WEBVTT 00:00:00.354 --> 00:00:07.086 - We're going to go ahead and call the continuation of the Monroe County Planning Commission meeting to 00:00:07.086 --> 00:00:13.819 - order. This is from the, I guess it was the 23rd of September to tonight, which is October 6th, 2026. 00:00:13.819 --> 00:00:20.749 - And we're just going to go ahead and put some formalities in place and then we'll take and pick up where 00:00:20.749 --> 00:00:27.680 - we left off. What is the roll call, please? Will you determine quorum? Yes. David Bush, Margaret Clemens 00:00:27.680 --> 00:00:29.726 - here, Tron and Wright-Randall. 00:00:31.202 --> 00:00:40.255 - Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, 00:00:40.255 --> 00:00:49.308 - here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, 00:00:49.308 --> 00:00:55.166 - here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, 00:00:55.554 --> 00:01:00.640 - I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance 00:01:00.640 --> 00:01:05.978 - has adopted and amended. The Monroe County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Control Ordinance has adopted 00:01:05.978 --> 00:01:11.115 - and amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan has adopted and amended. The Monroe County Planning 00:01:11.115 --> 00:01:16.150 - Commission Rules and Procedures has adopted and amended. And the cases that were legally advertised 00:01:16.150 --> 00:01:21.438 - and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's agenda. Do I have a motion for approval? Move approval. Second. 00:01:21.762 --> 00:01:32.032 - So move and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence about yes is about to approve Tronin right 00:01:32.032 --> 00:01:41.907 - Randolph. I'll pass. Okay. Scott Farris. Yes. Rudy Field. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. 00:01:41.907 --> 00:01:48.030 - Mayor Clements. Yes. Okay. Motion passes five to zero to one. 00:01:48.418 --> 00:01:55.457 - The agenda has not changed. We're going to have one in continuation of unfinished business from the 00:01:55.457 --> 00:02:02.566 - last meeting. Since there are no changes, I'll still ask for approval for the agenda, please. Motion 00:02:02.566 --> 00:02:09.605 - to approve. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve tonight's agenda. A vote yes is a 00:02:09.605 --> 00:02:16.926 - vote to approve as presented. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. 00:02:19.170 --> 00:02:27.439 - I'll pass. Just because I'm driving and I don't want to have my video on outside of maybe the voting 00:02:27.439 --> 00:02:36.035 - action. OK, motion does carry 5 to 0 to 1. There are no minutes to approve. We move on to administrative 00:02:36.035 --> 00:02:44.958 - business. We did that in the last reading, so we're not going to repeat it here. That means this moves us to 00:02:45.090 --> 00:02:51.607 - unfinished business, which has continued from the 23rd of September. And what we're talking about is 00:02:51.607 --> 00:02:58.189 - SPP 26-1. And who's going to give us a quick summary on where we were? I'll give you a quick summary. 00:02:58.189 --> 00:03:04.900 - So we did hear this case at the September 23rd Planning Commission meeting. And there were five members 00:03:04.900 --> 00:03:11.998 - in person at that meeting. And there was not a majority vote. And so this got continued to tonight's meeting. 00:03:12.450 --> 00:03:19.585 - The petition is to create four lots with labor requests, including the road with two points of ingress, 00:03:19.585 --> 00:03:26.446 - egress, street tree, and then also a partial plot vacations. The reason this is a major subdivision 00:03:26.446 --> 00:03:33.787 - is they're vacating out of an existing minor subdivision, and the only option under that is to resubdivide 00:03:33.787 --> 00:03:40.510 - as a major subdivision. One of the questions that we had during the regular meeting was about the 00:03:41.250 --> 00:03:50.085 - Uh, surveyors notation of lot four being for recreation use. It is a very, um, difficult lot to develop. 00:03:50.085 --> 00:03:59.005 - It has steep slopes, drainage easements, course features. Um, and so it's right now used for agricultural 00:03:59.005 --> 00:04:07.420 - purposes. And so there was a concern about the ability to maybe preserve trees or what recreational 00:04:07.420 --> 00:04:11.038 - use would be on a lot. And the petitioner. 00:04:11.266 --> 00:04:18.899 - did not offer a tree preservation or any other preservation on this lot four, but they did state that 00:04:18.899 --> 00:04:26.607 - they may be able to on lot three. So the petition site does include several waivers, but does meet the 00:04:26.607 --> 00:04:34.165 - criteria in the county development ordinance for subdivision. And so I did pull out of the standards 00:04:34.165 --> 00:04:38.430 - for subdivision section 832-7, it says non-doubable lot, 00:04:39.074 --> 00:04:44.744 - land which the Commission finds to be unsuitable for subdivision or development because of flooding, 00:04:44.744 --> 00:04:50.750 - improper drainage, steep slopes, rock formations, adverse earth formations, topography, utility easements, 00:04:50.750 --> 00:04:56.476 - environmental constraints, or other features which might reasonably be harmful to safety, health, and 00:04:56.476 --> 00:05:02.258 - general welfare of the present or future inhabitants of the subdivision and or surrounding areas shall 00:05:02.258 --> 00:05:03.998 - not be subdivided or developed 00:05:04.354 --> 00:05:10.691 - and less adequate methods are formulated by the developer and approved by the commission to solve the 00:05:10.691 --> 00:05:17.215 - problems created by the unsuitable land conditions. Such land shall be set aside for such uses permitted 00:05:17.215 --> 00:05:23.677 - by this ordinance and shall not involve any such danger. This provision shall not apply to lots created 00:05:23.677 --> 00:05:28.958 - with a note stating that it's only for agricultural production or conservation only. 00:05:29.410 --> 00:05:35.911 - So if lot four is later down the road, if they come back and say they want this to be a buildable lot, 00:05:35.911 --> 00:05:42.286 - I think we could reopen the discussion on this lot being considered, whether it's a buildable lot or 00:05:42.286 --> 00:05:48.850 - not, because of its configuration, drainage measurements, et cetera, to even get access to it. So right 00:05:48.850 --> 00:05:55.414 - now we are recommending that a condition be placed at the lot, instead of saying recreational purposes, 00:05:55.414 --> 00:05:59.390 - we say it's for agricultural production and conservation only. 00:06:00.706 --> 00:06:07.232 - There is a state code that does limit the planning department's authority to prevent an owner from removing 00:06:07.232 --> 00:06:13.698 - all mineral resources, including logging the property. So should the planning commission move to condition 00:06:13.698 --> 00:06:19.740 - that the property owner replace a portion or all block four on a conservation easement, which would 00:06:19.740 --> 00:06:25.662 - prevent the removal of vegetation, it should be taken under advisement with the legal department. 00:06:26.082 --> 00:06:31.302 - And I didn't include the definition of conservation easement since that is probably the most fitting 00:06:31.302 --> 00:06:33.214 - for the last meeting's conversation. 00:06:34.338 --> 00:06:39.535 - And I stated after speaking with legal, the grounds for which the planning commission could require 00:06:39.535 --> 00:06:44.733 - some level of preservation is likely under the street tree requirement and request for a waiver. So 00:06:44.733 --> 00:06:50.190 - anytime they're asking for a waiver, that means they're not meeting the standard, that specific standard 00:06:50.190 --> 00:06:55.439 - of the subdivision ordinance. If they're meeting all other standards, then we're not able to ask for 00:06:55.439 --> 00:06:57.726 - things in return for meeting that standard. 00:06:58.562 --> 00:07:04.817 - but we did say that the requirement would have led to 18 trees along the frontage of the property if 00:07:04.817 --> 00:07:11.195 - the street tree waiver is denied or the Planning Commission could accept a written commitment for tree 00:07:11.195 --> 00:07:17.574 - preservation elsewhere on the property. And then we're just stating again that this was continued from 00:07:17.574 --> 00:07:24.076 - September 23rd to tonight's meeting and that would be a decision, a final decision could be made tonight 00:07:24.076 --> 00:07:27.358 - since this is a continuation of the regular hearing. 00:07:27.938 --> 00:07:40.652 - So I will pull up the lot flat for us. So here's the configuration, and this is lot four. So lot one, 00:07:40.652 --> 00:07:53.241 - lot two, and lot three would have septic sites before we get into some of the drainage easements and 00:07:53.241 --> 00:07:56.606 - then our sharing driveway. 00:07:57.282 --> 00:08:07.038 - to this location here. And then I believe there's already a driveway on this side. Are there any questions 00:08:07.038 --> 00:08:16.156 - or do we still have any other information? Commissioner Thomas. So what I had asked about was doing 00:08:16.156 --> 00:08:25.365 - a conditional approval with tree preservation on the steep slope areas in lot four and the Snakewell 00:08:25.365 --> 00:08:27.006 - Conservancy area. 00:08:27.810 --> 00:08:40.470 - And they didn't do that. They didn't offer that. Okay. Well, then. Okay. Any other questions from the 00:08:40.470 --> 00:08:52.510 - plant commission? We're online with. Yeah, I see that. Did you have any questions? No questions. 00:08:54.050 --> 00:09:03.240 - All right, so we go to the petitioner on any comments or changes or anything you want to talk about? 00:09:03.240 --> 00:09:12.339 - Well, just like we discussed, is there a way to go on the screen up there with the plant? We talked 00:09:12.339 --> 00:09:21.438 - about putting the tree preservation on lot three, on that one drainage. This lot right there. Yeah. 00:09:21.602 --> 00:09:29.724 - So we talked about last time offering the tree preservation in this area right there. And then one question 00:09:29.724 --> 00:09:37.696 - that I had was this has always been a recreational law. Now we've got the word conservation law in there. 00:09:37.696 --> 00:09:46.270 - And if it's a recreational law, does it have different standards? I'm not sure where the new conservation law is. 00:09:47.106 --> 00:09:55.106 - It's our family farm, it's where we hunt, where there's a little hay, we buy a little corn. So I don't 00:09:55.106 --> 00:10:03.183 - know why the different terminology there. So, essentially, I'm not sure where the surveyor came up with 00:10:03.183 --> 00:10:09.086 - the language for recreation purposes only. That's not something in our CIO. 00:10:09.218 --> 00:10:18.478 - So the agricultural production or conservation only allows you to create a lot that doesn't otherwise 00:10:18.478 --> 00:10:28.464 - meet the standards typically, so. Is that is it either or both? It can be or it's or agricultural productions 00:10:28.464 --> 00:10:37.543 - and in conversation with Eric today on the course features on lot four in the sinkhole and then the 00:10:37.543 --> 00:10:38.814 - steep slopes. 00:10:39.202 --> 00:10:46.813 - and wherever the logging come from, we have no intentions of logging, except if we have our intention. 00:10:46.813 --> 00:10:54.276 - But isn't there already some restrictions in the rural county code about where have the steep slopes 00:10:54.276 --> 00:11:01.887 - or where you can log in that cars feature? It depends, but if you're outside of a watershed area, then 00:11:01.887 --> 00:11:09.054 - an outside of an urban area, it is pretty limited in what we're able to regulate per state code. 00:11:09.602 --> 00:11:15.856 - Well, we are almost at the finish line on this and that the meeting on the 23rd was the first time anybody 00:11:15.856 --> 00:11:21.760 - had ever mentioned about tree preservation, except for the 18 trees. They've mentioned that from the 00:11:21.760 --> 00:11:27.605 - work from the get-go. So we were kind of caught off guard by this on the last meeting. And we would 00:11:27.605 --> 00:11:33.859 - be happy to give the tree preservation little spot there on lot three, but we do not want any restrictions 00:11:33.859 --> 00:11:36.606 - on lot four. I mean, that's my brother's part. 00:11:36.994 --> 00:11:44.398 - You know, I don't want any restrictions on his land, as far as, not that, and he can speak for himself, 00:11:44.398 --> 00:11:52.088 - not that he wants to temper that or has any intentions of tempering, you know. Since it has no restrictions 00:11:52.088 --> 00:11:59.278 - now, we would like to keep it that way. Any comments from the plant commission? Commissioner Thomas. 00:11:59.278 --> 00:12:06.398 - Well, it's nice to say you're going to, you're willing to offer a tree preservation area. The idea, 00:12:06.754 --> 00:12:14.934 - The idea is not just to preserve trees. The idea is to prevent erosion. And you can't do that by having 00:12:14.934 --> 00:12:23.035 - trees elsewhere. It's the erosion potential on steep slopes and in the sinkhole areas that worries me. 00:12:23.035 --> 00:12:31.057 - And so tree preservation elsewhere doesn't mitigate the erosion issue that can occur with logging. So 00:12:31.057 --> 00:12:34.046 - I'm going to be a no-go. I can't. So. 00:12:34.626 --> 00:12:40.785 - Well, we are good stewards of the land. This is my grandpa's farm. We don't want erosion. We don't want 00:12:40.785 --> 00:12:46.826 - the land tore up. I appreciate that. And I appreciate... We want to be best suited on deciding how we 00:12:46.826 --> 00:12:53.044 - go about that. Right. Can we just pull up the... Do we have an overhead? I think you do on one of these, 00:12:53.044 --> 00:12:59.026 - showing the land for the all three lots and where the trees are and where the erosion is, et cetera, 00:12:59.026 --> 00:13:02.046 - so we can just get a better understanding of that. 00:13:04.194 --> 00:13:19.659 - You're supposed to send in. There's a hand raised there. I didn't see a hand raised. We'll get to you 00:13:19.659 --> 00:13:21.630 - in a second. 00:13:31.234 --> 00:13:38.995 - I want to get a better understanding about what we're talking about for tree preservation for erosion 00:13:38.995 --> 00:13:44.702 - and comments that Commissioner Thomas made and what the problem really is. 00:13:58.658 --> 00:14:10.149 - So let's begin with Julie's concern on what she's talking about. I like this parcel here is lot four. 00:14:10.149 --> 00:14:21.528 - And that's it. Okay. Yeah. And then the pressure is not worked out on that. And that would be on the 00:14:21.528 --> 00:14:25.246 - two foot contours showing up as. 00:14:26.818 --> 00:14:54.238 - clothes contours, so these would be the karst areas here. They actually planted a larger area. 00:14:56.482 --> 00:15:06.987 - So in order to satisfy commissioners Thomas's concerns, what is a, what is a solution for this area? 00:15:06.987 --> 00:15:17.909 - What does the petitioner have to do to satisfy commissioner Thomas? I would say a referred to commitment 00:15:17.909 --> 00:15:25.918 - not to log 25% slope in the SCA area marked on the survey or map. That's it. 00:15:30.242 --> 00:15:38.979 - thing we talked about last time at Whirling. All right, so that's a requirement. The building department 00:15:38.979 --> 00:15:47.133 - wouldn't let you build on that. Yeah, but it's locking hands with the future people in my family. 00:15:47.133 --> 00:15:55.870 - You know, I've got a son who's almost 18, so basically I'd be his being a piece of property with strings 00:15:55.870 --> 00:15:59.614 - attached. It's like his inheritance that I'm 00:16:00.514 --> 00:16:14.249 - withholding some from he ever wanted timber. Alright, Tron, are you still have question? Yes. A question 00:16:14.249 --> 00:16:27.462 - kind of around the whole petition. This is more for Jackie or planning. Could you? And there's a two 00:16:27.462 --> 00:16:30.078 - part question here, 00:16:30.338 --> 00:16:39.913 - ask one and then go into the other one. Could you tell me what the petitioner is not in compliance with 00:16:39.913 --> 00:16:49.303 - currently? Sure. So when we went to the subdivision portion of the CDO, the items that the petitioner 00:16:49.303 --> 00:16:58.878 - was not able to meet included the items that they're asking for waivers for. So that is the road width, 00:16:59.330 --> 00:17:06.418 - So the road width is less than 18 feet. However, they've divided the average daily trips and that's 00:17:06.418 --> 00:17:13.647 - well below what the threshold is. They do not meet the two points of interest egress, which for rural 00:17:13.647 --> 00:17:20.735 - areas, difficult to meet. So it would be two connected access ways from a public road. They also do 00:17:20.735 --> 00:17:25.342 - not meet the street tree waiver for the street tree requirement. 00:17:25.538 --> 00:17:33.121 - They would like to ask for a waiver instead of planting the trees and there are only, I believe, 12 00:17:33.121 --> 00:17:40.704 - trees that can feasibly be preserved with the location of the shared driveway that they're going to 00:17:40.704 --> 00:17:48.438 - be having accessing the lots. Okay. Thank you. I just want to make sure I'm tracking correctly. I did 00:17:48.438 --> 00:17:53.822 - watch the original meeting and I have reviewed the packet. So highway, 00:17:54.562 --> 00:18:02.613 - has no concerns with the street tree waiver, correct? They're in support? They did not have a comment 00:18:02.613 --> 00:18:10.270 - specific to the street tree waiver, and I do think that they- No, no, no, road width waiver. Oh, 00:18:10.270 --> 00:18:18.163 - road width, I'm sorry. Yes, they didn't have an issue with the road width. Okay, and did we get any 00:18:18.163 --> 00:18:23.294 - feedback about the ingress egress? Two points of ingress egress. 00:18:23.650 --> 00:18:33.143 - Yeah, from highway. Not specifically. We did change that under the CDO. It used to say may require two 00:18:33.143 --> 00:18:42.451 - points of ingress, but now it says shall require two points of ingress. So that's just something new 00:18:42.451 --> 00:18:52.958 - in the CDO. And we're creating. Fairly large lot, so the two points of ingress egress is kind of. Baked in their. 00:18:53.218 --> 00:19:03.125 - for at least one purpose, which is traffic congestion and the other most likely connectivity. 00:19:03.125 --> 00:19:13.770 - Is that right? Generally speaking, yes. Okay. I don't see too much congestion and I don't see future 00:19:13.770 --> 00:19:21.886 - connectivity. So the street tree waiver is really the larger one that for my 00:19:22.818 --> 00:19:34.312 - observation of kind of nine years and some change, maybe 10 years on the plan commission. A lot of these 00:19:34.312 --> 00:19:45.368 - things are pretty straightforward and I feel like we favor the request for the waiver for the street 00:19:45.368 --> 00:19:48.542 - width in the ingress egress. 00:19:49.282 --> 00:20:00.259 - We do have a lot of conversations for the street tree waiver or a tree preservation. So, okay, now I'm 00:20:00.259 --> 00:20:11.024 - just gonna kind of put my comment out there. I think we're asking a bit more than what is really out 00:20:11.024 --> 00:20:19.230 - there because they're asking for the three waivers. Two, I am in support of. 00:20:19.394 --> 00:20:28.328 - the street tree I would like to see or tree preservation. If they complied with that, I wouldn't have 00:20:28.328 --> 00:20:37.087 - issues with the other, but the conversation is actually extending what is permitted on that lot and 00:20:37.087 --> 00:20:45.845 - restricting them. And finally, my last question is, you've mentioned that this might go in conflict 00:20:45.845 --> 00:20:47.422 - of what the state 00:20:48.386 --> 00:20:56.901 - has out there. So one of the only real ways is to make the petitioner to commit to this, which I feel 00:20:56.901 --> 00:21:05.583 - like is a very precarious situation to put someone in. And if our ordinance can't guide this, and we're 00:21:05.583 --> 00:21:14.099 - doing it just because they have to ask for waivers, which from my observation has been supported over 00:21:14.099 --> 00:21:17.438 - the years, except for the street trees. 00:21:18.818 --> 00:21:26.732 - I'm a little perplexed, but if the petitioner was willing to commit to the street trees or 00:21:26.732 --> 00:21:35.516 - a tree preservation, I'm more in favor of supporting this due to, you know, more broad fairness with 00:21:35.516 --> 00:21:44.386 - other parcels and lots that have the same type of restraints to it. And the fact that highway doesn't 00:21:44.386 --> 00:21:48.126 - have an issue with the street with waiver. 00:21:48.290 --> 00:21:58.633 - that's kind of where I'm at. And I just wanted to kind of go through what this discussion was and express 00:21:58.633 --> 00:22:08.682 - kind of where my position is. Thank you. All right. Anybody else? Any other commissioners up here wish 00:22:08.682 --> 00:22:17.854 - to chat? Mr. Rudy Fields. You know, Jackie, early on you read something about prohibitions of 00:22:18.946 --> 00:22:28.189 - mineral extraction, logging, and all that not really be in our purview. Is that accurate? So I'm happy 00:22:28.189 --> 00:22:37.342 - to pull up the state code if it's helpful to read the example. We're not able to prevent someone from 00:22:37.342 --> 00:22:46.046 - the complete alienation of mineral rights on their property, which includes logging or forestry. 00:22:46.466 --> 00:22:53.588 - outside of a quarter mile square. They don't have any regulatory issues. So that's why I was saying 00:22:53.588 --> 00:23:01.280 - urban. So we do like an urban analysis to see if the property is restricted, but even if it was restricted, 00:23:01.280 --> 00:23:08.403 - then we look at if it's in a watershed, this is not okay to them to eco or like lemon or shit. From 00:23:08.403 --> 00:23:13.246 - my perspective, I think they jumped through the hoops to get there. 00:23:13.762 --> 00:23:24.686 - Street tree waiver, they've added it on partial three. That was a tree preservation plot. Everybody 00:23:24.686 --> 00:23:35.828 - else is happy. I just don't see how we can say no to potential logging down the road. It just doesn't 00:23:35.828 --> 00:23:43.038 - sound like to me it's in our wheelhouse to do that. Anybody else? 00:23:45.506 --> 00:23:52.721 - What I'm trying to do is I'm trying to protect other landowners in the area from erosion and it's not 00:23:52.721 --> 00:23:59.936 - preventing them from logging anywhere on the property. It's preventing it in those select spots where 00:23:59.936 --> 00:24:07.080 - we used to have the ability to limit it and we don't anymore. And that's a protection and it's not a 00:24:07.080 --> 00:24:10.334 - complete, you know, no tree cutting anywhere. 00:24:10.946 --> 00:24:20.117 - It's not, it's not that at all. It's the 25% slope areas in the cars, concerns the area, which is not 00:24:20.117 --> 00:24:29.648 - a big proportion. It's not a majority. It's a minority of the property. So that's, that's what I'm trying 00:24:29.648 --> 00:24:38.730 - to do. I'm trying to accomplish this. Mr. Bishop. Oh, I appreciate it. You know, uh, interest in the 00:24:38.730 --> 00:24:40.798 - other property owners. 00:24:41.154 --> 00:24:47.434 - I believe that those property owners would have a similar platform to express their concern if that 00:24:47.434 --> 00:24:53.839 - was the case right. But they can come here and speak publicly about a concern about erosion of things 00:24:53.839 --> 00:24:58.046 - if that was a concern they had. The neighbors for the subdivision. 00:24:58.146 --> 00:25:03.705 - I mean, we wouldn't have noticed it about, we don't have a legal requirement notice for logging, but 00:25:03.705 --> 00:25:09.208 - if they did log and there was erosion problems, they could file a complaint and we would go out and 00:25:09.208 --> 00:25:14.987 - make sure the best management practices were followed. But by that point, there may, there would already 00:25:14.987 --> 00:25:20.490 - be erosion issues if that were the case. Yeah, it's more if there was an outstanding concern coming 00:25:20.490 --> 00:25:26.049 - down the road, this would be the platform with which it would be appropriate for them to show up and 00:25:26.049 --> 00:25:28.030 - express that. And they're not here. 00:25:30.018 --> 00:25:41.911 - I don't think anyone we haven't asked for remonstrators yet, but yeah, that's. Alright, anybody else? 00:25:41.911 --> 00:25:54.271 - Yeah, sorry, I forgot to lower it so I wasn't sure if it was noticeable. I appreciate that corner Colonel 00:25:54.271 --> 00:25:57.886 - Fares. My. My question is. Or. 00:25:57.986 --> 00:26:06.504 - My thought is, okay, so we can have this exact same partial configuration, but the road width is adequate, 00:26:06.504 --> 00:26:14.543 - and they have two points of ingress and egress, and they are now committing what it sounds like to a 00:26:14.543 --> 00:26:22.663 - tree preservation, this would be almost a by-right petition, is that correct? If they didn't have any 00:26:22.663 --> 00:26:27.678 - waivers, this would be a by-right subdivision, that's correct. 00:26:28.098 --> 00:26:36.351 - Right. And so the only way we could achieve this is making them commit to it. So if there are there 00:26:36.351 --> 00:26:45.099 - has to be comparable parcels out there that don't have those two waivers and we wouldn't have the ability 00:26:45.099 --> 00:26:53.517 - to limit what they can do. I appreciate the attempt to really try to preserve and mitigate, you know, 00:26:53.517 --> 00:26:57.726 - erosions and, you know, impact slopes. Absolutely. 00:26:57.986 --> 00:27:06.875 - but this is only putting more onus on this petitioner, but someone else could walk in and we wouldn't 00:27:06.875 --> 00:27:16.112 - have any ability to do that. So the fact that we can't do it without making them commit to it with things 00:27:16.112 --> 00:27:26.046 - that we would typically be okay with is what really puts me in the position of only supporting the waiver for the 00:27:27.234 --> 00:27:35.459 - with and the ingress and egress because that is not something we can do unless they have to ask us for 00:27:35.459 --> 00:27:43.765 - something and then we're going to add that. So like the fact that, you know, another petitioner doesn't 00:27:43.765 --> 00:27:51.910 - have to deal with the same type of things because of those two things that we typically favor. Again, 00:27:51.910 --> 00:27:56.702 - I just wanted to express my thoughts on this discussion and 00:27:56.994 --> 00:28:05.933 - try to kind of walk through it because it becomes very convoluted and complex because when they ask 00:28:05.933 --> 00:28:14.693 - for waivers, we can ask them to make commitments that will handcuff them for generations to come. 00:28:14.693 --> 00:28:24.079 - Thank you. All right, any other comments? That goes, I guess we go to the public now. Are those in favor 00:28:24.079 --> 00:28:26.046 - or are those opposed? 00:28:26.338 --> 00:28:34.560 - to the request here. And this is all the public hearing portion of it. I don't see anybody in the room. 00:28:34.560 --> 00:28:42.623 - Two people maybe in the room. I said, I don't see anybody raising their hand in the room. I'm married 00:28:42.623 --> 00:28:51.082 - to hands. See you in a second, qualified. Anyway, I don't see anybody in the room, public hearing portion. 00:28:51.082 --> 00:28:54.718 - Anybody online? I don't see any hands raised. 00:28:55.842 --> 00:29:03.500 - So that brings us to the point in the meeting where we have to make a decision. Is there a motion on 00:29:03.500 --> 00:29:11.386 - the table on how we proceed with this? And I would argue that there's a lot of waiver requests in here. 00:29:11.386 --> 00:29:18.589 - I'm not so sure you want to bundle them all together. I think maybe you should take an address 00:29:18.589 --> 00:29:24.958 - of independently if that makes sense. I'm welcome to feedback and thoughts on that. 00:29:25.474 --> 00:29:35.280 - I yeah, I think that they should be unbundled. You know, but I also just want to make an observation 00:29:35.280 --> 00:29:45.281 - that the cars conservancy areas on on lot four represent 1.75 acres of the 29 acres. And the 29 point. 00:29:45.281 --> 00:29:53.534 - Where is it more? It's 45 points. Oh, it's 45.63. So the cars can serve in the area. 00:29:54.146 --> 00:30:01.868 - totals 1.75 acres is what it seems like to me from the allocations on this map. I'll also point out 00:30:01.868 --> 00:30:09.899 - before you vote on the street tree, because I heard maybe commission member and what Randolph mentioned 00:30:09.899 --> 00:30:17.852 - this is you could deny the street tree waiver outright. But if you're hoping for preservation of trees 00:30:17.852 --> 00:30:24.030 - in return for approving, it would be approval with condition that they preserve 00:30:24.450 --> 00:30:31.141 - 18 trees on the primary plot if that's the way that people and that was offered. I think on my question, 00:30:31.141 --> 00:30:37.514 - if we take the street tree trade wafer off the table and we negate all this and just give this one. 00:30:37.514 --> 00:30:43.376 - And just plant the trees in the right trees and don't worry about conservancy and not worry 00:30:43.376 --> 00:30:47.582 - about preservation and be done with it and walk out of here then. 00:30:48.290 --> 00:30:56.327 - We still have the road width waiver. Yeah, we don't figure it. No, but I mean, if you guys are for that, 00:30:56.327 --> 00:31:04.212 - it seems like nobody's for the street tree waiver. Okay. So if we just take the street tree waiver off 00:31:04.212 --> 00:31:11.943 - and go with the other two waivers, is that going to make this easier to pass? Because all plants are 00:31:11.943 --> 00:31:14.622 - 12 trees. I think that we would... 00:31:14.818 --> 00:31:23.534 - Just if it's denied, that's what you're going to have to do anyways. So I would just say let the vote 00:31:23.534 --> 00:31:32.336 - happen. So we're in a motion phase, just so you know. We're done talking and now we're into the motion 00:31:32.336 --> 00:31:40.882 - phase. Okay, so part of the motion or part of, was part of the motion, having the tree preservation 00:31:40.882 --> 00:31:42.078 - on rock four, 00:31:42.210 --> 00:31:49.640 - Lot three. Lot three. That is part of the motion. I'm saying that that's something that they meant during 00:31:49.640 --> 00:31:56.790 - their testimony. No motion has been made. No motion on the table yet. I bumped. I know. You're there. 00:31:56.790 --> 00:32:04.080 - I didn't. So we're at a point for a motion for if anybody's inclined to put a motion on the table. I'll 00:32:04.080 --> 00:32:08.286 - make a motion. Would you blow that up? I make a motion that 00:32:09.890 --> 00:32:26.648 - On SPP-26-1 Jackson, that's the surveyor. So on the preliminary bot that we approve the road width request 00:32:26.648 --> 00:32:38.238 - based on the findings of FACT and subject to the highway engineer report, 00:32:38.530 --> 00:32:50.476 - that we approve the waiver of the two points of ingress and egress waiver based on the findings, 00:32:50.476 --> 00:33:04.638 - in fact, and subject to the highway report. And we, and contingent to the survey showing tree preservation on lot, 00:33:09.154 --> 00:33:21.238 - Uh, adequate to meet the needs of what the street tree. Option available option is. That's it. That's 00:33:21.238 --> 00:33:33.204 - my motion. Does that include the partial? Oh, yeah. And and. Approval of the partial classification, 00:33:33.204 --> 00:33:38.654 - the petitioner stated that all owners of the. 00:33:39.074 --> 00:33:49.223 - minor subdivision flat agreed to. Waiver final hearing and waiver or final hearing. This is just sorry. 00:33:49.223 --> 00:33:59.567 - Isn't this the final we can send you to? So you have a motion and second OK, it's been moved and seconded 00:33:59.567 --> 00:34:06.398 - to approve SPP-26-1, which is the Gardner major subdivision. It does. 00:34:06.690 --> 00:34:15.822 - Not include the condition for the for agricultural production or conservation only marking on the plaque, 00:34:15.822 --> 00:34:24.609 - correct? That's correct. OK, you did not want to put that. Does that prevent them? No, that's just to 00:34:24.609 --> 00:34:33.224 - currently says for recreation use only and we're changing it to. Oh yeah, because preparation isn't 00:34:33.224 --> 00:34:35.550 - defined. If someone wants. 00:34:35.874 --> 00:34:43.225 - I'm fine with accepting that to my motion. Would you be fine with continuing your second? I'm not sure 00:34:43.225 --> 00:34:51.004 - I understand exactly what that's what you just said. That means this allow this to go through as a condition 00:34:51.004 --> 00:34:58.498 - instead of listing it as recreational use. It would be for agricultural production or conservation only, 00:34:58.498 --> 00:35:04.350 - which is just stating that they don't want it as a buildable lot for residential. 00:35:04.450 --> 00:35:11.520 - That's the way the ordinance defined and this doesn't prevent. The property owner to do whatever he 00:35:11.520 --> 00:35:18.591 - was mentioning in the future in the well, hunting and correct those other type of recreational uses 00:35:18.591 --> 00:35:25.732 - that they have. Okay, so just prevent a buildable site. I would like to offer that as a change to my 00:35:25.732 --> 00:35:27.358 - motion. Okay, the 2nd. 00:35:28.610 --> 00:35:36.404 - Okay, so there's been a motion and a second to approve SPP-26-1, the Gardner major subdivision. This 00:35:36.404 --> 00:35:44.815 - includes a condition of the primary plot that they mark lot four for agricultural production or conservation 00:35:44.815 --> 00:35:52.609 - only instead of listing the buildable area on the lot. It also includes a motion to approve the road 00:35:52.609 --> 00:35:57.470 - width waiver, approve the two points of ingress egress waiver, 00:35:58.082 --> 00:36:07.242 - approve the partial plot vacation, and then they are still approving the street tree waiver with the 00:36:07.242 --> 00:36:16.764 - condition that the petitioners surveyor place the required 18 trees in a preservation area on lot three. 00:36:16.764 --> 00:36:26.014 - Okay. A vote yes is a vote to do all of those things I just mentioned. Rudy Fields? Yes. Jeff Morris? 00:36:28.322 --> 00:36:38.795 - Yes. Julie Thomas. No. Mark Clements. Yes. Tronan Wright-Randolph. Yes. Scott Farris. Yes. I want to 00:36:38.795 --> 00:36:49.269 - add that this is a Plan Commission decision. So that means if the Subdivision was approved by a vote 00:36:49.269 --> 00:36:51.550 - of 5 to 1. All right. 00:36:51.714 --> 00:36:58.079 - Now that's off the table. I just wanted to note that I'm only going to be here for regular business 00:36:58.079 --> 00:37:04.508 - and then I'll be leaving and attending back online for that. We're going to close this out in just a 00:37:04.508 --> 00:37:10.937 - second. Okay. All right. So to bring this meeting to a close, we're going to talk about items not on 00:37:10.937 --> 00:37:17.557 - the agenda. That is for folks in here at this room and also for the public. If the public has any items 00:37:17.557 --> 00:37:21.694 - they want to bring up, anybody here at the table or in the room? 00:37:23.682 --> 00:37:31.194 - I see that online. That brings us to reports from planning. Do you have anything? I do not. And nobody's 00:37:31.194 --> 00:37:38.421 - here from legal. Is legal online? No, they had a conflicting meeting at Brown County tonight. OK, so 00:37:38.421 --> 00:37:45.718 - I move that we adjourn this meeting. OK. Second. OK, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you for coming. 00:37:45.718 --> 00:37:53.374 - Thank you very much. Yeah, I won't read more. I'll try to hear. I'm one of our early voters. What's wrong? 00:37:53.826 --> 00:38:09.909 - All right, so we're going to take a 30 second pause, catch our breath. We'll just try to get here first. 00:38:09.909 --> 00:38:20.478 - Thanks for coming. All right, it is now 6 15 and I'd like to call to 00:38:20.770 --> 00:38:30.715 - call to order the Planning Commission Admin Meeting for October 6, 2026. And the first thing we need 00:38:30.715 --> 00:38:39.971 - to do, I guess, is to make sure that we have a forum. So please call roll. Marty Thomas here. 00:38:39.971 --> 00:38:50.014 - John Enright-Rando. Scott Farris. Yes, here. Rudy Fields. Here. Jack Morris. Here. Julie Jonas. Here. 00:38:51.554 --> 00:38:59.714 - Steve Bishop? Here. So we have five members in person and not here is Joe Van Deventer, David Henry, 00:38:59.714 --> 00:39:07.147 - Tron Enright-Randolph, and David Bush. So I'm sitting in for David who had to take his wife 00:39:07.147 --> 00:39:15.387 - to an appointment. And so I'll be running this meeting unless there's any objections. Seeing none. We 00:39:15.387 --> 00:39:18.942 - do have a quorum. We do have a quorum, yes. 00:39:19.362 --> 00:39:25.741 - So we're going to go ahead and move into administrative business. First up is, I think Jackie wants 00:39:25.741 --> 00:39:32.310 - to talk about the plant commission board appointments. Yes. And this is only as it relates to the plot 00:39:32.310 --> 00:39:38.689 - committee. So we've had our citizen member, Travis Bxton, he resigned stating that he's not able to 00:39:38.689 --> 00:39:45.131 - make the meeting times anymore. And Joe Van Deventer's appointment for Purdue extension upon talking 00:39:45.131 --> 00:39:49.086 - with legal and re-looking at his appointment ends this month. 00:39:49.250 --> 00:39:56.149 - So we will need another Purdue extension person come their next meeting. They're going to appoint another 00:39:56.149 --> 00:40:02.788 - citizen because the agricultural extension is now reorganized and by state law, if they don't live in 00:40:02.788 --> 00:40:09.427 - Monroe County, which they don't, then they cannot serve on this board and they have to pick a citizen 00:40:09.427 --> 00:40:15.870 - member for a one-year appointment. So they have not had their board meeting yet. It's in November. 00:40:16.162 --> 00:40:22.730 - But if you do have any recommendations for someone with an agricultural interest and that they live 00:40:22.730 --> 00:40:29.364 - in the county, send them our way and I will give that to Adi in Purdue. So I'm asking tonight to see 00:40:29.364 --> 00:40:36.392 - if we can agree to revert back to three members for Platt committee. And if we want to assign an alternate 00:40:36.392 --> 00:40:39.742 - so that we do not have quorum issues moving ahead. 00:40:41.826 --> 00:40:48.011 - be two motions or one motion. So educate us on a lawyer went to three to five. We have in the rules 00:40:48.011 --> 00:40:54.567 - of procedure either that we can have five members or three members and we went to five to allow a citizen 00:40:54.567 --> 00:41:00.814 - member. And now the citizen member is no longer able to attend. We've had quorum issues the last two 00:41:00.814 --> 00:41:06.999 - meetings and we've gotten some complaints. So I will leave it at that. And I think it would be well 00:41:06.999 --> 00:41:11.390 - served if we finish out the year with the three and we can reestablish 00:41:11.490 --> 00:41:17.711 - this conversation in the regular meeting. This allows us to finish out the year and then in January 00:41:17.711 --> 00:41:23.994 - we can revisit and see if we want to bring back citizen matters. Is that what you said? And then two 00:41:23.994 --> 00:41:30.402 - is a quorum. Two is a quorum. I'll volunteer to be an alternate if somebody wants to nominate me. I'll 00:41:30.402 --> 00:41:37.058 - nominate you. I'll second. All those in favor? Third. And I can't move because that time I have a meeting. 00:41:37.058 --> 00:41:40.542 - So sorry to say it's a terrible time to have a meeting. 00:41:40.706 --> 00:41:48.079 - For us, it's great for you guys. And we can fix that too in the, in the new year if we'd like. Okay. 00:41:48.079 --> 00:41:56.035 - Um, so this would be a motion to keep the same, keep the three of the five members removed to, and establish 00:41:56.035 --> 00:42:03.919 - an alternate of Jeff Morris. So the three members would be David Bush, Rudy Fields, Tron and Mark Randolph, 00:42:03.919 --> 00:42:10.270 - and the alternate would be Jeff Morris. I'll go ahead and call the roll. Scott Farris. 00:42:10.626 --> 00:42:35.454 - Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 00:42:35.906 --> 00:42:42.681 - The next item up is the housing inventory discussion. Jackie's going to give us a summary on where we 00:42:42.681 --> 00:42:49.455 - were and where we need to go. This is something that's been talked about, acknowledged for quite some 00:42:49.455 --> 00:42:56.230 - time. And I think personally, from my perspective, we're at that point where we can successfully move 00:42:56.230 --> 00:43:02.407 - on. And so if you'd please give us a quick summary of the executive committee and ex commas, 00:43:02.407 --> 00:43:04.798 - I call it. And we'll go from there. 00:43:05.282 --> 00:43:13.650 - One of our executive committee members, Martin Cummins is also PhD director and president for the center 00:43:13.650 --> 00:43:22.178 - of knowledge diffusion. And Margaret has presented us with what's called a housing platform, an analytical 00:43:22.178 --> 00:43:30.786 - platform for a housing inventory. And so this was discussed at the executive committee meeting on September 00:43:30.786 --> 00:43:31.742 - 25th, 2026. 00:43:32.226 --> 00:43:39.441 - she gave a very thorough presentation and I put the recording in the packet. If those of you had a chance 00:43:39.441 --> 00:43:46.587 - to look at it, I can also pull up the packet from that meeting, including a PowerPoint. But this meeting 00:43:46.587 --> 00:43:53.461 - was essentially, they voted to bring this discussion to the full plan commission. So tonight we want 00:43:53.461 --> 00:43:58.430 - to look at this and I have some questions for you later on. We did have, 00:43:59.362 --> 00:44:06.959 - or people in attendance from the executive committee. And there was dissenting vote by commission member 00:44:06.959 --> 00:44:14.701 - David Henry. And there is an exhibit about the dissent, in particular the procedure of which the executive 00:44:14.701 --> 00:44:22.080 - committee was held and that we were able to discuss the executive committee findings before it starts 00:44:22.080 --> 00:44:28.158 - at the planned commission level. So there's some information in the packet as well. 00:44:28.354 --> 00:44:36.010 - But per the rules and procedure staff believes that the meeting was called correctly by a majority and 00:44:36.010 --> 00:44:43.739 - also that a minority vote dissenting the rules state that then it just comes to the full blank mission, 00:44:43.739 --> 00:44:51.395 - which is what happened anyway. So it's noted to come here. So there are a number of questions from the 00:44:51.395 --> 00:44:57.118 - executive committee and I wanted to summarize those for our discussion to be 00:44:57.346 --> 00:45:04.178 - kind of streamlined tonight. So it includes part one of this cover letter is just the questions and 00:45:04.178 --> 00:45:11.077 - answers as to the creation of the report. Part two is the summary of the executive committee talking 00:45:11.077 --> 00:45:18.046 - points and part three is a discussion of plant days forward. And then I do want to note we did add an 00:45:18.046 --> 00:45:21.598 - Excel spreadsheet for the data. It is linked now in 00:45:21.698 --> 00:45:28.425 - this packet as well, and I sent it out to planning commission members as soon as it was available. So 00:45:28.425 --> 00:45:35.020 - you're able to access that as well. I'm happy to go through any of those. If those of you that were 00:45:35.020 --> 00:45:41.747 - able to take a look at the report, would you like me to go into depth on each of the parts or at this 00:45:41.747 --> 00:45:45.374 - point? Okay. All right. So why was the report created? 00:45:46.146 --> 00:45:54.337 - We have been talking about a housing inventory for a long time. And when going back through and just 00:45:54.337 --> 00:46:02.609 - doing a search in our files, it came up even by a PUD petition in 2020. Subsequently, the white paper 00:46:02.609 --> 00:46:11.206 - by the BEDC also mentioned it as an important notation to know what our housing inventory is, what supply 00:46:11.206 --> 00:46:12.990 - and demand is like in 00:46:13.282 --> 00:46:21.590 - calling for essentially more housing. There have been attempts by planning staff to make a housing inventory, 00:46:21.590 --> 00:46:29.218 - even linking some of the building department's data through a GIS platform. John Baten, PhD with the 00:46:29.218 --> 00:46:37.375 - Surveyor's Office, created something, but that was really looking at what's already been built or approved. 00:46:37.375 --> 00:46:38.206 - We did not 00:46:38.594 --> 00:46:45.922 - make a successful attempt at looking at some of the other categories, which are discussed or approved, 00:46:45.922 --> 00:46:53.107 - but not built. And so this inventory now or housing platform put forth by Margaret does put a number 00:46:53.107 --> 00:47:00.222 - on that. And I have this, we have the spreadsheets that we're able to pull up as well. I still want 00:47:00.222 --> 00:47:07.407 - to say that some of this effort by staff previously, we could still incorporate as pathways forward, 00:47:07.407 --> 00:47:08.190 - but it is, 00:47:08.482 --> 00:47:15.149 - you know, we want to make sure we're focusing on the report in front of us and the Excel spreadsheets 00:47:15.149 --> 00:47:21.685 - in front of us. And that will be kind of taking over from what staff has done in the past. So there 00:47:21.685 --> 00:47:28.222 - are still discussions about the need for some sort of report. And so Margaret didn't put together a 00:47:28.222 --> 00:47:35.020 - report, which includes five categories of housing. So one is the total complete housing count currently 00:47:35.020 --> 00:47:37.438 - constructed with occupancy. That is, 00:47:38.242 --> 00:47:45.089 - Faking building department data exporting that and, you know, assigning that like the address is assigned. 00:47:45.089 --> 00:47:51.487 - You go out there and things are built. It's constructed. People are living there. The next category 00:47:51.487 --> 00:47:57.886 - is under shovel, which may be being constructed, but no one's yet living there. They have a permit, 00:47:57.886 --> 00:47:59.422 - but they're not living. 00:47:59.682 --> 00:48:06.154 - At the property because they don't have the certificate of occupancy and then approved, which could 00:48:06.154 --> 00:48:13.273 - mean it goes through the planning commission or city council and gets approval, but it's not yet constructed. 00:48:13.273 --> 00:48:16.574 - Discussed, which means it might have some sort of. 00:48:16.930 --> 00:48:25.119 - discussion of pre-filing for some approval such as a newspaper article or something tying together someone's 00:48:25.119 --> 00:48:32.857 - intent for development with some numbers associated to unit counts, building types such as apartments, 00:48:32.857 --> 00:48:40.370 - town homes, single family. And then the last category is restricted housing, whether that be by age 00:48:40.370 --> 00:48:45.854 - or income or some other qualification in order to be able to live on the 00:48:45.954 --> 00:48:54.079 - on that development. So how is the report created? Margaret did go through and pulled from the following 00:48:54.079 --> 00:49:01.972 - sources. So total completed housing, as I mentioned, building department data. We did, in the report, 00:49:01.972 --> 00:49:10.484 - Margaret did limit or note a limitation about the town of Elzo, which initiated their own building department 00:49:10.484 --> 00:49:13.502 - on January 1, 2020. Planning staff has 00:49:13.602 --> 00:49:19.464 - Attempted to obtain this data and will continue to follow up on that. And then the Excel spreadsheet, 00:49:19.464 --> 00:49:25.039 - we wanted to be clear that that did involve technical assistance from the building commissioner, 00:49:25.039 --> 00:49:30.787 - Bobby Leroux, and as well as myself and technical questions, John Beaton also assisted. Discuss not 00:49:30.787 --> 00:49:37.052 - approved. This was obtained from Monroe County Planning Commission, City of Bloomington Planning Commission, 00:49:37.052 --> 00:49:41.822 - Town of Elksville Planning Commission, and City Council meeting minutes as well as 00:49:42.018 --> 00:49:49.026 - Associated newspaper articles under shovel obtained from Planning Commission and Council meeting minutes 00:49:49.026 --> 00:49:55.767 - building permit data listing the project is still active drive by inspections by Margaret as well as 00:49:55.767 --> 00:50:02.174 - aerial reviews approved not constructed obtained by Planning Commission County Council meeting. 00:50:02.562 --> 00:50:09.195 - For multi-phase or mixed-use project, the process of searching through meeting minutes is iterative 00:50:09.195 --> 00:50:16.425 - and ongoing. For instance, conversion of first-floor commercial to first-floor apartments requires follow-up 00:50:16.425 --> 00:50:23.323 - from the original approval, and then is still in progress, but was done up until the publishing of this 00:50:23.323 --> 00:50:30.287 - packet. Restricted housing by income age, et cetera. This was information and unit counts obtained using 00:50:30.287 --> 00:50:31.614 - those fields above. 00:50:31.778 --> 00:50:39.989 - It may be in any of the prior four stages. Could be completed housing that's restricted, could be discussed 00:50:39.989 --> 00:50:47.821 - housing that's not yet built. This is kind of a catch-all, but it's a restricted housing to understand 00:50:47.821 --> 00:50:55.500 - what limits are there for, say, income or age-restricted housing. How much do we have in the county? 00:50:55.500 --> 00:51:00.062 - I want to go through some of the high-level talking points. 00:51:00.258 --> 00:51:07.533 - There was a discussion about IU enrollment, how the data shows city of Wilmington is comprised of 61% 00:51:07.533 --> 00:51:14.879 - students, and that enrollment has increased 18% from 2020 to 2025. This was also helping to frame some 00:51:14.879 --> 00:51:22.225 - of the discussions about how apartments make up a lion's share of some of the developments in the city 00:51:22.225 --> 00:51:29.214 - as shown on the Excel spreadsheets and in the report. We discussed maybe how many IU students are 00:51:29.314 --> 00:51:35.357 - online only to determine if increased enrollment meant increased in-person population within the city 00:51:35.357 --> 00:51:41.459 - limits. We discussed how this report could be updated, who would transfer the ownership of keeping the 00:51:41.459 --> 00:51:47.502 - report updated, and this is discussed further below on part three, Pathways Forward. Discussion about 00:51:47.502 --> 00:51:53.426 - necessary edits made to the report, which Margaret Lennon's PhD continues to make. It was expressed 00:51:53.426 --> 00:51:58.462 - at this report, and the spreadsheets that make up this report are a working document 00:51:58.914 --> 00:52:05.971 - And that units will continue to be approved and more data will continue to be generated and collected. 00:52:05.971 --> 00:52:13.164 - The request was made to edit the definition section of the report at a time to the definition of housing 00:52:13.164 --> 00:52:19.262 - types to from the building code. I will also note that we're assessing unit counts, not. 00:52:19.394 --> 00:52:25.772 - bedroom counts and so tying this to the building code would hopefully give us an apples to apples comparison 00:52:25.772 --> 00:52:31.740 - across the jurisdiction because I know, for instance, city of Bloomington will focus a lot on bedroom 00:52:31.740 --> 00:52:37.182 - counts, whereas the county will focus on unit counts. And so there is some difference there. 00:52:38.306 --> 00:52:44.208 - There were questions raised about revenue generation for each housing type, whether a presentation by 00:52:44.208 --> 00:52:50.283 - the assessor's office would be helpful in the future, understanding fiscal impact of these housing types 00:52:50.283 --> 00:52:56.127 - in light of upcoming and current legislation. Question about whether housing data would be put forth 00:52:56.127 --> 00:53:01.566 - to the state as part of House Enrolled Act 1001 under the Report for House Enrolled Act 1001. 00:53:01.890 --> 00:53:09.540 - It does state that we can include if the unit, which is the county, invested in a housing study in 2021, 00:53:09.540 --> 00:53:17.189 - 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025, which this report was created in 2026 and was done without pay, not invested. 00:53:17.189 --> 00:53:24.620 - This will be part of the later discussion again in the Pathways Board and noted as needing a majority 00:53:24.620 --> 00:53:28.190 - vote from the Plan Commission on how to proceed. 00:53:28.834 --> 00:53:34.381 - Procedural questions include why the packet for the executive committee was not published in advance 00:53:34.381 --> 00:53:39.983 - of the meeting. We did answer to that during the meeting, but everyone was given the information that 00:53:39.983 --> 00:53:45.805 - was presented at the executive committee at the start of the executive committee and our legal department 00:53:45.805 --> 00:53:48.222 - was there and mentioned that that is fully. 00:53:48.322 --> 00:53:53.855 - with an compliance of open door policy. We shared the screen so anyone hybrid could see it. We also 00:53:53.855 --> 00:53:59.443 - posted it online. Everyone had access to the same materials at the same time. There was a procedural 00:53:59.443 --> 00:54:05.141 - question about whether anyone had access to the packet in advance. The answer was no. Another question 00:54:05.141 --> 00:54:11.116 - arose as to whether there was staff time dedicated to the project without a discussion by the full planning 00:54:11.116 --> 00:54:14.270 - commission, the report, and the PowerPoint presentation. 00:54:14.498 --> 00:54:20.285 - were not edited or seen by staff, but there was time spent on the backend spreadsheet exports, which 00:54:20.285 --> 00:54:26.187 - is part of our online programming software we use daily. A member discussed that 14,000 people commute 00:54:26.187 --> 00:54:32.088 - into Monroe County every day, and therefore we do not capture their income tax. There was a discussion 00:54:32.088 --> 00:54:37.933 - that we need to figure out desirable housing units for those commuters to try to attract them to live 00:54:37.933 --> 00:54:43.720 - in Monroe County. And there were statements on pathways forward, possible database creation, such as 00:54:43.720 --> 00:54:44.350 - a website, 00:54:44.450 --> 00:54:51.801 - and frequency to updating the spreadsheet. So again, they go to three to one to send this to the full 00:54:51.801 --> 00:54:59.153 - plan commission. And then our pathways discussion forward. So here's finding what we need. We need to 00:54:59.153 --> 00:55:06.432 - understand that the report and the PowerPoint put together by Margaret with the support of the Excel 00:55:06.432 --> 00:55:12.126 - spreadsheets, this information is as good as it is today because it's updated. 00:55:12.418 --> 00:55:20.053 - So we need to understand the plan commissions bowl and who keeps track of that spreadsheet and in terms 00:55:20.053 --> 00:55:27.834 - of keeping it updated. So I'd like to see a vote and majority of whether the Excel spreadsheet supporting 00:55:27.834 --> 00:55:35.175 - this report can be transferred to planning and the how often we need to be updating it and bringing 00:55:35.175 --> 00:55:36.350 - it back to you. 00:55:38.370 --> 00:55:44.892 - OK, well, question one, do you have the resources in the planning department to do this? I think on 00:55:44.892 --> 00:55:51.675 - the Excel, so we're asking specifically about the Excel spreadsheet. I think that that's something that 00:55:51.675 --> 00:55:58.718 - if given, you know, we would want to come back to you, make sure our methodology is correct on establishing 00:55:58.718 --> 00:56:05.697 - the different discussed or approved, not built those types of things. I think that we could with frequency 00:56:05.697 --> 00:56:07.262 - and cadence established 00:56:07.554 --> 00:56:15.311 - go through meeting minutes and put that together. Yes, I think we have the bandwidth. Okay. That was 00:56:15.311 --> 00:56:23.376 - my question. Okay. And then the only other question before I get to the last part is we show this report 00:56:23.376 --> 00:56:31.364 - authored by Margaret Cummings, PhD being included as part of our submission for House Enrolled Act 1001 00:56:31.364 --> 00:56:37.278 - to the state. If so, we'll put it in the packet for the 22nd exhibit to that 00:56:38.018 --> 00:56:45.888 - and not a standalone discussion like this. So there are two different boats that we need to make. Okay, 00:56:45.888 --> 00:56:53.758 - so let's take it one at a time. Question? Yeah, go ahead. So if this wasn't paid for, how did this come 00:56:53.758 --> 00:57:01.326 - to be? So we've been talking about trying to do a housing inventory for a long time and it was just 00:57:01.326 --> 00:57:04.958 - something like I mentioned, transparently we've 00:57:05.058 --> 00:57:12.024 - brought it to this planning commission body in the past. And we just, we're trying to get majority vote 00:57:12.024 --> 00:57:18.856 - to, you know, direction, things like that. And we just attempted and failed. And so Margaret put this 00:57:18.856 --> 00:57:25.688 - together and brought it to us and said, I think this is what the planning commission needs to review. 00:57:25.688 --> 00:57:32.520 - And we saw it the day of the executive committee, the report and the PowerPoint were brought to us on 00:57:32.520 --> 00:57:34.462 - that morning. Okay. So with, 00:57:34.626 --> 00:57:40.815 - was it asked for or even was volunteered or, you know, I'm trying to understand because, you know, being 00:57:40.815 --> 00:57:46.768 - that someone within this or body, it's not quite arm's length, which you would always expect to have 00:57:46.768 --> 00:57:52.957 - at least some distance between a member of the body that's taking this up and the person that's actually 00:57:52.957 --> 00:57:58.498 - completing the report or doing the investigation that would be relied upon by that same body. 00:57:58.498 --> 00:58:04.510 - So in that way, it would be similar to a bank ordering some appraisal and deciding what the value is. 00:58:04.642 --> 00:58:11.113 - You can't do that because it doesn't make sense and it's not on its length. And so there's a concern 00:58:11.113 --> 00:58:17.585 - here that it's too close to the process and the decision making itself. For House and Rollbacks 1001 00:58:17.585 --> 00:58:24.248 - or what process? Just for even deliberation before the commission. Okay. Well, I put in the cover sheet 00:58:24.248 --> 00:58:29.246 - and again, just trying to answer the question ahead. We did discuss this with 00:58:29.762 --> 00:58:37.645 - Dr. Baten, January 6th, 2026. And I think from that discussion, staff sent out an email to say, is this 00:58:37.645 --> 00:58:45.528 - kind of what we're looking for? And I think every time that there's a new proposal that comes up, which 00:58:45.528 --> 00:58:53.108 - we haven't seen a lot of major subdivisions or big developments come before us with the sewer being 00:58:53.108 --> 00:58:56.670 - what it is. But if that conversation comes up, 00:58:56.898 --> 00:59:03.537 - We continuously hear from the planning commission membership, at least some asking, hey, where are we 00:59:03.537 --> 00:59:10.111 - at on this housing inventory? We never really closed the loop. And that's, that's been happening for 00:59:10.111 --> 00:59:16.946 - years. And it may not be every meeting that we're asking for it, but I do hear it. I'd say twice a year, 00:59:16.946 --> 00:59:21.502 - at least the last few years. So. So still no, no ask for this by you. 00:59:22.210 --> 00:59:30.603 - by me or by the planning department, the planning commission. Was this requested by anyone in an official 00:59:30.603 --> 00:59:38.601 - capacity? Commissioner Taft? Yeah, I'm not sure I understand. I'm not sure I understand the question 00:59:38.601 --> 00:59:45.886 - because this is something I'm grateful that this was done because this is just raw data and 00:59:46.370 --> 00:59:54.318 - If there's there, you know, you can extrapolate a policy from the raw data, but we've never had this 00:59:54.318 --> 01:00:02.659 - raw data in one place accurately. And that has been missing for, since I've been on a planning commission 01:00:02.659 --> 01:00:10.607 - and I've been on here since 2009. So we've been missing this information. And the fact that somebody 01:00:10.607 --> 01:00:15.486 - has worked so hard to understand the building permit process, 01:00:15.618 --> 01:00:24.573 - to follow what the city's doing, to try to follow what Ella's doing, sometimes that's hard, is something 01:00:24.573 --> 01:00:33.273 - to be grateful for. Just because you don't spend money on a consultant doesn't mean there's a limited 01:00:33.273 --> 01:00:42.143 - value in the book. And in fact, the fact that she understands planning helps this process along because 01:00:42.143 --> 01:00:44.190 - she knew where to look. 01:00:44.674 --> 01:00:52.429 - for the information and when she drove by what she was looking for. And hiring a consultant would miss 01:00:52.429 --> 01:00:59.958 - a lot of those nuances. And there are a lot of things that we still don't know. And so, but to say, 01:00:59.958 --> 01:01:07.637 - here's a list of projects under shovel, completed, whatever, that's all this is. That's what this is. 01:01:07.637 --> 01:01:13.886 - And I'm grateful that we have it. I'm grateful that we have something we can build 01:01:14.018 --> 01:01:21.031 - And keep adding to, because that's the other thing we can't just say, okay, now we know it's good. No, 01:01:21.031 --> 01:01:27.977 - we have to keep adding to it and making sure that we keep up with it. And that's something that we're 01:01:27.977 --> 01:01:34.718 - all going to have to make sure that staff has the ability to do it and our encouragement to do it. 01:01:34.818 --> 01:01:42.283 - And if they don't have the time, then we have to figure something out. So I don't see this as any kind 01:01:42.283 --> 01:01:49.676 - of a conflict. I don't see this as being not arm's length enough because actually having somebody who 01:01:49.676 --> 01:01:56.924 - understands the terminology we use in the county, what the city uses, et cetera, I think helps that 01:01:56.924 --> 01:02:03.230 - process along greatly and shortens the process a little bit in terms of comprehension. 01:02:04.066 --> 01:02:11.360 - Okay, I do have to say if I may rebut. There's concern with some of the data too, because even by MCA's 01:02:11.360 --> 01:02:18.513 - on admission, the COSAR data is not complete or comprehensive and something they don't intend to rely 01:02:18.513 --> 01:02:25.737 - on in perpetuity either. So that is heavily relied upon on here in terms of the gross apartment rents. 01:02:25.737 --> 01:02:33.662 - I don't, I didn't even speak. I mean, I just mentioned. Let's talk of the COSAR data. May I speak? Are you done? 01:02:34.530 --> 01:02:40.483 - I wasn't finished. We'll finish your comments and then we'll go to. Yeah, sure. So, I mean, that's the 01:02:40.483 --> 01:02:46.436 - concern that the data quality that's being relied upon is incomplete. It doesn't use more current data 01:02:46.436 --> 01:02:51.695 - such as the American Community Survey that talks about population data, but looks at it in 01:02:51.695 --> 01:02:58.110 - a more comprehensive way than what's relied upon here. I think it goes back to a study in 2020, which is fine. 01:02:58.210 --> 01:03:04.999 - But there is more nuanced data. It doesn't look at the IU student population as resident students versus 01:03:04.999 --> 01:03:11.593 - enrolled students. It only focuses on student enrollment, which has gone up at 18% in 2020-25. That's 01:03:11.593 --> 01:03:18.511 - not the same as the actual students that are really on campus or within Monroe County. And it also doesn't 01:03:18.511 --> 01:03:24.976 - speak to the fact that the average age is 25 years old, but it doesn't take out the people that are 01:03:24.976 --> 01:03:26.334 - under the age of 18. 01:03:26.498 --> 01:03:35.733 - and otherwise wouldn't really qualify as part of the median age for people that would be in residential 01:03:35.733 --> 01:03:44.790 - housing. All right, okay. Well, I didn't take notes of everything that you said, but one question I'd 01:03:44.790 --> 01:03:53.758 - like to answer is how did this come about? I've been serving on this body since 2018, and every time 01:03:53.954 --> 01:04:02.558 - housing demand studies come out, you know, I asked the question, how do we know if we don't know exactly 01:04:02.558 --> 01:04:10.917 - what exists and what the numbers are? How do we know what the need is for housing, housing types? How 01:04:10.917 --> 01:04:18.620 - do we know what we're talking about from a planning perspective? And so I, in order to pursue 01:04:18.620 --> 01:04:21.406 - my responsibilities on this body, 01:04:21.794 --> 01:04:29.131 - I'd been making back of the envelope notations every time a housing development gets approved. And then 01:04:29.131 --> 01:04:36.326 - I went to the city of Bloomington's hand data to reconcile it with what they had listed. And the unit 01:04:36.326 --> 01:04:43.663 - of measure wasn't the same. You know, they measured by beds rather than multifamily unit. And also when 01:04:43.663 --> 01:04:51.070 - a project gets approved and before it comes to its final occupancy permit, there are changes that occur. 01:04:51.234 --> 01:05:00.295 - And that is especially true for PUDs where there may be five phases for a major project over, you know, 01:05:00.295 --> 01:05:09.182 - many years. And so changes occur. And how do we keep track of what is planned, what is achieved, what 01:05:09.182 --> 01:05:18.069 - is ready for occupancy, what is approved, and how much do we need, of what apartment type, and are we 01:05:18.069 --> 01:05:21.118 - serving the community where we are 01:05:22.018 --> 01:05:32.464 - sworn. And so I've been making these back of the envelope notations and, you know, going through every 01:05:32.464 --> 01:05:42.910 - line item, both the commercial permits for multifamily homes and residential permits for single family 01:05:43.106 --> 01:05:51.300 - homes and duplexes and reconciling them one by one and where information was missing, like for example, 01:05:51.300 --> 01:05:59.416 - the number of units in the building, I supplied that. I tracked that down, whether it was 323, whether 01:05:59.416 --> 01:06:07.295 - it was 34, whether it was 555, whatever it was, whether a duplex was actually a quadplex, whether a 01:06:07.295 --> 01:06:11.550 - duplex was a triplex, et cetera, I tracked that down. 01:06:12.066 --> 01:06:20.517 - And I was didactic. The building department gave me some information, but I also gave the building department 01:06:20.517 --> 01:06:28.276 - some information. And I feel that from my own perspective, that this is what I need to serve on this 01:06:28.276 --> 01:06:36.112 - body and to do a responsible job for planning. And if it can help planning and building and our local 01:06:36.112 --> 01:06:40.030 - economy and builders and realtors in an apartment, 01:06:40.162 --> 01:06:50.503 - complex developers even better. I think that this type of information is useful when these important 01:06:50.503 --> 01:07:01.356 - decisions are being made and I stand by that. It's useful to me. I need it in order to evaluate proposals 01:07:01.356 --> 01:07:09.854 - before us and it serves me. Now, one question that has come up in the research is, 01:07:10.338 --> 01:07:21.013 - and I really tried extensively to not be biased. I just reviewed what was out there. I didn't say that 01:07:21.013 --> 01:07:31.687 - was right or that was wrong. The Memorial County Apartment Association alarmingly sent a letter saying 01:07:31.687 --> 01:07:38.942 - they have record vacancies and we don't want to have a housing bubble 01:07:39.074 --> 01:07:47.008 - first here in Bloomington. And we need to know exactly what we're building. How much do we need? How 01:07:47.008 --> 01:07:55.257 - much are we satisfied? And the city of Bloomington actually was about the only one that made projections 01:07:55.257 --> 01:08:03.191 - on housing need by 2040. It was repeated by the BEDC. It was repeated by the ROI. It was repeated by 01:08:03.191 --> 01:08:08.926 - the Indiana Business Research Center. But it was like one source of data 01:08:10.530 --> 01:08:18.608 - projecting the need by 2040 of how many units would be needed for our community. And I just tested that 01:08:18.608 --> 01:08:26.530 - statement, like what did they say we needed and what has been built? And I wasn't surprised, but many 01:08:26.530 --> 01:08:34.686 - people were that, you know, we've achieved in a few short years, but they estimated they needed by 2040. 01:08:34.850 --> 01:08:41.228 - Now, what we do with that, whether or not it's the right type of housing, these are important questions 01:08:41.228 --> 01:08:47.484 - for a body exactly like this, for a community just like this, for an economic development corporation 01:08:47.484 --> 01:08:53.740 - exactly like this, because where we go from here, especially with the House Enrolled Act, where we're 01:08:53.740 --> 01:08:59.934 - going to be switching from property taxes to income taxes, we have to worry about the sustainability 01:08:59.934 --> 01:09:04.350 - of our community. Are we building the right kind of homes for the right 01:09:04.482 --> 01:09:15.073 - people who can actually contribute to sustaining what now has become a pretty dependent housing system 01:09:15.073 --> 01:09:25.767 - from what I can see. But with that being said, I don't know what question did I not answer. The quality 01:09:25.767 --> 01:09:31.422 - of the data. The quality of the data is original data. 01:09:31.554 --> 01:09:38.775 - And it's better than the original data given to me. For example, on one housing commercial unit, 01:09:38.775 --> 01:09:46.368 - you know, there were, you know, building permits expire after two years and sometimes they have to be 01:09:46.368 --> 01:09:54.036 - reissued. So that can result in a double count, for example, from somebody who's not accustomed to the 01:09:54.036 --> 01:10:01.406 - data. They're just pulling raw counts from the, which they do. They attribute building permit data 01:10:01.762 --> 01:10:11.316 - in the ROI study and in the Monroe County Apartment Association costar study, they reference the billing 01:10:11.316 --> 01:10:20.415 - permit data. Well, I cleaned that. I reconciled it. I made sure that each entry was unique and that 01:10:20.415 --> 01:10:26.238 - a duplex that had been built under a residential housing permit 01:10:26.402 --> 01:10:34.451 - was not also double counted in a commercial building permit, like for example, at Atlas, where duplexes 01:10:34.451 --> 01:10:41.571 - and single family homes exist. Yes, Julie. And just to clarify, what you did in your report 01:10:41.571 --> 01:10:49.543 - is you acknowledged the other studies. Yes. You didn't use them. You didn't use their data. You didn't 01:10:49.543 --> 01:10:51.710 - use CoStar data on rents or 01:10:51.938 --> 01:10:59.764 - No, it's original from Bobby LaRue. And whenever, when I got through all the lines of data and all the 01:10:59.764 --> 01:11:07.438 - building permits that were issued at each commercial and residential structure, there were a handful 01:11:07.438 --> 01:11:15.415 - of items that I had questions about, you know, maybe two handfuls, about 24 to 30 properties. And Jackie 01:11:15.415 --> 01:11:20.734 - and I sat down and talked about them. You know, did I get this wrong? 01:11:21.218 --> 01:11:29.934 - is did I double count? Did I fail to attribute it to the right type of property? And we reconciled all 01:11:29.934 --> 01:11:38.396 - of those. And we fed that back then to Bobby LaRue. So the data was better on his end too. And I've 01:11:38.396 --> 01:11:46.942 - had conversations with him, et cetera. So- It is important to note based on what you just said, that 01:11:46.942 --> 01:11:50.750 - you validated your data with the appropriate 01:11:51.074 --> 01:11:58.440 - organization, whether it be building, or whether it be planning, et cetera. It's validated data. Original 01:11:58.440 --> 01:12:05.527 - source data. Validated original source data. Validation is a very key part of this discussion. And my 01:12:05.527 --> 01:12:12.476 - particular, if I could just interrupt for a second, all you gotta do is, if your eyes can stand it, 01:12:12.476 --> 01:12:19.425 - is to read these doggone Excel spreadsheets. This is exhaustive detail here. And I don't see double 01:12:19.425 --> 01:12:20.606 - counts in there. 01:12:20.994 --> 01:12:28.474 - anybody who's going through the line items. We ran the risk of double. In fact, this is all I can say 01:12:28.474 --> 01:12:36.101 - authoritatively is an under count. It's an under count because it doesn't include the B line apartments 01:12:36.101 --> 01:12:43.507 - under the affordable Cal category. It doesn't include Ellitsville. It doesn't include Apple Park. So 01:12:43.507 --> 01:12:49.374 - this is all an under count. And that was done intentionally to be conservative. 01:12:49.474 --> 01:12:57.796 - with our statements. And then I, because I am a research scientist, to control for my own bias and to 01:12:57.796 --> 01:13:06.118 - control for quality control in the data, I ran it by two other PhDs who were independent of any of us 01:13:06.118 --> 01:13:14.522 - and asked them to read through it and check through it for error. And so you got this for free without 01:13:14.522 --> 01:13:18.846 - having to pay any consultant, I say congratulations. 01:13:18.946 --> 01:13:27.149 - I say thank you. Yeah. And so it's valid data. Yeah. And from my world as a former analysis division 01:13:27.149 --> 01:13:35.270 - chief, the data speaks for itself. Absolutely. And it's replicable. Somebody can go to an line item 01:13:35.270 --> 01:13:40.062 - on that Excel spreadsheet. And yeah, it may say 243 units. 01:13:40.578 --> 01:13:49.766 - When they show up there, there could be 244, maybe 245, but we're aware of that possible discrepancy 01:13:49.766 --> 01:13:59.045 - and we reported it as 243. Mr. Bishop. It is a great representation of gross mathematical data. It is 01:13:59.045 --> 01:14:04.958 - not a representation of housing weakness. I need to assert that. 01:14:05.122 --> 01:14:12.773 - It cannot become a conflation of the two, though. I did not. I just quoted what had been asserted by 01:14:12.773 --> 01:14:20.575 - the BEDC, by the city of Bloomington, and by the Indiana Business Research Group. I tested their claim 01:14:20.575 --> 01:14:28.149 - against the data, and I did not assert housing need whatsoever. I said, in fact, this is not a wage 01:14:28.149 --> 01:14:33.982 - study. It is not a job study. It does not answer the affordability question. 01:14:34.114 --> 01:14:40.853 - But with this data, we might begin to be able to do it. And I get that. I'm saying that I don't want 01:14:40.853 --> 01:14:48.127 - it to get conflated, that it could be seen as the same or informing the other. It is just the representation 01:14:48.127 --> 01:14:54.866 - of the number of units that we have in the community, right? Yeah. I mean, I don't have control over 01:14:54.866 --> 01:15:02.206 - what people think, but I didn't assert those statements. So I have no responsibility for it. But for example, 01:15:02.594 --> 01:15:08.472 - If we, I mean, I, and I can see that, that broadening this database would be beneficial, you know, how 01:15:08.472 --> 01:15:14.349 - many are vacant, how many, you know, how many duplexes are vacant, not even beyond apartments, because 01:15:14.349 --> 01:15:20.056 - I know that's going to be a hard one, but a tough nut to crack. But, um, you know, it'd be great to 01:15:20.056 --> 01:15:25.877 - know how many are still in the market, how many are, you know, sitting empty still. Um, but what this 01:15:25.877 --> 01:15:31.754 - does do is it allows us when we have a petition in front of us to look at what we've done, what's been 01:15:31.754 --> 01:15:32.382 - built and, 01:15:32.610 --> 01:15:40.764 - and to get a sense of, to ensure that we are providing a variety of housing options as well. Not just 01:15:40.764 --> 01:15:48.839 - any housing, but a variety of housing options. I mean, we could extend this out to look at the price 01:15:48.839 --> 01:15:56.834 - point when new construction's completed on housing. There's a lot of things we can add to this, but 01:15:56.834 --> 01:16:02.110 - that doesn't mean that the data isn't valid or important to have. 01:16:02.818 --> 01:16:10.249 - No, this is the starting point on which because it's authoritative, unique, reconciled data that on 01:16:10.249 --> 01:16:17.680 - which you can add price points if you're able to get them. Fee structures at apartment complex. But 01:16:17.680 --> 01:16:25.185 - I don't know what that type of market research is something that we want to spend time and money on. 01:16:25.185 --> 01:16:32.542 - But knowing that there are five thousand four thousand two hundred fifty units about ready to bid. 01:16:33.154 --> 01:16:41.377 - is really important to Bobby LaRue. It's really important to the planning department. It's really important 01:16:41.377 --> 01:16:49.068 - to our local economy. It's really important to know before we approve another 4,250 units that we've 01:16:49.068 --> 01:16:56.834 - got phase one, two, three, and four of the Summit District coming on board. Let's take a look at that 01:16:56.834 --> 01:17:01.022 - and make sure we don't create an oversupply and create 01:17:01.538 --> 01:17:07.820 - problems for the people who have invested in our community. You know, that's a big risk. You know, and 01:17:07.820 --> 01:17:13.920 - the MCAA complained about it through the postcard letter, you know, that they've got vacancies that 01:17:13.920 --> 01:17:20.141 - they didn't anticipate. It's only to student housing, though. I don't know that. No, I'm telling you, 01:17:20.141 --> 01:17:26.850 - because I engage with them and I've worked closely with the MCAA since then, and I've had these conversations 01:17:26.850 --> 01:17:29.534 - with them. And so it's trying to understand 01:17:29.698 --> 01:17:37.175 - exactly what the nuance is there. And yes, they are concerned about student housing. It's not about 01:17:37.175 --> 01:17:44.727 - the Lacey markets and regular rentals. And so there's a difference there that you have to tease out. 01:17:44.727 --> 01:17:52.578 - Well, I, you know, when they came for approval, they were asked, is this is this apartment complex being 01:17:52.578 --> 01:17:57.438 - built for students? And they said, no, it was workforce housing. 01:17:58.018 --> 01:18:06.646 - And so the building department does not differentiate. They differentiate according to fire code and 01:18:06.646 --> 01:18:15.188 - they differentiate according to, you know, the fire duration of a shared wall can withstand. That's 01:18:15.188 --> 01:18:24.926 - what they differentiate from firewall. Yeah. So that's not, that's not within the purview of this study. And, um, 01:18:25.666 --> 01:18:32.254 - When they came before the planning commission, I was there, you know, there were maybe 200 residents 01:18:32.254 --> 01:18:38.776 - concerned about overbuilding student housing. And they said, no, it wasn't. So I don't know exactly 01:18:38.776 --> 01:18:45.690 - the point. I'm personally for moving this to the planning department. Yeah. And for them taking ownership 01:18:45.690 --> 01:18:52.408 - of this, assuming that they have the resources to do that. Yeah. I go back to them. How many hours did 01:18:52.408 --> 01:18:54.430 - you put into this? Oh, my God. 01:18:54.530 --> 01:19:00.552 - And so we want a staff of two to take on the upkeep. The data's there. They just kind of manipulate 01:19:00.552 --> 01:19:06.695 - and update. You have to add to it. But if you want to hand it, like, there's a lot of, you know, it's 01:19:06.695 --> 01:19:12.717 - not within our purview, it's within their purview. I have your concerns about the capacity of their 01:19:12.717 --> 01:19:18.920 - ability to do it. I mean, you're saddling them with a commitment. If they say they can hand it, that's 01:19:18.920 --> 01:19:23.678 - a different. That's why I asked the question. So, but I don't want to maintain 01:19:24.194 --> 01:19:32.154 - I don't want to maintain this forever, and I don't want to have to take a job that's been in five years. 01:19:32.154 --> 01:19:39.963 - So I'm happy to give it to the planning department to maintain it. All right, let's get Trona. Are you 01:19:39.963 --> 01:19:47.772 - back with us now? Yeah, I've been here for a while. It's fine. OK, so you haven't said much, so here's 01:19:47.772 --> 01:19:53.534 - your chance. I appreciate it. I didn't want to stop the flow of discussion. 01:19:53.666 --> 01:20:04.305 - the back and forth is always a great opportunity to kind of have a more extended discussion. My my questions 01:20:04.305 --> 01:20:14.652 - are kind of were we asked to include the other jurisdictions like the City of Bloomington and Ellitsville 01:20:14.652 --> 01:20:20.606 - from from the House Enrolled Act 1001 as part of our report. 01:20:22.274 --> 01:20:31.565 - or is this optional? Sorry for illegal. Well, we will have to report on this for our unit. So it'll 01:20:31.565 --> 01:20:41.136 - be the county. So there's one of my concerns is that we should just kind of focus on the county unless 01:20:41.136 --> 01:20:50.334 - we get some validation sign off from the other government units that this information is accurate. 01:20:50.658 --> 01:20:59.685 - I just don't feel comfortable using data that is extrapolated and I do appreciate the work. This gives 01:20:59.685 --> 01:21:08.886 - us good tangible numbers that have been reconciled but there's a broader question and I think Mr. Bishop 01:21:08.886 --> 01:21:17.825 - is kind of chipping away at that which I think is important. I also think there's limitations of what 01:21:17.825 --> 01:21:20.542 - we can provide because vacancy 01:21:20.706 --> 01:21:30.141 - would be a very difficult thing. But I think we should stick to just our charge Monroe County and what's 01:21:30.141 --> 01:21:39.217 - available. A couple things with the data when it says not built and built environment those are very 01:21:39.217 --> 01:21:48.653 - distinguishable things. I appreciate that and I appreciate having that separated. But also the not built 01:21:48.653 --> 01:21:50.270 - could potentially 01:21:50.786 --> 01:22:01.726 - you know, skew kind of what the outcome is. Because if someone doesn't extend, you know, the time of 01:22:01.726 --> 01:22:12.558 - the approved underlining plat, then it, you know, then it may not be allowed, right? You know, that 01:22:12.558 --> 01:22:20.574 - expiration would occur. Also, there's potential of people vacating plats. 01:22:20.898 --> 01:22:29.105 - you know, there's an unknown variable there, you know. And on the other side of that coin, you know, 01:22:29.105 --> 01:22:37.394 - someone might come and, you know, try to do a major on a parcel that has all the right infrastructure 01:22:37.394 --> 01:22:45.601 - and can. So, you know, trying to predict that this has the underlying approval of 12, but they're on 01:22:45.601 --> 01:22:49.502 - sizable lots, it could easily increase too. So, 01:22:50.146 --> 01:23:00.061 - I think that is good information to provide. I just think it needs to come with a lot of clarity of 01:23:00.061 --> 01:23:10.076 - how uncertain this information can be utilized. Those are kind of my main things. I think getting to 01:23:10.076 --> 01:23:19.198 - a starting point and moving forward is going to be the only way we can really address this. 01:23:19.906 --> 01:23:28.776 - Also I think it's good that we looked at other housing studies and we're not like trying to refute those 01:23:28.776 --> 01:23:37.308 - but we're trying to utilize that information. But you know the last thing I want an outcome to be is 01:23:37.308 --> 01:23:45.924 - a report we send up to the state that like starts to question other folks' efforts versus just really 01:23:45.924 --> 01:23:47.614 - kind of and I think 01:23:47.810 --> 01:23:58.409 - Colonel Fair said it the best is let the data speak for itself. So it's a big task and I just wanted 01:23:58.409 --> 01:24:08.904 - to mention those main things that a lot of this data doesn't really show us a clear outcome of what 01:24:08.904 --> 01:24:14.046 - will be available or what won't be available and 01:24:14.722 --> 01:24:23.997 - That's all I have. I'm afraid I'll keep saying the same things. I hope these are questions or thoughts 01:24:23.997 --> 01:24:33.182 - other Planning Commission colleagues have on their mind. Thank you. Thanks John. Commissioner Thomas. 01:24:33.182 --> 01:24:40.926 - I don't know why we would want to ignore what's going on in the city and in the town. 01:24:41.122 --> 01:24:52.013 - of Ellisville. I don't know why we would want to do that. It's important to know what is being built. 01:24:52.013 --> 01:25:03.117 - And it can impact interest in other types of housing. So for example, if the town of Ellisville builds, 01:25:03.117 --> 01:25:09.950 - you know, a hundred single family homes on half acre lots, then 01:25:10.050 --> 01:25:16.369 - you know, that's probably not something that we're going to see a whole lot of interest in outside of 01:25:16.369 --> 01:25:23.122 - Allisville. It may be that people want smaller lots. It may be people want duplexes, calling them hereditary 01:25:23.122 --> 01:25:29.627 - homes to make them, you know, attractive or whatever they do. So it's important to know what other folks 01:25:29.627 --> 01:25:35.326 - are doing. And of course, people change the use of their land all the time. But if we track 01:25:36.386 --> 01:25:43.234 - building permits, then we're going to know that something's changed and there's not one house on that 01:25:43.234 --> 01:25:50.216 - land anymore. Now there's five. Okay, great. Now we know. Um, so to just take this information and say, 01:25:50.216 --> 01:25:57.266 - well, we only care about Monroe County. Well, yes, we care about Monroe County. We care about, we should 01:25:57.266 --> 01:26:04.114 - look at what we are doing. What is being built, the sizes, the variety, that kind of thing. We should 01:26:04.114 --> 01:26:05.054 - look at that. 01:26:06.082 --> 01:26:13.776 - but to ignore the other entities within the county doesn't make any sense to me. I would say as well 01:26:13.776 --> 01:26:21.776 - that I'm gonna go ahead and make motion. This is not to cut off discussion because I think there's still 01:26:21.776 --> 01:26:29.470 - plenty of discussion to be had, but I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion that the Excel spreadsheets 01:26:29.730 --> 01:26:38.795 - be transferred to the planning department for updating on an ongoing basis, and the planning staff will 01:26:38.795 --> 01:26:47.686 - let us know if they're struggling to manage with time to do this work. And secondly, that this report 01:26:47.686 --> 01:26:57.099 - should be part of the submission for House and Rural Act 1001. Second. Can I add one comment of information 01:26:57.099 --> 01:26:58.494 - before we vote? 01:26:59.426 --> 01:27:07.237 - Okay, okay. I think it's really important to know my stated it in the report that the Mural County building 01:27:07.237 --> 01:27:14.469 - department is the permitting authority for the city of Bloomington. So the authoritative data comes 01:27:14.469 --> 01:27:21.918 - from Bobby LaRue. That's not so with the town of Ellitsville right now, but we're working with them on 01:27:22.210 --> 01:27:32.757 - on it's a recommendation to have a memorandum of understanding so that we can at least have their information 01:27:32.757 --> 01:27:42.537 - but the data came from Bobby for the city so and he is the permitting authority. We have a motion and 01:27:42.537 --> 01:27:51.454 - a second. I have a point of information. Okay. As the House Enrolled Act states all of these 01:27:51.618 --> 01:28:00.744 - other government units or subdivisions will have to produce the same report, correct? Not have to. Are 01:28:00.744 --> 01:28:09.782 - you talking about the template for how? In the House Enrolled Act, it's a requirement for the City of 01:28:09.782 --> 01:28:19.262 - Bloomington and the Town of Ellitsville to produce this same type of report. Can we answer questions? Yep. 01:28:20.994 --> 01:28:29.042 - So they've given us sort of like a template of how many units were proposed, how many units were denied. 01:28:29.042 --> 01:28:36.707 - No, I'm asking that they're requesting a report from each one of these other government units. Yes, 01:28:36.707 --> 01:28:44.448 - every government entity has to hold a hearing. And the City of Louiston does it differently than how 01:28:44.448 --> 01:28:48.894 - we're doing it. They already had text amendments in play. 01:28:49.026 --> 01:28:57.012 - So they were just wrapping those in to be the part of this requirement. Thank you. I just wanted to 01:28:57.012 --> 01:29:04.998 - make sure that my thought process was correct when I was speaking on, you know, Monroe County data, 01:29:04.998 --> 01:29:13.303 - city of Bloomington data, town of Elitsville data, conducting a hearing, putting the findings together, 01:29:13.303 --> 01:29:18.494 - ultimately having a report back to them as requested. Thank you. 01:29:18.594 --> 01:29:25.724 - that point of information. And this would be as the motion as I understand it the report that staff 01:29:25.724 --> 01:29:33.354 - is going to be presenting later on after this part item one of the new business. This report that Margaret 01:29:33.354 --> 01:29:39.486 - put together would be an exhibit to that report. So it's not necessarily the required 01:29:39.682 --> 01:29:46.288 - data that we have to submit to the state. This is part of the minutes of the meeting, if you will, the 01:29:46.288 --> 01:29:52.829 - hearing component for what the public is going to be discussing. Those nine items, the nine questions 01:29:52.829 --> 01:29:59.243 - from the state, and then adding this report does open up the public discussion to include this with 01:29:59.243 --> 01:30:06.233 - all the other reports. So does that answer it, Tron? Yeah, I guess. And I guess the point of my information, 01:30:06.233 --> 01:30:08.478 - since we're not having discussion, 01:30:08.994 --> 01:30:19.120 - I'll try to stay in this lane, is this isn't the final feedback. And who is going to be the body that 01:30:19.120 --> 01:30:29.048 - looks and approves that document? Because these are all steps to getting to the final document. And 01:30:29.048 --> 01:30:36.990 - I just want to understand where that procedure falls so I understand, you know, 01:30:38.050 --> 01:30:46.812 - how I can support one and the other because as of now, it's additional information I'm in favor, but 01:30:46.812 --> 01:30:56.094 - the end document and how that is approved and crafted is also something I want to understand that process. 01:30:56.226 --> 01:31:05.252 - I'm sorry, I just don't understand your question at all. I want to support this as a question. I want 01:31:05.252 --> 01:31:14.720 - to support it. Wait a second, please. Tron, Tron, stand by. When you say final document, are you referring 01:31:14.720 --> 01:31:24.542 - to the report that we are sending to the state? Is that what you're referring to? Yeah, OK, thank you. So the. 01:31:24.834 --> 01:31:31.519 - resolution that was approved by the plan commission and the county commissioners delegated the authority 01:31:31.519 --> 01:31:38.331 - of the hearing requirement to the plan commission. So the plan commission will hold its hearing on October 01:31:38.331 --> 01:31:44.825 - 22nd. We, we have a report in the next item under new business. We reviewed that together a few times 01:31:44.825 --> 01:31:50.046 - now, and that's what's going to be published as part of the October 22nd hearing. 01:31:50.210 --> 01:31:57.876 - with this report and the Excel spreadsheets as an addendum to that and a notation of the different housing 01:31:57.876 --> 01:32:05.112 - studies. So I think it's also under the next item for discussion under new business, but the vote in 01:32:05.112 --> 01:32:12.348 - front of you is to take the report and the Excel spreadsheets and put that to the House Enrolled Act 01:32:12.348 --> 01:32:19.870 - report that will eventually be sent to the state. Okay. Thank you. I'm clear on the modifications. Okay. 01:32:20.482 --> 01:32:27.379 - If there are modifications to be made to that report later before it goes to the state, I think the 01:32:27.379 --> 01:32:34.483 - deadline is January 30th, 27th or something of 2027. We could do that, but I think it would be staff's 01:32:34.483 --> 01:32:41.448 - recommendation to put together what we think is the final package. We'll hear from the public. We'll 01:32:41.448 --> 01:32:44.414 - have a work session to discuss whether the 01:32:44.546 --> 01:32:51.218 - factors and any changes that we want to send to the state because the whole goal of the hearing is to 01:32:51.218 --> 01:32:57.956 - say yes, we heard the public. They had these questions, these points. Yes, we're making changes to our 01:32:57.956 --> 01:33:04.824 - code. No, we're not making changes to our code. Or to be determined if we're making changes to our code. 01:33:04.824 --> 01:33:11.431 - Anything else, Tron? No, it's just a complex process and I really appreciate taking a little time to 01:33:11.431 --> 01:33:13.982 - kind of walk me through it. Thank you. 01:33:14.722 --> 01:33:21.415 - Okay, so there's been a motion and a second on the table. Is it okay if I go ahead and call the roll 01:33:21.415 --> 01:33:28.174 - on that? Okay. It's been motion to have the Excel spreadsheets updated by the Planning Department and 01:33:28.174 --> 01:33:34.933 - we would alert Plan Commission members if we're struggling to keep it updated and that we should also 01:33:34.933 --> 01:33:41.891 - include the report in Excel spreadsheets as part of the House Enrolled Act 1001 submission to the state. 01:33:41.891 --> 01:33:44.542 - A vote yes is a vote to do both things. 01:33:44.930 --> 01:33:58.517 - Rudy Fields? Yes. Jack Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Larry Clements? Yes. John R. Randolph? Sorry, 01:33:58.517 --> 01:34:12.105 - I'm in the middle on this one. I feel like I need to understand a bit more information, so I'm going 01:34:12.105 --> 01:34:14.526 - to recuse myself. 01:34:15.618 --> 01:34:22.648 - Thank you. Scott Paris. Yes. Okay. So that is approved by a majority. So we have five to zero to one. 01:34:22.648 --> 01:34:29.746 - Okay. One clarification. You talked about, you talked about now you're, you now own, you now own that, 01:34:29.746 --> 01:34:36.983 - that spreadsheet and that database. You own it. Okay. Uh, in order to make it real, uh, I would, I would 01:34:36.983 --> 01:34:43.806 - offer that you need to tell us how often you think that you should update us with the information. 01:34:44.354 --> 01:34:50.278 - whether it be monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, annually, et cetera. And I think that it needs to be 01:34:50.278 --> 01:34:56.557 - formalized. I mean, it's like when you give an update on something, this should just be a standard update 01:34:56.557 --> 01:35:02.481 - or trend analysis or changes or something like that. I'm not saying we need to vote on that. That's 01:35:02.481 --> 01:35:08.286 - what I recommended in my report. Do we need to vote on that or is that something you can just do? 01:35:08.482 --> 01:35:14.352 - We have already started making 2027 agendas, so I would like to just put it on agendas. I would put 01:35:14.352 --> 01:35:20.223 - it on agendas. Yeah, if it's always going to be a link, right? It's always going to be able to be a 01:35:20.223 --> 01:35:26.210 - link. It's always going to be an active link for people in the spreadsheets. And then if it's on your 01:35:26.210 --> 01:35:32.257 - re-agenda, perfect. OK. Yeah, I think it's great. OK. Yeah. Are you just going to do it? We don't need 01:35:32.257 --> 01:35:36.542 - a vote on it. We can just do that. All right. I just wanted to have some 01:35:37.474 --> 01:35:45.993 - So did we just vote on did we just vote on number two? We did vote one and two and I mean quarterly 01:35:45.993 --> 01:35:54.512 - I think everyone's nodding their head. Margaret. Okay believe it or not since we reviewed this like 01:35:54.512 --> 01:36:03.286 - Friday there have already been changes to the inventory so I my question is should be should I present 01:36:03.286 --> 01:36:04.734 - this same report 01:36:04.930 --> 01:36:12.254 - as the exhibit one or should I update it according to the spreadsheets that exist as of this moment 01:36:12.254 --> 01:36:19.797 - or will there be other spreadsheets that need to be included? Did you freeze the data as the question? 01:36:19.797 --> 01:36:27.560 - The spreadsheets always include like a working update on the bottom. I think that's good practice. Should 01:36:27.560 --> 01:36:30.782 - I update this for the October 22nd meeting? 01:36:31.010 --> 01:36:37.325 - And for the packet, for the public meeting, I think I should. The numbers. So that they match exactly 01:36:37.325 --> 01:36:43.516 - the spreadsheet because there are. I would suggest an ASS update. Yeah, just say ASS on October 1st 01:36:43.516 --> 01:36:49.893 - or whatever the date is on your. On mine? Yeah, I wouldn't, I wouldn't. Because there's something like 01:36:49.893 --> 01:36:56.394 - a thousand units. That's a lot of units. That just got on? That just got on. That are not in here. Okay, 01:36:56.394 --> 01:36:57.694 - well then go for it. 01:36:57.954 --> 01:37:04.995 - Are we presenting? Are we having a presentation on the 22nd of the housing report? It's going to be 01:37:04.995 --> 01:37:12.246 - an exhibit to the Health and World Act. So page 80 of this packet. It's going to be something that the 01:37:12.246 --> 01:37:19.921 - public can discuss. But there's not going to be a formal presentation. No, I was not planning on presenting. 01:37:19.921 --> 01:37:27.806 - So freeze the date on wherever you want to freeze it and put an as level. Yeah, and then that's a lot of units. 01:37:30.402 --> 01:37:37.550 - Yeah, I don't know if you want to bring this to the commissioners. So you want to bring this to the 01:37:37.550 --> 01:37:44.769 - commission? I don't know. I don't know. Do you should it come before the commissioners? And they put 01:37:44.769 --> 01:37:52.274 - it as a, as a secondary. Imperator on the document, just sort of, I would have to be on the 22nd because 01:37:52.274 --> 01:37:59.422 - we're that's our next meeting. Yeah. But if you wouldn't mind coming and presenting during, um, um, 01:37:59.522 --> 01:38:06.041 - during when staff updates will be coming and do it. Yeah, that would be, I think it would be useful. 01:38:06.041 --> 01:38:12.560 - I think it's different audience, you know? Yeah, it's important that, well, it's by permit. Yeah. So 01:38:12.560 --> 01:38:19.208 - it's verifiable and replicable. Yeah. And again, if any mistakes are there, we fix them. We would like 01:38:19.208 --> 01:38:25.598 - it would, but then there are mistakes in building and you know, elsewhere. So yeah, that's got it. 01:38:26.882 --> 01:38:35.078 - Okay, so Jackie back to you on 3, 4, 5, and 6. Do we need to still talk about those? Or did we? I think 01:38:35.078 --> 01:38:42.014 - that this could be an ongoing discussion, but I do want to make sure at least number 4. 01:38:42.210 --> 01:38:48.724 - We want to make sure that we agree to the Excel spreadsheet categories and just some methodology. If 01:38:48.724 --> 01:38:55.431 - you want us to do that our next quarterly update, one of the things that Tammy and I discussed was just 01:38:55.431 --> 01:39:01.944 - how do we keep this really consistent, especially in this Discuss category. Does it have to at least 01:39:01.944 --> 01:39:06.910 - have a newspaper article tied to it or if it's approved but not constructed, 01:39:07.266 --> 01:39:14.065 - doesn't have to have a permanent petition number, sorry, for whatever, to track it. So what's going 01:39:14.065 --> 01:39:21.068 - to happen is something will go from a petition number or even a newspaper article to a petition number 01:39:21.068 --> 01:39:28.003 - to then be built. And once it's in the completed total housing, we'll stop iterating on it. But those 01:39:28.003 --> 01:39:34.870 - other former spreadsheets continually require updating until it gets to the others. So I would argue 01:39:34.870 --> 01:39:37.182 - you have a baseline document now. 01:39:37.826 --> 01:39:43.368 - Okay, if we're going to go to, you know, monthly updates, you know, for whatever meeting, whether it 01:39:43.368 --> 01:39:48.964 - be the admin meeting or the plan condition meeting or whatever, I would say, what? Quarterly. Did you 01:39:48.964 --> 01:39:54.616 - say quarterly? Yeah. Quarterly? I like what's the, quarterly. Those things that are evolving and we're 01:39:54.616 --> 01:40:00.267 - getting more granularity on, that's where you would take and bring that up in that particular portion, 01:40:00.267 --> 01:40:04.382 - because this is going to evolve. I mean, this thing is just to be getting. 01:40:04.514 --> 01:40:11.624 - Yeah. The standard, for example, had X number of units that were reserved for low income housing, and 01:40:11.624 --> 01:40:18.733 - then they retracted that restricted character. So now it's just market rate housing. Does that answer 01:40:18.733 --> 01:40:25.774 - your question? Yeah. And I think that we can come up with a methodology similar to what Margaret has 01:40:25.774 --> 01:40:29.886 - used. If we need to move stuff around, we'll just do that. 01:40:30.018 --> 01:40:36.043 - I don't even think color coding is going to be helpful. I'm just going to put it in there and try to 01:40:36.043 --> 01:40:42.128 - alert you to some of the changes. But yeah, it's a little bit of a moving piece. And I think based on 01:40:42.128 --> 01:40:47.915 - some of the discussions, we understand this is going to be high level, just kind of a pie chart. 01:40:47.915 --> 01:40:54.060 - But note, as Mr. Bishop pointed out, some of the items, especially under just discussed, not approved, 01:40:54.060 --> 01:40:56.446 - no petition number. We don't know when. 01:40:56.962 --> 01:41:04.131 - especially some of these older PDs, if they are approved, not constructed, we don't know when they will 01:41:04.131 --> 01:41:11.231 - hit the market or if they will hit the market. So I'm just keeping those counts as very much like this 01:41:11.231 --> 01:41:18.124 - is a count, but it's not to be completed with completed total housing. So just that. And of course, 01:41:18.124 --> 01:41:24.190 - designs change and plans change and, you know, yeah. So I think, I think that's a good, 01:41:25.506 --> 01:41:33.535 - you know, a good caveat on looking at that data that you can't just assume that it's going to be built. 01:41:33.535 --> 01:41:41.874 - But we do need to have at least the numbers to start with and that they're, you know, if they're malleable, 01:41:41.874 --> 01:41:49.672 - they're malleable. For point three, I would say that we should try to get information from the town. 01:41:49.672 --> 01:41:53.918 - If it's difficult, we might have to do a FOIA request. 01:41:54.402 --> 01:42:08.145 - I'm sure they can do that and I think that the. Yeah, I don't know if we need one with because we're 01:42:08.145 --> 01:42:17.534 - getting that data from. Right now, the building permits not not but. 01:42:18.050 --> 01:42:26.079 - But, you know, and then their packets are online, so we know what the planning commission is doing and 01:42:26.079 --> 01:42:33.875 - we know what the council is doing. So I'm not sure we need an OU with the city, but if you think we 01:42:33.875 --> 01:42:41.748 - do, I'll support it. I would caution against it, you know, just because it's not reliable, you know, 01:42:41.748 --> 01:42:45.022 - like the phases of that approval process, 01:42:47.074 --> 01:42:55.948 - As you mentioned, as Tron mentioned, things can change. There's, for example, a letter of intent for 01:42:55.948 --> 01:43:05.262 - that first United Methodist lot where the old post office used to be. And that has been in the newspaper. 01:43:05.262 --> 01:43:14.048 - I don't know if it's gone before the Planning Commission, but the letter of intent expires December 01:43:14.048 --> 01:43:15.454 - 17th. And if it 01:43:16.002 --> 01:43:22.505 - You know that may change. That may change on December 17th if the letter of intent isn't signed, then 01:43:22.505 --> 01:43:29.199 - that may open it up for a blank lot again. You know, so I think it hasn't been to the client commission. 01:43:29.199 --> 01:43:35.893 - It hasn't gotten to the purchasing room. The current time frame is to see if they even come to a greater 01:43:35.893 --> 01:43:41.694 - price and timing and everything else. But it's listed in our packet as a letter of intent. 01:43:41.986 --> 01:43:47.883 - So that's accurate and it's annotated that it expires in December and we can revisit it at that time. 01:43:47.883 --> 01:43:53.779 - Right, but you couldn't count that as any sort of housing inventory either in the back line or beyond 01:43:53.779 --> 01:44:00.080 - because it is absolutely intangible at this point. It doesn't have any, until you have a purchase agreement, 01:44:00.080 --> 01:44:06.035 - there is nothing down that. There's no legal structure holding the two parties together. I understand. 01:44:06.035 --> 01:44:09.214 - It's just in the category of discussed and not billed. 01:44:09.506 --> 01:44:14.930 - It's just discussed. It's just out and everybody knows about it. Yeah, paper and but I mean, so I have 01:44:14.930 --> 01:44:20.355 - lots of conversations with people talk about putting more parties out by me and you're able to include 01:44:20.355 --> 01:44:25.885 - all those because that's a lot of conjecture about just discuss. I mean, what level does that discussion 01:44:25.885 --> 01:44:26.622 - have to meet? 01:44:26.786 --> 01:44:34.906 - But to get to this point, or is there any, you know, impromptu conversation? I think that was the question 01:44:34.906 --> 01:44:42.951 - Jackie was asking. And I think that a newspaper article, a B square article, a letter, an official letter 01:44:42.951 --> 01:44:46.366 - of intent, you know, there's somewhere like. 01:44:46.498 --> 01:44:52.829 - That's a verbiage saying like this is the standard for each of these different levels because uniformly, 01:44:52.829 --> 01:44:59.040 - we just need to know. Yeah, because otherwise, you know, it becomes too loose that it becomes gray and 01:44:59.040 --> 01:45:05.251 - then don't rely on it. Right. Right. We need that to update it. So that's the secret. So I think we're 01:45:05.251 --> 01:45:11.582 - saying discussed should at least have a newspaper article or letter of intent, something tangible linked 01:45:12.098 --> 01:45:19.250 - In the notes section approved, not constructed. We're going to say requires an actual petition number 01:45:19.250 --> 01:45:26.542 - for tracking under shovel. That would obviously have a permit number and then once that gets completed, 01:45:26.542 --> 01:45:33.835 - we would be able to see that in the data and move it over to total completed. The occupancy permit when 01:45:33.835 --> 01:45:40.917 - that's issued, would you just double check with Bobby that they count the units? Yeah, it's that was 01:45:40.917 --> 01:45:41.758 - nice there. 01:45:41.858 --> 01:45:46.123 - Is there a time tracking component, since you are looking at things that are discussed, things that 01:45:46.123 --> 01:45:50.431 - are planned, like we're going through all these stages, but is there a through line to the amount of 01:45:50.431 --> 01:45:55.038 - time it takes from the time it gets to become discussions, the time it gets built, the time it gets online? 01:45:55.714 --> 01:46:01.327 - Because I mean, that gives you an idea of how far the runway is for one of these projects, either in 01:46:01.327 --> 01:46:07.161 - a general sense or individually for certain ones. Like, is the start to finish a five-year construction? 01:46:07.161 --> 01:46:12.774 - So as we're planning these, we're really going five years out? Or is it like a two-year runway where 01:46:12.774 --> 01:46:18.331 - these things are going up really quick from approval to getting in there? I would say it depends on 01:46:18.331 --> 01:46:19.998 - the housing type, the market. 01:46:20.098 --> 01:46:25.764 - And a lot of other things I've seen Hayden Place, Westgate go up in two, three years or less. But then 01:46:25.764 --> 01:46:31.265 - there's other developments that are single family residential and spend decades and they're not all 01:46:31.265 --> 01:46:36.820 - filled out. There's a house left or two houses left. Yeah. But this data would allow you to start to 01:46:36.820 --> 01:46:42.376 - quantify those things because now you're tracking it through these different stages. You're tracking 01:46:42.376 --> 01:46:46.942 - them with units. So you can even watch how those units breathe either to contract. 01:46:47.074 --> 01:46:53.562 - you know whether it goes from workforce housing to all student housing so now you have all these data 01:46:53.562 --> 01:46:59.922 - metric points that you can tack in there and that are really important keys to what type of housing 01:46:59.922 --> 01:47:06.346 - you're actually having in the community. I don't think from a building permit point of view the fire 01:47:06.346 --> 01:47:13.470 - code makes a distinction between student housing and multi-family housing so I don't think that that's going to 01:47:14.114 --> 01:47:23.670 - distinction that the Monroe County Building Department is going to make. And if it's proposed, we didn't 01:47:23.670 --> 01:47:34.046 - say that this was proposed as workforce housing and then became student housing. It's merely multifamily housing. 01:47:34.146 --> 01:47:41.642 - were set aside for workforce housing. They weren't set aside. However you want to package that up, the 01:47:41.642 --> 01:47:49.356 - number of units did not change. There was the age, there was the restricted. The age, like the IU housing 01:47:49.356 --> 01:47:56.925 - is student enrollment restricted and there's income restricted, but those are actual restricted housing 01:47:56.925 --> 01:48:03.038 - units. Right. But Atlas and you know a lot of these other, they are not restricted. 01:48:03.298 --> 01:48:08.784 - Right, but that doesn't have to do with the number of units. Just because it goes from restricted to 01:48:08.784 --> 01:48:14.432 - an unrestricted unit does not change. Right. Yeah. Yeah, the units are there. Right, but it's not about 01:48:14.432 --> 01:48:20.135 - workforce versus student because you can't actually make that distinction. No, that's what we were told. 01:48:20.135 --> 01:48:25.783 - Yeah, you can't make a distinction now. Well, in the city it's zoned at student housing. It's the city, 01:48:25.783 --> 01:48:29.694 - but we don't do that. Well, if you want to. No, we don't. No, we don't. 01:48:29.858 --> 01:48:36.708 - No, we don't want to know if we go back to page 50 again. I was on those three through six and maybe 01:48:36.708 --> 01:48:43.625 - they're happy with that. I just want anything else we need to talk about on there. I think we'll just 01:48:43.625 --> 01:48:50.882 - have have this at the end. No, I think we've answered everything. Yeah, we have. This is important because 01:48:50.882 --> 01:48:58.206 - I think especially doing other staff. We present you want the Golding Commission of present on third place. 01:48:58.690 --> 01:49:05.170 - Are there any edits? Okay, I don't think so. Does anybody feel like we need to have the building commissioner 01:49:05.170 --> 01:49:11.178 - there? I mean, you know, he makes up things from a really, you know, he's such a good, that's the one 01:49:11.178 --> 01:49:17.128 - thing that I really appreciated about doing this is what great people we have working for our county 01:49:17.128 --> 01:49:18.718 - and helping to protect our 01:49:18.850 --> 01:49:25.793 - people are building the security of our buildings, you know, the safety of our buildings. And it's, 01:49:25.793 --> 01:49:32.943 - there are a lot of moving parts and boy, you know, to look through all this data over all those years, 01:49:32.943 --> 01:49:39.955 - just a couple of edits and meanwhile, you know, occupancy permits are issued. He would appreciate it 01:49:39.955 --> 01:49:46.898 - knowing about the 4,250 units that are gonna, you know, occupy his department in the future because 01:49:46.898 --> 01:49:47.870 - that may mean 01:49:48.258 --> 01:49:56.337 - Manpower needs for him for his department, you know, I think. I don't, but I don't think he's needed. 01:49:56.337 --> 01:50:04.971 - No, I don't. But you was doing the advertisement for me. Is it you? OK, you're going to do the Commissioners 01:50:04.971 --> 01:50:12.971 - Council majority may be present yet. OK, thank you. Thank you so much. That's the only thing I would 01:50:12.971 --> 01:50:15.902 - say other than that. I mean, really, 01:50:16.322 --> 01:50:22.189 - We're not there to present. We're just there to listen and answer questions. So yeah, we're on that. 01:50:22.189 --> 01:50:28.462 - We have board of commissioners, county council, redevelopment commission, board of zoning appeals, township 01:50:28.462 --> 01:50:34.329 - trustees. Are we missing anyone? No. Okay. All right. I'd like, I'd like to close out. I don't think 01:50:34.329 --> 01:50:40.311 - so. Go ahead. Uh, so you might understand that there will be no presentations to the public since this 01:50:40.311 --> 01:50:43.390 - is likely their first time getting this information. 01:50:44.642 --> 01:50:51.538 - Because I think it's really important to have some sort of presentation for the public discourse because 01:50:51.538 --> 01:50:58.172 - a lot of people will not have had time to read this or maybe have access to the data sets in advance 01:50:58.172 --> 01:51:05.134 - and really just being able to put out the entire study itself in the way that Marga has I think is really 01:51:05.134 --> 01:51:10.782 - important in demonstrating what the importance of it is to the public at large. Okay. 01:51:10.946 --> 01:51:16.926 - I don't know if that's you or if she should or, but I think a presentation is materially important. 01:51:16.926 --> 01:51:22.965 - Okay. So if it's included in the House Enrolled Act packet, which is on page 80, as like an exhibit, 01:51:22.965 --> 01:51:29.244 - you would spend the time to separately present on that, but not the other housing studies that are going 01:51:29.244 --> 01:51:35.404 - to be included? Yeah, it's just the newness of it because everything else has had age to it and people 01:51:35.404 --> 01:51:40.606 - have had a chance to look at it. It's been referred to, it's been discussed of length. 01:51:40.738 --> 01:51:47.936 - Okay, but I'm going to say I don't agree because the focus of this hearing is on the CDO and right and 01:51:47.936 --> 01:51:55.134 - very specific questions that were asked of us or asked of us to ask the public. So I think that should 01:51:55.134 --> 01:52:02.122 - be our focus and I think obviously there's going to have to be some brief explanation of, you know, 01:52:02.122 --> 01:52:09.530 - why are they talking about the pitch of a roof? Right and that we don't actually, you know, before people 01:52:09.530 --> 01:52:10.718 - get up and start 01:52:10.818 --> 01:52:18.667 - Speaking, but other than that, I don't I don't see. Yeah, I would like to defer this discussion until 01:52:18.667 --> 01:52:26.362 - we get to new business item one. OK, because that's what will come up. OK, OK, your point is taken, 01:52:26.362 --> 01:52:34.134 - but I don't think that was the intent, but the data will be out there and posted. Let's go ahead and 01:52:34.134 --> 01:52:38.366 - move on to. Item three, which is the meeting calendar. 01:52:38.562 --> 01:52:45.815 - Yes, just a note. This does not include the holiday schedule, but we do have on here, possible conflict 01:52:45.815 --> 01:52:52.929 - and change of date later required. We're putting some things on there that we think probably will get 01:52:52.929 --> 01:52:59.973 - moved, but, and we also know we'll probably get booted from somewhere in here. So, but this at least 01:52:59.973 --> 01:53:06.878 - gives us the ability to do the filing deadlines that are already going to be coming up in October. 01:53:07.042 --> 01:53:14.909 - that might get hearings in January. So we can always amend this, but there are changes that I didn't 01:53:14.909 --> 01:53:22.854 - even see specifically. Let me pull it up, because I have a copy of it. I have our... The only comment 01:53:22.854 --> 01:53:29.086 - I see up there, and of course, this is 2027, right? Yes. Is that December 21st. 01:53:29.538 --> 01:53:38.871 - Nobody's here. It's a week of crystal. Okay, so move that up a date. I would just argue that everything 01:53:38.871 --> 01:53:48.294 - shuts down because everybody goes home. Can I read them to you really quickly? Can I help you? Me trying 01:53:48.294 --> 01:53:57.537 - to compare it on all this reading. Okay. All right. New Year's Day, MLK Day, it's January 18th. Spring 01:53:57.537 --> 01:53:59.422 - holiday, March 26th. 01:53:59.650 --> 01:54:11.448 - Memorial Day, May 31st, June 18th, July 5th for Independence Day, September 6th for Labor Day, 01:54:11.448 --> 01:54:23.991 - Veterans Day, November 16th, November 25th, Friday after that, Christmas Eve is the 24th, which is a 01:54:23.991 --> 01:54:28.958 - Friday, and New Year's Eve is the 31st. 01:54:29.250 --> 01:54:36.622 - which is also Friday, and then they're going to be three-footed holidays. I think that's what we're 01:54:36.622 --> 01:54:44.436 - going with. That's what we're presenting that was going to be on on Thursday. I don't see anything either 01:54:44.436 --> 01:54:51.882 - except to take off the asterisk for the election because it's a city election year, so we don't need 01:54:51.882 --> 01:54:56.158 - to have a big step. Otherwise, I don't think there's any. 01:55:00.034 --> 01:55:17.058 - Yeah, December 23rd. That's not send it to me. We have it December 15 this year. Yeah, I could say, 01:55:17.058 --> 01:55:27.102 - well, the six feet will be waste reduction districts. Yep. 01:55:27.778 --> 01:55:40.171 - So, I would say would have to be. Yeah, I don't know that there's an option. That whole week, that whole 01:55:40.171 --> 01:55:52.447 - week of. How about how about. How about the. The 50, I mean, you could do the 16th and we can just make 01:55:52.447 --> 01:55:57.758 - sure that the waste reduction meetings done. 01:55:57.954 --> 01:56:05.110 - Because that starts at four. Okay, but we can do the 15th even. We had, I know these are not great for 01:56:05.110 --> 01:56:12.057 - people, but we can always just mark it in and then if we have room conflicts or other issues, we'll 01:56:12.057 --> 01:56:19.212 - just amend it again. Yeah. I think we just need to amend it when we do. Yeah, budget here when we know 01:56:19.212 --> 01:56:22.686 - the budget hearing schedule just to roll that in. 01:56:22.914 --> 01:56:32.097 - Okay. So this would be, um, it's on rolling. We would be changing, taking the Astros off of November 01:56:32.097 --> 01:56:41.371 - 2nd, May 4th, and changing December 21st to December 15th. Is there a motion on that? So moved. Okay. 01:56:41.371 --> 01:56:49.918 - Second. I will call the motion. The motion was seconded. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. 01:56:51.362 --> 01:57:02.170 - Mark Clements? Yes. Tron, you're there. I'm here. I'll pass. If you don't got enough votes, let me know. 01:57:02.170 --> 01:57:12.670 - OK. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. All right. Motion carries 5 to 0 to 1. Thank you. All right. 01:57:13.794 --> 01:57:20.995 - So that closes out the administrative business. We have no unfinished business. Now we're into new business. 01:57:20.995 --> 01:57:27.799 - And now we're going to talk again about the House Enrollment Act 1001. And I think you're going to get 01:57:27.799 --> 01:57:31.102 - a new review of what you plan on submitting. Yes. 01:57:31.202 --> 01:57:37.752 - So I did make some edits from the last discussion, and as long as no one has questions on those, I'll 01:57:37.752 --> 01:57:44.495 - go through the questions I had for the group. So first question is, I do need a majority vote that these 01:57:44.495 --> 01:57:50.981 - are the invested housing studies we want to link to. The Indiana University attainable housing study 01:57:50.981 --> 01:57:57.466 - in Monroe County, regional opportunities initiative 2019, and then 2023, and then city of Louisville 01:57:57.466 --> 01:57:58.558 - housing 2020 all 01:57:58.754 --> 01:58:05.807 - for transparent usage of data and public policy making by Gene Simonian, and that was in 2021. 01:58:05.807 --> 01:58:13.379 - And then our, this study that, just Pat, please. Can you say invested slash other? This is their. Was 01:58:13.379 --> 01:58:21.026 - that their template? This is their. State code. Then I would just take and put other. Put other. Well, 01:58:21.026 --> 01:58:27.262 - you've got the ones, you've got the links above and down below, you just put other. 01:58:28.130 --> 01:58:33.848 - And then it specifically says invested in and there was no investment in this. It was made very clear. 01:58:33.848 --> 01:58:39.067 - So to actually go to give the unit a invested in the housing study in twenty one, twenty two, 01:58:39.067 --> 01:58:44.674 - twenty three, twenty four, twenty five. This also fell in twenty six. So it's outside that scope. It 01:58:44.674 --> 01:58:50.393 - cannot be. I don't think any of those studies work because we didn't pay for any of them. I would just 01:58:50.393 --> 01:58:56.222 - say that I invested time in this and I am a member of this body. We have not spent money on any of this. 01:58:57.762 --> 01:59:06.621 - I think we do include them in another place to say that their county didn't pay for these, but near 01:59:06.621 --> 01:59:16.100 - our studies. But we can't include marvelous because it was 26. This cuts off at 25. That is a mathematical 01:59:16.100 --> 01:59:24.959 - thing we can overcome. This was supposed to be appendix. Like I'm okay with additional data, but. I 01:59:24.959 --> 01:59:27.262 - think this is a question. 01:59:27.522 --> 01:59:36.544 - Legal. I'm sure that Mr. Bishop's question is definitely for legal, but the other questions for the 01:59:36.544 --> 01:59:45.837 - planning commission. And I think additional information is fine, but you know, like I would want where 01:59:45.837 --> 01:59:54.950 - we're adding things that are outside of our political subdivision, which I'm sure a lot of the other 01:59:54.950 --> 01:59:56.574 - reports are fine. 01:59:56.866 --> 02:00:06.409 - or do that as well. I don't want to take away from what Margaret has done in the time and she's put 02:00:06.409 --> 02:00:16.048 - into it. I think we can improve on this and maybe eventually it could be like an official study from 02:00:16.048 --> 02:00:24.446 - Monroe County housing stock for sure. But without like validation from the other units, 02:00:25.186 --> 02:00:34.455 - the other groups are independent. So I understand that they might have a broader scope of their studies. 02:00:34.455 --> 02:00:43.547 - I am fine with it being included, but I would just have it as a appendix versus listed as a study. And 02:00:43.547 --> 02:00:52.463 - I guess that's the question being asked. And I just wanted to jump in here as we were kind of in the 02:00:52.463 --> 02:00:54.846 - middle of that discussion. 02:00:56.610 --> 02:01:06.195 - But my is the only study that studied housing in twenty one, twenty two, twenty three, twenty four and 02:01:06.195 --> 02:01:15.781 - twenty five. Yeah, Jackie, shouldn't all those be on section B, because really they fall under housing 02:01:15.781 --> 02:01:19.038 - studies performed by the regional. 02:01:19.202 --> 02:01:24.438 - Local economic development organizations. All those fall under that because, as Julie pointed out, we 02:01:24.438 --> 02:01:29.880 - didn't pay for anything, so it really should all be under B, which still would not account for Margaret's 02:01:29.880 --> 02:01:35.271 - because she's not a global economic developer. That's not necessarily true with the Center for Knowledge 02:01:35.271 --> 02:01:40.405 - Diffusion. I'm listed as an economic development organization. OK, where are you saying that should 02:01:40.405 --> 02:01:45.795 - be located? The next piece down. It just needs to move from there. None of these were things we invested 02:01:45.795 --> 02:01:48.670 - in Monroe County. We didn't. We didn't do any of these. 02:01:49.474 --> 02:01:55.598 - So that's more procedural. You can always put, listen, this is data. You have to step back and look 02:01:55.598 --> 02:02:01.782 - at the big picture on what they're doing. These are not the legislators per se asking the questions. 02:02:01.782 --> 02:02:08.028 - These are the staff of those legislators. They're doing a data call because they're going to sit down 02:02:08.028 --> 02:02:14.274 - and propose new language. So this is nothing more than data collection. That's all this is. These are 02:02:14.274 --> 02:02:18.622 - staffers looking at this information, not necessarily the legislators. 02:02:18.978 --> 02:02:26.557 - I would argue that you could, if you have a problem with what was listed, you could always put a note 02:02:26.557 --> 02:02:33.838 - and say, we've also, we've also added that that's why whatever we added, you can always say note. 02:02:33.838 --> 02:02:40.823 - I mean, it does. Then that can allow us to do the 2019 and 2020. And if I guess voted on bar, 02:02:40.823 --> 02:02:48.030 - it's technically listed as an economic development organization. I think all of it goes under V. 02:02:48.290 --> 02:02:56.041 - I think that's a good thing. Yeah. Because the years don't matter. I see it. I see what you're talking 02:02:56.041 --> 02:03:03.791 - about. Yeah. Because B doesn't say the years. Yeah. So they're all everything goes under B. That's our 02:03:03.791 --> 02:03:11.617 - problem right there. Yeah. I just have one question. We didn't commission the study. I didn't see that. 02:03:11.617 --> 02:03:16.734 - Sorry. We didn't commission this, right? This has been independent. 02:03:20.418 --> 02:03:30.735 - but like when other boards and they're like, we're commissioning a study, there's some parameters, there's 02:03:30.735 --> 02:03:40.376 - some deliverables, there's some official action, it's almost a service. So I do think we need to be 02:03:40.376 --> 02:03:49.150 - pretty precise on how we do call each one of these documents. And I don't disagree because 02:03:50.402 --> 02:03:59.291 - From my understanding, we never made a vote from a plan commission to have this done. So to call it 02:03:59.291 --> 02:04:08.180 - a study from the plan commission, I think, isn't the right course. I agree with Mr. Ferris. We just 02:04:08.180 --> 02:04:17.602 - make a note. Other, we include it. It's data. It's tangible data. It's good data. But to call it a study, 02:04:17.602 --> 02:04:19.646 - I feel like it's being 02:04:19.874 --> 02:04:25.495 - that's like something that we need a commission, you know, like we, you know, that's just my thoughts. 02:04:25.495 --> 02:04:31.115 - Okay. I would argue that way back in the beginning when Jackie was taking and asking others to provide 02:04:31.115 --> 02:04:36.791 - data into their surveys, that was a housing study. Uh, the result would have been a housing study based 02:04:36.791 --> 02:04:42.520 - upon those survey findings. And so if you want to make the argument of whether or not this was a housing 02:04:42.520 --> 02:04:48.414 - study in the beginning, it was and it evolved to what it became. So, I mean, we're playing with words here. 02:04:49.218 --> 02:04:56.456 - Yeah, I think, I think what we're looking at, Ron is not, you can't see the screen, but what we're looking 02:04:56.456 --> 02:05:03.492 - at, unless you're back at the computer, but what we're looking at is item B, which says a housing study 02:05:03.492 --> 02:05:10.392 - performed by a region's local economic development organization. The word commission is not in there. 02:05:10.392 --> 02:05:17.630 - Um, the years are not in there that everything in the list it's in there, including, um, the recent study. 02:05:17.922 --> 02:05:25.534 - that Dr. Cohn has finished. But it does say study specifically, and Margaret's entire document refers 02:05:25.534 --> 02:05:33.594 - to it as a report. And a report is a compilation and account of data. A study is actual additional abstract 02:05:33.594 --> 02:05:41.057 - thought about that data and what it means. And I believe that that's the conflation between housing 02:05:41.057 --> 02:05:47.774 - data and housing study. OK, we need to vote on this because I can't read it. I would like 02:05:47.938 --> 02:05:55.589 - I would like a vote that this is the all-inclusive list, if there's any other items that you want included 02:05:55.589 --> 02:06:03.169 - and to move it to B. So could someone make that motion? So moved. Second. So it's been moved and seconded 02:06:03.169 --> 02:06:10.606 - to move all these studies from A down to B. And then is your motion including Margaret? Margaret, yeah. 02:06:10.606 --> 02:06:15.326 - Then I'm going to follow the rule. Thank you. Julie Thomas? Yeah. 02:06:15.618 --> 02:06:24.651 - It's a study. I don't do a report, but I'm doing a study, dude. Yes. Okay. John, right, Randolph? It's 02:06:24.651 --> 02:06:33.858 - not that I'm talking about. Never mind. You just don't want it in there. That's okay. Ron, do you? John? 02:06:33.858 --> 02:06:42.014 - Yeah, I was just waiting for the... It just goes not against my appreciation, but I do think 02:06:42.690 --> 02:06:50.600 - If you need to be very precise, I do think maybe legal should give it a glance and give planning some 02:06:50.600 --> 02:06:58.355 - further guidance. I'm gonna vote no. Scott Paris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Okay, so 02:06:58.355 --> 02:07:06.109 - it still passes the move at all under B and add Margaret's by a vote of five to one. Okay, the next 02:07:06.109 --> 02:07:12.158 - question that I had was that we wanted to just put as a summary to the report 02:07:12.354 --> 02:07:19.242 - For the House Enrolled Act, nine questions to say any changes to the County Development Ordinance following 02:07:19.242 --> 02:07:25.748 - the public hearing will be determined after October 22nd. We did confirm the notice of the quorum. We 02:07:25.748 --> 02:07:32.254 - didn't want to include the regional sewer district during the discussion of that, so I just wanted to 02:07:32.254 --> 02:07:38.951 - make sure. Those are the two things. I don't think the quorum would show up for this. Okay. I just don't 02:07:38.951 --> 02:07:41.438 - think that's... Okay. Jeff would know. 02:07:41.538 --> 02:07:51.494 - You can ask Jeff. I don't think there will be OK. Those were the only five questions I had on that board 02:07:51.494 --> 02:08:01.261 - and I didn't include it for the delegation of the hearing authority and then the possible notice. This 02:08:01.261 --> 02:08:10.174 - is just for your own education and I'll post this and then we'll be good to go for the twenty 02:08:10.274 --> 02:08:15.851 - So you are going to be presenting briefly on each of the questions that were posed and then providing 02:08:15.851 --> 02:08:21.427 - the information so that people know what they're commenting on. Correct. OK. But the reports, I'm not 02:08:21.427 --> 02:08:26.949 - planning on going through those links. And just to make clear, this is a public hearing, so they get 02:08:26.949 --> 02:08:32.580 - their three minutes. Correct. They can talk about anything that's not on the list. I'm sorry? They can 02:08:32.580 --> 02:08:38.266 - talk about anything that's not on the list if they want. They can talk about it. We're going with that. 02:08:38.266 --> 02:08:39.742 - As long as it's about CDO. 02:08:40.258 --> 02:08:50.137 - but there's no real dialogue between us with respect to them, just like we did on the CDO. All right. 02:08:50.137 --> 02:09:00.113 - Any other comments with respect to new business item one, HEA 1001? Ron, are you okay? Yeah. Thank you 02:09:00.113 --> 02:09:08.830 - for recognizing me. I'm good. I agree that this is going to be a fluent growing document. 02:09:10.274 --> 02:09:19.361 - All right, that takes us to SMN 26-4, which is the Zikes estate major subdivision. And I don't know 02:09:19.361 --> 02:09:28.448 - who's speaking. It says Brown here. I'll go ahead and cover this. I know Daniel is listening in. If 02:09:28.448 --> 02:09:34.718 - there's questions, I think he's able to answer those. But this was a 02:09:35.362 --> 02:09:40.720 - Going to be on the regular meeting agenda for the October 22nd. This will be the only other thing other 02:09:40.720 --> 02:09:46.077 - than the House Enrolled Act. I believe it's the only other thing on the agenda. But it's a primary plot 02:09:46.077 --> 02:09:51.281 - to create two lots, but the reason it's coming before the Planning Commission is that there's a bill 02:09:51.281 --> 02:09:52.414 - with labor requested. 02:09:52.770 --> 02:10:00.720 - It's starting out with 73.58 acres in the AGR and they're creating two lots total. So partial plot vacation, 02:10:00.720 --> 02:10:08.306 - road with waiver. At the plot committee meeting that we had, they did not yet provide the average daily 02:10:08.306 --> 02:10:15.599 - trip data. And so there was a discussion that they're seeking that data before it goes on the 22nd. 02:10:15.599 --> 02:10:21.726 - That was the plot committee's recommendation. And it's fine to use that other data. 02:10:22.242 --> 02:10:30.974 - I mean, they just have to have it, right? Yes. They might want to take their own. Yeah. Yeah. But that 02:10:30.974 --> 02:10:40.045 - was just the petition we just heard. They did an average shipment as well under the planning and buildable 02:10:40.045 --> 02:10:48.777 - area per lot, drug waste being reviewed, not really any concerns by staff. That's one. Could this just 02:10:48.777 --> 02:10:51.998 - be first before the Housing Rule Act? 02:10:52.130 --> 02:10:57.951 - just so that they don't have to sit through an entire meeting waiting for this decision if they don't 02:10:57.951 --> 02:11:03.715 - wish to stay. Let's see where it's at on the commission agenda. I'd just like to... We have not sent 02:11:03.715 --> 02:11:09.536 - the notice yet. It goes to Meru. That's true. I mean, I can see arguments both ways. You know, if you 02:11:09.536 --> 02:11:15.870 - have a lot of public, they're waiting. They're not going to want to wait for a petition. It is listed as well. 02:11:16.450 --> 02:11:26.560 - So it is after. Do you want us to move it? I'm out of consideration for people. I don't know if they 02:11:26.560 --> 02:11:37.571 - have children. I don't know. They have people they're caring for, you know. You're considering one petitioner 02:11:37.571 --> 02:11:44.478 - versus the public, right? And so they might have kids. I don't know. 02:11:44.738 --> 02:11:50.902 - Just I mean there are there are arguments both ways and I personally don't care but I just want to say 02:11:50.902 --> 02:11:55.870 - you can argue it either way and whatever you all want to do as I look at this one. 02:11:56.130 --> 02:12:03.700 - Is there anything controversial in it that's gonna, you know, it's kind of taken. I know that it could 02:12:03.700 --> 02:12:11.343 - just be a. So for that reason we could move it. Yeah, it could just even be without, you know, we could 02:12:11.343 --> 02:12:18.766 - do what you call it a a fast track where there's no objections and. Yeah, it still has to be a here. 02:12:18.766 --> 02:12:25.822 - Yeah, so you still have to call for monsters and stuff. But yeah, I would support moving it up. 02:12:26.146 --> 02:12:32.470 - Okay, if there's nothing controversial and then we can get through it pretty quickly. Yeah, I just hope 02:12:32.470 --> 02:12:38.673 - that their data helps them out. And if they don't get their data, then it would maybe, maybe it'll be 02:12:38.673 --> 02:12:44.754 - the next month or something. You know, their data, if they just even had a letter from the owner of 02:12:44.754 --> 02:12:50.957 - the data that said, I authorize you to use this data, if the data was adequate to the need, then it's 02:12:50.957 --> 02:12:55.518 - just that, you know, I don't believe that you can use someone else's data. 02:12:56.162 --> 02:13:02.893 - without permission and still have the confidence that you have the person that generated the data. Yeah, 02:13:02.893 --> 02:13:09.687 - so you have the data from another source for another need. Yeah, it's an ethical thing too for the server 02:13:09.687 --> 02:13:14.046 - because he said, oh yeah, we use the state. I said, well, you know, 02:13:14.498 --> 02:13:20.987 - I don't think you can, because that sounds serious to give away. I see. And you didn't create it so 02:13:20.987 --> 02:13:27.606 - you don't speak to the accuracy of it. Is it fair to say if we don't get the average daily trips data 02:13:27.606 --> 02:13:34.095 - by the meeting, just automatically continue it? Or that, in my view, a letter from the owner of the 02:13:34.095 --> 02:13:40.714 - data that says that it is, they're fine with these other folks' expectation or to utilize it. Have we 02:13:40.714 --> 02:13:42.206 - asked for that letter? 02:13:43.106 --> 02:13:51.141 - We talked about it. It was discussed at plot committee. Would it be enough to get that letter and then 02:13:51.141 --> 02:13:59.097 - the report of the data, right? We do have the report. You guys just approved it. So we know the date. 02:13:59.097 --> 02:14:06.898 - Okay. And if the data is adequate to the highway's needs to... Right, that's part of it. Okay, then 02:14:06.898 --> 02:14:12.670 - I'm good with that. I like that review. Yeah, okay. So if by 1022 packet, 02:14:13.250 --> 02:14:20.580 - publish and or hearing if we don't have either new data from the actual petitioner or letter giving 02:14:20.580 --> 02:14:27.910 - consent to use the ADT report from the Gardner major subdivision, then it gets continued. And we'll 02:14:27.910 --> 02:14:35.314 - note that. Okay. Mr. Bishop. Would a traffic count supplied by the Indian Small Business Development 02:14:35.314 --> 02:14:43.230 - Center be sufficient? Does they do that all the time? Yeah, we, I mean, we were just using people going out 02:14:43.682 --> 02:14:49.373 - standing there themselves and doing it from four to six with counters and no, no real money invested 02:14:49.373 --> 02:14:55.008 - really. I think they're sitting there with lawn chairs and your surveyor company is doing that. You 02:14:55.008 --> 02:15:00.700 - just paid four hours. Yes, true. You could outsource it, but we have taught the public how to do it. 02:15:00.700 --> 02:15:06.447 - And I think the public, I think they did it themselves based on the submission. But a report would be 02:15:06.447 --> 02:15:12.702 - sufficient. A report would be sufficient if they do it. Yeah. If you can give us that information. Okay. Okay. 02:15:13.794 --> 02:15:21.503 - Okay. All right. And we're recommending approval for the subdivision, but for now, denial for the flavor 02:15:21.503 --> 02:15:28.992 - only because we don't have the team and approval for the application. Is there any other questions on 02:15:28.992 --> 02:15:36.408 - this one before it comes up? Okay. All right. No questions. So that means we have closed out 26 for. 02:15:36.408 --> 02:15:40.446 - I have nothing on the backside of this piece of paper. 02:15:40.770 --> 02:16:10.558 - Are there any other items people want to bring up not on the agenda? Online, Ron. Nothing here.