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 motion 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 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.