- meeting everyone. I will call to order the October administrative meeting of the plan commission.
- So Jackie, to get us started, could you call the roll? Sure. David Bush. Here. Margaret Clements. Ronan
- Ray-Grando. Scott Farris. Here. Rudy Peel. Here. David Henry. Here. Jeff Morris. Here. Julie Thomas.
- All right. So we have
- six members in person in the forum, and I think Trance is just a few minutes late, so we'll likely have.
- So we will jump into administrative business. Is the 2026 meeting. This is a partial calendar. We've
- got several.
- parts in the latter half of the year that are just to be determined. We're gonna go, we're gonna be
- needing the January dates really soon for public hearings and such and notify people. So they're asking
- for this initial, I guess, calendar adoption until we get the holidays officially approved from the
- commissioner's office and then the county council office that usually follows suit with their
- budget hearing schedules. So we always have conflicts usually in those. So we're going to be looking
- as much as we can with the calendar. But we need the, we start, we're going to start needing these January
- dates. Are there any questions for staff on the proposed 2026 calendar? Yeah, Mr. Thomas. It does look
- like you accommodated
- And you need elections. He has like to be determined. Yeah, I wasn't positive how that was going to.
- Yeah, I'm going to wait for an official. Approve ordinance, OK? Once we have the budget. But that's
- me, you know that right? I mean, so that's it's just to be determined. So we'll be adopting another
- one once we have more information.
- I mean, you know, I think that I think that makes sense. And then hopefully once the holiday calendar
- is established, then we can come back and try it again. And then obviously, we have the county council's
- room. Right. Right. That was going to say we're going to never see September. So yeah. So August this
- year, too. Yeah. I thought August was a safe date. It was not.
- I appreciate that and I know that you're interested in this one. Thank you. Any other questions for
- staff? There are none. We have a motion to approve the 126 calendar. Motion to approve 126. Second.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve the
- there as presented in the packet about yes is about to approve. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
- Yes. Yes. Moving on to item two. This is the update on Black Committee membership and condition rules
- of procedure change.
- Yes. So we had Everett Ullman vacated his position, and we did not yet have anyone that's serving as
- interim. And so we went back to the rules and procedure because we were also notified by one of our
- citizen members that they actually have a new job, and it's in Indianapolis. And it's really cool for
- them to attend at 4 PM to get to flat committee.
- So we potentially have two vacancies on the Black Committee. So I wanted to come up with the rules and
- procedure change. So we had done a rules and procedure change to change it for either three or a minimum
- of three and a maximum of five Black Committee members. Right now we have five Black Committee members.
- with one being a citizen appointee and then four plan commission members. So the options before us were
- to either go back to three or appoint a new plan commission person to take Edward's position and find
- a new citizen member. In the interim, we do need to hold Platt committee. So we're leaning towards the
- three members just so we don't have to cancel another meeting for lack of a forum. So if
- Since the rules procedure already accompany this flexibility under A, we wanted to add additional flexibility
- then under C, which I think we've achieved, but we wanted to get official approval and have a discussion
- about it before we officially change it. So C is going to be changed to say in the case of five flat
- committee members,
- between one and three members shall be citizen members that have knowledge and experience in professional
- land serving and related issues. So that would take care of saying, if there's five, you have to have
- a minimum of two plant commission members and a maximum of four. So to get to five, you would do that.
- In the case of three plant committee members, up to one member may be a citizen member that has knowledge
- and experience in professional land serving and related issues. We don't have to have a citizen member.
- In the case of three, we could just do the three planned commission members, but I didn't know if this
- was something we wanted to leave as a window opening because we lost, or we retired plan review committee,
- which was the other board where we had citizen membership. So this is for consideration discussion.
- Mr. Thomas. It seems that the issue, there are important decisions made
- And so I hate to see three months. I just feel like more input is better. We talked about changing the
- day and time because that seems to be the issue. It is, I'm not at a, and that day and time is set,
- I think, by Dave Thompson this year. So I think that may be a good way to manage this. I'm still,
- I just think that three members is really small for the decisions that they're making. It's just. If
- we stick with five, I would ask them tonight if we could appoint someone for Edwards position, because
- right now we just have, I think we have David, Rudy and Tron, right? So it would be three with our current rules.
- Yes, three with two, we could do two citizens with this change. That's correct. Yeah. I just wonder
- if we couldn't just change the day and time to something that works for staff, but also works for the
- members who are residents and not bank commission members, because that is an odd time to have a meeting.
- So the person said they can no longer do it because they have commitments and entities.
- If you change the date and time, would they be available to sale on the flat? We did not discuss that,
- but I can bring that back up to them. I mean, it doesn't do a whole lot of good to change things if,
- in fact, the person's not taking real time anyway. Right. Well, we could, you know, offer it to have
- two new appointments for a citizen appointment. And if they can make the date and time,
- I know, you know, to change the date and time for appointments you have yet to make. Yeah. It's not
- an immediate problem. I would be happy to volunteer to take Edward's spot in the remake therapy here.
- But I'm willing to do that. If somebody else wants to, that's fine, too. Just volunteer. If I get us
- to a quorum, that's how we figure out who the citizen appointing would be. It would give us a fourth
- planning commission members and we would have flexibility.
- planning for December can attend. So then we can still have the three. So it would give us additional
- flexibility. So three is a quorum? Three is a quorum. Okay. I think that was hard for it. Or it could
- have been Mr. Henrik. Anyways, I'm trying to call for memory, so. That's okay. No, what was the time
- for? It's the third Thursday of the month at 4 p.m. Subject to change.
- Thank you. It's in our office. At four o'clock. Now some members have actually appreciated it being
- earlier in the day so that they can be home or deal with other duties at five, five thirty. But and
- then again, other people. It's been that way since I worked here. It's been that way for like 13. But
- I think it was the original membership was
- we were struggling to get. That's good. Yeah, it works nicely for staff too. Yeah, I mean that is a
- good thing for staff to be able to do it, but. Yeah. Yeah, so did you? Are you able to make the third
- Thursday for would you be interested? OK, I'd like to make a motion to appoint. Jeff Morris as a member
- to the committee to replace Mr Oldman said.
- We can reach back up to the citizen member and if they can't make it, I'll ask for new applications
- set. So it's been moved and seconded to appoint Jeff Morris for the remainder of this calendar year
- to be the member of the plan committee. As opposed to or to fill Edward Olman's vacancy, a vote yes
- is a vote to approve Jeff in the plan committee. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes.
- Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Don Enrique Rando? Yes. Motion is approved, 7-6-0.
- I assume we're dropping the proposal to modify the rules of procedure. We can do that, yeah. We don't
- need to change these if we keep it default. Yeah, months, months.
- I put this in our back pocket and come back to it if we need it. I just feel like it may be a time issue
- more than a membership number issue. I just feel like more voices are better because they are making
- the final decision. It's not important. We'll go ahead and just table this indefinitely. And then if
- we have other quorum issues or other things come up, we can always bring this back. Yeah, I'm sure.
- Yeah, that's actually a pretty lengthy kind of, um, sys and appointees to what used to be, uh, plan
- review committee. Yeah, plan review committee. Um, I was just going to suggest if they seem interested
- and kind of have the knowledge that you're looking for that's outlined in their surveying knowledge
- or et cetera, um, maybe they would be good people to reach out to as well if the other sys and members can't.
- make it even if we do schedule the date and time. So you want to put that on your radar. Moving on to
- item number three, STP-23, north park area B3 subdivision preliminary flat, flat three, amendment one,
- preliminary flat extension requested.
- So this is a portion of the North Park PUD that went through a subdivision just about two years ago
- in December. And they still need more time to complete the public improvements associated with being
- able to do the secondary plat. So typically what we see here is that people want to agree up and create
- the plat and give us the money to hold on to.
- to promise or guarantee the construction of the required public improvements. This group, the IU Health
- subdivision, they're actually doing it where they want to do the improvements, get it into the county
- inventory, and then we can release the subdivision, which in our minds is great because then that means
- if they don't do it, they don't get the subdivision, which is ultimately their carrot and
- it just makes things easier on our end. So we would support two more years and understand that they
- have, they need that additional time to construct the roadway. So this would be a plot extension until
- December, I think it's December 11th, 2020. December 11th, 2026.
- And this is a item that is going before the. Actually, this is an administrative business, so you can
- approve this tonight under administrative business because it's only two years, so it does not require
- further notice or public comment. Any questions for staff? Just one question. We don't need like a letter
- of commitment.
- I guess the carrot is they just can't proceed with the subdivision. Yeah, the lots have not been created
- until they get this roadway in and we approve it and then actually gets into the county inventory. Okay.
- I think this is another alternative to kind of still getting those improvements. I'm trying to supporting
- but I guess the letter of commitment.
- I don't know if that brings any extra assurance. You're saying letter credit? No, like they're committing
- to putting in fees. So you can't sell those two lots without doing that, right? OK, so yeah, just wanted
- to offer that thought and kind of get some feedback. So either way. Planning feels comfortable to present.
- I think I might have missed it.
- And I'm trying to find it again is. Did highway make any comments on this? No, they don't have any comments
- on this because they are immune and improve the first subdivision, so I mean, while I understand that
- it's better for planning to have the roadway in the inventory, we can understand that having the roadway
- in an inventory and then construction goes on on either side of that roadway that that can lead to.
- costlier repairs for a highway. So I just string that out there. For non-residential subdivisions, we
- can take bonds associated with the driveway entrances. And so we've talked about this before for commercial
- subdivisions because there is an option under the county development RNCC that the completion requirement,
- which is complete the improvements, get it accepted in between.
- or there's the bonding requirement. So I like that. Thank you. I totally, totally forgot about that.
- And that makes sense because commercial construction is so much more damaging. So we can look at it.
- Okay. Thank you. Yep. I should be a question. Oh, no question. Okay. Do we have a motion?
- I have a question before we do a motion. Is this something we can approve at the admin meeting? I think
- that's what that says. I can put a motion out. Should I read everything in this request? I guess I would
- offer a motion to approve the staff's
- recommendation of extending the request for two years, citing compliance with chapter 830-5. And I'll
- just state that that completion date is December 11th, 2027. Does that suffice? Okay. There's been a
- motion and a second to extend the preliminary or the primary plat for SPP-23-3.
- which is the North Park Area B3 Subdivision Plan, Lot 3, Amendment 1. This is a primary flat extension
- request for two years to the end date of December 11th, 2027. I vote yes. It's a vote to approve the
- extension. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes.
- Trent Enderey-Grandeau? Yes. Scott Farris? Yes.
- Motion has approved seven to zero. Moving on to unfinished business, we have three items at Holland
- Field. Sandy, do we want to take each of these separately? They each have their own small update. OK.
- And it's not like we're taking a vote or anything. It's just we can just go down each one of them. OK.
- So with Holland Field's baseline, in the packet, you'll see that they have submitted a new estimate
- and some correction plans and an evaluation of some of the different. Just about 96. OK, so well, we're
- seeing and then yesterday. You met with the common fields phase one team, their engineer, their attorney,
- the developer with the Highway Department Stormwater and Jack Necker planning.
- So we went line by line through their estimate, but just not in the packet. It'll be in there. They
- very clear that. By the next. Yeah, for home built space. Have three states in there. My. Skip. Yes,
- I think it's. That's right. Yes, all right.
- So this is the one that we were going through and the highway department and the developer, we went
- nine by nine. We came down to basically planning staff landscape determination because they are going
- to be changing this area of their detention so that they can maintain the volume that was approved.
- So we're going to work on that and hopefully have a determination by next week and then
- The highway department, which will likely include the survey to Toby Turner, to go out and look at the
- road itself to see if the entire thing needs to be milled and repaved or can they do patching or like
- they're just kind of coming to an agreement of like what would get this road accepted into the inventory?
- Because right now it's the highway department is saying it's all milled and repaved and
- So we'll get the experts out there to make that determination. We are hopeful that by the October 23rd
- that we will have a solid estimate. We were also talking with them yesterday about a performance period.
- They think should these get approved that they would hopefully get it done by May 14th, 2026, which
- would basically be just one year's worth of inflation
- they don't want to have to extend it for a second year. Where we see a small conflict is that the Holland
- three lot minor was extended until June 30th of 2026. That's a three week difference. And trying to
- say how those two new developers will work together to complete this very like integrated project. So
- Jackie and I may do some more brainstorming on how we can deal with that three weeks
- Okay, so then phase two, again, we've got Ascotes from them. That still does need an inspection by the
- Highway Department. They're hoping that when they go up to phase one, I think next week, they'll also
- just get to look at phase two, phase three, just get a good view of all of those. This estimate that
- they've submitted gets
- approved by the highway department and you'll all accept it. We're going to go ahead and like I think
- do just what we're requesting here which is the new subdivision improvement agreement. Wait, sorry.
- We need a performance bond document, subdivision improvement agreement, performance period extension,
- and then the following month they would be eligible to come here for a reduction and their reduction
- will be almost by half. They'd be going from 112,000
- $50,000. We're hopeful that their estimate is accurate and that these things will all be accepted by
- the highway department. And then phase three, wait, I think I see a lot minor. We have no updates. We'll
- be reaching out directly to the developer, I think, for that one. The engineer seems willing and compliant.
- the developer at this point. So phase three, which you guys have not heard yet technically this year
- because their letter of credit is not due until December 15th of this year. It's a new one. This is
- our last one of the year that we'll bring. This one, let's see, the engineers is working on the as well.
- It should be done once a section of sidewalk is installed on October 15th.
- and then they'll submit those to the highway department and likely be eligible for a reduction. One
- thing that came up during the talks was driveways. We will need to get a legal determination on how
- to deal with driveways and who should be responsible, how those are accepted into the inventory because
- the permits have not been closed out by the original builders who
- hook them who applied for those. But if those builders are not closing out and having those inspected
- at the time and property starts to change hands, we ultimately it's, you know, we're not sure if it's
- the developer because they won't be able to get accepted into inventory if these travelers don't meet
- standards. So it's something that we'll be working on with them still yet. And I feel like that is,
- Pretty good summary of what we've covered lately in the last month. We hope to have some good updates
- in the next couple of weeks. Anyone have any questions? Just. This could be for next time. What happens
- if those driveways don't get accepted in the inventory like just they'll be maintaining those roads.
- They'll need to maybe come back for preliminary flat amendment to make it a private road and then
- those homeowners will have to maintain it, shoveling their own snow and maintaining those if they get
- a pothole. That's what I was assuming, but thank you. Yeah, we're trying as hard to get home. Yeah,
- the burden sucks if it falls back onto the property launch. Thank you, Jamie. Moving on to new business.
- Another Helen Field's phase three or is this the way? No, and on the phase three is new business, yeah.
- It's a new one, yeah. Okay, so we will move on to item two then, SMN-25-1. This is a primary plan amendment
- to create a fourth lot. They are requesting a road width waiver as part of this and they did submit
- the requirements under the CDO, which were that
- average daily trip data and the highway engineer didn't take a look at this and provide the comments
- to say that they would support a road width waiver based on the traffic counts. So it's North Mount
- Pleasant Road, it's far out there and we don't have any
- significant comments on it at this point from planning staff to think that it wouldn't be able to be
- approved based on the findings and their citing of their waiver request with the additional data. Okay,
- any questions for staff on that one? We'll move on to item three, SMM-25 dictionary.
- This one is asking for, similarly, an amendment to create a third lot. So they already are in a subdivision.
- They're reopening that subdivision to create a third lot. And they're asking for a sidewalk waiver as
- well as a street tree waiver. We have some good photos of this subdivision here, but I'll just share
- with you. So this one's very close to the Carson Farm Greenway.
- just right over here. So they are in the transportation alternatives map as requiring sidewalks. But
- when you actually look at the topography of Walcott and think about trying to put in a sidewalk, it
- would not be able to meet ADA for the slope of following the existing road. So essentially we're supporting
- a sidewalk waiver,
- But the street trees, when it was originally approved, they were approved to preserve the trees here.
- So we've asked the surveyor why not just
- do an inventory and show preservation, but they've instead insisted on a waiver. So we're not supporting
- that and cite that they likely have all the trees that they need to have, but if they show them as preserved,
- then they can be protected. And if someone ever takes them down, we can require them to put it back.
- If they get a street tree waiver and it's approved, they could hypothetically remove all trees along
- this entire footage. Questions for staff on that?
- Just a comment. Just put the proximity to a trail. The hard one for me. The one that support but. Putting
- the tree preservation or putting the trees in a preservation that they could help offset some of where
- my position is. So I guess just trying to share where my thoughts are.
- questions or comments. Okay, moving on to item four, SSS-25-2. This is a new size scale subdivision.
- They are similarly requesting a sidewalk waiver. With the CDO's passage, we changed the sidewalk requirements
- to include
- if something is part of the alternative transportation plan. And this is part of a road improvement
- priority list. So I think it's moderate road improvement is what it is. Maple Grove, I think stated
- in the petitioner letter, is often a road that's utilized by many cyclists in the community. And so,
- this, if there were a sidewalk to be placed here, the transportation alternatives plan actually calls
- for more of a bike lane improvement. So they are going to be dedicating right of way. I think something
- that we want to work out with highway and start the conversation on, which I'll get to the next amendment,
- is how do we deal with properties that are road improvements requiring sidewalk? Can we ask for more
- of an alternative transportation
- ideas such as like a sort of an interim taper bike lane until we could possibly put in a larger bike
- lane or something like that. So as the code is written today, we are supporting the street or the sidewalk
- waiver, but they are meeting a street tree requirement, which is a preservation area on the parent parcel,
- which is spot two. So this is the flat.
- shown here. Otherwise, I think this is something that we are recommending approval for both the primary
- plot and the sidewalk waiver. Any questions on that? Next item is REZ-25-5. Okay, so
- This one is a rezone from mineral extraction and agricultural 2.5 to be all mineral extraction. Best
- to explain with a map. So actually this is incorrect. Portions of this property should already be zone
- mineral extraction per a prior rezone.
- but I believe it might've happened even before the CDO. It didn't pick up the mineral extraction prior
- approval, but there are conditions clearly associated with this and the rezone of mineral extraction.
- So we are very clear that it should've been picked up in the CDO map. So really the only change is this
- transfer area here that would become mineral extraction.
- And then also along the edges, they wanted to kind of clean up and clarify that all of their property
- that they are going to be combining will be mineral extraction. So everything in purple is currently
- mineral extraction. This is an active quarry property. We do have in the CDL standards for quarry activity,
- whether they're in what's called an urban area, within eight homes of a quarter mile square,
- that we can regulate new quarry activity. There is, like I mentioned, a condition which we've carried
- over and can talk about the quarry activity not extending down the 50-foot access strip or black pole,
- also stating that
- Access to Hedrick Road is restricted for all uses other than residential and cultural. Quarry traffic
- use the internal roads of American limestone property in the north. So that's something that was already
- put into ordinance fashion in 2011 that we're carrying forward. So as of right now, I believe that we're
- recommending a positive recommendation to clean up the map and add that area with the
- all the conditions carrying forward. What can they do on that little strip of land? I know what they
- can't do, but what can they do? I'm not sure if Drew put in here, but I will definitely have it by the
- regular meeting. I want to have what we do
- in terms of the urban area analysis of where that line is, I'm thinking it's, they're coring right to
- it right now. They're coring right to it right now, okay. So they really wouldn't be able to extend
- unless they bought out or moved more homes, is that the idea? Well, that's why they're resigning to
- mental extraction. They could continue coring operations out. Right, but if those eight homes are in the,
- So she's not talking about the zone line. She's talking about how far the activity could be stretched.
- Certainly. Well, so if it's not urban, well, so we'll. Yeah, that's yeah. Yeah. And then, you know,
- the clarity on what takes actually do on that, if I fall, what would be? I assume it would
- be for transportation. But then when you review the packet, it says no. But, you know, I.
- And of course, all the neighbors are notified with this reason request. Okay. I mean, it's nice that
- there's an after party. That's beautiful, right? I guess my one question, and I think you covered it,
- is that what's intentionally supposed to be some that this is kind of correcting that?
- It's partial correction and partial new rezone request. So the area that we outlined here, it's about
- here. They did a type E where they transferred acreage I think from this lot to this lot, but they didn't
- change the map. So this is a new rezone acreage.
- And then also they wanted to kind of clean up the lines. I don't know if that was just from the parcel
- fabric or whatnot, but they just wanted to reaffirm their rezone. So though it's going to say it's for
- a lot of acreage that they own, it's really for a very limited amount of the acreage to be zoned empty.
- Any other questions? Yeah, I'll keep this one. So the parcels to North Carolina, how close is this to
- Steinsville's boundary?
- This is your property between the suspensions. Right. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Box numbers and also Right. Just
- the engines. Okay. Thanks. Thanks. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions.
- I think that would be helpful for us but also the public as well so they
- And we can move on to COA-25-3 amendments to the CEO, item number one of the CEO prioritization list.
- So this is an amendment that was discussed in the
- This is an amendment we discussed in the ordinance review committee. So what was discussed during the
- ordinance review committee was the CDO prioritization list that said we wanted to table the discussion
- of the review of the 25 year reservation of the tariff parcel. There was a lot of people speaking at
- the CDO to the question of why is it 25 years? Could that be lessened or changed in some way?
- So after the Orness Review Committee discussed the topic, it was determined that basically they thought
- that the 25 years was a reasonable requirement or that somebody could opt to do another subdivision process.
- So that has not changed. What we did change were to add a little bit more regarding the purpose statement
- of the science scale. It's that number seven says allow the flexibility to create smaller residential
- lots served by private sewage disposal system, i.e. septics, while also preserving the authority of
- the original tariff for agricultural conservation purposes, going back to reasoning for why science
- scale was created as an option.
- and then also permit development of rural areas that will not overburden existing infrastructure, and
- then the red is new text, and services and to not adversely impact existing low traffic roadways, police
- and fire coverage, emergency service response times, and any other governmental services. In addition,
- we talked about how
- Sometimes there's some confusion about the different subdivision types. So we went by ordinance review
- committee's recommendation and added some pictures to the chapter right before sign scale, which is
- the types of subdivisions. So we're hoping that this will provide a visual clarity as well as the table
- that's existing to say what these lots look like. We didn't add any labels, but we certainly can. It just says
- And the text example of a minor subdivision, four lots or less, where each lot is 10 acres connected
- to private sewage disposal system. You said it exists in this case. And then this is an example of a
- minor subdivision, four lots or less, being the minimum lot size requirements and connected to public
- sewage disposal system. So minors can occur in both areas where there's septic or sewer.
- And then this was an example of a sliding scale. These lots actually are all exactly two and a half.
- And then the remainder are parent parcels. We thought that was a good example where they're connected
- to septic system. And then we just highlighted an area in the county where we do have a major subversion
- of five lots or more. That is the gist of this text. Okay.
- Yeah, Mr. Nutter enough. Unfortunately, I had to leave the ordinance review painting early, so I was
- not able to vote. I would have not voted for this. I think my biggest issue at this point is the minimum
- lot sizes contingent to septic is 10 acres. If you had sewer, you could do smaller ones with
- other subdivisions. Also, when
- that parent partial goes into the 25 year reservation, their only option moving forward is a major.
- So again, they can only do a major, which brings up cost of infrastructure, which there was a lot of
- discussion of the needs of infrastructure, but again, they can only do a major and they all have to
- be a minimum 10 lots. Well, right, you can still do a major, 10 acres, sorry. If they're on septic.
- I feel like that kind of puts a lot of these, like, so for instance, if you did one that was like 20
- acres, right, and you carved out three of your 2.5, I shouldn't be doing math on the fly, and the parent
- parcel goes into like 15 acres, you can't do a major there unless you have sewer. So again, my gripe
- is the minimum lot size,
- And the fact that. Until we really understand how sewer or is going to be provided, everything has to
- be 10 acres so and that reservation they're committing to only being able to do any development within
- that parent parcel. By going through the sliding scale, their only option is a major subdivision, so.
- I personally think that if we want to kind of keep that minimum lot size and make it contingent to sewer
- septic, that's understandable. But I think the 25 years due to the fact of the unknown of having sewer
- out there is still a little too long and uncomfortable for my position. And I'm not gonna repeat myself.
- I've made a lot of comments on this subject.
- but that's really kind of where I kind of find my position. And I think reducing it to 15 years could
- be very helpful because it'd be 15 years before they could do something on that property, but they're
- still going to have to have 10 acres. So they could maybe do a minor. And I mean, I think the major
- is very important as it does bring that infrastructure, but I think a lot of the,
- Thought around that is having sewer so you have a very dense area. I mean five homes spread across 50
- acres. Do we need sidewalks? Do we need all these other improvements? I understand if it was a major
- and they were all kind of squished together that that would be a bit different. So that's my feelings
- about this. I think the clarity and language is fine. I'm just not in support of.
- of leaving the 25 years until we grapple other issues, in my opinion. Any other questions or comments?
- Yeah, I do. I am thinking through right now. Where is the text that clarifies the rationale that you
- mentioned? There's this section that's currently in the CTO. OK.
- What is the citation of legislatively find? Is there a code that we're signing for the conclusion of
- the 25 year restriction? But where does that language lives at? Where's the finding live that we're
- signing for that particular one? Sure, so if you want to take this too, we've worked on this together
- with the legal departments. No, that's just the defining that the commissioners
- That ordinance right there is the finding. The commissioners adopted an ordinance after discussion saying
- we find the 2025 loops. OK, is there a separate ordinance or is it the county development ordinance?
- This was previously a carryover from the prior subdivision code. OK, so again, what are we citing for
- that? And you see where I'm going with this. There is no state law.
- The only thing about this was the commissioners thought about this opportunity to do a sliding scale
- subdivision. And it was an opportunity. It was beneficial to some people. And the trade-off
- is the commissioners felt it'd be reasonable for the benefit
- to say you have to hold off 25 years from developing. So that was the decision that was made legislatively
- as they considered this at the Planned Commission at the time and down at the campus. So what I'm really
- drawing into here is that if it's self-referencing, it sounds circular, right? If the ordinance says,
- if the CDO says that we found that there's a circular thing that happens here. Secondly, if this were
- to be litigated as the takings,
- I got a point to something to tell me, well, on what ground are we standing? So if there is a separate
- order, I mean, I just need to see what we're citing, right? Where was it voted on? Where's the document
- for the ordinances or the resolution? To back up those words, because then when we get into it as a
- matter of policy, well, that's not ordinance. That's, I think, what you were just describing. That's
- kind of opinion. The preference of the commission that decided that, right?
- I, this piece needs a little more to it. In my view, stand up to some screwed me. That's just my view.
- But if we can point to it and say, look David, chapter and verse, here it is. I think I can get farther
- with that. I guess as far as takings is concerned, there's no possibility in that because this is the
- choice that these people have. They can do a regular subdivision or they can
- use this new this other option so there's there's no chance of the table discussing something that I
- wouldn't be able to. That's why I said that. Yeah I mean it is it is an option and I mean I feel like
- I'm repeating myself the idea was to offer other options besides a minor or major subdivision subdivision
- and this was an option that didn't require
- all of the, especially for major, all the infrastructure and the rules and everything else that goes
- with it and, and or sewer and all of those other things. It was a way because we were responding to
- large lot owners who said, I want to cut off a piece of land for kin, for sale, to, to finance my retirement,
- whatever it might be. And I don't want to go through this whole rigmarole of a minor subdivision.
- And they all talked about it in a way like, I just want to try all the small features. So it was an
- additional option. They don't have to pick this option. They can go with what they have, and nine are
- a major. I think this is, so I don't see taking in that. And I also, you know, if you're looking for
- the basis for everything we do in planning,
- That's pretty deep, political, legal, structural stuff. And Dave knows it. Dave knows what counties
- are able to do and not do and what we can and can't do in terms of planning jurisdictions. So, I mean,
- the other option is just drop entirely, just not even offer this. And that's an option. So, you know.
- So and nothing you said it conflicts with the question of The line that's the line that deals with 25
- years. I mean because we said it's 15 10 5 You can still go through sliding scale process on how you
- subdivide the land the number it's 25 year number. So it jumps out And and as I understand it not not
- well versed in this yet. Um, yeah, I think there are other counties that have a five-year shelby counties
- one that's like four counts, but
- If it's not in code, then I can't, I'm trying to point to something to say, but 25 years, remember we
- keep saying here, it has nothing to do with what you do in that 25 years, we can still do all of what
- we just said. But that number, we've tried to justify a few times, now we don't find which trying to
- justify it again and say, let's say we find in a matter of legislative policy. I need to point to that
- and say, okay, fine, we voted on it. Here's the ordinance, it's all otherwise,
- So I'm not concerned about the percentages at this point in time, but the year is what I'm talking about.
- So you want to know the 2015 ordinance? Yeah, maybe the 2015 ordinance. Yeah. And then we point others
- to it and say, that's where it happened. I know that maybe that might be a little, I hear what you're
- saying, if we're setting a precedent to say everything must be cited in the CDL in this way. This one's
- pretty big because we know this is a hard one. It's just got potential.
- I'm not sure if that's the right way to put my phrase here. Any other questions or comments? We move
- on to COA-25-6. This is item 13, COA-25-6.
- that we continue to find, which is on the prioritization list. And then also something that's not on
- the prioritization list, which is the response to House Bill 1037, which was the stormwater ordinance
- changes that were required as part of the state of changes. So we are trying to correct, for instance,
- in Chapter 811, we are taking back the requirement for taking
- So we are taking the responsibility of taking the responsibility of logging permits in the urban area
- before someone was able to take logging permits for both urban and rural properties. But now they've
- been basically by the House Bill 1037 they're not allowed to be any more stringent than the state
- Back on, it was already in the CDO, but we were kind of listed as the secondary ILP requirement. We're
- going to be changing that to make sure it's clear that it's just planning now. And then there's similar
- changes to artificial lake or pond. In the event that somebody wants to create a lake or pond that's
- less than an acre or not in the planted subdivision,
- We are still able to keep some oversight because we are going to have some setback standards for that
- lake or pond at the event of failure. We're hopeful that we can have some setback standards that prevent
- and have oversight on areas that could flood out people downstream, basically. We're also just for staff
- changes, changing the word design standard to development standard. That was something that we
- should have prioritized the first CDO but missed it. So we're trying to align that with state code language.
- And then we realized that our fueling station parking minimums were very, very high. I think it was
- like 20 parking spaces per 1,000 gross floor area. And we're changing that to align better with, I think
- the city of Louisville has us five parking spaces per 1,000 gross floor area. But we also haven't been
- to have plus
- per pump. So we have it as still a little bit higher than what this requires. And then we had this change
- come into play with the CDO. We added the Lake Lemon overlay, which mimics a bit of the environmental
- constraints overlay requirements. And so we realized by adding in the Lake Lemon overlay, we have a
- lot more agricultural activity in the Lake Lemon watershed.
- And we were pointing people to the Natural Resource Conservation Service, because that's the way the
- ordinance has been adopted and administered before for eco areas, if they're going to start new agricultural
- activity. NRCS told us that they cannot help people that are not enrolling in a federal program. So
- Soil and Water has offered to step up to create the conservation plan for new agricultural activity.
- They saw it as a great window of opportunity
- And I think we started with maybe our first one just recently. So they're already helping us in that
- regard. And then just some clarifying language, preliminary plot to primary plot. And then there was
- some clarifying language under the administrative subdivision type. We wanted to clarify it was to create
- one lot total. And then under our category of
- uses or sorry under our site plan chapter we're getting rid of the reference that says that on the site
- plan you have to list what the intensity of use is as you know under our CDO we got rid of that intensity
- column and we worked really hard to create scales of uses individual uses so retail sales small retail
- sales medium retail sales large things like that so we've updated this part so
- We're talking through maybe one or two other possible changes, but this is the list. Thank you, Jackie.
- Any questions on this one? It's a tough question because it's kind of more of a gut pill. I think the
- SWCD, I guess it's better than not having any resource, but he thinks that there are two.
- You have worked preliminary with them on some of this. And I guess, would you like to kind of express
- kind of how that has worked out? Sure. So we met with them in person. And one of the discussions that
- we had was, would you be able to take on this amount of extra workload? But then once we kind of figured
- out that this would be mostly for the Lake Lemon area, there's not a lot of new agricultural that's
- starting around Lake Monroe.
- We really narrowed it to say we don't think that there will be more than five requests a year. Based
- on previous experience and just looking at aerials. I'm delighted to support it because any support
- is better than done, but I just was kind of curious because once we bake it into the ordinance, then
- it's a process, right? And knowing kind of their structure over there, I just wanted to kind of get
- a sense of how planning felt, so. Thank you. I saw my last question.
- I think it's painfully obvious, but what was the last time we had a lake or a dam failure? Over a pond?
- Yeah, over a pond. A close call on Hatch Road once. Yep, since I think we've had a failing one. Luckily,
- people will call and say it's actively failing, and then stormwater can sometimes help. If one has been
- an achievement that's totally private, then they just mitigate. I've had two known bits. And Twin Lakes.
- There was one south of the ball fields, across the street from the ball fields. It's interest. I mean,
- we don't know how it fits it. There was one at Fieldstone that we took care of. A store water piece
- to take care of. The state gets involved with some regulation of high hazard dams, and it used to be
- that they had to hit three different standards to be classified under the Hazardous Dam. The
- state deregulated that.
- not like some of those that was classified as high hazard. So I thought we should. Depending on a lot
- of things here, it sounds like it could be you all were storm water or stage or the army for it. I was
- going to say, don't forget it. There we go. Thanks. Before the CDO, we just had people apply for a grading
- permit and then it was just a stormwater grading permit.
- Under the CDO, we tried to enumerate some more of the standards for people submitted to us the information
- we needed. So we didn't feel like after they applied, we kept asking for more information. So we've
- tried to say, here's everything that we possibly could need from your engineer out front so that people
- know, okay, if I want to do this, this is what it takes. So especially the CARS teachers, we do get
- people that want to have a on
- in the thick forest area. So our drainage board has been particularly helpful in educating them because
- they can fail. They don't hold water. Right. They don't hold water. Like Leonard Springs. Yep. Additional
- questions on that one? Moving on to the last item, SGP-25-2.
- Okay, so this is the Bell Vista primary plat. We had that filed by the developers representative. So
- it's Bell Vista 3 Inc., CEO Angela Parker and Larry Allen, I believe is also helping with this one.
- But they are basically asking for a reopening of the primary plat
- just to exclude the requirement for street trees and sidewalks. We talked about this quite a bit under
- the Subdivision Improvement Agreement process and basically concluded at the end of the Subdivision
- Improvement Agreement that we would cash their letter of credit on October 27th or before 2025 because
- it seemed like they were not willing, they stated as such, they were not willing to increase that amount,
- which was $600.
- plus thousand dollars that it would take to actually implement and install the sidewalks in the subdivision.
- So we have 20 days before the letter of credit is due and the next plan commission meeting is on the
- 23rd. If this is approved for both the sidewalk waiver and the street tree waiver on the 23rd, we would
- not be required to do a
- secondary plat, so this does not get recorded because just showing the sidewalks and street trees, the
- process would be complete and the developer would get all of their funds back.
- This is already accepted into the inventory. This the right of way is accepted in the inventory. We
- do have a consent letter and we have been contacted quite a bit by neighbors out here, especially during
- the Subdition Improvement Agreement process. And now I think they're more aware of this process and
- are supportive. So we do have a petition letter which we accepted as sort of their consent letter for
- this change.
- We'll be adding before the next meeting too that this primary plat originally was approved with conditions.
- I'm gonna carry those forward just to not, and if there's things that are obsolete or not needed anymore,
- we can strike those, but some things I think are still relevant to take that carried forward. Any questions
- on this one? This was a doozy. I felt like
- if they didn't come forward and we cashed that bond or a surety, whatever. I feel like this was going
- to be like an underlining issue for the next generation of folks. And I actually went down and spoke
- with Director Nestor Jalen and told her that I felt like I voted wrong because I felt like this was
- kind of not putting a close to this issue.
- It's going to be really hard for me to get to the sidewalk waiver. But again, it feels like a lot of
- people just kind of kept going with the flow. And, you know, it really seems to me that the developers
- went on the hook for that. So I'm really happy the developer kind of decided to move this forward.
- And I just, yeah, it was a doozy. And I really want to see this like a closed case.
- and not where, like, maybe future generations come back and re-litigate this, and we are just kind of
- leaving it for them to deal with. So I'm very happy to see this. Sidewalk waiver is still a tough one
- because, you know, you think about people out there and stuff, it's a hard one. And, you know, a lot
- of that resonated when Commissioner Thomas mentioned that anything ever happens out here, it's like, oh,
- Why didn't we put sidewalks? But from all the testimony from the property owners and such, how they
- don't desire that, I feel like I can lean towards that. And again, I'm just kind of sharing my thoughts
- of where I'm at and the fact that I'm just really grateful that this might be put to rest and people
- in the future don't have to potentially deal with it. So thank you. Yeah.
- I will add just to note that we didn't restructure the report from the SIA so it's not a total repeat.
- There was a discussion with our department and the highway engineer regarding that there is a greenway
- corridor planned or
- proposed and the transportation alternatives plan through this area. And there was a discussion of whether
- we could ask these individual property owners for some sort of easement. But since this is a developer
- request, I don't know legally if we can withhold the sidewalk waiver and in return require a easement
- from private property owners because they no longer own the property.
- I also added in some history from the phases one and two, as well as this, or section one and two. So
- the section two has an easement.
- for sidewalks if and when they go in at any point, but there was no actual sidewalk requirement. Section
- one did not have the sidewalk requirement. The standards at that time did not require sidewalks. So
- that was something that the neighbors brought up of, well, this would be the only section rule as to
- the sidewalks. So that provides some additional context. Thanks. I have one comment question. First of all,
- on my share of committees in this county. It's wonderful to have these months to go back as far as times
- to really have the verbatim to look at, you know, great job with this. It's not consistent with other
- things, but this is great. I guess more, I have more comments. I know there was some stress right here
- with this particular one, but is there a risk of, I think I heard what you were saying there, Sean,
- about maybe precedent setting or something that creates
- if this isn't a closed case, people may look at this as an opportunity to follow a similar path of basically
- waiting on luck development. I mean, are we concerned that there are other cases like this out there
- that we may see and how we prevent getting into this predicament again? I guess that's really my question.
- There are a few solutions that we plan on tackling next year that were accepted into the inventory similar to this
- that have money associated as a cashier's check. So not a letter of credit that we've been trying to
- keep up with. So this year we really started to tackle the letters of credit because those are things
- we were going to pay for actively talking to the developer and we've knocked off a lot on that list.
- There are other submissions that historically were accepted without all the improvements made and that
- we might see similar requests here.
- But moving forward from 2016 at least on, we have not accepted roads that did not have full completion
- of improvements. So I don't think it sets a precedent forward by any means, but there might be passed
- lots of pre-2016. I think that will be about the timeline. Thank you. Otherwise, we would say either
- put in the sidewalk tax, not accepted, or there are waiver cuts.
- I was just going to really applaud planning to taking on this. How many years now? Three almost? That
- you've kind of started to take over the management of this and two, two. Well, some of these are big,
- so it feels like three. And I just want to commend you and say thank you because I really think this
- is going to prevent exactly what Mr. Henry was just saying from occurring in the future from new and
- some emissions.
- a huge alarming curve for me if you can't tell. We have a petition in the exhibit list and I believe
- when I checked it's everyone that would have a sidewalk which is only on one side of the road and I
- think at last count they might have been missing two neighbors for street trees but I can double check
- that. That's consent letters is exhibit five.
- So it is a pretty exhaustive list. We went through it and a lot of times it's like people own two lots
- or they're them and their spouse or someone that they live with signs and then it's cyber. But yes,
- we do think that based on the conversations that we've had with the neighbors, there's pretty much unanimous
- agreement that they do not want this. The petition starts with the
- that we're going to be looking at in the next couple of weeks. The petitioners are current homeowners
- of the list of three way the undersigned are in opposition of remaining permits as outlined. So there's
- a twenty two twenty eight sidewalks in addition to our streets that carry some weight in my mind.
- I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I
- don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.
- created Halloween Hill. They have gone out there and they turn this neighborhood into the back up. Bring
- your kids out here. Yeah, trigger treats. Yeah, I've done it. I've gone out with my grandkids and it's
- like one of these things. There's hundreds of these kids wearing dark suits on the road and there's
- people driving through there like it's their name and it's to me it's one of those things that
- They don't want sidewalks, but they want to create this environment where they're putting kids at risk
- in my view. So that's. Maybe the hypocrisy. At least once a year. Once a year I know I haven't been
- out there three months. Don't know. The drainage ditches, I think I remember drainage ditches, so the
- corporate sidewalks with.
- of the brain and just working out there. I don't feel too excited. I just don't know if I've been there,
- honestly. I don't know if I've been there, so I'm okay with the issue, but. Kids can send you a link
- of it and ask where they- But that's like a Halloween attraction. A ditch and they cover it up. It's
- like a 24-inch pipe with a burrito shirt, like a basketball. What does that cost? Would it be $50,000?
- What if we do it for $50,000? It's held up for 10 years. It was 10 years ago. It's such a-
- Hey, any other questions or comments? So. I don't have anything OK, legal reports Mr. Schilling. If
- you would like a report on the. Mediation I can provide you with that.
- We did gather to mediate a few issues and it allotted four hours for the mediation. And after about
- six hours, everything that we'd agreed to, the House rejected pretty much. So we came out of there agreeing
- to pay them the money that we had agreed to
- pay them in October of 2020 and had, in fact, written checks, which they canceled. But we'd also agreed
- to their urban area map. And before the mediation, we sent them a letter saying, you've never sent us
- your version of the urban area map. Send it to us. We may agree to it. Who knows? And we won't even
- have to raise this litigation or the mediation. They didn't do that. But at the mediation,
- They presented us with a map that we talked about. We said, fine, we'll agree with it. So the mediator
- said, boy, I'm going to send around the mediation agreement for you people that meet and sign publicly
- that had two points to it. One, we would agree to pay of money, and two, that we would agree to the
- urban area. But those were processes that we'd already agreed to. So it's not worth having a public
- meeting to deal with this and say,
- Hey, we still agree. Five years ago, you know, almost to the day. So that's what happened. Every time
- we try to compromise with them, the next thing you know, they would say, forget it. And so that's where
- we are. They've sent us a discovery request that is completely onerous, that asks for every communication
- relating to the case
- for the last five or six years and we have a settlement agreement which limits the issues out there
- at this point and so we're going to try to address that and get that a little down to just the,
- you know, there's two issues. One of them is whether they need to get an agricultural permit or permit
- for agricultural uses and the other is whether they've
- comply with all our erosion conditions. And so we said, over the course of the years, our MS4 coordinator
- had been out there and inspected and had talked to us representative as to whether they'd complied.
- And there were a number of instances where improvements needed to be made to bring it into compliance
- with the county's ordinance.
- Those were communicated and then they've had they've had a couple site visits and the House representative
- claims that our our MS4 coordinator said everything was OK. Our MS4 coordinator says no, I didn't say
- that at all and we have photographs showing in back in 2022 when she first went out there, she said
- these are some problems.
- Well, Jackie and crew were out there last year or maybe it was the fall of last year that you were out
- there. A month ago. And you can see that those improvements have not been. So we said, look, so rather
- than argue about whether things have been nailed down in the past,
- Let's just send people out there. We'll do another inspection. And if you comply, we'll immediately
- publish a statement in the paper saying the HUS are in compliance and are not harming the lake at this
- time. And they wouldn't agree to that. They wouldn't let us out there. And then, of course, we'd have
- a BZA meeting on the 1st of October where the HUS attorney
- says the BZA on multiple occasions, you're free to go out there at any time and spend the property.
- So it's a head scratcher. But that's where it stands, which is where it usually stands, sort of up in
- the air and leaving us baffled about why things aren't progressing. Hours and hours are fine.
- Yeah, yeah, yeah. More of the thing. I don't know, I don't think I've ever been in a mediation that's
- gone well in terms of actually coming up with a solution. Maybe it's me. I'm not going to take it personally,
- but maybe it's me. Mediations are really not, in my mind, not incredibly useful in ordinance
- violation situation. You're violating it or you're not. Yeah, if you're talking about money, energy,
- or things like that where there's a lot of give and take. Great area. Yeah, I got you. So there we are.
- Okay. Thank you, Mr. Schilling. Do we have a motion for adjournment? So moved. Okay, thank you.