And also moved as a continuation seems to be quite of a stretch. And correct
- me if I'm wrong, because our attorney's online, but I want him to be clear that we actually moved this
- to the ORC to be discussed. So this seems like a new item in new business. I'm asking for point of order
- and clarity to the attorney that is not out of order.
- Roddy has come in so he can address your question and let's be clear of the record that this was motion
- to the ORC to discuss and then went to the admin and then here. Mr. Roddy could you please clarify our
- rules of procedure. Yes it's my understanding that based on what's occurred which is that it was sent
- to the ORC the ORC made minor changes that the motion can be called by the chair at this point the question
- can be called.
- We moved the whole item forward to the ORC to be re discussed, moved to the planned commission and then
- moved back here. I don't see how that's a continuation of the same discussion because we moved it for
- a new discussion at the ORC. And speaking of Mr. Schilling, he thinks that the motion before the ORC.
- I think is very much not what I'm looking for. I want definitive legal guidance. At this point, I could
- at this point, what I can say is I believe the question can be called.
- I think that Ms. Nester Jelen, could you call the roll to see if this motion for the question passes?
- Point of order, Madam President. Mr. Henry? Under Robert's rules, it's permitted to challenge the decision
- of the chair and take a vote on this decision. I have not made a decision. We're taking a vote. I'm
- challenging the decision about this vote. Mr. Roddy? I'll second that motion. We now have to debate.
- Mr. Roddy, as I understand parliamentary procedure, we have an opportunity to debate the decision of
- the chair to decide whether or not we proceed with this vote. I believe that's correct if it's a point
- of order. That's what I did. I believe that is correct. Typically under Robert's rules, a speaker for
- and against is permitted. Are you able to verify that? Not off the top of my head, no. Pardon me? Not
- off the top of my head, no. But I believe it's a point of order. It can be subject to debate.
- So we have two motions on the table. One is to call the question and the other is a point of order.
- Could you direct us which way we should proceed? I believe the point of order would have to be dealt
- with first since it deals with essentially the motion on the floor. So we have to decide on the point
- of order if that's accepted? That would be my position.
- Then, Ms. Nestor-Gellin, would you please call the roll on the point of order? Madam President, typically
- a challenge to the decision of the chair requires a speaker for and against the motion so we can understand
- why the motion's being made. I'd happily speak for the motion if there's someone that wants just to
- speak against it, they can. Okay, so no one wants to speak against the motion, that's fine.
- I think I just concur with my colleague, Mr. Andre Randolph, to say, wow, of course we had a robust
- discussion. Point of order. We already had it. Go ahead. Yeah. We have two motions. We've got one that
- is seconded. We have the point of order, which was seconded. And for some of us who do not have Robert's
- rule of order in our hip pocket, I have a copy at home.
- but I don't have it in my hip pocket. The process, I want to make clear so I understand the process.
- Now we have to debate whether we are for or against the point of order, not the substance of the point
- of order, but whether or not the point of order will continue. Is that correct? Yes, I think they're
- fairly interrelated, but yes. Yes, which means we're not discussing the topic. We're discussing whether
- the point of order
- will proceed or not. Is a valid point of order. Correct. It's challenging the decision of the chair,
- which was made to call the question. That's the question that we're discussing. I'm challenging that
- choice as it was seconded. So the discussion is about the motion that was made to call the question.
- And that's typically procedurally how you would handle a situation where a question is being forced
- about. I have a point of order. I made no decision. A motion was made to call the question.
- It was seconded, and no decision has been made. So I object to that characterization. I have not made
- a decision to call the question. The question has been moved. It's been seconded, and a vote is pending.
- No, I'm sorry. It's not. There's a point of order on the table. It is not pending until we resolve the
- challenge of the decision of the chair. It's still pending. Mr. Roddy, you may want to get a copy of
- the book here, because it's going to be a minute.
- I mean, but the bottom line is it sounds like the chairwoman has already made an argument against my
- motion to discuss why we're taking this vote. I'm just correcting the record that I did not make a decision
- about the calling of the question. That was on the table. The motion was seconded. No decision was made
- about that. So if you would like to entertain the question that you brought up,
- I don't know if it's possible or permissible that you dictate the conditions of the discussion of the
- parameters under which your point of order is discussed, but I would like then to entertain Mr. Henry's
- question. And if there are people who are in favor of his motion and would like to speak about that,
- would you please raise your hand to be recognized?
- Mr. Henry as a middle explaining turn on the timer. I was in the middle explaining the rationale, but
- clearly this is a unpracticed part of our procedure.
- But typically, just for the public's understanding and my peers' understanding, that in procedural
- parliamentary votes, if a motion has been made on the floor and a person at this body disagrees with
- it, they can challenge the decision of the chair, who is the presiding officer, to now discuss whether
- or not we should be taking that vote. So the question before you, why I'm challenging, is whether or
- not calling the question in light of Mr. Randolph's comment, in light of procedurally our ability to
- discuss the motion before us, regardless of the precedent, regardless of the discussion,
- is we're removing an opportunity in this room, not the administrative meeting, but this room, to discuss
- the merits of the change to the CDO. So what I'm asking is that we don't immediately go to a vote, but
- we take a few moments to discuss the vote before us, which clearly some folks want to move through quickly,
- and I appreciate that. But rather than taking away that time,
- and letting a few people speak their mind about the final vote on this very important decision facing
- our community to take that opportunity away just to rush to the question I feel is an inappropriate
- 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
- agenda, speak our mind about it, and go to the vote. But since it was clear that from this language
- up here that we just heard, there's a desire to move very quickly here. That is why I've asked for the
- point of order to challenge the decision of the presiding officer to move to that vote.
- voted and seconded. That is procedurally what we do in parliamentary rules. Maybe we need to dust off
- the book, but that's all I'm asking. Let's just have the discussion for a few minutes. We've already
- wasted a lot of time on this piece, rather than just simply allowing a few folks to voice their final
- concerns about this ordinance change. Thank you. Madam Chair, I came into this thinking that we had
- all had adequate time to discuss our
- thoughts on this. And this procedure of calling the question is something we've been using at the BZA
- in the last few meetings on non-controversial topics. So hearing that there are others that would still
- like to share more thoughts on this, I'm going to withdraw my motion to call the question so that we
- can focus on discussing the actual ordinance change at hand instead of spending time on procedure. Do
- you agree with that, Mr. Paris?
- Act of Collegiality. Yes. Would you withdraw your point of order? If it's been withdrawn, I'm happy
- to withdraw the point of order. I don't believe we'd have to take a vote if the offending motion is
- off the table.
- Okay with that being said we still have a preliminary hearing and a waiver of Final hearing has been
- requested for item on the agenda number one zio a-25-3 and this concerns an amendment to the county
- development ordinance and It pertains to the sliding scale subdivision As set forth on our list of priorities
- now those people who had spoken before are
- On the CDO prioritization list and on this sliding scale subdivision question have they some of them
- have already spoken and they would not be allowed a second three minutes.
- to voice their opinion and at some point if someone thinks that the Questions have become or the statements
- have become redundant and that there's no new material being offered we can Close the public comment
- session. So with that being said Ms. Nester Jelen, would you review this item number one with us in
- terms of what's recently happened and
- Sure. And I just want to make sure I hear the point of order correctly and what you are wanting to do.
- So it's still preliminary hearing continuation from October twenty third waiver final hearing requested.
- There's two components to that. One is public comment and the other is planned commission comments.
- So do you want to open both of those back up.
- We could vote on whether or not we open up public comment. So we open public comment We can just take
- this as a final hearing and no waiver requested since that was from the prior meeting Okay, is there
- a motion to either open up public comment or close it down? Yes, Colonel parents We have discussed this
- topic Eight times at the ORC
- three times at the planned commission admin meeting, and we have discussed it at one planned commission
- meeting, this being the second. If I add all that up, including tonight, I think that's 13 times we've
- talked about this. The public has been involved in those discussions. I would move that the public hearing
- portion be closed. Is there a second?
- I'm not sure we need to vote. If the agenda has been amended to make this still preliminary hearing
- with the final waiver requested, I just want to make the point of order was not to, I think the point
- of order was only to allow planned commission comments. So we would not call for public comment. That's
- still closed. And I can still present what's before us if the plan commission would like, or you could
- just move straight to comment. And I'll go right to the source of the issue. Mr. Henry, what is your
- preference?
- 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
- another. Whatever for public comment. I don't have an opinion one way or another about public comment.
- Thank you. There's no second to the motion right now, right? Would anyone like me to present the packet?
- OK, I'm seeing some head nods. I will go ahead and do that. So I got a question. So procedurally, I
- put a motion on the table
- You're saying the motion is not required. Do I need to withdraw the motion? Yes, you can do that. OK,
- I withdraw the motion then. Banking on the fact that we will proceed with comments just from members
- of the planned commission, correct? That's how the approval of the agenda was.
- Thank you. Yes. Okay. So the plan commission has asked before they provide some comments and or a motion
- that I go ahead and re-present the text amendment before you. So I will do that briefly. So this is
- in your packet under exhibit one is the beginning of the text amendment. The items in red are showing
- you what is being added or changed based on the text amendment. So one of the discussions was that it
- would be helpful to
- illustratively see the difference between the different subdivision types. So we've now added example
- of a minor subdivision, which is four lots or less, each creating 10 acres or larger lots. And this
- is situations where they're connected to private sewage disposal systems, in other words, a septic system.
- This is another example of a minor subdivision, four lots or less, but they're able to meet the minimum
- lot size requirements for the zoning district.
- So they are able to have smaller lots because they're connected to public sewer or public sewage disposal
- system. And then this is an example of a sliding scale subdivision where you get to have three lots
- that meet the minimum two and a half acres of the rural zones. And the parent parcel remainder is at
- least 55% of the total. In this example here, the lots created are exactly two and a half acres. And
- then the large parent parcel is the remainder.
- And then just an example of a major subdivision where they're connected to public sewage disposal systems,
- sewer, and it's creating more than five lots, creation of roadways and utilities and other infrastructure.
- So the next change that's being proposed is to add two items to the purpose statement. The discussion
- for adding items to the purpose statement is so that when the public comes in, these are more talking
- points for understanding
- why the sliding scale option is different than, say, the minor subdivision option, and what the goal
- of the text is, especially given the 25-year reservation on the parent parcel. So we've added number
- seven, which says to allow the flexibility to create smaller residential lots or by private sewage disposal
- systems, i.e. septics, while also preserving a majority of the original track for agricultural
- or conservation purposes.
- And then number eight we've added to the existing text which says permit development in rural areas
- that will not overburden existing infrastructure and services and to not adversely impact existing low
- traffic roadways police and fire coverage emergency service response times and other governmental services
- and then if you go down the change the
- Section here under number two design standards for the parent parcel remainder lot Notably under to
- be there is no change to the text which was discussed at length during the CDO hearings Which is that
- the designated parent parcel remainder shall not further be subdivided for a period of 25 years from
- the date of recording but we did make an change to the second paragraph of B which states that
- And in short, as a matter of legislative policy, C ordinance 2015-02,
- Which is the original ordinance at which time the size scale option was created and this is included
- in tonight's packet as well as one of the exhibits as well as the minutes from those meetings from the
- plan commission and several examples past examples that we've had so encourage people to look back at
- some of the discussion the history that we've had regarding this and
- Also note on the cover sheet for tonight's meeting, it was discussed at the administrative meeting at
- length and two key takeaways. It sounds like there's interest among some members of the Planning Commission
- keeping the size scale 25 year reservation on the prioritization list for the CDO amendments. We discussed
- adding an addendum of items to the CDO prioritization list
- which will be discussed at the January 6th Plan Commission Administrative Meeting. These include discussions
- about partial plat vacations and re-subdivisions in the section of the ordinance under Table 1-830,
- added under the CDO, and the possibility of adding another subdivision type to the CDO. Both items are
- subject to a majority vote by the Plan Commission.
- And then number two, there's still a need to discuss the 25 year reservation of the parent parcel with
- the public. So they're clear on their options. Once the 25 years has passed and why is originally in
- place, staff will utilize the images added under this text to pictorially explain the differences between
- the subdivision types and the purpose statement of the subdivision size scale subdivision to explain
- the 25 year reservation. So with that, I can take any questions.
- I turn to my colleagues on the Plan Commission for further discussion and or a motion. Mr. Henry. Thank you.
- Dr. Clements. I'll keep it brief because I agree with Colonel Ferris that we have spent a lot of time
- talking about this. And part of the reason why we spent a lot of time talking about it is because it
- still clears mud how we got 25 years as a standard in our community. So we sent it back to RC, we have
- discussions, we look at meeting minutes from previous bodies, and that's why we keep having this discussion,
- because we're about to pass something into the CDO that sits on a foundation of sand.
- My dissent and my no vote rests on evidence and fairness and clarity. And since the meeting minutes
- of these meetings matter and are referred to in the future, I want to make sure somebody 15 years from
- now can point to what I'm saying. First, the amendment states that the county legislatively finds that
- a 25-year restriction is reasonably necessary, but the ordinance it cites does not explain why the 25
- years was chosen.
- There's no study, no data, no generational standard, just a reference back to a prior decision. This
- creates a circular reason or justification in the CDO. The commission legislatively finds and concludes
- it because they voted on the CDO and that becomes the basis of the legislation. To continue a reference
- to 2015-02, which actually doesn't provide the evidence-based information here, is nothing more than
- an appeal to tradition and is basing this on a logical fallacy that's not evidence-based.
- Secondly, much of the defense of the rule relies on a false choice that without the 25 year freeze,
- rural Monroe County will be immediately overrun by dense development. That is a charge that's been made.
- This is a straw person argument. It's another logical fallacy in the
- decision the code already contains multiple safeguards minimum acreage infrastructure requirements
- discretionary review we discussed all that in our administrative meeting but reducing the timeline does
- not eliminate protection it restores it proportionally and when we review past minutes we find the same
- debate has been repeated for decades with no new evidence added third the practice does not preserve
- farms it does
- I think mythologize our farm community in some ways, but what it does do is incentivize large lot of
- state development, which is the least affordable and the least environmentally friendly housing form
- we have in the county. While looking out for workers in the county that needs 2000 housing units a year
- added to house our community, 67% of which rent in the city of Bloomington, just to stabilize costs.
- What this produces is not rural preservation, but rural feudalism.
- It's our largest housing form out there. We're not preserving farms with this. Finally, the argument
- that the moratorium is needed for infrastructure planning is just unconvincing we could instead.
- work with partners in the community to identify development patterns and projects that protect
- our environment and our watershed and allow more people to share in this county's prosperity, not least
- of which from my Stephen County Council to collect the income tax revenue we need from people that are
- commuting here every day and taking their Monroe County income wages home with them instead of providing
- that tax base back to the community and the roads they use to move forward. So look, I've heard in this
- body that this has been politicized.
- but the very act is political. The 25-year moratorium is a political statement, and that is the original
- argument. Everything about it and the community that is concerned about passing this can be painted
- as political, but the original sin is that, it's political. For those reasons, I'll be voting no.
- Thank you. Ms. Nathachalan, I did not see in the packet the results of our ORC discussion on this matter,
- especially the definition of the 25-year moratorium.
- I did not see that in the packet. Could you direct me to where I might've missed it? Or could you give
- the colleagues on our plan commission a review of what had been decided and recommended by the ORC?
- Sure. Let me pull up those notes.
- So I had some high level information from the ordinance review committee where this was forwarded or
- continued to on December 8 2025. As a result of this discussion, there were no changes directed to be
- made to staff to bring back to the plan commission for tonight's hearing.
- But there was a breakdown of the different discussion topics based on the motion that was originally
- sent to the ordinance review committee. So there was a discussion based on the capabilities based
- discussion regarding whether we could move from a timeline discussion to more of a capabilities based
- discussion. And the discussion that that was more of a military term and it was not really suitable
- for this type of discussion. It was not provided with enough information or evidence for them to really
- break down that discussion further. And then there was a request to define or redefine generational
- There was a discussion on this and Miss Clements provided just a quick definition via.
- you know what we can find online quickly and it says in population biology and demography generation
- time is the average time between two consecutive generations and lineages of population being linked
- to biological life cycles and human populations generation time typically has ranged from 20 to 30 years
- with wide variation based on gender and society. So there was not a
- Discussion from that to move to a different Safeguard other than the 25 years and then there was also
- a discussion about Mr. Schilling the legal representative at the last meeting about why we added in
- that second paragraph about a legislatively find and that it's important to keep that in there for the
- reasons stated by mr. Schilling and that the
- that this has met the spirit and the intent of what was meant to occur with the 25 year sliding scale
- and the purpose of the sliding scale. So look back at the purpose statement of the sliding scale to
- determine as part of the commissioner's decision as to why that is legislatively found. My recollection,
- we had a discussion of
- further discussion of the capabilities based approach and that the sliding scale subdivision actually
- preserves more
- capabilities and future harnessing of opportunities for larger tracts of land because nothing prohibits
- a PUD from being developed or from another zoning request from being developed on the larger tract of
- land that is preserved by the sliding scale subdivision. That was an important feature of what we had
- discussed. With that being said, I'm going to
- returned back now that we're fully briefed on the ORC committee's deliberations. Mr. Enright Randolph
- and then I think Mr. Ferris. Okay, thank you. We got some clarity, still don't know as far as continuing
- forwarding, but a lot of the discussion that took place where we couldn't actually get a majority
- outside of moving it back to the ORC was to allow folks time to reconsider and think through this. And
- then we're here today to potentially with the first motion to approve it without the ability to discuss
- it or make any recommendations or motions. So I'm just a little baffled and a little heartache, but
- I'm sure we all can see it in different ways.
- I see it in a different way too. I think a lot of these ordinances, when you say preserve, I also do
- think Mr. Henry brought up a good point where it does incentivize people to do larger developments too
- so they don't get stuck in a 25 moratorium as much as it does provide opportunity for them to carve
- off those 2.5 acres. So it's really what the landowner wants to do and what they wanna develop it. I'm
- gonna go to my prepared statement now. I have discussed this topic extensively
- We need to ensure that we are making sound decisions for the entire county several several factors have
- bottlenecked our ordinance, for example, obtaining city sewer service for the county.
- is critical since everything in our ordinance relies on either septic systems or sewer connections.
- If sewer is unavailable, a minimum of 10 acres is required for all types of subdivisions. However, the
- sliding scale subdivisions allows, now I'm going to refer to table 4-831, that's part of the packet.
- I'm also going to refer to the vacation table too, just if you want to.
- kind of key that up. But if you would move to that table, that would be great. I think do you mean table
- 1-831? No, 4-831, the original parent partial scale. So on here, you know, there's this perception that
- you're going to get the multiple 2.5. You actually need, if you don't have 10 acres, you can add an
- additional lot.
- That's very important. From 10 to 19.99 acres, you can only add one additional 2.5 lot. From 20 to 30
- or 29.99 acres, you can add two additional lots. You have to have a minimum of 30 acres or greater to
- even add those three additional lots we're talking about. Yes, Colonel Farris.
- And if you say this is repetitive, I want to make sure that we all know that the admin meetings is not
- the official record. This is our time to make an official statement. So I think that is a discussion,
- and this is that. So please. There's a point of order, and I think that Mr. Colonel Ferris has asked
- a question to ask. That was my question. Again, we have talked about this
- I have not referred to this. You're insinuating something that's incorrect, sir. I haven't even finished
- my sentence yet. I'm not insinuating anything. All I'm saying is we've talked about this on 12 separate
- occasions, agnosium. And all I'm asking here, are you presenting new information at this point? Yes,
- there is new information presented about my mistake that was corrected at the admin meeting. This is all
- contingent off of my realization of some of what I was going to get to, which I would be finished now.
- But please make one last thing. If you made a mistake, tell us your mistake and tell us what your comments
- are after. This is not the first time I've been stifled to make comment. I take exception to that. So
- this is a valid point of order because for one, I've never showed this and talked directly about this table.
- That's all new. And please proceed, but do not repeat yourself, please. So then you look at the design
- standards for the parent parcel. You need at least 55% of that parcel to even go through these sliding
- scale options. That's point A. Point B brings the reservation also that was referred to moratorium for 25 years.
- after the 25 years, the possibilities of the development after going through the sliding scales and
- waiting the 25 years is very limited. This is where I got some clarity at our last discussion. I thought
- there was more options to vacate where you could have done a minor. Your only option, and if you could
- go to table 1830, please.
- These are the vacations. So after you go through the sliding scale, the only thing you can do is a major.
- It says administrative, but administrative subdivision does not create new lots. It's basically for
- lot line adjustments. So if you choose the major and you go through it, the only option you have is
- a major. If you have 50 acres that you put in your parent parcel to achieve those three small lot, those
- three 2.5 lot acres, you can't do anything but a major.
- And again, based off of the ability to get sewer septic, if you can't get sewer, 10 lot minimum acres,
- that's an issue. I feel in my opinion that we are getting ahead of ourselves, putting the cart before
- the horse, but that is my perspective. 11 years ago, the plan commission couldn't support the proposed
- amendments to the county ordinance and this was one of the major topics. Also the 10 acre,
- Minimum was introduced at that December 16th, 2014 meeting, which was passed by a vote five to three.
- Near the end of the meeting, around the three hour, 14 minute mark, a motion was made to rescind this
- provision by a member who initially supported it. However, that motion failed due to a split vote of
- four to four. Yes, the plan commission has nine members, but sadly, in 2014,
- There was only eight and no ninth member was appointed until 2015. Kevin Enright, former plan commission
- member, raised this issue of the missing member at least four times in public meetings and even walking
- out of an organizational meeting. I'll refer to the HT article dated February 18, 2005 or 2015 if you'd
- like to know. Then the plan commission forward this
- the amendments to those ordinances with no recommendation, no recommendation. That's the only way they
- could get five votes because they couldn't agree and then move forward with no recommendation.
- March 13th, 2015, the Board of Commissioners adopted it at a two, one vote, two, one out of a board
- of three. As the elected county surveyor,
- I believe it is critical for the public to understand my position, even if some people think it's repetitive.
- Talk. This is the opportunity to address any concerns, and I believe those concerns should be resolved
- before we move it forward to the board of commissioners. I don't know the next time we'll be able to
- talk about this. I know we want to discuss some of the things that Director Nestor Jelen had referred to.
- 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
- to discuss what is concerning in this particular sliding scale subdivision option now before we move
- it forward for adoption. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. And right Randolph. Is there anyone else? Yes, Mr.
- Van Deventer. I know that you folks have discussed this way more than I have.
- But I still feel like 25 years is an overreach and cumbersome for landowners. We have an age-old rural
- community. Our school enrollments are dropping. And I just don't think this would help that at all.
- I just wanted to be on the record saying. Thank you, Mr. Van Deventer. Is there anyone else who would
- like to comment? Yes, Mr. Morris. Yeah.
- appreciate the comments that I've heard tonight. And one of the common themes that I heard during our
- public hearings last year was commentary about the 25 year rule. And so at that point, I felt like this
- warranted further conversation because at that point I felt too that 25 years was too long. And so that's
- why I was in favor of continuing this conversation into 2025 so we can discuss it further. However,
- that time that we've been discussing it, I have since learned that the sliding scale subdivision with
- the 25-year rule is only one option that people would have if they want to subdivide their property.
- So my understanding from staff, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that when somebody comes to the planning
- staff to discuss this, they're presented with what all of their options are. So they are aware of
- the rules around each of their options. So this 25 year rule is a condition of one of the options. So
- they have other options. In the meantime, over the past year, I have also heard from people, a couple
- of people that live in very rural areas that are very much in favor of the 25 year rule. And that led
- them to purchasing the property that they did because they knew that a large tract of land near them
- could not be subdivided. So that
- extra knowledge that I have gained over the past year has led me to be in favor of the language tonight.
- So I wanted to provide a little bit of context about why I was supporting it. Thank you, Mr. Morris.
- Are there any other comments? I can't see if Julie Thomas has her hand raised. Yes, Commissioner Thomas.
- Yes, I'm waiting for my mic. There we go. Thank you.
- just have a couple of quick comments, and I won't belabor the point. To be clear, what Mr. Morris said
- is accurate. There are other options, and those are available to residents if they choose. And the 25-year
- moratorium on additional subdivision was misunderstood, maybe purposefully so.
- and it became part of the talking points that were not accurate. It's only one option. If you don't
- want that, then choose a different one. The only thing we're really changing on this piece of legislation
- is an explanation that says you have the option, minor, major, sliding scale. That's really what this
- is. Let's be clear that that's
- all that we're voting on is what is the amended language that's here. Counselor Henry claimed there
- isn't data, but I'm also going to challenge something that was thrown into the mix, which is this random
- number of 2,000 homes needed per year.
- There is no evidence of this. We don't have a housing inventory. This is something we asked staff to
- work on. But while we're belaboring the same points over and over again, they can't do this other work
- that we really need. We need to understand what the current housing inventory is and what is needed.
- That's the question we should all be focused on. I think it's something it sounds like it's something
- we're all interested in learning. I look forward to having
- that discussion in the future. So thank you, everyone. Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. Are there other
- comments or emotion? There's no motion. Yes, Colonel Ferris. I move that we
- forward a favorable consideration to the county commissioners for the amendment, specifically the siting
- scale, that is identified as item one on the CDO prioritization list. And we, like I said, we move it
- for a favorable consideration of the county commissioners. I second that. Does that motion include a
- waiver of final hearing? And of course it can.
- Yes So there's a motion and a second to send a favorable recommendation to the County Commissioners
- for zoa-25-3 Which is changes to the subdivision section of the CDO? namely the sliding scale section
- and it also includes a waiver of final hearing and
- A vote yes is to send a favorable recommendation and to approve the waiver. David Henry. Jeff Morris.
- Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. Joe Van Deventer. No. David Bush. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Tron and Ray
- Randolph. No. Scott Ferris. Yes.
- Rudy fields. No. Okay, the motion is approved by a vote of five to four.
- Well, I just want to thank all of my colleagues on the plan commission. This is difficult. It's clear
- that there's there are differences of opinion, but I really respect the way people shared their opinions,
- their background and their input on on this difficult decision. So we have forwarded as a result of
- this kind of of this vote.
- To the commissioners another opportunity for them to consider it and their decision will be final So
- thanks for all of your good thoughts and work on this on this particular item So we move now to item
- number two on the agenda Which is si a-22-9 and si a-22-22 Holland fields major subdivision one
- a phase one subdivision improvement agreement. Let the record reflect that Mr. Henry has left the meeting.
- So let the record reflect that. And this is a request for performance period extension, a request for
- inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount, and a request for reduction of financial guarantee.
- And this is the final hearing considering a property at 700 plus East Holland Drive
- and 4200 plus or minus South Windmill Lane in Perry Township section 21. Ms. Baierman, would you kindly
- review this with us? Sure. So we have kind of three things that we're covering. It's the performance
- period extension, the inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount, and then the reduction for the
- financial guarantee. And that financial or the reduction is really
- part of the SIA-22-22, but we're gonna cover these together. They're very intertwined. They do have,
- well, this is for Holland Fields, phase one. These are the 19 lots that we're discussing here, and it
- does include that East Holland Drive all the way to South Walnut Street Pike and the sidewalks that
- are within this area.
- They have a letter of credit on file that expires May 14th, 2025, in the amount of $123,000 and some
- change. They have an estimate that they submitted, and the highway department actually agrees with this
- estimate for the remaining improvements, and that's for $106,845.96. So what that means is that there
- is actually a bit of a reduction that they can request, and they are.
- should this be approved they would be eligible to resubmit a letter of credit for a lesser amount and
- that would then reduce what they currently have on file for $16,284.58. We are not including any inflation
- calculation into this estimate amount because the developer has assured us that they are going to have
- all the improvements completed by May 14th, 2026. I hope that
- the asphalt plans when everything's up ready for spring that they hit the ground running to get this
- done because they do need to get this accepted into the inventory. So this is the estimate that was
- agreed upon by both the developer and the Monroe County Highway Department and planning staff and again
- it does not include interest
- And it also does not include a maintenance bond. We don't have a maintenance bond requirement in the
- CDO. That happens afterwards at this point. One of the things that needs to be completed is that these
- sidewalks along East Holland Drive need to be ADA compliant in order to be accepted into the inventory.
- Kind of in that upper left
- Picture you have a different subdivision, which is the Holland three lot minor that had a preliminary
- plot amendment last month that you guys all approved And an SIA that was approved last month And a part
- of that approval was that the developer was going to correct the driveways. They were going to be responsible
- for the three driveways they are not responsible for the sidewalk along the stretch that is a part of
- this petition and
- The big issue again I covered this last month, but that you know this Holland drive was built incorrectly.
- The highway department requested that they remove the road and reconstruct it to the acceptable lower
- grade for safety reasons so that they cars were not.
- coming in at a steep angle into South Walnut Street Pike, especially with considerations with rain and
- ice. So the road was lowered, but the sidewalks never were because there was a Smithville fiber utility
- through there. And last month we went over Smithville's email. They did have somebody come out and look
- at it, but they really need to get just digging in there to see if they're gonna have enough slack in the line.
- something that we hope can be worked out by May 14th. We do have the revised plans that are in the packet.
- And again, this is the portion that's lot one, two and three of the Holland three lot minor subdivision.
- They are responsible to correct those driveways by May 1st. So that is before this one is required to
- have their improvements completed, which is May 14th.
- And these are some of the other sidewalks that were impacted and some of the other ADA ramps along the
- sidewalks that need to be corrected. And we have identified maybe a couple of street trees in here that
- also need to be replaced. And then we have corrected this pond here within the as-built. We realized
- that they only provided about half the amount of storage that they needed. So they have redesigned the
- bioretention and planning
- determine that they do not need to have extra landscaping installed. I am including the driveway report
- from the highway department for phase one, just as a reminder that in order to be accepted into the
- county inventory, the driveways do need to be compliant. So it's important to know that at Holland three
- lot minor, they need to have those three driveways corrected. And then also any other driveways which
- are on this list need to
- have an inspection and make sure that they're compliant. So we have a staff recommendation finally.
- And this is in regards to both SIA-22-9, which is the performance period and the new estimate and inflation,
- and then SIA-22-22, which is the reduction request. So the performance period extension date of May
- 14th, 2026,
- the inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount of $106,845.96, and the request for reduction of
- the financial guarantee in the amount of $16,284.58, which leaves approximately $106,845.96, with the
- following required conditions, subject to the highway engineer reports and the stormwater program manager
- reports. Condition one,
- Performance bond document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. Number two, a subdivision
- improvement agreement document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. Number three, a new
- financial guarantee may be submitted in the form of either a letter of credit or cashier's check for
- the total amount of $106,845.
- $1,845.96 if the new posted amount is desired prior to the completion of the required public improvements.
- And number four, that the petitioner apply for a right of way acceptance on or before May 14th, 2026.
- Does anyone have any questions on this?
- Maybe we'll go first to the petitioner, if that's okay with everyone, and hear the petitioner's testimony.
- I assume that's you, Mr. Allen. If you would come to the podium, you'll have 15 minutes.
- Good evening, Larry Allen representing the petitioner hybrid investments. I just want to keep this incredibly
- brief and I'm going to open it up if I can answer any questions for you all. I think you've heard a
- lot about this this petition over the past few months.
- extend some appreciation to staff working with us. This has not been an easy project and we're trying
- to get a lot of these wrapped up. And so we are appreciative of the ability to work with them and the
- fact that they took time out to actually visit the site and to remeasure some of the sidewalks and to
- go over some of those details, which is exactly what brought us to this reduction tonight.
- So just want to extend our gratitude for that and we have extended the requirements that are here to
- the contractor, who is the developer of the three lot minor. They are well aware of all the things that
- need to get done and when they need to get done. So thank you. Thank you. Do members of the plan commission
- have any questions for Mr Alan or
- for staff at this time. Okay, thank you. Are there members of the public who would like to speak in
- favor of this petition? If so, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand and you'll have
- three minutes to talk. Are there members of the public who are in opposition to this petition? If so,
- please come to the podium and or raise your virtual hand online.
- We come now to the members of the plan Commission for further discussion and or a motion I Can make
- a motion, but I don't want to cut any way off if there's comments Yes, mr. And right Randolph just I'm
- really I guess looking for
- the plan commission to bring us any concerns as far as deadlines, timelines, really weighing a lot of,
- I guess, the responsibility of making sure we get these improvements in on the plan commission. And
- I'm here to support what's needed. There's a lot of moving parts here. And I just also want to extend
- appreciation of kind of figuring out a way to move this project forward because it was very complex
- in nature.
- Thank you, Mr. and right Randolph. Mr. Morris, if you'd like to continue with your motion for cases
- SIA dash 22 dash nine and SIA dash 22 dash 22. I move approval of the performance period extension date
- of May 14th, twenty twenty six and the inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount of one hundred
- and six thousand eight hundred and forty five dollars and ninety six cents and the request for the reduction of the
- financial guarantee in the amount of $16,284.58, leaving $106,845.96, with the following required conditions
- subject to the Highway Engineer Reports and the Stormwater Program Manager Reports.
- One, a performance bond document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. Two, a subdivision
- improvement agreement document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. Three, a new financial
- guarantee may be submitted in the form of either a letter of credit or cashier's check for the total
- amount of $106,845.96 if the new posted amount is desired prior to the completion of the required public
- improvements. And four, the petitioner apply for right away acceptance on or before May
- to approve a motion to approve a motion to approve a motion to approve a motion to approve a motion
- to approve a motion to approve a
- Joe Van Deventer? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Mark Clements? Yes. Tronan Wright-Randolph? Yes. Scott Farris?
- Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Jeff Morse? Yes. Motion is approved, eight to zero. OK, thank you. We have three
- items under new business. We'll start with the first two under item number one, SIA-22-7.
- and SIA-24-6. And this is the Holland Fields major subdivision phase two final plan, request for performance
- period extension and request for reduction of financial guarantee. And this is the final hearing. Ms.
- Berriman, if you would kindly review this property at 4,400 South Windmill Lane and 700 plus or minus
- West Crestline Road in Perry Township section 21. Sure.
- So again, this one is much the same as the previous one. It does have a letter of credit on file for
- $112,082.85. This letter of credit expires a little bit earlier, which is April 18, 2025. So we're hoping
- that this project can be kept on that timeline since the developer is not requesting to go
- They don't want to pay any interest on the letter of credit, so they're going to have to hustle to get
- this one done in the spring. They do have an SIM file, but it lapsed back in 2022. So their proposed
- extension date is April 18, 2026. This is phase two. I think they have maybe two lots that still have
- not developed yet out here.
- And again, we just went over their letter of credit. They have submitted an estimate that the highway
- department has, they inspected the site. They found some things where there was some wiggle room and
- they generally agree with the estimate. They think they could have actually requested more for a reduction,
- but we just never got another iteration of plans or estimate from the engineer to review. But I think
- them, you know,
- getting a reduction amount of $62,105.89 is acceptable to them. And again, we're not going to be calculating
- inflation on this one because they have expressed the intent to complete all of these improvements by
- April 18th, 2026. So this is the revised estimate for the reduction
- September 24th, 2025. Something to note is that we are going with the subtotal amount on this estimate.
- They had originally included 10% bonding. We don't require bonding in the financial guarantee anymore.
- That is something that is paid after the project has been accepted into the inventory. So we don't want
- to include that in the amount that they need to have on file with the planning department.
- Include in the packet some of the as built here for the site and I think I remember one time I was out
- there they were pouring some sidewalks. So they are trying to get these improvements completed I Think
- a lot 31. This was one where there's a ramp on a driveway and they could read they need to redo this
- one That was just one of the things I remember from the highway department commenting on I
- So with this one, staff recommends for SIA-22-7 and SIA-24-6, which is the reduction portion. We recommend
- that you make a motion to approve the request for the performance period of April 18, 2026, the request
- for a new performance guarantee amount based on the current engineer's estimate, and with the
- with an approved reduction in the amount of $49,976.96 with the following required four conditions which
- are subject to the highway engineer reports and stormwater program manager reports. One, a performance
- bond document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. Number two, a subdivision improvement
- agreement document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. And number three,
- A new financial guarantee may be submitted in the form of a letter of credit or cashier's check for
- the total amount of $49,976.96. And if that new posted amount is desired prior to the completion of
- the required public improvements. And then finally, number four, that the petitioner apply for right
- of way acceptance on or before April 18th, 2026.
- So with that being said, Mr. Allen, are you also the representative? So if you would kindly come to
- the podium, you have 15 minutes to review with us this request. I'm going to raise no further comments.
- I think that was a very thorough report. This one is a little bit more straightforward. Happy to answer
- any questions that the commission may have. Do members of the plan commission have questions for Mr.
- Allen? No. Oh, yes, Mr. Fields. I may have misunderstood.
- something that was said last. These sidewalk improvements, are those on the owners of the properties?
- No, not all of them. There's going to be a question that we need to sort out a little bit.
- just to be frank with you about where the driveways have maybe interfered with the sidewalk. And to
- the extent that someone else put in those driveways, they may end up being responsible because they
- had to pull a independent permit as noted, they are listed as a petitioner. But the sidewalks generally
- that are through are part of the public improvements that were on the plat itself. And so to the extent
- that we're pouring the new ones around the undeveloped lots, we understand that that's part of the plat.
- Okay, thank you.
- Any other questions for Mr. Allen? Okay. I'll hear from the public now. Are there members of the public
- who would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to this petition? If so, please come to the
- podium or raise your virtual hand in order to be recognized online. No one. Okay. I return now to members
- of the plan commission for further discussion and or emotion.
- There's no discussion I move that for cases SIA-22-7 and SIA-24-6, approval of the request for performance
- period of April 18th, 2026,
- and a request for a new performance guarantee amount based on current engineers estimate and with an
- approval reduction in the amount of forty nine thousand nine hundred and seventy six dollars and ninety
- six cents with the following required conditions subject to the highway engineer reports and stormwater
- program manager reports one performance bond document shall be signed and recorded by January fifteenth
- twenty twenty six
- Two, a subdivision improvement agreement document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026.
- Three, a new financial guarantee may be submitted in the form of either a letter of credit or cashier's
- check for the total amount of $49,976.96 if the new posted amount is desired prior to the completion
- of the required public improvements. And four, petitioner apply for a right of way acceptance on or
- before April 18th, 2026. I'll second.
- 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
- Planning Commission member Jeff Morris, perfectly, so I will not repeat. A vote yes is a vote to approve
- as mentioned by Commission member Jeff Morris. Joe Van Deventer? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes.
- Yes. Scott Farris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. Okay, motion is approved,
- eight to zero.
- Okay, the next item on the agenda is SIA-21-7. This also is Holland Field's major subdivision phase
- three final plan. And this is a request for performance period extension and a request for inflation
- adjusted performance guarantee amount. This is the preliminary hearing and they're requesting that the
- final hearing be waived. And this concerns
- property at 4400 South Windmill Lane and 700 plus or minus West Crestline Road in Perry Township section
- 21. Ms. Behrman. Okay so this one just slightly different there is not a request for a reduction on
- this one. I think we simply just don't have the information we need to make a determination on that.
- So these are the lots they're
- about 14 lots in phase three, 10 of them I believe are built out at this point, even though this is
- an older aerial, I think these are going up quickly. So there was a letter of credit, and I will say
- that the staff packet, there were some updates that didn't make it into the staff packet, so I'll be
- updating you on a couple of things here. One of them is that their letter of credit for $102,000
- $102,942.28. It has been recently renewed on December 12th, 2026. They did have a performance period
- that lapsed back December 15th, 2023. There's not a reduction requested because we need as-builts. They
- did submit some earlier in the year, but they did not contain all the information that we need, so we're
- kind of waiting on those.
- There have been so many improvements made out there as far as sidewalks go and buyer retention that
- the credit, the letter of credit that we have on file now, we think is far going to exceed what is required
- if we were to apply the inflation based calculations and get a new estimate. The highway department
- had inspected this area back on October 16th, 2025, and they do agree with the estimate. And then this is the,
- original estimate in here, which we think exceeds, it does include this 10% bonding, but we're just
- gonna leave it as is at this point until we do get an accurate estimate on file or they complete all
- the requirements and get it accepted into the inventory at this point. So staff's gonna make a recommendation
- for SIA-21-7.
- staff recommends approval of the one extension of the performance period until december 15th 2026 and
- to renew the inflation adjusted amount of 102 942 dollars and 28 cents with the following required conditions
- subject to the highway engineer reports in the stormwater program reports uh one is that the performance
- bond document shall be signed and recorded by january 15th 2026 two
- that a subdivision improvement agreement document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026.
- Number three is moot. At this point, this has been completed. And number four, that the petitioner apply
- for a right of way acceptance on or before December 15th, 2026. They have a little bit of time to get
- this one completed. OK. Mr. Allen, I think this is you again. It's the same address.
- Correct. So Larry Allen representing hybrid investments, very similar. This is just the extension for
- the year. This is the final one. Again, this is a little bit more straightforward, but happy to answer
- any questions the commission may have. Do members of the Planning Commission have questions for Mr.
- Allen? No? Okay. Okay. That'll be it. Are there members of the public who would like to speak in favor
- or in opposition to this petition? If so, please come to the podium in the Nat Hill Room.
- or raise your virtual hand online. If there's none, we come back to the members of the plan commission
- for further discussion and or emotion.
- For case SIA-21-7, I move approval of one extension of the performance period until December 15, 2026
- and to renew the inflation adjusted amount of $102,942.28 with the following required conditions subject
- to the highway engineer reports and stormwater program manager reports.
- One, a performance bond document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. Two, a subdivision
- improvement agreement document shall be signed and recorded by January 15th, 2026. Three, a renewal
- of the current letter of credit or cashier's check for the total amount of $102,942.28. Completed. That's
- completed. Oh, sorry. Strike that last one. And then the new third one would be the petitioner reply
- for right of way acceptance honor before December 15th, 2026.
- and waive the final hearing. I'll second. Is there a second? Great. Yes. So there was a motion and a
- second to approve SA-21-7, which is the Holland Fields major subdivision phase three. This is a request
- for performance period extension, inflation adjustment, and it included a waiver of final hearing. Commission
- member Morris stated it as well perfectly, so I will not repeat.
- A vote yes is a vote to approve as stated. Margaret Clements, yes. Tron and Wright Randolph, yes. Scott
- Ferris, yes. Rudy Fields, yes. Jeff Morris, yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. Jovan Deventer, yes. David Bush,
- yes. Motion is approved 8 to 0. Great, we're.
- down to the last item under new business, and that's item number three, a rezone request number 25-8,
- the rezone from light business to agricultural, and this is the preliminary hearing, and a waiver of
- final hearing has been requested regarding one, six,
- plus or minus acre parcel in Van Buren Township, section 22, at 7353 West Eller Road. And Mr. Myers,
- if you would please review this with us. Thank you. To the petitioner of this petition, request to rezone
- six acres located in Van Buren Township, section 22. It is limited business right now, and they're seeking
- to rezone to agricultural residential 2.5, or AGR for short.
- The goal of the rezone is to establish zoning compatibility with the adjacent parcel to the west, which
- is also owned by the petitioner. Deed records indicate that the two parcels are likely one lot of record,
- totaling 20 acres. Both parcels appear separate due to a township section line bisecting the two. The
- western parcel contains 14 acres in Van Buren Township Section 21, while the eastern parcel, the subject
- parcel of this rezone, contains six acres, like I said, in Section 22.
- Moving from the LB zone to the AGR zone will allow the commercial structures to be converted to agricultural
- use that are existing on the property. And the petitioner stated a potential interest in establishing
- a new dwelling on the six acre parcel, which will be required to meet the CDO for a detached accessory
- dwelling unit unless a subdivision is pursued. On the screen, I have the definitions for a limited business
- and agricultural residential. We can come back to these if we'd like.
- Here we have the location map, Van Buren Township along West Eller Road. Here's the current zoning map.
- The light pink is the limited business and the green is the agricultural residential. The gold or brown
- that you see is a residential one. Now on the screen is the site conditions map.
- showing the slopes of the property as well as the existing structures in the northeast corner of the
- property along West Eller Road. And then now some site photographs of those structures and the existing
- driveways off of West Eller. This picture on the left side of the screen shows the existing residents
- at 7353 West Eller Road on the 14 acre parcel.
- Just more photographs here of the site. I've also included some snippets from the Monroe County Comprehensive
- Plan, designating this area as rural transition. So all of this is included in the packet, but I wanted
- to bring it into the presentation in case we had any questions or discussion on these items. There's
- two slides here for that.
- And then now on the screen is the letter from the petitioner stating their request on the left. And
- then on the right, the letter from the State of Indiana Office of the Secretary of State certifying
- that the previous commercial business that was operating on the property is now ceased activity and
- is also one of the reasons why they are seeking to rezone away from limited business to agricultural
- because the business is no longer active on this site.
- And now on the screen, I have a side-by-side comparison of Chapter 807 for the limited business zone
- and Chapter 804 for the agricultural residential zone. These pages from the ordinance indicate the uses
- that are available in each of the zoning districts. So I kept that here in case there was any discussion
- between the two with respect to what uses are permitted, what uses are not, what uses are conditional,
- et cetera.
- All right, that brings me to staff's recommendation. Staff recommends forwarding a positive recommendation
- to the board of commissioners for the rezone request, citing its compatibility with the Monroe County
- comprehensive plan and subject to the highway and stormwater program reports. I'm not taking any questions.
- Thank you, Mr. Myers. I think we'll go directly to the petitioner. If the petitioner would like to come
- to the podium and say anything to the plan commission, please just sign in, Mrs. Reese.
- I just wanna personally thank you for all of your years serving the postal service and to the community
- with mail delivery. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, 68 years of hauling US postal mail out of Bloomington,
- Indiana to everywhere. My husband and I decided, we inherited the property from his parents and
- His mother died in 2000. That's when we inherited the property and the house. And we're done. We're
- 75 years old. The post office, I'm not going to say too much about, but things are changing. And people
- are changing and we're done. We don't want it. We use the barns.
- The one barn is we store stuff in it. The other barn, it has some trailers in it, you know, car trailers,
- lawnmower trailers, stuff like that. Tractors, we still have to bush hog the fields, you know, and keep
- the creek good and fix the barn from the trucks that come up the road and hit the barn. Not our trucks.
- You can talk to Walmart about that.
- So basically no and and the property will then be inherited by our son who's going to live there and
- We don't want we just not business anymore at all. I Mean the phone number has been just deleted the
- the only thing I still have the email because I it's stuff I have to answer but other than that we're
- done Well, thank you for that and we're going to open up to public comment and
- And if anybody speaks in opposition to your request, you'll have a chance to return to the podium and
- explain your point of view. Okay. Thank you. Are there members of the public who would like to speak
- either in favor or in opposition to this petition? If so, please come to the podium in the Nat Hill
- room or raise your virtual hand. No one. I return now to members of the plan commission for further
- discussion and or emotion.
- Yes. Before we make a motion, I just want to make a comment. I really appreciate your reverting it back
- to ag. I think that's a noble thing to do. And I was most impressed by the tidiness of the property.
- I wish my farm looked that nice. I don't know how you do it, but keep up the good work. Thank you. Yes,
- that's nice. That's nice.
- So would you like to make a motion then, Mr. Bush? I could, sure. In case number REZ25-8, the address
- 7353 West Eller Road, requesting a rezone to change LB to AGR, waiver of final hearing. I'd like to
- recommend that we approve
- for the rezone request, signing its compatibility with the Monroe County comprehensive plan that's subject
- to highway and stormwater program reports, and also a waiver of the final hearing. I'll second that,
- but I guess just for clarity, you want to make that motion not to approve, but move forward a favorable
- recommendation? That is correct. Thank you for my second stance.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to send a favorable recommendation to the county commissioners for
- REZ-25-8, which is the rezone from limited business to agricultural residential 2.5. This also includes
- a waiver of final hearing. A vote yes is a vote to send a favorable recommendation and to waive the
- final hearing. Margaret Clements? Yes. Tron Enright-Randolph? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields?
- Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Joe Van Deventer? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Motion is carried eight
- to zero. Well, thank you, Mr. And Mrs. Rees. Thank you so much. Yes. Enjoy the rest of your retirement
- and happy holidays. We will get some warm weather. Yes.
- So I'm going to turn now to public comment. We have the last item on the agenda, an opening up of the
- floor to public comment to items that are not on the agenda. If anyone would like to make a public comment
- for an item that is not on the agenda, you'll have three minutes to speak, but please come to the podium
- in the Nat Hill room or raise your virtual hand so that you can be recognized and heard.
- you see anyone okay are there any reports from planning or from the county attorney well from planning
- I would just want to thank you all for your attention and time this year I know a lot of you put in
- a lot of meeting hours and are part of a lot of the subcommittee so I appreciate all of your time and
- attention as part of that also I was
- I'm going to put on the agenda for the administrative meeting in January, elections for plan commission
- members for the seats for chair, vice chair, subcommittee. So please start thinking about which committees
- you would like to serve on and we will see you in January.
- Thank you so much and thanks to staff for all you do and to my colleagues here on the plan commission.
- You know, I really appreciate your patience, your forbearance and your participation because that's
- how we could become a better community. So thank you. Okay. Well, is there a motion to adjourn? Motion
- to adjourn. Okay.
- I think that's a motion and a second all in one. Thanks. Thanks everyone. Happy holidays. Thanks for
- your service. Thank you.