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.