So it's now 530. I'd like to call the Monroe County Plan Commission meeting of February 17th,
2026 to order. And go ahead and start with Director Jelen and the roll call, please. Sure. David Bush?
Here. Margaret Clements? Here. Tron Enri-Randolph? Scott Ferris? Here.
Rudy fields here. David Henry. Jeff Morris here. Julie Thomas. Joe Van Deventer. And Stephen Bishop
here. OK, so we have. Five voting members in person and one non voting member in person and a quorum.
OK, next up is introduction of evidence and
Go ahead and introduce, please. 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 and Procedure as adopted and amended. And the cases that were
legally advertised and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's agenda. Move approval. Second.
It's been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve.
Margaret Clements? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Jeff Morse? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Motion
carries five to zero. I'd like to move approval of the agenda as advertised. Second.
It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as advertised with no changes. A vote yes is a vote
to approve. Scott Farris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Mario Clements.
Yes. Motion carries five to zero. If nobody has any objections, I'd like to move approval of the minutes
from December 18th, 2025 and January 20th, 2026. Second.
It's been moved and seconded to approve both sets of minutes, December 18th, 2025 and January 20th,
2026. A vote yes is a vote to approve both sets of minutes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes.
David Bush? Yes. Mark Clements? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Motion is approved five to zero. That takes
us to administrative business. Do you have an update on the CDO prioritization?
Yes, I did want to update the group that we were able to pass two text amendments by the county commissioners
on Thursday, February 12th. One of those items was the sliding scale option. And then the other item
was related to some staff edits, including allowing an allowance for eco development if there is
proposal on flat ground and it's for accessory structures. So we were able to pass both of those on
February 12th. So we move on to unfinished business and appears there is none. So let's go ahead and
move into new business. For new business, we're going to have three petitions. One is 3521st South Rogers
Street rezoned from a PUD to residential. The second one is Highlines
Highlands PUD Outline Plan Amendment to Partial E. The third one is the Point PUD Outline Plan for the
Eagle Bay garages and all three, if I'm correct, are requesting a waiver of the final hearings. So over
to you, Drew. Thank you. So this is REZ-25-7. It's the 3521 South Roger Street Rezone from PUD to RES.
It is one parcel.
that measures 1.01 acres in section 17 of Perry Township, and it is at 3521 South Rogers Street.
All right. So this petition requests to rezone the 1.01 acres of this property from PUD Summersby to
Residential 1 or RES. The goal of the rezone is to establish an appropriate zoning district for the
subject property in response to correcting a zoning map error.
According to the current zoning map, the property is zoned PUD Summersbee. Citing the Summersbee PUD
ordinance and subsequent subdivision plat indicates that the subject property is not part of the Summersbee
PUD or the Summersbee subdivision. This was recognized by staff when the property owner came in to ask
questions about developing the property. And when we pulled up the property on the screen in the office,
we recognize that it looked a little funny that it was zoned PUD when it was not part of the Summersbee
subdivision. So then we went into details and research to figure out how that happened. So this property,
as I stated, is 1.01 acres. It is approximately 500 feet from Bachelor Middle School. Its zoning,
as I said, is PUD. The surrounding zoning districts are High Development Residential, or HD,
And it is also adjacent to a former railroad property, which is the Bloomington Rail Trail. And then
further east to that is the city of Bloomington jurisdiction. You will see in the packet there are several
exhibits, including the Summersbee subdivision plot, as well as the original ordinance from 1992, both
of which indicate that this property should not have been zoned PUD. And we are unsure why that happened, but it is
before you this evening so that we can correct it and get it appropriately zoned to the right zoning
district. Property does have sewer that services it. There's actually a sewer line that cuts through
the property. Interestingly enough, the property owner came into the office wanting to expand the residential
use of the property, including originally in their first iterations of plans for the property were to develop
additional duplexes or paired patio homes on the property and the extension of city sewer services were
denied by the City of Bloomington utilities. So the property owner kind of was halted by that aspect
even though there are services on the property currently being serviced. And it is the property is also
located in the Clear Creek Critical Watershed and the comprehensive plan has it designated as mixed
residential. So
No matter how the zoning changes on the property, further development of the site that increases residential
density would first need sewer extension services. So staff is understanding that anything that the
property owners wanting to do on the property will first need that extension from CBU. That's not to
say that the residential district
offers multiple different residential style uses, and we'll get into that. On the screen now, we have
the location map. This darker green area to the east is the city of Bloomington jurisdiction. And then
you can see on the zoning map here, everything that's colored is the county's jurisdiction, and the
non-colored areas is the city of Bloomington. You can see that the gray area is PUD, and the subject
property is outlined in red.
Now on the screen, we have the site conditions map. You can see the sewer service line in green cut
through the property. And there is an existing two-family dwelling on the property that uses those services
currently. It is all under 25% slope, so there's no concerns for slope here. And as I said, you can
see the Bloomington Rail Trail immediately to the east. There is a driveway that comes off the property
that is accessed right from South Rogers Street.
Now on the screen is a slide that talks about House Bill 1058. This is something that's ongoing and
has not been fully decided at the state level. However, it is a pertinent piece of information to incorporate
into this presentation because it could allow the property owner to voluntarily annex into the City
of Bloomington's jurisdiction. The House Bill 1058's digest reads providing that
provides the annexation territory that is divided by railroad tracks satisfies contiguity requirements
if the territory on at least one side of the railroad tracks is contiguous to the municipality.
So essentially allowing a property to voluntarily annex if they are adjacent to a railroad and then
that railroad is adjacent to the city's jurisdiction. All right, so now on the screen we have some
photographs of the property. These two on the screen now are from Google Street View. These are taken
in 2023. You can see the driveway there coming off of South Rogers Street and the parking area for the
current dwelling. Now on the screen, our photos were taken more recently. You can see the property marker
sign on the property, as well as the existing residence and a few cars parked there as well. And then
here's some more photographs from across the street, which is South Rogers.
Let's pause for a second. Please note that Commissioner Thomas has joined the meeting. All right.
Moving on, we have on the screen now, ordinance 92-43. This was the original ordinance that established
the Summersbee PUD. And in its description here, this legal description, it is evidence that it does
not incorporate the subject property that's before you this evening.
Additionally, we have the Summersbee subdivision plot here on the screen now. The subject property under
consideration this evening is directly to the south. And as you can see, it is not part of the Summersbee
subdivision, which created all of these lots to the north. And then here also is another piece of evidence
from the city of Bloomington's planning department that shows the Summersbee PUD, as well as the subject
property immediately to the south.
within a region that was known as RM 15 under the former fringe, two mile fringe zoning ordinance agreement.
So you can see it clearly was not part of the Summersbee PUD here as well. Now on the screen we have
the details for the zoning
district for the RES or residential one. On the left we have all the primary uses conditional uses and
accessory uses and then on the right we have the dimensional standards for that particular zoning district.
Although the property is surrounded by high development residential it was through this board as well
as the board of commissioners that a determination or a decision to
to rezone the property to residential was made. That happened at the most recent admin meeting of the
plan commission, which was held earlier this month. It was voted that the district should be rezoned
from the PUD to residential one, citing various reasons, including minimum lot size for this district
includes one acre. And as you can see on the left, under primary uses, there are a number of different
residential uses available for the property.
All right, now on the screen we have a letter of support. This comes from the property owner themselves.
This letter of support was initially written during a phase of this petition where the recommendation
from staff was to rezone it to high development residential, which matches the surrounding district
or surrounding properties, excuse me.
And you can see that they are referencing the same pieces of information that staff was able to uncover
with respect to not actually being part of the PUD. It was erroneously zoned that way. And they were
originally, the property owner was originally in support of the high development residential district,
which was a little bit more in line of their development goals. As a reminder as well,
any further development of the property that increases that residential density that sewer connection
services needs to happen first. So it is an interest of the property owner to possibly voluntarily annex
if House Bill 1058 were to happen. However, there's still a lot of question marks regarding that as
well as even if they were to voluntarily annex if the city would agree to extend sewer services for
further development of the property.
All right, that brings me to staff's recommendation. Staff recommends forwarding a positive recommendation
to the Board of Commissioners regarding the rezone request, citing its compatibility with the Monroe
County Comprehensive Plan subject to Highway and Stormwater Program reports. I will now take any questions.
Any questions from any members of the Plant Commission? We'll start on my left, on my right. Okay, Mr. Bishop.
If the house bill does come to fruition, does that create kind of a slippery slope if they did decide
to voluntarily annex into the city that other pieces now being continually touched by that property,
would that also be able to annex themselves in? I'm not sure if that, you know, it depends on how house
bill 1058 is worded. I'm not sure if you can extend the
continuity requirement through the railroad allowance of that House bill. So I'm not sure I would defer
to legal or otherwise, yeah. Yeah, I don't know the answer to that. If there's no other comments, let's
go ahead and go to the petitioner.
or the representative, if you'd approach to the podium, sign in, state your name, and you have 15 minutes
to comment. Well, interestingly enough, because this was a staff-originated petition, the plan commission
is the applicant. Therefore, you all are the applicant of this petition. The property owner may be online
and may have
comments during the public comment period. But again, they included that letter that originally was
in support of the High Development Residential District. So apparently we don't have any comments from
the Planning Commission or commissioners on this topic. So let's go ahead and go to the public. And
if you're online, please raise your hand. And if you're present in the room, just go ahead and up to
podium, sign in and you have three minutes for comment.
seeing anyone online either. Alrighty looks like we're not going to have any public comments so let's
go ahead and consider a discussion with members of the Plan Commission. We'll again start on my right
this time and see if you have any comments.
I do want to add one correction. I guess I should add negative comments. Are there any negative comments
either online or present in the room? No negative comments. Okay, now we go to the planning commission
and we'll start on my right this time if you have comments. Okay, how about a motion and a second?
For case REZ-25-7, I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the Board of Commissioners regarding
the rezone request from PUD to RES, citing its compatibility with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan
and subject to Highway and Stormwater program reports. And I also recommend a waiver of final hearing.
Second. Okay, we have a, go ahead.
It's been moved and seconded to send a positive recommendation to the County Commissioners for REZ-25-7,
and also to grant the waiver of final hearing. A vote yes is a vote to send a positive recommendation
and waive the final hearing. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Margaret Clements?
Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes.
Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Oh, sorry, David Henry's not here. Then the motion carries six to zero.
All right. That brings us to our next new business, which is P.U.O. 23.5, which is the Highlands P.U.D.
Outline Plan Amendment to Partial E. And Sean, you're the presenter.
So to reiterate, this is the Highlands PUD outline plan amendment specifically to parcel E. So this
petition involves specifically West Rangeview Circle. So the request is to amend the ordinance to revise
the inner road loop classification within the Highlands parcel E, also known as Link's Edge subdivision.
with the purpose to change it from public to a private road. So changing the road classification from
public to private would mean the responsibility for maintaining the roadway would be that of a private
entity, so i.e. the developer or an HOA. Upon inspection of the roadway, County Highway noted several
deficiencies, those ranging from
The proposed buildings being built at a higher elevation than what the plans called for. The cross slope
for the sidewalks is greater than 2% slope. That would be significant because that is not ADA compliant.
The mailboxes that were installed blocked the site distance. Parking stripes were painted incorrectly,
and then there were noted sidewalk cracking.
Aside from those items, the development has otherwise been completed, and to our knowledge, the homes
have received certificate of occupancy, so they are or can be occupied. So to resolve many of these
issues, especially in regards to slope, would require deconstruction potentially of the driveways or
the entire structures themselves.
On the screen are the location and site conditions maps. So this is located in Perry Township just right
off of South Rockport Road, about a half a mile south from the intersection of Tap Road, Country Club
Road, and South Rockport Road. Site condition maps, otherwise nothing necessarily out of the ordinary
from a planning perspective. On the screen are the zoning and comprehensive plan zoning maps.
Those are also in the packet just there for reference. So a little background on this particular parcel.
It was originally approved by the City of Bloomington and has since been transferred to the county's
jurisdiction. In 2018, the Plan Commission did conduct a series of meetings discussing the preference
of having West Rangeview Court be public
A lot of those discussions, which was also the developer's original intent, but a lot of those discussions
were based on concerns of transferring the responsibility for maintaining the roadway onto the homeowners,
whether that be an HOA or similar. The entire development currently is owned by the developer and the
units, again, are available for occupancy. As of January 2026,
The petitioner has received that COO for all buildings in the development. The stormwater program and
highway department otherwise do not have further requests for the developer at this time. But the petitioner
is continuously working with the highway department with regards to acceptance of South Wiccan Street,
which is the roadway adjacent to West Range View Circle.
And on the screen, I have the approved phasing map. So I noted from my site visits that a lot of the
concerns with regards to slope, with regards to parking, are located in phase two, which is on the northern
part you see here on the map.
This development was split into those three phases. Phase one did receive a final LUC, whereas phases
two and three were provided conditional LUC. I left descriptions for what each of those LUCs entailed.
I'll just go through them briefly. The petitioner was able to complete final landscaping, provide as-builts
for the detention pond, also provide final stabilization
safety fencing around the detention basin. That was in August of 2022. And that LUC was conditional
upon completing the roadways and getting the improvements accepted into the inventory, which is what
they're here now for, because there's been some difficulty getting those accepted. So they are hoping
to change that from public to private. For LUC 23-13, which is phase two,
that LUC was conditional upon completing the roadways and getting the improvements completed into the
inventory. And then phase one, the final LUC was granted. However, upon review, by the time the petitioner
got to phase three, it was noted that the detention basin in phase one, which is nearest to phase three,
required an as-built. And upon further review, the developer worked with staff to submit new as-builts
and comply with
the required material changes. I provided a brief timeline for this development. I did note that there
were errors in the staff report, so I just want to correct those here. So the Planning Commission did
give a positive recommendation seven to one on October 18th, 2018, and it was approved by the County
Commissioners on December 5th, 2018.
And the final plat was recorded February 1st, 2021. So I just want to make sure that was corrected.
On September 25th, 2023, the petitioner filed for the outline plan amendment to make Rangeview private.
So this is that same petition before you. However, the petitioner withdrew that request on December
4th for reasons of their own.
And then in November of 2025, the petitioner reactivated the request and this petition was reviewed
at the Ordnance Review Committee on December 8th, 2025. So the ORC did make some comments for the developer.
They did request the developer review the inspection list provided by the county and determine if there
were improvements they could make to Rangeview Circle.
County staff also met with the developer and at the time the developer was not interested in making
any changes to Rangeview Circle because he would prefer that the road be changed from public to private
and the developer would maintain it in perpetuity. Planning staff did delay the Plan Commission hearing
in anticipation that the developer would make progress on Rangeview Circle.
specifically voluntary improvements and make progress on getting wiccans accepted into the county inventory.
And then to date, the petitioner should be working with the highway department to get wiccans accepted.
The timeline or the status for that is needed from the developer or the petitioner's representative
as that is currently ongoing.
are photos that were taken after the packet was published. So they are just some updated photos.
From 2023, not too much has changed from when I last went out there and took photos. So I'll just leave
them on the screen in a brief moment.
in the following images I took just to help portray some of the issues, some of the issues that were
noted in the packet with regards to steep slope, incorrect parking lines, which are noted here. They
are perpendicular. They should be parallel according to the approved plans.
I did note the developer is required to maintain landscaping in perpetuity. It looks like there were
some plantings that did receive damage possibly from either a storm or from the very recent snowstorm
that we had. Also took a picture of the mailboxes and just some of the conditions of the pavement. Most
of the pavement does not look like the picture on the upper left-hand side, but those are just
some instances that would be of concern if the highway department were to take that in, those would
need to be repaired. So that does lead me to staff's recommendation. So I did prepare staff's recommendation
for positive recommendation, but in the event that the planning commission were to deny this request,
I also put in some staff comments for a negative recommendation. So I'll go through those. So staff's
recommendation,
is to forward a positive recommendation to the county commissioners due to the physical constraints
of the site and based on highway department and stormwater reports with the following four conditions.
The first being that the petitioner follow through with the application and hearing for acceptance into
the right of way for South Wiccans Drive, which will require fixing any known deficiencies. Two, any
missing trees shall be installed. Three,
move the mailboxes out of the right-of-way, and four, amend the parking striping from perpendicular
to parallel to match the approved plans. Should the plan commission send a negative recommendation to
the county commissioners, the following next steps should be required. So we have two. The first being
that the petitioner is required to post a new letter of credit.
or cashier's check in the amount required to meet county standards for all public improvements, that
being range view, circle, sidewalks, curb and gutter, et cetera. And two, that the petitioner must submit
to planning staff their timeline for completing all public improvements and the timeline for requesting
their acceptance into the county road inventory and to assess the 10% annual inflation.
So in review of Rangeview Circle deficiencies, highway staff believes that the elevation of the as-built
for the townhomes on the north side of the development, which is phase two, were built too high, resulting
in sidewalk cross slopes exceeding the 2% maximum limit. Therefore, staff does not see a pathway for
the developer to meet the requirements for acceptance without major redesign or potential reconstruction
of this development.
And I will take any questions. All right. So questions from the planning commission go to my left. Mr.
Morris. I just want to clarify that I'm thinking about this correctly. So the same person owns all of
these individual units currently, right? Yeah. But they're all deeded as individual parcels. So the
developer could turn around and sell these to dozens of different individuals in theory.
Okay. Yes. Thank you. Also my left on my right. Commissioner Thomas. Um, yes. So, um, the mailboxes
are not, they're not impeding view, but they are in the right of way. Is that correct? It's, it's not
a safety issue. It's
The issue is the obstruction in the right of way. OK. It's not a track. I had thought initially that
it was an issue of obstructed view. And when I went there, I was like, it doesn't seem to me. Yes,
my mistake. But I couldn't tell. Yes, you're right. You're right. It's OK. I just want to make sure
I wasn't missing something, because that does happen a lot. OK. Now, when, and this may be a question
I need to ask Bobby LaRue in building.
But when you approve the occupancy, the certificate of occupancy is issued, it doesn't matter if the
sidewalks don't meet ADA requirements because that's not part of the building that you're inspecting.
Is that okay? That's true for Bobby, but for a land use certificate, I think it would be different.
Okay, yeah.
And I really appreciate the point that Mr. Morris raised because they're rented now, but if these are
later sold, there's nothing requiring that an HOA be created. Because if they're rented, there isn't
really an HOA. There's a leasing company that manages plowing and all of this.
And this is a great question for Mr. Schilling. How does then an HOA get created if only one unit with
multiple apartments in it or a few get sold to private owners? How do we ensure an HOA is created as
the county? Or is that just none of our business? I don't think that's the county's business once they
They get that far. OK, OK, thank you so much. Alright, I just have. Some follow up questions go back
to page 20 actually there right now. When you state the recommendation of positive recommendations,
you list four elements there. OK, my question is, have you discussed those four elements with the petitioner?
And if you did, what was the outcome of that discussion?
Sure. I think under the slide that Sean presented after the ORC meeting, meeting with the developer,
we pulled up the staff report. There was a bit of back and forth about the mailboxes or any omissions.
And I don't think that's kind of why Sean was saying he wanted a status update on the Wiccans acceptance.
So I don't know that there's been any progress other than them saying the mailboxes were USPS's choice
to locate there.
have worked with USPS to locate mailboxes, other places, so that could be something that could be a
question for the petitioner. And as far as missing trees, when this petition came about, Sean recently
did a site visit, so we want to make sure we assess now that it's been a few years any missing trees
that are there or are not there. And then the parking striping, that was part of the comments about,
you know, voluntary improvements and
I think the consensus from the developer was, it'll be private, you don't have to worry about that.
Okay, thank you. Okay, next up is the petitioner or petitioner's representative. 15 minutes, please
sign in and state your name. And if tech services will start the timer, that would be appreciated.
Are you ready for me? Daniel Butler, Binding and Fanning Associates. Do I need to swear myself in or?
The BZA. Okay. Just wanted to check. Before I start talking, I get interrupted. Thanks. With me tonight
is Tom Wanneger representing ownership. So if there's any questions for him, feel free to ask. This
was Wickens and Rangeview. Some of you were here when this was originally approved.
years ago I was and so I represented this project and the design on Rangeview and Wickens at the time
was designed to county standards, meaning that road widths, parking, sidewalks, all those types of things
were the intention of them being per county standards so that they had the ability to go private or public.
There was discussion at that time about Rangeview in particular being private or public. We
didn't necessarily mind. Either way, whatever was the best was looked upon as the positive from the
county's point of view at that time. But we are asking now for Rangeview to be private and Wickens to
remain public. This would allow for full responsibility of the developer for Rangeview Circle.
This would be such things as snow removal, cleaning, et cetera. So that would take it off the county's
hands in that perspective. There are pros and cons. I won't go back through everything that was discussed
at that time about, you know, Rangeview being public or private. There was discussion in those original
meetings about that piece of it. Since then, Biden Fanio has performed to date
as built on Wickens. Those, we didn't find many of any, you know, deficiencies at this time on Wickens.
So, I was told to inform you that the decision to go private on Wickens or on Rangeview wasn't necessarily
because of deficiencies found, it was more to
allow them to control the ongoing maintenance of Rangeview Circle. I'm not aware that any of the conditions
that are recommended by staff are a problem. Perhaps the ownership can also answer any questions or
give any further discussion on that. But if there's any more questions, I'm here to answer along with
ownership.
Does the owner have any plans to create an HOA? If he's willing to talk, I'll have to ask him to come
forward. Please sign in and state your name.
I believe there's an HOA in place. Speak up because we can hardly hear what you just said. I believe
there's an HOA in place. Greg Lauer established it for me. Greg Lauer is a local attorney. Sorry? Greg
Lauer is a local attorney.
So this is a bit of a unique situation with each of the parcels being owned by the same company. So
is there money paid into HOA fees on a regular basis? No, because I control it all. If it divided up,
then you would start having fees. OK, thank you. I know there's several water detention facilities on the
project. And if there is not an HOA in place to maintain those, how and if the properties are eventually
going to be sold off, how will that be funded and how will maintenance of the detention facilities be
accomplished? I believe there is an HOA in place, so if it got divided up,
then they'd start paying fees and to take care of the maintenance of it. Right now, I would take care
of the maintenance of it. I guess my concern is if you reach a point where there is failure of one of
the detention basins and the HOA has not been funded yet and you have
or at least not funded to the point where it would cover the costs of repairing or maintaining it, and
you have sold the properties, then it seems like there's a shortfall there. That's my concern. That's
why I asked. Mr. Thomas? Yeah, so I'm not sure I understand
The contention that the reason this roadway will remain in private hands rather than entering the county
inventory is just a personal choice versus the fact that buildings were built at a higher elevation
and the slope on the sidewalks doesn't meet ADA requirements. It just seems
It seems to me that what we're being asked to do is to okay something after the fact because the development
doesn't meet county standards. I just want to maintain it myself. I think I can do a better job maintaining it.
have to do the sidewalks and have to do the driveways on snow removal. I might as well do the main road
too. This causes a lot of problems. And it's nobody's fault, but when a plow truck pushes, then it clogs
off somebody's driveway. And so if I'm in control of all of it, then I can take care of all. But how
is it that you all didn't come back to the planning department when you were building
to say we're going to a higher elevation than our plans indicated. Was that just? What they're talking
about, to be honest, but but one was put higher or not. It was an old quarry and there is solid rock
there, so there's probably places. Solid rock. Can someone from staff address the elevation issue?
Sure. So typically when we ask for as built, it's at the time of acceptance into the inventory because
they've never prompted the actual request. We've just gone out and done our inspections as we normally
do. So when we first received this application was in 2023, it was withdrawn. We don't understand quite
why. And now it's reactivated.
But under the 2023 petition, we did go out and see all the deficiencies. And of course, during the land
use certificate process, we identified that none of the sidewalks met ADA. At that time, we had a performance
guarantee for the sidewalks. We've notified the petitioner that those would be needing to be removed
and replaced.
and they should be aware of the deficiencies and the differences from that standpoint. Thank you. I
have a serious problem with noncompliance. I see a lot of noncompliance in what's been going on since
2018. I went out there and drove your property
driveways and a slope of those driveways, I do not know how a mother with children could pull into that
driveway and open those doors and let those kids out, or an elderly person. This doesn't make any sense
to me based upon what I saw. The slope is bad. Elevation's another issue. When I drove through this,
and this is right after the snow removal or attempted snow removal of the areas,
Those cars were parked so close together on the left and the right-hand side of the road and the ones
who are diagonal. I don't know how, even if it wasn't a county inventory, I do not know how they would
get a plow through there to plow that street. Now, I may have heard you wrong, but maybe you can provide
some clarification.
If you take, if this happens and it goes private and you're now responsible for it, does that include
in repairing and improving the driveways, the sidewalks, the mailboxes, the parking stripes, all the
things have been brought up here? Is that something you plan on doing? All right, I see this as a systemic
issue with compliance.
And it's been known. It has not been corrected. It's been addressed by staff. I'm going to have a hard
time supporting this. Anything else you'd like to add? Or your petitioner's representative? Do you have
an update on wickets being accepted to the inventory?
Like I mentioned, we've given the Planning and the Highway Department some as-bills on Wiccans to try
to get to that point to allow for Wiccans to be accepted into the inventory. Again, that would come
up with any deficiencies that might be on Wiccans. I know we've been talking a little bit about deficiencies
on Rangeview, so we've been doing as-bill information on that to try to progress towards that.
I believe at that time, if there's anything found between us and the highway department, that would
create a separate list, if anything. I'm not aware of anything from the as built on that. What about
the mailboxes? Move the mailboxes, but that was where the post office told us to put the mailboxes.
So you're willing, amenable.
Again, to reiterate, if there was the four conditions that were listed for the positive recommendation
from staff, I don't believe that any of those are an issue for us to comply with as a condition of approval.
We hear concerns coming from you, and those would be concerns either way, and private or public, and
that we're asking for this to be
turn, not necessarily that those deficiencies would be fixed necessarily either way. We see it as a
separate issue and needs to be addressed one way or another in some fashion, and we understand your
concern. Right, anything else? Okay, now we turn to public comments.
And you have anybody online or anybody in the audience would like to come up and make a comment? You
have three minutes. I don't see anybody online and I don't see anybody coming up to the podium. That
brings up negative comments. Is there anybody online or in the audience who would like to come up and
provide negative comments? Just pause for a second. Councilperson Henry has entered the chamber.
It looks like we don't have any negative comments. That brings it back to the plan commission on whether
we want to entertain a motion. Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Thomas. It's okay. I was just wondering if
I could put Lisa Ridge on the spot and ask her to offer her thoughts on this.
Thank you for being here. Please sign in and state your name. Lisa Ridge, Highway Director. The only
thing I could probably add about the Wiccan Street, I do believe they met with the developer on December
15th, 2025. The deficiencies that we recognized were noted, and then the acceptance came through to
try and get it accepted
with none of those deficiencies addressed. I know moving the mailboxes, non-permitted driveways, I believe
there's a sidewalk that goes outside of the right-of-way because it was built behind an electrical box.
So some of those things have never been addressed. So that's just what I know off the top of my head
at the moment. As far as the other piece, it's a problem.
It wasn't built to the way it was presented to be built when it was approved. And would the county highway
want it at this point? No. It's not good for our plow trucks. It wasn't built. The slopes, we can't
go in and afford to fix those issues. So I think it should have been built the way it was intended to
be built. Questions for Ms. Ridgeway, she's up there, left.
point where we. Because I was here. I think when this project was first approved and I I stated at the
time and we worked hard at the time to prevent the establishment of homeowners Association and their
responsibility to maintain the infrastructure and I we've been through a difficult winter with a lot
of heavy snow and we have a lot of
private roads where the individuals are responsible for the snow removal and it created quite a burden
on the homeowners. We also have had storm water failure where homeowners associations are responsible
for maintenance of complex drainage systems. So for this to not be accepted into the
public inventory and into the highway inventory is a problem for me because if I recall correctly, that
was something that we worked hard to ascertain from the beginning. And the reason is for overall
affordability of people living in those neighborhoods because it's our role in part to protect the investment
of their treasure and the property that they purchase
whoever is purchasing it. So I am saddened to see those steep slopes on the driveways that worries me.
I'm from a big family and I'm the oldest girl, so I imagine babies rolling down in their strollers.
I just can't stop myself from those instincts that, you know, if a mother's and her father in the garage
and turns away to get a bag out of the
out of the trunk that, you know, that some terrible things could happen and we've tried to avoid this
with our due diligence from the beginning. So I want to state that I'm disappointed. I'm just disappointed
that this has come to this and that the project hasn't been built as our county worked hard and the
plan commission worked hard to ascertain that it would be built
for on behalf of the community, which is our role. I want to state that. Yeah, I think just two weeks
ago we had an extensive conversation about snow removal on private roads. And I think we were talking
about how we get into these situations where we have roads in neighborhoods that aren't getting plowed.
And I think we've got a perfect example right in front of us tonight of how these situations form.
And so I'd be very hesitant to vote in favour of this. Yes, I'd like to comment as well. I would like
to acknowledge and agree with what you just stated, because I know there was a high profile discussion
about snow removal
private versus public. And unfortunately, I think a lot of people that thought they were getting county
services did not because, you know, they found out the hard way that they were on a private road. And
I think that is often unfair to the homebuyers because they don't know that it's always
advertised up front that way to them before they make the purchase. They go into it in good faith and
they end up buying a piece of property and find out they're not getting what they anticipated. I'm also
concerned that all these properties are currently being rented and held by one owner or holding company,
and that if they're going to be sold off
I don't know that there's any way that I could be comfortable believing that the snow removal and the
other services that are being advertised to be provided in perpetuity will actually be provided. So
I also am going to have trouble supporting this. Thank you.
Thank you, Colonel Farris. Just, and again, I understand I'm coming in halfway through this discussion,
but from what I just heard from the dais and the commentary, I just go back to the recommendations of
the staff. So is, this is a positive recommendation, right? But the commentary I'm hearing from the
desk is about things that are not one through four. So I see the right-of-way, I see the missing trees,
I see the mailbox right-of-way, I see the parking striping, but we're
a lot of commentary about the grade and snow removal. If it's already been answered, I apologize if
it's been brought up, but is there a fifth piece here that just didn't make into the positive recommendation?
Is that the redlining? Okay. Okay. All right, do we have a motion? I'd like to just say that
Waiver of final hearing is not automatic. And I think this should be, I guess, heard again at our next
month's meeting. And so my motion is no motion for P.U.O.-23-5. And hopefully Mr. Whittaker, Mr. Butler
can work with staff and see what can be done and if any of these compliance issues can be better addressed.
I don't know how my colleagues feel. Second. Was that a motion? Was that a motion? My motion is no motion.
I think that it can automatically just go to the next
Agenda item, but let me for the groups and the developer applicants Edification, let me go over some
of the things that if continued you would all hope to see them come back with So I think that there's
a request to still work with staff to do some of the voluntary Improvements at this point to West range
view circle as we had requested prior Okay, and then
We were just checking at our desk. We did not see the HOA details, so we can come back with is there
an HOA in place? Does it detail funds going into the HOA bank if these were to be sold to give you more
information? And then it sounds like we need more updates on the progress of wiccans being put into
the inventory as we had suggested that that should be.
hopefully approved and in the inventory before the county commissioners makes a vote on the private
versus public nature of range use circle. So at least part of the development would be public and accepted
at that point. Is there anything else before I call the roll? I am left. Anybody on the right? All right.
And we can lastly, I don't know how we could
We will attempt, but in the red line text, we're saying to post a new letter of credit. Honestly, we
will have to work with the petitioner's representative to come up with a number of what that could even
look like because of the elevation issues and some redesign ideas. So as of right now, the motion on
the table is not to waive the final hearing. And this would go to the March 4th, 2026
or sorry, that's the admin date. It would be March 17th, 2026, regular plan commission meeting. Margaret
Clements? Yes. Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes.
David Bush?
Okay, motion does carry seven to zero to bring this back to the March 17th plan commission meeting.
All right. That brings us to our third item on new business, which is P P U O 25 four, which is the
point P U D outline plan for Eagle Bay garages. And there is also a waiver or a final hearing and Daniel,
I think you're up over there.
Thank you. So the request is to amend the Eagle Bay portion of the point plan due to development to
include self-storage as a permitted use. The purpose of this is to establish a series of storage garages
on the subject property. More specifically, the petitioner is proposing to remove the existing tennis
court and basketball court on the property and replace them with a series of self-storage units that
will then be rented out by members of the Eagle Bay portion of the point.
Per the written statement of character, Exhibit 6 in the packet, there will be 36 storage units proposed,
22 of the storage units will be 12 feet by 26 feet, and the remaining 14 units will be 8 by 8 feet.
However, self-storage is not included in the list of permitted uses for this PUD, hence this amendment
is being requested by the petitioner. The petitioner's representative requests that the use be defined as
private, non-commercial storage limited to the personal belongings of the individual unit's owner. So
for some backgrounds, the point planned unit development was originally created in 1973. The Eagle Bay
portion in particular was created in 1991, consisting largely of single-family residences and condominiums.
1991, sorry, I think I was at 1971 by mistake.
The portion where the development that is being amended by this petition is separate from the area where
Eagle Bay condominiums have been built is further east. So the area to be amended at self-storage was
approved in 1992. However, the Eagle Bay condominiums phase two were plotted in 1988 and developed in 1998.
The single-family development north of the common area subject to this amendment was never recorded
as a development plan either. It does appear that the retracement survey and other recorded documents
reference the common area as an exemption to the overall approved area as shown as the exhibit 8 of
the packet. So to create the subdivision lots as shown in exhibit 8 would require a replatting or a
new development plan.
However, the use would still be permitted under the outline plan and the development plan. And this
is the subdivision in question. The subject property that we are hearing tonight is outlined in yellow.
And so the petitioner is requesting to amend the existing plan to unit development ordinance 232 by
adding the list of self-storage
the use of self-storage list uses. The area would serve the Eagle Bay to condominiums phase two, but
it's actually part of another area phase of the Eagle Bay that was not fully developed. But the common
area was purchased and is currently owned by the Eagle Bay Homeowners Association. The amendment as
stated before will remove the existing tennis and basketball courts on the property. The county development
ordinance has a stiff
has a definition of self-storage, but the petitioner has stated in the written character that the county
development ordinance does not have a definition for self-storage, but the petitioner has stated in
the written statement of character in exhibit six that the storage will be non-commercial and will be
limited to storing the residents' belongings. The petitioner further states that only the owners of
the Eagle Bay condos will be eligible to utilize self-storage buildings. Furthermore, the Monroe County
Drainage Board did review this plan back in May,
The presented preliminary plan included filtration and use of existing swales, but did not include any
detention because a waiver was granted. Preliminary plan was approved four to zero with one
member abstaining. A detailed plan is expected to be brought to the drainage board for a full review
upon submission of the site plan application. And here is their site plan in question, along with some
rough drawings of the proposed storage units themselves.
So there were some questions from the administrative meeting that have been presented to the petitioner,
which the petitioner has addressed. The first question is, will the garages have lighting? If yes, what
lighting standard will they meet in terms of photometric max? The petitioner responded, there will be
a light next to each garage door and they will be specified to meet CDO 815-1, which is outdoor lighting
regulations.
The second question was, will the units be sublet to owners outside of Eagle Bay Phase 2? The petitioner
responded that the units will be sold to Eagle Bay 1 owners first, and then they will be optioned to
Eagle Bay 2 owners. If there are any units remaining, they will be optioned to owners at Eagle Point.
Third question was, could they better define self-storage? Can RVs go in there?
The petitioner responded, the content of the units will be at the owner's discretion or whatever fits
inside the unit. There will be no exterior storage. Next question was, are the garages going
to be temperature controlled? The petitioner responded, the units will be temperature controlled only
at the owner's discretion. Each unit will be metered separately.
A question after that was, there was a concern of a zero-foot setback by Commissioner Thomas on the
east side. We know that the current impervious goes to the east lot line, but we noted to the petitioner
that it would be best to be prepared to answer that. The petitioner acknowledged this point.
The next was more of a staff question. The rezone is for the entirety of that parcel, but the garages
will only go on the concrete pad. There may be a movement to see if only the concrete pad could be eligible
for the garage or self-storage use. The petitioner once again acknowledged this point. And the final
question was, the outline plan switches terminology between garage and self-storage. Could there be
more consistency for the sake of clarity?
And the petitioner responded that yes, they will consider the uses to be self-storage. And once again,
the petitioner defined self-storage via email as privates, non-commercial storage, limited to the personal
belongings of individual unit owners. And I do have copies of that email to hand out to the commission.
All right, are there any comments from the planning commission? Go on my left.
Sorry, may I make the staff recommendation first? Sorry. I thought you was done, you paused. I didn't
see your slide, sorry. Staff recommends forwarding a positive recommendation to the County Commissioners
for the planned units outline plan amendment request subject to the Monroe County Highway Department
and stormwater program manager reports with the following conditions. One,
The petitioner update the written statement of character with the definition of self-storage, and two,
specify that development will comply with Chapter 815 lighting regulations as well in the written statement
of character. And I will take any questions. Now comments from the Planning Commission on my left. Yes,
go ahead. Separate electric meters for every shed.
Yes, each unit will be metered separately per the petitioner's email. Okay, so you mentioned the site
plan hasn't gone to Drainage Board yet. A preliminary version has gone to Drainage Board is my understanding and was
approved and given a waiver. However, I think that once the full development plan is created and really
made in depth, then the Drainage Board will take another look to for final approval. That would be good.
And I would ask next, just for clarification,
What happens if this gets a positive recommendation, the P.U.O. changes, the full plan goes to the drainage
board and the drainage board says no? I'm uncertain. That might be a better question for stormwater.
But I do believe that it would hold up this plan. Or at the very least, it would cause some change,
alterations to plan to be made. Thank you.
So it says non-commercial use of the storage facilities. Is there any limitation as to what can be stored
in there in terms of, you know, caustic materials or hazardous materials, things like that? I assume
it would go along with the HOA, you know, allowances and whatnot, or is that a separate issue altogether?
So when they're proposing the building for a building permit, they will have to disclose
the basically the type of storage that they will have in there and that will determine, you know, fire
protection standards. Also, I know our stormwater division when there are developments or garages located
near sinkholes or near lakes, they can ask for certain things such as like double containers for like
paints and things like that so that if there is a spill unattended, it at least doesn't leak out and
go immediately into the nearby watershed.
And is the ongoing monitoring of that, is that incumbent upon the HOA itself then? It would be, well,
I mean, if it's part of the outline plan and we saw a violation, we could do it as part of enforcement
if there's an actual violation. But in terms of regular communication and making sure people follow
the rules, that would be on the HOA. Thanks.
So I just have one question and it's kind of a follow up to Mr. Field's question about there being separate
meters on the garages. And it's for my own edification. I know that the city uses these individually
powered, solar powered lithium, I don't know, meters. Do we require those in the county or do we use
those in the county? Because I've heard reports the fire concerns related to those.
As far as a lighting, we're just regulating if they're putting in lighting that it meets dark sky compliance.
Is that your question? Oh, it has to do with the meters. Oh, with the meters. Yeah. How are the meters?
Is there automatic self-reporting? Are they powered to some kind of solar battery that then reports
to a utility, for example? Or do we have the
normal old fashioned kind in the county, you know, where a reader come out and checks it. I think that
that depends on the utility company, but I'm not sure that there's anything in the building code that
requires smart metering. Yeah, that's the word I was looking for smart metering because on garage facilities,
I think the smart metering could be more problematic than, um, you know, especially in a kind of sensitive
zone with a lot of trees and
you know, the fourth. That was my question. Thank you. All right, let's go ahead and with the petitioner,
petitioner's representative, 15 minutes. Please sign in and state your name. My name is Bill Rigger.
I'm with Wetzel Rigger Cooper James.
And with me tonight is Skip Pelton. Skip Pelton is a resident of Eagle Bay 1, and he also serves on
their HOA board. Essentially, I have nothing to add to Daniel's presentation, but I can try to answer
some questions that you've asked.
As far as electrical power goes, it's my understanding that Duke Energy provides power to the point.
And we would design it, and we haven't gone to design yet because we wanted to get permission to do
this first. The 12 by 26 units would be metered individually with Duke Energy type meters. The 8 by
8 units would be metered in two clumps of seven. So you'd end up metering the smaller units collectively.
Smart meters? No, the standard Duke or RMC type meters you'd have at home. Right, so you're welcome.
And then as far as stormwater goes, I was the member that couldn't vote. But anyways, we would go back
to the drainage board, and they wanted to come back to see what we were going to propose once we had
the topographic information to design with.
And due to the proximity of the lake, we felt no detention was required because it goes into the storm
system and is right into the lake and regulated by the Corps of Engineers. However, stormwater quality,
we had proposed to do some rain garden-type treatment in the ditch line in front and then bring it around
the side of the building or through the rest of the drainage way that heads toward the east.
collection system through the boulevard and onto the lake. Let's see what other questions there may
have been. But I'm here to answer any questions. And then Skip can help me with any of the ideas that
the homeowners association has for this structure. So let's go ahead and go to public comment.
In the room or online? Go ahead and sign in. Virtual hand if you're online. And state your name if you
would please. You have three minutes. My name is Kevin Ault. I am a resident of Eagle Bay 1, where this
proposed development is being sought. I think a couple of things should be brought to the board's attention.
First, the area to where they want to convert the basketball court
and a tennis court into self storage is right next to a pool, to the community pool. Significant numbers
of people and children are at this pool during the summer. There's also a shared driveway with another
building that is right next to the pool. That is not owned by Eagle Bay One. It's a private individual
that typically often rents it out for Airbnb. So the traffic in this area already
Many times, it's hard to park during the summer. So I don't know, and I've not seen anything anywhere
where the effect of the increased traffic by a storage unit and garages has been even thought about.
Secondly, the topography of this area, where the pool, this basketball court, and the tennis court are,
sit at the top of the hill. The condominiums for Eagle Bay 1 are at the bottom of the hill.
So I find it very difficult to believe that people in Eagle Bay 1, I know I'm not, but I don't know
about the others, are going to purchase a garage to park our cars at the top of the hill and then walk
down the hill and back up the hill. It's a task to do it in the summer. In the winter, next to impossible.
So that fact,
that these are going to be garages for people to park their cars, their first car. If it's a secondary
car, then it's not that impetuous, it's not that imperative that you have a garage there. If
it's self-storage, then what alternatives are available for self-storage? Well, Eagle Bay, one, is part
of what's called the point, the PSA. The PSA owns the golf courts, they own the
the clubhouse and things like that. They also own 5.4 acres across Point Road that is currently being
used for boat storage. They have two buildings there. If this, as they have alluded to, first is offered
for Eagle Bay 1 residents, offered for Eagle Bay 2, and then anyone in the Point. So conceivably, anyone
in the Point could purchase
these units. A better use, a more effective use would be to look at the point, the 5.4 acres that's
currently already zoned that doesn't require traffic counts and would not require a new road or new
entrance into where the pool and the other individuals, the people who are coming and going are. So
the use of this property
Not to say it's in Indiana and tearing of a basketball court is somewhat sacrilegious, but be that as
it may. The better use for this, it's perfect for a community garden. It's fenced, it's next to where
the people live, galvanized steel tubs. Sorry to interrupt, but your three minutes are up. I'm sorry?
I can't hear you. You said, I'm sorry, but your three minutes are up. OK, thank you then. All right.
I also got this out of order. That was a negative comment, I assume. So do we have any positive comments
out there that either online or in the room? Looks like none. So I think that the petitioner can respond
now to those comments. You have five minutes. I don't see it. It disappeared again. It was Megan or Nellis.
And so I don't know. Megan, are you still going to raise your hand because you want to comment in favor
of something? I don't see any hand raised at all. All right, so five minutes from the petitioner to
respond to that negative comment. A response, I mean, you'd skip to help me here, but it's my understanding that
It's born by the interest of the homeowners association to have additional storage units for
their belongings, whatever they may be. And I wouldn't think it would add much more traffic if cars
are already down there just to come up and get their equipment or belongings. So I'm not quite sure
what the topography issue would be and in fact the traffic.
And I don't know about it turning into a community garden that would have to be up to the homeowners
Association. And then that is a private home. I guess that's rented out at times. There's a shared driveway.
The pool belongs to Eagle Bay one. So they still have access to the pool down that driveway because
they're evident. There's an easement for access.
So I don't know what the impact would be other than potentially, depending upon which way the sun goes,
casting some shadows perhaps on the pool deck. So that would be my response. I don't know, Skip, if
you have anything to add to that, but those are my thoughts in response.
and close out the public comments and come back to the planned commission. We'll go to the
right. Commissioner Thomas. I actually have a question for the representative from the homeowners
association, if you wouldn't mind coming up. I have a comment online. Why don't you go ahead and take
that. Yeah, Megan. Okay, go ahead. State your name. Good evening, members of the commission. My name
is Megan Ornelas.
and my husband and I own a unit in Eagle Bay 2, and I'm here to speak to our concerns regarding this
proposal. An easement agreement exists between Eagle Bay 1 and Eagle Bay 2. The proposed construction
would take place on property covered in this easement agreement. The easement agreement obligates Eagle
Bay 2 to pay a share of operating and maintenance costs for this recreational area.
Costs include electricity, repairs and maintenance, taxes and assessments, insurance, and other expenses
related to the shared property. In exchange for our share of the cost, Eagle Bay 2 is entitled to the
use of the easement and recreational area. Eagle Bay 2 has not seen any proposed changes
to the current easement agreement. This needs to be completed prior to the project moving forward to
clarify financial responsibility and the use of the proposed recreational area. As it stands now, Eagle
Bay 2 could be asked to pay operation and maintenance costs of this project but have no access or enjoyment
of the use of it, the garages and the units being constructed.
In addition, we could be asked to pay for unintended damages caused to this recreational area during
construction. Finally, the deeds for Eagle Bay 2 residents show a percentage ownership in the property
being discussed. So I believe a real estate attorney needs to weigh in on who actually owns this property.
Given these concerns, residents of Eagle Bay 2 cannot support this project until the agreement is modified
to ensure we are not financially supporting any costs. We would also like to have clear guidance from
a real estate attorney as to the ownership of the property. The documents I've mentioned tonight, our
HOA president is able to provide to the commission. Thank you.
All right, so it looks like we need to have the petitioner respond to that one as well. And either skip.
Is there anyone else? I saw a hand raised in the audience. Do we want to make sure there's no other
comments in the audience before the final rebuttal? Are there any other comments out in the audience?
We're going back and forth, back and forth evidently, so. All right, so skip or Bill, can you respond
to that, please?
I'd like to defer to Skip on that one, because I haven't researched these easements or deeds. These
are records, so. Yeah. Members, my name is Skip Helton. I'm on the board of ECO Bay one. Some of the
questions that were asked
It is my understanding, and Bill has, you guys have in front of you, the ownership of Eagle Bay 1, the
property lines of Eagle Bay 1. It is my understanding that all of that property that is shown is belonged
to by Eagle Bay 1. Eagle Bay 2 pays us for the use of our pool. They pay us a percentage.
maintenance fees on our pool and for maintenance fees on the basketball court and tennis courts. We
will when this if this project is built, we will. The project will have its own HOA just for the garages
itself, so it will not come into come into. Contact with the existing HOA of Eagle Bay 1 or Eagle Bay
2. It'll be its own HOA itself.
Is that all the questions or is there something else? Yeah, OK, so. Just for clarity, the homeowners
Association that you belong to is only Eagle Bay one. Yes ma'am. Is so there's a separate homeowners
Association for Eagle Bay 2 and a separate homeowners Association for the point the Eagle Bay. Point
the point right? Yes, OK.
So the point is like the whole thing, and then we're little subdivisions put inside of the point. Right.
Eagle point. That was the third section. Correct. That's it. OK, thank you. Yeah, because I always refer
to this as the point. Correct. We're little subdivisions in the point. Right. So I'm concerned because
of what was expressed about this being in an easement that's supposed to be a shared easement, which
is not how you depict it, but it's how this commenter depicted it. And I'm concerned about that because
we don't want to get in the middle of anything you all are doing. So I would like to propose to my colleagues
here on this commission that we bring this back in March. But I would like some clarity on that question of,
who can actually make decisions about this property, whether it's as what you say versus there's some
sort of easement. You have the legal paperwork in front of you that shows what's owned by Eagle Bay
One though. That is all owned by Eagle Bay One, even the pool. But what is this easement that was mentioned?
The easement that they're talking about is a driveway that goes back to this, see where the house is
separated out separately in there?
The bigger unit, you see the orange, to the right of the orange, there's a separate parcel there, okay?
There's a, I'm gonna call it a huge duplex that they lease out. It's owned by a separate owner, okay?
There's a driveway that goes back there that is a shared easement for them to park at and for us to
park at for our pool. But get this straight, the entrance to this storage unit project is not coming
down that easement.
It is off of point and sell drive. It's not even going anybody that goes into the garage units will
not be going down that driveway. OK, but it's not a separate really. Yeah, it still isn't clear to me
based on what the public commenter offered. Because I don't know how they would be responsible for paying
maintenance on a shared drive. OK, they use they use Eagle Bay
uses our pool, okay? Eagle Bay is one pool, okay? So there's a driveway to get to that pool. So we split
the maintenance fees up. I can't remember the percentages. Let's say Eagle Bay one, just for instance,
pays 60% into a pool every quarter, and Eagle Bay two pays 40% into a pool every quarter. It stores
up money for maintenance for the pool area
and for the basketball and tennis court area. Okay, so that might be why there's a sense of shared ownership
or at least shared decision-making power in this property because it does include not just the pool,
but the tennis court and basketball court. But not on ownership though. Right, it's a shared easement
with some sort of a financial obligation relating to maintenance. Correct, and if these garages are done,
It's going to have its own HOA, so it will it will. It will reduce yeah. Um, Eagle Bay's two twos payout
and Eagle Bay ones payout. It'll take that section off, right? There'll be no more money put in for
the tennis court or basketball court, right? The people that will own the garages and in storage facilities
now will have their own HOA that they will pay into. OK, one of the questions.
that was posed, and I don't know if I posed or someone else did, but it's a good question. So someone
else probably posed it at the admin meeting was, will the units be sublet? And what we got for an answer
was the order of preference for who gets access. It was brought up at the beginning, and this gentleman
brought it up over here. Our first thought was we were going to sell and lease out, and we have decided
we are not leasing out.
They will be when they're brought up for sale, they will be sold first of all to Eagle Bay one owners.
Any remaining ones will be sold to Eagle Bay two owners. Any remaining ones from that will be sold to
anybody in the point. OK, so that doesn't answer the question of sublet, because if I purchase a storage
area, you can you can do what you want. That's the concern. Yes, right. Well, and we will have our HOA
will make up rules. We'll have our own HOA rules.
when those are made up for that HOA, that's taken out of there. No sublet in. Okay. And I think that
fits into one of my other concerns, which is what are the rules for what you can store there? If this
were somewhere else, I would be so much less concerned, but it is at the top of the hill that drains
into the lake. And we have to be so careful. I'm concerned
not just about noxious combustible materials. I'm concerned about storing a couple of jet skis that
leak. And where does that going to go? And so my concerns are first regarding the easement issue. And
I would just, it would be great to have some clarity on that. The second relates to subletting. What
are the rules? And the third relates also to the rules
What can you actually store in there? Because this is a compact area where we could ostensibly have
gasoline, oil, coolant, all kinds of things that end up in the lake because it's aggregated in one spot.
And again, if this weren't at the lake, it probably wouldn't matter much.
Although we do need to still talk about our rules regarding RV storage and motorcycle storage and auto
storage. But it's just the proximity to the lake that's concerning. Anything in the point is they all
drain into the lake. Oh, absolutely. Oh, we're well aware. We're well aware. So I think I would personally
rather see some of the rules and guidelines and subletting and all of that. And I would like to see
some clarification on the easement before I'm comfortable on voting on this particular item.
That's me. My colleagues may differ. Thank you. I appreciate your information. All righty. Do we have
any other comments? Yes. Mr. Bush. Mr. Chair.
unfamiliar with the residences at the point. The only place I've been allowed on is at the golf course,
so I've not driven through, so okay. I thought you weren't allowed there anymore. Ever since that last
time I hit the guy. No, seriously, Mr. Bishop brought up a really good point, I believe, regarding things
that are being stored. Is there any, will you have,
limits in place as to... If I were a resident and I were a painter, and I needed a place to store all
my paints and thinners and all my equipment, would that be an allowable use in this storage area, or
is that something that you would restrict? We could restrict all combustibles. No combustibles being
stored. Which is curious as to...
I could see this boat storage or just a storage or I don't know somebody's. Our storage on these areas
are very limited. I mean, we have closets that we have. We can't put anything in, you know, it's with
no garage space. I mean, I'm going to retire one day and I would like to move down to the lake. This
is not my permanent residence, but I like to move down there. But I'm a, I've been a contractor for
40 some years. I need my tools.
You know, I just just sure that's why I'm thinking of this project. Well, that question being answered,
I think I would also like to see maybe a little more clarity as to what the intended uses are versus
what you would restrict. OK, thank you. Alright, to properly close out all of the public comment.
I'd like to make sure that we have addressed all those folks who are in. We have somebody in the back.
If I assume you're in favor, you're against. OK, well, you have three minutes. Please sign in and state
your name. Yeah, I'm Pam Rogers, the president of Eagle Bay to. I want to pass out. This is mainly what
I'm up here for. I'm going to pass out a copy of the easement agreement.
between our villages. It's dated in 1996. It's really old. We weren't even built yet, but it does explain
expansion of the area and our privilege to use the pool in the tennis court areas. Make sure staff gets
one of these so that it can be included.
I also wanna mention today, I spent a little time in the deed office and the accessor's office. I pulled
my deed, my personal deed, and it actually shows that I have some type of ownership to this parcel of
property. They couldn't really explain it, but every homeowner for Eagle Bay 2 is tied to this parcel
of property. That's really. Thank you. Thank you.
I guess we need to give you five minutes to rebut if you'd like. So either you or Bill or Skip, if you'd
like to respond. I think I understand that there's a couple of questions here and I think that I will
let's take it under advisement. We will go ahead and take a look at these couple of items that we're
talking about concerning ownership and what could be stored in here. I think those are the two main
things, correct?
Ownership of the existing property and then what can and cannot be stored in these storage facilities.
Letting OK. Which is part of the rules. Yes, thank you. OK. The other you have anything else to add.
We're done unless you got something else to add.
OK, is there any other public public comment for against or otherwise? Alright, let's close out the
public comment now and now let's go to the Planning Commission for their comments. Anybody on my left?
Yes, Sir. Well, you know one of. Mr. Rigerts points about discharge. You know, yeah, we're gonna get
rid of that stormwater goes right in the lake. If we have a fire out there in those storage lockers
and I don't believe there's any way that anybody is ever going
effectively regulate what people put in those storage lockers over time. You get a fire out there, and
you start dumping fluid on water on this thing, and that's going right in our water supply. That's where
Monroe County, at least, where I get my drinking water. And I don't see that this thing seems to make
a ton of sense to me in the fact that whatever is there, if there's a fire, and you've got 20
however many units of storage with electricity on board, the chances for a fire are pretty significant.
And I just think that it would be a real terrible situation for the fire department to start dumping
fluid on a fire that's running right straight in Lake Monroe. That's my point. Thank you. Anybody on
the right? Go ahead, Mr. Bishop.
What is the proximity of the proposed development to any sort of fire suppression equipment such as
a hydrant? Okay, and so if one of these other houses caught fire right next to the lake and they had
to spray it down with water and everything, all of the contents and whatnot would be washed into the
lake as well, right? So is it safe to assume that the
the same level of concern would be surrounding any of these houses burning down as would one of these
facilities, because right now, ostensibly, you're securing all of this hazardous materials in your homes.
Yes, anything around in the point, if you wash it down, it's going to end up in the lake, yes. So we're
not creating anything new, we're just moving it to where it's not in your homes directly.
Correct. Okay. As far as storage facilities go, everything around the lake is proximal to the water
itself by nature because it's on the lake and people do boating and water activities. So the current
storage facilities, are there similar concerns about environmental issues regarding the storage of boats
and whatnot? There's other garages and storage facilities in Eagle Point, okay. I've never heard any
concerns before. Nobody's brought it up to me.
It wouldn't have to be specific to your development either. It would be just in the general facility
around the lake where there are storage for boats, jet skis, and things like that. Are there outsized
environmental concerns applied to them that are also being applied to you? If I'm asking the question
correctly, not that I know of.
Okay, it seems very similar that you're wanting to store the same type of stuff that's being stored
out in the open, maybe covered by a tarp next to the lake already, and you're wanting to put it under
roof. Yes, yes. Okay, thank you.
Henry. Thank you. Mr. Bishop had a lot of what I was going to ask there. I know that this agreement
was just put before us, but I think this might be a question you can answer. So in this escrow, it mentions,
owns a swimming pool and tennis court recreational facility. You have a basketball court as well, right?
Where the tennis court is at, there's a basketball court connected with it. It's all in one big Finston
area. Yeah.
that was presented to us just moments ago. It doesn't mention a basketball court. So in the evolution
of the recreational space, was there ever a discussion between the two HOAs about the development inclusion
of modification to put a basketball court with the tennis court? Or was that from the- Basketball court
is in with the tennis court right now. Were they designed, was that a modification or were they ported
or created the same way? I've been down there for 18 years and it's been like that. That's fair. The
reason why I'm asking is if there was a modification to the property at some point,
between the signing of this agreement and where we are now. I was just trying to figure out how you
would have navigated that process before with the shared asset. I've only been there for 18 years. I
don't know what happened prior to. That's it. Thank you. All right. Anybody else on the right over here?
All right. Before we go to a motion, Jack, I think it'd be very helpful. There's a laundry list of things
we'd like to get answers to.
Can we get agreement on what that laundry list is? Yes. It sounds like number one concern is that ownership
of the area to be asked for garages to be placed.
items entered into the record regarding easements and contribution of HOA funds by Eagle Bay one and
Eagle Bay two for this area. So I think we're looking to provide a copy of this introduction of evidence
to the petitioner and their representative and have them respond and also
You know, I don't know if they want to provide us with edits to how they will amend this easement agreement
and share it with Eagle Bay counterpart to see if that's amenable to them or if that assizes their concern.
And then there was concern about what will be stored in the garages and also if the units will be sublet
upon purchase by somebody in the point.
We don't technically have to make a motion, but just for clarity, I'd like to make a no motion.
on PUO-25-4, meaning that it's going to come back to our March 17th meeting of the plan commission.
And this pertains to the point PUD outline plan for Eagle Bay garages. Does everyone agree with that
or does somebody want to make another kind of motion? Go ahead and second it. I'll second. It's been
moved and seconded to not
grant a waiver of final hearing for PUO-25-4 to give the petitioner and their representative time to
come back to the plan commission with answers to the questions mentioned by staff. A vote yes is a vote
to send this to the March 17th, 2026 plan commission. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush?
Yes. Margaret Clements?
Scott Ferris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. Yes. Okay. Motion carries seven to zero. All right.
Now we move to public comments for items not on the agenda. Okay. Is there anybody online or in person
here who would like to take and comment? You have up to three minutes. I don't see any hands on the
screen and I don't see anybody coming forward.
So that moves us to staff reports. And so we have planning and attorney. So Jackie. I just have one
announcement, which is the, we had discussed at our administrative meeting, the county maintained road
inventory map. We have gotten that to be published. We made some edits based on your comments, added
state roads. So we're hoping to put that on the website in an easily viewable spot.
so that if another snowstorm occurs, we can point people if offices are closed to do some individual
research and then have a bit more information about before they even purchase a property, whether they're
on a county maintained road. So that is enough. Mr. Shaleen.
Oh, and I also have one other. OK, I'm sorry. Which is we have a new planner with us, Ray Brown. He
started with us on Monday. Ray is joining from Louisville, Kentucky. So he's worked for two different
jurisdictions in southern Indiana as a planner. So we're very lucky to have somebody that already speaks
the language. And he's doing great his first week. Welcome to the game.
Okay, now Mr. Schilling. Report. Motion to adjourn. Thank you all.