So I'd like to welcome everyone to the Monroe County Plan Commission meeting for Wednesday, September
23rd at 2026. I will go ahead and call the meeting to order. Please identify the present to see if we
have a quorum. Yes. Mark Clements here. Tron and Ray Randolph. Scott Ferris here. Jeff Morris. David Henry.
Rudy Fields here. Joe Van Deventer. Julie Thomas here. David Bush. So we have five members attending
in a quorum, which means that any vote to pass by majority needs to be unanimous. I don't see anybody
online unless you see somebody online. We had confirmation that I think that each of these people would
not be present, not be present at all.
So let's begin with the introduction of evidence. I'd like to introduce the following items into the
evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Zoning and
Subdivision Control Ordinance as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted
and amended. The Monroe County Plan Commission Rules and Procedure as adopted and amended and the cases
that were legally advertised and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's agenda. Move to approve.
Second been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve
Scott Ferris. Yes, Jeff Morris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes, Julie Thomas. Yes. Mark Clements. Yes, motion
carries five to zero. Next up is the agenda. Looking at the agenda, the only thing I'd like to add is
under approval of minutes, there are no minutes to approve.
So do I have a motion to approve the agenda? Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve tonight's
agenda as presented with a note that there are no minutes to approve a vote. Yes, is a vote to approve
the agenda as presented. Jeff Morris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Myra Clements? Yes.
Scott Ferris? Yes. Motion carries five to zero.
That brings us to administrative business and the item listed is the CDO prioritization update. Jackie,
you got anything? On that, we are continuing to take these cases to the ordinance review committee and
we're continuing to work through some of the remaining items on that. We hope to see the
uh... p d open space discussion come back in october to the ordinance review committee and then hopefully
from there it'll come to the playing commission so we're still working to those items
I will note just for the record and for the public certification, some of these last CDO prioritization
items were marked as more research needed for staff. So that is why it's taken a little bit longer to
get through those remaining items. They're a little more in depth than some of the beginning items where
we had to address them kind of quickly and we're able to do so. Any questions from up here?
All right, let's go ahead and move on to unfinished business. The first item is ZOA 26.3, and I believe
this is the final hearing for the CDO text amendment to comply with the state statute changes. So Jackie,
over to you again. That is correct. Okay. So on the agenda,
we do have a list of the actual amendments that are happening. So I want to kind of go through the high
level list and then I'll get into a few of the individual edits as we go through. So we are adding a
few uses to the use table, either in alignment with state code requirements such as sporting goods,
small, medium, large, and big box, or
as it relates to staff recommendations such as temporary or seasonal activity to one of the zoning districts
or we have another added use which is bus terminal to the heavy industrial zoning district. So we have
made a list of edits to the use table in those two pagers. That's kind of the beginning edits here.
And then we have some other substantial changes, which is to the wireless communication facilities.
Again, that's a state code change. And then we do have some changes in here regarding shooting ranges,
state code change, and then some edits in here regarding some of our definitions, which again are primarily
the state code changes here. I wanna go ahead and go to the,
wireless communication facilities changes because I think that that one has the most substantial edits
here. And I'll also note, aside from the agenda, we also put this in the actual CDO, which will be in
the table so that as you open the CDO, you can see years prior ordinance numbers, dates of amendments
so that you can keep track of what was added when. And it looks like we do have
additional information in this table as well that aligns with the red line so under chapter 812 which
is the section regarding the wireless communication facilities we have a requirement by the state that
we're no longer able to administer regulations simply based on height so right now in the code we
can differentiate cell towers process by the height of the structure and now we're moving more towards
a per zoning district what the process will be. So I just want to make sure that we've got this right
to the discussions that we've had. We've had this at two administrative meetings and two
This is our second regular hearing. So we are saying now that new concealed wireless support structures
shall be permitted in any zoning district except the airport zone after administrative review, which
means no public hearing. Then it says new concealed or non-concealed wireless support structures proposed
in the airport zoning district are subject to conditional use approval. That's largely because of the
height issues. New non-concealed wireless support structures
proposed in the rural residential, residential or institutional and public zones are subject to conditional
use approval. Then we go down and say new non-concealed wireless support structures shall be permitted
in any industrial or business zoning district after administrative review. So you can follow along and
do either a concealed tower or a non-concealed tower and then depending on the zone,
it depends on the process. So we've eliminated the height distinction and we've changed it to concealed
or not concealed and by zone. That's the biggest change there. And we're striking through this prior
example image where delineated based on height and we're moving more towards some examples of the cell
towers that we get in the community. I'll also note that we wanted to
distinguished the setbacks for the tower and the accessory structure so we added in an image here from
the feedback from the last administrative meeting and what this is saying is that unless otherwise stated
here in the equipment compound which is the fenced in
blue area on the screen, shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from all property lines, which is the
red line on the screen. And then generators shall be placed furthest from all property lines, but within
the equipment compound area to the maximum extent possible. See figure two dash 812 below. If there's
a constraint, generators shall follow the 15 foot setback. So this is to try to mitigate any noise
Issues with generators, but we believe that because the actual cell tower the monopole Usually has to
be in the center of the compound area that they will meet the fall zone Plus the zone setback and therefore
any accessory structures will be an additional amount of space away from that property line and that's
stated under
It says, unless otherwise stated herein, wireless support structures shall be set back from all property
lines a distance equal to the sum of the fall zone and applicable setback for the zoning district. So
that's not changing. So that's what we have added here for the cell tower change. Next, I want to go
over the changes that we've made to 818, which is the sidewalks chapter, and we did this
Just for clarity because we are coming up against a few examples where it was We were unsure what the
text was saying. So we think that we've closed the loop on any confusion We would like to see this move
forward. So right now under subdivisions we have the proposed
subdivision if it has road frontage or streets that will connect to an existing proposed subdivision
or business development that has sidewalks, it requires sidewalks. The issue was that we were having
a long road such as East State Road 45 that without a mile marker we were seeing potentially subdivisions
kind of adjacent to those and so you were seeing sidewalks being triggered in very rural areas. So we
wanted to limit that with maybe
a mileage standpoint so that we would be able to know, okay, this is within .25 miles of another existing
subdivision or development that has sidewalks. And then it still has in here that the proposed subdivision
is within the urban area boundary, and then we also want to strike
this letter D which was saying the proposed subdivision has frontage on a street that provides direct
access to destinations such as schools, grocery stores or recreational facilities and that's because
right below that it also says a proposed subdivision is within one mile, one linear mile of destinations
such as schools, grocery stores or recreational facilities. So those two were a bit duplicative and
we decided to go with the one that had the mileage
in there to be a little bit more clear. Beyond that, like I mentioned, there were state code changes
that were not really by our choice, so we're just aligning those with the state's definitions or what
their requirements are, so not too much to discuss there, but I'm happy to answer any questions on the
red line CDO version.
Are there any questions from the folks up here among the commissioners on my left? All right, so that
opens it up now to the public. Do we have any public comment here for, against, otherwise? Anybody in
the room? Anybody online? I don't see any. So can we have a motion, please?
these changes. Is that adequate? It would be a favorable recommendation to the commissioners to the
commissioners. Yeah. A favorable recommendation to the commissioners. Second. It's been moved and seconded
to send this with a positive recommendation to the county commissioners for Zio a dash 26 dash three.
A vote yes is a vote to send a positive recommendation. Jeff Morris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes.
Julie Thomas. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Scott Ferris. Motion carries five to zero. All right. That
brings us to new business. Uh, the first item is SPP 26 one, which is the Gardner major subdivision.
They're looking at a partial plan vacation, a road waiver with them.
I'm sorry, a road width waiver request, two points of access waiver request, a street tree waiver request,
and a waiver of a final hearing. And Drew, this is yours, correct? Yes. One moment, let me get things
uploaded here.
It looks like the slides got a little disorganized, so I'm just making sure.
This is SPP-26-1, the Gardner major subdivision. It has a partial plot vacation, road width waiver request,
two points of access waiver request, and a street tree waiver request in the waiver final hearing. It's
four parcels, 34.9 acres in Indian Creek Township, Section 2020-21 at 8770 South Lee Phillips Road.
It is all zoned agricultural residential.
The petitioner is proposing a partial platification from Lot 1 of the Fleaner minor subdivision which
was recorded in 2022. It initially created two lots of record across 151.64 acres. The petitioner is
proposing to vacate that Lot 1 and perform a subsequent major subdivision to create four additional
lots so thereby at the very end of all things said and done we will have created five lots from that
initial 151.64 acres.
Under the county development ordinance, four lots are the maximum number of lots that can be created
through the minor subdivision process. So normally a primary plat amendment to an existing minor subdivision
can accomplish an increase in lot density. However, because we're resulting in a total of five lots
from that original 151.64 acres, the subsequent re-subdivision after the plat vacation triggers the
major subdivision process.
and that information can be found in Table 1-830 in the Monroe County Development Ordinance. We cannot
perform a subsequent minor subdivision from an existing minor subdivision. It either has to be amended
within that four lot maximum or it has to go through a major subdivision process. On the screen we have
the table breakdown of all the individual lots.
So we have four lots shown here. Lot one will have 10.06 acres. Lot two will have 12.06 acres. Lot three
will have 12.4 acres. And lot four will have 45.68 acres. Lot four will remain as a recreational lot
or a lot reserved for conservation purposes only. So there will not be any construction permitted on
that property with respect to residential dwellings and such.
On this table you also see different categories like property access right away dedication environmental
conditions, and whether or not the lots have existing structures.
each of those items. We do have some environmental conditions. We have some riparian areas denoted on
the plat. Slopes greater than 25% are present as well as drainage easements that were identified and
listed on the plat by the storm water program manager and the land surveyor associated with this project.
We do have a tree preservation area I believe that
I think the petitioner may have requested that be removed on the plat. We'll come back to that. But
we do have some cars conservancy areas on lot four, as well as the steep slopes that are greater than
25% and additional drainage easements in that area. Southleaf Phillips is a local road, and it is currently
16 feet wide and paved with asphalt. So because it is 16 feet wide,
It is two feet less than the width that is required for subdivisions in Monroe County, so that is why
we have the road width waiver request. We'll get to that in a moment. Sidewalks are not required. The
sewer or septic connection, we have documentation for lots one, two, and three from the health department.
Again, lot four does not need one because they are doing that recreational lot and won't have a residence on it.
Utilities we have Western Indiana REMC for electricity and Phillips well drilling and pump service for
water because there has been some communication between the developer or property owner with regional
utility providers and they do not have the capacity the providers do not have the capacity to provide
additional water service to these properties so they will have to engage in private well drilling Street
trees those are required per the ordinance
We staff calculated a total of 18 trees along the approximate 710 feet of road frontage along South
Lee Phillips. The petitioner does not want to plant those trees, so they are requesting the street tree
waiver. And then finally, we have the two points of ingress egress waiver as well. That is for major
subdivisions, and that basically says that a major subdivision needs to have two points of ingress egress
when you have a certain number of lots.
Oftentimes, we avoid needing to review this type of waiver request because each of the lots can have
their own road frontage or own driveway access. But because of the configuration of this particular
subdivision and the stacking of lots one behind another, the two points of ingress egress was activated.
And because they did not want to have two points of ingress egress throughout the subdivision, that
waiver is a request. Here we have the location map. We're in Indian Creek.
On the right, we have the site conditions map showing the slopes greater than 25% as well as the riparian
area that kind of meanders through the northwest portion of the property as well as the middle and south
end of the property as you come west from the South Lee Phillips. Here's the zoning map. We are all
in the agricultural residential zone and the comprehensive plan designates it as farm and forest.
pictures from Street View. So this is the what would be the north east corner of lot one. So you're
on South Lee Phillips and you're just beginning the corner point of the subdivision and you'll be traveling
west along South Lee Phillips as you continue on in these images. So you can see the
The flat land here and then all the way at the end of the subdivision on south of the Phillips. This
is the edge of the south eastern edge of the property and you can see this existing driveway that was
recently constructed by the petitioner.
Throughout this entire process, the petitioner has been actively acquiring residential construction
permits for the development of the eventual lot one because the property is an existing single lot and
they are able to pull permits for development. So they're doing that to try and get ahead of the build
season. And then eventually all of this construction that planning has been reviewing for this particular
area will be located on a lot one should the subdivision be approved.
So just a little bit more photographs here of the site. OK, so now we have the plat shown on the screen.
So this is the original plat. This is the Fleener minor subdivision. So lot one, which is the northern
lot here, it's kind of a boot shape. That is the lot that's going to be vacated out of this subdivision.
And it does require sign-off from all parties within the subdivision.
Now we have the proposed subdivision. This is the Gardner major subdivision. So you can see four individual
lots. They are kind of in a stacking motion going from east to west. We have lot number one, far east,
lot two and three in the middle. And then lot four is that larger piece that has the riparian area,
most of the riparian area, as well as the Carson Conservancy areas. And that's that recreational lot
that I mentioned previously.
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.
We have individual septic locations identified for lots one, two, and three, as well as drainage easements,
access easements, et cetera. You will note on lot number one, there's two entry points. That is not
related to the two points of ingress egress because the southern ingress egress easement provides access
to lot number four.
And the northern ingress egress provides access to lot two. So and we have an existing driveway like
I showed in that picture for lot one on the south end. So to have two driveways, they did have to go
through an appeal process with the highway department. And that was ultimately approved. So they are
able to have those two driveway entrances on lot one, but they are serving slightly different purposes.
The north easement is also servicing lot three.
This is a zoom in of lot number four, which is that recreational lot. There's a lot of stuff going on
here, a lot of easements, riparian areas, drainage easements, things like that. But it does have an
access point on the south corner here, southeast corner that comes all the way from South Lee Phillips
as it meanders through the
Okay, so we have department comments. This is all in the packet. So Ben Ayers from the Highway Department
provided information related to this request detailing the individual right of way activity
permit applications that were submitted and also detailing that appeals process that I mentioned previously.
The highway engineer also provided information that the right of way had already been dedicated because
of that prior minor subdivision that is the Fleener minor subdivision.
stormwater program comments basically identifying cars conservancy areas as well as drain adjustments
for the subdivision itself is what specifically lot four because there was a lot of that going on on
that particular lot and essentially this conversation these comments provide evidence that all of the
stormwater programs comments and concerns have been addressed throughout the process so here's information
about the road with waiver again
Any subdivision with less than 18 feet in width needs to get a road width waiver in order to be approved.
So this particular road has a width of 16 feet, which the ordinance indicates that it must have an average
daily traffic count of less than or equal to 300 vehicles per day. Based on the information provided
by the petitioner and the petitioner's representative, the traffic count data estimated 110 vehicles
per day, so that does meet that
requirement and the highway department confirmed that the two points of ingress egress this is just
pulled right from the county development ordinance this is the text that requires that particular
configuration within a major subdivision I'm not going to read it verbatim and we can come back to it
because it is in the packet if we want to we also have information about the street tree waiver so the
particular
item from the county development ordinance that got triggered here was the subject properties requesting
a major subdivision so that applies whenever a major subdivision is being activated so the street trees
are required and staff did a calculation along the roadway and calculated that 18 trees would need to
be planted. The petitioner did say that there are some trees that would
could count towards the street tree total, but some of them would also have to be removed due to the
driveway's construction, the entrance of that driveway. And overall, they're requesting that street
tree waiver so that they don't have to plant all of those trees along South Lee Phillips.
Now on the screen is information provided by the petitioner's representative. This is information related
to those waiver requests. So this is basically the petitioner and petitioner's representative's rationale
as to why they believe the waiver requests should be approved. This is all included in the packet. And
this is the traffic count data that was provided as well by the petitioner and petitioner's representative.
This was used to analyze the ADT calculation.
Okay, that brings me to staff's recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the proposed primary plat
based on the findings of facts subject to the comments from the highway engineer and stormwater program
manager and subject to the following condition. Mark lot number four as non-buildable instead of listing
the buildable area on the plat. So that is just a condition that will more clearly identify lot four
as that recreational lot. It's non-buildable and can proceed as such.
Staff does recommend approval of the proposed road with waiver request based on the findings of fact
and subject to highway engineer reports. Staff believe that practical difficulties have been met and
sufficiently demonstrated. The petitioner also supplied that average daily trip data that supports the
road with waiver request. Staff recommends approval of the two points of ingress egress waiver based
on findings of fact subject to the highway engineer reports.
Staff recommends denial of the street tree waiver request based on findings of fact staff believe practical
difficulties have not been sufficiently Demonstrated the ordinance calls for 18 street trees There are
12 existing trees that could qualify as trees Although three of those trees must be cut down to establish
the northern driveway only nine additional trees would need to be planted along the approximate 710
feet of road frontage to satisfy the street tree way a street tree request her street tree requirement, excuse me
Finally, staff recommends approval of the partial plot vacation. The petitioner stated that all owners
of the Fleener Minor Subdivision plot agreed to the proposed plot vacation per Indiana Code 36-7-3-10.
I will now take any questions. So, excellent presentation, I might add. Do we have comments from anybody
up here for the commissioners? Commissioner Thomas. I have questions.
So maybe on an aerial map or a plot map, I should say, or an aerial view, can you show what is being
vacated and how that impacts this? So on the screen is the Fleener minor subdivision. This was the two
lot minor subdivision that was created in 2022 across 115, 150 acres or so. This northern piece,
that's kind of a skinny boot shape. That's the part that's getting vacated out of the minor subdivision.
Got it. Okay. So one is not impacted at all. Lot one is not. The northern lot is lot one. Yeah. So that's
the one that's being vacated out and being re-subdivided. Okay. The southern lot, lot number two is
not being touched. Okay. All right. There was mention of lot four as not buildable.
Is that a conservancy area or how is it labeled? How is it going to be labeled on the Dean?
I'm not sure exactly how they might label it on the D but on the plat we will have it listed
as non-buildable. Oftentimes we'll see lots labeled as for conservation purposes only or agricultural
purposes only. That's typically the language that we see on the plat itself and I believe that a D would
likely reflect that or at least it would call directly to the plat and then you would read the plat.
Okay, so what does conservancy mean in this case? What does that prevent them from doing or what does
it mean they can do?
typically means that they cannot perform any residential construction on the property. When it comes
to any development whatsoever, I don't know 100% what that typically looks like, but if you wanna comment
on that. Yeah, so if you would kind of blow up the portion of the green there, is that where it says
the tree? Okay, and I don't think they're doing the tree preservation area. That's an older,
version so they do not want to do the tree preservation. I think they asked that they take that off
completely. So in speaking with the owners they do not want it to be a residential dwelling on the property
so they didn't do any septic or soil reports but they do intend on using it for recreation, logging,
other activities so I think it would just say not for residential dwelling is what we would say this
lot is for.
So somewhere along the line there was something that said tree preservation area. Correct. Where did
that come from and when did it disappear? So at the last administrative meeting we talked about how
they did not want to preserve the trees at the road because of issues of site distance where the driveway
would go and so we spoke with the petitioner and I think I might have put it in the report in the beginning
part that they
basically are carving this up and putting it in different family members' names and that this number
four was going to be in one of the other owners' names and that they didn't feel comfortable
dedicating a tree preservation area in the event that they wanted to log it so if you wouldn't mind
reading that into the record through that part in red. Yeah so in the packet we have some comments from
the Planning Commission admin meeting so street tree waiver following the subdivision process the owner
of the land will be dating off different lots to different family members as such the request to put
in a tree preservation area was not agreed to because the future owners may not want to want
want the restriction, and they wanted to protect their ability to log certain portions of the property
moving forward. So. Okay, and there's no other tree preservation area except along the roadway, right?
Those have to be preserved as much as possible given the driveway, et cetera. Yeah, if the street tree
waivers denied, yep. But in the other lots, one, two, and three, there is nothing
about preserving trees, right? So when they talk about tree preservation, except for the street trees
that they've talked about separately, they're talking about lot four. Yes. So in the ordinance, when
we talk about street trees, there's a select number of instances where the street tree requirement gets
triggered. And then the last provision of that portion of the ordinance says if none of the above are
triggering, you should preserve trees somewhere on the property.
And oftentimes, surveyors will just preemptively provide a tree preservation area to make sure that
they catch that last provision. But because this one is requiring the street tree waiver or the street
trees requirement, that last provision doesn't technically apply. So they're not required to preserve
anything elsewhere. It would just be more or less their decision to do so as part of their waiver request.
I think my concern is regarding the proposed logging on lot four because of the stormwater implications
of looking at the slopes on that property. I think there are some concerns about erosion that I'm not
sure are addressed by the typical logging
rule book as it were right and I don't know what to do about that because I'm I'm normally you would
not put a tree preservation piece into a conservancy area correct or you would we see it kind of
both ways. On Platts we'll see a conservancy area delineated and then sometimes it'll also say conservancy
area and tree preservation area but most of the time we see them kind of separated but there is you
know logging permits do get triggered if they're within a certain urban area as defined by the state
that will trigger a logging permit requirement and then they're also supposed to follow the Indiana
DNR forestry best management practices as well.
But the real issue is stormwater and erosion for me. And they're not in an urban area, are they? I would
have to perform that calculation. It has to be within a quarter square mile if there are eight residences
that touch that quarter square mile. That's when the urban area gets activated and a logging permit's
required. It's my look at the map. It didn't seem like that was gonna happen.
It's pretty rural. It's rural. Yeah, it's rural. All right. The other thing is if you could show lots
one, two, and three, can you with your cursor show me where the buildable area is on each of them? Yes.
So buildable area is everywhere that is not in this hatching or within an easement. So it's kind of
all of the white
areas. This little hatching and then the easements that are identified are the non-buildable area. Okay.
And then the septics are marked so we know where that is. Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure
that I was reading that correctly because there are some slopes that aren't in a hashed area, but okay.
All right. Thank you. Anybody else on my left? On my right. All right. We go to the petitioner or petitioners
rep for comments.
You've got 15 minutes. Please sign in and state your name. Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Eric Decker
with Decker Land Survey. So, yes, I can answer some of these questions that you brought to our attention, Julie.
So going back to the tree preservation areas here, my client's not opposed to having a tree preservation
area. I don't think that they wanted to necessarily strap all of lot number four, which we have labeled
as a recreational area. So if you go to note number six on the plat, we do have it labeled as what,
what lot number four is going to be used. And if I'm not mistaken, do we have an aerial photo drew that
we can look at together here?
You want the aerial imagery, not just the plot document, please. So a lot for, you know, well, particularly
the smaller lots, lots that have the 12 acre size and the 10 acre size. There are some drainage easements
there that can be utilized as a tree preservation area in lieu of planting street trees in this case.
Some of the difficulties protecting some of these trees, most of them was found at the northeast corner
next to the street, and some of it fell within the right of way that wasn't going to be able to be utilized
for street trees, and some of it was going to have to be removed in order to construct a driveway and
site visibility. So if it's your wishes to see a tree preservation area, I would recommend using one
of the drainage easements on one of the smaller lots so that we can meet this 18-tree tree protection area.
And if you have any other technical questions, be glad to answer.
Instead of the street trees is what you're saying. Precisely. Okay. But what about lot four where the
slopes are? That's my concern regarding erosion. So there's no plans for having any logging done on
lot number four. That was never part of any of the discussion that we wanted to prevent having trees removed.
This was an old haul road that we're using as an access easement to get back to lot four. That is for
sure the fact, but it's not their intentions to having lot four logged. And I think that they would
need to go through the proper permitting if they did have any logging done. Now we have put additional
safeguards in place by having drainage easements placed along the creeks
protect the erosion in that area. We're also delineating the 25% slopes in this case. Maybe this is
a question if I might, may I interject a question for legal staff about this topic? Is there a way to,
instead of just saying logging prohibited on lot four, is there a way to say that stormwater approval
must be given
before meeting all of the other requirements to perform logging on lot four? Is there a way to do that?
Because it's really, we don't have anyone here from Stormwater, so. I think that that'd be a pretty
difficult thing to do. And I think that it would be unlikely though. It's not something we've ever done
before. I know that.
I would say additional complication was that house bill that was enacted that took logging permissions
out of storm water and back to planning and limited to urban. So I don't, yeah, I would not be sure
that we could request storm water to do that. And I think that I don't, as Eric mentioned, like they
only reference the logging detail when
Jackson I think had a draft where there was a tree preservation area on the lot four and I was communicating
with them by phone. They said, well, our concern there is if we did log the property and there was a
tree preservation area that that could, you know, hinder some access road or something to get back there.
They were just thinking ahead. I don't think that their immediate plan is to log, but they didn't want
the tree preservation area on lot four.
Is that question still on the table? About lot four, a tree preservation area? So our staff recommendation
right now is negative for the street tree waiver, which means they either have to plant street trees
in their entirety along Lee Phillips or they have to preserve and plant along Lee Phillips.
If we're saying we approve the street tree waiver upon a condition that they designate 18 trees as a
preservation area on lot X, you could do that. Not sufficient to protect against erosion.
So before we come back up here or we talk about public comment for or against, are there any other things
that you'd like to tell us? I don't have any other information unless you have some questions about
it that I could answer for you. So let's go ahead into those folks who
or in favor of those folks who are against, do we have anybody in the room who wants to take and provide
comment? Absolutely. Just say if it's for or against. Tell it, state whether you're for or against.
I'm the petitioner. Oh, you're the petitioner? I'm sorry, sir. Yeah. Yeah, OK. Sign in, please. Do you
want to sign in? Yes. If I was against my own thing, that wouldn't be real smart. But you never know.
Your concerns on logging on lot four. Lot four is going to my younger brother, which this property was
logged in 2010, something like that. So it is nowhere near ready to be logged again. So my brother's
57 years old. He thought maybe some day down in the future when he gave it to his son, nobody wants
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.
And I know you're concerned about erosion, but any speaking of logging would be years down the road.
My brother was kind of not for this, and we have sweet talk to him over the past year, and now he is
agreeable to this. So I just didn't want to put any more restrictions on his lot. Lot four is his. I
didn't want to put any more restrictions on his lot. That's why we proposed putting it on lot three.
which is gonna belong to one of my sons. Does that clarify anything for you there? It does, but it's
not a guarantee of anything and that's what I'm worried about because the erosion can be really problematic
with logging and it's not going to
would require a permit because it's not in a quote unquote urban area reading the definition. So there's
nothing else we can do except ask that there be tree preservation put on this property. And at any point,
the owner can come to the Plan Commission or to BZA and ask that this be modified. And at that point,
the conditions
can be determined about, you know, whether or not tree preservation should remain on this lot. Well,
I guarantee you that this is part of our farm, grandpa's farm. I guarantee you that place will never
be never be clear cut. You know, nobody's going to come in and log the whole entire 40 acres.
So, Commissioner Thomas, if there is a BZA Board of Zoning Appeals process,
If, in fact, you would mandate or require a tree preservation area, doesn't that give us a process down
the road if they want to come in and do something other, where they could request a variance or something
like that? Isn't that the step, the process we could follow? Yeah, I don't know if it would be BZA or
just coming back to the Plan Commission because, yeah, Plan Commission, because it's- Whatever the body,
whatever the body. Yeah, but it's, but also if they decide they want to build on it, they'd have to
come back to the Plan Commission, for example, right?
So I mean, I think that's I'm a process person. And as long as there's a process that allows them to
come back and request something different in the future, we should allow that to happen or we should
stipulate that that happens. That's my thought. Yeah, there would be a way to change it in the future.
It just wouldn't be
I just don't want my brother. I don't want to hear from my brother when we have this discussion afterwards
that he's got 40 acres that one he can't build on, which he agreed to that because he has no they've
got a house on 446 opposite end of the county. He has no intention to move in there. This is just where
we deer hunt, where we've always deer hunted, where we've always planted a little corn, put up,
put up hay, then done a little farming. And that's that's going to be the future. But he was agreeable
because he does not want a house down there. But I just
I don't want to come back to him and say, look, you know, this is a recreational area. Not only can
you not build now, you can't log 20 years down the road without without getting going back before the
Planning Commission and getting it read and getting it all redone. That's going to get me in some hot
water. Just just to be honest. But we we were very agreeable to putting on lot three on that Draisman inage.
drainage easement there, a section of trees that would be in a preservation. The problem is, if I vote
no, then the whole thing doesn't pass. That's why I'm asking you very nicely. I get that. You're very
polite, sir, and I appreciate it, but I'm hesitant.
Erosion impact is huge of logging on this kind of sloped area. I wish we had never brought the term
logging up when we were talking to Jackie because like there's no there's no intention of this property
ever being logged. But I can't bank on that and the people who live downstream can't bank on that and
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.
I don't know that much water of ours, if any, but some may drain over. It goes somewhere. Right. It
goes somewhere. So the sticking point is logging. Right. And versus a preservation area. Right. And
you need to, in order for this to move forward to the commissioners for approval, all five of us have
to agree. Right. Cause there's only five people here. Right. We don't have the full contingent.
So we need to have some sort of an agreement or compromise if we're gonna move this forward in a positive
manner. And what I'm hearing is that the sticking point is logging. Which nobody intends to log. But
a statement or provide something in writing to the planning department that says that with a caveat
that at some time in the future, 20 years from now, if in fact somebody else within the family
who wants to take and log, they need to come back to the Planning Commission and go through that process.
That is the out. The out is the process. But I don't think you're going to get approval here. But I
don't want to speak for my brother's 40 acres either. And I guess maybe he should have been here tonight.
Because I didn't know whether this was going to be an issue. And I don't want to confuse
the tree preservation offer on lot three to supplant no pun intended pun intended. The tree preservation
required along the road. I don't want to confuse that with this issue. This is separate. So let's not
confuse the issue. So I mean, an option would be to move this on for a final hearing and not decide
this tonight. That's another option.
and then I can be outvoted, but then I am a county commissioner, so I don't know what my colleagues
are gonna do when you come before us either. I don't know what I'll do. This would get a decision at
Planning Commission, though. Just Planning Commission. Oh, even though it's a major... Right. Okay,
good, okay. Excellent, that's good. Good for him. Can I ask a question? Just a simple question.
On lot four, I see that the tree preservation
area kind of exactly coincides with the Carst Conservancy area? Is that true? Yes, that's an older version
when that got brought up during the Planning Commission admin meeting that this conversation precipitated
from that, so that tree preservation area identifier has changed. I can show you on the screen now.
This is the updated version on the screen now. And you can see the cars conservancy area remains the
same. They just haven't double counted it as a tree preservation area. And it would have just captured
that green area anyways, which is about 1.35 acres and singles. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for refreshing
wherever I was that night. Well, there's, there's a, there's two versions in the packet. So that's why
it's confusing. So commissioner Thomas, your suggestion about pushing this to a final hearing, allowing
you the petitioner to talk to your brother and then coming back to us. And we also hope by that time
should have a fuller compliment of the commissioner's present.
Well, I can I can make a decision if law forward is going to be mine. But since it since it's going
to be his, I don't want to speak for him. And I mean, I got to eat dinner Thanksgiving dinner with him
and see him on his birthday and see him on Christmas. Although it's it's all in somebody's name right
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.
Anything else you'd like to comment? So I guess we still need to ask for people for guest.
And I don't see anybody in the room who wants to speak up for for up. We do another comment. Yeah. Thomas,
would you be able to make it happen where if he and his brother are able to converse with you in person
or by phone? If you're trying to put some of this into a tree preservation, because there's really no
outline there what you're thinking either, you know, as far as 45 acres of this of this property.
right? Um, yeah, I, I, my concern is where trees interact with slope. That's, that's my concern.
And I'm, and it's beyond the 20, it's smaller than the 25% because you know what, what happens with
slope. You're, you're well aware. Um, so the, the area is the most concerned to you is the 25% area, the,
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
trying to find the right map here again where i was before when i first reviewed this now i didn't go
back here because i didn't feel comfortable going all the way back to look at this property personally
because i normally do that but um i felt like i was kind of out in the wild and i
I didn't want to upset anybody because that sometimes happens. Trying to find the percentage. Didn't
we have a map in here showing slope? Some of the areas is shaded and you will see with a magenta color
line that says 25%. Those are the areas that are probably the most sensitive.
and the karst area. That's true. And that's not slope, but it is slope. It's its own slope. Maybe I
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
to. Yeah, that's what I was looking at.
plus the karst area. Are you looking at what's shaded in red? Yeah, that's the 25%. That's correct.
So that is delineated on the survey as 25%. And then we've got the area that has the thin blue line
that's delineated as a drainage easement to the property. And then we have a karst area. So are these
areas the areas of concern to you? That would be it. That'd be it.
I'm letting him talk it over with his family. Yeah, and now you have the right map. OK, the GIS map
is the one to use for that for the 25% clarification. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate you. Alright, so
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.
whether or not we have any additional comments. I would recommend that we bring this back for final
hearing. Sorry to everybody to make them all come back and make you all listen to it again, but I just,
I don't feel comfortable supporting this at this moment. And hopefully this agreement can be reached.
Do we have, do we require a motion to take and push it to a final hearing? No, but I do have a further
question for
legal and or staff and that is, can this just be a condition of approval? Preservation or is it?
Or is it? If you deny the street tree waiver, you can ask for a condition or some sort of agreement,
but I think we have to be specific. I don't think we can stay like this. This has nothing to do with
the street tree waiver. This has to do with lot four. I'm not. That's a separate thing altogether to me.
Lot four because it's a conservancy area. It would be the 25% slope. Cars conservancy area drain adjusment
would be off limits for logging. So would that be a condition or would that be something we'd have to
actually? I think that would be a condition of approval that could precipitate from a motion from yourself
or another planning commission member.
Perfect, thank you. This is really for legal or a parliamentarian type question. Can we continue this
meeting in the final hearing be held at the admin meeting? And I guess this will be the first thing
prior to the admin meeting to try to take a step out of this to take an expedite just a little bit.
Can we do that? We take public comment at that time.
Okay, so we can do that. We can continue tonight's meeting to an administrative meeting. So do we need
a motion to do that or we just do it at the end of today's meeting? Don't adjourn and continue tonight's
meeting. But for right now, we would like a motion to continue this case in its entirety to the date
of the admin meeting. That would be great work for the petitioner, though. It's October six.
October 6, would that be available? 530. It would be at the planning office. I'd like to make a motion
that we continue this item until the admin meeting that will be held on October 6 in the planning office. Second.
All right it's been moved and seconded to continue SPP-26-1 the Gardner major subdivision with different
waivers and a request for final hearing. This is being continued to the October 6th, 2026 meeting which
will be a continuation of the Planning Commission regular meeting but also followed by an administrative
meeting directly after. A vote yes is a vote to continue this to October 6th, 2026.
Rudy Fields. Yes, Julie Thomas. Yes. Mark Clements. Yes, Scott Ferris. Yes, Jeff Morris. Yes, motion
carries five to zero. Everyone, I appreciate everyone's patience with me. For good questions. All right,
that brings us to SPP 26 to which is the Trinity Springs major subdivision primary plat.
whether looking for a partial flat vacation, a street tree waiver, a buried utility waiver, and a waiver
of final hearing. And it's over to you. Thank you.
So to amend that a little bit, there's also a two points of access waiver associated with this, similar
to the previous petition. The purpose of this is to vacate a lot from an existing minor subdivision
and subdivide it into a total of three lots. The original subdivision, the Shipley minor subdivision,
established four lots. And so the only way that more lots can be created is if one of the lots is vacated
out of the existing minor subdivision.
and enters a major subdivision. So the existing lot four in this case will be vacated as the one that's
vacant and subdivided. Proposed lot four A will contain 12.6 acres with nine and a half acres of buildable
area. Proposed lot four B will contain 12.27 acres with 7.8 acres of buildable area.
and lot C will contain 10 acres with 6.31 acres of buildable area. Here are comments from the highway
department and the storm water program. Ben Ayers stated that the two existing driveways on lot B will
remain as legal pre-existing and will not require a right of way permit at this time since there's no
change to the driveways.
or will either of these drives be used as access for lot 4A or 4C? Therefore, there are no issues with
highway on this subdivision proceeding since lots 4A and 4C have right-of-way activity permits which
can be approved. And Stormwater states that the Drainage Board has approved this subdivision with a
unanimous vote during their meeting on July 7th, 2026 with the following condition of approval, that
on lot 4B, if necessary to install,
the second septic location be placed to avoid the drainage easement. And here is a table summarizing
the subdivision. And here is a location map, zoning map, and site conditions map. For these next photos,
I'd like to use them to also discuss the various waivers, if that's all right, just very briefly.
First is a street tree waiver. Since this is a major subdivision, Chapter 832-14C would require that
street trees be established or a street tree waiver be applied for. The primary plat exhibits approximately
386.5 feet of road frontage along West Bay Road and approximately 1,957.36 feet along
South Leonard Springs Road which equates to roughly 59 street trees. The petitioner has opted for a
street tree waiver instead and has proposed a tree preservation area on lot 4B. One of the reasons for
this is because there are power lines present on the property and the petitioner has stated in the past
as you can see from the image on the left here that the electric provider has cut down trees that have
ventured to that have been too close to the property
to the power lines. This also brings me to the next petition waiver request, which is a buried utility
waiver. There is an electric power line leading directly to the house from a pole that measures approximately
40 to 45 feet long. Said home was constructed in 1958, exhibits three, photos five and six for the power
the utility waiver request. And for the two points of access. The configuration of the subdivision does
not include an interior ingress or egress from Leonard Springs Road to West May Road, though the lot
does contain dual
So the proposal is for two existing driveways to remain on lot 4B, as well as for driveways to be approved
on lot 4A and lot 4C. And the various photos of the site. The image on the left, I believe, depicts
the tree preservation area as marked on the plats, though I don't think at this time the petitioner
has identified how large that area is going to be, which is something that is mentioned in the conditions
of approval.
And here is a layout of the proposed subdivision into three lots, as well as the original Shipley Miner
subdivision, which originally created this lot, lot number four. And so staff supports approval of the
proposed primary plats based on the findings of fact, subject to comments from the highway engineer
and storm water manager reports. Staff recommends approval of the proposed street tree waiver based
on the findings of fact,
Namely, staff believes that practical difficulties have been sufficiently demonstrated. This is subject
to the following condition of approval. One, the petitioner is to add a note to the plaque regarding
the street preservation area and include the size. Staff supports approval of the buried utilities waiver
based on the findings of fact. Staff recommends approval of the two ways ingress egress waiver based
on the findings of fact and subject to highway engineer reports. And finally, staff recommends no recommendation
on the plot vacation, but staff does recommend that, request that the surveyor include a written statement
regarding plot vacation on the primary plots. And I will take any questions. Questions from the plant
commission. Left. Yeah, you know, I'm going to have one. Can you explain the plot vacation and how that's
supposed to work or how it could work with these, this configuration of properties?
What are we vacating and what can happen on that property? So it is lot four in the Shibley minor subdivision
that is being vacated, as indicated by my mouse. And the plan is for this to be divided into three lots
that I believe will be used for residential building purposes. I believe the petitioner has already
picked out a potential building site on lot 4A, for example, for a single family dwelling.
I can add to the plat vacation question. So under the CDO, we restricted re subdivision after plat vacation
so that they are required to submit for a major subdivision, for instance, if they're coming from a
minor subdivision. So that's why these are two back to back major subdivisions. In a case where there's
a plat vacation and all owners of the original plat agree, there's a
a set of findings that is exhibit five in the packet. If there's a situation in which plat owners do
not agree, then there's a separate, you have to prove what the conditions have changed. So I believe,
Daniel, the clarification here is, are the owners of the original plat in agreement with this plat vacation
resubdivision? That is my understanding, yes. Okay. And they would be required to sign this new plat.
Okay. Correct. Okay.
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
of this, right? I just wanna make sure, because it's marked out as a lot, but it's behind everything
else, and I don't know
Is that part of the original subdivision? Oh, good question. That pink X line, that's a fence. Right.
I believe that's just delineated to show the surrounding property as part of an orientation measure.
Okay. So it has, because I followed the blue lines as the property, the proposed property lines, but
I wanted to make sure I understood why that was there. So perfect. Thank you. Anybody else up here?
Petitioner, petitioner's rep.
you've already signed in and you've already stated your name. So yes Julie you're correct that it's
just going to be lot number four that we're going to be affecting here and also the adjoining neighbors
and the members of the current subdivision are agreeable to vacating this lot and then just for clarification
On the plot vacation language, I believe it's in the first paragraph. I don't know if we was looking
at an older version or whatever, but there was something there that said that we was vacating lot number
four. Other than that, I think that's all we had. And if you have any questions. Sorry, but not sorry.
So what is the tree preservation plan in exchange for street trees? What is the plan? Yep, thank you.
So currently we have a power line running parallel with the street. So that's the reason that we're
asking for the waiver. So we're proposing to place the triangular shape that you will find in the middle
lot at the southwest corner of it, where the area of steep slopes located at. That's where we would
ask to have the tree preservation at. There's a tree preservation marked on 4C. 4B? Yes. Yeah, that
4B is what he's talking about, that triangle.
4C has a tree preservation area. Is that also part of this? I would need to take a little closer look
at the plot. Let me step around the podium here. You can take the mic with you, Eric, if you want to
speak while you're standing. The triangle comes off that right angle. Nope. South. There it is. Just
a 25% slope.
Okay. Well, it's got the same markings of the green dots. That's why I'm asking. I see. True that we
were using the 25% where the green dots are located at. That was the area that we thought we was going
to be able to capture enough trees to meet the tree preservation area. So that's not a tree preservation
area in lot 4C. We do not have it delineated as a tree preservation area. Got it. Thank you.
So I guess we still need public comment on this for or against. Do we have any public comment in the
room? Seeing none. On the online. I don't see anyone. So it comes back to us for final comments. Do
you have any final comments before we go to a motion?
Kind of please, pretty please. I can make a motion. Oh, thank you. Jackie, do you need me to read the
entire recommendation or can I just make a motion based on what's right in front of me? So do we need
to state it for the record or can we just make reference to it? You can make reference to it, but I
will probably say it out loud just for clarity.
for case SPP-26-2 I move approval of all the items presented in this case as stated in our packet tonight.
Would that be subject to the surveyor including a written statement regarding the vacation on the primary
plat? Yes. Okay, well then I think I'd like to second that motion.
Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve SPP-26-2 which includes a approval of the plat, also the
street tree waiver with a condition that the petitioner have the note which is listed on lot 4B that
a tree preservation area include the size of that tree preservation area, and then also a approval for
buried utilities
two points, ingress and egress, and also the partial plat vacation of lot four of Shipley minor. A vote
yes is a vote to approve all of the items, including the one condition regarding the street tree and
the tree preservation. May I ask a question? Sure. On page 597, we have the note that the drainage board
had a condition that on lot four B if necessary to install a second septic location to avoid the drainage
easement? Is that something we'd have to add as a condition? I don't believe so because one of the,
because the phrasing for the approval of the subdivision as a whole says subject to comments from the
highway engineer and stormwater. Okay, not even, okay. So even though it's very specific, we don't have
to add it.
Thank you. Apologize. The other thing I would add real quick is it is for Planning Commission approval.
Yeah. This does not go to the commissioners. And in the version in the packet, it does show that the
septic would not be within the drainage easement at least on this page 619. So thank you. Okay. We'll
make note of that. Okay. So still motion on the table with that as conditions as stated. I'll go ahead
and call the roll.
Julie Thomas? Yes. Mark Clements? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Motion
carries five to zero. All right, so let's see, that brings up number three, which is REZ262, which is
the Western States PUD zoning area.
error and also a waiver for a final hearing, and I guess that's huge. I'll go ahead and present this
one. Yes, so this is a planned commission authored rezone to the community development zone. This parcel
in communication with the owners of 1530 and 1540 South Curry Pike were incorrectly zoned
for a while as Western Estates PUD. When we redrew the legal description for that PUD rezone that was
initiated under the city of Bloomington when they had extraterritorial jurisdiction over that area,
it did not include these two parcels. So it was a Scrivener's error. The Plan Commission is taking this
rezone. And so the owners themselves have not petitioned the Plan Commission for this rezone. They have not
you know, paid fees for this, so this is, the petitioner here is the Planning Commission, I wanna be
clear about that. So here's the location map, we are in Van Buren Township, just right across the street
from the BMV, so we're on South Curry Pike and West Sierra Drive. This is the current zoning map, which
does show the two parcels as grayed out as PUD, but again, that's the error that we're trying to fix tonight.
or sorry, at the county commissioner level. To the north is community development zone, the yellow,
which is what the recommendation is that this parcel be rezoned to, and then to the east you have HI,
which is heavy industrial, and also you have light industrial, and then further to the south, that kind
of chartreuse color is high development, and then to the far southwest you have conservation residential.
On the, in the packet as well as on the screen you have the site conditions map. There is some constraints
of flood plain to the western side of 1540 South Curry Pike. The two properties are actually currently
built out with both having single family residences and then the parcel to the west does have a detached
garage and I believe an apartment within that garage as well. And then we also have a zoomed out
where you can see the full extent of the floodplain crossing West Sierra Drive underneath and the different
development types to the north and the south. So you do have pretty much all housing types that you'll
see. We have multi-family, we have townhomes, we have a mobile home park to the west and further to
the south. As well as the Carstarm Greenway is also adjacent to this area.
The property is also in the sinking Creek critical watershed and then just for everyone's reminder There's
the aerial with the description descriptions of the developments on each lot So 1530 to the east has
a house and a pool and then to the west 1540 has a house and then the garage with apartment is the furthest
west structure the
property acreages one acre for the eastern parcel and then 1.96 acres on the western parcel but there
is floodway on the western half so it kind of constricts the amount of developable land they both are
connected to sewer and city water and they've had the property for sale and so one of the questions
along the way was what
what are the possible potential buyers interested in doing with the property, and in either option,
there's not an interest for an owner living on site. Buyer one, in this case, I think both maybe are
no longer on the table, but in this instance, they wanted to rent the property and remodel the structures
as they are, which community development would
likely allow that to continue with some modifications for the garage apartment. And then buyer two wanted
to knock down the structures and rebuild multifamily potentially paired patio homes with garages or
fourplexes with garages. That one would probably not be as accommodated under the community development
but possibly under high development depending on the build out. So we do have in the packet a comparison
of community development as well as high development.
Some of the changes or differences are in the side yard setback. Sorry, I've highlighted the rear yard.
The rear yard is the same. And the maximum impervious cover. So that's the biggest difference is under
the community development district, there's 50% or 5,500 square feet, whichever is less as your allowable
maximum impervious. Whereas under high development, it's 50% of the lot size without the caveat of the
5,500 square feet.
So that's the biggest difference. And then, apologies, this must have been from the last one.
The use table here from the CDO, you have the CD and HD districts. And I just wanted to point out that
for the most part, there is an allowance in both zones to have some level of multifamily, three to four
units. If there's a connection to sewer, there's an extensive list of standards for both the three to
four units and then the five plus units. But if you're going to have more than five or more units on
the property, that would not be a permissible use in the CD
it would only be under the high development district. Today we received a letter from the owner's
representative, their realtor, stating that they would like to see the property zoned as HD and not
CD. And so I've printed that letter for you to review and also here on the screen. And they're working
with an appraiser, Fig Appraisal,
would also like to consider this to be HD. And most of this is so that it's the highest and best use
since the property is for sale, that's the request. And they're also noticing the development in the
proximity is higher development. Here are some site photos of the property. This is 1530 South Curry.
the pool and the home. There was a dumpster on the property, so I do believe they're, you know, possibly
needing to repair a little bit more on the 1530 South Curry Pike structure. It doesn't appear anybody's
living in it at the moment. And then 1540 South Curry, one to the west with the two structures with
the house and then the detached garage and apartment.
These do appear to be lived in. And then just across the street, we do have apartments further on West
Sierra Drive. And then of course, the manufactured home park. And then in the packet, I also had kind
of a street view just showing the development closer to Curry Pike, which I think was more like triplexes
or quadplexes. The recommendation of the Planning Commission at this time is a positive recommendation
to the Board of Commissioners.
Citing its compatibility both CD and HD with the comprehensive plan Subject to stormwater and highway
reports and it also includes a recommendation positive recommendation to waive the final hearing So
with that I can take any questions questions from the plan Commission go on the right side this time
Love side All right, no questions petitioner petitioners rep
Sign in, state your name, and you have 15 minutes. Hello. I am Michelle Stanger, Stanger Homes, who
represents the owner, Deborah Clark. In my letter that Jackie had presented up here,
The majority of the. If I for one second, let me make something like a correction to the record. The
petitioner is the the the planning department, and so you're technically coming up as part of the public
comment. Is that true with this letter? Is she a petitioner now that this letter is here? No, we are
the petitioner, so this is the this is the supporters or remonstrators public comment. Yes, that's correct.
OK, so this is public comment.
state whether you're for or against or whatever your comment is. Well, since I'm the real estate agent,
I am for rezoning this to HD. And so is the owner. So I represent her as well. Are those your comments?
You have anything else to add or is that it? Well, in my letter, I mean, it's pretty clear and simple
that the majority, you know, the villages like Curry Pike
zone as a PUD. There is a majority of HD around the area. You go across the street. It's commercial.
It only makes sense for it to be HD versus CD. And of course the owner is just trying to get the highest
and best use of this property as well. This is basically the last of the two lots in that area to basically
do anything with.
more than likely it's gonna be a developer that's gonna wanna buy this piece of property. And we're
trying to get the correction on the rezoning so I know how to market it appropriately. And when we had
the appraisal done, it's literally taken seven months because it was zoned incorrectly. So
per the recommendation of Fig Appraisals, he's also suggesting HD. And that's how he has officially
done the appraisal towards HD.
Now, if it gets changed, we're gonna have to revisit that. Questions from everybody up here?
I don't have any. No, technically, let's see. This is kind of a different one. So you're the petitioner.
She essentially is... There's a commenter. I'm pointing over here. You're the petitioner. So she's actually
not stating for, she's stating against, is what she's doing.
So now we go back to you. Or the Planned Commission. The Planned Commission. The Planned Commission.
I've got to get the. Rebuttal. The parliamentarian portion is straight for us to comment on her comment,
correct? Yes. That's where we are. If there's no other commenters, supporter, opposition. That's right.
So now we're back to us. Comments on my right. Is anybody online trying to comment on this as well?
I may say the owner is online right now. I did not see a hand. Shelly or Rich, if you would like to
speak, you can raise your hand. Her hand is up now. OK. So you have go ahead and make your comments,
please. Shelly Clark. The tech services, if you can promote Shelly Clark, and then she'll have, I think,
three minutes to speak. Rich Pick.
Shelly, you'll have to unmute your screen as well to speak. Shelly, when you're ready, go ahead and
state for the record who you are. Hello, my name is Russell Clark. I am Shelly Clark's husband. She
is ill and Deborah happens to be ill at the moment as well.
They are listening. As Michelle stated, it does make a lot more sense to Deborah for this to be the
HD zoned. She's just really trying to move the property and. Get the best she can out of it, you know.
Alright. Any questions for?
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
anybody else online who'd like to make a comment okay so that closes out the the public comment at this
portion now we're back planning director because she gets to take and provide a reclama to what
individual was recommending. It's a difference than what we are proposing. Correct. So this is a rezone
to fix a current Scribner's error so it's being authored by the planned commission similar to how we
did the CDO zoning maps. So if the owners are in opposition to what is being requested on the table
there's two
Well, three options to proceed. One is to send the recommendation to the county commissioners with a
positive recommendation for CD. Another is, I believe, because you are the authors of this rezone, you
could change it at this juncture to HD and send it to the county commissioners, or you could continue
the petition. Those are three options that I would see. All right, any comments before we proceed to go ahead?
This is a question for staff. What's the downside HD? The main difference I would believe to be between
HD and CD is the permission for the multifamily five plus and the impervious cover because of where
this is and its location within the floodway and the
Sinking Creek watershed that was brought up as reasonings to keep it CD I will say too that the petitioner
states correctly that a lot of Development in this area is already connected to sewer including these
homes but the decision as to whether the sewer can be intensified to support a high development Density
would be decided at a later stage because they haven't
gone to CBU and actually gotten a letter of authorization to increase the flow and support this type
of development. So if someone comes in and knocks down those two structures, CBU may say you cannot
get sewer to build anything more than a single family dwelling. Thomas. And I think you asked a good question.
Um, I also want to point out that since this was a Scrivener's error, the question is, what would, what
would it have been zoned if we hadn't mistakenly put it in the PUD? Um, and I think CD is, is perfect,
uh, because of those issues with the drainage way and because it is in the Seacon Creek watershed, which
is really, um, a vital area in our community that we're trying to, to protect.
But I will also point out that if a petitioner comes back after purchasing the property, a new petitioner
can come and say, can you rezone this to HD? Then we can hear very specific requests. And that's the
thing, we don't have a specific request in front of us, but we could always hear that once somebody
proposes to buy the property. And they would have a CBU letter, which I don't think anybody's gonna get,
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
specific. Yeah, that was almost exactly what I was gonna say, Commissioner Thomas. This is a unique
situation where we're correcting a mistake we made. And typically if we were seeing an HD rezone, we
would have concrete plans in front of us that we could react to and comment on. So change it to anything
other than CD tonight.
as we move toward a motion. Remember, this motion is for us to make a recommendation to the commissioners,
the board of commissioners. Go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead. For case REZ-26-2, I move forwarding a positive
recommendation to rezone the property at 1530 and 1540 South Curry Pike to CD
with a waiver of final hearing to the Board of Commissioners regarding the rezone request citing its
compatibility with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and subject to highway and storm water program
reports. Does that include a waiver of final hearing? Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. It's been moved
and seconded to send a positive recommendation to the county commissioners with a waiver of final hearing
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
positive recommendation and waive the final hearing requirement. Mark Clements? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes.
Jeff Morris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Okay, motion carries five to zero.
That brings us to SIA 2225, which is the North Shore Amendment 1 final plat. It also has a request for
the extension of performance period, an inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount, and a waiver
of a final hearing. And I think that's you, Jackie, as well, right?
That is and I'll note that the petitioner is online and that they will be wanting to speak to this as
well. But I'll give a short back story since this is a little bit different. Usually we do these at
administrative meetings. So this is a subdivision improvement agreement for a subdivision that was approved
in 2000 final plotted in 2008.
is called the North Shore Amendment, one final plat, and it is located at 9554 East North Shore Drive.
Upon the approval of the final plat, the owner at the time, which was the Lake Lemon Marina, agreed,
well, they did not get a waiver of the sidewalk requirement, and they were required to either build
sidewalk in order to plat the subdivision or post a letter of credit
in promise that they would complete the sidewalk. We are going through different subdivisions and trying
to follow up with developers or owners of the current property to finish out some of these long standing
letters of credit that we're holding and trying to get a performance period end date for when they will
complete the improvements or decide on next steps. So we have worked with the petitioner between the
administrative meeting on
August 1st it was September 1st, 2026 and tonight and we are of the agreement that we could recommend
one more performance period extension until August 1st, 2027. The petitioner did submit quite a bit
of information upon request when we had asked. They have in the packet starting on page 650
for a letter stating that they do have a primary major subdivision application in the works. It is dated
as 2023, and they did get us in the packet on page 659 rework of that plat that we've been asking for
for some time, which shows what they would
be agreeable to which is essentially a new crosswalk from the RV or mobile home park across the street
to their property and two signs that they've given some specifications for to alert drivers that there
could be people crossing either by foot or by golf cart
however bike so they are agreeable to the crosswalk and the two signs in return they'll be asking for
a sidewalk waiver and also they do not want to share a driveway between the lots on the screen lot 4a
3a and lot 2 which is the marina
This driveway we did ask that they go ahead and address You know as part of the sidewalk waiver and
and ask for a removal of the condition of a shared driveway That they have a plan in place for that
to change But they noted in their letter that they will not be They will not be addressing the driveway
issue But they would like to just do the crosswalk and the two signs in return for requesting a sidewalk
waiver. I bring this up because if we extend the performance period on this subdivision improvement
agreement to August 1, 2027, you are also the body that will review this subdivision amendment. So if
what you're seeing tonight on the screen, you know, I know there's only five of you here, but if it's
a no go, if you don't think that you would be willing to, you know,
give a permission for a sidewalk waiver here, then I would suggest that we reconsider the extension
of time because it's their intent to not put in the sidewalk. So that's what I'll say on that. All right,
so questions? Commissioner Gonzalez? So we're only considering tonight the extension of the performance
Right, guaranteed. But we would need to be amenable to not just changing out the sidewalk for the crosswalk,
but also that driveway issue getting revised again, correct? Correct. Can you, I had a double the time
trying to remember what happened with that last time. Do you remember what happened with that last time?
Yes, so the condition that they share the driveway was both on this subdivision and on a rezone to get
the subdivision. So they first attempted to rezone the property, not to actually change the zone, but
only to amend the conditions that came with the rezone. And one of those conditions was to share a driveway
with the marina for the
residential lots that were being created. The recommendation by the highway department was that they
go ahead and take out this existing driveway, which the county did permit an error in about twenty eighteen
and go ahead and share that as required under the conditions of of approval of the rezone and the subdivision.
they tried to remove that condition and it failed. So it's still a condition of the rezone. So they
would have to try again under both the condition of the rezone and try this new option, which is under
the subdivision as well to remove the sidewalk and the driveway. So by just to put a finer point on
this. So by approving, if we approve the continuation
of this performance guarantee, we are also in a sense tacitly approving both changing out the sidewalks
for the crosswalk, which is something we all wanted at the admin meeting. That's not the issue, but
this driveway. So they put something in there that, yeah. So we would tacitly be approving leaving the
driveway where it is.
I think that's what the petitioners request will be, but they are online and they do want to speak to
that point. That would be something that if it is a condition of approval of the subdivision itself
could be figured out as well. But right now they're offering just the crosswalk and the two signs. Yeah.
And we really are only considering continuing this performance guarantee. That's the only thing on our
agenda. That's correct.
anything else, but by approving that, we're tacitly saying, yeah, go ahead. We are extending the time
to pursue the subdivision, which I think in good faith, we have no intent on the plan commission approving.
I wouldn't give that green light or that I wouldn't extend the time for that. Any other comments on
my left? Welcome to the rock and the hard place and very small spot in between on my right.
All right, petitioner or petitioners rep, you're online. Once we give you access, make sure you state
your name so we know who you are and you have 15 minutes to talk to us. Next services, can you promote
Stephen Warner? Thank you, Stephen, you should be able to unmute. Yeah, can you hear me? Yes. OK, again,
I'm Stephen M. Warner, one of the owners of the Marina. And so
The driveway condition is not something we're gonna push or address if that's gonna hold this up because
we can't, we're not, we've had discussions with the city attorney, we're not responsible for the driveway.
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
position before to do anything about it, we're not now at this point, there's been several ownership changes,
We don't own any of the property on which, including our own driveway in the meetings, which unanimously
the planning commission did recommend to the commissioners to allow us to remove that. I wanna set the
record straight that the planning commission did allow that, but the commissioners vetoed that.
At this point, we were doing that for the community's good. We will drop the driveway thing because
we can't do anything about it anyway. And it's not part of the SIA that we have in front of us anyway.
So we're fine leaving it on there. But again, the sidewalk makes no sense by your own new CDO. It wouldn't
be a requirement because there's no sidewalk within a five mile,
maybe even longer than that, conservatively five miles, there's no business home or anything with a
sidewalk anywhere near this property. And so it doesn't make it, I affectionately call it the sidewalk
to nowhere. It would not help our community, but we do agree that visibility could be increased. And
because of this foot traffic and golf cart traffic from the,
the property across the way, the mobile home park that the crosswalk makes sense, and we're willing
to pay for it and maintain it. We agree with that. So I hereby drop the driveway part of that.
Leave it alone, because we can't do it. We don't own any of the parcels that are involved. And by the
second Platt Amendment for those two parcels to the Northeast,
The Johnsons who developed that parcel agreed to do the driveway move after the first Platt Amendment.
And so they were the only signatories to that Platt Amendment and they're the only the only the people
that are in that privity of that real estate transaction can answer for it now, which are two owners
past that.
So forget the driveway thing. Again, and we just want to remove because nothing we can do. All right.
So we signed a new SII with the county. We signed a new SII with the county. It does not include that.
It does include the sidewalk. So we're only addressing the sidewalk. All right. Do you have any more
comments about the sidewalk?
Again. All right. Does anybody have any questions about for the petitioner about what has been discussed?
Anybody? No, there are no. Go ahead. I actually have a question for staff. OK, if I might. Commissioner
Tom. So the petitioner under this agreement would pay our highway department to install or how does
that work?
What we've recommended in the staff report for this is that they extend their letter of credit for another
year just in keeping with making sure that we have something on file to back up this request. But I
would say that they would get a right away activity permit and submit construction plans to the highway
department for approval and they would do these improvements at their expense.
And then if they got the waiver and the time lapsed, we would return the letter of credit.
And that would be, you know, we need to codify what you just said, or is this just a standard operating
procedure? This would be just as they take forward SPP dash twenty three dash one. This would be part
of that discussion to amend their primary plan for the sidewalk waiver. But the codifying of the letter
of credit extension is under the recommendation on the screen.
So they would be doing. I just wanted to clarify that and and. If so under this scenario, if. We vote
yes and extend that letter of credit another year. And we also. Adapt and change that. The plan.
So that it takes the sidewalk out and the driveway tie in. And they don't perform this, then we can
take the letter, but we've approved that. But if they don't perform that crosswalk, then we can take
that letter of credit and put it toward installing one. I would think that would be the case, yes. As
a public improvement. It's clearly in the right of way. Yeah, that's a good question. Good deal. Thank you.
All right, so I guess we go to public comment at this point. Do we have any public comment for or against
online or in the room? I see none in the room. And I do not see any hands raised online.
So I do want to just state though, just back to our conversation. I think that those improvements in
total, the crosswalk and the two signs will be substantially less than what we're asking for, which
is the $44,263. So if we spent that amount and there was leftover and you wave the sidewalk, they do
get the remainder back. Sure. Yes, of course. Yes. Got it. Absolutely agree. All right. So I think we're
magically at that point where we we can entertain a motion.
Go ahead. As a matter of SIA-22-25, we recommend extending the performance guarantee until August 1,
2027 with the following requirements and conditions. Petitioners submit an updated letter of credit
amount of $44,263
and 11 cents to reflect the second year 10% inflation with the letter of credit valid until August 1,
2027 deadline for petitioner to submit the new letter of credit shall be October 7, 2026 petitioner
should sign an updated subdivision improvement agreement performance bond document with the new letter
of credit amount deadline for petitioner to submit those two signed documents be October 2026 petitioner proceed
With the primary plat amendments and pay the petition fees honored for the filing deadlines of November
4 2026 To second that motion and also also if I may add there's a request for waving of a final hearing
as well Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve si a dash 22-25 which extends the performance
period and as I
Commission member Rudy Field stated perfectly. I will not repeat that motion with a waiver final hearing.
A vote yes is a vote to extend that performance period with those conditions and waive the final hearing.
Scott Ferris? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Mayor Clements? Yes. Motion
is approved five to zero. Thank you.
All right, that brings us to SIA 2222, which is a Hollingfields major subdivision, phase one subdivision,
improvement agreement, request for performance period extension, request for inflation, adjust performance
guarantee amount, and a waiver of final hearing. And I think, is this Tammy?
I think we have it, so. This is Holland Field's phase one. We've heard this one several times.
Let's see, so they currently, what they're here for is a performance period extension and a request
for inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount. They currently have posted a letter of credit for $106,000.
and that had been previously reduced. So they had used to have more on file, but they did a
lot of improvements. All 19 lots have been built out, but there's still a lot of corrections that need
to be done out here. And so the estimate that had been submitted to planning back in October of 2025 gave us
that amount and you guys voted it in and since then they had posted an updated letter of credit for
that amount. They submitted a performance bond document, a subdivision improvement agreement document,
and they were supposed to have also had this section of this subdivision accepted into the right of
way. So the two documents, those are both expired at this point as of
May of 2026 and then of course they missed the deadline for getting the road accepted into the right
of way. So where we're at right now with this one is we took the estimate and we added the 10% inflationary
cost for one year and so the total, oh this is, sorry.
I'm not sure if I'm going up or down at this point. In any case, we're looking at getting $117,000,
so they do need to kind of produce the inflation amount, which is over $10,000. Let's see. I know that
they have been working with the developer for the Holland Three Lot Miner subdivision, and they may
or may not give an update on that this evening, but I think the two of them are working together to
try to clear up
That segment that is up there at the intersection of South Walnut Street Pike and East Holland Drive
So Staff I'm just gonna go ahead and if I can get to that page I'm gonna go ahead and do the
staff recommendation because it's an extensive So we are recommending a one-year extension of the performance
period until May 14th of 2027
and post the adjusted inflation amount of $117,530,000.56. And that's based upon that approved estimate
that's in exhibit two. And the amount moving forward will not include the maintenance bond amount
as that will be required upon the time of acceptance and release of these funds per Chapter 833. And
we are adding these four conditions. One is that they submit the additional financial guarantee in the
form of a letter of credit or cashier's check in the amount of $10,684.60 by October 16th, 2026.
Two, that they have an updated performance bond document signed and recorded by October 30, 2026. And
number three is an updated subdivision improvement agreement document that shall be signed and recorded
by October 30, 2026. And then that the petitioner shall apply for right of way acceptance honor before
May 14, 2027. So these are all very similar to what we had
last time when we did the reduction and the performance period extension. But we are going
to also additionally ask that the Plan Commission direct staff to do the following if the condition
number four above is not met. And that is if the petitioner fails to complete all the remaining required
work and apply for that right-of-way acceptance on or before May 14, 2027, the Plan Commission directs
planning staff to cash
the letter of credit and follow all necessary remedies under section 833-7C and that kind of goes along
with us cashing that, drawing that financial guarantee, possibly completing some of these improvements and then
It could also entail suing the developer for any funds necessary to complete the improvements and fund
a maintenance bond and seek any remedy necessary to achieve the purpose of this chapter as allowed by
law or this ordinance. And at the PC admin meeting you all had a question wondering if they had agreed
to those conditions and the developer's representative had emailed us that evening to say that they
did agree with the conditions
listed in the staff report. So, does anyone have any questions? All right, questions from the commissioners
up here? Commissioner Thomas, do you have any questions? No, thank you. Rudy? All right, Margaret? No,
thank you. All right. Rep, I guess they have a chance to comment, so. Yeah, the representative and I
think the petitioner is here as well, the developer is here.
So that would be either Don Turner or Angela Parker. The tech services could allow them to speak. So
once we give you access, state your name and you have 15 minutes. I see that Angela Parker has her hand
raised. So tech services, if you could allow her to speak.
evening everyone. Angela Parker here representing hybrid investments. We are in agreement with the staff
recommendations. There have been lots of meetings and back and forth working not only with planning
staff and highway but also with the Holland three lot minor. We're still working through some of those
discussions but we're confident that we can
get these items completed, not only for phase one, but for the next petition coming on phase two. And
we are in agreement. We're happy to answer any questions and I yield my time back. Thank you very much.
Any questions from anybody? All right, so public comment portion anybody for against please
come up to the podium here or state your name and state your name and online do the same. I don't see
anybody in the room and I don't see any hands up online. So we're back up to the commissioners. And
can we have a motion? I'd like to move an SIA- is that 22-22? Yes. Okay. I'd like to
make a motion to support the recommendations of staff. Okay it's been moved and seconded to approve
SA-22-22 which is the Holland fields major subdivision phase 1 SIA. This does include a waiver of final
hearing and it's including the
approval with the conditions as stated in the staff report by Tammy Bierman. A vote yes is a vote to
approve with the conditions and waive the final hearing. Julie Thomas? Yes. Marguerite Clements? Yes.
Scott Farris? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Motion carries five to zero. All right, that
brings us to SAA 24-6. Again, a Hollingfields major subdivision
Phase two final plan with a request for performance period extension and request for of an uh for inflation
adjusted performance guarantee amount and a waiver of a final hearing and Tammy, I believe this is you
again. Yes, trying to let the computer get me to this page. I'm going to do an abbreviated
report because so many of the facts are similar to what we had before. But again, very similar. They
went through the reduction process. They have a very valid up to date estimate on file. We are going
to charge them that 10% for inflation purposes. And so I think it almost might make sense to just read
the recommendation at this point.
Perfect. So this is for phase two of the Holland Fields subdivision. So very similarly, staff recommends
a one-year extension of the performance period until April 17th, so this is a month earlier, 2027 and
post an adjusted inflation amount of $54,976 and 96 cents based on the approved estimate shown in exhibit six.
or I'm sorry, exhibit two. The amount moving forward will not include the maintenance bond amount as
that will be required at the time of acceptance and the release of these funds per chapter 833 subject
to the following four conditions, and that is to submit an additional financial guarantee in the form
of a letter of credit or cashier's check in the amount of $4,999. I have a decimal in the wrong place.
Can we correct that? So it's $4,999 and I believe it's 77 cents. And that would be by October 16th, 2026.
also submit an updated performance bond document and updated subdivision improvement agreement and those
are supposed to be signed and recorded by October 30, 2026 and then the petitioner shall apply for a
right of way acceptance honor before April 17, 2027 and again should they not meet that right of way
acceptance application timeline then
we would ask that the Plan Commission Direct Planning staff to cash the letter of credit and follow
all necessary remedies under 833-7C. I'm not gonna read all of them again. Do we have any questions
from the Plan Commissioners up here? Go ahead. Miss Parker said on the other one that she was confident
that items will be completed and everything is cool.
Yeah, and I do have that update in the staff report too. Alright, we're going back to the petitioners
rep and I assume it's the same person. Go ahead. OK, I'm sorry about that. Yes, Angela Parker here for
hybrid investments once again,
This this is an easier lift than the phase one in terms of completion. So we're confident to get these
items completed and we agree with the staff recommendations. So thank you very much. We appreciate it.
Any questions from the Planning Commission? Alright, I guess we go for public comment for or against
anybody in the room. I don't see anybody anybody online. I don't see any any online.
So I guess we're back for a motion. Well, I would like to move that we approve the SIA-24-6, Holland
Fields major subdivision phase two final plat requests for performance period extension and request
for inflation adjusted performance guarantee amount with a waiver of final hearing, including the corrected
amount in the final two digits past the decimal point of
I think it's listed in the paragraph recommendation correctly. Okay. Well, we'd like to go with that
figure. So I'd like to move approval for that. He's been moved and seconded to approve essay dash
24-6, which is Holland Field's major subdivision phase two, subdivision improvement agreement with a
waiver of final hearing with the conditions stated by Ms. Bierman, and I will not repeat, and with the
one correction to the number of $4,997.66 in condition number one. A vote yes is a vote to approve.
Jeff Morris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Julie Thomas?
Margaret Clements, Scott Ferris. Yes. Motion is approved five to zero. Thank you. All right. Brings
us for items not on the agenda. Do we have any items not on the agenda? Anybody? Well, that the public
is always invited to give comment about things that aren't on the agenda if they're interested.
All right, anybody in the room would like to take and comment on items not on the agenda? I don't see
any. Anybody online? I don't see anything. Okay, then we are not adjourning the meeting. We're continuing
this meeting until our admin meeting. And so no motion is necessary at this time. We will see you as
a regular meeting component on October 6th.
2026 at 530 at the Planning Office, 501 North Morton, Suite 224. And then once that meeting commences,
we will begin the administrative portion of that meeting directly after. Okay, that sounds great. I
guess we do need to have reports. I didn't mention that. So I don't have any reports. And from legal.
So we're in recess. We're in recess. We're in recess.