Okay, everyone, it's 530, so I will go ahead and call to order the Flying Commission Administrative
Meeting. And at this meeting, there will be no public comment taken. Do we need to call the roll? Yes,
we can go ahead. Please call the roll. Okay. David Bush? Yes, here. Margaret Clements here. Thank you.
Tom Enright-Randolph? Here. Pat Farris? Here. Rudy Fields?
David Henry? Jeff Morris? Here. Joe Van Deventer? Julie Thomas? Here. And then Steve Bishop? Here. OK.
So in person, we have six voting plan commission members and one non-voting plan commission member and
a quorum. We don't have to introduce evidence. No, we don't. OK. All right.
We'll go ahead and take away with the first item. Yeah, we'll go ahead and go to the first item on the
agenda. OK. This was just a report that we did. The GIS team in the surveyors office did publish the
road inventory map. So you could use that at any point to look up your address and check to see if your
property abuts a county maintained roadway. I think this will be helpful in communicating with the public.
whether or not their road would be, you know, cloud for the winter, for instance, or any other consideration
for replacing them sidewalks or things to that nature. So we're happy to have this as a published map
and it's on the GIS Division website. Thank you, Kron. Thanks. So has this been posted? It is on the
GIS Division website. It's at other places if you want us to do like a
We can do press release or we're thinking about doing something like that. So on the county's website,
those notices you put out? Yes. This would be worthy of a notice to let people know about it. I agree.
I do have a question regarding this. If someone notices that there is some road that's not maintained
by the county that they would like to be, is there some way that they could easily identify that through this?
like next steps, basically. Yeah, because I could see somebody going on there and be like,
oh, my neighborhood, my development is not part of this, but I'm worried, so. Right. When you start
the map, it does have sort of a disclaimer, and it does point people to reach out. This is the Highway
Department's dispatch, and we're hoping, and then there's also a list of private contractors, if they're
foreclosed or there's no emergency.
but I would hope that people would start with that number and then we would be able to communicate to
them. I'm not to say that they don't get bounced around a couple of times, but it's usually not a very
straightforward answer when people ask, how do I get into the inventory? It's usually a little bit longer
of an answer. It was just more, is there an avenue for intake just to start that?
you know, discussion. Right. Really good. Starts with a bubble cover problem. There you go. I have the
scary part. So I would suggest you add it as a notice. Okay. It's visibility. I mean, it's a good product.
We ought to take it. There is a possibility of maybe working with, I would assume Lynette would probably
be kind of the contact at the highway and John and putting kind of the one, two, three survey, kind
of what you did with the draft zoning map to potentially just get
feedback. On the map? Yeah, if there's any like errors or omissions by accident because some of the
roads are public and then at a certain point they go private. So if we could get feedback from folks
that are using it. Also to your point too, just I know I could speak with them too by trying to let
you guys organic organically kind of developments. But I know you're familiar with the
CDO draft zoning map, so kind of very similar to that. Okay, and that's all that I had on that item.
If anyone doesn't have anything else, we can move on. Okay, please.
We have been operating under our new fee schedule that was adopted December 1st. And we have noticed
a few things that we would like to have either corrected, added, removed. So what we've done is put
in red new items that we'd like to break out for a fee.
And then in yellow, we have one thing that we're wanting to strike. This is actually an error because
it's listed twice. And then below, we have another item that we would like to add. I would like to talk
about this one just for a moment. So we'll go through each of these. This petitioner requests to continue
the petition on, for instance, board zoning appeals and regular commission meetings.
we are required to send our agendas to the newspaper. Each one of those blocks of text equals somewhere
around 10 to $15 every single time we notice something. So when you see a petition that's been continuing
for months and months and months, that's 10 to $15 times the number of times they've continued. We don't
wanna penalize petitioners who we are needing more information for, they show up,
You know, we decide we need more information. We continue them. But we have a lot of petitioners that
file and then they do not meet the... You've already spent the money for... We already spent the money
for the notice. So we're trying to keep up a little bit with the paper notice fees. And our budget went
down. Right. I know this. We had to reduce budget. So that would be a fee increase. We're still deciding.
I think this would be petitioner-led continuances, and sometimes there's a limit, sometimes there's
not. If, for instance, you have a petition on, let's say, tonight's the regular planning commission
meetings agenda, and you decide, I'm going to continue this to August, we would not charge them the
months of April, May, June, July, because we can put on the next month, continue to August, and then
we wouldn't have to keep
noticing it. So we are going to try to incentivize people to kind of have a more strategic understanding
of when they'll be heard and that way we can save everyone time and money. So that's this item and we
figured that $20 covers actual notice and then administrative time to just keep up with that. Just due
to the processes are we talking about just planning
for instance, if it gets continued at the drainage board or if it gets continued at the commissioner
level. Right. This would just be for planning. We're thinking BZA and planned commission are the two
meetings that we have to make a notice. That sounds right. I'm just curious because those are two other
areas where notice has to be made. Sometimes it's not a paid notice, but we have to send it to the paper
per the codes. I'm fine with it. Okay. I like it being
and then occasionally we would be able to waive the fee if it seemed reasonable. And then this item
we've separated type B and type C out. We did pretty drastically increase the fee for administrative
subdivisions because they've involved a lot of
Title work, deed work, a lot of staff time to determine what they're starting with. But these two types
of administrative subdivisions are court decrees and correctives. And so they typically only involve
working at new and old legal descriptions and not a plat. So they're much less work than the other ones
that we left up here. Type D is for creating new right of way on a plat. Type D is shifting lot lines between
cemetery plots and type G is new, that's the conservation lot creation. So all of those involve plat
review, which we feel like that fee is still appropriate. And then B or C would lower back down to more
closely to what it was before December 1st of 2025. And that's largely because we're mostly just doing
D review and not the plat review as well. Those fees that you're proposing based on
like an aggregate average amount of time you're spending on these? We get into the labor analysis for
each category, so, oh, yes. We've had a couple recently where we've, again, recap the labor. And then
this is something that we have put into the CDO. It was a late amendment in the old ordinance as well.
But we did add that we require a permit when you increase the number of bedrooms, because it's typically
a septic situation in the county. We do not have a current fee for that, but we are doing the work of
issuing a permit and checking their septic, and it sometimes involves a bit of coordination. So we recommend
a $50 fee for that permit. It would not be a fee if it's a residential remodel without bedroom increase,
that just gets a waiver.
But this requires a permit from us to make sure that we're verifying as a last step that their septic
is capable of handling the bedroom increase. And then, like I said, this was a duplicate, the residential
accessory building that's down here at 150. And then we wanted to make that a little bit more clear,
so we made the example garage.
And then we have two people in our office that are notaries, and we do not have a charge for it right
now, but we would like to implement a charge because we do support their notary license. So those are
the changes. There was, I need to look at what was the final version of the document, but House Enrolled Act 1001.
does have some language in it or did have some language in it. So last we checked about fees and when
it starts to be January 1st of 2027, they had some language in there that says we mainly update our
fees every five years. So we do want to make sure that the schedule is in good shape before we get to
that point. So are these five years from one December or five years from one July?
I think it'll be five years from December 31st, 2026, because that bill goes into effect January 1,
2027. I think it will be whenever I would hope we do an amendment close to the new year. Then we get
five-year time. You're not looking to revise anything else on this list between now and that date? It
seems like it's doing pretty well right now, but I'm not to say we won't revise anything else.
So this was an aggregate of- Because you're locked in for five years is what I'm talking about. I know.
There's no adjustment because of inflation or anything like the cost of living are replaced, right?
Right. So what happens if this, through the fee schedule, if you start running a deficit, because in
that five years, we just start losing out on basically the amount that it costs to do the work relative
to what we're already in. What happens at that point in time?
We're already at a deficit. So we may be going to cover about 25 to 30% of our bread. I think we hope
to cover about that maybe a little bit more. And how much of that fee schedule actually gets touched
in a regular course of business? Like a month or a quarter, like is most of those enacted throughout
the stuff that you typically work on? So would you say,
Yeah, companies are going to move right. Sure. But like, you know, in, let's say, you know, summer or
November, sorry, not November, September, you know, three, six months down the road, should we reevaluate
this and try, you know, just like, are you making some headway on that deficit, you know, to where we
can actually feel confident going into the end of the year? Or, you know, what happens if you run a
surplus? Right. Well, I would say,
The labor analysis was based on the 2026 salary COLA adjustment. When I say we run a deficit, that's
because we do a lot of other things that aren't in this fee schedule. So we take phone calls from people.
I look at my run into the inventory. We're not going to charge them for that time on the phone. We had
Well, I think we had determined that we had over 600. What do we call player of the day inquiries in
a year? So we have quite a few, like, 40 per person per month, getting quite a few calls. Maybe cases
are created from there, but we have a lot of lead time to talking to the public from when they.
from that point to educate them and then when they actually file. So with a lot of what we would call
free. But should we be baking that into this week's schedule?
We can talk about that. Yes, the labor analysis that we did was sort of after we educated them on,
you know, this is what the ordinance says. You need a variance. You can make that decision if you want
to apply for the variance or, for instance, you can move your shed to meet the setback and you don't
need the variance. So it's sort of like it depends. It's more finicky on the time.
but pre filing, then we know it's pretty predictable. Once you file variance, we kind of know the hours
that it will take for that case, depending on the number of variances and things like that. So we did
try to think through, and I'm happy to share with you because it came out last year. So we have an Excel
spreadsheet with them. It's just trying to future proof since once the end of the year old around where
we're stuck with their life or not. So that,
I mean, and I guess that would be the question is if we did adjust it again before the end of the year,
what would happen if you did actually have a surplus? What would happen in that instance? I would just
like to say that Jackie has done, and Tammy and the planning staff has really done their due diligence
with regard to the workflow and the work product and this fee schedule. And one thing that I really
admire about your professionalism is that you're aware
to the penny, how much money we're down and how, you know, we're never really up, but we provide great
services despite those challenges like, for example, the County Council losing track of $4 million,
you know, and it costing us a hiring freeze and things like that. So you've planned this, you've balanced
it. She understands, yeah.
We can certainly put this on the agenda for November. I'm just taking a kick at the end of the year
and it's going to be relevant. That sounds good. We'll keep checking back in. So you need to approve
any of this now? Yes, so you can at least have real data to track for the next six months. Right. I
really want to see how this legal notice speed goes.
Are you asking to approve that tonight? Yes, you could approve this tonight if you would want to take
a vote on that if the board would. The revenue generated here, it doesn't necessarily revert right back
to planning, right? It goes to the county general and so like there are funds that are non-reverting
that have been
kind of go back to the cash balance. What they bring in here goes back to the larger county general,
and then the council weighs that into their decision of their appropriation. So you do report on the
dollars coming in, but these dollars that we receive through a calendar year aren't necessarily going
to a planning's operational costs. Just not sure if we kind of directly address that.
I do agree. Jackie does a tremendous job of looking at these and weighing them for the time spent and
trying to find that appropriate dollar amount of charge. Any further discussion? If someone would like
to make a motion. I have a motion to approve the fee schedule as presented by the Director.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
All right, moving along to the next administrative item on our agenda, which is the Ellisville merger
summary. Yes. So this was something that was presented to the building association for which some of
our other departments are members of our building department as a member of that organization. So our
building commissioner came over and let me know that this was being discussed
in the community and gave me this handout, so I wanted to share it with you all as it's relevant. In
discussing how to kind of disseminate this information, I wanted to provide maybe a few maps or some
information and then get from all of you any comments or anything that you would like planning to do
and more research. I have some discussion questions at the end, but essentially what they're proposing is to
Merge or annex Richland Township into Ellsville. So this dotted green and black line is their current
corporate boundary. And then this is partially the city. And then everything in here is currently the
campaign. So it's about, the county has about 18,790 acres or only 9.36 square miles.
a large area that we're talking about. And then this is the zoning map, just so you get an idea of the
components of that area or what the makeup is. It's some light industrial, some mineral extraction,
primarily agriculture. There's some residential low density and medium density residential, and then
brown is one acre residential as well. So as you get closer to the city, we do have some industrial areas.
here as well. And this is PD. That's not parking. So that's the zoning makeup. And then I also wanted
to just note some of the environmental constraints. So they have quite a bit of karst density in this
area. This is from Indian map. So the blue is sinking streams. The yellow, orange is sinkhole areas.
So we have quarry, like I said, quarry areas in this area as well.
mixed with low density residential. And then here's the slope map showing just the 25% or greater. And
then the floodplain, this really doesn't really address this stuff. There is a jacks to feet creek that
goes through here and does cause some issues now and again. So there is some floodplain. So just some
discussion questions, forthright question to try and guide us here.
if you would like us comparing further information for your review, or if you'd like to discuss any,
you know, text or zoning map amendments or anything ahead of the possible merger, or we can just let
everything, you know, decide for ourselves how we want to move forward. And I'm going to be going to
a conference next Friday, the Indiana chapter of the American Planning Association,
They have a session from referendum to reality planning after a town township consolidation. So I'm
going to go and learn about how a town of Ellsville did it. Yeah, or yeah, there's a Hamilton County
example and it was all because of the Government Modernization Act. So yeah, so I'll be I can write
up my notes and report that.
My basic question is, and I asked this almost all these cases, that what is the impact on our ordinance
with respect to this? Well, we would not be able to administer the CDO in any of these areas. Well,
that's talking about the documents. The case. I mean, these are all illustrations they haven't gotten
to, like the nuts and bolts, like they could still potentially ask now there had to be
in our local or some type of agreement, but like, it's yet to be determined, but we could lose all our
planning oversight, our building oversight, even police protection and fire protection, all of that.
And I was gonna get to that. They're still discussing as illustrations. I was gonna get to that. And
so I'm just saying your question can't really be answered. No, but this is, we're setting the stage
for whether we need to do anything, okay? And so at this point,
what would be the changes to our ordinance if in fact we lose 40.5 square miles of territory, which
is more than half of our area. I think we have, I did the math, 29.36 will remain miles. I mean, you
lose over half of your area. So what happens to our ordinance and the fact that it doesn't apply?
Is that it? That changes.
The map changes. Yeah, exactly right. I mean, so we're no longer responsible for firing police. We're
moving the income potentially to the filing. So like it could kind of make everything a little more
difficult to administrate as is. I know Commissioner Thomas has a lot to probably weigh in on here as
a lot would eventually fall to the Commissioner's dais. And the other point I was going to bring up
is revenue.
Do we lose any revenue as a result because we're not collecting. The one last thing I think is very
important is we reference other county ordinances in our.
ordinance like stormwater, highway, and all of those are going to be impacted too. So like we're a MS4
community, so we have rate fees for our stormwater. If this occurs, then that's going to have to be
addressed too. And again, these are just illustrations they're talking about. But from my following
the town council and some of the subcommittees that were appointed by the township
trustee and the town council. They seem to actually, I think, being considered of wanting to kind of
take those fees and take that jurisdiction over. But again, the devil's in the details. And until we
see that referendum, because it goes to a vote, and they have to be ready, and the deadlines are coming up.
So I'll pause there. It's just, there's a lot going on. To finish my thought, all I'm trying to figure
out is what is the impact that we need to take and look at now to be ready? And I think what you just
told me is that it's a wait and see, even though there's potentially you're going to have, I would argue
it could even hurt your manning requirements for your, for the various departments here, because that
duty is going to shift someplace else. I mean, so the argument goes, I mean, so manning revenue, et cetera.
and you're talking about police and fire, and you're talking about probably a longer list of things.
They have their own building departments. Yeah, and so as far as what we can do, I don't think you could
do anything. I think the only thing that we could consider is if we look at some of the areas that have
been voluntarily annexed, what type of development are they shooting for in Alexville that we maybe
aren't zoned for in the county?
And so to have a conversation with people, if people are calling in and saying, Hey, how many homes
can I get? How many, how many lots can I create? And we tell them four or less and they hang up and
they call Ellipsville and they tell them, you can have 20 lots or what have you. That's the, that's
the conversation that's happening behind the scenes that we don't always hear about. So. Commissioner
Thomas has been patiently waiting to weigh in. So can we hear from her, please?
Yeah, and I'm never patient, so thank you. I'm chomping at the bit. Yeah, I think it's a wait and see.
There are a lot of unknowns and I wouldn't start making decisions or even start worrying at this moment.
I believe the deadline is around May for the town council and the township
board to vote on whether or not to approve whatever plan it is that they're supposed to have done by
the end of this month. If it does pass both boards, both the council and the board, it will go to be
a referendum style vote for all Richland Township residents in November.
at the general election time. Their plan, just so everybody's clear, is to start doing this to take
over to annex. It would be January 1st of 27th. They would have a lot of work to do if the referendum
passes. The other thing I will say is that I don't think the issue of housing is relevant because
If Ellisville annexes, it's going to charge a local income tax that's a city style income tax in the
future when everything changes fiscally across the state. That's not who we are. We're not a town, we're
not a city, we're not charging that. I think we have a CDO that went before the entire public, the entire
community. I don't think there's anything we should be looking at
out of some reaction to anything. The Basque advertisement piece that Jackie included here,
let's be clear, it's a red herring. Ellisville wants to do well fiscally, and to do well fiscally, they
need to charge a local income tax. To charge a local income tax, you have to be annexed into the town.
That's what this is. It's not about housing. It will impact their housing, fine.
but they're going to be a town slash small city if this goes through and they will be charging residents
an additional local income tax in order to pay those bills. It's not about housing, it's about money.
Housing does connect with money in that way. But I just wanted to say those things. I don't think we
should spend any time on this at this moment. I don't think we should speculate at this moment.
We all know what we have to look at if this passes in November, and we will have to talk about it then
and see what happens. But let's see if the plan is done. Let's see if both the council and the Township
Board approve it. Let's see what happens. Thank you. Yeah, I agree. It's a lot.
to try to figure out what we can address. I think sending the maps of some of the CARS features and
the best available floodplain data, even though I'm sure they have it, who knows, could be helpful.
I do think that part two of the question, should we be considering the zoning around these areas? But
one thing I was going to say is it would be nice to start
tracking the voluntary annexation so we can kind of see how that is progressing. Like when did we see
this uptick or seeing a consistency to people volunteering annexing over there. But one issue that is
gonna be very difficult is they're in the town, which I think then that means they're gonna get sewer.
So even with the questions you posed of is it because they can get more density
Yeah, they probably can because they probably can get sewer and they might be able to get something
similar, we could extend sewer. So that's not the same issue that we're grappling with in the county.
So like, it's going to be really hard to kind of determine if this was rezoned to maybe allow a couple
more units would they stay in the county, which I would love to see that because we have some better
ordinances that focus on some more of our environmental protections and things of that nature.
We can't guarantee that because right now, unless we change other things, a lot of those properties
are going to get sewer and that's going to allow them to have that more density. Again, I think it's
just too complicated to try to sort out. We just wait and see as Commissioner Thomas was saying,
but yeah, it's very interesting. Well, it's my understanding that the law that
The capital improvements would have to be made within like a three-year period of time. So even though
it looks relatively rural, Ellensville would have to extend services equitably out into the county area
to compare with that in the city. But that being said, I don't have a clear handle on the population.
How many residents live in the city? 7,000 in Montana.
In the town of about 13 altogether. And then how many people are bariatric? So the people don't really
have a say, right? Because they'll get, you know, percent from the town. As you were saying, so how
much are they outweighed? I don't actually know that information. I use some old census data and I can
give you more precise numbers from the old census data, but that's not necessarily one for one.
I guess it's about even. Yeah. It's about even really in the areas that they're wanting the annals.
The folks in the Richland Township and then compared to the folks in the town of Ellitsville, the difference
is not huge. But I'm using 2020 census data. This is the, I mean, all of Ellitsville and everything
on that screen is Richland, right?
Except for the town and the town would be excluded from all of the reorganization discussions.
Just for my. Yeah. Okay. Sure. I think so. That's a good question. Just for my own education.
What is the southern boundary? Is there, what's that road that parallels the southern boundary in the
original township? This would be 48. That's 48? Okay, and what about the eastern, the north-south? This
is 46 in Arlington, et cetera. Okay, yeah, yeah. Is that Curry? This would be, yeah, this would be,
well, this is Curry. Okay, so it's a little bit east of Curry, a little bit later. All right,
thank you. Yeah, and the chorus, they show,
and the Coraline down there is all the way down on the bottom right. That's it right there. Yeah. Is
that the driving? Corning or the? That'd be Reed, right? Well, that's Reed. I think that's Debbie Reed,
I think. They were off of Prow Road by the high school, North High School. I think this is the old murder room.
Okay, so What I'm hearing is no no immediate action on our part just to keep our finger on the pulse
of what's happening and is is is someone for your department doing that or
We can, well, I think that the. Not trying to give you more. No, I think that that's helpful to follow
the township board and the town council meetings and we report back in May or about even June. Sure,
I'm sure there will be people from this group attending. All right, well, I can't make any more comments on that.
So shall we move on to SIA-22-3? Yeah. So this is the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. This is an
extension of performance period completion. It would be for just phase one, seven minutes. So we're
looking at the prior phases of seven minutes that have been recorded and are being built out.
There's a timeline under the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and the performance bond that says they'll
be finished in a certain month, day, or year. This one was supposed to be finished and accepted into
the inventory by August 18, 2026. They are asking for two additional years to finish up the public improvements.
So what that means is that we're looking at this from the CDO perspective now, and there would be a
10% annual required inflation adjustment. So instead of the 337 number, they would be asked to post
$371,120.90. So we have a quick summary here of what is in the phase one construction.
We've talked about this quite a bit, so I don't want to belabor it. But just to reiterate, the phase
one improvements include three-stem water basins, extension of west that road from South Roger Street
and all associated infrastructure, street trees turned lane on South Roger Street, and a multi-use path
along Forest Peak urban. When I put it in bold,
Among the updates to this, if they're already, um, they're saying to the updates, some of them we haven't
had any progress or we're still waiting, but they did provide us with that skills to show us, um, where
they are so far. And we do anticipate at some point they may come back with a reduction, but at this
point it's just a inflation adjustment with a new performance period and date. Okay. Page 15.
You make a statement, this is on C1. C1, you say, subdivider has been unable to complete the required
improvements due to those magic words, due diligence. So this is a longer list that you see on the previous
page that you just went over. You see some progress. So if you were to ask the question, do you really
believe, because I actually drove out there.
I have seen, I did see some changes, but do you fully believe that there really is due diligence in
them trying to complete those actions? That's a test question from our perspective. The biggest,
I would say, one of the issues with the items on this list is the churn lane on South Roger. We've been
asking for that since phase one. We're on now phase four.
we do feel like with that preventing the planning of phase five, that that has really spurred a lot
more progress in that department. But I do know, once you start a subdivision phase, your goal is going
to be sell lots, build homes, transfer those homes to people. And so any offsite improvement, anything
extra is just background. So that's why the multi-use path
certainly a lot of that stuff gets held off when we have the money for it. Basins, things like that.
I think that they've made progress on selling and developing the lots. I don't know how well the progress
on the public improvements have put them in shape to get acceptance. Have they made any progress on
getting their permits to do the work in the field right?
I think they were held on that as well. Well, it's all right there together. They broke it into two
phases. So where they had enforcement action, where they fill in the floodplain, they remedied that.
They've already remedied that. They got the permanent through DNR. They did not need to get conditional
letter of application, which would be federally, like would change the maps. But because they broke it,
that one intersection down there does need a conditional letter of revision because they're indicating
that there's a rise in the work that they get out there and that they still need to do, which would
impact. Where that he has a company in Chicago that he's trying to work with, but they never reached
out to me. And I just got conditioned.
And taught and seen something I haven't seen the conditional like I hope that people notice to those
property owners. For an example, we just got a conditional letter of revision for Hunter Valley Road
for this week. We started that years ago. And like another one that we have is a two meter.
just to get that approved, not that work done, not to then do the follow-up of change in that, as far
as I've built and a lot of other things. So it's a long process. Steve, is there any specific performance
bond in force already on this one? Because I know there's another property that we've seen develop earlier.
that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's
that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's
that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's
that's that's
So if the letter of credit date this Friday expires, that's when you want to extend your sentence. Ideally,
if they're going to put the letter of credit to be expiring two years from now, in one year from now,
and it's hovering beyond August 18th, we would like it to have the inflation adjustment. What happens
if it expires and they do nothing to get it done? Total passion for dates expiring. And we put it in
the budget. And then accounting is,
going to have to do some of all of this work. So is there any sort of work on your side that would need
to happen to be able to engage that letter to be able to get it? We have templates. We use site drafts.
Just making sure. We didn't cash maybe three in the last year or two. I just want to make sure you guys
get set up for the best
I agree. It's nearly impossible given the opportunities that you're seeing. And because of the change
and the flow model requirement, if we don't know that fast, you know, this amount, pre-37, could be
not very quickly just in engineering for doing this. Well, I'm not quibbling about the amount. I'm quibbling
about, like, I want to make sure that if you have to get in, be in there. Right.
We've been talking with them. So going back to my question of due diligence, have you had this discussion
with them lately on these 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 items and their movement toward completing a recent discussion?
We have been talking with them.
I think that in terms of the due diligence, there is some interpretation that we've made there. I think
that the latest conversation that we are kind of working from was that phasing change and then holding
up phase five of Southern Meadows from being reported until they do the turning. Now what I think I
put in the report, but it will come up this year as well. Phases five and six also expire on this eight.
August 18, 2026. So we will have to come back to the planning commission to ask for phase five and six
again, unless they can be platted. They cannot be platted, phase five cannot be platted until we finish
with the term line around your street for that red connect. So they're gonna catch 22 on that. I'll
just say it one more time. And I brought it up at the planning commission meeting. I'm concerned about
systemic non-compliance. That's what I'm concerned about.
And I'll keep bringing that up until I feel satisfied that there's due diligence to correct those things.
They say that what we say, as everybody says, need to be correct. And so I guess it's important to me
that we see intent. And you're asking us, this body, to approve this POP form and et cetera. You're
asking us to do that.
With the alternative knowledge that we would cash. I mean, one of your actions is to possibly recommend
that we cash it in. I couldn't hear that said again. We can sue them for the work that we cannot cover. Go ahead.
I'm sorry. It's okay. When we condition the extension upon getting any sort of a basic timeline of those
improvements that, you know, within the six months of this time, six months of this time, that they
provide us because they've asked for the extension based on their understanding of due diligence. So
that to me says that they have a timeline in mind. So if they haven't shared that,
I think that'd be really beneficial. This is Scott's point. Then you can actually go back and say, you
told us you would do X, Y, and Z in this timeframe. And when we start to see that happen or not happen,
then we have something we can go back to. But otherwise, it's just, yeah, everyone acting in faith,
this provides a little more key to it.
I just didn't want to jump. Mine's, I think, in my opinion, getting at what I hear this conversation.
I reserve my right to be wrong. But staff is recommending approving this two-year performance. I wanted
to hear your take because I think based off of conversations, also maybe
some of the timeline Tammy just alluded to it takes to maybe address some of what needs to be done outside
of the maybe improvement off the project site or offsite project improvement area you are recommending
approving and I'm guessing that's one we're uncertain that the dollar amount is going to cover all the
cost two there might be a couple other mechanisms in place where we could get the developer to kind of
finish the project to completion. I'm going to pause there and just hear your take on this recommendation
of approving this. Sure. So at this juncture, they have not completed all the phase one improvements
to get accepted into the inventory. So we are faced with either extending that timeline or cashing that
amount and then trying to do it ourselves.
Since they're still engaged in the subdivision and there's other deadlines, including the prerequisite
to record phase five contingent upon the turn lane on South Roger Street, we feel there's enough of
a carrot there for them to get the work done, for them to get it approved. With the inflation adjustment,
I know that that will help. I mean, they said, I think they look forward to phase one
three, I want to say. So it's already been three years. So inflation does catch up to that. And they've
done some, they've done work in phase one. So that 337 number is from where they were three years ago.
So any sidewalk they have put in directly, we're still capturing that funding in the event the sidewalk
is not correct. Just a follow up on that is it would be nice to see what
Improvements they have already put in place so we kind of get a better sense of that's what that dollar
amounts was speaking to okay, but like maybe like a cost forecast like okay, they put in a hundred thousand
dollars worth of improvements already that we're not necessarily accounting for in that 300 In with
the increase 377. Sorry. I don't remember what the other one was like 334 or
Yes, anyone. Okay. So this is the as built. So you can kind of see here that they have installed sidewalks
on the south side. You can zoom in and check what the cross slopes is. Sorry, this isn't sure. Is there
any way for you to try to like give us a ballpark amount of what improvements were in and or what we
still need to cover and how that
gets to the dollar amount that we have? So I have also in tandem asked for a reduction, but they have
not, they need to provide us more information. So we're taking that as a future separate issue, but
that's where we would really document how much we could potentially reduce. My concern with just telling
you, you know, hey, they put in how many linear feet of sidewalk is that we don't know that that sidewalk
is put in.
to meet the cross-slope ADA. Well, we do have that. So we can start that process, but we were hoping
to do that in tandem with the reduction. The final thing is, do we have discretion for the increase?
I know we have 10% kind of baked into our ordinance, but do we have discretionary
matter or ability to say we would actually want to see a 20% increase if we're going to extend this.
I'm just trying to understand the role that the plan commission not pitching that idea. Is that subject
to our discretion that inflation amount? I don't think that the installation amount but possibly re-looking
at the itemized. So we could re-determine the cost of the improvements that have yet to be completed
There's two ways of doing it that we offer. So one is they can come up with a valid contract amount,
and then they're already beyond their performance period, so they have to do the 10%. But we didn't
make them update their unit pricing since 2023. So the inflation is hopefully capturing the unit prices
increase, but we're calling it inflation. But if we say since 2023,
We understood now that the terminate is going to require CLOMAR, which requires engineering and other
fees. We've asked our legal department before and we can re-ask to say, is there anything we can put
into the estimate to capture what it would actually take to get approval for that terminate? Typically
under the state code, I don't think that we can include engineering fees into that. And it's extremely
hard for us to estimate what those are or what they could be.
Okay. That is, I'm trying to identify the tools that we have because I agree that like this idea of
extending it, but still uncertain if they're going to put in those improvements is a little challenging.
So I really just want to understand what tools were at our disposal. Thanks, Margaret. I'd just like
an update on any ongoing litigation with regard to this development.
would you be able to answer that question about the litigation update for Margaret on solo or is that
a Justin question? Jackie, that's a Justin question. I can get online and see what I can find out about
the status, but last time I talked to him about it, it was kind of on hold. Yeah.
Go ahead. Yeah, I think it's kind of interrelated with Colonel Farris's question I'm going to ask.
I agree. And along that same line, I'll get to you in a second, Chef. Along that same line, is your
summary of work to be completed, for lack of a better term, does that include everything that they pledge
to do in their written commitments? Because I know
There's another contractor, the Blind Squirrel Group that's trying to build their development as well.
And I think they're being held up by part of this as well. So there is on the first page, the multi-use
path along the Blind Squirrel Company was part of phase one. And then also the turn lane. So those two
items have been there since.
been sort of refactored based on the amended written commitment. They're sort of under phase five now,
but originally they were estimated under phase one. We have a 211 subdivision that's being held up by
this. The Shermer subdivision. To the east. To the east. That was approved like. I think you have to
have phase five plotted to connect. That's good information to have.
Where does that end? It's right here. So this is Westat and Rogers. And then this is College Drive over
to Orchard. This is a dead end of College Drive. And this is Church. Oh, right. It generates more questions.
So this was approved as a 21-pot. So that's yours. But they only have one way in and out of college.
So they're second base.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They're hung up. They're being hung up as well. Jeff is next. Yes. Go ahead, Jeff.
So thank you. My concern about just approving those things is that a couple of these items on the list
feel like public safety issues to me, mainly the asphalt path not being along Rogers, because I see
people walking in the road along Rogers right there on a daily basis in the dark and rain,
you name it. So I think that combined with the fact that there's not a turn light
there on Roger Street, yet that neighborhood has brought quite a bit of additional traffic. I think
it's back traffic at times when White House is letting out or other heavy traffic times they day. And
I'm concerned about just pushing this down the road a few more years, especially with pedestrians being
in the road. Great. Kind of piggyback on that later. The one thing I was wanting to throw out there
is, is it in the county's best interest to just call that letter of credit and do the work themselves?
E-products, that's A, an expediency piece. Two, ensures the work actually gets done as intended.
And three, it alleviates any immediate safety concerns. Right. So I would say that without the complication
that Coloma requires for the turn lane, that we would be maybe feeling a little more confident in our
ability to do that in-house.
we would not be able to do a COMAR in that study in-house. We're automatically contracting it out. So
as far as expediency, we're talking about not being able to use a single dollar of this fund for engineering
costs, going to council for that appropriation, hopefully getting that appropriation, doing the study
ourselves, working hopefully with the progress they've already made, two years where COMAR potentially
and then doing the work with the money we cashed on Friday. You said that at the beginning, I'm sorry,
Scott, you alluded to that at the beginning when you indicated that would barely cover the engineering
costs. We cannot actually even use that money for engineering. Sorry, Scott.
They take it as a devil's act, but we call the line of credit. What happens to the work in that neighborhood?
Well, you mean for the homes? I'm talking about for the development. He stops what? Everything? He stops
sidewalks. He still does that problem. He still builds the homes and stuff like that. But the roadways
wouldn't be completed. The sidewalks would not be installed. And all of these other things that we've got here,
He stops. And what is his course of action at that point? Could he come back to the county and sue us?
I mean, I guess, I don't know if that's a decision that can be appealed. Dave, do you have the answer
to that? Can they appeal the decision? I've got a follow up question. Let me say the rest of the question.
I go back to due diligence.
If we firmly believe that they've met the criteria for due diligence in responding to these items here,
then we have a very difficult time in calling the line of credit. If we, in our own right, look at these
individual items here and say that, yeah, he's done some things, but there's a lot of things he hasn't
done. And there are indications of systemic noncompliance with respect to this area out here.
And again, that's that precedent thing that we keep coming back to that we don't want to ever live with
again. This is a mess. I mean, I personally, after hearing this conversation, because of lack of intent
and discussions, et cetera, and moving forward on some of these items, I think pulling the line of credit,
crashing out the line of credit. Am I interrupting at a wrong time? Go ahead.
from what I hear from Jackie and Tammy you know I just want to amplify what you know they have exceptional
judgment and I refer to that is that overall it's going to cost the county probably an additional three
hundred thousand dollars or something like that so the line of credit is not adequate to cover
the all the costs, plus there would be a two year delay impacting two other developments, blind squirrels
and Shermer. So I don't know, I think my inclination is to get the additional money into the bond.
You know, the inflated rate
and any other justifiable bank account that you can justify, like an engineering study that you keep,
even though you said we can't bond for that, there are additional costs that we anticipate we're gonna
be stuck with. And we need to have that in the bond so that we can finish the work if we end up having
to pay. So let me just echo, let me finish my line of thought since you brought that up.
You brought up a very good point about time-lapse. Yeah. If in fact we were to take and approve the
POP and the additional amount of money, can we stimulate somehow some sort of a timeline for the completion
of these things as a metric for performance? Can we do that? We can increase it only one year or approve
a lower performance period and time extension.
and then you would only have that time period to finish. Or can we increase the bond amount? That's
what I was getting at. Can we do an extraordinary amount? Because, again, we're kind of looking
at extraordinary, extenuating circumstances that are impacting more than just the development of that
particular property. So in the greater court's tradition, you have to look at what happens if everything
falls apart and we wait two years, even if you have to pull this.
And that was the question I was asking. Is that like, the answer you're comfortable with giving or do
you need to talk with legal? Because that's what, you know, I was really kind of pondering. I suspect
what we're doing is kicking the can. Well, we could maybe kick the can with a better advantage for the county to
maybe see him done, like if we asked him for like $450,000 instead of 377, is that possible or a 20%
increase? I'm not gonna try to get that math. And then even reduce the duration of it to one year, yeah.
And then if they don't, then maybe we actually can cover some of that engineering. Well, we can't use
that, but we can at least cover all the improvement. Is there a way to put,
engineering work into a performance bond? I don't believe so under the state code. So the state requires
us to, we must accept a bond, in return we create the loss. That's the option he's provided us with.
Now once he goes along and he does those improvements, what our estimate has been historically really
bad at doing, because we are not allowed, is saying
What's the contingency for if you do this wrong? So we put in a sidewalk for 10 feet, and it costs us
$100. If you put that in wrong, it's now $60 to take it out, $40 to regrade it, and $100 per day. So
we have $200 for that 10 feet, but we only estimate $100. So that's the problem. Too much liability
to take on. Something we did at the US government level when I was in Washington,
Yes, we did. Performance-based contracting. Okay, so if in fact you do something, you're rewarded for
doing something. Particularly if you do it ahead of schedule. It's performance-based, so it's based
upon that metric. I haven't heard that in any of the discussions we've had ever. At this level, maybe
it's not something that's even relevant to this level. Has that ever been discussed before? You don't
think it's legal?
I mean, Dave would have to say we aren't able to bring in past. Consider past performance, but as he
performs, couldn't you decrease the bond amount relative to that as a reward for getting it done? Yeah,
that's it.
You're asking for way more than you need. You cover all the circumstances to diminish it over time.
Nothing else is wrong. I have to just just say something just global on this because we get you know
we're all concerned about affordable housing and we are all concerned about the stewardship of our community.
Now when we
asked for these bonds there, even though we should not be concerned about it, there are costs associated
with taking out these bonds for the developer. And probably, and I don't know exactly how it works,
but probably depending upon their credit rating, it's more or less. And so all those costs get added
back into the housing development.
the one thing we want to encourage is good behavior. And we want to do what Colonel Ferris has been
talking about, that's compliance and intent. And I think that we have a duty to ascertain the level
of due diligence of this particular development and then try to work with them to keep the
costs down at the same time cover the exposure the county has with regard to unconsidered costs such
as engineering studies and timeline. It's a tough one. It's a tough one because it's costing the surrounding
properties additional exposure. There's inflation on their building costs. There's inflation on their
Facing opportunity costs, certainly at least. And I just, I'm flummoxed. I would like to see this. I
would like to see good wind. I'd like to see, you know, good wind. I think we should consider extending
this for a much shorter period. I'm thinking like four months. I think that was in July.
And I think it gives us a point to, or gives us a reason to do research again. And then to your point,
Steve, if the asphalt path's done and we can drop this down a little bit, but at that point, if we just
think that we're gonna cash it and let the county take over, there's still time in this construction
season to get some of this done before winter, I think. I think that's where I'm at right now. Technically,
if you took no action,
He still has a performance period until August 18th of 26th. So if we put it off until, say, early August,
that would be the start of when he needs to renew his performance period. So we could take the same
amount of money we have today and let him renew that for six or less months. And then bring it back
and say, we are not
We're not looking to fit. We would like you to try and make more progress in these items. But we could
extend it for four months at the $371,000. I've had more money. Yeah, I think the people have been deflated.
Yeah. Is there a downside? No, just the performance period based on an annual basis, so we don't.
If we're doing 10% per year, we were assuming that 371 numbers for 26 to 27 and 27 to 28. We're also
within the year of 26. I don't know that the code applies to the 10% annual because we haven't moved
a year. So I don't know what we would be able to do in terms of that. Could we at least crank it 15%
to cover tariffs? Yeah.
Because that's the problem. It's like, we're focused on the increased cost, but we can't take into account
everything beyond inflation, which includes tariffs right now, which are going to come back into play.
So the concern is really just how do we account for that? Because we don't want that money. It's there
in case we need it. And so if we need it, we don't want to come to a less than full cup.
So I think what I heard you say is that we leave the pop alone of the way it's stated and you don't
do anything with respect to increasing the bond amount because we can't prorate to 10% because it's
not a full calendar or fiscal year, whatever we're using. Didn't I hear what you heard you say? That's
what the text says currently is a full fiscal year. So we could just continue this to August. They need
to hear our question about intent. Right. Yeah.
And this period that we're allowing them to complete is all about intent. And we need to see progress.
Right? Does that make sense? Yes. Again, systemic down compliance is the issue here. I agree.
I like that, Chris. And we got a couple new acronyms today.
I like that. Every now and again, I put on my DC hat and I quote and sew this nonsensical brooch that
we use in this Washington DC area. Margaret, to answer your question about the update on litigation,
Dave wrote to us and said that parties are currently conducting discovery and that there's a status
conference scheduled for June 30th at 8.30 AM. Okay. That's not necessarily going to
resolve quickly. So that's in the legal system. So just our job is not in the legal system, but we need
to be informed. So would you like to bring this back in early August then before the performance period
expiration? Please, Scott. Just one final thing. I definitely feel like you're attempting and doing your
absolute best at putting the county in a good position and trying to work with folks to see these projects
to the finish line, if you will. So I understand that there's a lot going on in this discussion, but
I'm just going to go ahead and let you know that I'm most likely going to support staff's recommendation. So
or just wanted you to know that, because there's a lot of things being juggled here simultaneously.
I think you can maybe take our comments and see if that could refine some of how we do this. But ultimately,
I'm most likely going to defer to your recommendation. So that's my position on this discussion as of
now, is your recommendation that you, unless that has changed throughout this discussion. Is Julie still
with us? Yeah.
She's there. I don't think she has her hand raised. Is it possible to extend this for six months? A
lot of credit can be extended for any period of time. Right. That's the thing that's expected already.
So hear me out. Extend it for six months, more or less, and add in
half of the increase that you're requesting of the, you know, the three, 33, 738, more or less divided
by two, you can bump this system up by half of what you're looking for your full increase and say, because
I expect the developers going to come back and say, well, why are you jacking me up? And I would answer that.
we're giving to six months to kind of show us some movement. And if we don't see movement, then this
is going to happen again in another six months with another increase. So it keeps us stable as far as
the 10% that we're allowed to collect. We're collected 5% for six months. So essentially what you're
doing is you're keeping the top. Yep. What you're doing is you're extending the literal credit
and with a certain amount of money. And what would the certain amount of money be? I believe that we
would have the ability to collect the reasonable amount up until their performance query end dates.
They reported signed up and said, we will finish by August 18, 2016. An extension of six months beyond
that, I can see the 5%.
But I don't see between today and August 18, 2026, an ability under the current code, because they already
have approval for this performance period to adjust for the function. So I think that's carrots too.
We're bringing this back based on one of credit expiration dates, which I understand is confusing, but
really we're going after this performance period. I can't think of the dates. Multiple dates can always
happen with the piece.
I think you leave the pop alone, and I think you just take and adjust whatever that delta is on a lot
of credit, but that's it. That's the incentive to take and work toward these items, which you're probably
not going to take and have much progress on, but you'll want to do another pop here. So this is continued.
Do you need a motion for us to continue this until the meeting on August
whatever, and can we vote on it at that admin meeting? Or must we just vote on it at the end of the
meeting? Okay, so do you know what date that is in August, the first day in August? It might actually
be. Do we need to vote? August 4th? August 4th. You what? You need to give me an idea, keep going.
I got it. So you always used to contract. My coffee says the 4th. It must have been.
Continue this item to the August 4th administrative meeting. I don't want no language. On the disposition
of the extension of the bond. Hey, there's a motion on the table. Right here a second. I'll tell you
what I'm sorry I was talking. Do you want to could you re-state the motion? We continue this item. SIA-22-3.
to the August 4th administrative meeting of the planning commission, at which point we will consider
and delivery both the extension period and the amount of the increase of the bond amount. I second that.
Okay, it's been moved and seconded to continue SA-22-3 until August 4th planning commission administrative
meeting to re-discuss the
I'm out in the performance period. And in the meantime, staff will reach out to let the petitioner know
that they need to make progress on items noted in the report and encourage them to re listen to tonight's
hearing. I vote yes. Is the vote to continue this item to August. This doesn't change my support when
we get to that.
I think this is fine. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion does carry 6 to 0 discussion
discussion. Okay. Thank you all for that.
I'm screaming right along. Hopefully we see some progress. Yes, hopefully we do. All right. Unfinished
business. P. U. O. dash 23 dash five Highlands P. U. D. Outline Plan Amendment to parcel D. So similar
petitioner here is written to name, but it's the same person.
We did meet with the developer for this neighborhood this afternoon and actually went through the two
inspection reports line by line, and they are agreeable to making some changes. That's correct. So we're
going to report back since that just happened this afternoon, we're going to report back on what the
changes are before the planned commission meeting. So we basically went through
these four questions that you all had with them. So they are under number three, willing to make the
changes for Wiccans, and also under item number one, willing to make some changes for range recircle.
So we will report back on that. Number two, the HOA, they confirmed, the attorney confirmed there is
no HOA. They were mistaken in that during the testimony, they misunderstood.
but that they could create an H2A, but they have no interest in selling any of the lots at this point,
so they are not intending on creating an H2A. And then number four, the petitioner's number for a letter
of credit. We talked with their engineer about this, and we are going to, we have a little bit of a
strategy for how we can get to that number. They believe, and I will have to double check with legal
and highway,
that the driveways that you saw in the photos, since those are outside of the right of way, they believe
there's a design where they could potentially not touch the slope of those driveways, but still fix
the sidewalk by doing the apron to the road and meeting ADA. So a unit price for removing and replacing
sidewalk, which we have from NDOT. So we will get that to you. That's the update on that case.
One question, as far as if they're going to keep that slope and maybe reconfigure the sidewalk, is that
going to impact stormwater and drainage? Are we going to be satisfactory on those fronts because we're
talking about the volume or the speed of the water going down?
I think that they have signed off on the ponds and so they are pretty, there's inlets in this area.
So I think that they're. I'm talking about like just the potential speed that the water could go and
then the sizing of the piping to make sure that like it's not restrictive. And that's just kind of a
thought I have is like if the volume of the water should be moving faster that
create the possibility of the ponding quicker. And if the sizing of the inlets are equipped for that
type of volume, then we're going to see some ponding. Yeah, so that's kind of just my thought. So maybe
just get some more feedback that there isn't another deficiency trying to remean, fix one of the other
deficiencies. OK. Sorry, first?
Did you all read this summary table on the inspection checklist? I mean, did you see the extensive?
This is not a simple little, also very expensive. So tell me again, what did you just say about them
looking at this list? We looked at it together this afternoon and went through it line by line and they
decided which ones we took notes. Yes, I will make that change. No, I will not make that change. Okay.
Can you tell us what those were?
Um, I can, I have some rough notes, but- Well, here, I mean, you can- It's gonna be in the presentation.
What's that? I mean, we'll get the packet out next week and- Yeah, I know. But see, that, that's part
of this discussion now because it's relevant. And that's part of it's- Do you want to break you first?
Again, I keep bringing up subsisting non- systemic non-compliance. This is the non-compliance right
here, and it's been going on for years. I mean, this was done, this inspection report,
was done in 2023. Right here. And the problem still exists. The discussion about the private road, did
you bring that up? Did we talk about the private road? Arrange you? That's a different one, right? That's
a different one. I think it's in this packet, though.
I saw private. I saw private road up here. Wiggins. You're in Wiggins, I think. Wiggins and Ranger.
So they're asking for Ranger to become private there in order to get Wiggins accepted. So on my notes,
I'll go through what he was willing to change. So the first was
They were going to relook at the manhole 207 to be flush with the roadway. We looked at the picture,
it's slightly sunken, and they said they would look at that, but that it was good for plowing to have
that a little lower than the profile we wrote. Then the lower the water shutoff valves, once we looked
at the photos, they said they would work to do that. The mailboxes, they said that they would work to do that.
They are currently in the right of way, and we have another location, but we need to check with USPS.
The angled parking, this was a contention point, so that angled parking, where it's supposed to be parallel
parking, if everyone can envision that, or I can pull the picture. That, they said that because they
have such, they have those units right in front of those, or three bedroom each,
they have a parking capacity problem. So if they switch them from angle to parallel, they lose spaces.
Additionally, I asked Daniel Butler, you know, because we had the conversation about the school bus,
school buses do not come around there, is what they're saying, but a fire truck, they said can fit,
but they originally in that proposal for the construction plans made it parallel to in part,
meet the turning radius and the turning movements for construction and engineering. So I asked Daniel
Butler to report back on whether that angled parking impacts his original recommendation that it can
meet, you know, movement requirements for a fire truck or a semi truck, things like that. So that's
That was that discussion. They would not, they will do this if they absolutely have to, but they said
the tenants will be extremely unhappy. You're not going to be able to get a plow, a bus, a moving van.
You're not going to be able to go out there and drive, just drive through that neighborhood and go through
that area over there. It's also, and it hadn't been brought up here. It's a safety issue with children.
Right. Anybody who's doing like compact signs, compact cars only, which
maybe get limited compliance with those types of self-limiting signs, so. When I lived in Virginia,
I lived in a townhouse complex and we had, I was actually on a HOA board. We had an issue with children
and parking because of the kids outing out between the vehicles. You've got to really be careful when
you take it, when you put and make it so dense with vehicles. You're just asking for somebody to get
hit. I mean, it's a real safety issue.
So that was these three items. Stop bars are willing to put in. So that was something they said yes
to. Private water line, we're going to recheck with Highway. We believe that they're public based on
the engineer's remembrance of the project, but we're going to just make sure we're all on the same page
for what they're talking about in terms of this comment here. The private water line.
So it is CBU. CBU covers the sewer and the water, but I guess there was an existing private water line
from the subdivision to the south. You mean with a small water corporation? Is it still in fact a different
water corporation? Is that what you mean? It must be. I need to get a little bit more clarity on that
comment, because it is CBU serviced. So I'm not sure, because you would not consider it private.
Right, I would like to know if the small water corporation sold that water line to CBU or whether or
not, I just have no idea what that means. Right, okay. So we'll get a little bit more clarity on that.
And then 139 feet of sidewalk, they do not want to do that. That's the one that's to the north with
the angled driveways. So they're not interested in making that
Improvement though, we are going to estimate what it would cost based on the removal and replacement
from an engineer's perspective. They are not wanting to replace the cracked sidewalk. This sidewalk
against back of curb measures five feet wide. Sidewalk located back of curb must be six feet wide. In
review of the approved plans, we did see that there was five feet.
though ADA says six feet, so they were hesitant to do that because again, that would take up more of
that area that they're very limited to with the cross-silt problem. We said five, I'm good with that.
Okay. That was more of just like a point when you get out. Private signage, they have a block camera
with a sign on it and another sign. They said that they are
not interested in moving those signs if they can avoid it. But one of them was easy to move the flock
camera, so maybe it's not. Is that a private agreement with the flock? I didn't have to do that, but
I'm guessing yes. I think that's worth a question, because I know there's been some re-evaluation by
the city level. So I mean, from our side of things, that's something that- Right.
Yeah, it was like, if that's an agreement between him and Flock, it's not what it's supposed to be.
Right. Yeah, that would be our ultimate, like, we just move it, but they're saying that's a just word.
That's their answer. I'm sorry, I wrote to Jackie in advance of the meeting to say that I have to leave
at 7, big team. Will that ruin our quorum?
wasn't planning on coming until I knew I needed to be there in person. So I am more than eager to meet
that. So I just want to make that if we go through this loss, we will exhaust time. And so the other
ones seem like they could be quite quick. I just have I just had one last. I don't I don't know. I don't
want to stifle you from going here. One last questions or anything. This has become the center grab
it right here. This is our gravity and bless you for going through and talking about
having a nice fruitful conversation about what they can or they will not do or about planning. And so
if we were to take a look at this using that as a center of gravity, I mean, at the next time this comes
up, I know if it's not addressed, I plan on bringing it up. Okay, let's go to this and show us what
you can and what you can do, you won't do, or you've discussed with planning and you decided it's not
required. And at the end of the day, when I go back to this summary page, which says,
what the results are, and it says fail. At the end of the day, after you've done that analysis on what
they can and cannot and will not or what you agree they're not required to do, if it still says fail,
then we're into systemic noncompliance again. That's the bottom line. I didn't have the question. I
watched the video and the discussion, but I'm not sure if you addressed this. And if you did, maybe
it didn't resonate with me, but with them wanting to keep the roads private,
I hope this doesn't create this whole debate again because there's an interesting meeting. Does the
planning commission have a role in that? So we would have to amend the outline plan. That's what I thought.
I just wasn't sure and I figured. That was my key question. We need to do with this worksheet right here.
is color code on, not necessarily these colors, but what they're going to do and what they're not going
to do and what you say is no longer relevant and it's no longer required. Because that little summary
is going to lead in that discussion and that should be shared with before the next meeting with the
petitioner so they know exactly what we're going to talk about. Again, this is incentive. It gets you
toward compliance, et cetera. Because I was on the client commission when this was approved originally,
The entire approval for this project in my opinion, in my memory, relied entirely on whether or not
the boat would become public. So that is the very thing that intentionally has not been done. So because
housing affordability, street maintenance, snow removal. We made concessions on widths. We made concessions
on driveway depths. Susie and Julie and Lee and I and other people were working on this to do everything
we could to ensure that the streets would be accepted into the public inventory. So I'm unwilling.
to allow this myself to be remain a private road. Now Lisa has said at the last meeting, she does not
want it. So to me that just resounds with even more problems. And I think those comments need to be
fixed. And to be clear, it's a planned commission final decision with the outline amendment or does
that then goes to the board of commission? Okay.
That's really where I was trying to get at with the process question. Thank you. Okay, so are the point
PD this and we didn't share with them the easements. It was an easement and a contribution before the
documents. So that document is privately enforced.
What we discussed with the petitioner is even if we were able to add the use of the self-storage, they
would have to figure out the easement conflicts before we could approve the development because we cannot
approve a storage unit over an easement. So to my knowledge, we don't have any update from them after
they've received that document. So that could be one that they
If they don't have an answer to us by next meeting. Just continued. Okay, so we'll just tell them if
we don't have an answer, substantive answer for the planning commission, we're just going to continue
this on. Okay. Should we make a motion to continue it unless it's resolved or just continue it? We can
just communicate that to them, I think. Sounds good. I don't want to evaluate this.
validity of their response, but if they don't have any update, then I'm going to say it's easily continued.
Yeah, sounds good. There's a lot more to that discussion. All right. And then these last two, the first
one went to black leaf and it was recommended to move forward. They are still missing their average
daily trip data, which we've given them until Friday to get to us.
That will determine the labor for the road with based on your that's the truth generation matters. So
is this something we approved? Or is that the next meeting would be a fine commission decision if they
went, but it's a preliminary hearing. Yeah, in if they weren't asked for the word with labor and then
plat committee decision and Mr Bush is serving as the chair of the plat committee this year, which is nice and.
I'm sure it's been clearly indicated to the petitioner that they can kind of do the back of the neck
and daily average travel. That is given theirs with the Highway Department gave them an exact template
to use. Yeah, yeah, because that's what he alluded to was okay. Okay, I just want to make sure so it
makes it easier for them to achieve. Okay. And then the next fact, friends, this is your MedFram 5B.
This is how other
One interesting one in that the lot currently has this. They found out after they filed with us that
the easement they thought they had through their neighbors is not real. It was not recorded. So they
currently have no access to this lot and would be creating a plot that changes the lot line and still
does not have access to County Road.
You know, the ordinance requires that this is what the lot would look like. So this lot to the east,
which does have access, would be getting bigger. They want to build a home on this area here. So they
want to apply some of this area. There's a very, very steep ravine here. So there's no way to access
from this lot over to this lot by driveway.
It would be extremely steeped down, extremely steeped up. So their main way is to come out to go up
to this way, which I think is actually the best way. Thank you. So they do not have access. They won't
have access. The question is, can we waive the requirement that they have to be accessed first to create
this plaque?
Um, if we do that, if the planning commission approves the waiver, you know, we have findings in the
packet. Something that we're always concerned about is buyer beware and putting that stamp on something
was very, very small thing. And by the way, it looks like we don't have any access to it, so you cannot
develop it. Um, so we did give some options under the report, uh, that we're welcoming discussion on
at the regular meeting or now if you did think
to approve or want to approve the way to request at the next commission meeting, we would say that there
should be a note that lot one is inaccessible, cannot be further developed, almost just say
like non-buildable all over, noted on the deed and on the plaque. So, and then if they want to remove
that in the future, they would have to come back to the planning commission to remove it. But ultimately,
we really think
They should get the access figured out before we do anything. I think you're creating a precedent, again,
by allowing, if in fact we would take and approve something. My question is, has it been done? Yeah,
they already don't have access. You didn't see that. What I wrote on top of this is, what I wrote on
top of this was, not ready for prime time. That's what I wrote. This needs a little bit more.
Did we get totally? Well, I think we did. Good job, buddy. All right. Any other business to take care
of? I was going to move for adjournment, but I don't want to jump in front of staff to update.
Anything else? No, I was just asking. No, thank you. All right. I move for adjournment. I moved.
All right. Thank you. Thanks, everyone.