- Okay. It's a five 30. Let's go ahead and start the two March 17th, uh, Monroe County plan commission
- meeting and director would take and conduct the call. The roll call. That'd be great. Okay. David Bush
- here. Margaret Clements here. Ronan Ray Randolph here. Scott Ferris here. David Henry.
- Morris here Julie Thomas Joe Van Dieventer Stephen Bishop okay so we have seven members seven voting
- members in attendance one non-voting member in attendance and six members in person so while you're
- at it go ahead and introduce the evidence if you would please
- I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance
- has adopted and amended. The Monroe County Zoning and Subdivision Control Ordinance has adopted and
- amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan has adopted and amended. The Monroe County Plan Commission
- Rules or Procedure has adopted and amended. And the cases that were legally advertised and scheduled
- for hearing for tonight. Move approval. Second. It's been moved and seconded to
- Go ahead and approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Margaret Clements?
- Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Motion
- is approved, seven to zero. Okay, that brings us to the
- agenda and we have a couple of changes to the agenda. It looks like PUO 25-4 which is the point PUD
- outline plan for the Eagle Bay garage has been garages has been continued by the petitioner and right
- before the meeting down under new business SAD 25-22 which is a Pratt Prince administrative subdivision type E
- that also is continued by the petitioner as well. Other than that, there's no other changes to the agenda
- unless anybody has something to note. I'd like to move approval. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded
- to go ahead and continue two items from tonight's agenda. One was advertised, which is the EGLE point.
- And the second is a new continuance, which is SAD-25-22 Pratt Prince Administrative Subdivision Type E.
- A vote yes is a vote to amend the agenda to do the following continuances. Ron and Ray Randolph? Yes.
- Scott Ferris? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes.
- Margaret Cummins? Yes. Motion is approved seven to zero.
- Next up we have approval of the minutes and the minutes are dated February 17th of 2026. Do I have a
- motion and a second to approve? Move approval. Second. It's been moved and seconded to go ahead and
- approve the minutes, meeting minutes. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Scott Farris? Yes. David Henry?
- Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas?
- David Bush. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. John Henry Randolph. Yes. Motion is approved seven to zero.
- That takes us to administrative business. We have one item. It looks like we have a change to the calendar.
- If the director would explain the change, please. Sure. The only change that you'll see on the screen
- here is to the meeting by the board of zoning appeals and that meeting
- has changed from July 1st to now be July 8th. So if approved, that would be the only change to the meeting
- calendar. Move approval. As stated. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the meeting calendar
- with the one change for the meeting for the Board of Zoning Appeals. A vote yes is a vote to approve.
- David Henry.
- Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Tron Enright-Randolph?
- Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Motion is approved, seven to zero. Hey, that takes us to our first item under
- unfinished business, which is P.U.O. 23.5.
- which is the planned unit development outline plan and the request is to revise the West Ranchview Circle
- from a public to a private road classification. Sean, would you go ahead and lead us in that discussion?
- That would be great. Sure. So this was heard at the February 17th Plan Commission meeting. It was a
- preliminary meeting, so this would be the final meeting.
- unless continued. So I'll just go through the request briefly. So for the public, this request is seeking
- an outline plan amendment to the Highlands PUD to revise the inner loop known as range view circle.
- And that request is to reclassify the road from a public to a private road.
- If the planning commission were to approve this, or it would go to the county commissioners for final
- approval, and if they were to approve it, then that would change the road classification to a private
- road, which would mean that a private entity, in this case, the developer, would be responsible for
- the upkeep and maintaining the road. Or if they were to sell that to an HOA, the HOA would become the
- responsible entity for maintaining that roadway.
- And just to briefly go over some of the issues with getting this accepted into the road inventory were
- noted by the highway department. And those include the proposed buildings being built at a higher elevation
- than what the plans called for, the cross slopes for the sidewalks and the right of way being greater
- than 2%, which is not ADA compliant. Mailboxes being located within the right of way.
- parking stripes being painted incorrectly, so they were painted perpendicularly and not parallel, and
- also numerous sidewalk cracking. So the development otherwise has been completed, but to resolve many
- of these issues would likely require significant either deconstruction of the existing buildings and
- or driveways.
- Again, I'll just go through this briefly as far as site conditions are concerned. There's not necessarily
- anything that pokes out at us It is located in Perry Township located just off of South Rockport Road
- Again it is located in a PUD that was created by the city of Bloomington and
- This was originally approved in 2018. So the developer's intent at that time was to make Rangeview Circle
- private. However, the Planning Commission did opt to vote to make it public. Much of that concern was
- placing that burden of the cost of maintaining the roadway on homeowners. So that is the justification
- the Planning Commission offered for making it public.
- And that vote was ultimately voted upon to be public. The entire development is owned by the petitioner
- and the units are currently being occupied. So those are being rented out as we speak. This was broken
- up into three phases. Primarily the issues located within the development are located in phase one and
- phase two.
- This development does still have some final LUCs to be granted, but has received LUCs over time. Again,
- we covered this at the previous planning commission meeting, so I'm just gonna go through it briefly
- here. One thing to note is that the developer did meet with staff earlier this month, in March 2026,
- and agreed to
- some of the improvements that were noted as being deficient, and those are noted, are shown as green
- in the staff report. However, the petitioner has not provided staff a timeframe or a status update on
- getting South Wickens Street accepted into the road inventory. These are some site photos of the site
- as it exists as of 2026,
- And then this brings me to additional information that was provided to staff from the prior meeting.
- And I will just go through these since this is new information. On the left-hand side of the screen,
- I have a table with noted deficiencies that was recorded by the Highway Department from their
- site inspection. And then on the right-hand side, I have
- the action that the petitioner is either willing or not willing to take. So in this case, I have noted
- the deficiencies that the petitioner is unwilling to make. And then on the right hand side of the screen,
- I have the location of said deficiencies. One deficiency in particular that staff is primarily concerned
- with are the parking stripes and the six foot ADA sidewalk requirement.
- So that section was otherwise not part of the original approved plans. The original approved plans showed
- parallel parking, did not show perpendicular parking. And then of course, the sidewalks are not ADA
- compliant. So as stated previously, the only way to correct that would be to restripe the area to be
- parallel parking per the approved plan set.
- as well as potentially taking out the sidewalk and redoing it. This is not something that the petitioner
- has cited he is willing to do. So some of those deficiencies that the highway department had noted being
- that they mill down and overlay a 48 by 20 foot, 21 foot area section of asphalt. And that is located
- down here in the corner of the screen.
- Replace the six-foot section of curb and gutter. Install a riser on a manhole located here where my
- cursor is. Remove pavement parkings for angled parking. That's what we had discussed with that parking
- stripes. Remove private signage from within the right-of-way located on the south section of Range View
- Circle here. Replace 139 feet of sidewalk
- Located along the addresses between 1284 and 1290 West Rangeview Circle. New private water lines located
- within the right of way. I don't have additional information on exactly what private line that is and
- exactly where it is located other than it is located on the south portion of Rangeview Circle.
- We do believe that that might actually be an irrigation system. Sidewalks between 1214 and 1242 West
- Rangeview Circle. Again, that's the six foot ADA sidewalk requirement. And then also replace 20 feet
- of sidewalk due to cracking. And you'll notice that those are in several different areas. I have arrows
- pointing to each
- of the different cracked sidewalk location noted by Ben Ayers in his highway report. The other deficiencies
- that were noted in Rangeview Circle, the petitioner has agreed to make those improvements as well as
- Completing all of the remaining outstanding deficiencies for South Wiccan Street to be accepted into
- the county road inventory as a public road. The petitioner's engineer did provide a response to some
- of staff's questions that the plan commission had asked from the prior meeting. And those are his responses
- up on the screen. I've also included it in the packet.
- and I can come back to this if the Planning Commission would like. Lisa Ridge, the Monroe County Highway
- Department Director, did provide this letter addressed to the Planning Commission members stating their
- agreeance to making the roadway private as it would not in any way meet their requirements to bring
- the road into the county road inventory
- She listed three different items here, basically stating that they are happy to have the developer take
- over maintenance responsibility. Since the road was not constructed according to the approved plans,
- they do not feel comfortable with county snow plow trucks going through the areas they believe that
- they may not necessarily fit
- perfectly through that roadway, and that might pose a hazard. And then also, since the sidewalks were
- not built to ADA specifications, they are not going to take responsibility for taking that into the
- road inventory, as that responsibility would fall on them. And this is also included in the packet,
- and I'm happy to come back to it, if the Planning Commission would like.
- This leads us into staff's recommendation. So staff's initial recommendation is to recommend sending
- a positive recommendation to the county commissioners if Wiccans was accepted into the road inventory
- by today's date, March 17th, 2026. To our knowledge, this has not occurred. So planning staff would
- recommend continuing the petition
- However, it is up to the Planning Commission members to decide how they want to vote, whether to continue
- the petition, to send a positive recommendation with staff's conditions, or send a negative recommendation
- with staff's conditions. And I will take any questions. All right, we come back up to the commission
- now. Anybody on my left? Mr. Right? Yeah, you covered a couple of this, Sean. Thank you.
- go over a few things. First will be kind of a process question. Whatever the Planning Commission determines,
- as stated, a positive, negative. There's also a no recommendation out there. This continues to the Board
- of Commissioners for their final decision, regardless of the position the Planning Commission takes, correct?
- That is correct. Although I think that the conditions are substantially changed between the, let's say
- there's a positive recommendation with conditions sent to the board of commissioners. If the commissioners
- chose to, I think, um, strike some of those positive recommendation conditions or make those
- less restrictive, it may come back to the plan commission for your final vote or understanding of those.
- Right and if the plan commission let's say hypothetically says yes to this and the board of commissioner
- says no they're still within what they committed to and have to kind of resolve that and we might see
- this in a different iteration moving forward in the future. If the final decision is to say no then
- the road would remain public and they'd still be required to fix all the deficiencies not just some.
- and there's a possibility we might see some other requests, but I'll take a step back from that hypothetical.
- So, plan commission recommendation is to continue it since they weren't able to meet it, get into the
- inventory, correct? And I know you've covered this already, just- Planning staff recommendation, yes.
- And Highway is supporting,
- allowing this to remain private due to kind of some of the deficiencies or it's not consistent with
- highway standards, so that's correct, right? Correct. Okay. I know it's questions. I have like a five
- second comment that goes really well with this.
- Planning and highway are the two bodies that I'm really looking towards to figure out where I should
- support my position on this. It's kind of split, so I'm really comfortable with continuing it, but ultimately
- I'm in a position of making no recommendations and moving it forward to the board of commissioners to
- see what they ultimately do because we're not the final say in this discussion and I think
- with their role that they're going to do what they decide is the best for the county and the community.
- So that's kind of where my cards are and that's all I have to say. Thank you for letting me make my
- comment. Thank you. I just have maybe a procedural question as I'm reading the staff recommendations.
- So and refresh my memory but recommending that Wickens be accepted in county inventory prior to plan
- commission making a vote isn't
- the Planning Commission who accepts it in inventory or is that the Board of Commissioners? So we would
- expect the Board of Commissioners to accept or decline bringing Wickens in and then come back to this?
- Is that the way the procedure, you envision the procedure going? That was the original discussion point
- for this petition, yes. And I may have just restated what Mr. Andrei Randolph asked just in a different
- way, but thank you for entertaining it. Thank you. On my right.
- Yes, I don't know if highway County highway is on line because I have a question for them I Think that
- they're all at the Purdue Road School conference this week So I don't Lisa stayed in her letter that
- she would not be present I don't see anyone else from highway in attendance because I believe they're all
- at that conference. Is there any member of staff who would be able to provide me with just with a very
- rough back of the envelope estimate of what it would cost to repave that road and upkeep it for the
- length of the street and for, you know,
- I think that the petitioner's engineer might be able to give us some quick numbers, but we can also
- try to do that as well. Okay, great. I just would like to, in my mind, understand the cost differential
- between public and private and all that that entails, because I know that there are a lot of options
- out there and there are various calculations as far as cost to the private parties as well as to the
- public parties, including the taxpayer.
- And just to clarify your question, Margaret, is it to replace, remove and replace the surface coat of
- Rangeview only or? You know, in my experience here in Monroe County as a homeowner and as someone who
- is out and about, I hear stories from other members of the public who belong to homeowners associations.
- And when they encounter a situation
- where the roadway has to be replaced on a private road. They're set with the tax assessment, which in
- some cases could result in a homeowner losing their property because the property could be attached
- until that assessment would be paid. So I just don't know what the costs are for the difference between
- the roadway being in
- held privately or publicly? I mean, we've heard this year, for example, demands from different political
- members of our community for snow removal in other privately held subdivisions where the roadways were
- not accepted into the public inventory. And these costs to the public should be known
- for us to be able to make, I think, an informed decision. Thank you. All right, that brings us to the
- petitioner's rep or the petitioner, and you have 15 minutes. Please start the timer.
- Daniel Butler, I'm with Bynum Fanion Associates. I'm a professional engineer here in Indiana. I won't
- go through the presentation or the length that I did last time, but just try to give you a rundown again
- from our point of view of everything that's transpired to this point to kind of, and then answer any
- questions. Tom Weininger with ownership is with me here tonight, so if there's any questions for him.
- Just as a reminder that this was designed
- from a pavement depth, pavement width. Range view was designed as a public road. So everything was designed
- that way and built that way with the exception of the deficiencies that you were laid out tonight, if
- that makes sense. So...
- We had discussion years ago on when this was being constructed and approved about back and forth on
- Rangeview being a private versus public street. I think there was pros and cons to both of those. I
- think at that time we didn't mind going either direction. And so we're asking now at that time the decision
- was made that Rangeview should be public. So we're asking now that
- because the owner would like to maintain, have control over that street themselves. Again, it was built
- with, I think, Margaret, you had some questions about any type of upkeep on that road, but that pavement
- depth was put in there with the intention that that would be taken over by the county, meaning that
- I think it's gonna last a long time, so it wasn't put in with
- lesser degree in that regard, if that helps at all. He wants to take on his own snow plowing, cleaning,
- those types of things, you know, within the development, cleaning off sidewalks. To date, Bynum Fanio
- has performed an as-built on Wickens to
- see if there's any deficiencies on Wiccans, he'd like to address all deficiencies found by the highway
- department on Wiccans so that that can become a public road and taken into the inventory. And then we,
- as Biden fancies, no issue with it being with Rangeview becoming private and staying over. We just see
- it from a standpoint that we don't see many from the actual public,
- You know, it's not a collector road, it's just more of a local road in that regard, so staying private
- makes sense to us. Many of the deficiencies that were listed, he is willing to make even within Rangeview,
- there are some that he has indicated that he is not willing to make at this time, but everything on
- Wickens he is willing to make.
- I'll leave the rest for questions if there's anything that you want to ask. And we've progressed and
- had a meeting with planning since then about deficiencies found and any of those types of questions,
- I'm happy to answer. All right, questions from the commission, go ahead.
- Hey Dan, thank you for coming up and speaking again. Just so I hear you honestly, you mentioned that
- Rangeview was built to spec for public takeover into the county inventory. Can you help me understand
- kind of how we got where we are, where it was intended to be taken to the county inventory and somewhere
- it kind of went off the rails and became less as it was spec'd out to be?
- Where did that happen? Can you kind of explain why it went that way? I don't know every bit in detail
- on, but some of the deficiencies found are, you know, cracks and sidewalks, those types of things. And
- so those are just something that was found. So not necessarily contributed to not wanting to build it
- per standards, but just simple, you know, cracks. And there are,
- codes that talk about, you know, cracks being less than a quarter inch, then, you know, that's really
- acceptable. And when they get larger than that, those really need to be fixed. And so I think mainly
- there was a desire from the owner to just want to maintain this in control and plow in at his own timing
- and maintain the road to my understanding, sir.
- I mean, there's more than just the cracks. I mean, there's a variety of things on here that the petitioner
- is not willing to accommodate. So where did those things no longer become a focal point? And that calculation
- became no longer for this to be a public road, but to be a private road, because that seems to have
- been some sort of a change that was done unbeknownst to most of us up here. And so I'm just kind of
- curious at what point since 2018 did that change?
- I'm not sure to the extent, and it may not be for me to answer, I'm not sure to the extent that any
- deficiencies found were a result of him wanting to maintain that road himself. I don't know if those
- two are related. Could you speak at all as to why they would have transpired then?
- Some of the deficiencies. Yeah, I mean, because they seem to be concerted efforts to not meet
- the requirements. So I'm just kind of curious, you know, if it's a conscious effort, that says something.
- Yeah, as the owner's representative, I was not there and understand some of why maybe some
- of the deficiencies took place or how those came about or decisions made. They some of the as was stated,
- some of those were not necessarily
- per plan and those were made adjustments later. But if we need to, he's here and he asked. Were you
- a party to any of those discussions? No, sir. And is part of the engineering team for this, I mean,
- are those things that would have been instrumental as part of what you're doing with Tom? Some of the
- deficiencies found certainly could have been a result of
- reasoning that's unbeknown to me. The plans originally made it so that some of those could not have
- happened, sure, but some of those can still be obtained or if it's not a public road, they're not the
- same level of deficiency perhaps.
- And is the engineer on this project, if you had known these deficiencies were going to come to be, would
- you have been okay with going along with the engineering for this? You're saying if the deficiency,
- if I would have known the deficiencies, I think some of them were simply construction type things that
- if they would have been asked at me at the time, you know, we could have,
- tried to figure out a solution or a different way, sure, but that's, you know, the efficiencies are
- what they are at this point. And I think that some of them could have, you know, potentially been avoided,
- but at the same time, I think that we understand from a construction standpoint that why some of them occurred
- And on projects like this, is it routine for the builder to, to discuss with you or bring you in when
- changes like this are made, or is it pretty much a unilateral thing and then you're just along for the
- ride? Um, that varies from project to project on how something that might, might occur, but, um, give
- me a rough percentage. Yeah. 50%. Okay. Cool. Thanks. We had a commissioner Thomas. Um,
- Okay so one of the issues that's in our packet relates to Wiccans Drive and it has not yet been accepted
- in the county road inventory as you noted right but the plan is to do that. Can you tell me when? I
- believe that the steps are being taken
- towards that now. So the first thing that was requested was an as built from our firm that gives an
- exact measurement of everything that's actually built as compared to what the plan was. And then deficiencies
- are found off of something that is more official rather than somebody just doing a site inspection.
- And at this point, there's been no indication from our
- from the owner that he's unwilling to make any of the deficiencies that are found on Wickens. And so
- sometimes those construction processes can take a little bit of time, but it sounds like some of those
- need to be fixed first before that might taken into inventory. For someone who's not in that business,
- a little bit of time, are you talking a three month window, a six month window, a nine month window?
- I mean, I'm not gonna hold you to a date, but a ballpark,
- would be helpful for me here as I'm trying to make a decision. Right, as you're well aware that different
- contractors have different times, I don't know if I feel comfortable unless there's, he wants to speak
- directly to that on what he thinks the timelines might be. I don't wanna say something that, my best
- guess is three to six months. Okay.
- understand that there are a lot of schedules at play and that it's not entirely just, Hey, we want it
- to happen. It'll happen. I get that. I, I just didn't know if we were two years out or five years out,
- but it sounds like, okay. Thank you.
- I'm gonna ask planning and then I'm pretty much gonna ask you the same question. So the recommendation
- to continue this is in hopes that they can address wickets and bring that into the inventory so we can
- kind of separate these two roads in a kind of in a different way of saying it. Is that correct? Yeah.
- Also, it was in Lisa Ridge's letter that the Highway Department wants to see wickets accepted into the
- inventory. Okay. Well, perfect. Like I said, those are two experts that are departments I really want
- to hear from to help me weigh my decision. The question is pretty similar. What are you looking at?
- Would you prefer this to be continued or would you like this to be moved forward to the board
- of commissioners? And if you can't speak on their behalf, maybe you could ask real quick. I'm kind of
- trying to understand what your position is, if this would be best to move in a continuation or? It seemed
- to indicate from him that he's flexible, he's fine with what planning
- would have. I think getting an answer on whether how everyone views Rangeview being private versus public
- would be great, but it sounds like he's flexible. I foresee a lot of back and forth if Wickens isn't
- to that standard to be accepted. So like I feel like we can kind of get this cart in order and I'm
- at this point, and my position is to support the staff's recommendation and continue this forward as
- you tried to work out the Wiccans thing. So maybe it's only a little less of a question when it makes
- it to the board of commissioners to determine what they're gonna do about the other roadway. Yeah, I
- think we would align with
- I don't think there's any conditions in the positive recommendation that staff is giving that would
- be, we would be against or anything. We've been trying our best to work with them as we've met to go
- efficiencies found, find if with an as built, if that's true and what standards that they may or may
- not meet public versus private. Awesome. And then one more question to planning since, you know,
- it's hard to determine maybe when this wiccans can be built to highway standards and potentially be
- accepted into the right of way. Is there any timeline that we need to be aware of that we're making
- this decision prior to, or should we continue this to a certain meeting or give you discretion to bring
- it back when maybe that portion of this is resolved?
- I believe we'll have to state what meeting this gets continued to and what the date of that meeting
- will be on record. If the petitioner's representative is saying three to six months, we could put it
- on the agenda for three months from now. I do think that the two projects that are going to take a little
- bit longer are the relocation of the mailboxes because we'll have to work
- They'll have to work with the US Postal Service, and that can take a little bit of time. And the additional
- construction of, I think it was 151 feet of sidewalk on the west side of South Wickens, that's going
- to also require the developer to work with a private owner to get a driveway permit. And I don't know
- how responsive that private developer will be. And they don't want to,
- Tom doesn't want to put in the sidewalk to block their access. If they don't have a driveway permit,
- it could get damaged. So it's going to be pretty quick turnaround. Once he gets the sidewalk in on that
- side, he's going to quickly ask for that to be accepted. So I think three months check in is probably
- as soon as it could be depending these changes. I don't know that we've seen any correspondence as of
- late as to making progress on
- those two specific items. So it will take some time. All right. And is there a particular date we need
- to be aware of? So we don't go past that. I don't have a particular day. Um, okay. So, so, but even
- if we moved it four, five months, that still kind of falls within what you're looking at. Right. Okay.
- Thank you. Okay. Mr. Bush, I think my question has been.
- Councilman Henry, you got anything? I have a follow-up question for staff, if I might, since you're
- up here. I wonder if it's possible, since these really are two separate issues, if those could be addressed
- separately. So for example, setting out a timeline for Wiccans that allows that
- six or eight months or something to go by before instituting a letter of credit, a bond for the rest
- of that Wickens project. And then separately, if this plan commission decides to address the range view
- circle issue, we're urgently
- if that's the decision here with a separate bond, inflation based bond for the range view circle. You
- all see what I'm saying? Yes. I'm wondering if we could separate these two things out. And I think we
- could, but I'm just throwing that out there. And if you have any concerns. So the specific request before
- you that line plan amendment is
- only for making Rangeview private by default, Wiccans would remain publicly classified. So we could,
- the Planning Commission could come up with some sort of condition that states Wiccans has a timeline
- for acceptance or possibly implementing some sort of letter of credit to that effect. I don't know.
- I'm not sure, I'll have to talk to Lee.
- could go either way and have them do the letter of credit and finish that up or set a timeline for that.
- Could we set a timeline and if they don't meet that timeline then ask for the letter of credit? Yes.
- Perfect. Thank you. Anybody else? Just to continue that, would that mean there's a chance that
- planning could come back next month with it separated or were you thinking that we could take action
- today, maybe move this to the end of the agenda, give them some time to provide a way forward to separate
- the question? Because I'm in support of that. I'm just kind of trying to see if that's something we
- should try to hash out today or just let them come back next month and address them separately.
- question or is that a comment a discussion but it could be a question to planning to as far as what
- they would prefer just clarify just a second under Clements repeat what I thought I heard planning already
- say and that is that they recommended not separating them out but making whatever our motion is on on
- range view to be conditioned
- with the timeline as well as a letter of credit, if I heard correctly. So our initial thought is to
- possibly continue this one month to see if we can get timelines and progress on WICMs being accepted.
- The easiest thing for us would be to come with this petition with WICMs already accepted.
- And then you could knock out that part of the conversation completely and know that it's been inspected.
- It's been approved and it's in the inventory. So if there's not a rush on the petitioner's part to get
- range, you reclassify as private and we don't have a timeline for which we have to make a decision.
- It could be that this is the carrot to get this petition through. It's on everyone's radar.
- And in the meantime, we make progress on the range view, voluntary improvements and wickets so that
- you can make the informed decision. And I do have a number for you, Margaret, for your first question
- on, I went back to the estimate that we had in place for range view and adding up just the quantities
- and then using the 2025 end up pricing. This is strictly for surface coat.
- The amount total for a range view alone would be $57,854.10. That's using the highway department's original
- estimate and updating the unit pricing. How often would that quote need to be applied? You know, do
- you have an idea? I do not know how long surface coat would last. The last few years.
- question? I had a bit of a follow-up if I might. Go ahead. So the concern here is that we don't have,
- when you have in your notes the negative recommendation, it says we do not have an accurate estimate
- since we do not have a new engineered plan. So how do we get that done in a month? I don't think we're going to.
- That's my concern is that this could just, you know, we could just be postponing the inevitable here.
- Um, because they didn't, it didn't sound like there were plans to make range view public, right? So
- that was clear. That's clear now. And that was clear. I mean, am I wrong on that?
- No, I think we're okay. Now we prefer the to be private. Right. So it seems to me we're postponing the
- inevitable here. But we don't have an estimate, but I don't think we need that to make a decision. Right.
- the negative recommendation just to clarify we cannot do those aren't necessarily conditions we just
- have to figure those out as staff but the the reality is a negative vote to continue to make range you
- public instead of private is that we need to hold them to a letter of credit amount to fix the deficiencies
- and i don't know that we got to the bottom of that because we did look through the manual for construction
- in the right of way and there is some issue
- for some of those driveways. And so it's going to be very difficult to come up with new plans, as you
- saw with, for instance, another subdivision in the county where you already have a steep driveway and
- you need to possibly make it steeper to fix the sidewalk. So I don't know to what extent that would
- cost or if there's another engineering idea that would be factored into that letter of credit.
- So a negative recommendation, put staff in a position to ask for a letter of credit, but we don't have
- the engineered plans to remediate it. So then we don't have an amount yet to ask. But that's not necessary
- to make a motion to that effect. It's just something that has to be done. It's a reality. Yeah. Okay.
- Got it. Thank you. All right. I think it's important.
- that Wickens and Rangeview be separated. I think they should have their own period of performance. I
- think they should have their own letter of credit. I mean, it's important to Highway, after reading
- this letter several times, that we bring that road, Wickens, into the inventory. So I think we should
- do whatever we can do to get it into the inventory. That's one issue. Solve it. Put it to the side.
- With respect to Rangeview, I still have
- serious concern over the deficiencies. And if you'll go ahead and put page 10 back up there. I mean,
- there are, if I counted these correctly, there's 15 deficiencies on this page. And nine of them have
- not willing, six have willing. That's a serious noncompliance issue.
- And they need to be addressed. And the last meeting, I brought up the words of systemic noncompliance.
- And what I was hopeful for is that, and we had asked for, is to take and put in one place all
- the deficiencies from the inspection reports and what are the comments going over the last few years,
- put them in one place, let's go ahead and itemize them and then go down that list and figure out where
- we are on each and every one of them.
- Did that meeting take place between the last meeting and today on this, and this is the result of that
- meeting? That is correct. Okay, and of the nine that say not willing, has there been, within the last
- week or so, any movement whatsoever on whether or not you wanna come into compliance? And the one's
- highlighted in red there.
- Unless the owner wants to speak to these, I think what they have listed is correct. I'm seeing a nodding
- nodding of your head back there. So I mean, even when you made reference to the positive recommendations
- saying you were you could live with what those comments were.
- Item three was amend the parking striping from perpendicular to parallel to match the approved plans
- with West Ranchview circle. And of course that's in red here is that's conflict that comment. So which
- is true? I think he originally was asking that he did not want to comply with that, but that would be
- if there's a positive recommendation given and we move this forward, I think that's something that he
- would live with.
- I see them nodding yes in the back. Okay. The other thing I want to bring up and it's really in the
- highway department's letter and it's very bold. It deals with the ADA noncompliance and I keep bringing
- this up in many forms. That's the safety aspect of it. There's a real concern about people getting hurt.
- Particularly when cars are parked a certain way and the roads are, I've driven out there a couple times
- now. It's a really, really highly impacted area with vehicles. And I don't know how many kids are in
- the neighborhood, but running between those cars, that's very, very dangerous. So there is a serious,
- in my mind, safety issue. Another thing that Ms. Ridge brings up is a liability issue because of the
- ADA noncompliance.
- and the fact that the county does not want to assume that liability. I assume that would pass on to
- the commissioner if in fact it becomes private, correct? That's correct. And those were my comments,
- that's all. I was looking, honestly I was looking for, I was looking for
- Changes to the items listed in red on that one deficiency sheet. Okay, anybody else before we proceed
- with public comment? Okay, now we move into the public public comment portion for those in favor Anybody
- online or in the room? Okay, anybody who's opposed online or in a room So now we come back to the
- to the plan. On the left. Ready to make a motion, but I'll wait for comments. Councilman Henry.
- Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, staff. I think it's important to focus on the positive that
- I think not so much focusing on what's not being agreed to move forward with in terms of range use.
- To say that it sounds like there was a good conversation between staff and developer on meeting some
- standards. That's a
- positive we should point out in this room today. There's also the fact that we have highway, of their
- bulleted points, saying ultimately keeping the road or range view private is important as well based
- on the conflict between what was developed and what's in the CDO. So I think there's
- There's value in recognizing the work that was done to get to today and the recommendations were put
- forth by staff. I appreciate the separation of the question because there are two conversations here
- about the ingress with Wiccans and getting that close to finished and then where we are with Rangeview.
- And I think for me, keeping centered on the question of the petition is more important than
- Developing we are risking straw man discussions about safety and a compliance in the neighborhood. There
- are plenty of neighborhoods in Monroe County where that slope is grandfathered in or previous iterations
- of development ordinance that can be pointed to it so some of this is.
- you know, intriguing when we get into children in the neighborhood or how many children in the neighborhood
- or what safety concerns are. It sounds like keeping the road private puts that liability with a potential
- successor or HOA that would take on that burden to maintain ingress and egress there. So I would say
- that, you know, I think we have some positive motion here for continuance. I would agree with that,
- you know, recommendation today to move forward with it. You know, the good news is we got some progress
- between our experts at highway and planning and with,
- the developer here to move forward. So I appreciate that good effort as we move forward here. I would
- like to say something. Yes. For me, having this road in a private inventory has always been problematic
- and we have an agreement that it would be entered into the public inventory.
- And that was important to me when this PUD was approved and it remains important to me at this time.
- I just want to say that, that it should be built to standard and it should be built to compliance. And
- I just would like to affirm that. Mr. Bush? Yes. Appreciate your comments, Mr. Butler.
- I am not opposed to continuing this. I still have a real problem with some construction results that
- happened on Rangeview Circle. I know already and so I'm looking at the record as to how some of this
- happened. I know that in some other developments I've heard there's been issues because they hit rock
- and they couldn't
- couldn't go as deep as they wanted. And on this one, it seems like I believe it's in the Mr. Smith's
- comments that the as-built townhomes on the north side of the development were built too high, resulting
- in sidewalk cross slopes that exceed the 2% maximum.
- I'm suspicious as to whether that was, what the cause of that was. If it was that the subsurface
- investigations weren't performed such that they realized that the, in the original design, that it was
- realized that the bedrock was shallower than anticipated, that something's preventable. And something
- that in with proper due diligence and proper
- design on the front end would prevent those as-built from being built the way they were. Therefore,
- I'm okay with continuing this, but I am going to be very wary of approving plan unit developments going
- forward where there's not enough work done on the front end to assure me that the finished design will at least
- closely mimic what is being proposed on the front. Thank you. Any other comments from the commission?
- Motion? I would like to make a motion. With, I guess, one question of planning. I was thinking about
- continuing this to the May meeting to give you a
- couple of months. Do you see any urgency or are you planning to have a quite large workload where it'd
- be nice to have kind of a two-month period because my motion is going to ask for a few things.
- Depending on what you're looking for at that next meeting, the petitioner's representative is saying
- three to six months for Wiccans improvements. So I don't know if in one month we would have a substantial
- update. Let me make my motion and then I'll see what your thoughts are on what day we continue to. I'd
- like to make a motion to continue case number PUD-23-5.
- planning, looking at if they could possibly separate the two roads into two separate petitions, Winwick
- and Rangeview Road, with the hopes that we can get Winwick Road into the county inventory prior to this meeting.
- present that to us. And that's where I'm kind of going to ask that like the May admin meeting. So then
- we can kind of discuss it at the May regular meeting. Would that be easier as far as a timeline? Because
- it might take a little while for you to look at if you can separate these two different requests. I
- think that the
- motion is to continue the petition to give staff time to separate out range you and wiccans if possible
- if possible and to maybe assign a little bit more detailed information like letter of credit costs or
- something like that yes well yeah we could just if it
- Yes. So the petitioner's request is to make range view private. They're not changing the classification
- of wiccans to public, but we could come back for more information separating that out in the staff report.
- And it won't be something you can vote on separately. Like there won't be a P U O 23 five a range view
- P U O 23 five B wiccans because wiccans was never petitioned to change.
- Okay, so maybe I kind of was following the conversation a little inaccurate. I thought that
- was a possibility. If you're thinking now that it's not. So I would just ask to continue this petition
- P U O dash 23 dash five. And I'm going to ask for it to be moved forward three months at the June
- 16th and commission meeting in hopes that they're able to get to a point where when work could be accepted
- into the inventory or we're pretty confident that that's going to occur. So basically spacing out to
- that three months from now. That's my motion.
- It's been moved and seconded to continue PUO-23-5 Highlands PUO outline plan amendment to parcel E to
- June 16th. Point of order. Can I offer a friendly amendment now or we have to wait until after? Go ahead
- and offer it. I thought we talked about having a period of performance for completion and a letter of
- credit as well. Was that part of your motion?
- Yeah, I'm okay with I think we need to do we have to stipulate that I thought that I think you do have
- to stipulate that he's postponing our decision until June. So that includes that we do or we don't need
- to add that. I wouldn't bother because what he's doing is continuing the petition. Correct me if I'm
- wrong. You're continuing the petition. You're motioning to continue the petition till June. So we are
- making a decision on anything. Yeah, pretty right.
- I withdraw the federal amendment comment. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to continue PEO-23-5 to
- June 16th, 2026. And the comment there is in hopes that the petitioner makes progress on getting wickets
- and wickets accepted into the road inventory and voluntary improvements to range you completed. A vote
- yes is about to continue this to June 16th, 2026.
- Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? No. David Bush? Yes. Margaret Clements? No. Trenton Wright-Randolph?
- Yes. Scott Farris? No. David Henry?
- That motion does fail four to three. Sorry, did I call Julie Thomas? Yes, I did. Thank you. Oh, again,
- point of order. What's the next step now that failed? Someone could do another motion. And if that also
- fails, eventually,
- We will get to the point where we just have to put this on the next agenda, which is in May. Sorry,
- in April. May I ask a question for clarification? It seems like Wiccans really shouldn't be part of
- this at all. And it's a separate issue, right? So that might help somebody make a motion. I'm just gonna
- throw that out there.
- I will say that it's been several years since these have been completed and the petitioner has been
- made aware of the inspection report to get wickets in the inventory. And this these recent conversations
- have been the most productive and getting them to move in that direction. But yes, they are separate.
- It could become an enforcement action or something else. Okay. Thank you.
- Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Mr.
- President. They're conferring. We were just discussing that the
- The prior outline plan amendment and the underlying outline plan which was approved by the city so the
- 2018 outline plan amendment to change those setbacks part of the Requirements for those approvals the
- outline plan the development plan was to Post a letter of credit was to make sure wiccans is still public.
- So none of that is being
- eliminated here in this amendment. It's strictly just reviewing whether range you can be private. So
- we do have the ability to still enforce or require all of those other improvements that are building
- us up to this point. Absolutely. I certainly recognize that. Absolutely. But I just think for this particular
- petition, maybe just if we
- drop consideration of Wiccans, it doesn't mean it doesn't have to be done, but if we take that out of
- the mix, then maybe somebody can make a motion that will pass. Councilman Henry, did you have a question?
- It's related to this, so two parts. One is why was staff's recommendation conditional with Wiccans attached
- to this? What was the origin of that request? So we wanna make,
- So typically when we have a subdivider developer in front of us, we have a letter of credit on file
- and a performance period and an inflation adjustment. We do not have that with this development anymore.
- So we will need to reinstate that. One of the things that we've found is that with the inflation adjustment,
- developers are coming to us and trying to get their developments finished in a timely fashion.
- Whereas prior, where they could renew at the same amount,
- they were not moving very quickly. So we have not seen a very quick move to make Wickens public. There
- is a cost associated with making Wickens public, and we haven't seen that progress being made at all.
- So, because that does track with Commissioner Thomas's question about dividing the question, right?
- The planning staff are somewhere, we made a condition, Wickens being conditional for,
- Rangeview Circle, right? But what prevents us from dividing the question and taking these as two different
- cases? They have not requested any change to Wiccans from being public. So regardless, we can start
- enforcement or do another pathway to get Wiccans accepted. Tying it to this petition has just been helpful
- in that they seem motivated to turn Rangeview private.
- And it seems like it would be prudent for you all to see progress being made on at least some portion
- of the road, becoming public or being accepted into the inventory. But they would have to come back
- to you to make it private. But we can't force them to do those improvements any faster. They're not
- on a enforcement template. I follow that piece. That's the logic piece. So to the chairman, yeah, the
- point of information is, is there anything that prevents the Planning Commission from dividing the question
- and considering
- range for you separately despite staff's recommendation? Can we divide the question and just take them
- as separate? You could drop Wiccans all together. Yes, all these conditions are for you to consider.
- And there's no petition on the table regarding Wiccans right now. So correct. Correct. So here's an
- education for me. Isn't it between the highway department and the petitioner when it comes to the inventory
- and satisfying the resolution of those deficiencies?
- And assuming that the highway department works with a petitioner and they resolve all those things and
- pass whatever inspections needs to pass that the highway department takes the action then to pull it
- in the inventory. And if that is the case, and this is education for me, does it even have to come back
- to the plan commission? No, it would not. For wickets.
- Or Wiccans, if Wiccans was accepted into the inventory. OK, and so I would I would offer that's exactly
- what we need to do then and separate these two, put it between the Highway Department and the petitioner,
- let them resolve the deficiencies, do the inspection, pull it into the inventory. Now, do we need a
- separate motion to do that or is that something that is already in play? The Highway Department typically
- operates as people want to have their
- roads taken into the inventory. They're not necessarily going and searching for roads that were dedicated
- as being public and are still private. So I would say that if you could, as a comment, if not a condition,
- state that, you know, with my motion, I would expect that, you know, that wiccans be accepted into the
- inventory in six months' time, or else we could forward
- legal to start an enforcement action or you could state or we could ask planning staff to give you a
- status update in six months time on the agenda about whether it's been done and we can go from there.
- Just to be clear, the bond that we hold for Wiccans is insufficient to finish the work for Wiccans.
- So we do not have a letter of credit for this development. I don't know if the highway department still
- has any kind of driveway surety, which is like the entry point for Wickens and Rockport. But to my knowledge,
- we do not have any funds. But in speaking with Mr. Schilling, we can of course reinstate those because
- it was requirement of the approval. Thank you. All right, so right now there's no motion on the table.
- Do we have a new motion on the table? My left. All right. If we don't make a motion, it comes back before
- us in April, right?
- It comes back to us in April because we have no motion. What you're doing is we would try to keep it
- to updates. But yes, we could hypothetically restart this conversation.
- Just as a bellwether and with my finger up in the air, I'd like to make a motion on PUO-23-5 that we
- send a negative recommendation to the commissioners. Is there a second for that? Second. Okay, it's
- been moved and seconded to send a negative recommendation to the county commissioners for PUO-23-5.
- Vote yes is a vote to send a negative recommendation. David Bush. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Tron
- and Ray Randolph. No. Scott Ferris. Yes. David Henry. No. Jeff Morris. Yes.
- Julie Thomas? Yes. Okay, so that motion does pass five to two. All right. So let's go ahead and move
- on to new business. And this is the SMN 25-7, the Robert Maher Minor Subdivision Primary Plan Amendment 1.
- And it looks like there's a with waiver request and also a waiver for a final hearing. And I think that's
- you, Drew. So please proceed. One moment. Let me get the slideshow up here.
- All right, one more moment while this page loads for me. While the page loads, and I just like to be
- transparent. And I have no financial conflict of interest in this case. And I am an acquaintance of
- the petitioner.
- We have not spoken about this case. Um, and I wonder if the petitioner or if anyone on the commission
- has an objection to me sitting on, uh, and hearing this case, I would just say that I'm going to support
- this. I feel like it's going to be an easy one. So if it makes you more comfortable by excusing yourself,
- I don't, I think it's going to fly through. So just.
- I'm putting my cards out there. I'm supporting this. I don't feel like I have a conflict and I just
- want to give the petitioner a chance to ask that I not sit in on it. But if it's okay, I will remain.
- Thank you. All right. So this is SMN-25-7, the Robert Maher Minor Subdivision Primary Plot Amendment
- 1. It does include a road with waiver request. This is the preliminary hearing and a waiver of final
- hearing has been requested.
- This is for two parcels on 31.57 acres in Indian Creek Township, Section 8, at 7626 South Birch Road.
- The property is currently zoned Agricultural Residential 2.5. The petitioner is proposing a primary
- plot amendment to the Robert Maher Minor subdivision in order to subdivide the existing 31.57 acres
- of lot number two to create a new lot containing 10.19 acres.
- The original Robert Maher minor subdivision established two lots across 41.77 acres, and this was done
- under the previous zoning ordinance. The minor subdivision procedure allows to create up to four lots
- as long as each lot contains a minimum of 10 acres when serviced by a septic system. So because the
- original subdivision created only two lots, a third lot is possible through the primary plot amendment
- procedure.
- Proposed Lot 2A will contain 21.38 acres or 19.73 acres buildable and include the existing structures
- at 7626 South Birch Road with existing road frontage and access to South Birch Road via an existing
- platted 50-foot egress easement that cuts through Lot 1 of the original Robert Moore minor subdivision.
- Lot 1 of that subdivision is not impacted by this
- amendment as the existing access to lot two will remain and the dimensions of lot one are not being
- adjusted through this amendment. The proposed new lot, lot 3A, will contain 10.19 acres, 9.77 acres
- buildable and have road frontage and access to South Birch Road independently. The primary plot,
- as I stated, does include the waiver request for road width as South Birch Road measures 17 feet in width
- According to Chapter 832-8A, subdivisions accessed from existing roads less than 18 feet in width shall
- be prohibited unless waived pursuant to subdivision waiver section, Chapter 830-10, and is reviewed
- by the Plan Commission. So road widths less than or equal to 17 feet with an ADT of less than or equal
- to 80 vehicles per day is the requirement for the waiver request.
- The petitioner has submitted traffic data, which was provided to the Highway Department for ADT calculations,
- and the Highway Department provided those calculations. They are included in this presentation, although
- the exhibit itself did not make it into the staff packet, but I will show that on the screen here shortly.
- The Highway Department, therefore, does support the road with waiver request citing the ADT data from
- those calculations.
- Also on the screen is the stormwater slash drainage board comments. The drainage board approved the
- subdivision at their meeting on February 20th, 2026 with the following comments, one through three.
- One being at a 30 foot drainage easement centered on the flow lines at the north end of the property.
- Number two, place the pond in its outflow within a drainage easement that's on lot 3A. And they also
- stated that there are no known sinkholes or karst features on the property. Each of those comments have
- been addressed by the petitioner and the petitioner's representative.
- Now on the screen is the memorandum from the Highway Department that verifies the ADT calculations and
- their support for the road width waiver request. This was not included in the packet as I received it
- after the date of the publishing, but I am showing to you now on the screen for the record. Now on the
- screen is a summary of the two lots that are being changed here. We have lot 2A and lot 3A.
- On the left hand column, we have different categories, including wastewater, property access, right
- of way dedication, environmental conditions, existing structures. And then in the bottom, we have chapter
- 832 improvement and design standards details. All of this information is included in the packet. As
- I stated before, this is a primary plot amendment. So it has been plotted already. There is existing
- dedicated right of way and there are
- existing access points and then of course the new access point to lot 3A. When this was originally approved
- as well it received a buried utility waiver and now they were requesting the road width waiver. That
- is different than in the original application because the previous zoning ordinance and subdivision
- control ordinance did not have specific
- development standards regarding the 18 foot wide requirement for minor subdivisions and that was updated
- with the county development ordinance which was adopted December 18th, 2024. Now I'll click through
- some exhibits. Here's the location map. We're in Indian Creek Township. This is South Birch Road on
- the north side here. We have the zoning map showing the agricultural residential zone.
- Here on the screen, we have the site conditions map showing slopes greater than 25%. You'll see that
- there are very few. Those are tinged with the red. That's kind of hard to see, but there are some slopes
- greater than 25% as you get south on the property towards the existing pond and the stream or creek
- that's back there as well. And then just some aerial imagery here. And then some on the ground photos.
- So this on the left-hand side is where the new proposal for lot 3A is located, and the driveway will
- be located in this area as well. And on the right-hand side of the screen, we have the existing driveway
- that cuts through lot number 1 that provides access through a 50-foot egress easement to lot 2A. Now
- on the screen are some pictures of some structures that are on the existing lot 2, which will become
- lot 2A, the structure as well.
- again on lot 2A. Now on the screen is the primary plot amendment document. I'm going to go ahead and
- click to the next page that has a little bit zoomed in of the dimensions here and the configuration.
- So you can see lot 3A on the eastern side. That's the newly created lot from the original lot 2, and
- then lot 2A still showing the existing structures. Lot 3A has that existing pond now placed in a drainage
- easement, per the drainage board's comments.
- And Lot 2A also includes a tree planting area, preservation area in the southwest corner. That is a
- requirement of the county development ordinance in lieu of street trees being planted along the street.
- Although street tree plantings aren't required for this subdivision, when that requirement is not needed,
- there is still a requirement for a tree preservation area, and that is shown on the plan.
- Now on the screen is the original Robert Maher minor subdivision that shows the larger existing lot
- two and again the unchanged lot one. And now on the screen we have the findings of facts submitted by
- the petitioner on the left and on the right we have the raw data from the traffic analysis that was
- provided to planning and highway staff.
- All right, now for staff's recommendation. Staff recommends approval for the subdivision based on the
- finding that the proposed primary plat meets the county development ordinance, subject to highway engineer
- and stormwater program manager reports. Additionally, approve the road with waiver requests, citing
- practical difficulties have been demonstrated. And we originally had a set of conditions, one through
- three. Each of those have been completed since the plat committee hearing.
- I can read them, but they're here, and just for the record, they each have been completed. Thank you.
- I will not take any questions. Any questions from the commissioners up left? Right. Okay, petitioner
- or petitioner's representative, you've got 15 minutes. The sun is still shining and it's St. Patty's Day.
- And if you approach the podium, state your name and sign in, please. Hi, I'm Eric Decker with Decker
- Land Surveying, and we agree to the recommendations by staff. And in fact, they've already been submitted
- back to planning. If there's any questions that the commission may have, be glad to answer. Questions
- left? Questions right? All right, so.
- I guess we can move on to public comment. Those in favor in the room or online, anybody? All right,
- anybody opposed? There were two people who raised their hands. I can't see them. Raise their hands if
- they would like to speak. Oh, okay. Go ahead and approach the podium, sign in, state your name. Did
- you wish to speak? You wish to speak? Okay, no, they're just saying that they support it.
- Okay, we'll wait right back at you there. Thank you. Anybody else want to wave their hand back there?
- All right, all right, all right. Okay, anybody opposed online or in the room? I see none. So now we
- come back to the the plan commission left. We'll go starting right on this time. Any comment on the
- right? Comment on the left?
- Motion please. I'll go ahead and make one. In case number SMN-25-7, the Robert M. Maher and Bono McCustin
- property, I recommend we approve.
- recommend we approve this subdivision based on the findings of fact that the proposed primary plat meets
- the county development ordinance subject to the highway engineer and stormwater program manager reports
- and approve the road with waiver requests citing practical difficulties that had been demonstrated subject
- to the following conditions, which I believe have all been met. Conditions one, two, and three, do I
- need to state them?
- I don't believe you'll need to have any conditions if they've all been met. Okay, very good. And also
- a waiver of the final hearing. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve
- SMN-25-7, which includes the approval of the primary plat amendment one,
- Approval of the road width waiver and approval of a waiver of final hearing. A vote yes is a vote to
- approve all three items. Margaret Clements. Yes. John and Ray Randolph. Yes. Scott Ferris. Yes.
- David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes.
- Motion is approved, seven to zero, thank you. All right, that moves us on to public comment for items
- not on the agenda. Anybody in the room or online? You have three minutes. I see none. That comes to
- staff reports. Ms. Jelen. I don't believe I have anything. Our fine Esquire lawyer. No report.
- I have a motion to end the meeting and adjourn. I moved. Okay, thank you. Great job.