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.