WEBVTT 00:00:01.218 --> 00:00:10.904 - So I'd like to welcome everyone to the Monroe County Plan Commission meeting for Wednesday, September 00:00:10.904 --> 00:00:20.590 - 23rd at 2026. I will go ahead and call the meeting to order. Please identify the present to see if we 00:00:20.590 --> 00:00:30.846 - have a quorum. Yes. Mark Clements here. Tron and Ray Randolph. Scott Ferris here. Jeff Morris. David Henry. 00:00:31.682 --> 00:00:39.247 - Rudy Fields here. Joe Van Deventer. Julie Thomas here. David Bush. So we have five members attending 00:00:39.247 --> 00:00:46.887 - in a quorum, which means that any vote to pass by majority needs to be unanimous. I don't see anybody 00:00:46.887 --> 00:00:54.677 - online unless you see somebody online. We had confirmation that I think that each of these people would 00:00:54.677 --> 00:00:57.598 - not be present, not be present at all. 00:00:58.818 --> 00:01:04.571 - So let's begin with the introduction of evidence. I'd like to introduce the following items into the 00:01:04.571 --> 00:01:10.438 - evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Zoning and 00:01:10.438 --> 00:01:16.247 - Subdivision Control Ordinance as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted 00:01:16.247 --> 00:01:22.171 - and amended. The Monroe County Plan Commission Rules and Procedure as adopted and amended and the cases 00:01:22.171 --> 00:01:27.582 - that were legally advertised and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's agenda. Move to approve. 00:01:28.322 --> 00:01:36.165 - Second been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve 00:01:36.165 --> 00:01:43.781 - Scott Ferris. Yes, Jeff Morris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes, Julie Thomas. Yes. Mark Clements. Yes, motion 00:01:43.781 --> 00:01:51.473 - carries five to zero. Next up is the agenda. Looking at the agenda, the only thing I'd like to add is 00:01:51.473 --> 00:01:55.998 - under approval of minutes, there are no minutes to approve. 00:01:56.834 --> 00:02:05.436 - So do I have a motion to approve the agenda? Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve tonight's 00:02:05.436 --> 00:02:14.038 - agenda as presented with a note that there are no minutes to approve a vote. Yes, is a vote to approve 00:02:14.038 --> 00:02:22.389 - the agenda as presented. Jeff Morris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Myra Clements? Yes. 00:02:22.389 --> 00:02:26.398 - Scott Ferris? Yes. Motion carries five to zero. 00:02:27.074 --> 00:02:35.291 - That brings us to administrative business and the item listed is the CDO prioritization update. Jackie, 00:02:35.291 --> 00:02:43.430 - you got anything? On that, we are continuing to take these cases to the ordinance review committee and 00:02:43.430 --> 00:02:50.462 - we're continuing to work through some of the remaining items on that. We hope to see the 00:02:50.594 --> 00:02:56.210 - uh... p d open space discussion come back in october to the ordinance review committee and then hopefully 00:02:56.210 --> 00:03:00.766 - from there it'll come to the playing commission so we're still working to those items 00:03:00.834 --> 00:03:07.018 - I will note just for the record and for the public certification, some of these last CDO prioritization 00:03:07.018 --> 00:03:13.084 - items were marked as more research needed for staff. So that is why it's taken a little bit longer to 00:03:13.084 --> 00:03:19.327 - get through those remaining items. They're a little more in depth than some of the beginning items where 00:03:19.327 --> 00:03:24.798 - we had to address them kind of quickly and we're able to do so. Any questions from up here? 00:03:26.338 --> 00:03:37.627 - All right, let's go ahead and move on to unfinished business. The first item is ZOA 26.3, and I believe 00:03:37.627 --> 00:03:49.133 - this is the final hearing for the CDO text amendment to comply with the state statute changes. So Jackie, 00:03:49.133 --> 00:03:55.646 - over to you again. That is correct. Okay. So on the agenda, 00:03:55.970 --> 00:04:03.944 - we do have a list of the actual amendments that are happening. So I want to kind of go through the high 00:04:03.944 --> 00:04:11.689 - level list and then I'll get into a few of the individual edits as we go through. So we are adding a 00:04:11.689 --> 00:04:19.356 - few uses to the use table, either in alignment with state code requirements such as sporting goods, 00:04:19.356 --> 00:04:22.270 - small, medium, large, and big box, or 00:04:22.466 --> 00:04:30.279 - as it relates to staff recommendations such as temporary or seasonal activity to one of the zoning districts 00:04:30.279 --> 00:04:37.662 - or we have another added use which is bus terminal to the heavy industrial zoning district. So we have 00:04:37.662 --> 00:04:44.830 - made a list of edits to the use table in those two pagers. That's kind of the beginning edits here. 00:04:44.930 --> 00:04:52.353 - And then we have some other substantial changes, which is to the wireless communication facilities. 00:04:52.353 --> 00:04:59.998 - Again, that's a state code change. And then we do have some changes in here regarding shooting ranges, 00:04:59.998 --> 00:05:08.014 - state code change, and then some edits in here regarding some of our definitions, which again are primarily 00:05:08.014 --> 00:05:12.542 - the state code changes here. I wanna go ahead and go to the, 00:05:12.866 --> 00:05:20.641 - wireless communication facilities changes because I think that that one has the most substantial edits 00:05:20.641 --> 00:05:28.340 - here. And I'll also note, aside from the agenda, we also put this in the actual CDO, which will be in 00:05:28.340 --> 00:05:36.039 - the table so that as you open the CDO, you can see years prior ordinance numbers, dates of amendments 00:05:36.039 --> 00:05:42.078 - so that you can keep track of what was added when. And it looks like we do have 00:05:42.338 --> 00:05:51.892 - additional information in this table as well that aligns with the red line so under chapter 812 which 00:05:51.892 --> 00:06:01.539 - is the section regarding the wireless communication facilities we have a requirement by the state that 00:06:01.539 --> 00:06:10.718 - we're no longer able to administer regulations simply based on height so right now in the code we 00:06:10.850 --> 00:06:18.091 - can differentiate cell towers process by the height of the structure and now we're moving more towards 00:06:18.091 --> 00:06:25.261 - a per zoning district what the process will be. So I just want to make sure that we've got this right 00:06:25.261 --> 00:06:31.518 - to the discussions that we've had. We've had this at two administrative meetings and two 00:06:31.618 --> 00:06:37.508 - This is our second regular hearing. So we are saying now that new concealed wireless support structures 00:06:37.508 --> 00:06:43.228 - shall be permitted in any zoning district except the airport zone after administrative review, which 00:06:43.228 --> 00:06:49.231 - means no public hearing. Then it says new concealed or non-concealed wireless support structures proposed 00:06:49.231 --> 00:06:55.007 - in the airport zoning district are subject to conditional use approval. That's largely because of the 00:06:55.007 --> 00:06:58.462 - height issues. New non-concealed wireless support structures 00:06:58.562 --> 00:07:05.603 - proposed in the rural residential, residential or institutional and public zones are subject to conditional 00:07:05.603 --> 00:07:12.318 - use approval. Then we go down and say new non-concealed wireless support structures shall be permitted 00:07:12.318 --> 00:07:19.033 - in any industrial or business zoning district after administrative review. So you can follow along and 00:07:19.033 --> 00:07:24.574 - do either a concealed tower or a non-concealed tower and then depending on the zone, 00:07:24.706 --> 00:07:32.391 - it depends on the process. So we've eliminated the height distinction and we've changed it to concealed 00:07:32.391 --> 00:07:39.854 - or not concealed and by zone. That's the biggest change there. And we're striking through this prior 00:07:39.854 --> 00:07:47.465 - example image where delineated based on height and we're moving more towards some examples of the cell 00:07:47.465 --> 00:07:52.638 - towers that we get in the community. I'll also note that we wanted to 00:07:52.802 --> 00:08:00.157 - distinguished the setbacks for the tower and the accessory structure so we added in an image here from 00:08:00.157 --> 00:08:07.726 - the feedback from the last administrative meeting and what this is saying is that unless otherwise stated 00:08:07.726 --> 00:08:11.582 - here in the equipment compound which is the fenced in 00:08:11.682 --> 00:08:19.129 - blue area on the screen, shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from all property lines, which is the 00:08:19.129 --> 00:08:26.795 - red line on the screen. And then generators shall be placed furthest from all property lines, but within 00:08:26.795 --> 00:08:34.242 - the equipment compound area to the maximum extent possible. See figure two dash 812 below. If there's 00:08:34.242 --> 00:08:41.470 - a constraint, generators shall follow the 15 foot setback. So this is to try to mitigate any noise 00:08:41.730 --> 00:08:50.339 - Issues with generators, but we believe that because the actual cell tower the monopole Usually has to 00:08:50.339 --> 00:08:59.455 - be in the center of the compound area that they will meet the fall zone Plus the zone setback and therefore 00:08:59.455 --> 00:09:08.149 - any accessory structures will be an additional amount of space away from that property line and that's 00:09:08.149 --> 00:09:09.246 - stated under 00:09:09.538 --> 00:09:17.383 - It says, unless otherwise stated herein, wireless support structures shall be set back from all property 00:09:17.383 --> 00:09:25.003 - lines a distance equal to the sum of the fall zone and applicable setback for the zoning district. So 00:09:25.003 --> 00:09:32.549 - that's not changing. So that's what we have added here for the cell tower change. Next, I want to go 00:09:32.549 --> 00:09:39.198 - over the changes that we've made to 818, which is the sidewalks chapter, and we did this 00:09:39.554 --> 00:09:47.505 - Just for clarity because we are coming up against a few examples where it was We were unsure what the 00:09:47.505 --> 00:09:55.613 - text was saying. So we think that we've closed the loop on any confusion We would like to see this move 00:09:55.613 --> 00:10:00.446 - forward. So right now under subdivisions we have the proposed 00:10:00.546 --> 00:10:07.397 - subdivision if it has road frontage or streets that will connect to an existing proposed subdivision 00:10:07.397 --> 00:10:14.247 - or business development that has sidewalks, it requires sidewalks. The issue was that we were having 00:10:14.247 --> 00:10:21.437 - a long road such as East State Road 45 that without a mile marker we were seeing potentially subdivisions 00:10:21.437 --> 00:10:28.356 - kind of adjacent to those and so you were seeing sidewalks being triggered in very rural areas. So we 00:10:28.356 --> 00:10:30.526 - wanted to limit that with maybe 00:10:30.914 --> 00:10:38.678 - a mileage standpoint so that we would be able to know, okay, this is within .25 miles of another existing 00:10:38.678 --> 00:10:46.515 - subdivision or development that has sidewalks. And then it still has in here that the proposed subdivision 00:10:46.515 --> 00:10:51.422 - is within the urban area boundary, and then we also want to strike 00:10:51.586 --> 00:10:58.049 - this letter D which was saying the proposed subdivision has frontage on a street that provides direct 00:10:58.049 --> 00:11:04.449 - access to destinations such as schools, grocery stores or recreational facilities and that's because 00:11:04.449 --> 00:11:11.102 - right below that it also says a proposed subdivision is within one mile, one linear mile of destinations 00:11:11.102 --> 00:11:17.438 - such as schools, grocery stores or recreational facilities. So those two were a bit duplicative and 00:11:17.438 --> 00:11:20.670 - we decided to go with the one that had the mileage 00:11:20.770 --> 00:11:30.002 - in there to be a little bit more clear. Beyond that, like I mentioned, there were state code changes 00:11:30.002 --> 00:11:39.325 - that were not really by our choice, so we're just aligning those with the state's definitions or what 00:11:39.325 --> 00:11:48.739 - their requirements are, so not too much to discuss there, but I'm happy to answer any questions on the 00:11:48.739 --> 00:11:50.750 - red line CDO version. 00:11:52.162 --> 00:12:01.614 - Are there any questions from the folks up here among the commissioners on my left? All right, so that 00:12:01.614 --> 00:12:11.067 - opens it up now to the public. Do we have any public comment here for, against, otherwise? Anybody in 00:12:11.067 --> 00:12:18.110 - the room? Anybody online? I don't see any. So can we have a motion, please? 00:12:25.250 --> 00:12:32.279 - these changes. Is that adequate? It would be a favorable recommendation to the commissioners to the 00:12:32.279 --> 00:12:39.801 - commissioners. Yeah. A favorable recommendation to the commissioners. Second. It's been moved and seconded 00:12:39.801 --> 00:12:46.971 - to send this with a positive recommendation to the county commissioners for Zio a dash 26 dash three. 00:12:46.971 --> 00:12:53.438 - A vote yes is a vote to send a positive recommendation. Jeff Morris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. 00:12:55.106 --> 00:13:04.369 - Julie Thomas. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Scott Ferris. Motion carries five to zero. All right. That 00:13:04.369 --> 00:13:13.540 - brings us to new business. Uh, the first item is SPP 26 one, which is the Gardner major subdivision. 00:13:13.540 --> 00:13:19.806 - They're looking at a partial plan vacation, a road waiver with them. 00:13:19.906 --> 00:13:27.119 - I'm sorry, a road width waiver request, two points of access waiver request, a street tree waiver request, 00:13:27.119 --> 00:13:33.995 - and a waiver of a final hearing. And Drew, this is yours, correct? Yes. One moment, let me get things 00:13:33.995 --> 00:13:35.006 - uploaded here. 00:13:59.778 --> 00:14:03.678 - It looks like the slides got a little disorganized, so I'm just making sure. 00:14:50.274 --> 00:14:57.780 - This is SPP-26-1, the Gardner major subdivision. It has a partial plot vacation, road width waiver request, 00:14:57.780 --> 00:15:05.009 - two points of access waiver request, and a street tree waiver request in the waiver final hearing. It's 00:15:05.009 --> 00:15:11.959 - four parcels, 34.9 acres in Indian Creek Township, Section 2020-21 at 8770 South Lee Phillips Road. 00:15:11.959 --> 00:15:14.878 - It is all zoned agricultural residential. 00:15:17.218 --> 00:15:24.335 - The petitioner is proposing a partial platification from Lot 1 of the Fleaner minor subdivision which 00:15:24.335 --> 00:15:31.382 - was recorded in 2022. It initially created two lots of record across 151.64 acres. The petitioner is 00:15:31.382 --> 00:15:38.360 - proposing to vacate that Lot 1 and perform a subsequent major subdivision to create four additional 00:15:38.360 --> 00:15:45.407 - lots so thereby at the very end of all things said and done we will have created five lots from that 00:15:45.407 --> 00:15:46.942 - initial 151.64 acres. 00:15:47.234 --> 00:15:53.978 - Under the county development ordinance, four lots are the maximum number of lots that can be created 00:15:53.978 --> 00:16:01.256 - through the minor subdivision process. So normally a primary plat amendment to an existing minor subdivision 00:16:01.256 --> 00:16:07.934 - can accomplish an increase in lot density. However, because we're resulting in a total of five lots 00:16:07.934 --> 00:16:14.611 - from that original 151.64 acres, the subsequent re-subdivision after the plat vacation triggers the 00:16:14.611 --> 00:16:16.414 - major subdivision process. 00:16:16.994 --> 00:16:24.634 - and that information can be found in Table 1-830 in the Monroe County Development Ordinance. We cannot 00:16:24.634 --> 00:16:32.275 - perform a subsequent minor subdivision from an existing minor subdivision. It either has to be amended 00:16:32.275 --> 00:16:39.989 - within that four lot maximum or it has to go through a major subdivision process. On the screen we have 00:16:39.989 --> 00:16:43.550 - the table breakdown of all the individual lots. 00:16:44.322 --> 00:16:52.543 - So we have four lots shown here. Lot one will have 10.06 acres. Lot two will have 12.06 acres. Lot three 00:16:52.543 --> 00:17:00.451 - will have 12.4 acres. And lot four will have 45.68 acres. Lot four will remain as a recreational lot 00:17:00.451 --> 00:17:08.360 - or a lot reserved for conservation purposes only. So there will not be any construction permitted on 00:17:08.360 --> 00:17:13.214 - that property with respect to residential dwellings and such. 00:17:14.338 --> 00:17:21.056 - On this table you also see different categories like property access right away dedication environmental 00:17:21.056 --> 00:17:25.278 - conditions, and whether or not the lots have existing structures. 00:17:25.410 --> 00:17:31.846 - each of those items. We do have some environmental conditions. We have some riparian areas denoted on 00:17:31.846 --> 00:17:38.219 - the plat. Slopes greater than 25% are present as well as drainage easements that were identified and 00:17:38.219 --> 00:17:44.908 - listed on the plat by the storm water program manager and the land surveyor associated with this project. 00:17:44.908 --> 00:17:48.126 - We do have a tree preservation area I believe that 00:17:48.290 --> 00:17:54.223 - I think the petitioner may have requested that be removed on the plat. We'll come back to that. But 00:17:54.223 --> 00:18:00.275 - we do have some cars conservancy areas on lot four, as well as the steep slopes that are greater than 00:18:00.275 --> 00:18:06.683 - 25% and additional drainage easements in that area. Southleaf Phillips is a local road, and it is currently 00:18:06.683 --> 00:18:10.718 - 16 feet wide and paved with asphalt. So because it is 16 feet wide, 00:18:10.818 --> 00:18:17.191 - It is two feet less than the width that is required for subdivisions in Monroe County, so that is why 00:18:17.191 --> 00:18:23.564 - we have the road width waiver request. We'll get to that in a moment. Sidewalks are not required. The 00:18:23.564 --> 00:18:30.250 - sewer or septic connection, we have documentation for lots one, two, and three from the health department. 00:18:30.250 --> 00:18:37.310 - Again, lot four does not need one because they are doing that recreational lot and won't have a residence on it. 00:18:37.826 --> 00:18:44.077 - Utilities we have Western Indiana REMC for electricity and Phillips well drilling and pump service for 00:18:44.077 --> 00:18:50.267 - water because there has been some communication between the developer or property owner with regional 00:18:50.267 --> 00:18:56.457 - utility providers and they do not have the capacity the providers do not have the capacity to provide 00:18:56.457 --> 00:19:02.829 - additional water service to these properties so they will have to engage in private well drilling Street 00:19:02.829 --> 00:19:05.438 - trees those are required per the ordinance 00:19:06.114 --> 00:19:12.676 - We staff calculated a total of 18 trees along the approximate 710 feet of road frontage along South 00:19:12.676 --> 00:19:19.501 - Lee Phillips. The petitioner does not want to plant those trees, so they are requesting the street tree 00:19:19.501 --> 00:19:26.129 - waiver. And then finally, we have the two points of ingress egress waiver as well. That is for major 00:19:26.129 --> 00:19:33.085 - subdivisions, and that basically says that a major subdivision needs to have two points of ingress egress 00:19:33.085 --> 00:19:35.710 - when you have a certain number of lots. 00:19:35.810 --> 00:19:42.085 - Oftentimes, we avoid needing to review this type of waiver request because each of the lots can have 00:19:42.085 --> 00:19:48.298 - their own road frontage or own driveway access. But because of the configuration of this particular 00:19:48.298 --> 00:19:54.821 - subdivision and the stacking of lots one behind another, the two points of ingress egress was activated. 00:19:54.821 --> 00:20:01.034 - And because they did not want to have two points of ingress egress throughout the subdivision, that 00:20:01.034 --> 00:20:05.694 - waiver is a request. Here we have the location map. We're in Indian Creek. 00:20:06.850 --> 00:20:14.114 - On the right, we have the site conditions map showing the slopes greater than 25% as well as the riparian 00:20:14.114 --> 00:20:21.309 - area that kind of meanders through the northwest portion of the property as well as the middle and south 00:20:21.309 --> 00:20:28.162 - end of the property as you come west from the South Lee Phillips. Here's the zoning map. We are all 00:20:28.162 --> 00:20:34.878 - in the agricultural residential zone and the comprehensive plan designates it as farm and forest. 00:20:35.010 --> 00:20:42.566 - pictures from Street View. So this is the what would be the north east corner of lot one. So you're 00:20:42.566 --> 00:20:50.727 - on South Lee Phillips and you're just beginning the corner point of the subdivision and you'll be traveling 00:20:50.727 --> 00:20:57.150 - west along South Lee Phillips as you continue on in these images. So you can see the 00:20:57.602 --> 00:21:04.184 - The flat land here and then all the way at the end of the subdivision on south of the Phillips. This 00:21:04.184 --> 00:21:10.831 - is the edge of the south eastern edge of the property and you can see this existing driveway that was 00:21:10.831 --> 00:21:13.438 - recently constructed by the petitioner. 00:21:14.306 --> 00:21:20.154 - Throughout this entire process, the petitioner has been actively acquiring residential construction 00:21:20.154 --> 00:21:26.178 - permits for the development of the eventual lot one because the property is an existing single lot and 00:21:26.178 --> 00:21:32.201 - they are able to pull permits for development. So they're doing that to try and get ahead of the build 00:21:32.201 --> 00:21:38.400 - season. And then eventually all of this construction that planning has been reviewing for this particular 00:21:38.400 --> 00:21:42.494 - area will be located on a lot one should the subdivision be approved. 00:21:44.194 --> 00:21:50.834 - So just a little bit more photographs here of the site. OK, so now we have the plat shown on the screen. 00:21:50.834 --> 00:21:57.347 - So this is the original plat. This is the Fleener minor subdivision. So lot one, which is the northern 00:21:57.347 --> 00:22:03.987 - lot here, it's kind of a boot shape. That is the lot that's going to be vacated out of this subdivision. 00:22:03.987 --> 00:22:08.414 - And it does require sign-off from all parties within the subdivision. 00:22:10.146 --> 00:22:15.364 - Now we have the proposed subdivision. This is the Gardner major subdivision. So you can see four individual 00:22:15.364 --> 00:22:20.341 - lots. They are kind of in a stacking motion going from east to west. We have lot number one, far east, 00:22:20.341 --> 00:22:25.173 - lot two and three in the middle. And then lot four is that larger piece that has the riparian area, 00:22:25.173 --> 00:22:30.053 - most of the riparian area, as well as the Carson Conservancy areas. And that's that recreational lot 00:22:30.053 --> 00:22:31.454 - that I mentioned previously. 00:22:33.218 --> 00:22:40.228 - So now just a few images on the screen of the zoom in of that plat so we can see a little bit more detail. 00:22:40.228 --> 00:22:47.304 - We have individual septic locations identified for lots one, two, and three, as well as drainage easements, 00:22:47.304 --> 00:22:53.856 - access easements, et cetera. You will note on lot number one, there's two entry points. That is not 00:22:53.856 --> 00:23:00.736 - related to the two points of ingress egress because the southern ingress egress easement provides access 00:23:00.736 --> 00:23:02.046 - to lot number four. 00:23:02.914 --> 00:23:09.477 - And the northern ingress egress provides access to lot two. So and we have an existing driveway like 00:23:09.477 --> 00:23:16.039 - I showed in that picture for lot one on the south end. So to have two driveways, they did have to go 00:23:16.039 --> 00:23:22.602 - through an appeal process with the highway department. And that was ultimately approved. So they are 00:23:22.602 --> 00:23:29.359 - able to have those two driveway entrances on lot one, but they are serving slightly different purposes. 00:23:29.359 --> 00:23:32.478 - The north easement is also servicing lot three. 00:23:35.842 --> 00:23:41.867 - This is a zoom in of lot number four, which is that recreational lot. There's a lot of stuff going on 00:23:41.867 --> 00:23:47.775 - here, a lot of easements, riparian areas, drainage easements, things like that. But it does have an 00:23:47.775 --> 00:23:53.859 - access point on the south corner here, southeast corner that comes all the way from South Lee Phillips 00:23:53.859 --> 00:23:55.454 - as it meanders through the 00:23:58.242 --> 00:24:03.913 - Okay, so we have department comments. This is all in the packet. So Ben Ayers from the Highway Department 00:24:03.913 --> 00:24:08.835 - provided information related to this request detailing the individual right of way activity 00:24:08.835 --> 00:24:14.667 - permit applications that were submitted and also detailing that appeals process that I mentioned previously. 00:24:14.667 --> 00:24:20.231 - The highway engineer also provided information that the right of way had already been dedicated because 00:24:20.231 --> 00:24:24.030 - of that prior minor subdivision that is the Fleener minor subdivision. 00:24:25.378 --> 00:24:32.096 - stormwater program comments basically identifying cars conservancy areas as well as drain adjustments 00:24:32.096 --> 00:24:38.748 - for the subdivision itself is what specifically lot four because there was a lot of that going on on 00:24:38.748 --> 00:24:45.466 - that particular lot and essentially this conversation these comments provide evidence that all of the 00:24:45.466 --> 00:24:52.513 - stormwater programs comments and concerns have been addressed throughout the process so here's information 00:24:52.513 --> 00:24:54.686 - about the road with waiver again 00:24:54.850 --> 00:25:01.944 - Any subdivision with less than 18 feet in width needs to get a road width waiver in order to be approved. 00:25:01.944 --> 00:25:09.105 - So this particular road has a width of 16 feet, which the ordinance indicates that it must have an average 00:25:09.105 --> 00:25:15.865 - daily traffic count of less than or equal to 300 vehicles per day. Based on the information provided 00:25:15.865 --> 00:25:22.624 - by the petitioner and the petitioner's representative, the traffic count data estimated 110 vehicles 00:25:22.624 --> 00:25:24.766 - per day, so that does meet that 00:25:25.250 --> 00:25:31.603 - requirement and the highway department confirmed that the two points of ingress egress this is just 00:25:31.603 --> 00:25:37.828 - pulled right from the county development ordinance this is the text that requires that particular 00:25:37.828 --> 00:25:44.308 - configuration within a major subdivision I'm not going to read it verbatim and we can come back to it 00:25:44.308 --> 00:25:50.851 - because it is in the packet if we want to we also have information about the street tree waiver so the 00:25:50.851 --> 00:25:51.550 - particular 00:25:51.778 --> 00:25:57.427 - item from the county development ordinance that got triggered here was the subject properties requesting 00:25:57.427 --> 00:26:03.021 - a major subdivision so that applies whenever a major subdivision is being activated so the street trees 00:26:03.021 --> 00:26:08.509 - are required and staff did a calculation along the roadway and calculated that 18 trees would need to 00:26:08.509 --> 00:26:12.382 - be planted. The petitioner did say that there are some trees that would 00:26:12.610 --> 00:26:18.106 - could count towards the street tree total, but some of them would also have to be removed due to the 00:26:18.106 --> 00:26:23.548 - driveway's construction, the entrance of that driveway. And overall, they're requesting that street 00:26:23.548 --> 00:26:28.446 - tree waiver so that they don't have to plant all of those trees along South Lee Phillips. 00:26:30.786 --> 00:26:36.882 - Now on the screen is information provided by the petitioner's representative. This is information related 00:26:36.882 --> 00:26:42.978 - to those waiver requests. So this is basically the petitioner and petitioner's representative's rationale 00:26:42.978 --> 00:26:48.902 - as to why they believe the waiver requests should be approved. This is all included in the packet. And 00:26:48.902 --> 00:26:55.113 - this is the traffic count data that was provided as well by the petitioner and petitioner's representative. 00:26:55.113 --> 00:26:57.758 - This was used to analyze the ADT calculation. 00:26:59.490 --> 00:27:05.030 - Okay, that brings me to staff's recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the proposed primary plat 00:27:05.030 --> 00:27:10.624 - based on the findings of facts subject to the comments from the highway engineer and stormwater program 00:27:10.624 --> 00:27:16.272 - manager and subject to the following condition. Mark lot number four as non-buildable instead of listing 00:27:16.272 --> 00:27:21.705 - the buildable area on the plat. So that is just a condition that will more clearly identify lot four 00:27:21.705 --> 00:27:25.470 - as that recreational lot. It's non-buildable and can proceed as such. 00:27:26.690 --> 00:27:31.361 - Staff does recommend approval of the proposed road with waiver request based on the findings of fact 00:27:31.361 --> 00:27:36.031 - and subject to highway engineer reports. Staff believe that practical difficulties have been met and 00:27:36.031 --> 00:27:40.794 - sufficiently demonstrated. The petitioner also supplied that average daily trip data that supports the 00:27:40.794 --> 00:27:45.465 - road with waiver request. Staff recommends approval of the two points of ingress egress waiver based 00:27:45.465 --> 00:27:48.286 - on findings of fact subject to the highway engineer reports. 00:27:49.186 --> 00:27:54.822 - Staff recommends denial of the street tree waiver request based on findings of fact staff believe practical 00:27:54.822 --> 00:28:00.196 - difficulties have not been sufficiently Demonstrated the ordinance calls for 18 street trees There are 00:28:00.196 --> 00:28:05.727 - 12 existing trees that could qualify as trees Although three of those trees must be cut down to establish 00:28:05.727 --> 00:28:10.945 - the northern driveway only nine additional trees would need to be planted along the approximate 710 00:28:10.945 --> 00:28:16.894 - feet of road frontage to satisfy the street tree way a street tree request her street tree requirement, excuse me 00:28:17.698 --> 00:28:25.595 - Finally, staff recommends approval of the partial plot vacation. The petitioner stated that all owners 00:28:25.595 --> 00:28:33.492 - of the Fleener Minor Subdivision plot agreed to the proposed plot vacation per Indiana Code 36-7-3-10. 00:28:33.492 --> 00:28:41.543 - I will now take any questions. So, excellent presentation, I might add. Do we have comments from anybody 00:28:41.543 --> 00:28:46.910 - up here for the commissioners? Commissioner Thomas. I have questions. 00:28:47.394 --> 00:28:57.056 - So maybe on an aerial map or a plot map, I should say, or an aerial view, can you show what is being 00:28:57.056 --> 00:29:06.910 - vacated and how that impacts this? So on the screen is the Fleener minor subdivision. This was the two 00:29:06.910 --> 00:29:16.190 - lot minor subdivision that was created in 2022 across 115, 150 acres or so. This northern piece, 00:29:16.514 --> 00:29:24.271 - that's kind of a skinny boot shape. That's the part that's getting vacated out of the minor subdivision. 00:29:24.271 --> 00:29:32.101 - Got it. Okay. So one is not impacted at all. Lot one is not. The northern lot is lot one. Yeah. So that's 00:29:32.101 --> 00:29:39.489 - the one that's being vacated out and being re-subdivided. Okay. The southern lot, lot number two is 00:29:39.489 --> 00:29:45.694 - not being touched. Okay. All right. There was mention of lot four as not buildable. 00:29:45.986 --> 00:29:52.318 - Is that a conservancy area or how is it labeled? How is it going to be labeled on the Dean? 00:29:54.978 --> 00:30:00.180 - I'm not sure exactly how they might label it on the D but on the plat we will have it listed 00:30:00.180 --> 00:30:05.885 - as non-buildable. Oftentimes we'll see lots labeled as for conservation purposes only or agricultural 00:30:05.885 --> 00:30:11.757 - purposes only. That's typically the language that we see on the plat itself and I believe that a D would 00:30:11.757 --> 00:30:17.406 - likely reflect that or at least it would call directly to the plat and then you would read the plat. 00:30:17.406 --> 00:30:23.111 - Okay, so what does conservancy mean in this case? What does that prevent them from doing or what does 00:30:23.111 --> 00:30:24.286 - it mean they can do? 00:30:26.082 --> 00:30:33.286 - typically means that they cannot perform any residential construction on the property. When it comes 00:30:33.286 --> 00:30:40.848 - to any development whatsoever, I don't know 100% what that typically looks like, but if you wanna comment 00:30:40.848 --> 00:30:48.052 - on that. Yeah, so if you would kind of blow up the portion of the green there, is that where it says 00:30:48.052 --> 00:30:54.686 - the tree? Okay, and I don't think they're doing the tree preservation area. That's an older, 00:30:55.074 --> 00:31:01.837 - version so they do not want to do the tree preservation. I think they asked that they take that off 00:31:01.837 --> 00:31:09.141 - completely. So in speaking with the owners they do not want it to be a residential dwelling on the property 00:31:09.141 --> 00:31:15.972 - so they didn't do any septic or soil reports but they do intend on using it for recreation, logging, 00:31:15.972 --> 00:31:22.802 - other activities so I think it would just say not for residential dwelling is what we would say this 00:31:22.802 --> 00:31:23.614 - lot is for. 00:31:23.778 --> 00:31:30.241 - So somewhere along the line there was something that said tree preservation area. Correct. Where did 00:31:30.241 --> 00:31:36.640 - that come from and when did it disappear? So at the last administrative meeting we talked about how 00:31:36.640 --> 00:31:43.423 - they did not want to preserve the trees at the road because of issues of site distance where the driveway 00:31:43.423 --> 00:31:50.334 - would go and so we spoke with the petitioner and I think I might have put it in the report in the beginning 00:31:50.334 --> 00:31:51.294 - part that they 00:31:51.394 --> 00:31:58.289 - basically are carving this up and putting it in different family members' names and that this number 00:31:58.289 --> 00:32:04.638 - four was going to be in one of the other owners' names and that they didn't feel comfortable 00:32:04.770 --> 00:32:09.850 - dedicating a tree preservation area in the event that they wanted to log it so if you wouldn't mind 00:32:09.850 --> 00:32:15.133 - reading that into the record through that part in red. Yeah so in the packet we have some comments from 00:32:15.133 --> 00:32:20.415 - the Planning Commission admin meeting so street tree waiver following the subdivision process the owner 00:32:20.415 --> 00:32:25.546 - of the land will be dating off different lots to different family members as such the request to put 00:32:25.546 --> 00:32:30.270 - in a tree preservation area was not agreed to because the future owners may not want to want 00:32:30.562 --> 00:32:38.409 - want the restriction, and they wanted to protect their ability to log certain portions of the property 00:32:38.409 --> 00:32:46.256 - moving forward. So. Okay, and there's no other tree preservation area except along the roadway, right? 00:32:46.256 --> 00:32:54.103 - Those have to be preserved as much as possible given the driveway, et cetera. Yeah, if the street tree 00:32:54.103 --> 00:33:00.350 - waivers denied, yep. But in the other lots, one, two, and three, there is nothing 00:33:00.898 --> 00:33:06.950 - about preserving trees, right? So when they talk about tree preservation, except for the street trees 00:33:06.950 --> 00:33:12.943 - that they've talked about separately, they're talking about lot four. Yes. So in the ordinance, when 00:33:12.943 --> 00:33:19.113 - we talk about street trees, there's a select number of instances where the street tree requirement gets 00:33:19.113 --> 00:33:25.165 - triggered. And then the last provision of that portion of the ordinance says if none of the above are 00:33:25.165 --> 00:33:29.022 - triggering, you should preserve trees somewhere on the property. 00:33:29.186 --> 00:33:35.663 - And oftentimes, surveyors will just preemptively provide a tree preservation area to make sure that 00:33:35.663 --> 00:33:42.334 - they catch that last provision. But because this one is requiring the street tree waiver or the street 00:33:42.334 --> 00:33:48.940 - trees requirement, that last provision doesn't technically apply. So they're not required to preserve 00:33:48.940 --> 00:33:55.870 - anything elsewhere. It would just be more or less their decision to do so as part of their waiver request. 00:33:56.162 --> 00:34:08.050 - I think my concern is regarding the proposed logging on lot four because of the stormwater implications 00:34:08.050 --> 00:34:19.709 - of looking at the slopes on that property. I think there are some concerns about erosion that I'm not 00:34:19.709 --> 00:34:24.510 - sure are addressed by the typical logging 00:34:25.634 --> 00:34:36.340 - rule book as it were right and I don't know what to do about that because I'm I'm normally you would 00:34:36.340 --> 00:34:46.622 - not put a tree preservation piece into a conservancy area correct or you would we see it kind of 00:34:46.946 --> 00:34:53.921 - both ways. On Platts we'll see a conservancy area delineated and then sometimes it'll also say conservancy 00:34:53.921 --> 00:35:00.439 - area and tree preservation area but most of the time we see them kind of separated but there is you 00:35:00.439 --> 00:35:07.023 - know logging permits do get triggered if they're within a certain urban area as defined by the state 00:35:07.023 --> 00:35:13.541 - that will trigger a logging permit requirement and then they're also supposed to follow the Indiana 00:35:13.541 --> 00:35:16.670 - DNR forestry best management practices as well. 00:35:17.154 --> 00:35:24.827 - But the real issue is stormwater and erosion for me. And they're not in an urban area, are they? I would 00:35:24.827 --> 00:35:32.573 - have to perform that calculation. It has to be within a quarter square mile if there are eight residences 00:35:32.573 --> 00:35:40.026 - that touch that quarter square mile. That's when the urban area gets activated and a logging permit's 00:35:40.026 --> 00:35:45.726 - required. It's my look at the map. It didn't seem like that was gonna happen. 00:35:46.082 --> 00:35:53.973 - It's pretty rural. It's rural. Yeah, it's rural. All right. The other thing is if you could show lots 00:35:53.973 --> 00:36:02.019 - one, two, and three, can you with your cursor show me where the buildable area is on each of them? Yes. 00:36:02.019 --> 00:36:09.755 - So buildable area is everywhere that is not in this hatching or within an easement. So it's kind of 00:36:09.755 --> 00:36:11.070 - all of the white 00:36:11.426 --> 00:36:18.245 - areas. This little hatching and then the easements that are identified are the non-buildable area. Okay. 00:36:18.245 --> 00:36:24.868 - And then the septics are marked so we know where that is. Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure 00:36:24.868 --> 00:36:31.622 - that I was reading that correctly because there are some slopes that aren't in a hashed area, but okay. 00:36:31.622 --> 00:36:38.765 - All right. Thank you. Anybody else on my left? On my right. All right. We go to the petitioner or petitioners 00:36:38.765 --> 00:36:39.934 - rep for comments. 00:36:40.162 --> 00:36:53.444 - You've got 15 minutes. Please sign in and state your name. Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Eric Decker 00:36:53.444 --> 00:37:08.158 - with Decker Land Survey. So, yes, I can answer some of these questions that you brought to our attention, Julie. 00:37:08.482 --> 00:37:15.011 - So going back to the tree preservation areas here, my client's not opposed to having a tree preservation 00:37:15.011 --> 00:37:21.479 - area. I don't think that they wanted to necessarily strap all of lot number four, which we have labeled 00:37:21.479 --> 00:37:27.697 - as a recreational area. So if you go to note number six on the plat, we do have it labeled as what, 00:37:27.697 --> 00:37:34.164 - what lot number four is going to be used. And if I'm not mistaken, do we have an aerial photo drew that 00:37:34.164 --> 00:37:36.030 - we can look at together here? 00:37:37.986 --> 00:37:45.432 - You want the aerial imagery, not just the plot document, please. So a lot for, you know, well, particularly 00:37:45.432 --> 00:37:52.740 - the smaller lots, lots that have the 12 acre size and the 10 acre size. There are some drainage easements 00:37:52.740 --> 00:37:59.772 - there that can be utilized as a tree preservation area in lieu of planting street trees in this case. 00:37:59.772 --> 00:38:06.942 - Some of the difficulties protecting some of these trees, most of them was found at the northeast corner 00:38:07.042 --> 00:38:14.456 - next to the street, and some of it fell within the right of way that wasn't going to be able to be utilized 00:38:14.456 --> 00:38:21.458 - for street trees, and some of it was going to have to be removed in order to construct a driveway and 00:38:21.458 --> 00:38:28.392 - site visibility. So if it's your wishes to see a tree preservation area, I would recommend using one 00:38:28.392 --> 00:38:35.806 - of the drainage easements on one of the smaller lots so that we can meet this 18-tree tree protection area. 00:38:36.994 --> 00:38:40.158 - And if you have any other technical questions, be glad to answer. 00:39:04.482 --> 00:39:13.551 - Instead of the street trees is what you're saying. Precisely. Okay. But what about lot four where the 00:39:13.551 --> 00:39:22.442 - slopes are? That's my concern regarding erosion. So there's no plans for having any logging done on 00:39:22.442 --> 00:39:32.222 - lot number four. That was never part of any of the discussion that we wanted to prevent having trees removed. 00:39:32.642 --> 00:39:39.480 - This was an old haul road that we're using as an access easement to get back to lot four. That is for 00:39:39.480 --> 00:39:46.183 - sure the fact, but it's not their intentions to having lot four logged. And I think that they would 00:39:46.183 --> 00:39:53.088 - need to go through the proper permitting if they did have any logging done. Now we have put additional 00:39:53.088 --> 00:39:57.982 - safeguards in place by having drainage easements placed along the creeks 00:39:58.210 --> 00:40:07.578 - protect the erosion in that area. We're also delineating the 25% slopes in this case. Maybe this is 00:40:07.578 --> 00:40:17.227 - a question if I might, may I interject a question for legal staff about this topic? Is there a way to, 00:40:17.227 --> 00:40:26.782 - instead of just saying logging prohibited on lot four, is there a way to say that stormwater approval 00:40:26.782 --> 00:40:28.094 - must be given 00:40:28.226 --> 00:40:35.771 - before meeting all of the other requirements to perform logging on lot four? Is there a way to do that? 00:40:35.771 --> 00:40:43.026 - Because it's really, we don't have anyone here from Stormwater, so. I think that that'd be a pretty 00:40:43.026 --> 00:40:50.571 - difficult thing to do. And I think that it would be unlikely though. It's not something we've ever done 00:40:50.571 --> 00:40:52.094 - before. I know that. 00:40:52.322 --> 00:41:01.142 - I would say additional complication was that house bill that was enacted that took logging permissions 00:41:01.142 --> 00:41:09.705 - out of storm water and back to planning and limited to urban. So I don't, yeah, I would not be sure 00:41:09.705 --> 00:41:18.354 - that we could request storm water to do that. And I think that I don't, as Eric mentioned, like they 00:41:18.354 --> 00:41:21.694 - only reference the logging detail when 00:41:21.826 --> 00:41:28.520 - Jackson I think had a draft where there was a tree preservation area on the lot four and I was communicating 00:41:28.520 --> 00:41:34.722 - with them by phone. They said, well, our concern there is if we did log the property and there was a 00:41:34.722 --> 00:41:41.232 - tree preservation area that that could, you know, hinder some access road or something to get back there. 00:41:41.232 --> 00:41:47.558 - They were just thinking ahead. I don't think that their immediate plan is to log, but they didn't want 00:41:47.558 --> 00:41:50.014 - the tree preservation area on lot four. 00:41:54.402 --> 00:42:03.611 - Is that question still on the table? About lot four, a tree preservation area? So our staff recommendation 00:42:03.611 --> 00:42:12.304 - right now is negative for the street tree waiver, which means they either have to plant street trees 00:42:12.304 --> 00:42:20.222 - in their entirety along Lee Phillips or they have to preserve and plant along Lee Phillips. 00:42:20.386 --> 00:42:30.148 - If we're saying we approve the street tree waiver upon a condition that they designate 18 trees as a 00:42:30.148 --> 00:42:38.846 - preservation area on lot X, you could do that. Not sufficient to protect against erosion. 00:42:57.058 --> 00:43:06.388 - So before we come back up here or we talk about public comment for or against, are there any other things 00:43:06.388 --> 00:43:15.189 - that you'd like to tell us? I don't have any other information unless you have some questions about 00:43:15.189 --> 00:43:21.438 - it that I could answer for you. So let's go ahead into those folks who 00:43:21.826 --> 00:43:29.496 - or in favor of those folks who are against, do we have anybody in the room who wants to take and provide 00:43:29.496 --> 00:43:36.800 - comment? Absolutely. Just say if it's for or against. Tell it, state whether you're for or against. 00:43:36.800 --> 00:43:44.324 - I'm the petitioner. Oh, you're the petitioner? I'm sorry, sir. Yeah. Yeah, OK. Sign in, please. Do you 00:43:44.324 --> 00:43:51.774 - want to sign in? Yes. If I was against my own thing, that wouldn't be real smart. But you never know. 00:43:51.906 --> 00:43:59.375 - Your concerns on logging on lot four. Lot four is going to my younger brother, which this property was 00:43:59.375 --> 00:44:06.700 - logged in 2010, something like that. So it is nowhere near ready to be logged again. So my brother's 00:44:06.700 --> 00:44:13.952 - 57 years old. He thought maybe some day down in the future when he gave it to his son, nobody wants 00:44:13.952 --> 00:44:21.566 - to log it. He just didn't want to tie his boy's hands 20, 25 years down the road if he wanted to log it. 00:44:21.794 --> 00:44:29.217 - And I know you're concerned about erosion, but any speaking of logging would be years down the road. 00:44:29.217 --> 00:44:36.640 - My brother was kind of not for this, and we have sweet talk to him over the past year, and now he is 00:44:36.640 --> 00:44:44.063 - agreeable to this. So I just didn't want to put any more restrictions on his lot. Lot four is his. I 00:44:44.063 --> 00:44:51.486 - didn't want to put any more restrictions on his lot. That's why we proposed putting it on lot three. 00:44:51.842 --> 00:45:01.033 - which is gonna belong to one of my sons. Does that clarify anything for you there? It does, but it's 00:45:01.033 --> 00:45:10.861 - not a guarantee of anything and that's what I'm worried about because the erosion can be really problematic 00:45:10.861 --> 00:45:14.046 - with logging and it's not going to 00:45:14.274 --> 00:45:23.031 - would require a permit because it's not in a quote unquote urban area reading the definition. So there's 00:45:23.031 --> 00:45:31.872 - nothing else we can do except ask that there be tree preservation put on this property. And at any point, 00:45:31.872 --> 00:45:40.379 - the owner can come to the Plan Commission or to BZA and ask that this be modified. And at that point, 00:45:40.379 --> 00:45:41.630 - the conditions 00:45:42.690 --> 00:45:50.091 - can be determined about, you know, whether or not tree preservation should remain on this lot. Well, 00:45:50.091 --> 00:45:57.492 - I guarantee you that this is part of our farm, grandpa's farm. I guarantee you that place will never 00:45:57.492 --> 00:46:04.381 - be never be clear cut. You know, nobody's going to come in and log the whole entire 40 acres. 00:46:04.381 --> 00:46:09.950 - So, Commissioner Thomas, if there is a BZA Board of Zoning Appeals process, 00:46:10.530 --> 00:46:15.856 - If, in fact, you would mandate or require a tree preservation area, doesn't that give us a process down 00:46:15.856 --> 00:46:21.285 - the road if they want to come in and do something other, where they could request a variance or something 00:46:21.285 --> 00:46:26.509 - like that? Isn't that the step, the process we could follow? Yeah, I don't know if it would be BZA or 00:46:26.509 --> 00:46:31.887 - just coming back to the Plan Commission because, yeah, Plan Commission, because it's- Whatever the body, 00:46:31.887 --> 00:46:37.008 - whatever the body. Yeah, but it's, but also if they decide they want to build on it, they'd have to 00:46:37.008 --> 00:46:39.774 - come back to the Plan Commission, for example, right? 00:46:40.034 --> 00:46:47.601 - So I mean, I think that's I'm a process person. And as long as there's a process that allows them to 00:46:47.601 --> 00:46:55.167 - come back and request something different in the future, we should allow that to happen or we should 00:46:55.167 --> 00:47:02.884 - stipulate that that happens. That's my thought. Yeah, there would be a way to change it in the future. 00:47:02.884 --> 00:47:04.382 - It just wouldn't be 00:47:05.218 --> 00:47:10.411 - I just don't want my brother. I don't want to hear from my brother when we have this discussion afterwards 00:47:10.411 --> 00:47:15.312 - that he's got 40 acres that one he can't build on, which he agreed to that because he has no they've 00:47:15.312 --> 00:47:20.359 - got a house on 446 opposite end of the county. He has no intention to move in there. This is just where 00:47:20.359 --> 00:47:25.018 - we deer hunt, where we've always deer hunted, where we've always planted a little corn, put up, 00:47:25.018 --> 00:47:30.016 - put up hay, then done a little farming. And that's that's going to be the future. But he was agreeable 00:47:30.016 --> 00:47:32.734 - because he does not want a house down there. But I just 00:47:33.506 --> 00:47:40.447 - I don't want to come back to him and say, look, you know, this is a recreational area. Not only can 00:47:40.447 --> 00:47:47.528 - you not build now, you can't log 20 years down the road without without getting going back before the 00:47:47.528 --> 00:47:54.608 - Planning Commission and getting it read and getting it all redone. That's going to get me in some hot 00:47:54.608 --> 00:48:02.174 - water. Just just to be honest. But we we were very agreeable to putting on lot three on that Draisman inage. 00:48:02.370 --> 00:48:12.359 - drainage easement there, a section of trees that would be in a preservation. The problem is, if I vote 00:48:12.359 --> 00:48:22.251 - no, then the whole thing doesn't pass. That's why I'm asking you very nicely. I get that. You're very 00:48:22.251 --> 00:48:27.294 - polite, sir, and I appreciate it, but I'm hesitant. 00:48:31.074 --> 00:48:37.549 - Erosion impact is huge of logging on this kind of sloped area. I wish we had never brought the term 00:48:37.549 --> 00:48:44.283 - logging up when we were talking to Jackie because like there's no there's no intention of this property 00:48:44.283 --> 00:48:50.888 - ever being logged. But I can't bank on that and the people who live downstream can't bank on that and 00:48:50.888 --> 00:48:58.334 - that's the problem. Well it's kind of it's kind of in a bowl everybody the neighbors drainage all drains in on us. 00:48:58.722 --> 00:49:05.049 - I don't know that much water of ours, if any, but some may drain over. It goes somewhere. Right. It 00:49:05.049 --> 00:49:11.375 - goes somewhere. So the sticking point is logging. Right. And versus a preservation area. Right. And 00:49:11.375 --> 00:49:17.828 - you need to, in order for this to move forward to the commissioners for approval, all five of us have 00:49:17.828 --> 00:49:23.902 - to agree. Right. Cause there's only five people here. Right. We don't have the full contingent. 00:49:25.090 --> 00:49:32.945 - So we need to have some sort of an agreement or compromise if we're gonna move this forward in a positive 00:49:32.945 --> 00:49:40.429 - manner. And what I'm hearing is that the sticking point is logging. Which nobody intends to log. But 00:49:40.429 --> 00:49:47.839 - a statement or provide something in writing to the planning department that says that with a caveat 00:49:47.839 --> 00:49:54.878 - that at some time in the future, 20 years from now, if in fact somebody else within the family 00:49:55.394 --> 00:50:03.277 - who wants to take and log, they need to come back to the Planning Commission and go through that process. 00:50:03.277 --> 00:50:10.713 - That is the out. The out is the process. But I don't think you're going to get approval here. But I 00:50:10.713 --> 00:50:18.596 - don't want to speak for my brother's 40 acres either. And I guess maybe he should have been here tonight. 00:50:18.596 --> 00:50:25.214 - Because I didn't know whether this was going to be an issue. And I don't want to confuse 00:50:25.346 --> 00:50:33.530 - the tree preservation offer on lot three to supplant no pun intended pun intended. The tree preservation 00:50:33.530 --> 00:50:41.480 - required along the road. I don't want to confuse that with this issue. This is separate. So let's not 00:50:41.480 --> 00:50:49.274 - confuse the issue. So I mean, an option would be to move this on for a final hearing and not decide 00:50:49.274 --> 00:50:52.158 - this tonight. That's another option. 00:50:53.474 --> 00:51:00.119 - and then I can be outvoted, but then I am a county commissioner, so I don't know what my colleagues 00:51:00.119 --> 00:51:06.830 - are gonna do when you come before us either. I don't know what I'll do. This would get a decision at 00:51:06.830 --> 00:51:13.475 - Planning Commission, though. Just Planning Commission. Oh, even though it's a major... Right. Okay, 00:51:13.475 --> 00:51:19.853 - good, okay. Excellent, that's good. Good for him. Can I ask a question? Just a simple question. 00:51:19.853 --> 00:51:22.910 - On lot four, I see that the tree preservation 00:51:23.010 --> 00:51:31.563 - area kind of exactly coincides with the Carst Conservancy area? Is that true? Yes, that's an older version 00:51:31.563 --> 00:51:40.036 - when that got brought up during the Planning Commission admin meeting that this conversation precipitated 00:51:40.036 --> 00:51:48.030 - from that, so that tree preservation area identifier has changed. I can show you on the screen now. 00:51:48.514 --> 00:51:57.635 - This is the updated version on the screen now. And you can see the cars conservancy area remains the 00:51:57.635 --> 00:52:06.937 - same. They just haven't double counted it as a tree preservation area. And it would have just captured 00:52:06.937 --> 00:52:16.510 - that green area anyways, which is about 1.35 acres and singles. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for refreshing 00:52:17.538 --> 00:52:25.355 - wherever I was that night. Well, there's, there's a, there's two versions in the packet. So that's why 00:52:25.355 --> 00:52:33.248 - it's confusing. So commissioner Thomas, your suggestion about pushing this to a final hearing, allowing 00:52:33.248 --> 00:52:40.913 - you the petitioner to talk to your brother and then coming back to us. And we also hope by that time 00:52:40.913 --> 00:52:45.694 - should have a fuller compliment of the commissioner's present. 00:52:47.874 --> 00:52:53.700 - Well, I can I can make a decision if law forward is going to be mine. But since it since it's going 00:52:53.700 --> 00:52:59.701 - to be his, I don't want to speak for him. And I mean, I got to eat dinner Thanksgiving dinner with him 00:52:59.701 --> 00:53:05.644 - and see him on his birthday and see him on Christmas. Although it's it's all in somebody's name right 00:53:05.644 --> 00:53:11.528 - now. One person's name right now. It's in it's in mind is in my mom's. OK, got it. OK, got it. So I. 00:53:11.528 --> 00:53:16.830 - Anything else you'd like to comment? So I guess we still need to ask for people for guest. 00:53:17.506 --> 00:53:25.253 - And I don't see anybody in the room who wants to speak up for for up. We do another comment. Yeah. Thomas, 00:53:25.253 --> 00:53:32.782 - would you be able to make it happen where if he and his brother are able to converse with you in person 00:53:32.782 --> 00:53:40.167 - or by phone? If you're trying to put some of this into a tree preservation, because there's really no 00:53:40.167 --> 00:53:47.262 - outline there what you're thinking either, you know, as far as 45 acres of this of this property. 00:53:48.034 --> 00:53:56.628 - right? Um, yeah, I, I, my concern is where trees interact with slope. That's, that's my concern. 00:53:56.628 --> 00:54:05.487 - And I'm, and it's beyond the 20, it's smaller than the 25% because you know what, what happens with 00:54:05.487 --> 00:54:14.878 - slope. You're, you're well aware. Um, so the, the area is the most concerned to you is the 25% area, the, 00:54:14.978 --> 00:54:22.084 - the area where the creeks are at because 45 acres is a very large area it is oh i i get that um it is 00:54:22.084 --> 00:54:29.190 - trying to find the right map here again where i was before when i first reviewed this now i didn't go 00:54:29.190 --> 00:54:36.365 - back here because i didn't feel comfortable going all the way back to look at this property personally 00:54:36.365 --> 00:54:42.078 - because i normally do that but um i felt like i was kind of out in the wild and i 00:54:42.210 --> 00:54:52.948 - I didn't want to upset anybody because that sometimes happens. Trying to find the percentage. Didn't 00:54:52.948 --> 00:55:03.898 - we have a map in here showing slope? Some of the areas is shaded and you will see with a magenta color 00:55:03.898 --> 00:55:12.190 - line that says 25%. Those are the areas that are probably the most sensitive. 00:55:15.490 --> 00:55:25.954 - and the karst area. That's true. And that's not slope, but it is slope. It's its own slope. Maybe I 00:55:25.954 --> 00:55:36.836 - saw it on the GIS layer. I might have seen it there. I've pulled up the GIS on the screen if you'd like 00:55:36.836 --> 00:55:41.022 - to. Yeah, that's what I was looking at. 00:55:48.226 --> 00:55:55.952 - plus the karst area. Are you looking at what's shaded in red? Yeah, that's the 25%. That's correct. 00:55:55.952 --> 00:56:03.677 - So that is delineated on the survey as 25%. And then we've got the area that has the thin blue line 00:56:03.677 --> 00:56:11.558 - that's delineated as a drainage easement to the property. And then we have a karst area. So are these 00:56:11.558 --> 00:56:16.734 - areas the areas of concern to you? That would be it. That'd be it. 00:56:17.058 --> 00:56:25.885 - I'm letting him talk it over with his family. Yeah, and now you have the right map. OK, the GIS map 00:56:25.885 --> 00:56:34.800 - is the one to use for that for the 25% clarification. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate you. Alright, so 00:56:34.800 --> 00:56:44.862 - public comment. For or against anybody in the room or online. I don't see any. So I guess it comes back up to us. 00:56:45.602 --> 00:56:52.251 - whether or not we have any additional comments. I would recommend that we bring this back for final 00:56:52.251 --> 00:56:59.167 - hearing. Sorry to everybody to make them all come back and make you all listen to it again, but I just, 00:56:59.167 --> 00:57:05.949 - I don't feel comfortable supporting this at this moment. And hopefully this agreement can be reached. 00:57:05.949 --> 00:57:12.798 - Do we have, do we require a motion to take and push it to a final hearing? No, but I do have a further 00:57:12.798 --> 00:57:13.662 - question for 00:57:13.954 --> 00:57:20.929 - legal and or staff and that is, can this just be a condition of approval? Preservation or is it? 00:57:20.929 --> 00:57:28.192 - Or is it? If you deny the street tree waiver, you can ask for a condition or some sort of agreement, 00:57:28.192 --> 00:57:35.455 - but I think we have to be specific. I don't think we can stay like this. This has nothing to do with 00:57:35.455 --> 00:57:43.006 - the street tree waiver. This has to do with lot four. I'm not. That's a separate thing altogether to me. 00:57:43.426 --> 00:57:52.366 - Lot four because it's a conservancy area. It would be the 25% slope. Cars conservancy area drain adjusment 00:57:52.366 --> 00:58:00.888 - would be off limits for logging. So would that be a condition or would that be something we'd have to 00:58:00.888 --> 00:58:09.828 - actually? I think that would be a condition of approval that could precipitate from a motion from yourself 00:58:09.828 --> 00:58:13.086 - or another planning commission member. 00:58:13.218 --> 00:58:20.867 - Perfect, thank you. This is really for legal or a parliamentarian type question. Can we continue this 00:58:20.867 --> 00:58:28.365 - meeting in the final hearing be held at the admin meeting? And I guess this will be the first thing 00:58:28.365 --> 00:58:35.864 - prior to the admin meeting to try to take a step out of this to take an expedite just a little bit. 00:58:35.864 --> 00:58:39.838 - Can we do that? We take public comment at that time. 00:58:40.034 --> 00:58:47.314 - Okay, so we can do that. We can continue tonight's meeting to an administrative meeting. So do we need 00:58:47.314 --> 00:58:54.735 - a motion to do that or we just do it at the end of today's meeting? Don't adjourn and continue tonight's 00:58:54.735 --> 00:59:01.873 - meeting. But for right now, we would like a motion to continue this case in its entirety to the date 00:59:01.873 --> 00:59:08.446 - of the admin meeting. That would be great work for the petitioner, though. It's October six. 00:59:10.850 --> 00:59:21.146 - October 6, would that be available? 530. It would be at the planning office. I'd like to make a motion 00:59:21.146 --> 00:59:32.542 - that we continue this item until the admin meeting that will be held on October 6 in the planning office. Second. 00:59:33.538 --> 00:59:41.008 - All right it's been moved and seconded to continue SPP-26-1 the Gardner major subdivision with different 00:59:41.008 --> 00:59:48.407 - waivers and a request for final hearing. This is being continued to the October 6th, 2026 meeting which 00:59:48.407 --> 00:59:55.878 - will be a continuation of the Planning Commission regular meeting but also followed by an administrative 00:59:55.878 --> 01:00:01.854 - meeting directly after. A vote yes is a vote to continue this to October 6th, 2026. 01:00:02.882 --> 01:00:12.763 - Rudy Fields. Yes, Julie Thomas. Yes. Mark Clements. Yes, Scott Ferris. Yes, Jeff Morris. Yes, motion 01:00:12.763 --> 01:00:23.035 - carries five to zero. Everyone, I appreciate everyone's patience with me. For good questions. All right, 01:00:23.035 --> 01:00:31.742 - that brings us to SPP 26 to which is the Trinity Springs major subdivision primary plat. 01:00:32.386 --> 01:00:40.460 - whether looking for a partial flat vacation, a street tree waiver, a buried utility waiver, and a waiver 01:00:40.460 --> 01:00:44.382 - of final hearing. And it's over to you. Thank you. 01:00:45.026 --> 01:00:51.688 - So to amend that a little bit, there's also a two points of access waiver associated with this, similar 01:00:51.688 --> 01:00:58.095 - to the previous petition. The purpose of this is to vacate a lot from an existing minor subdivision 01:00:58.095 --> 01:01:04.629 - and subdivide it into a total of three lots. The original subdivision, the Shipley minor subdivision, 01:01:04.629 --> 01:01:11.420 - established four lots. And so the only way that more lots can be created is if one of the lots is vacated 01:01:11.420 --> 01:01:13.918 - out of the existing minor subdivision. 01:01:14.242 --> 01:01:22.808 - and enters a major subdivision. So the existing lot four in this case will be vacated as the one that's 01:01:22.808 --> 01:01:31.621 - vacant and subdivided. Proposed lot four A will contain 12.6 acres with nine and a half acres of buildable 01:01:31.621 --> 01:01:38.622 - area. Proposed lot four B will contain 12.27 acres with 7.8 acres of buildable area. 01:01:39.490 --> 01:01:46.921 - and lot C will contain 10 acres with 6.31 acres of buildable area. Here are comments from the highway 01:01:46.921 --> 01:01:54.425 - department and the storm water program. Ben Ayers stated that the two existing driveways on lot B will 01:01:54.425 --> 01:02:01.857 - remain as legal pre-existing and will not require a right of way permit at this time since there's no 01:02:01.857 --> 01:02:03.678 - change to the driveways. 01:02:03.970 --> 01:02:10.838 - or will either of these drives be used as access for lot 4A or 4C? Therefore, there are no issues with 01:02:10.838 --> 01:02:17.572 - highway on this subdivision proceeding since lots 4A and 4C have right-of-way activity permits which 01:02:17.572 --> 01:02:24.239 - can be approved. And Stormwater states that the Drainage Board has approved this subdivision with a 01:02:24.239 --> 01:02:30.974 - unanimous vote during their meeting on July 7th, 2026 with the following condition of approval, that 01:02:30.974 --> 01:02:33.374 - on lot 4B, if necessary to install, 01:02:33.762 --> 01:02:42.691 - the second septic location be placed to avoid the drainage easement. And here is a table summarizing 01:02:42.691 --> 01:02:51.974 - the subdivision. And here is a location map, zoning map, and site conditions map. For these next photos, 01:02:51.974 --> 01:03:00.638 - I'd like to use them to also discuss the various waivers, if that's all right, just very briefly. 01:03:03.842 --> 01:03:14.063 - First is a street tree waiver. Since this is a major subdivision, Chapter 832-14C would require that 01:03:14.063 --> 01:03:24.991 - street trees be established or a street tree waiver be applied for. The primary plat exhibits approximately 01:03:24.991 --> 01:03:33.694 - 386.5 feet of road frontage along West Bay Road and approximately 1,957.36 feet along 01:03:33.794 --> 01:03:40.193 - South Leonard Springs Road which equates to roughly 59 street trees. The petitioner has opted for a 01:03:40.193 --> 01:03:46.784 - street tree waiver instead and has proposed a tree preservation area on lot 4B. One of the reasons for 01:03:46.784 --> 01:03:53.439 - this is because there are power lines present on the property and the petitioner has stated in the past 01:03:53.439 --> 01:04:00.030 - as you can see from the image on the left here that the electric provider has cut down trees that have 01:04:00.030 --> 01:04:03.422 - ventured to that have been too close to the property 01:04:03.650 --> 01:04:11.847 - to the power lines. This also brings me to the next petition waiver request, which is a buried utility 01:04:11.847 --> 01:04:20.602 - waiver. There is an electric power line leading directly to the house from a pole that measures approximately 01:04:20.602 --> 01:04:28.958 - 40 to 45 feet long. Said home was constructed in 1958, exhibits three, photos five and six for the power 01:04:29.922 --> 01:04:43.232 - the utility waiver request. And for the two points of access. The configuration of the subdivision does 01:04:43.232 --> 01:04:56.158 - not include an interior ingress or egress from Leonard Springs Road to West May Road, though the lot 01:04:56.158 --> 01:04:58.462 - does contain dual 01:05:00.482 --> 01:05:07.988 - So the proposal is for two existing driveways to remain on lot 4B, as well as for driveways to be approved 01:05:07.988 --> 01:05:15.003 - on lot 4A and lot 4C. And the various photos of the site. The image on the left, I believe, depicts 01:05:15.003 --> 01:05:22.018 - the tree preservation area as marked on the plats, though I don't think at this time the petitioner 01:05:22.018 --> 01:05:29.454 - has identified how large that area is going to be, which is something that is mentioned in the conditions 01:05:29.454 --> 01:05:30.366 - of approval. 01:05:32.866 --> 01:05:40.060 - And here is a layout of the proposed subdivision into three lots, as well as the original Shipley Miner 01:05:40.060 --> 01:05:47.185 - subdivision, which originally created this lot, lot number four. And so staff supports approval of the 01:05:47.185 --> 01:05:54.103 - proposed primary plats based on the findings of fact, subject to comments from the highway engineer 01:05:54.103 --> 01:06:01.021 - and storm water manager reports. Staff recommends approval of the proposed street tree waiver based 01:06:01.021 --> 01:06:02.750 - on the findings of fact, 01:06:02.882 --> 01:06:08.529 - Namely, staff believes that practical difficulties have been sufficiently demonstrated. This is subject 01:06:08.529 --> 01:06:14.014 - to the following condition of approval. One, the petitioner is to add a note to the plaque regarding 01:06:14.014 --> 01:06:19.770 - the street preservation area and include the size. Staff supports approval of the buried utilities waiver 01:06:19.770 --> 01:06:25.254 - based on the findings of fact. Staff recommends approval of the two ways ingress egress waiver based 01:06:25.254 --> 01:06:31.390 - on the findings of fact and subject to highway engineer reports. And finally, staff recommends no recommendation 01:06:32.098 --> 01:06:39.752 - on the plot vacation, but staff does recommend that, request that the surveyor include a written statement 01:06:39.752 --> 01:06:47.048 - regarding plot vacation on the primary plots. And I will take any questions. Questions from the plant 01:06:47.048 --> 01:06:54.630 - commission. Left. Yeah, you know, I'm going to have one. Can you explain the plot vacation and how that's 01:06:54.630 --> 01:07:00.638 - supposed to work or how it could work with these, this configuration of properties? 01:07:02.178 --> 01:07:08.921 - What are we vacating and what can happen on that property? So it is lot four in the Shibley minor subdivision 01:07:08.921 --> 01:07:15.297 - that is being vacated, as indicated by my mouse. And the plan is for this to be divided into three lots 01:07:15.297 --> 01:07:21.427 - that I believe will be used for residential building purposes. I believe the petitioner has already 01:07:21.427 --> 01:07:27.006 - picked out a potential building site on lot 4A, for example, for a single family dwelling. 01:07:31.618 --> 01:07:39.318 - I can add to the plat vacation question. So under the CDO, we restricted re subdivision after plat vacation 01:07:39.318 --> 01:07:46.448 - so that they are required to submit for a major subdivision, for instance, if they're coming from a 01:07:46.448 --> 01:07:53.863 - minor subdivision. So that's why these are two back to back major subdivisions. In a case where there's 01:07:53.863 --> 01:07:58.782 - a plat vacation and all owners of the original plat agree, there's a 01:07:59.010 --> 01:08:05.920 - a set of findings that is exhibit five in the packet. If there's a situation in which plat owners do 01:08:05.920 --> 01:08:12.898 - not agree, then there's a separate, you have to prove what the conditions have changed. So I believe, 01:08:12.898 --> 01:08:20.287 - Daniel, the clarification here is, are the owners of the original plat in agreement with this plat vacation 01:08:20.287 --> 01:08:27.265 - resubdivision? That is my understanding, yes. Okay. And they would be required to sign this new plat. 01:08:27.265 --> 01:08:28.702 - Okay. Correct. Okay. 01:08:28.866 --> 01:08:42.077 - And there's a lot sort of west, it's not, if you look at our page 619, that has nothing to do with any 01:08:42.077 --> 01:08:55.032 - of this, right? I just wanna make sure, because it's marked out as a lot, but it's behind everything 01:08:55.032 --> 01:08:57.982 - else, and I don't know 01:08:58.786 --> 01:09:05.832 - Is that part of the original subdivision? Oh, good question. That pink X line, that's a fence. Right. 01:09:05.832 --> 01:09:12.809 - I believe that's just delineated to show the surrounding property as part of an orientation measure. 01:09:12.809 --> 01:09:19.786 - Okay. So it has, because I followed the blue lines as the property, the proposed property lines, but 01:09:19.786 --> 01:09:26.694 - I wanted to make sure I understood why that was there. So perfect. Thank you. Anybody else up here? 01:09:26.694 --> 01:09:28.766 - Petitioner, petitioner's rep. 01:09:33.186 --> 01:09:40.624 - you've already signed in and you've already stated your name. So yes Julie you're correct that it's 01:09:40.624 --> 01:09:48.360 - just going to be lot number four that we're going to be affecting here and also the adjoining neighbors 01:09:48.360 --> 01:09:56.542 - and the members of the current subdivision are agreeable to vacating this lot and then just for clarification 01:09:56.706 --> 01:10:03.955 - On the plot vacation language, I believe it's in the first paragraph. I don't know if we was looking 01:10:03.955 --> 01:10:11.492 - at an older version or whatever, but there was something there that said that we was vacating lot number 01:10:11.492 --> 01:10:18.885 - four. Other than that, I think that's all we had. And if you have any questions. Sorry, but not sorry. 01:10:18.885 --> 01:10:26.206 - So what is the tree preservation plan in exchange for street trees? What is the plan? Yep, thank you. 01:10:26.690 --> 01:10:32.976 - So currently we have a power line running parallel with the street. So that's the reason that we're 01:10:32.976 --> 01:10:39.575 - asking for the waiver. So we're proposing to place the triangular shape that you will find in the middle 01:10:39.575 --> 01:10:45.861 - lot at the southwest corner of it, where the area of steep slopes located at. That's where we would 01:10:45.861 --> 01:10:52.147 - ask to have the tree preservation at. There's a tree preservation marked on 4C. 4B? Yes. Yeah, that 01:10:52.147 --> 01:10:55.038 - 4B is what he's talking about, that triangle. 01:10:55.874 --> 01:11:05.428 - 4C has a tree preservation area. Is that also part of this? I would need to take a little closer look 01:11:05.428 --> 01:11:14.888 - at the plot. Let me step around the podium here. You can take the mic with you, Eric, if you want to 01:11:14.888 --> 01:11:24.348 - speak while you're standing. The triangle comes off that right angle. Nope. South. There it is. Just 01:11:24.348 --> 01:11:25.566 - a 25% slope. 01:11:25.986 --> 01:11:33.237 - Okay. Well, it's got the same markings of the green dots. That's why I'm asking. I see. True that we 01:11:33.237 --> 01:11:40.631 - were using the 25% where the green dots are located at. That was the area that we thought we was going 01:11:40.631 --> 01:11:48.169 - to be able to capture enough trees to meet the tree preservation area. So that's not a tree preservation 01:11:48.169 --> 01:11:54.846 - area in lot 4C. We do not have it delineated as a tree preservation area. Got it. Thank you. 01:12:01.090 --> 01:12:10.227 - So I guess we still need public comment on this for or against. Do we have any public comment in the 01:12:10.227 --> 01:12:19.273 - room? Seeing none. On the online. I don't see anyone. So it comes back to us for final comments. Do 01:12:19.273 --> 01:12:24.158 - you have any final comments before we go to a motion? 01:12:32.770 --> 01:12:40.688 - Kind of please, pretty please. I can make a motion. Oh, thank you. Jackie, do you need me to read the 01:12:40.688 --> 01:12:48.605 - entire recommendation or can I just make a motion based on what's right in front of me? So do we need 01:12:48.605 --> 01:12:56.368 - to state it for the record or can we just make reference to it? You can make reference to it, but I 01:12:56.368 --> 01:13:00.094 - will probably say it out loud just for clarity. 01:13:00.738 --> 01:13:08.795 - for case SPP-26-2 I move approval of all the items presented in this case as stated in our packet tonight. 01:13:08.795 --> 01:13:16.777 - Would that be subject to the surveyor including a written statement regarding the vacation on the primary 01:13:16.777 --> 01:13:21.822 - plat? Yes. Okay, well then I think I'd like to second that motion. 01:13:23.586 --> 01:13:32.984 - Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve SPP-26-2 which includes a approval of the plat, also the 01:13:32.984 --> 01:13:42.200 - street tree waiver with a condition that the petitioner have the note which is listed on lot 4B that 01:13:42.200 --> 01:13:51.599 - a tree preservation area include the size of that tree preservation area, and then also a approval for 01:13:51.599 --> 01:13:53.150 - buried utilities 01:13:53.346 --> 01:14:02.416 - two points, ingress and egress, and also the partial plat vacation of lot four of Shipley minor. A vote 01:14:02.416 --> 01:14:11.225 - yes is a vote to approve all of the items, including the one condition regarding the street tree and 01:14:11.225 --> 01:14:20.382 - the tree preservation. May I ask a question? Sure. On page 597, we have the note that the drainage board 01:14:21.666 --> 01:14:29.099 - had a condition that on lot four B if necessary to install a second septic location to avoid the drainage 01:14:29.099 --> 01:14:36.110 - easement? Is that something we'd have to add as a condition? I don't believe so because one of the, 01:14:36.110 --> 01:14:43.262 - because the phrasing for the approval of the subdivision as a whole says subject to comments from the 01:14:43.262 --> 01:14:50.555 - highway engineer and stormwater. Okay, not even, okay. So even though it's very specific, we don't have 01:14:50.555 --> 01:14:51.326 - to add it. 01:14:51.458 --> 01:14:58.074 - Thank you. Apologize. The other thing I would add real quick is it is for Planning Commission approval. 01:14:58.074 --> 01:15:04.500 - Yeah. This does not go to the commissioners. And in the version in the packet, it does show that the 01:15:04.500 --> 01:15:10.989 - septic would not be within the drainage easement at least on this page 619. So thank you. Okay. We'll 01:15:10.989 --> 01:15:17.541 - make note of that. Okay. So still motion on the table with that as conditions as stated. I'll go ahead 01:15:17.541 --> 01:15:18.750 - and call the roll. 01:15:20.418 --> 01:15:32.925 - Julie Thomas? Yes. Mark Clements? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Motion 01:15:32.925 --> 01:15:45.556 - carries five to zero. All right, so let's see, that brings up number three, which is REZ262, which is 01:15:45.556 --> 01:15:50.014 - the Western States PUD zoning area. 01:15:50.114 --> 01:15:58.433 - error and also a waiver for a final hearing, and I guess that's huge. I'll go ahead and present this 01:15:58.433 --> 01:16:07.081 - one. Yes, so this is a planned commission authored rezone to the community development zone. This parcel 01:16:07.081 --> 01:16:14.494 - in communication with the owners of 1530 and 1540 South Curry Pike were incorrectly zoned 01:16:14.594 --> 01:16:21.681 - for a while as Western Estates PUD. When we redrew the legal description for that PUD rezone that was 01:16:21.681 --> 01:16:28.629 - initiated under the city of Bloomington when they had extraterritorial jurisdiction over that area, 01:16:28.629 --> 01:16:35.854 - it did not include these two parcels. So it was a Scrivener's error. The Plan Commission is taking this 01:16:35.854 --> 01:16:43.358 - rezone. And so the owners themselves have not petitioned the Plan Commission for this rezone. They have not 01:16:43.746 --> 01:16:50.448 - you know, paid fees for this, so this is, the petitioner here is the Planning Commission, I wanna be 01:16:50.448 --> 01:16:57.415 - clear about that. So here's the location map, we are in Van Buren Township, just right across the street 01:16:57.415 --> 01:17:04.315 - from the BMV, so we're on South Curry Pike and West Sierra Drive. This is the current zoning map, which 01:17:04.315 --> 01:17:11.614 - does show the two parcels as grayed out as PUD, but again, that's the error that we're trying to fix tonight. 01:17:11.714 --> 01:17:18.385 - or sorry, at the county commissioner level. To the north is community development zone, the yellow, 01:17:18.385 --> 01:17:25.189 - which is what the recommendation is that this parcel be rezoned to, and then to the east you have HI, 01:17:25.189 --> 01:17:32.127 - which is heavy industrial, and also you have light industrial, and then further to the south, that kind 01:17:32.127 --> 01:17:39.198 - of chartreuse color is high development, and then to the far southwest you have conservation residential. 01:17:39.458 --> 01:17:46.621 - On the, in the packet as well as on the screen you have the site conditions map. There is some constraints 01:17:46.621 --> 01:17:53.516 - of flood plain to the western side of 1540 South Curry Pike. The two properties are actually currently 01:17:53.516 --> 01:18:00.545 - built out with both having single family residences and then the parcel to the west does have a detached 01:18:00.545 --> 01:18:07.038 - garage and I believe an apartment within that garage as well. And then we also have a zoomed out 01:18:07.138 --> 01:18:14.541 - where you can see the full extent of the floodplain crossing West Sierra Drive underneath and the different 01:18:14.541 --> 01:18:21.602 - development types to the north and the south. So you do have pretty much all housing types that you'll 01:18:21.602 --> 01:18:28.457 - see. We have multi-family, we have townhomes, we have a mobile home park to the west and further to 01:18:28.457 --> 01:18:33.598 - the south. As well as the Carstarm Greenway is also adjacent to this area. 01:18:34.658 --> 01:18:42.721 - The property is also in the sinking Creek critical watershed and then just for everyone's reminder There's 01:18:42.721 --> 01:18:50.332 - the aerial with the description descriptions of the developments on each lot So 1530 to the east has 01:18:50.332 --> 01:18:58.470 - a house and a pool and then to the west 1540 has a house and then the garage with apartment is the furthest 01:18:58.470 --> 01:18:59.902 - west structure the 01:19:00.034 --> 01:19:07.299 - property acreages one acre for the eastern parcel and then 1.96 acres on the western parcel but there 01:19:07.299 --> 01:19:14.565 - is floodway on the western half so it kind of constricts the amount of developable land they both are 01:19:14.565 --> 01:19:21.688 - connected to sewer and city water and they've had the property for sale and so one of the questions 01:19:21.688 --> 01:19:23.326 - along the way was what 01:19:23.458 --> 01:19:30.255 - what are the possible potential buyers interested in doing with the property, and in either option, 01:19:30.255 --> 01:19:37.119 - there's not an interest for an owner living on site. Buyer one, in this case, I think both maybe are 01:19:37.119 --> 01:19:44.324 - no longer on the table, but in this instance, they wanted to rent the property and remodel the structures 01:19:44.324 --> 01:19:47.518 - as they are, which community development would 01:19:47.714 --> 01:19:54.468 - likely allow that to continue with some modifications for the garage apartment. And then buyer two wanted 01:19:54.468 --> 01:20:00.840 - to knock down the structures and rebuild multifamily potentially paired patio homes with garages or 01:20:00.840 --> 01:20:07.467 - fourplexes with garages. That one would probably not be as accommodated under the community development 01:20:07.467 --> 01:20:14.157 - but possibly under high development depending on the build out. So we do have in the packet a comparison 01:20:14.157 --> 01:20:17.598 - of community development as well as high development. 01:20:17.762 --> 01:20:24.845 - Some of the changes or differences are in the side yard setback. Sorry, I've highlighted the rear yard. 01:20:24.845 --> 01:20:31.861 - The rear yard is the same. And the maximum impervious cover. So that's the biggest difference is under 01:20:31.861 --> 01:20:39.081 - the community development district, there's 50% or 5,500 square feet, whichever is less as your allowable 01:20:39.081 --> 01:20:46.096 - maximum impervious. Whereas under high development, it's 50% of the lot size without the caveat of the 01:20:46.096 --> 01:20:47.390 - 5,500 square feet. 01:20:48.450 --> 01:20:56.126 - So that's the biggest difference. And then, apologies, this must have been from the last one. 01:20:56.194 --> 01:21:02.761 - The use table here from the CDO, you have the CD and HD districts. And I just wanted to point out that 01:21:02.761 --> 01:21:09.392 - for the most part, there is an allowance in both zones to have some level of multifamily, three to four 01:21:09.392 --> 01:21:15.895 - units. If there's a connection to sewer, there's an extensive list of standards for both the three to 01:21:15.895 --> 01:21:22.335 - four units and then the five plus units. But if you're going to have more than five or more units on 01:21:22.335 --> 01:21:26.160 - the property, that would not be a permissible use in the CD 01:21:26.160 --> 01:21:34.589 - it would only be under the high development district. Today we received a letter from the owner's 01:21:34.589 --> 01:21:43.190 - representative, their realtor, stating that they would like to see the property zoned as HD and not 01:21:43.190 --> 01:21:52.050 - CD. And so I've printed that letter for you to review and also here on the screen. And they're working 01:21:52.050 --> 01:21:54.974 - with an appraiser, Fig Appraisal, 01:21:55.106 --> 01:22:03.387 - would also like to consider this to be HD. And most of this is so that it's the highest and best use 01:22:03.387 --> 01:22:11.667 - since the property is for sale, that's the request. And they're also noticing the development in the 01:22:11.667 --> 01:22:20.030 - proximity is higher development. Here are some site photos of the property. This is 1530 South Curry. 01:22:20.450 --> 01:22:26.863 - the pool and the home. There was a dumpster on the property, so I do believe they're, you know, possibly 01:22:26.863 --> 01:22:33.216 - needing to repair a little bit more on the 1530 South Curry Pike structure. It doesn't appear anybody's 01:22:33.216 --> 01:22:39.324 - living in it at the moment. And then 1540 South Curry, one to the west with the two structures with 01:22:39.324 --> 01:22:42.622 - the house and then the detached garage and apartment. 01:22:42.754 --> 01:22:49.034 - These do appear to be lived in. And then just across the street, we do have apartments further on West 01:22:49.034 --> 01:22:55.253 - Sierra Drive. And then of course, the manufactured home park. And then in the packet, I also had kind 01:22:55.253 --> 01:23:01.716 - of a street view just showing the development closer to Curry Pike, which I think was more like triplexes 01:23:01.716 --> 01:23:07.996 - or quadplexes. The recommendation of the Planning Commission at this time is a positive recommendation 01:23:07.996 --> 01:23:09.886 - to the Board of Commissioners. 01:23:10.050 --> 01:23:17.402 - Citing its compatibility both CD and HD with the comprehensive plan Subject to stormwater and highway 01:23:17.402 --> 01:23:24.610 - reports and it also includes a recommendation positive recommendation to waive the final hearing So 01:23:24.610 --> 01:23:31.889 - with that I can take any questions questions from the plan Commission go on the right side this time 01:23:31.889 --> 01:23:36.286 - Love side All right, no questions petitioner petitioners rep 01:23:41.186 --> 01:23:56.976 - Sign in, state your name, and you have 15 minutes. Hello. I am Michelle Stanger, Stanger Homes, who 01:23:56.976 --> 01:24:10.398 - represents the owner, Deborah Clark. In my letter that Jackie had presented up here, 01:24:11.010 --> 01:24:17.799 - The majority of the. If I for one second, let me make something like a correction to the record. The 01:24:17.799 --> 01:24:24.857 - petitioner is the the the planning department, and so you're technically coming up as part of the public 01:24:24.857 --> 01:24:31.646 - comment. Is that true with this letter? Is she a petitioner now that this letter is here? No, we are 01:24:31.646 --> 01:24:38.906 - the petitioner, so this is the this is the supporters or remonstrators public comment. Yes, that's correct. 01:24:38.906 --> 01:24:40.990 - OK, so this is public comment. 01:24:41.346 --> 01:24:49.375 - state whether you're for or against or whatever your comment is. Well, since I'm the real estate agent, 01:24:49.375 --> 01:24:57.405 - I am for rezoning this to HD. And so is the owner. So I represent her as well. Are those your comments? 01:24:57.405 --> 01:25:05.280 - You have anything else to add or is that it? Well, in my letter, I mean, it's pretty clear and simple 01:25:05.280 --> 01:25:09.758 - that the majority, you know, the villages like Curry Pike 01:25:10.082 --> 01:25:17.314 - zone as a PUD. There is a majority of HD around the area. You go across the street. It's commercial. 01:25:17.314 --> 01:25:24.832 - It only makes sense for it to be HD versus CD. And of course the owner is just trying to get the highest 01:25:24.832 --> 01:25:32.565 - and best use of this property as well. This is basically the last of the two lots in that area to basically 01:25:32.565 --> 01:25:33.854 - do anything with. 01:25:34.658 --> 01:25:40.854 - more than likely it's gonna be a developer that's gonna wanna buy this piece of property. And we're 01:25:40.854 --> 01:25:47.235 - trying to get the correction on the rezoning so I know how to market it appropriately. And when we had 01:25:47.235 --> 01:25:52.874 - the appraisal done, it's literally taken seven months because it was zoned incorrectly. So 01:25:52.874 --> 01:25:59.069 - per the recommendation of Fig Appraisals, he's also suggesting HD. And that's how he has officially 01:25:59.069 --> 01:26:00.990 - done the appraisal towards HD. 01:26:02.658 --> 01:26:09.947 - Now, if it gets changed, we're gonna have to revisit that. Questions from everybody up here? 01:26:09.947 --> 01:26:18.176 - I don't have any. No, technically, let's see. This is kind of a different one. So you're the petitioner. 01:26:18.176 --> 01:26:26.641 - She essentially is... There's a commenter. I'm pointing over here. You're the petitioner. So she's actually 01:26:26.641 --> 01:26:31.422 - not stating for, she's stating against, is what she's doing. 01:26:31.554 --> 01:26:38.845 - So now we go back to you. Or the Planned Commission. The Planned Commission. The Planned Commission. 01:26:38.845 --> 01:26:46.424 - I've got to get the. Rebuttal. The parliamentarian portion is straight for us to comment on her comment, 01:26:46.424 --> 01:26:53.931 - correct? Yes. That's where we are. If there's no other commenters, supporter, opposition. That's right. 01:26:53.931 --> 01:27:01.150 - So now we're back to us. Comments on my right. Is anybody online trying to comment on this as well? 01:27:02.722 --> 01:27:11.232 - I may say the owner is online right now. I did not see a hand. Shelly or Rich, if you would like to 01:27:11.232 --> 01:27:19.828 - speak, you can raise your hand. Her hand is up now. OK. So you have go ahead and make your comments, 01:27:19.828 --> 01:27:28.763 - please. Shelly Clark. The tech services, if you can promote Shelly Clark, and then she'll have, I think, 01:27:28.763 --> 01:27:31.742 - three minutes to speak. Rich Pick. 01:27:32.482 --> 01:27:43.804 - Shelly, you'll have to unmute your screen as well to speak. Shelly, when you're ready, go ahead and 01:27:43.804 --> 01:27:55.125 - state for the record who you are. Hello, my name is Russell Clark. I am Shelly Clark's husband. She 01:27:55.125 --> 01:28:01.918 - is ill and Deborah happens to be ill at the moment as well. 01:28:02.658 --> 01:28:14.320 - They are listening. As Michelle stated, it does make a lot more sense to Deborah for this to be the 01:28:14.320 --> 01:28:26.333 - HD zoned. She's just really trying to move the property and. Get the best she can out of it, you know. 01:28:26.333 --> 01:28:29.598 - Alright. Any questions for? 01:28:31.394 --> 01:28:41.085 - the petition or for the for the comments and up there i don't see it did you see all right i don't see 01:28:41.085 --> 01:28:50.870 - anybody else online who'd like to make a comment okay so that closes out the the public comment at this 01:28:50.870 --> 01:28:59.902 - portion now we're back planning director because she gets to take and provide a reclama to what 01:29:01.890 --> 01:29:10.665 - individual was recommending. It's a difference than what we are proposing. Correct. So this is a rezone 01:29:10.665 --> 01:29:19.188 - to fix a current Scribner's error so it's being authored by the planned commission similar to how we 01:29:19.188 --> 01:29:27.625 - did the CDO zoning maps. So if the owners are in opposition to what is being requested on the table 01:29:27.625 --> 01:29:28.638 - there's two 01:29:28.898 --> 01:29:35.733 - Well, three options to proceed. One is to send the recommendation to the county commissioners with a 01:29:35.733 --> 01:29:42.703 - positive recommendation for CD. Another is, I believe, because you are the authors of this rezone, you 01:29:42.703 --> 01:29:49.606 - could change it at this juncture to HD and send it to the county commissioners, or you could continue 01:29:49.606 --> 01:29:57.118 - the petition. Those are three options that I would see. All right, any comments before we proceed to go ahead? 01:29:58.274 --> 01:30:07.466 - This is a question for staff. What's the downside HD? The main difference I would believe to be between 01:30:07.466 --> 01:30:16.305 - HD and CD is the permission for the multifamily five plus and the impervious cover because of where 01:30:16.305 --> 01:30:20.990 - this is and its location within the floodway and the 01:30:21.314 --> 01:30:29.063 - Sinking Creek watershed that was brought up as reasonings to keep it CD I will say too that the petitioner 01:30:29.063 --> 01:30:36.451 - states correctly that a lot of Development in this area is already connected to sewer including these 01:30:36.451 --> 01:30:43.983 - homes but the decision as to whether the sewer can be intensified to support a high development Density 01:30:43.983 --> 01:30:47.966 - would be decided at a later stage because they haven't 01:30:48.066 --> 01:30:56.590 - gone to CBU and actually gotten a letter of authorization to increase the flow and support this type 01:30:56.590 --> 01:31:05.030 - of development. So if someone comes in and knocks down those two structures, CBU may say you cannot 01:31:05.030 --> 01:31:14.398 - get sewer to build anything more than a single family dwelling. Thomas. And I think you asked a good question. 01:31:14.498 --> 01:31:21.723 - Um, I also want to point out that since this was a Scrivener's error, the question is, what would, what 01:31:21.723 --> 01:31:28.879 - would it have been zoned if we hadn't mistakenly put it in the PUD? Um, and I think CD is, is perfect, 01:31:28.879 --> 01:31:36.174 - uh, because of those issues with the drainage way and because it is in the Seacon Creek watershed, which 01:31:36.174 --> 01:31:41.662 - is really, um, a vital area in our community that we're trying to, to protect. 01:31:42.050 --> 01:31:49.286 - But I will also point out that if a petitioner comes back after purchasing the property, a new petitioner 01:31:49.286 --> 01:31:56.180 - can come and say, can you rezone this to HD? Then we can hear very specific requests. And that's the 01:31:56.180 --> 01:32:03.006 - thing, we don't have a specific request in front of us, but we could always hear that once somebody 01:32:03.006 --> 01:32:10.174 - proposes to buy the property. And they would have a CBU letter, which I don't think anybody's gonna get, 01:32:10.338 --> 01:32:17.058 - but they would have a CBU letter in hand as well. So that's my take on it. Let's wait till we have something 01:32:17.058 --> 01:32:23.223 - specific. Yeah, that was almost exactly what I was gonna say, Commissioner Thomas. This is a unique 01:32:23.223 --> 01:32:29.450 - situation where we're correcting a mistake we made. And typically if we were seeing an HD rezone, we 01:32:29.450 --> 01:32:35.924 - would have concrete plans in front of us that we could react to and comment on. So change it to anything 01:32:35.924 --> 01:32:37.342 - other than CD tonight. 01:32:46.978 --> 01:32:57.474 - as we move toward a motion. Remember, this motion is for us to make a recommendation to the commissioners, 01:32:57.474 --> 01:33:07.578 - the board of commissioners. Go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead. For case REZ-26-2, I move forwarding a positive 01:33:07.578 --> 01:33:15.230 - recommendation to rezone the property at 1530 and 1540 South Curry Pike to CD 01:33:15.714 --> 01:33:21.496 - with a waiver of final hearing to the Board of Commissioners regarding the rezone request citing its 01:33:21.496 --> 01:33:27.393 - compatibility with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and subject to highway and storm water program 01:33:27.393 --> 01:33:33.290 - reports. Does that include a waiver of final hearing? Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. It's been moved 01:33:33.290 --> 01:33:39.358 - and seconded to send a positive recommendation to the county commissioners with a waiver of final hearing 01:33:39.522 --> 01:33:47.782 - for REZ-26-2, which is to correct the zoning from PUD to CD. A vote yes is a vote to send this to a 01:33:47.782 --> 01:33:56.372 - positive recommendation and waive the final hearing requirement. Mark Clements? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. 01:33:56.372 --> 01:34:03.806 - Jeff Morris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Okay, motion carries five to zero. 01:34:08.994 --> 01:34:17.009 - That brings us to SIA 2225, which is the North Shore Amendment 1 final plat. It also has a request for 01:34:17.009 --> 01:34:24.946 - the extension of performance period, an inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount, and a waiver 01:34:24.946 --> 01:34:30.238 - of a final hearing. And I think that's you, Jackie, as well, right? 01:34:31.906 --> 01:34:40.079 - That is and I'll note that the petitioner is online and that they will be wanting to speak to this as 01:34:40.079 --> 01:34:48.092 - well. But I'll give a short back story since this is a little bit different. Usually we do these at 01:34:48.092 --> 01:34:56.746 - administrative meetings. So this is a subdivision improvement agreement for a subdivision that was approved 01:34:56.746 --> 01:34:59.230 - in 2000 final plotted in 2008. 01:34:59.330 --> 01:35:07.043 - is called the North Shore Amendment, one final plat, and it is located at 9554 East North Shore Drive. 01:35:07.043 --> 01:35:14.606 - Upon the approval of the final plat, the owner at the time, which was the Lake Lemon Marina, agreed, 01:35:14.606 --> 01:35:22.095 - well, they did not get a waiver of the sidewalk requirement, and they were required to either build 01:35:22.095 --> 01:35:27.262 - sidewalk in order to plat the subdivision or post a letter of credit 01:35:27.394 --> 01:35:34.357 - in promise that they would complete the sidewalk. We are going through different subdivisions and trying 01:35:34.357 --> 01:35:41.320 - to follow up with developers or owners of the current property to finish out some of these long standing 01:35:41.320 --> 01:35:48.216 - letters of credit that we're holding and trying to get a performance period end date for when they will 01:35:48.216 --> 01:35:54.914 - complete the improvements or decide on next steps. So we have worked with the petitioner between the 01:35:54.914 --> 01:35:56.638 - administrative meeting on 01:35:57.090 --> 01:36:07.136 - August 1st it was September 1st, 2026 and tonight and we are of the agreement that we could recommend 01:36:07.136 --> 01:36:16.985 - one more performance period extension until August 1st, 2027. The petitioner did submit quite a bit 01:36:16.985 --> 01:36:26.046 - of information upon request when we had asked. They have in the packet starting on page 650 01:36:26.306 --> 01:36:37.930 - for a letter stating that they do have a primary major subdivision application in the works. It is dated 01:36:37.930 --> 01:36:49.222 - as 2023, and they did get us in the packet on page 659 rework of that plat that we've been asking for 01:36:49.222 --> 01:36:53.982 - for some time, which shows what they would 01:36:54.242 --> 01:37:03.059 - be agreeable to which is essentially a new crosswalk from the RV or mobile home park across the street 01:37:03.059 --> 01:37:11.876 - to their property and two signs that they've given some specifications for to alert drivers that there 01:37:11.876 --> 01:37:16.670 - could be people crossing either by foot or by golf cart 01:37:16.770 --> 01:37:25.941 - however bike so they are agreeable to the crosswalk and the two signs in return they'll be asking for 01:37:25.941 --> 01:37:35.111 - a sidewalk waiver and also they do not want to share a driveway between the lots on the screen lot 4a 01:37:35.111 --> 01:37:38.078 - 3a and lot 2 which is the marina 01:37:38.210 --> 01:37:45.313 - This driveway we did ask that they go ahead and address You know as part of the sidewalk waiver and 01:37:45.313 --> 01:37:52.416 - and ask for a removal of the condition of a shared driveway That they have a plan in place for that 01:37:52.416 --> 01:37:59.804 - to change But they noted in their letter that they will not be They will not be addressing the driveway 01:37:59.804 --> 01:38:07.262 - issue But they would like to just do the crosswalk and the two signs in return for requesting a sidewalk 01:38:07.426 --> 01:38:14.100 - waiver. I bring this up because if we extend the performance period on this subdivision improvement 01:38:14.100 --> 01:38:20.908 - agreement to August 1, 2027, you are also the body that will review this subdivision amendment. So if 01:38:20.908 --> 01:38:27.716 - what you're seeing tonight on the screen, you know, I know there's only five of you here, but if it's 01:38:27.716 --> 01:38:32.254 - a no go, if you don't think that you would be willing to, you know, 01:38:32.450 --> 01:38:41.646 - give a permission for a sidewalk waiver here, then I would suggest that we reconsider the extension 01:38:41.646 --> 01:38:51.394 - of time because it's their intent to not put in the sidewalk. So that's what I'll say on that. All right, 01:38:51.394 --> 01:39:00.958 - so questions? Commissioner Gonzalez? So we're only considering tonight the extension of the performance 01:39:02.402 --> 01:39:11.962 - Right, guaranteed. But we would need to be amenable to not just changing out the sidewalk for the crosswalk, 01:39:11.962 --> 01:39:20.996 - but also that driveway issue getting revised again, correct? Correct. Can you, I had a double the time 01:39:20.996 --> 01:39:30.206 - trying to remember what happened with that last time. Do you remember what happened with that last time? 01:39:31.778 --> 01:39:40.374 - Yes, so the condition that they share the driveway was both on this subdivision and on a rezone to get 01:39:40.374 --> 01:39:48.886 - the subdivision. So they first attempted to rezone the property, not to actually change the zone, but 01:39:48.886 --> 01:39:57.899 - only to amend the conditions that came with the rezone. And one of those conditions was to share a driveway 01:39:57.899 --> 01:39:59.902 - with the marina for the 01:40:00.226 --> 01:40:08.355 - residential lots that were being created. The recommendation by the highway department was that they 01:40:08.355 --> 01:40:17.048 - go ahead and take out this existing driveway, which the county did permit an error in about twenty eighteen 01:40:17.048 --> 01:40:25.982 - and go ahead and share that as required under the conditions of of approval of the rezone and the subdivision. 01:40:26.338 --> 01:40:34.279 - they tried to remove that condition and it failed. So it's still a condition of the rezone. So they 01:40:34.279 --> 01:40:42.457 - would have to try again under both the condition of the rezone and try this new option, which is under 01:40:42.457 --> 01:40:50.398 - the subdivision as well to remove the sidewalk and the driveway. So by just to put a finer point on 01:40:50.398 --> 01:40:54.686 - this. So by approving, if we approve the continuation 01:40:54.818 --> 01:41:03.840 - of this performance guarantee, we are also in a sense tacitly approving both changing out the sidewalks 01:41:03.840 --> 01:41:12.515 - for the crosswalk, which is something we all wanted at the admin meeting. That's not the issue, but 01:41:12.515 --> 01:41:21.450 - this driveway. So they put something in there that, yeah. So we would tacitly be approving leaving the 01:41:21.450 --> 01:41:23.358 - driveway where it is. 01:41:25.474 --> 01:41:31.580 - I think that's what the petitioners request will be, but they are online and they do want to speak to 01:41:31.580 --> 01:41:37.566 - that point. That would be something that if it is a condition of approval of the subdivision itself 01:41:37.566 --> 01:41:43.852 - could be figured out as well. But right now they're offering just the crosswalk and the two signs. Yeah. 01:41:43.852 --> 01:41:50.017 - And we really are only considering continuing this performance guarantee. That's the only thing on our 01:41:50.017 --> 01:41:51.454 - agenda. That's correct. 01:41:51.778 --> 01:41:58.890 - anything else, but by approving that, we're tacitly saying, yeah, go ahead. We are extending the time 01:41:58.890 --> 01:42:06.419 - to pursue the subdivision, which I think in good faith, we have no intent on the plan commission approving. 01:42:06.419 --> 01:42:13.392 - I wouldn't give that green light or that I wouldn't extend the time for that. Any other comments on 01:42:13.392 --> 01:42:19.806 - my left? Welcome to the rock and the hard place and very small spot in between on my right. 01:42:20.386 --> 01:42:28.392 - All right, petitioner or petitioners rep, you're online. Once we give you access, make sure you state 01:42:28.392 --> 01:42:36.476 - your name so we know who you are and you have 15 minutes to talk to us. Next services, can you promote 01:42:36.476 --> 01:42:44.717 - Stephen Warner? Thank you, Stephen, you should be able to unmute. Yeah, can you hear me? Yes. OK, again, 01:42:44.717 --> 01:42:49.662 - I'm Stephen M. Warner, one of the owners of the Marina. And so 01:42:49.954 --> 01:42:56.507 - The driveway condition is not something we're gonna push or address if that's gonna hold this up because 01:42:56.507 --> 01:43:03.186 - we can't, we're not, we've had discussions with the city attorney, we're not responsible for the driveway. 01:43:03.186 --> 01:43:09.677 - If we're gonna put in a plat, I don't care, I'll leave it there, but we're not, we weren't in the legal 01:43:09.677 --> 01:43:16.542 - position before to do anything about it, we're not now at this point, there's been several ownership changes, 01:43:16.642 --> 01:43:26.699 - We don't own any of the property on which, including our own driveway in the meetings, which unanimously 01:43:26.699 --> 01:43:36.563 - the planning commission did recommend to the commissioners to allow us to remove that. I wanna set the 01:43:36.563 --> 01:43:45.758 - record straight that the planning commission did allow that, but the commissioners vetoed that. 01:43:46.690 --> 01:43:54.087 - At this point, we were doing that for the community's good. We will drop the driveway thing because 01:43:54.087 --> 01:44:01.707 - we can't do anything about it anyway. And it's not part of the SIA that we have in front of us anyway. 01:44:01.707 --> 01:44:09.622 - So we're fine leaving it on there. But again, the sidewalk makes no sense by your own new CDO. It wouldn't 01:44:09.622 --> 01:44:14.430 - be a requirement because there's no sidewalk within a five mile, 01:44:14.690 --> 01:44:22.781 - maybe even longer than that, conservatively five miles, there's no business home or anything with a 01:44:22.781 --> 01:44:31.115 - sidewalk anywhere near this property. And so it doesn't make it, I affectionately call it the sidewalk 01:44:31.115 --> 01:44:39.287 - to nowhere. It would not help our community, but we do agree that visibility could be increased. And 01:44:39.287 --> 01:44:44.222 - because of this foot traffic and golf cart traffic from the, 01:44:44.706 --> 01:44:52.172 - the property across the way, the mobile home park that the crosswalk makes sense, and we're willing 01:44:52.172 --> 01:44:59.264 - to pay for it and maintain it. We agree with that. So I hereby drop the driveway part of that. 01:44:59.264 --> 01:45:06.879 - Leave it alone, because we can't do it. We don't own any of the parcels that are involved. And by the 01:45:06.879 --> 01:45:11.582 - second Platt Amendment for those two parcels to the Northeast, 01:45:11.842 --> 01:45:20.029 - The Johnsons who developed that parcel agreed to do the driveway move after the first Platt Amendment. 01:45:20.029 --> 01:45:28.216 - And so they were the only signatories to that Platt Amendment and they're the only the only the people 01:45:28.216 --> 01:45:36.244 - that are in that privity of that real estate transaction can answer for it now, which are two owners 01:45:36.244 --> 01:45:37.118 - past that. 01:45:40.482 --> 01:45:49.259 - So forget the driveway thing. Again, and we just want to remove because nothing we can do. All right. 01:45:49.259 --> 01:45:58.123 - So we signed a new SII with the county. We signed a new SII with the county. It does not include that. 01:45:58.123 --> 01:46:06.814 - It does include the sidewalk. So we're only addressing the sidewalk. All right. Do you have any more 01:46:06.814 --> 01:46:09.310 - comments about the sidewalk? 01:46:11.714 --> 01:46:20.663 - Again. All right. Does anybody have any questions about for the petitioner about what has been discussed? 01:46:20.663 --> 01:46:29.443 - Anybody? No, there are no. Go ahead. I actually have a question for staff. OK, if I might. Commissioner 01:46:29.443 --> 01:46:37.885 - Tom. So the petitioner under this agreement would pay our highway department to install or how does 01:46:37.885 --> 01:46:38.814 - that work? 01:46:40.546 --> 01:46:47.691 - What we've recommended in the staff report for this is that they extend their letter of credit for another 01:46:47.691 --> 01:46:54.369 - year just in keeping with making sure that we have something on file to back up this request. But I 01:46:54.369 --> 01:47:01.314 - would say that they would get a right away activity permit and submit construction plans to the highway 01:47:01.314 --> 01:47:06.590 - department for approval and they would do these improvements at their expense. 01:47:06.722 --> 01:47:12.602 - And then if they got the waiver and the time lapsed, we would return the letter of credit. 01:47:12.602 --> 01:47:19.321 - And that would be, you know, we need to codify what you just said, or is this just a standard operating 01:47:19.321 --> 01:47:25.912 - procedure? This would be just as they take forward SPP dash twenty three dash one. This would be part 01:47:25.912 --> 01:47:32.631 - of that discussion to amend their primary plan for the sidewalk waiver. But the codifying of the letter 01:47:32.631 --> 01:47:36.702 - of credit extension is under the recommendation on the screen. 01:47:36.866 --> 01:47:51.134 - So they would be doing. I just wanted to clarify that and and. If so under this scenario, if. We vote 01:47:51.134 --> 01:48:04.702 - yes and extend that letter of credit another year. And we also. Adapt and change that. The plan. 01:48:05.154 --> 01:48:11.771 - So that it takes the sidewalk out and the driveway tie in. And they don't perform this, then we can 01:48:11.771 --> 01:48:18.454 - take the letter, but we've approved that. But if they don't perform that crosswalk, then we can take 01:48:18.454 --> 01:48:25.204 - that letter of credit and put it toward installing one. I would think that would be the case, yes. As 01:48:25.204 --> 01:48:32.350 - a public improvement. It's clearly in the right of way. Yeah, that's a good question. Good deal. Thank you. 01:48:33.282 --> 01:48:42.221 - All right, so I guess we go to public comment at this point. Do we have any public comment for or against 01:48:42.221 --> 01:48:49.726 - online or in the room? I see none in the room. And I do not see any hands raised online. 01:48:50.626 --> 01:48:56.792 - So I do want to just state though, just back to our conversation. I think that those improvements in 01:48:56.792 --> 01:49:02.896 - total, the crosswalk and the two signs will be substantially less than what we're asking for, which 01:49:02.896 --> 01:49:09.062 - is the $44,263. So if we spent that amount and there was leftover and you wave the sidewalk, they do 01:49:09.062 --> 01:49:15.471 - get the remainder back. Sure. Yes, of course. Yes. Got it. Absolutely agree. All right. So I think we're 01:49:15.471 --> 01:49:19.134 - magically at that point where we we can entertain a motion. 01:49:21.762 --> 01:49:33.227 - Go ahead. As a matter of SIA-22-25, we recommend extending the performance guarantee until August 1, 01:49:33.227 --> 01:49:44.579 - 2027 with the following requirements and conditions. Petitioners submit an updated letter of credit 01:49:44.579 --> 01:49:46.622 - amount of $44,263 01:49:47.490 --> 01:49:54.142 - and 11 cents to reflect the second year 10% inflation with the letter of credit valid until August 1, 01:49:54.142 --> 01:50:00.663 - 2027 deadline for petitioner to submit the new letter of credit shall be October 7, 2026 petitioner 01:50:00.663 --> 01:50:07.381 - should sign an updated subdivision improvement agreement performance bond document with the new letter 01:50:07.381 --> 01:50:14.750 - of credit amount deadline for petitioner to submit those two signed documents be October 2026 petitioner proceed 01:50:14.914 --> 01:50:24.434 - With the primary plat amendments and pay the petition fees honored for the filing deadlines of November 01:50:24.434 --> 01:50:33.955 - 4 2026 To second that motion and also also if I may add there's a request for waving of a final hearing 01:50:33.955 --> 01:50:43.109 - as well Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve si a dash 22-25 which extends the performance 01:50:43.109 --> 01:50:44.574 - period and as I 01:50:44.674 --> 01:50:53.380 - Commission member Rudy Field stated perfectly. I will not repeat that motion with a waiver final hearing. 01:50:53.380 --> 01:51:02.086 - A vote yes is a vote to extend that performance period with those conditions and waive the final hearing. 01:51:02.086 --> 01:51:10.463 - Scott Ferris? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Mayor Clements? Yes. Motion 01:51:10.463 --> 01:51:13.502 - is approved five to zero. Thank you. 01:51:15.490 --> 01:51:23.314 - All right, that brings us to SIA 2222, which is a Hollingfields major subdivision, phase one subdivision, 01:51:23.314 --> 01:51:31.211 - improvement agreement, request for performance period extension, request for inflation, adjust performance 01:51:31.211 --> 01:51:36.894 - guarantee amount, and a waiver of final hearing. And I think, is this Tammy? 01:52:07.202 --> 01:52:16.252 - I think we have it, so. This is Holland Field's phase one. We've heard this one several times. 01:52:16.252 --> 01:52:25.778 - Let's see, so they currently, what they're here for is a performance period extension and a request 01:52:25.778 --> 01:52:36.542 - for inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount. They currently have posted a letter of credit for $106,000. 01:52:36.642 --> 01:52:43.875 - and that had been previously reduced. So they had used to have more on file, but they did a 01:52:43.875 --> 01:52:51.973 - lot of improvements. All 19 lots have been built out, but there's still a lot of corrections that need 01:52:51.973 --> 01:53:00.542 - to be done out here. And so the estimate that had been submitted to planning back in October of 2025 gave us 01:53:00.642 --> 01:53:08.251 - that amount and you guys voted it in and since then they had posted an updated letter of credit for 01:53:08.251 --> 01:53:16.087 - that amount. They submitted a performance bond document, a subdivision improvement agreement document, 01:53:16.087 --> 01:53:23.696 - and they were supposed to have also had this section of this subdivision accepted into the right of 01:53:23.696 --> 01:53:29.022 - way. So the two documents, those are both expired at this point as of 01:53:30.146 --> 01:53:40.257 - May of 2026 and then of course they missed the deadline for getting the road accepted into the right 01:53:40.257 --> 01:53:51.068 - of way. So where we're at right now with this one is we took the estimate and we added the 10% inflationary 01:53:51.068 --> 01:53:56.574 - cost for one year and so the total, oh this is, sorry. 01:53:59.746 --> 01:54:06.428 - I'm not sure if I'm going up or down at this point. In any case, we're looking at getting $117,000, 01:54:06.428 --> 01:54:13.310 - so they do need to kind of produce the inflation amount, which is over $10,000. Let's see. I know that 01:54:13.310 --> 01:54:19.991 - they have been working with the developer for the Holland Three Lot Miner subdivision, and they may 01:54:19.991 --> 01:54:26.673 - or may not give an update on that this evening, but I think the two of them are working together to 01:54:26.673 --> 01:54:27.742 - try to clear up 01:54:27.874 --> 01:54:36.746 - That segment that is up there at the intersection of South Walnut Street Pike and East Holland Drive 01:54:36.746 --> 01:54:44.916 - So Staff I'm just gonna go ahead and if I can get to that page I'm gonna go ahead and do the 01:54:44.916 --> 01:54:54.579 - staff recommendation because it's an extensive So we are recommending a one-year extension of the performance 01:54:54.579 --> 01:54:57.214 - period until May 14th of 2027 01:54:57.538 --> 01:55:08.179 - and post the adjusted inflation amount of $117,530,000.56. And that's based upon that approved estimate 01:55:08.179 --> 01:55:18.206 - that's in exhibit two. And the amount moving forward will not include the maintenance bond amount 01:55:18.306 --> 01:55:25.316 - as that will be required upon the time of acceptance and release of these funds per Chapter 833. And 01:55:25.316 --> 01:55:32.465 - we are adding these four conditions. One is that they submit the additional financial guarantee in the 01:55:32.465 --> 01:55:39.198 - form of a letter of credit or cashier's check in the amount of $10,684.60 by October 16th, 2026. 01:55:39.426 --> 01:55:46.751 - Two, that they have an updated performance bond document signed and recorded by October 30, 2026. And 01:55:46.751 --> 01:55:54.220 - number three is an updated subdivision improvement agreement document that shall be signed and recorded 01:55:54.220 --> 01:56:01.617 - by October 30, 2026. And then that the petitioner shall apply for right of way acceptance honor before 01:56:01.617 --> 01:56:05.854 - May 14, 2027. So these are all very similar to what we had 01:56:06.082 --> 01:56:11.926 - last time when we did the reduction and the performance period extension. But we are going 01:56:11.926 --> 01:56:18.348 - to also additionally ask that the Plan Commission direct staff to do the following if the condition 01:56:18.348 --> 01:56:25.091 - number four above is not met. And that is if the petitioner fails to complete all the remaining required 01:56:25.091 --> 01:56:31.705 - work and apply for that right-of-way acceptance on or before May 14, 2027, the Plan Commission directs 01:56:31.705 --> 01:56:33.182 - planning staff to cash 01:56:33.282 --> 01:56:43.665 - the letter of credit and follow all necessary remedies under section 833-7C and that kind of goes along 01:56:43.665 --> 01:56:54.846 - with us cashing that, drawing that financial guarantee, possibly completing some of these improvements and then 01:56:54.946 --> 01:57:01.846 - It could also entail suing the developer for any funds necessary to complete the improvements and fund 01:57:01.846 --> 01:57:08.678 - a maintenance bond and seek any remedy necessary to achieve the purpose of this chapter as allowed by 01:57:08.678 --> 01:57:15.578 - law or this ordinance. And at the PC admin meeting you all had a question wondering if they had agreed 01:57:15.578 --> 01:57:22.276 - to those conditions and the developer's representative had emailed us that evening to say that they 01:57:22.276 --> 01:57:24.286 - did agree with the conditions 01:57:24.418 --> 01:57:31.931 - listed in the staff report. So, does anyone have any questions? All right, questions from the commissioners 01:57:31.931 --> 01:57:39.096 - up here? Commissioner Thomas, do you have any questions? No, thank you. Rudy? All right, Margaret? No, 01:57:39.096 --> 01:57:46.122 - thank you. All right. Rep, I guess they have a chance to comment, so. Yeah, the representative and I 01:57:46.122 --> 01:57:50.366 - think the petitioner is here as well, the developer is here. 01:57:53.058 --> 01:58:01.626 - So that would be either Don Turner or Angela Parker. The tech services could allow them to speak. So 01:58:01.626 --> 01:58:10.449 - once we give you access, state your name and you have 15 minutes. I see that Angela Parker has her hand 01:58:10.449 --> 01:58:15.454 - raised. So tech services, if you could allow her to speak. 01:58:23.458 --> 01:58:31.007 - evening everyone. Angela Parker here representing hybrid investments. We are in agreement with the staff 01:58:31.007 --> 01:58:38.197 - recommendations. There have been lots of meetings and back and forth working not only with planning 01:58:38.197 --> 01:58:45.602 - staff and highway but also with the Holland three lot minor. We're still working through some of those 01:58:45.602 --> 01:58:48.766 - discussions but we're confident that we can 01:58:49.378 --> 01:58:57.602 - get these items completed, not only for phase one, but for the next petition coming on phase two. And 01:58:57.602 --> 01:59:05.988 - we are in agreement. We're happy to answer any questions and I yield my time back. Thank you very much. 01:59:05.988 --> 01:59:13.406 - Any questions from anybody? All right, so public comment portion anybody for against please 01:59:14.434 --> 01:59:24.987 - come up to the podium here or state your name and state your name and online do the same. I don't see 01:59:24.987 --> 01:59:35.332 - anybody in the room and I don't see any hands up online. So we're back up to the commissioners. And 01:59:35.332 --> 01:59:44.126 - can we have a motion? I'd like to move an SIA- is that 22-22? Yes. Okay. I'd like to 01:59:44.898 --> 01:59:53.380 - make a motion to support the recommendations of staff. Okay it's been moved and seconded to approve 01:59:53.380 --> 02:00:02.201 - SA-22-22 which is the Holland fields major subdivision phase 1 SIA. This does include a waiver of final 02:00:02.201 --> 02:00:04.830 - hearing and it's including the 02:00:04.962 --> 02:00:12.737 - approval with the conditions as stated in the staff report by Tammy Bierman. A vote yes is a vote to 02:00:12.737 --> 02:00:20.589 - approve with the conditions and waive the final hearing. Julie Thomas? Yes. Marguerite Clements? Yes. 02:00:20.589 --> 02:00:28.287 - Scott Farris? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Motion carries five to zero. All right, that 02:00:28.287 --> 02:00:33.214 - brings us to SAA 24-6. Again, a Hollingfields major subdivision 02:00:33.314 --> 02:00:43.932 - Phase two final plan with a request for performance period extension and request for of an uh for inflation 02:00:43.932 --> 02:00:54.059 - adjusted performance guarantee amount and a waiver of a final hearing and Tammy, I believe this is you 02:00:54.059 --> 02:01:03.006 - again. Yes, trying to let the computer get me to this page. I'm going to do an abbreviated 02:01:03.330 --> 02:01:11.089 - report because so many of the facts are similar to what we had before. But again, very similar. They 02:01:11.089 --> 02:01:18.849 - went through the reduction process. They have a very valid up to date estimate on file. We are going 02:01:18.849 --> 02:01:26.762 - to charge them that 10% for inflation purposes. And so I think it almost might make sense to just read 02:01:26.762 --> 02:01:29.374 - the recommendation at this point. 02:01:29.538 --> 02:01:39.057 - Perfect. So this is for phase two of the Holland Fields subdivision. So very similarly, staff recommends 02:01:39.057 --> 02:01:48.303 - a one-year extension of the performance period until April 17th, so this is a month earlier, 2027 and 02:01:48.303 --> 02:01:58.366 - post an adjusted inflation amount of $54,976 and 96 cents based on the approved estimate shown in exhibit six. 02:01:58.530 --> 02:02:05.538 - or I'm sorry, exhibit two. The amount moving forward will not include the maintenance bond amount as 02:02:05.538 --> 02:02:12.685 - that will be required at the time of acceptance and the release of these funds per chapter 833 subject 02:02:12.685 --> 02:02:19.763 - to the following four conditions, and that is to submit an additional financial guarantee in the form 02:02:19.763 --> 02:02:26.910 - of a letter of credit or cashier's check in the amount of $4,999. I have a decimal in the wrong place. 02:02:27.906 --> 02:02:42.014 - Can we correct that? So it's $4,999 and I believe it's 77 cents. And that would be by October 16th, 2026. 02:02:42.210 --> 02:02:50.013 - also submit an updated performance bond document and updated subdivision improvement agreement and those 02:02:50.013 --> 02:02:57.519 - are supposed to be signed and recorded by October 30, 2026 and then the petitioner shall apply for a 02:02:57.519 --> 02:03:05.024 - right of way acceptance honor before April 17, 2027 and again should they not meet that right of way 02:03:05.024 --> 02:03:07.774 - acceptance application timeline then 02:03:07.874 --> 02:03:15.904 - we would ask that the Plan Commission Direct Planning staff to cash the letter of credit and follow 02:03:15.904 --> 02:03:23.935 - all necessary remedies under 833-7C. I'm not gonna read all of them again. Do we have any questions 02:03:23.935 --> 02:03:32.286 - from the Plan Commissioners up here? Go ahead. Miss Parker said on the other one that she was confident 02:03:32.286 --> 02:03:36.542 - that items will be completed and everything is cool. 02:03:36.962 --> 02:03:49.767 - Yeah, and I do have that update in the staff report too. Alright, we're going back to the petitioners 02:03:49.767 --> 02:04:02.698 - rep and I assume it's the same person. Go ahead. OK, I'm sorry about that. Yes, Angela Parker here for 02:04:02.698 --> 02:04:06.590 - hybrid investments once again, 02:04:07.170 --> 02:04:14.736 - This this is an easier lift than the phase one in terms of completion. So we're confident to get these 02:04:14.736 --> 02:04:22.303 - items completed and we agree with the staff recommendations. So thank you very much. We appreciate it. 02:04:22.303 --> 02:04:29.722 - Any questions from the Planning Commission? Alright, I guess we go for public comment for or against 02:04:29.722 --> 02:04:35.966 - anybody in the room. I don't see anybody anybody online. I don't see any any online. 02:04:36.130 --> 02:04:43.750 - So I guess we're back for a motion. Well, I would like to move that we approve the SIA-24-6, Holland 02:04:43.750 --> 02:04:51.294 - Fields major subdivision phase two final plat requests for performance period extension and request 02:04:51.294 --> 02:04:59.442 - for inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount with a waiver of final hearing, including the corrected 02:04:59.442 --> 02:05:03.742 - amount in the final two digits past the decimal point of 02:05:03.842 --> 02:05:11.506 - I think it's listed in the paragraph recommendation correctly. Okay. Well, we'd like to go with that 02:05:11.506 --> 02:05:18.942 - figure. So I'd like to move approval for that. He's been moved and seconded to approve essay dash 02:05:19.074 --> 02:05:27.609 - 24-6, which is Holland Field's major subdivision phase two, subdivision improvement agreement with a 02:05:27.609 --> 02:05:36.314 - waiver of final hearing with the conditions stated by Ms. Bierman, and I will not repeat, and with the 02:05:36.314 --> 02:05:44.765 - one correction to the number of $4,997.66 in condition number one. A vote yes is a vote to approve. 02:05:44.765 --> 02:05:48.990 - Jeff Morris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Julie Thomas? 02:05:49.634 --> 02:05:58.601 - Margaret Clements, Scott Ferris. Yes. Motion is approved five to zero. Thank you. All right. Brings 02:05:58.601 --> 02:06:07.837 - us for items not on the agenda. Do we have any items not on the agenda? Anybody? Well, that the public 02:06:07.837 --> 02:06:16.446 - is always invited to give comment about things that aren't on the agenda if they're interested. 02:06:16.930 --> 02:06:23.975 - All right, anybody in the room would like to take and comment on items not on the agenda? I don't see 02:06:23.975 --> 02:06:31.296 - any. Anybody online? I don't see anything. Okay, then we are not adjourning the meeting. We're continuing 02:06:31.296 --> 02:06:38.271 - this meeting until our admin meeting. And so no motion is necessary at this time. We will see you as 02:06:38.271 --> 02:06:41.310 - a regular meeting component on October 6th. 02:06:41.474 --> 02:06:48.524 - 2026 at 530 at the Planning Office, 501 North Morton, Suite 224. And then once that meeting commences, 02:06:48.524 --> 02:06:55.368 - we will begin the administrative portion of that meeting directly after. Okay, that sounds great. I 02:06:55.368 --> 02:07:02.350 - guess we do need to have reports. I didn't mention that. So I don't have any reports. And from legal. 02:07:02.350 --> 02:07:06.046 - So we're in recess. We're in recess. We're in recess.