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.