- So I'm gonna go ahead and belatedly call this meeting to order. It is the Monroe County Plan Commission
- meeting for Tuesday, the 21st of April, 2026. And if you would go ahead and do a roll call, we'd greatly
- appreciate it. David Bush? Here. Margaret Clements? Here. Ronan Wright-Randolph? Here.
- David Henry, Jeffrey Morris, Julie Thomas, Van D. Venter, Stephen Bishop, City of Bloomington Rep. Happy
- to be here. We do have six members in person, seven people total. So that is a quorum. Okay, let's go
- ahead and do the introduction of evidence if you would.
- Okay, to introduce the following items into the evidence, the Monroe County Development Ordinance as
- adopted and amended, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted and amended, the Monroe County
- Plan Commission Rules of Procedure as adopted and amended, and the cases that were legally advertised
- and scheduled for hearing on tonight's agenda. Move approval of the evidence. Sorry. Second.
- Call the roll. Margaret Clements.
- Yes. On and write Randolph. Yes. Ferris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Passes
- six to zero. Okay. Next up is the March 17th, 2026 minutes.
- There's been a motion and a second to approve the March 17th, 2020. No. Perfect. All right. Motion and
- a second to approve the March 17th, 2026 minutes. Call the roll. Julie Thomas? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes.
- Scott Barris? Yes. Tronan Wright-Randolph? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. And David Bush? Yes. Motion carries.
- That takes us to administrative business. I think a quick review of the CDO prioritization update. We
- need to approve the agenda. Move to approve the agenda with notes of some of the. Let me go back to
- the agenda. I'll withdraw my motion.
- What I should have said was is that under unfinished business, we have two items. One is P.U.O. 25.4,
- which is the point P.U.D. outline plan for the garages being continued. So if you're here to listen
- or present, that will not be done at this meeting. The next item is the S.A.D. 2522, which is the Prince
- Administrative Subdivision Type E.
- which includes access to lots and a waiver for access to lots waiver and also a waiver for a frontage
- on improved streets. And that also is being continued. So if you're here to present or to watch, listen,
- it has been continued to the next meeting. And those are the only two changes to the agenda. I will
- now move approval of the agenda.
- All right, there's been a motion in a second to approve the agenda for this evening. Call the roll.
- Rudy Fields. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. Scott Ferris. Yes. Tronin Frank Randolph. Yes. Margaret Clements.
- Yes. David Bush. Yes. Motion carries. We've already approved the minutes. So now we get to administrative
- business on the CDO prioritization list.
- So the ordinance review committee met last Monday and kind of thought that it would be helpful to kind
- of discuss the remaining items from the CDO when it passed. There were 12 plus two more added items
- to the list.
- Staff kind of brainstormed and came up with a way to present this that would be a little more easier
- than all the bright neon colors previously had had. So at the bottom, you have the grayed out kind of
- areas that we have completed or have been struck with status to that right hand side. So those were
- that's ground that we've covered and have done text amendments for and then
- We have a few remaining ones at the top, such as number six, which was the original numbering. We've
- given it the prioritization of one after a discussion and it is slated to be reviewed at the ORC in
- June of 2026. And then the others, we just kind of, I think it was agreed that we combined eight and
- nine together and those will be researched by staff with a timeline to be determined and the rest of them then
- the original numbers are just listed there that we are still going to be working on and researching.
- So this is just an update. Happy to take any comments or if there's a different way that you would like
- to see this formatted, we're happy to kind of tweak that. Ron, I see you have a hand. Yes, there's a
- couple, just one thing. I just want to make one quick comment.
- We did make a vote to remove one item. That was the discussion about the 50 foot conservancy area. And
- I wanted to make sure that my vote was kind of on the record here as well that I was not in favor of
- removing. I didn't know. And the reason why is I think the provision in our stormwater ordinance is
- sufficient and
- I rather have seen us leave at 25 feet. But as discussed at the meeting, planning will bring back things
- to us to address if we start seeing unintended issues or burden continues to be put on property owners
- to do things on property. But I think it's pretty important and a big change in our ordinance.
- I want the public to know where my position is. So thank you. Just for the record, the ORC did vote
- three to one on that. It's not a change. It's keeping it as it is. All right. We made the change and
- we took it off the prior organization list. So I am addressing it going from 25 to 50 and that being
- done and then it being removed.
- baked into our ordinance but a motion to put on the prioritization list to see if that's exactly where
- we wanted to leave it and yes the ordinance review did but I don't think I misspoke if it was confusing
- pointing that out so I could clarify it my comment all right are there any other comments to my left
- with respect to the prioritization list
- That pretty much closes the administrative business and that takes us to new business and the item we're
- going to discuss first is SMN262 which is the foster minor subdivision primary plan to make four lots
- plus a special flood hazard area subdivision excess waiver.
- I'll note that this was something that was to be presented in front of the plant committee forum. And
- so as a result, it has been forwarded to the commission for decision. There will be no public comment
- as a result because this was a plant committee, correct?
- I can clarify, because this is a unique situation. Typically the way that it works for subdivisions
- is that when there is a waiver request that automatically will end up at the plan commission's decision,
- the plaque committee operates as an advisory body during those processes. The plaque committee was not
- able to hear this, so there is no recommendation from the plaque committee, but it is still up to the
- plan commission to make a final decision on subdivision waivers.
- but it does not require public comment, correct? It does require public comment, because it's a public
- hearing. It's not what the package said. OK, we'll include public comment. All right, so Drew, I think
- this is you, right? Yes, it is. And I know the part that you're referencing, no public comment required,
- that was an error on my part. I should have updated that when the subdivision waiver was formally requested.
- So I do apologize for not keeping that updated.
- But yes, this is SMN-26-2, the foster minor subdivision primary plant with a subdivision waiver that
- is the special flood hazard area subdivision access. This is a plan commission decision due to that
- waiver's request. This is for a four lot subdivision across 135.82 acres.
- Subject property is unplatted and currently consists of five parcels all zone agricultural residential
- 2.5. Upon review the properties deed records planning staff confirmed that the entire 135.83 acres is
- considered one lot of record and planning staff confirmed that the four lots minor subdivision will
- be the appropriate process given the property owners interest in creating the lot sizes that they have
- established with this proposal.
- All proposed lots will conform to the minimum requirements for subdividing land in the agricultural
- residential zoning district. Proposed lot one will contain 17.49 acres. Lot two will contain 16.09 acres.
- Lot three, 16.31 acres. And lot four, 83.58 acres. Lot four will contain the existing single family
- residence and associated outbuildings that are at the current residence of 8427 North Mount Pleasant Road.
- Proposed lots one and two will establish a new driveway entrance to North Mount Pleasant Road, while
- lot three and lot four will utilize existing driveway entrances. The petitioner has applied for right
- of way activity permits for lots one through four appropriately. A minimum specifications document by
- the health department was issued following final payment submitted to the health department through
- that application process. The packet reflects that that payment hadn't been issued yet,
- That was before the publication of the packet was before the payment was made. So the payment's been
- made and we have that documentation available now. Petitioner also submitted capacity letters for water
- and electricity services. Lot 3 received its own subject permit separately outside of the subdivision
- petition. Lot 3 also did receive its own variance that I'll touch on in a minute that is unrelated to
- the subdivision.
- and included conditions of approval that actually required this subdivision action to occur. LOP-4's
- driveway entrance is the subject matter of the subdivision waiver request. It is located in an area
- designated by the DNR best available floodplain mapping as an approximate floodway. A subdivision entrance
- through floodplain requires the approval of a subdivision waiver by the Planning Commission per the
- County Development Ordinance.
- And I will get into more details of that waiver request in a moment. Here on the screen we have a bit
- of information related to that variance for Lot 3. It was VAR-25-57. It was for an accessory dwelling
- unit that exceeded 1,000 square feet of living space. There were several requests related to that variance petition.
- That included number one, the petitioner apply for a subdivision by May 8 2026 that this petition, so
- it was applied for way before that date and we are hearing it this evening. Number two, an acknowledgement
- that no certificate of occupancy will be granted for the proposed single family dwelling until a subdivision
- is recorded and the lot in question is created. So that is one of the reasons why the petitioner wanted
- to move quickly and getting the subdivision on the docket and
- heard by the Planning Commission is because they are waiting for a certificate of occupancy for their
- accessory dwelling unit based on this subdivision's completion. Number three, the petitioner acknowledges
- that the variances will become void at the time of subdivision approval and recording and would not
- authorize the construction of an additional detached dwelling accessory to the proposed single family
- dwelling. Essentially right now, that structure was permitted as an accessory dwelling unit because
- it's all one lot of record, but when the subdivision is completed, that dwelling unit will be
- converted into the primary residence for that specific lot. Moving on to the special flood hazard area
- related to lot number four's driveway. According to chapter 832-9F2, access to a subdivision lot cannot
- be located in an area subject to flooding for substantial amounts of time. It reads, any subdivision
- proposing sole access that is subject to flooding for substantial periods of time that may impede the
- ability of emergency and public services to adequately serve created lots is prohibited.
- I got caught off a little bit there, but let's see. This provision does not apply to lots created exclusively
- for conservation purposes. This includes records of roadways prone to flooding by the IDNR, FEMA or
- Monroe County Highway Department records. If access for a subdivision is in proximity to a special flood hazard,
- area, an engineer shall submit proof that all access ways, including driveways and roadways, et cetera,
- are at least six inches above base flood elevation. Deckard plant surveying the surveying firm that's
- in charge of this petition confirmed that the center line of the driveway entrance for proposed lot
- four measures 575.87 feet in elevation. And according to DNR data, the base flood elevation for this
- area measures 575.9.
- So because it was more than six inches above base flood elevation, the requirement for this subdivision
- waiver was needed or triggered. Winter County Draining Board has reviewed this petition. They saw that
- on March 10, 2026.
- They mentioned that the existing driveway for Proposed Lot 4 is an existing special flood hazard area,
- confirming that. The petitioner stated and staff later confirmed that the driveway entrance in question
- was created by the county when the county installed the adjacent bridge just south of that driveway
- entrance on North Mount Pleasant Road. There is a 40 inch corrugated metal pipe culvert under the driveway
- as well to assist with drainage in the area. The floodplain administrator has reviewed this driveway
- and looked to see if there were any other relocation options.
- And due to terrain constraints to the north and the bridge to the south, there does not seem to be any
- other areas suitable for this entrance. All right, moving on to department comments. The highway department
- stated that their right of activity permits were all applied for and met the requirements. Stormwater
- program comments were related to drainage easements.
- as well as including the flood zones as drainage easements as well. All those comments have been addressed.
- Now we have the location map of the petition site of North Mount Pleasant Road. Here are the existing
- parcels shown of the property. Again, it's all one lot of record. Slopes greater than 25% are present
- on the property, but do not
- are not in an amount that prohibits the amount of buildable area for each lot. Here we have the zoning
- map. The zoning map showing agricultural residential. The comprehensive plan map in the upper right-hand
- corner shows that the property is farm and forest. Now on the screen we have some aerial pictometry
- of the petition site. You can see the existing
- single family residents and outbuildings. And that is the existing driveway that will be on lot four.
- And that is the one that is subject to the subdivision waiver. And you can see Indian Creek immediately
- to the south of that that goes under the county bridge that I mentioned earlier. I zoomed in image of
- that area specifically showing the residents, its outbuildings and the entrance of the driveway as well
- as Indian Creek. And another image showing that as well.
- a better view of the bridge here with the shadows and the stream. Now we have Table 1. This has the
- breakdown of all the lot dimensions and other improvement and design standards from the county development
- ordinance. So this is also included in the packet. Now on the screen we have the
- proposed subdivision plat and I'm going to click to the next page as a zoomed in version and we can
- come back to this for reference during the discussion. This on the screen now shows lots one, two, and
- three and their associated septic approved septic locations and driveways. And then here we have lot
- four. Again, this is the lot that is pertinent to the subdivision waiver request with respect to the
- floodplain.
- You can see the dotted line here where my cursor is on the right side or eastern side of the property
- that is where the flood approximate floodway designation is and it does capture the area where the driveway
- entrance is located. Right that brings me to staffs recommendation staff recommends approval of the
- subdivision based on the finding the proposed primary plat meets the county development ordinance subject
- to the highway engineer and stormwater program manager reports.
- We also recommend approval of the waiver request to the special flood hazard area subdivision access
- requirement of Chapter 832-9F based on the findings of fact. That concludes my presentation. Are there
- any questions? Go to the right this time. Any questions? Quick question. When did the county install
- the drainage culvert and bridge on that property?
- approximate date. Here's fine. Don't know if I have that in the report, but it was mentioned at the
- drainage board meeting, I believe. I don't know if anyone square that circle with the current
- FEMA designation of that special flood zone, because that wasn't done. I mean, 16 years old. So if that
- has been remediated since then, my question would be, you know, has a Loma been sought?
- to rearrange whether or not that's actually a special flood designation anymore. I think looking at
- the elevations that Drew mentioned, the driveway was below base flood elevation. So I wouldn't recommend
- a LOMA in this case, a letter of map amendment that's a FEMA process to remove a portion of the land
- or a structure from the floodplain. Right. OK. I just didn't know if the remediative efforts had made
- any change to that.
- Might be better for the petitioner, but I'll go ahead and see if you can help me. It's on lot four,
- it says proposed septic and existing septic. I know that we always need a secondary septic. Is that
- decided to label the plat? Yes, the proposed septic is the secondary location. Okay.
- Just curious. It's nice to see the secondary location when it says proposed. It kind of makes you think
- that they're maybe planning on installing another one. And then when I look at that and I look at the
- existing structures, those drainage easements make it maybe a little more difficult to get that connection
- going. So it being a secondary one, not really a big issue, but that's kind of what I meant.
- in my thought process. So thank you. All right. The petitioner or petitioner representative. You got
- 15 minutes. Sign in please and state your name. It'd be very helpful. Good afternoon. I'm Eric Deckard
- with Deckard Land Surveying.
- Thank you, Drew, for your report. I think I can elaborate on maybe some of your questions that you had
- technically with respect to the floodplain in that area. I'm a bit familiar with that area. I've done
- several surveys in that vicinity in the past 10 years. I can tell you that the floodplain modeling in
- that area has changed at least three times. One of the most recent, I believe it was, Tammy, was it
- December 18th was the last time that we had some modeling.
- This petition actually began prior to the last modeling. It's that the elevations with most recent modeling
- had risen significantly. Bridge, I was noticing that there was some acquisition taking place around
- 2014, maybe 2020, 2022, somewhere in that era was when the bridge was constructed. So that being said, you know,
- We know that the bridge decking is maybe a half a foot above base flood elevation, which means that
- the supporting members of the bridge itself is below base flood elevation. The area of concern here
- and the reason that we're here before you today is because of the driveway entrance that was built to
- highway standards. So it's actually a concrete apron and it is below the base flood elevation by just
- a little bit. However, that is actually in the county
- right of way. So when you zoom in onto the picture next to the roadway, Drew, you had a very nice aerial
- photo earlier, yes. So you can see, you look really closely, the delineation between where the concrete
- apron is at in his driveway that he personally maintains separates.
- where he actually starts maintaining it is actually above the base flood elevation. So if there was
- any Loma needed is actually on the county side of the right of way. Just forming you on that part of
- it. But if you have any other technical questions, be glad to answer them for you. Starting to lift
- this time. Are you needing to make any adjustments to the survey moving forward? I believe so.
- Okay, then I'm not gonna ask you to change the secondary septic, but if you were gonna get back in there
- and print out a new copy, maybe it wouldn't be much of an ask. I'll keep that in mind in the future.
- Yeah, and if you look at it, you just see how difficult that connection might be with the drain adjustments.
- So, you know, that's why I like it. That's why it makes sense to me calling it secondary versus proposed.
- Do you have any questions? No, I don't. Any questions? Anything else to add? I know it looks
- very straightforward. Thank you, Margaret. So that takes us to public comment. And so if you have anybody
- in the audience who are online who'd like to take in effort, you're welcome to come speak at this time.
- State your name and sign in, please. Or. Foster the petitioner. Did a nice job of kind of framing things
- up. The board actually approved the variance that we had put together when my wife and I bought the
- property of 135 acres that already had the five parcels. So our plan was just to gift our three boys
- a parcel of peace, selfishly wanting to say them, keep them close, but also keep the grandbabies closer.
- And during the process then of my oldest son and his wife decided to take us up on that offer immediately,
- they sold their home in Avon, moved to Monroe County, received, got jobs here, including my son transferring
- from INPD to Monroe County Sheriff's Department. But within that employment agreement, he needed to
- have a permanent address within a year.
- So when we ran into this hiccup in relation to the deed, it's when the board agreed to let us do the
- variance, as long as we would do the subdivision, which we started the next day after the meeting when
- that variance was granted. And ultimately, the other two lots on the north side, we're gonna give to
- the other boys. I don't know if they will ever even build on it or not, but they'll have that opportunity
- if they so want to do so. But just wanna thank
- Drew for stepping in after Ann left and all of his support and Eric and Jackson for the work that they
- have done as well as the board allowing that variance to continue or to re-graining that variance which
- allowed my son's home will be done hopefully by the second week of June and hopefully the subdivision
- will be complete and everything's gonna just be smooth. But do appreciate everyone's effort and support
- in allowing this to occur. Any questions for me? Thank you again.
- I have a comment not in favor, online or in the room. I don't see any. All right. Let's go ahead and
- move hopefully to comments from anybody else here. Ready for a motion whenever. I would like to move
- this approval. Yeah, we're doing the waiver.
- Approval of the subdivision based on the findings that the proposed preliminary plat meets the county
- development ordinance subject to the highway engineer and stormwater program manager reports. Approval
- of the waiver requests to the special flood hazard area subdivision access requirement of chapter 832-9,
- section F, based on the findings of fact. Do I need to read that bottom part? Okay, that's my motion.
- I would like to include a waiver final hearing too. All right so there's been a motion and a second
- to approve SMN-25-7 which is the primary plat subject to the highway engineer and stormwater program
- reports and also to approve the waiver to the special flood hazard area subject to the access requirement
- of chapter
- 832-9F, and also a waiver of final hearing. A vote yes is a vote to approve. David Bush? Yes. Margaret
- Clements? Yes. Ronan Wright-Randolph? Yes. Pat Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. And Julie Thomas? Yes.
- Motion carries six to zero.
- All right, that leads us to the next new business, which is ZOA261. And this is our CDO amendment. We
- are the petitioner. And this is a preliminary hearing, but we are going to request a final hearing.
- Be wait. And so I guess we start with, do we have any comments up here? Starting on my right.
- Just that we've covered this and we could get highlights if other members are okay unless they want
- us, unless anyone wants more detail. Why don't we take, why don't you do a quick summary of the changes.
- That's a good idea. Okay, I wrote down page numbers so I can skip through the packet pretty easily.
- And so this is the list of revisions and so we will be updating with the ordinance number and the date
- of adoption to these numerous text amendments. A lot of these are just small corrections. There are
- a few substantial things that we'll mention. Some of them are Scrivener's errors. So then beginning on 49.
- We did need to add a footnote here to most all of the zones regarding lot line front yard definition,
- just referencing the definition, just to help give staff clarity when making a decision on what a front
- setback is. And so you'll see this throughout all of the two pagers. Then also embedded in the two pagers,
- we had a correction to the art NH
- Zoning just to correct front yard setbacks here and the lake setbacks. They were just needed corrections
- And then on some of the use tables within the two pagers The state statute said that schools needed
- to be permitted in all zones and so with that we are now
- We also, there's another use that we have added into the institutional public zone. Battery energy storage
- systems has been added to this table. Also adding schools into light industrial up here. We've got also
- in the high industrial will be schools and the battery energy storage systems.
- mineral extraction, we're also adding schools in the airport. We'll also get schools and battery energy
- storage systems, I believe. All right. Get the flip to the second page now. Again, correcting the
- or updating the use table to include schools in every single zone per state statute. And we have the
- battery energy storage systems as a conditional use in the IP zone, the HI zone, and the airport zone.
- And it does come with standards 11-11B.
- And then down on this table as well, we do have small modular nuclear reactors. This use will not be
- permitted in any of the zones. Making that very clear in the table. And then I think we get to jump
- to page 132. And here we have the standards that we would use for the battery energy storage systems.
- Hopefully you all have read through that and didn't have any questions.
- And we've got a correction to this table just to correct it to be 2-811 and not 1-811. Next is to clarify,
- we recently discovered there was a slight conflict with how we had exceptions, but here we added balconies
- uncovered open porches or decks are allowed to encroach up to three feet. And then we clearly define
- that the roof of a detached garage carport shed that's no higher than 15 can also encroach two feet
- and then kind of give a reference to the other part of the ordinance that kind of is very similar but
- different. And then page 202. This was such a small little
- We're going with linear feet rather than lineal. No, we're using lineal feet rather than linear feet.
- Is that right? Yeah. Linear. We are using linear feet. Yeah. With an R instead of an L. OK, it's linear.
- That's right. And that made it hard for us to search the ordinance in its current state. All right.
- And then we have.
- This is to remove the requirement for sidewalks with subdivisions located on moderate priority road
- improvements. And we do plan to do to update our
- Alternative transportation map and plan and then maybe bring this back as a tax amendment when it's
- ready So that is something that we still want to tackle is just have a more up-to-date Plan that we
- can look at When we decide waivers and if sidewalks are required as a part of commercial site plan This
- is a smallest Scrivener error from up to or no from order of
- And then we had an amendment to add that members will receive compensation, I believe, for application
- to the expenses section to clarify payment for Plan Commission board members. That's what that part is.
- I think the rest of these are all definitions. So we've got front yard, also just says C lot line front
- yard. So we don't have to define it too many times. We've got the definition for the battery energy
- storage systems. And some of that is addressing some state code. We have clarification in the home occupation
- definition.
- Remove permitted by right language. Two more definitions. One is the lot line front yard. And this states
- that the lot line abutting a public private street access easement and or water course also see yards
- comma lake for lots running Griffey Monroe and Lake Lemon corner lots and through lots have at least
- two front lot lines. Multiple frontage lots may have more than two
- front lot lines, see the image below for the example of how to assign the setbacks. So this is going
- to help staff clarify in the future, especially when we have an easement involved with the property
- in how to determine our setbacks and just give better guidance from the ordinance here. And then finally,
- we have a definition for the thing we will not be permitting under the major utility.
- It states that this definition excludes small modular nuclear reactors and battery energy storage systems.
- So just kind of clear. Any questions? Was that succinct enough? Was it quick enough? All right. So before
- we go to public comment, anybody on my right? Public comment in favor? Anybody out there? Online or
- in the room?
- All the comments for folks who are not in favor, either sign or in the room. I think we're ready for
- a motion. Margaret, do you have your hand up? No. No, I just want to thank Tammy for her nice presentation.
- Tammy, thanks for a nice presentation.
- On the motion, I'm sure. Can I just read the bold part on a dash 26 dash one county development ordinance
- amendments. Preliminary hearing I would like to move to recommend approval and add the waiver of the
- second hearing for all
- that was just highlighted and outlined on our agenda. There's been a motion and a second to send a positive
- recommendation to county commissioners for zoning.
- for the County Development Ordinance Amendment, ZOA-26-1, which has a long list that is shown on page
- 39 and 40 of the packet. A motion or a vote to approve is to send that favorable recommendation.
- David Bush? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Ron and Wright Randolph? Yes. Scott Paris? Yes. Rudy Fields?
- Yes. And Julie Thomas?
- Motion carries six to zero. All right, that takes us to four items not on the agenda in three minutes.
- Do we have anybody in the room or online? Bring any item forward and I see none. So now we move to reports
- and we start with planning. The baton has not fully been passed to me yet as
- director. I am still just assistant director at this point in time. Mr. Schilling you got anything you'd
- like to bring up for as the attorney? I have a motion to adjourn.