All right, it's 530. I welcome everybody. I'd like to begin the Monroe County Planning Commission meeting
for Thursday, October 22nd, 2026. Let's go ahead with a roll call to make sure that we have a quorum
before we proceed. David Bush? Here. Margaret Clements? Here. Tronan Ray Randolph? Here. Scott Ferris?
Here. Rudy Fields?
David Henry here. Jeff Morris here. Julie Thomas here. Steve Bishop. Here OK, so we have eight members
voting members in a quorum in person and then one non voting member in person as well. OK, that brings
us to introduction of evidence. Please proceed. I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence.
The Monroe County Development Ordinance as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Control Ordinance as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted
and amended. The Monroe County Plan Commission Rules of Procedure as adopted and amended. And the cases
that were legally advertised and scheduled for hearing on tonight's agenda. Move approval. Second.
It's been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. The vote yes is the vote to approve.
Margaret Clements. Yes. Tron and Wright-Randolph. Yes. Scott Farris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry.
Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Motion carries eight to zero. That brings
us to the agenda.
I see a couple of items or any changes to the agenda this evening? There are no changes. Do I have a
motion? So moved. Second. Okay, it's been moved. Seconded to approve tonight's agenda. A vote yes is
a vote to approve. Trana and Ray Randolph? Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes.
Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes.
Mark Clements. Motion is approved 8 to 0. I do not believe we have any minutes, correct? That is correct.
Okay, so let's we're moving right on to administrative business. The first thing up is the CDO prioritization
update. Yes, I'll just mention that we've made some good progress on the CDO amendments this month at
the ordinance review committee. We were reviewing
Two items that were CDO possible amendments and so I encourage people that are interested in
the prioritization updates and changes to review or attend the ordinance review committee, but will
continue to make progress. OK, any questions from the commissioners up there on any of these topics
so far? Alright, let's go ahead and move on to new business.
First is SMN264, which concerns the Zikes estate, a major subdivision. And I believe this is, who's
introducing it tonight? This is going to be Daniel Brown. If tech services wouldn't mind promoting Daniel
Brown and Tammy Bierman to presenters, I would appreciate it.
So this is a minor subdivision with a partial plot vacation and road width waiver with the waiver final
hearing requested. This is going to be creating two lots from one lot. Lot one will be 35.71 acres while
lot two 39.12. Both will maintain access off of South Lee Phillips Road via different driveway permits.
right-of-way dedication was provided under a prior subdivision known as the psych admin type a subdivision.
Both have 100 foot drainage easements while lot one has an existing pond as well as lot one having a
cabin and shelter house while lot two is vacant. Sidewalks are not required. Rope drainage will only
be off both lot two with lot one receiving an easement.
lot properties will have septic as well as electricity provided by rmc and water by heights utilities
incorporated. A tree preservation area is soon was required in lieu of her up to require street trees
and there is a road with waiver as 18 feet is required for roads in Monroe County while the road here
is only. 15 and a half feet.
Here's the location and site conditions map of the property. And the zoning and comprehensive map. This
is an aerial view of the property as well, as well as on the grounds photos showing the proposed lots,
as well as the structures on the proposed lot one along with the pond. This is the subdivision in question.
department comments highway department has no issue with this for this to be reviewed and driveway permits
are pending approval. Starwater comments that the petition was approved by the Drainage Board on their
August 12th, 2026 meeting by unanimous vote. The subdivision has presented a waiver for future access
to lot 2 buildable area across a 100 foot drainage easement. Also noting that at the time of development
of lot 2, the site plan will need to include
the proposed culvert siding for the area crossing the drainage easement. As for the road width waiver,
according to Chapter 832-8A, two subdivisions accessed from existing roads less than 18 feet in width
shall be prohibited. This provision may be waived pursuant to Subdivision Waiver 830-10.
The applicant with such a waiver shall provide the highway engineer with average daily trip data to
support the requested waiver under the following criteria. And it refers to IMB specifically with a
road width of 16 feet with average daily traffic of less than or equal to 300 vehicles per day with
30 vehicles per hour at the peak hour. Now, interestingly, the subdivision
The petitioner did not do their own data, but there is a property directly to the south that was indeed
reviewed by the Planning Commission, I believe, last month, the Gardner Major Subdivision. And that
property is directly to the south, so they did obtain permission from that property owner to use that
data for this property. According to traffic counts gathered by the applicant and analyzed by the Highway
Department, the estimated ADP per lead, Phillips Road, at the subdivision's location is approximately
113 vehicles per day. And here is the exact counts. Most busy hour was from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.
with approximately 11 vehicles. And this is just a photo of the original subdivision that under which
this log is being vacated from the type A administrative subdivision.
And so staff recommends approval for the subdivision based on the finding that the proposed preliminary
flat meets the county development ordinance subject to the highway engineer and stormwater program manager
reports with the following condition that the surveyors should delineate the exact area of tree preservation
within the drainage easements. Without this edit, staff will interpret a tree's tree preservation to
be an entire drainage easement.
As well as approval for the road with waiver as the petitioner has submitted an average daily trip data
to the highway engineer that satisfies Chapter 832-8A2B. As well as approval for the plat vacations.
Staff requires that the staff requires that the surveyor include a written statement regarding plat
vacation on the secondary plot with all required signature blocks. And I will take any questions. All right.
Questions from the Planning Commission. It talks about no septic permit. They don't have it yet. Is
that something that is pertinent here that would slow anything down? So while a septic permit needs
to be issued in order for construction to be maintained on the site,
For now, for purposes of subdivision, only a soil test needs to be reviewed and approved under, and
it was done so for this petition under SS-26-9. Thank you. The question I have is for Tron on the third
approval recommendation where it talks about surveyor. Oh, that's not me. That's the petitioner surveyor.
which I think that's. Yeah, so I think that would be Mr Deckard on this one. I have a question if I
might. There there isn't going to be any change made to the retention pond, correct? Not this time and
not to my knowledge, no. OK, is that something that we need to ensure? Because it seems like it is.
for the purposes of granting the subdivision. I don't know if that's required, but. Are you wondering
if the drainage easement encompassing the pond gives it protection? Yeah, because because I you know
it's a line right and the pond is a pond and to try to move the pond or to change the pond or remove
the pond somehow.
you could keep that drainage easement, but then lose the pond. And I think that that could lead to some
difficulties with stormwater. Sure. So typically, if something gets encompassed by a drainage easement,
such as this pond in this case, to make further amendments or changes to the pond would require it to
go to drainage board. Got it. Perfect. That's what I needed here. Thank you so much. Questions? Go ahead,
Tom. I do have a question.
Is there a soil boring report and proposed septic area from the health department in the packet? Good
question. Daniel, Tron's asking whether the septic boring sites were located on the Platte or if we
know those locations. Well, they're not on the Platte. Sometimes there's a separate document.
Right. They should also take those documents and put it on the plat as well. Well, that's where I was
going with it. Yeah. So, yes, in exhibits number 11, the soil test documents were provided specifying
the minimum specifications for onsite sewage disposal system. I don't know if an exact location was
pointed out, though. OK.
I'm looking at the exhibit. Sometimes those come with aerials and potential locations. I'm comfortable
as is. I guess just to expand why I was asking is if they had locations that were potentially suitable,
but they just haven't got the permit. I was going to see if the Plant Commission was amenable of conditioning
to add the location on the plat.
Um, it seems like they haven't gotten that far yet and we changed the ordinance not too long ago. So
this wouldn't hold things up. So I'm comfortable with proceeding. Okay. It's time for the petitioner
or petitioners rep. You have 15 minutes.
Mr. Zeig, if you would come to the podium and sign in, if you would like to say something to the plan
commission, you have 15 minutes.
As far as the septic sites, they are staked. The soil work was done. I didn't see them on the plat there,
but the soil work has been done and turned into the health department. As far as the pond is concerned,
the pond kind of makes the property and there's really no interest in removing the pond. It's sort of
a major feature there.
think that's it it's just it's farmland and parents have passed away and we're trying to I want some
and siblings want some so that's that's it so thank you. All right so now we have time for public comment
for in favor or opposed or in general anybody in the room want to come up and make a statement.
I see none. I don't see any hands raised on line either. So that brings us back up to the. Final comments
in a motion. Anybody on my right? Left. Motion. So in the matter of SMN-26-4, Kenneth and Vicki Zeichs
Request for primary plat to create two lots with a partial plant vacation requested and a road width
waiver Requested I would like to move approval for the subdivision Based on the finding that the proposed
primary plat meets the county development ordinance subject to the highway engineer and stormwater program
manager reports with the following condition that the surveyor should
delineate the exact area of the tree preservation area within the drainage easement for only two trees
to be preserved. And without this edit, the staff would interpret the tree preservation area to be the
entire drainage easement. And I move approval for the road width waiver as the petitioner submitted
an average daily trip
data to the highway engineer that satisfies chapter 832-8A to B and move approval for the plat vacation
with the staff requiring that the surveyor include a written statement regarding plat vacation on the
secondary plat with all required signature blocks. And I'd also like to move that the final hearing
be waived. Second.
It's been moved and seconded to approve SMN-26-4 as stated by commission member Clements. A vote yes
is a vote to approve exactly how the motion was stated by member Clements. Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields?
Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes.
Tronan Wright-Randolph?
Yes. Motion carries eight to zero. I'd add this is a plan commission decision. So it's decided here
tonight. That brings us up to item number two and item number two deals with House Enrollment Act 1001
and a report that we're required to the state of Indiana. I believe we have to do it in the January
timeframe, but it requires us to answer a set of questions.
Which staff has answered we're going to present that here in a few minutes and we also are required
to record any public comment with respect to those answers to those questions. So Jackie over to you
to explain everything. Yes, thank you. So as.
Scott Ferris has mentioned this is a requirement of House Enrolled Act 1001. We have in the staff packet
tonight some further information for you as well. But this hearing is specifically meant to address
nine questions posed by the state that I'll be going over. The packet
ties together with the CDO currently says in regard to these nine questions and I'm going to go through
each of these and encourage the public if they wish to speak tonight also you know focusing on the nine
questions would be extremely helpful tonight is meant to be a listening session it was it is a hearing
requirement and per resolution passed earlier this year it's a
the requirement is for the unit to hold a hearing. The county commissioners have delegated the authority
to the planned commission but the county commissioners are also here present tonight. So we have in
our rules and procedure just a reminder that each person can have three minutes to speak at the podium
and we'll hear from people both in person and online.
following tonight the planning commission is going to take under advisement all comments received and
heard and then by December 3rd which is what the resolution states delegating the authority for the
hearing by the planning commission the meeting minutes from tonight will be approved by the
county commissioners and then ultimately we have to send the board record the meeting minutes
the state as required by January 1. We anticipate that the Planning Commission will be reviewing these
meeting minutes. They'll have to approve them and then also comments by the public and then PC members,
Planning Commission members, will direct staff to either make edits to the County Development Ordinance
based on those comments or not. Just to note, the County Development Ordinance is a living
breathing document. It can be changed. We've gone through several amendments already and are open to
further changes. So with that, I'd like to go ahead and present the staff packet here tonight. So while
looking at the packet, the bold black text are actually the state code statements. So under House Enrolled
Act 1001, that's now Indiana Code 36-7-4.3. So the first
question by the state is it says not later than January 1, 2027 a unit which is the county conduct a
public hearing to review the UDO which is our CDO and any zoning regulations and land development rules
with the goal of increasing housing development by using the following factors providing for higher
density development of duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in areas designated for single-family homes.
The staff is noting here that the county development ordinance adopted on December 18 2024. It has a
use table which we've included a screenshot here below, and under the latest version of the CDO, the
following housing types are permitted permitted with standards.
or are conditional in the following zone. So as you look at the table, anything with a PS means permitted
with standards, and off to the right is where you would find those standards. Anything that's blank
means that the use would not be permitted in that zone. Anything that has a C is conditional, and anything
with a P is permitted without any further standards.
So in regards to this, we wanted to note that a duplex would actually be considered a two family dwelling
under our code. So you see two family dwelling and then also you can see single family detached dwelling.
So they're very similar zones in which these are permitted, permitted with standards or conditional
and then further
A triplex and fourplex would be considered multifamily dwelling three to four units. These are permitted
with standards in rural neighborhood community development and high development zones. And again, the
standards can be found just by clicking the link in the ordinance. And also it's on the screen for you
here to compare these two zones as it relates to single family detached.
The next question is constructing other housing types, including accessory dwelling units and manufactured
in modular housing. So as of this morning, the county development ordinance was amended to align with
state definitions. So these definitions below are now
approved and codified so we'll be making amendments to those following today's approval by the commissioners
so we have before you the definition of a manufactured home this comes straight from the state code
this is a definition of modular home for you definition of single-family detached dwelling
And we want to note that both a modular and manufactured home are treated and meet the definition of
single family detached dwelling. Therefore, there is no difference. And then also the definition of
accessory dwelling unit. This was amended today as well to meet the state code definition. Accessory
dwelling units, essentially a second home on a lot with an existing primary home, is permitted with
standards in the agricultural, forest,
conservation residential and residential zones and the standards immediately follow the use table in
the county development ordinance. And again that's here for you to review accessory dwelling units attached
and detached. Here are the zones in which it is permitted with standards. Adaptive reuse of commercial
buildings for residential use such as allowing multifamily
development in retail office and light manufacturing zones. So the CDO currently contains two related
uses that are questioned here. One is adaptive reuse, which is the reuse of a site or building for use
other than for which it was originally built, purposed or designed. And then we also have historic adaptive
reuse. And that's a historic property that has been designated
by the commissioners and is treated as such by the Historic Preservation Board of Review. And there's
some flexibility of use under both of these uses to encourage reuse of existing and historic structures.
And then standards for these uses are listed in the CDO under Section 811-12, and I've included those here.
And then the fourth question by the state is increasing the allowable floor area ratio and multifamily
housing areas. So floor area ratio, a way to think of that is it's sort of another way to regulate height
of a building in relation to its
lot size so we do not have floor area ratio any longer we instead only have impervious cover maximums
and height maximums which we feel are a little bit clearer for the public so those are in chapter 804
through 809 for each zoning district in what's called a two pager and if anyone has any questions about
their zone and related impervious cover or height maximum we'd be happy to share that with you
And then number five, waiving or eliminating regulations such as requirements for garage size and placement.
So right now we do not have a regulation for a garage to be a certain size or that it has to be say
placed in a certain location in relation to a home. We do have what's called an accessory storage structure
use, which is if there is no home on the lot and someone wants to build a garage.
that is just to allow for certain size limitation until such time a primary structure is located on
the property, then it does not have that restriction. It just becomes an accessory structure. We do
also require it to meet setbacks and environmental features such as floodplain and karst regulations.
the second request is for reviewing waving or eliminating steeper roof pitch. This is not applicable.
We do not contain any regulations regarding this minimum lot size and square footage. The CDO does require
compliance with minimum lot sizes for each zoning district. But we do know, however, that with the passage
of the CDO, which included both the text and zoning map amendments, several lots were zoned appropriately
to their size.
and we've seen a drastic reduction in the number of minimum lot size variance requests as a result.
Greater setbacks. Setbacks are required for each zone and that is in regards again to the two pagers
in chapters 804 to 809. We have
added in the CDO an allowance for residential accessory structures to be as close as five feet from
side and rear property lines if they're less than 15 feet in height. And this is something that we've
seen a lot of people utilize. Additionally, Chapter 813 allows other exceptions for structures within
required setbacks, such as if you're dealing with pre-existing structures that have overhangs of roofs
or things like that.
off-street parking. We do have off-street parking requirements for different uses and we've included
the residential off-street parking requirements below, but we've also built in some provisions to allow
for reductions under 814-11B, such as if
there is a need to comply with impervious cover. There is a way that we can reduce the parking minimum
requirements so that they're not up against another requirement in the ordinance. So I've included on
the screen the minimum off-street parking requirements. Design standards that restrict or prohibit the
use of code compliant products. Staff does not have knowledge of the CDO preventing the use of code compliant
building height is below and it does not just include the total from the bottom of the structure to
the top. We do take into account the difference between the eaves and the ridge of a standard roof.
and then number six reviewing impact fee zones and zone advisory committee for improvements this is
not applicable we do not have any impact zones in the county number seven streamlining or shortening
the permitting process and timelines including through one stop and parallel process permitting by 15
days or more
By state code, we are required to review several applications within three business days to determine
a complete application, including all improvement location permits which are issued by our department.
So we have a timeline already set out by the state. Using property tax abatements to enable higher density
and mixed income communities. We do not have a provision in the CDO that relates to tax abatements and
higher density bonuses.
And then number nine, donating vacant land for affordable housing development. Our planning department
has not historically led any development projects, but the board of commissioners have a record of donating
land for affordable housing development. So then that concludes the nine questions by the state.
and there is another section that states that not later than January 1, 2027 the unit shall submit a
report to the executive director of legislative services agency by electronic means under Indiana code
5-14-6 that contains the following if the unit a invested in a housing study in 2021 2022 2023 2024 or 2025
or had a housing study performed by a region's local economic development organization, a copy of the
housing study. And we have included the links and titles to the housing studies that we will be submitting
in this form to the state as well. And then as I mentioned number two, the minutes from the public hearing
conducted under section four, these minutes will be transcribed and submitted to the state as required.
And then number three, any newly developed or amended CDO as a result of the review under section three
of this chapter, the unit must provide a written description of the ways in which the CDO was changed
to support increased housing development by using some or all of the factors set forth in section three.
And we're stating here that any changes to the county development ordinance following the public hearing
will be determined after tonight's hearing, hearing from the public.
And then I'll also note we do have just two exhibits in the packet, which allowed for possible quorum
of other committees or boards here tonight to attend tonight's meeting. And then also the resolution
that delegated the hearing authority. And then we received two letters from the public that I would
like to share that will be introduced as evidence for tonight's meeting.
and I believe one of the letters will be shared by someone who's going to speak on behalf of the letter
but this person said that they were not able to attend and so I believe there are copies of this letter
both at the table shared on screen and with planning commission members and I'll just share this on
the screen for a little bit while people have a chance to read.
And then once you've had a chance to read this, I believe the other letter is authored by someone who
is in attendance online. And I can share the screen while they speak or after they speak, because I
believe it will address the letter. All right. That just brings us to comments.
commission have any comments we'll proceed before the public comment go ahead mr. Henry thank you mr.
president thank you commission members it's gonna be back with you I after a very busy budget season
with the County Council that has precluded my participation in some of these discussions regarding this
report I would be remiss if we move forward without calling out the totality of the
Studies that we are proposing to send to the state in my view that anything that is not created by Alito
or local economic development corporation ought not be included in that package For those of the public
a local economic development organization is defined under Indiana code five dash twenty eight dash
eleven point five dash two and there are very specific things that make for a
local economic development corporation? Is it an NGO whose primary purpose is economic development?
Is it an urban enterprise association? Is it a regional planning commission? Is it a local educational
nonprofit who focuses on economic development? But that word keeps coming up there.
And so in my view, while it's interesting to have white papers by members of the public or people that
even serve on this body wearing a different hat to propose a study or a report, the more appropriate
action for this body should have been to put a call for white papers to the whole community to see what
other expertise we have in Bloomington and Monroe County to provide that information. But instead, we
are adding documents that do not match, in my view, what Alito is. And so I would be remiss.
concerned that if we could turn something into the state of Indiana, that was an answer to one of the
nine questions, that didn't answer the question that, what would that say of our county? So I know that
that was addressed at the planned commission admin meeting. I, again, was not able to be there, but
I wanted to at least state my piece about that piece of this, that we really need to look at what we
are sending and if it actually meets the letter under code. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Council
Member Henry. Anybody else?
Yes. Ordinances are complicated, layered. I applaud staff for putting this together and addressing the
questions. My comment or statement is a lot of what is permitted is permitted with standards, and those
standards are really
the key thing here that makes it a doable, affordable process to build on property or if they're even
permitted. One thing that comes up is grappling with the septic and sewer and how some of these things
aren't even permitted without having sewer. So even though that we're looking in things, that's actually
the page I'm on,
we're looking at things that are permitted with standards, they can't achieve them without meeting those
standards, and some of those are having sewer. And since we don't have sewer, a lot of these multi-family
dwellings can't be built. So that is just something I wanted to talk about because even though our ordinance
does address it,
the challenges we have aren't allowing those things to move forward in a way where we're actually seeing
a built out community or building things that are affordable from a renter or home. Home purchase, a
buyer purchase approach and
I just wanted to really address that. That's something I've been talking about since the development
of the CDO is the challenges that people have to meet the standards that are with this. And on this
slide right here, the only thing that is permitted without standards is the single family detached dwelling.
And I think on all the other tables, we've seen their conditioner conditional or permitted with standards,
and those are going to be the size of the lot. And if you can get sewer, which
a lot of practical difficulties, or even in some situations, ways that they can't even accomplish that.
So, thank you. Anybody else? I'd just like to correct the record that the Center for Knowledge Diffusion
is an NGO and qualifies under the Indiana Code. Mr. Henry stated in that we are involved with economic
analyses and
and impact analysis, so I'd just like to correct the record. Thank you. Mr. President, my name is Avogde.
May I have a response? Sure. Thank you, Dr. Clemens, for a clarification. I reviewed your Form 990s,
and I don't see the word economic development in your mission statement. Perhaps it's time for an update
online, but from the IRS's perspective, I can't find evidence that your organization's primary purpose
is economic development. Thank you. I would just disagree with Councilmember Henry.
Let's move on. Anybody else before we. Okay, I have to remember to turn around. I'm going to be really
brief and just thank staff again for putting this together. I think them this morning, but
answering each of the questions, providing the information so that people don't have to try to flip
through the CDO to find where the information is relating to each of the questions the state posed.
So I really do appreciate that diligent work that was done and it was really helpful for the community.
So thank you again for that. Okay, now we enter into the public comment portion. It'll be three minutes.
I'll apologize in advance if I have to cut you off at three minutes.
That's for inside the room online, and we'll start with the folks in the room. Please enter the podium
and sign in, give us your information, state your name, and we'll go from there. You have three minutes.
And we have a clock. Public know that. Counselor Henry left the room. Scott, please note for the record
Councilman Henry has to part of the area. Hello, good evening. I'm Kristen Weida. I am the CEO of the
Indiana Uplands Railroad Association. I just want to start and say that
My realtors we represent about 700 realtors that serve this community and that is thousands of your
constituents that they work with every single day. We are housing experts that's what we do our realtors
are in the data every single day analyzing it reviewing it being complete and total experts on industry
housing information both rentals and for purchase.
And those realtors understand what your constituents needs because they are with them every single day.
So you have heard location, location, location as the saying in real estate. Well, in Indiana, the families
today are now saying affordability, affordability, affordability. And nowhere this challenge is more
evident than in Monroe County, which remains the least affordable housing market in the entire state.
Home prices are more than 20% higher than anywhere else in the state, and a recent home buyer can expect
to spend more than 45% of their monthly income on their mortgage, compared to 35% anywhere else in the
state. Since 2013, Monroe County has added nearly 300 homeowner households annually, while approving
only about 250 single-family duplex
housing units. We had a total of five town home units each year. And not all of those were intended
for home ownership. Over the first nine months of 2026, only one in five homes for sale in countywide
one in five homes countywide were affordable to a household earning $75,000 a year. That's less than $10,000
We don't just lose home buyers. We lose future neighbors, volunteers, community leaders. The workforce
of our community depends on it. And maybe something that will get your attention is our tax revenue
depends on it. We appreciate the Plan Commission for conducting the hearing as required by HEA 1001
and for the work that Dr. Clements invested in preparing the Housing Inventory Report.
While we do not dispute the accuracy of the data, we are very concerned about the conclusion suggesting
that Monroe County no longer needs significant housing growth. The reality that we see every single
day tells a very different story. This is not just about data, it's about young families, recent graduates,
local employees, and future generations who want to build their lives in Monroe County but are finding
fewer opportunities to do so.
we encourage the Planning Commission to carefully reconsider the implications of Dr. Clements report.
The affordability challenges facing Monroe County are real, and the answer is not complacency. The answer
is to create more opportunities for people to live, work, and thrive here. Sorry to interrupt, but you're
past three minutes. Sorry. Thank you. No, it's fine. Okay. Next, state your name and sign in, please.
Peter Dorfman. I live in
Bittersweet Woods. I live near New Union, New Unionville. I used to live in the city and I was involved
in the debate that led to the up zoning of the city's residential neighborhoods in 2021. I want to share
some thoughts about what's coming now that the up zoning contagion is spreading to the county.
You're seeing pressure from development interests and housing out of your ideologues to modify counties
owning to make room for dense multifamily and small lot housing ostensibly to accommodate robust population
growth densification are advocates argue that the county needs more housing of all types. They've told
us for years that Monroe County has a general housing crisis.
developers and policy ideologues continually chant the mantra that housing unaffordability is a function
of housing unit scarcity. However, there's now an authoritative housing inventory compiled by Dr. Clements
showing that Monroe County has already built or approved enough new housing to meet any reasonably projected
need until 2040. It's in the meeting packet for your perusal. Monroe County has no
general housing shortage. We do have a shortage of affordable housing. So does every other county in
the nation. Building lots of new market rate housing won't fix that because affordability is not a function
of scarcity. In the last decade or so, we built or approved almost 12,000 units of market rate housing
with zero impact on affordability.
Housing is unaffordable mainly because it's been transformed from a practical necessity to a tradable
investment asset. New housing has intrinsic value to large investors asset portfolios whether anyone
lives in it or not. Those investors can outbid families or mom and pop landlords for existing properties
with all cash offers. So prices have nowhere to go but up.
Ditto taxes, if you live in a single-family community that gets rezoned for multi-family, assessed values
go up because each property is now eligible to become multiple units. We witnessed that firsthand in
the city, even before the UDO was even amended. Our mayor at the time claimed that Bloomington's population
was growing by 1% a year. It wasn't. The population has hardly grown at all,
By some projections, it's shrinking. And I haven't heard of any major new employers moving into the
area. So it's fair to ask, where's the pressing need? So to my neighbors, if you're hearing these arguments
and you're not seeing the need to make room for new density, don't feel bad. You're being asked to make
a sacrifice in the quality of life in this rural county, and you don't see the crisis that justifies it.
Sorry to interrupt. Neither do I. Sorry to interrupt. Three minutes. Thank you, sir. Okay, next up.
Please state your name, sign in, and give us your thoughts.
My name is Kenan Smith and I'm here reading a comment on behalf of Trent Deckard, a member of the County
Council at large. Thanks for the opportunity to offer public comment. I'm sending a representative because
I'm in another community meeting ironically dealing in part with housing and healing from residents
greatly concerned with their own well-being as renters in this community.
I was able to hear Dr. Clements presentation this morning in the commissioner meeting. I appreciated
getting a chance to hear her conclusions and I follow up with these questions for the plan commission
and commissioners. What are we doing with this data. What is the process by which we got the data and
how do we verify its accuracy. How do we explain that accuracy. How does this data allow for stakeholder input.
The presentation also respectfully begins with an adversarial position in opposition to pass action
of Bloomington and other reports also diligently prepared by others. What if instead of beginning with
an adversarial position we instead began with a collaborative approach to getting everyone together
on discussing goals for collecting data goals for policy and ways we can vet data to make sure it's
it is the most beneficial. In the last year and a half I've been intently
been talking with residents employers and other stakeholders on issues concerning the community. The
results of those conversations which also reflect what I've heard as a county council member since 2019
is the overall affordability overwhelmingly centered around housing access is a core pillar remains
one of the largest detriments to starting or maintaining a life in Monroe County.
In increasingly difficult economic times with higher inflation, flagging school enrollment in MCCSE
and steady rates at RBBSC, it is imperative that Monroe County give bold attention to every way in which
a home becomes a home in our community. Unfortunately, we have become somewhat like country clubs, where
I used to wait tables in my younger years accessible to only a few with an even longer waiting list
for those lucky enough to get in.
Leaving that example, still other residents are locked into current homes as families shift size needs
change under family planning and loss. Communities should not be country clubs. People should have the
same reasonable access to housing that many of us did when we started in the community.
As a product of nine generations in Monroe County, most of which found a place in this community, I
can remember a time when all of this was not as difficult and local officials responded to the needs.
I feel my daughters, our family, nine generations were a few options to buy into a community that is
their home too.
The overall public needs a chance to comment if the conclusions of those report match their own experiences.
The stakeholders of this community who also care about our future should also get a chance to weigh
in. Those reports include our Indiana Uplands, Realtors Association, Chambers of Commerce in Bloomington
and Ellisville, Bloomington Economic Development Corporation, and so many employers. Thank you for your
time. Spot on when your time. Okay, next up.
Go ahead and sign in, state your names and give us your views. Hi, my name is Cynthia Bradheim and I've
been a resident of Bloomington for almost 40 years and we've been through this before. You all know
much more about realty, real tours and real estate industry than I do and we know that housing is not
peaches. It doesn't go bad.
and realtors don't compete with prices, you know that. I checked to see the vacancy and occupancy tests
that have been done so that we know whether all of these apartment buildings that we've added in city
limits, whether they're occupied or whether many of them are unoccupied.
And have the rents gone down everyone that I've asked has said no, the rents have not gone down and
the occupancy does not relate to the last inventory that was done. I think that was 2019 it was done
by this business school and they.
Not only queried a couple of new apartment buildings, but mostly older apartment buildings, some of
which had been around for 30 years, had the lowest rent and had waiting lists to get in. But most of
the apartment buildings, the hundreds that we have added in the last 10 years are not occupied. That's
no long. You can't just over the board say they're all 75% occupied or we were also told.
The citizens in general were also told I forgot to set my timer. We're also told that it was 80% occupied
but we should have an inventory so we know that and if you're going to add housing in Monroe County
in the county which is really important you're right for taxes. How are all those cars going to get
in and out.
Is this a sustainability issue and are we going to be removing trees and farmland in order to build
housing that may or may not be occupied which just calls for one more tax deduction because it's a loss
for the builder and what is that going to do to our infrastructure it's really important that all of these.
Issues and all of these details be considered and I know you all are doing that And I know that developers
want to develop and we've got to find the best way to do that So that it doesn't overtax our current
infrastructure and our residential property taxes as well as our tax rates and the inequity between
the very wealthy and the very poor because we got a lot of working people who are not earning eighty
five thousand dollars a year and
And we need housing, we need good housing, and we want to take care of our county housing as well. And
that's what you all are doing here. So please take that into consideration. And if you can arrange for
an accurate, honest inventory of vacancy occupancy, then you can make your decision more heartily. Thank
you so much. My name is Cynthia Bradheim. Thank you very much for your comments. Thank you.
state your name and sign in. My name is Jean Simonian and I'm a resident and homeowner of the city.
You have in your packet an analysis that I wrote a few years ago during the upzoning struggle and I
won't go through that again. Other than echoing what both Mr. Dorfman and Ms. Bretheim said, I would
like to point out
The analogy to selling peaches is an apt one. No less than the Harvard Joint Center on Housing Studies,
hardly a bastion of anti-capitalism and anti-development, flatly declares, the minute you up zone, maybe
even the minute you consider up zoning or otherwise density, you raise land values. We all know this.
With raised land values comes reassessment by law and raised taxation. What we see in the city, those
of us who pay attention, has been increasing property values. Now, who's benefiting from this?
As a homeowner, I'm not. My taxes keep going up. I'm trying to stay in my house.
If I were renting, my rent would be going up, as it has. The only people benefiting are those who are
treating housing as a commodity, the investors. And if you look at Bloomington as an example, you will
see that the proportion of equity-owned property has steadily risen, and it
what appears to me to be a faster pace than would otherwise have been true. This is a national problem.
We're not immune to it, but we don't have to feed the fire. We can choose through a community conversation
to say no to profiteering because that's what's going on. This ownership from New York and Chicago and
Texas and California, they're not
We're not talking about mom and pop landlords here. I mean, I'm not anti-development. I'm a happy capitalist.
I'm far more capitalistic than most of my friends arguing this issue. And I want developers to make
a profit. I don't want profiteering. And that's what we're seeing in Bloomington. So I would just implore
you. And I think these comments probably address question one.
underlying question one, I would implore you to look carefully at the housing inventory as provided
by Dr. Clements. It's the excellent work I was hoping someone would come forward with when I submitted
my initial analysis. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you for your comments. Anybody else in the room before
we go online?
Okay, oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Martin, we know who you are, but please sign in anyway and state your name.
Hi, I'm Richard Martin.
I am the current president of the Monroe County Redevelopment Commission. I received a special invitation
to be here tonight. For the past almost two and a half years, the Redevelopment Commission has been
studying the prospect of what's called a residential tax increment financing district. The early legislation
simply was not suitable
been modified a couple of times since then. And we're taking another look at it. We have had one very
large neighborhood meeting where the residents essentially told us they didn't want a TIF because they
didn't want more housing. And we took that lesson to heart, and we're not going to try and do that anymore.
It's not quite clear that the project would have worked anyway. We are now going to look at potential areas
for residential TIF that are primarily focused on your existing rural communities. We're not sure how
this is all going to work out, but many years ago when I was on the Planning Commission, we did rural
community plans for the area in Smithville and for the area in Harrodsburg.
both of those can potentially, one of them is already serviced by sewer, the other is potentially serviceable
by sewer. So those are kind of logical areas. They're a little far apart from each other for one TIF,
but we'll have to look and see if we can figure out a way to do it. The biggest problem with residential
TIFs is that the revenue growth is very slow.
to create a bond, to put in any infrastructure to support that residential growth, you have to have
a revenue stream that starts out high. And that's the problem we have to figure out how to solve, is
where do we get that initial chunk of revenue for the early years that will allow us to pay the bond?
Difficult problem to solve, and we're gonna see if we can't figure out a way to do it. Unless somebody
wants to step forward with a lot of money,
to support something like that. We are also going to look at the areas probably to the immediate west
of Bloomington, but that depends upon some kind of a resolution of the sewer extension problem with
the city of Bloomington because there are no sewer systems on that side already. But those are the things
that we're looking at now. It is not our opinion
that planning and zoning are in any way inhibiting that kind of activity. I think that the areas we've
looked at all have sufficient zoning to support what we wanna do. It's just that we have to figure out
a way to get it done to make them affordable. So I'll be happy to answer any questions. You are more
than welcome to any of our meetings. It's a difficult problem to solve. Thank you for your time. Thank
you very much.
Anybody else in the room before we go online here? OK, I think the first one is Carrie Bennett. Hello
everyone, this is Carrie Bennett. I'm operations director with Habitat for Humanity of Monroe County.
We offer the following recommendations regarding housing development in Monroe County. First, it is
time to update Monroe County's comprehensive plan.
The most recent plan is nearly 15 years old and much has changed in our community since it was developed.
The planning process would present an opportunity to engage residents in discussions about the housing
options they need and want. Two, informed by an updated comprehensive plan, the county should establish
zoning districts based on the future it wants to shape, not current limitations such as sewer availability.
As an example, the county should revisit the 2025 rezoning of the 232 parcels comprising 175 acres.
These parcels were rezoned from high development to residential one. Many of the parcels are
now nonconforming and unable to be developed or redeveloped at a density that is supportive of housing
for lower and middle income residents.
Three, the county should evaluate each residential zone and each, or each residential use in each residential
zone to determine the appropriateness of the use specific standards, conditions, and prohibitions. It's
up on the screen now, and Director Gellin talked about this earlier in her presentation. Please consider
identifying and eliminating barriers to household living and residential use. Excuse me.
eliminate barriers to household living and residential uses. And then finally, the county should evaluate
reductions to minimum lot sizes, widths and setbacks and residential zones to allow more affordable
options. Thank you for your consideration of these recommendations. All right, looks like we have one
more online. I don't see anybody else in the room. If there's anybody else in the room, please.
Raise your hand. All right. We have one left, I think, and that's that was Mr. Emkey, right? Or has
he dropped off? Good evening, Colonel Ferris and the commission. This is Chris Terengi from the Greater
Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. We represent nearly 925 member members. More than 80% of those are
small and nonprofits. Now we submitted a memorandum to tonight's
hearing that you, I think, see on your screen. Our message is pretty straightforward. Monroe County
needs more attainable owner occupied homes of all shapes and sizes that working families can afford.
And we have three simple priorities. You heard Ms. Bennett from Habitat talk about this, but remove
the remaining barriers to the CDO. The county has made some changes, but they should keep examining
those minimum lot sizes, the subdivision standards, the setbacks, discretionary approvals that
that makes smaller homes harder and more expensive to build. When a project meets a zoning and infrastructure
standards, approval should be pre-predicted. Second, let's turn planned housing into completed homes.
Earlier today, the commissioners heard from the Center of Knowledge Diffusions Housing Inventory Study,
and since there was an opportunity for public comment on that particular presentation, we'll take a
little bit of an opportunity now. Now, the IU or the ROI
did their housing inventory a little bit different, but we cannot treat every housing unit
as interchangeable. Abundance of one type of housing, which we've heard a lot of pushback on multi-family
student housing in the city, doesn't resolve a shortage of another owner-occupied housing. And approved
development is not a completed home. We have a market. We should look toward it. We asked the county
to review the proposed and approved project individually. What's holding them back? Financing, sewer capacity?
road access, CDO requirement, then change what the county controls. Now third, we heard it from the
RDC president. The infrastructure investment to spur growth. Sewers, roads, and utilities often determine
whether housing is feasible. The Redevelopment Commission can capture some revenue, reinvest and unlock
private development. We aren't prescribing locations. We're asking the county to define where those
public dollars are going to be the most good, enabling housing, attracting private investment, expanding our
Tax base. So let's go. We have more than 14,000 workers commuting into Monroe County that are basically
free riders. There's no keep rural rural tax. There's no commuter tax. So what if we could attract 5,000
of these particular workers to live here? Consider what that would mean a local income tax revenue,
neighborhood businesses and MCCS enrollment.
infrastructure decisions should weigh housing potential long-term costs and existing school capacity,
not just where development has historically occurred. Let's remove those barriers. Build what's approved
and invest public dollars that matter the most. Thank you. Appreciate it. Hey Chris, thanks very much.
I don't see anybody else in the room and I don't see any hands raised online. Do you see anybody?
Do you have any, uh, any other documents that surprisingly magically appeared that we don't know about
that we should talk about? I have not received any as of 4 30 today, but I will triple check my email.
Jackie, what I'd like for you to do before we go to final comments from the plan commission, please
restate the next steps and the road ahead on what we're going to do with all this information. Sure.
So following tonight's meeting are.
requirement is that we type up verbatim minutes from the hearing. We're going to be taking all of the
comments that the public has made under advisement and then by December 3rd
We need to have the Planning Commission review and approve those meeting minutes and then they will
go to the County Commissioners for review and approval. We anticipate by December 3rd that we would
also hear from the Planning Commission whether they want us to immediately consider edits to the CDO
or if they would like to not do any edits at this time to the CDO.
but as I mentioned before, it doesn't preclude us from changing the CDO say next year or the year after
even if we don't do it now. So we have officially closed out the public comment. I would like to go
to the county commissioners first to see if they have any comment. I'll be brief. I do again appreciate
everyone who's here for being here and those who are online for participating.
that. Um it's a strange request from the legislature. Um you know, it's a scarcely veiled effort. To
try to bully various cities and counties into a different zoning environment and creating one and I.
You know, but we fulfilled what we had to do, and I appreciate that you all
I don't understand why the city's building so many darned apartment buildings for students. Um and when
I drive by newly built recently built
I see dark windows at night and the same dark windows every day. That's a problem. And the issue that
we're running across is that that raises land values everywhere. But the other thing that it does is
that it provides, it makes it difficult to follow
where the vacancies are because nobody will admit or publicize any no apartment complex will admit or
publicize how many vacancies they have because it will damage their ability to get more tenants.
I get it. I don't blame them. But at the same time, it makes it very difficult for us to say, OK, yeah,
they built enough apartments. We have enough housing because people with families
to live in those apartments. Non students are not really intended to live in those apartments. So I
still I think that what what Dr Clements study has shown us is what those numbers are. So we know what's
been built. And I would never say well, we've hit the 12,000 mark. We're done because we're not. But
I think it it behooves us to think about different housing styles. Developers will come in and
We need to look at those numbers more carefully. What have we built? Have we built single family? Have
we built duplexes? What have we done? And what is the demand out there for that particular housing style?
And so this allows us to be self-reliant and have the data behind it to know the numbers. There's nothing
policy related.
the building department. We don't have to add at all in this housing report. It is a study of data from
the building department. It's the permits from the building department. We still have to add Ellsville.
And that's something that staff is working on. We have to figure out how to do that. That will make
this even more comprehensive in terms of data and keeping it updated
And they can look at it and say, plan commission, why aren't you doing more of X? Why aren't you allowing
more of Y? They can hold us accountable. Perfect. Do that. But there's data now instead of the subjective
sense of what's going on in our community that people don't like. And I have that same subjective sense.
I don't understand why there's so many student apartments, and I don't understand
how that hasn't damaged all of us, because it's put pressure on the county to build more and become
denser in building. And that's unfortunate. But I do think there are ways we can address the housing
issue. And I think affordability begins not with the cost of land and construction, which are set. Nobody
can do it cheaper. You can't build a cheaper home.
that's what we really need to do. But what it can be done with is better jobs, better wages so people
can afford the homes in this county. I think that's what we really need to do. We need to look at that.
Anyway I want to thank everyone again and thanks staff and thank Dr Clements for report. Um and we really
appreciate everything. Um and we do want to hear from people in the future, so you can always
We'll go back to the Plan Commission comments from folks up here from the right. Yeah, I'll be brief.
I really appreciate people coming out. I have the same concerns that were expressed about how can we
do. Like a smart growth approach, you know, eliminate you know people here just to profit. Also, how
we can maybe work with
our local community to empower them to build and keep that revenue and that growth within our own community.
Retain that economic benefit, if you will. I feel like the term economic right now is a little bipolarized.
People might see it positive way and people might see it negative. And when things get galvanized, it's
a hard way to have a
conversation to figure out how we can meet in the middle. So I'm going back just to expand on what I
said prior to what is really a listening session for us. And I want to know that or want to make sure
everyone knows I did a great job of listening. And I think we all did.
I actually I think I always do a pretty good job of listening. I might not agree with everything, but
that's fine. And what I'm getting at is I think approaches to what has been said a lot is how can we
lower some of these barriers that make things so costly. Now, you know, we were thrust on this septic
and sewer issue, but
Now we have standards where you have to have lot sizes that are 10 acres to do a majority of our subdivision
options. So, you know, unless you do a sliding scale and have a sizable bound of acreage, you can maybe
get three 2.5 lots out of that. But after that, that parent parcels kind of locked up for you. If you
wanted to do a minor subdivision and if you can't have sewer, you have to have
that's going to make cost of building quite high. And I think if we look at these standards, we can
really address that other question. I'm going to kind of quote Richard March Martin, and I'm not going
to refute that our zoning and what we have allowed in it. Wouldn't sustain the growth that we need.
But if we don't address some of these
when we started to write this in 2016 and 17, anticipating that we would have sewer options, it has
bottlenecked everything and it's made a really big challenge. So a lot of my comments are for the people
that live here and have a little bit of property and maybe could carve out five acres and not create
crazy density where we have to worry about our infrastructure to the point where we can't maintain the
growth. That's kind of where my thoughts are. That's always where my thoughts are. Sometimes when we
get in these discussions, you might not be able to tell if I'm like pro density or
rule, rule, urban, urban. No, I'm smart growth, looking at the challenges people are facing and trying
to find a middle ground and lowering those barriers so we can actually see generations of folks live
in this community, grow in this community, or new people come. And to be honest, folks that can make
an investment and maybe a slight profit and
to do better for them and their future generations. But I do think we have to have safeguards, and that's
why we have the standards here. So we don't see some of what we see happening in the student zone overlay
in the city. But I do want to make a clear point is, what are we doing in the county? We've heard a
lot about what's going on in the city. What are we doing in the county?
And that's what's really important. And with smart folks looking for. A way to lower those barriers.
I think we can see growth and also drive down some cost of what it. Is to buy a home. Thank you, Tom.
Anybody else here on the left?
when it was a question that was asked, like how can the data be checked? All of the building permit
data that was analyzed is available online. It's been posted in a meeting packet for the plan commission
administrative meeting. And so every single building permit that was used to in the production of this
report is replicable, checkable, accurate. If it's not, let us know because we'd like to
the data, but, you know, it is an ongoing dynamic process, and the conclusion of the report was actually
to call for collaboration and to call for a shared vision, and that remains my sincere hope that the
community can come together to create a vision that helps all of our community members thrive.
So thank you. I would like to close out item two here. There is no vote. There is no motion. So we'll
just go ahead to item three. Item three is now for items not on the agenda. And this is really for public
comment. Anybody in the room or online, if you've got something you want to bring up that's not on the
agenda, now's the time to do it. And you have three minutes. I see nobody in the room. Oh, I see. I
see someone in the room. Hey.
I usually don't have any books. Please sign in and restate your name. I'll do it all over again, and
I write slowly. I just want to point out quality of life. Quality of life. Economic development is very
important and how it affects quality of life for everyone, whether they're a renter or a homeowner or
a business, especially our local businesses, especially our local farmers, making use of this beautiful
land that we have.
So that we have affordable housing I still am not clear how building more can become affordable I love
the Terran robotics projects that they're doing in hopes of reducing the labor costs of houses but we
haven't figured that out as an industry yet and we haven't figured out as an industry.
how to bring down or allow for allowances so that our developers could offer affordable housing that
should relate to what people are being paid. And if there's a way we can get transportation so that
we have a lot of people who are online as businesses, and that's fine, that would reduce the amount
of cars going back. I don't know if y'all have driven to the east side, 446, but it's terrible right now.
And some of the new streets they put in are way too skinny. At any rate, that doesn't matter. But the
point is, there must be a way to make housing so that developers can feel satisfied with their investment,
satisfied for serving the community, while serving quality of life for everyone. And that might involve
some novel thinking, because there's no way in hell construction is getting cheaper. And there's no
way in hell rents and housing
is getting cheaper and we've got to find some way, but we can do it and you can do it. That's I'm hoping
what we're here for. Thank you very much. Any other pearls of wisdom inside the room or online? OK,
I see none. Let's go ahead and move toward reports. So Director Jalen, do you have anything other than
what you've already talked about you'd like to share with us?
I would just like to report that we are fully staffed. We have a new planner to joining us online Ari.
She has quite a bit of knowledge and history in the stormwater space. She actually worked for city of
Bloomington utilities just prior but has had a lot of history working with the city of Seattle.
So we are very thankful for her knowledge and then we also have our office manager Angie Acuff who joined
us from another department in the county so we are Ready to respond to the public and we are excited
to be fully staffed finally and everyone's doing really well, so Okay, mr. Legal you have any comments
you'd like to share with us and your I do not I
Can we have a motion to adjourn, please? Done. Thank you.