We're going to go ahead and call the continuation of the Monroe County Planning Commission meeting to
order. This is from the, I guess it was the 23rd of September to tonight, which is October 6th, 2026.
And we're just going to go ahead and put some formalities in place and then we'll take and pick up where
we left off. What is the roll call, please? Will you determine quorum? Yes. David Bush, Margaret Clemens
here, Tron and Wright-Randall.
Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,
here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,
here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,
I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance
has adopted and amended. The Monroe County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Control Ordinance has adopted
and amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan has adopted and amended. The Monroe County Planning
Commission Rules and Procedures has adopted and amended. And the cases that were legally advertised
and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's agenda. Do I have a motion for approval? Move approval. Second.
So move and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence about yes is about to approve Tronin right
Randolph. I'll pass. Okay. Scott Farris. Yes. Rudy Field. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes.
Mayor Clements. Yes. Okay. Motion passes five to zero to one.
The agenda has not changed. We're going to have one in continuation of unfinished business from the
last meeting. Since there are no changes, I'll still ask for approval for the agenda, please. Motion
to approve. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve tonight's agenda. A vote yes is a
vote to approve as presented. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes.
I'll pass. Just because I'm driving and I don't want to have my video on outside of maybe the voting
action. OK, motion does carry 5 to 0 to 1. There are no minutes to approve. We move on to administrative
business. We did that in the last reading, so we're not going to repeat it here. That means this moves us to
unfinished business, which has continued from the 23rd of September. And what we're talking about is
SPP 26-1. And who's going to give us a quick summary on where we were? I'll give you a quick summary.
So we did hear this case at the September 23rd Planning Commission meeting. And there were five members
in person at that meeting. And there was not a majority vote. And so this got continued to tonight's meeting.
The petition is to create four lots with labor requests, including the road with two points of ingress,
egress, street tree, and then also a partial plot vacations. The reason this is a major subdivision
is they're vacating out of an existing minor subdivision, and the only option under that is to resubdivide
as a major subdivision. One of the questions that we had during the regular meeting was about the
Uh, surveyors notation of lot four being for recreation use. It is a very, um, difficult lot to develop.
It has steep slopes, drainage easements, course features. Um, and so it's right now used for agricultural
purposes. And so there was a concern about the ability to maybe preserve trees or what recreational
use would be on a lot. And the petitioner.
did not offer a tree preservation or any other preservation on this lot four, but they did state that
they may be able to on lot three. So the petition site does include several waivers, but does meet the
criteria in the county development ordinance for subdivision. And so I did pull out of the standards
for subdivision section 832-7, it says non-doubable lot,
land which the Commission finds to be unsuitable for subdivision or development because of flooding,
improper drainage, steep slopes, rock formations, adverse earth formations, topography, utility easements,
environmental constraints, or other features which might reasonably be harmful to safety, health, and
general welfare of the present or future inhabitants of the subdivision and or surrounding areas shall
not be subdivided or developed
and less adequate methods are formulated by the developer and approved by the commission to solve the
problems created by the unsuitable land conditions. Such land shall be set aside for such uses permitted
by this ordinance and shall not involve any such danger. This provision shall not apply to lots created
with a note stating that it's only for agricultural production or conservation only.
So if lot four is later down the road, if they come back and say they want this to be a buildable lot,
I think we could reopen the discussion on this lot being considered, whether it's a buildable lot or
not, because of its configuration, drainage measurements, et cetera, to even get access to it. So right
now we are recommending that a condition be placed at the lot, instead of saying recreational purposes,
we say it's for agricultural production and conservation only.
There is a state code that does limit the planning department's authority to prevent an owner from removing
all mineral resources, including logging the property. So should the planning commission move to condition
that the property owner replace a portion or all block four on a conservation easement, which would
prevent the removal of vegetation, it should be taken under advisement with the legal department.
And I didn't include the definition of conservation easement since that is probably the most fitting
for the last meeting's conversation.
And I stated after speaking with legal, the grounds for which the planning commission could require
some level of preservation is likely under the street tree requirement and request for a waiver. So
anytime they're asking for a waiver, that means they're not meeting the standard, that specific standard
of the subdivision ordinance. If they're meeting all other standards, then we're not able to ask for
things in return for meeting that standard.
but we did say that the requirement would have led to 18 trees along the frontage of the property if
the street tree waiver is denied or the Planning Commission could accept a written commitment for tree
preservation elsewhere on the property. And then we're just stating again that this was continued from
September 23rd to tonight's meeting and that would be a decision, a final decision could be made tonight
since this is a continuation of the regular hearing.
So I will pull up the lot flat for us. So here's the configuration, and this is lot four. So lot one,
lot two, and lot three would have septic sites before we get into some of the drainage easements and
then our sharing driveway.
to this location here. And then I believe there's already a driveway on this side. Are there any questions
or do we still have any other information? Commissioner Thomas. So what I had asked about was doing
a conditional approval with tree preservation on the steep slope areas in lot four and the Snakewell
Conservancy area.
And they didn't do that. They didn't offer that. Okay. Well, then. Okay. Any other questions from the
plant commission? We're online with. Yeah, I see that. Did you have any questions? No questions.
All right, so we go to the petitioner on any comments or changes or anything you want to talk about?
Well, just like we discussed, is there a way to go on the screen up there with the plant? We talked
about putting the tree preservation on lot three, on that one drainage. This lot right there. Yeah.
So we talked about last time offering the tree preservation in this area right there. And then one question
that I had was this has always been a recreational law. Now we've got the word conservation law in there.
And if it's a recreational law, does it have different standards? I'm not sure where the new conservation law is.
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
know why the different terminology there. So, essentially, I'm not sure where the surveyor came up with
the language for recreation purposes only. That's not something in our CIO.
So the agricultural production or conservation only allows you to create a lot that doesn't otherwise
meet the standards typically, so. Is that is it either or both? It can be or it's or agricultural productions
and in conversation with Eric today on the course features on lot four in the sinkhole and then the
steep slopes.
and wherever the logging come from, we have no intentions of logging, except if we have our intention.
But isn't there already some restrictions in the rural county code about where have the steep slopes
or where you can log in that cars feature? It depends, but if you're outside of a watershed area, then
an outside of an urban area, it is pretty limited in what we're able to regulate per state code.
Well, we are almost at the finish line on this and that the meeting on the 23rd was the first time anybody
had ever mentioned about tree preservation, except for the 18 trees. They've mentioned that from the
work from the get-go. So we were kind of caught off guard by this on the last meeting. And we would
be happy to give the tree preservation little spot there on lot three, but we do not want any restrictions
on lot four. I mean, that's my brother's part.
You know, I don't want any restrictions on his land, as far as, not that, and he can speak for himself,
not that he wants to temper that or has any intentions of tempering, you know. Since it has no restrictions
now, we would like to keep it that way. Any comments from the plant commission? Commissioner Thomas.
Well, it's nice to say you're going to, you're willing to offer a tree preservation area. The idea,
The idea is not just to preserve trees. The idea is to prevent erosion. And you can't do that by having
trees elsewhere. It's the erosion potential on steep slopes and in the sinkhole areas that worries me.
And so tree preservation elsewhere doesn't mitigate the erosion issue that can occur with logging. So
I'm going to be a no-go. I can't. So.
Well, we are good stewards of the land. This is my grandpa's farm. We don't want erosion. We don't want
the land tore up. I appreciate that. And I appreciate... We want to be best suited on deciding how we
go about that. Right. Can we just pull up the... Do we have an overhead? I think you do on one of these,
showing the land for the all three lots and where the trees are and where the erosion is, et cetera,
so we can just get a better understanding of that.
You're supposed to send in. There's a hand raised there. I didn't see a hand raised. We'll get to you
in a second.
I want to get a better understanding about what we're talking about for tree preservation for erosion
and comments that Commissioner Thomas made and what the problem really is.
So let's begin with Julie's concern on what she's talking about. I like this parcel here is lot four.
And that's it. Okay. Yeah. And then the pressure is not worked out on that. And that would be on the
two foot contours showing up as.
clothes contours, so these would be the karst areas here. They actually planted a larger area.
So in order to satisfy commissioners Thomas's concerns, what is a, what is a solution for this area?
What does the petitioner have to do to satisfy commissioner Thomas? I would say a referred to commitment
not to log 25% slope in the SCA area marked on the survey or map. That's it.
thing we talked about last time at Whirling. All right, so that's a requirement. The building department
wouldn't let you build on that. Yeah, but it's locking hands with the future people in my family.
You know, I've got a son who's almost 18, so basically I'd be his being a piece of property with strings
attached. It's like his inheritance that I'm
withholding some from he ever wanted timber. Alright, Tron, are you still have question? Yes. A question
kind of around the whole petition. This is more for Jackie or planning. Could you? And there's a two
part question here,
ask one and then go into the other one. Could you tell me what the petitioner is not in compliance with
currently? Sure. So when we went to the subdivision portion of the CDO, the items that the petitioner
was not able to meet included the items that they're asking for waivers for. So that is the road width,
So the road width is less than 18 feet. However, they've divided the average daily trips and that's
well below what the threshold is. They do not meet the two points of interest egress, which for rural
areas, difficult to meet. So it would be two connected access ways from a public road. They also do
not meet the street tree waiver for the street tree requirement.
They would like to ask for a waiver instead of planting the trees and there are only, I believe, 12
trees that can feasibly be preserved with the location of the shared driveway that they're going to
be having accessing the lots. Okay. Thank you. I just want to make sure I'm tracking correctly. I did
watch the original meeting and I have reviewed the packet. So highway,
has no concerns with the street tree waiver, correct? They're in support? They did not have a comment
specific to the street tree waiver, and I do think that they- No, no, no, road width waiver. Oh,
road width, I'm sorry. Yes, they didn't have an issue with the road width. Okay, and did we get any
feedback about the ingress egress? Two points of ingress egress.
Yeah, from highway. Not specifically. We did change that under the CDO. It used to say may require two
points of ingress, but now it says shall require two points of ingress. So that's just something new
in the CDO. And we're creating. Fairly large lot, so the two points of ingress egress is kind of. Baked in their.
for at least one purpose, which is traffic congestion and the other most likely connectivity.
Is that right? Generally speaking, yes. Okay. I don't see too much congestion and I don't see future
connectivity. So the street tree waiver is really the larger one that for my
observation of kind of nine years and some change, maybe 10 years on the plan commission. A lot of these
things are pretty straightforward and I feel like we favor the request for the waiver for the street
width in the ingress egress.
We do have a lot of conversations for the street tree waiver or a tree preservation. So, okay, now I'm
just gonna kind of put my comment out there. I think we're asking a bit more than what is really out
there because they're asking for the three waivers. Two, I am in support of.
the street tree I would like to see or tree preservation. If they complied with that, I wouldn't have
issues with the other, but the conversation is actually extending what is permitted on that lot and
restricting them. And finally, my last question is, you've mentioned that this might go in conflict
of what the state
has out there. So one of the only real ways is to make the petitioner to commit to this, which I feel
like is a very precarious situation to put someone in. And if our ordinance can't guide this, and we're
doing it just because they have to ask for waivers, which from my observation has been supported over
the years, except for the street trees.
I'm a little perplexed, but if the petitioner was willing to commit to the street trees or
a tree preservation, I'm more in favor of supporting this due to, you know, more broad fairness with
other parcels and lots that have the same type of restraints to it. And the fact that highway doesn't
have an issue with the street with waiver.
that's kind of where I'm at. And I just wanted to kind of go through what this discussion was and express
kind of where my position is. Thank you. All right. Anybody else? Any other commissioners up here wish
to chat? Mr. Rudy Fields. You know, Jackie, early on you read something about prohibitions of
mineral extraction, logging, and all that not really be in our purview. Is that accurate? So I'm happy
to pull up the state code if it's helpful to read the example. We're not able to prevent someone from
the complete alienation of mineral rights on their property, which includes logging or forestry.
outside of a quarter mile square. They don't have any regulatory issues. So that's why I was saying
urban. So we do like an urban analysis to see if the property is restricted, but even if it was restricted,
then we look at if it's in a watershed, this is not okay to them to eco or like lemon or shit. From
my perspective, I think they jumped through the hoops to get there.
Street tree waiver, they've added it on partial three. That was a tree preservation plot. Everybody
else is happy. I just don't see how we can say no to potential logging down the road. It just doesn't
sound like to me it's in our wheelhouse to do that. Anybody else?
What I'm trying to do is I'm trying to protect other landowners in the area from erosion and it's not
preventing them from logging anywhere on the property. It's preventing it in those select spots where
we used to have the ability to limit it and we don't anymore. And that's a protection and it's not a
complete, you know, no tree cutting anywhere.
It's not, it's not that at all. It's the 25% slope areas in the cars, concerns the area, which is not
a big proportion. It's not a majority. It's a minority of the property. So that's, that's what I'm trying
to do. I'm trying to accomplish this. Mr. Bishop. Oh, I appreciate it. You know, uh, interest in the
other property owners.
I believe that those property owners would have a similar platform to express their concern if that
was the case right. But they can come here and speak publicly about a concern about erosion of things
if that was a concern they had. The neighbors for the subdivision.
I mean, we wouldn't have noticed it about, we don't have a legal requirement notice for logging, but
if they did log and there was erosion problems, they could file a complaint and we would go out and
make sure the best management practices were followed. But by that point, there may, there would already
be erosion issues if that were the case. Yeah, it's more if there was an outstanding concern coming
down the road, this would be the platform with which it would be appropriate for them to show up and
express that. And they're not here.
I don't think anyone we haven't asked for remonstrators yet, but yeah, that's. Alright, anybody else?
Yeah, sorry, I forgot to lower it so I wasn't sure if it was noticeable. I appreciate that corner Colonel
Fares. My. My question is. Or.
My thought is, okay, so we can have this exact same partial configuration, but the road width is adequate,
and they have two points of ingress and egress, and they are now committing what it sounds like to a
tree preservation, this would be almost a by-right petition, is that correct? If they didn't have any
waivers, this would be a by-right subdivision, that's correct.
Right. And so the only way we could achieve this is making them commit to it. So if there are there
has to be comparable parcels out there that don't have those two waivers and we wouldn't have the ability
to limit what they can do. I appreciate the attempt to really try to preserve and mitigate, you know,
erosions and, you know, impact slopes. Absolutely.
but this is only putting more onus on this petitioner, but someone else could walk in and we wouldn't
have any ability to do that. So the fact that we can't do it without making them commit to it with things
that we would typically be okay with is what really puts me in the position of only supporting the waiver for the
with and the ingress and egress because that is not something we can do unless they have to ask us for
something and then we're going to add that. So like the fact that, you know, another petitioner doesn't
have to deal with the same type of things because of those two things that we typically favor. Again,
I just wanted to express my thoughts on this discussion and
try to kind of walk through it because it becomes very convoluted and complex because when they ask
for waivers, we can ask them to make commitments that will handcuff them for generations to come.
Thank you. All right, any other comments? That goes, I guess we go to the public now. Are those in favor
or are those opposed?
to the request here. And this is all the public hearing portion of it. I don't see anybody in the room.
Two people maybe in the room. I said, I don't see anybody raising their hand in the room. I'm married
to hands. See you in a second, qualified. Anyway, I don't see anybody in the room, public hearing portion.
Anybody online? I don't see any hands raised.
So that brings us to the point in the meeting where we have to make a decision. Is there a motion on
the table on how we proceed with this? And I would argue that there's a lot of waiver requests in here.
I'm not so sure you want to bundle them all together. I think maybe you should take an address
of independently if that makes sense. I'm welcome to feedback and thoughts on that.
I yeah, I think that they should be unbundled. You know, but I also just want to make an observation
that the cars conservancy areas on on lot four represent 1.75 acres of the 29 acres. And the 29 point.
Where is it more? It's 45 points. Oh, it's 45.63. So the cars can serve in the area.
totals 1.75 acres is what it seems like to me from the allocations on this map. I'll also point out
before you vote on the street tree, because I heard maybe commission member and what Randolph mentioned
this is you could deny the street tree waiver outright. But if you're hoping for preservation of trees
in return for approving, it would be approval with condition that they preserve
18 trees on the primary plot if that's the way that people and that was offered. I think on my question,
if we take the street tree trade wafer off the table and we negate all this and just give this one.
And just plant the trees in the right trees and don't worry about conservancy and not worry
about preservation and be done with it and walk out of here then.
We still have the road width waiver. Yeah, we don't figure it. No, but I mean, if you guys are for that,
it seems like nobody's for the street tree waiver. Okay. So if we just take the street tree waiver off
and go with the other two waivers, is that going to make this easier to pass? Because all plants are
12 trees. I think that we would...
Just if it's denied, that's what you're going to have to do anyways. So I would just say let the vote
happen. So we're in a motion phase, just so you know. We're done talking and now we're into the motion
phase. Okay, so part of the motion or part of, was part of the motion, having the tree preservation
on rock four,
Lot three. Lot three. That is part of the motion. I'm saying that that's something that they meant during
their testimony. No motion has been made. No motion on the table yet. I bumped. I know. You're there.
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
make a motion. Would you blow that up? I make a motion that
On SPP-26-1 Jackson, that's the surveyor. So on the preliminary bot that we approve the road width request
based on the findings of FACT and subject to the highway engineer report,
that we approve the waiver of the two points of ingress and egress waiver based on the findings,
in fact, and subject to the highway report. And we, and contingent to the survey showing tree preservation on lot,
Uh, adequate to meet the needs of what the street tree. Option available option is. That's it. That's
my motion. Does that include the partial? Oh, yeah. And and. Approval of the partial classification,
the petitioner stated that all owners of the.
minor subdivision flat agreed to. Waiver final hearing and waiver or final hearing. This is just sorry.
Isn't this the final we can send you to? So you have a motion and second OK, it's been moved and seconded
to approve SPP-26-1, which is the Gardner major subdivision. It does.
Not include the condition for the for agricultural production or conservation only marking on the plaque,
correct? That's correct. OK, you did not want to put that. Does that prevent them? No, that's just to
currently says for recreation use only and we're changing it to. Oh yeah, because preparation isn't
defined. If someone wants.
I'm fine with accepting that to my motion. Would you be fine with continuing your second? I'm not sure
I understand exactly what that's what you just said. That means this allow this to go through as a condition
instead of listing it as recreational use. It would be for agricultural production or conservation only,
which is just stating that they don't want it as a buildable lot for residential.
That's the way the ordinance defined and this doesn't prevent. The property owner to do whatever he
was mentioning in the future in the well, hunting and correct those other type of recreational uses
that they have. Okay, so just prevent a buildable site. I would like to offer that as a change to my
motion. Okay, the 2nd.
Okay, so there's been a motion and a second to approve SPP-26-1, the Gardner major subdivision. This
includes a condition of the primary plot that they mark lot four for agricultural production or conservation
only instead of listing the buildable area on the lot. It also includes a motion to approve the road
width waiver, approve the two points of ingress egress waiver,
approve the partial plot vacation, and then they are still approving the street tree waiver with the
condition that the petitioners surveyor place the required 18 trees in a preservation area on lot three.
Okay. A vote yes is a vote to do all of those things I just mentioned. Rudy Fields? Yes. Jeff Morris?
Yes. Julie Thomas. No. Mark Clements. Yes. Tronan Wright-Randolph. Yes. Scott Farris. Yes. I want to
add that this is a Plan Commission decision. So that means if the Subdivision was approved by a vote
of 5 to 1. All right.
Now that's off the table. I just wanted to note that I'm only going to be here for regular business
and then I'll be leaving and attending back online for that. We're going to close this out in just a
second. Okay. All right. So to bring this meeting to a close, we're going to talk about items not on
the agenda. That is for folks in here at this room and also for the public. If the public has any items
they want to bring up, anybody here at the table or in the room?
I see that online. That brings us to reports from planning. Do you have anything? I do not. And nobody's
here from legal. Is legal online? No, they had a conflicting meeting at Brown County tonight. OK, so
I move that we adjourn this meeting. OK. Second. OK, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you for coming.
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?
All right, so we're going to take a 30 second pause, catch our breath. We'll just try to get here first.
Thanks for coming. All right, it is now 6 15 and I'd like to call to
call to order the Planning Commission Admin Meeting for October 6, 2026. And the first thing we need
to do, I guess, is to make sure that we have a forum. So please call roll. Marty Thomas here.
John Enright-Rando. Scott Farris. Yes, here. Rudy Fields. Here. Jack Morris. Here. Julie Jonas. Here.
Steve Bishop? Here. So we have five members in person and not here is Joe Van Deventer, David Henry,
Tron Enright-Randolph, and David Bush. So I'm sitting in for David who had to take his wife
to an appointment. And so I'll be running this meeting unless there's any objections. Seeing none. We
do have a quorum. We do have a quorum, yes.
So we're going to go ahead and move into administrative business. First up is, I think Jackie wants
to talk about the plant commission board appointments. Yes. And this is only as it relates to the plot
committee. So we've had our citizen member, Travis Bxton, he resigned stating that he's not able to
make the meeting times anymore. And Joe Van Deventer's appointment for Purdue extension upon talking
with legal and re-looking at his appointment ends this month.
So we will need another Purdue extension person come their next meeting. They're going to appoint another
citizen because the agricultural extension is now reorganized and by state law, if they don't live in
Monroe County, which they don't, then they cannot serve on this board and they have to pick a citizen
member for a one-year appointment. So they have not had their board meeting yet. It's in November.
But if you do have any recommendations for someone with an agricultural interest and that they live
in the county, send them our way and I will give that to Adi in Purdue. So I'm asking tonight to see
if we can agree to revert back to three members for Platt committee. And if we want to assign an alternate
so that we do not have quorum issues moving ahead.
be two motions or one motion. So educate us on a lawyer went to three to five. We have in the rules
of procedure either that we can have five members or three members and we went to five to allow a citizen
member. And now the citizen member is no longer able to attend. We've had quorum issues the last two
meetings and we've gotten some complaints. So I will leave it at that. And I think it would be well
served if we finish out the year with the three and we can reestablish
this conversation in the regular meeting. This allows us to finish out the year and then in January
we can revisit and see if we want to bring back citizen matters. Is that what you said? And then two
is a quorum. Two is a quorum. I'll volunteer to be an alternate if somebody wants to nominate me. I'll
nominate you. I'll second. All those in favor? Third. And I can't move because that time I have a meeting.
So sorry to say it's a terrible time to have a meeting.
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.
Um, so this would be a motion to keep the same, keep the three of the five members removed to, and establish
an alternate of Jeff Morris. So the three members would be David Bush, Rudy Fields, Tron and Mark Randolph,
and the alternate would be Jeff Morris. I'll go ahead and call the roll. Scott Farris.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
The next item up is the housing inventory discussion. Jackie's going to give us a summary on where we
were and where we need to go. This is something that's been talked about, acknowledged for quite some
time. And I think personally, from my perspective, we're at that point where we can successfully move
on. And so if you'd please give us a quick summary of the executive committee and ex commas,
I call it. And we'll go from there.
One of our executive committee members, Martin Cummins is also PhD director and president for the center
of knowledge diffusion. And Margaret has presented us with what's called a housing platform, an analytical
platform for a housing inventory. And so this was discussed at the executive committee meeting on September
25th, 2026.
she gave a very thorough presentation and I put the recording in the packet. If those of you had a chance
to look at it, I can also pull up the packet from that meeting, including a PowerPoint. But this meeting
was essentially, they voted to bring this discussion to the full plan commission. So tonight we want
to look at this and I have some questions for you later on. We did have,
or people in attendance from the executive committee. And there was dissenting vote by commission member
David Henry. And there is an exhibit about the dissent, in particular the procedure of which the executive
committee was held and that we were able to discuss the executive committee findings before it starts
at the planned commission level. So there's some information in the packet as well.
But per the rules and procedure staff believes that the meeting was called correctly by a majority and
also that a minority vote dissenting the rules state that then it just comes to the full blank mission,
which is what happened anyway. So it's noted to come here. So there are a number of questions from the
executive committee and I wanted to summarize those for our discussion to be
kind of streamlined tonight. So it includes part one of this cover letter is just the questions and
answers as to the creation of the report. Part two is the summary of the executive committee talking
points and part three is a discussion of plant days forward. And then I do want to note we did add an
Excel spreadsheet for the data. It is linked now in
this packet as well, and I sent it out to planning commission members as soon as it was available. So
you're able to access that as well. I'm happy to go through any of those. If those of you that were
able to take a look at the report, would you like me to go into depth on each of the parts or at this
point? Okay. All right. So why was the report created?
We have been talking about a housing inventory for a long time. And when going back through and just
doing a search in our files, it came up even by a PUD petition in 2020. Subsequently, the white paper
by the BEDC also mentioned it as an important notation to know what our housing inventory is, what supply
and demand is like in
calling for essentially more housing. There have been attempts by planning staff to make a housing inventory,
even linking some of the building department's data through a GIS platform. John Baten, PhD with the
Surveyor's Office, created something, but that was really looking at what's already been built or approved.
We did not
make a successful attempt at looking at some of the other categories, which are discussed or approved,
but not built. And so this inventory now or housing platform put forth by Margaret does put a number
on that. And I have this, we have the spreadsheets that we're able to pull up as well. I still want
to say that some of this effort by staff previously, we could still incorporate as pathways forward,
but it is,
you know, we want to make sure we're focusing on the report in front of us and the Excel spreadsheets
in front of us. And that will be kind of taking over from what staff has done in the past. So there
are still discussions about the need for some sort of report. And so Margaret didn't put together a
report, which includes five categories of housing. So one is the total complete housing count currently
constructed with occupancy. That is,
Faking building department data exporting that and, you know, assigning that like the address is assigned.
You go out there and things are built. It's constructed. People are living there. The next category
is under shovel, which may be being constructed, but no one's yet living there. They have a permit,
but they're not living.
At the property because they don't have the certificate of occupancy and then approved, which could
mean it goes through the planning commission or city council and gets approval, but it's not yet constructed.
Discussed, which means it might have some sort of.
discussion of pre-filing for some approval such as a newspaper article or something tying together someone's
intent for development with some numbers associated to unit counts, building types such as apartments,
town homes, single family. And then the last category is restricted housing, whether that be by age
or income or some other qualification in order to be able to live on the
on that development. So how is the report created? Margaret did go through and pulled from the following
sources. So total completed housing, as I mentioned, building department data. We did, in the report,
Margaret did limit or note a limitation about the town of Elzo, which initiated their own building department
on January 1, 2020. Planning staff has
Attempted to obtain this data and will continue to follow up on that. And then the Excel spreadsheet,
we wanted to be clear that that did involve technical assistance from the building commissioner,
Bobby Leroux, and as well as myself and technical questions, John Beaton also assisted. Discuss not
approved. This was obtained from Monroe County Planning Commission, City of Bloomington Planning Commission,
Town of Elksville Planning Commission, and City Council meeting minutes as well as
Associated newspaper articles under shovel obtained from Planning Commission and Council meeting minutes
building permit data listing the project is still active drive by inspections by Margaret as well as
aerial reviews approved not constructed obtained by Planning Commission County Council meeting.
For multi-phase or mixed-use project, the process of searching through meeting minutes is iterative
and ongoing. For instance, conversion of first-floor commercial to first-floor apartments requires follow-up
from the original approval, and then is still in progress, but was done up until the publishing of this
packet. Restricted housing by income age, et cetera. This was information and unit counts obtained using
those fields above.
It may be in any of the prior four stages. Could be completed housing that's restricted, could be discussed
housing that's not yet built. This is kind of a catch-all, but it's a restricted housing to understand
what limits are there for, say, income or age-restricted housing. How much do we have in the county?
I want to go through some of the high-level talking points.
There was a discussion about IU enrollment, how the data shows city of Wilmington is comprised of 61%
students, and that enrollment has increased 18% from 2020 to 2025. This was also helping to frame some
of the discussions about how apartments make up a lion's share of some of the developments in the city
as shown on the Excel spreadsheets and in the report. We discussed maybe how many IU students are
online only to determine if increased enrollment meant increased in-person population within the city
limits. We discussed how this report could be updated, who would transfer the ownership of keeping the
report updated, and this is discussed further below on part three, Pathways Forward. Discussion about
necessary edits made to the report, which Margaret Lennon's PhD continues to make. It was expressed
at this report, and the spreadsheets that make up this report are a working document
And that units will continue to be approved and more data will continue to be generated and collected.
The request was made to edit the definition section of the report at a time to the definition of housing
types to from the building code. I will also note that we're assessing unit counts, not.
bedroom counts and so tying this to the building code would hopefully give us an apples to apples comparison
across the jurisdiction because I know, for instance, city of Bloomington will focus a lot on bedroom
counts, whereas the county will focus on unit counts. And so there is some difference there.
There were questions raised about revenue generation for each housing type, whether a presentation by
the assessor's office would be helpful in the future, understanding fiscal impact of these housing types
in light of upcoming and current legislation. Question about whether housing data would be put forth
to the state as part of House Enrolled Act 1001 under the Report for House Enrolled Act 1001.
It does state that we can include if the unit, which is the county, invested in a housing study in 2021,
2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025, which this report was created in 2026 and was done without pay, not invested.
This will be part of the later discussion again in the Pathways Board and noted as needing a majority
vote from the Plan Commission on how to proceed.
Procedural questions include why the packet for the executive committee was not published in advance
of the meeting. We did answer to that during the meeting, but everyone was given the information that
was presented at the executive committee at the start of the executive committee and our legal department
was there and mentioned that that is fully.
with an compliance of open door policy. We shared the screen so anyone hybrid could see it. We also
posted it online. Everyone had access to the same materials at the same time. There was a procedural
question about whether anyone had access to the packet in advance. The answer was no. Another question
arose as to whether there was staff time dedicated to the project without a discussion by the full planning
commission, the report, and the PowerPoint presentation.
were not edited or seen by staff, but there was time spent on the backend spreadsheet exports, which
is part of our online programming software we use daily. A member discussed that 14,000 people commute
into Monroe County every day, and therefore we do not capture their income tax. There was a discussion
that we need to figure out desirable housing units for those commuters to try to attract them to live
in Monroe County. And there were statements on pathways forward, possible database creation, such as
a website,
and frequency to updating the spreadsheet. So again, they go to three to one to send this to the full
plan commission. And then our pathways discussion forward. So here's finding what we need. We need to
understand that the report and the PowerPoint put together by Margaret with the support of the Excel
spreadsheets, this information is as good as it is today because it's updated.
So we need to understand the plan commissions bowl and who keeps track of that spreadsheet and in terms
of keeping it updated. So I'd like to see a vote and majority of whether the Excel spreadsheet supporting
this report can be transferred to planning and the how often we need to be updating it and bringing
it back to you.
OK, well, question one, do you have the resources in the planning department to do this? I think on
the Excel, so we're asking specifically about the Excel spreadsheet. I think that that's something that
if given, you know, we would want to come back to you, make sure our methodology is correct on establishing
the different discussed or approved, not built those types of things. I think that we could with frequency
and cadence established
go through meeting minutes and put that together. Yes, I think we have the bandwidth. Okay. That was
my question. Okay. And then the only other question before I get to the last part is we show this report
authored by Margaret Cummings, PhD being included as part of our submission for House Enrolled Act 1001
to the state. If so, we'll put it in the packet for the 22nd exhibit to that
and not a standalone discussion like this. So there are two different boats that we need to make. Okay,
so let's take it one at a time. Question? Yeah, go ahead. So if this wasn't paid for, how did this come
to be? So we've been talking about trying to do a housing inventory for a long time and it was just
something like I mentioned, transparently we've
brought it to this planning commission body in the past. And we just, we're trying to get majority vote
to, you know, direction, things like that. And we just attempted and failed. And so Margaret put this
together and brought it to us and said, I think this is what the planning commission needs to review.
And we saw it the day of the executive committee, the report and the PowerPoint were brought to us on
that morning. Okay. So with,
was it asked for or even was volunteered or, you know, I'm trying to understand because, you know, being
that someone within this or body, it's not quite arm's length, which you would always expect to have
at least some distance between a member of the body that's taking this up and the person that's actually
completing the report or doing the investigation that would be relied upon by that same body.
So in that way, it would be similar to a bank ordering some appraisal and deciding what the value is.
You can't do that because it doesn't make sense and it's not on its length. And so there's a concern
here that it's too close to the process and the decision making itself. For House and Rollbacks 1001
or what process? Just for even deliberation before the commission. Okay. Well, I put in the cover sheet
and again, just trying to answer the question ahead. We did discuss this with
Dr. Baten, January 6th, 2026. And I think from that discussion, staff sent out an email to say, is this
kind of what we're looking for? And I think every time that there's a new proposal that comes up, which
we haven't seen a lot of major subdivisions or big developments come before us with the sewer being
what it is. But if that conversation comes up,
We continuously hear from the planning commission membership, at least some asking, hey, where are we
at on this housing inventory? We never really closed the loop. And that's, that's been happening for
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,
at least the last few years. So. So still no, no ask for this by you.
by me or by the planning department, the planning commission. Was this requested by anyone in an official
capacity? Commissioner Taft? Yeah, I'm not sure I understand. I'm not sure I understand the question
because this is something I'm grateful that this was done because this is just raw data and
If there's there, you know, you can extrapolate a policy from the raw data, but we've never had this
raw data in one place accurately. And that has been missing for, since I've been on a planning commission
and I've been on here since 2009. So we've been missing this information. And the fact that somebody
has worked so hard to understand the building permit process,
to follow what the city's doing, to try to follow what Ella's doing, sometimes that's hard, is something
to be grateful for. Just because you don't spend money on a consultant doesn't mean there's a limited
value in the book. And in fact, the fact that she understands planning helps this process along because
she knew where to look.
for the information and when she drove by what she was looking for. And hiring a consultant would miss
a lot of those nuances. And there are a lot of things that we still don't know. And so, but to say,
here's a list of projects under shovel, completed, whatever, that's all this is. That's what this is.
And I'm grateful that we have it. I'm grateful that we have something we can build
And keep adding to, because that's the other thing we can't just say, okay, now we know it's good. No,
we have to keep adding to it and making sure that we keep up with it. And that's something that we're
all going to have to make sure that staff has the ability to do it and our encouragement to do it.
And if they don't have the time, then we have to figure something out. So I don't see this as any kind
of a conflict. I don't see this as being not arm's length enough because actually having somebody who
understands the terminology we use in the county, what the city uses, et cetera, I think helps that
process along greatly and shortens the process a little bit in terms of comprehension.
Okay, I do have to say if I may rebut. There's concern with some of the data too, because even by MCA's
on admission, the COSAR data is not complete or comprehensive and something they don't intend to rely
on in perpetuity either. So that is heavily relied upon on here in terms of the gross apartment rents.
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?
I wasn't finished. We'll finish your comments and then we'll go to. Yeah, sure. So, I mean, that's the
concern that the data quality that's being relied upon is incomplete. It doesn't use more current data
such as the American Community Survey that talks about population data, but looks at it in
a more comprehensive way than what's relied upon here. I think it goes back to a study in 2020, which is fine.
But there is more nuanced data. It doesn't look at the IU student population as resident students versus
enrolled students. It only focuses on student enrollment, which has gone up at 18% in 2020-25. That's
not the same as the actual students that are really on campus or within Monroe County. And it also doesn't
speak to the fact that the average age is 25 years old, but it doesn't take out the people that are
under the age of 18.
and otherwise wouldn't really qualify as part of the median age for people that would be in residential
housing. All right, okay. Well, I didn't take notes of everything that you said, but one question I'd
like to answer is how did this come about? I've been serving on this body since 2018, and every time
housing demand studies come out, you know, I asked the question, how do we know if we don't know exactly
what exists and what the numbers are? How do we know what the need is for housing, housing types? How
do we know what we're talking about from a planning perspective? And so I, in order to pursue
my responsibilities on this body,
I'd been making back of the envelope notations every time a housing development gets approved. And then
I went to the city of Bloomington's hand data to reconcile it with what they had listed. And the unit
of measure wasn't the same. You know, they measured by beds rather than multifamily unit. And also when
a project gets approved and before it comes to its final occupancy permit, there are changes that occur.
And that is especially true for PUDs where there may be five phases for a major project over, you know,
many years. And so changes occur. And how do we keep track of what is planned, what is achieved, what
is ready for occupancy, what is approved, and how much do we need, of what apartment type, and are we
serving the community where we are
sworn. And so I've been making these back of the envelope notations and, you know, going through every
line item, both the commercial permits for multifamily homes and residential permits for single family
homes and duplexes and reconciling them one by one and where information was missing, like for example,
the number of units in the building, I supplied that. I tracked that down, whether it was 323, whether
it was 34, whether it was 555, whatever it was, whether a duplex was actually a quadplex, whether a
duplex was a triplex, et cetera, I tracked that down.
And I was didactic. The building department gave me some information, but I also gave the building department
some information. And I feel that from my own perspective, that this is what I need to serve on this
body and to do a responsible job for planning. And if it can help planning and building and our local
economy and builders and realtors in an apartment,
complex developers even better. I think that this type of information is useful when these important
decisions are being made and I stand by that. It's useful to me. I need it in order to evaluate proposals
before us and it serves me. Now, one question that has come up in the research is,
and I really tried extensively to not be biased. I just reviewed what was out there. I didn't say that
was right or that was wrong. The Memorial County Apartment Association alarmingly sent a letter saying
they have record vacancies and we don't want to have a housing bubble
first here in Bloomington. And we need to know exactly what we're building. How much do we need? How
much are we satisfied? And the city of Bloomington actually was about the only one that made projections
on housing need by 2040. It was repeated by the BEDC. It was repeated by the ROI. It was repeated by
the Indiana Business Research Center. But it was like one source of data
projecting the need by 2040 of how many units would be needed for our community. And I just tested that
statement, like what did they say we needed and what has been built? And I wasn't surprised, but many
people were that, you know, we've achieved in a few short years, but they estimated they needed by 2040.
Now, what we do with that, whether or not it's the right type of housing, these are important questions
for a body exactly like this, for a community just like this, for an economic development corporation
exactly like this, because where we go from here, especially with the House Enrolled Act, where we're
going to be switching from property taxes to income taxes, we have to worry about the sustainability
of our community. Are we building the right kind of homes for the right
people who can actually contribute to sustaining what now has become a pretty dependent housing system
from what I can see. But with that being said, I don't know what question did I not answer. The quality
of the data. The quality of the data is original data.
And it's better than the original data given to me. For example, on one housing commercial unit,
you know, there were, you know, building permits expire after two years and sometimes they have to be
reissued. So that can result in a double count, for example, from somebody who's not accustomed to the
data. They're just pulling raw counts from the, which they do. They attribute building permit data
in the ROI study and in the Monroe County Apartment Association costar study, they reference the billing
permit data. Well, I cleaned that. I reconciled it. I made sure that each entry was unique and that
a duplex that had been built under a residential housing permit
was not also double counted in a commercial building permit, like for example, at Atlas, where duplexes
and single family homes exist. Yes, Julie. And just to clarify, what you did in your report
is you acknowledged the other studies. Yes. You didn't use them. You didn't use their data. You didn't
use CoStar data on rents or
No, it's original from Bobby LaRue. And whenever, when I got through all the lines of data and all the
building permits that were issued at each commercial and residential structure, there were a handful
of items that I had questions about, you know, maybe two handfuls, about 24 to 30 properties. And Jackie
and I sat down and talked about them. You know, did I get this wrong?
is did I double count? Did I fail to attribute it to the right type of property? And we reconciled all
of those. And we fed that back then to Bobby LaRue. So the data was better on his end too. And I've
had conversations with him, et cetera. So- It is important to note based on what you just said, that
you validated your data with the appropriate
organization, whether it be building, or whether it be planning, et cetera. It's validated data. Original
source data. Validated original source data. Validation is a very key part of this discussion. And my
particular, if I could just interrupt for a second, all you gotta do is, if your eyes can stand it,
is to read these doggone Excel spreadsheets. This is exhaustive detail here. And I don't see double
counts in there.
anybody who's going through the line items. We ran the risk of double. In fact, this is all I can say
authoritatively is an under count. It's an under count because it doesn't include the B line apartments
under the affordable Cal category. It doesn't include Ellitsville. It doesn't include Apple Park. So
this is all an under count. And that was done intentionally to be conservative.
with our statements. And then I, because I am a research scientist, to control for my own bias and to
control for quality control in the data, I ran it by two other PhDs who were independent of any of us
and asked them to read through it and check through it for error. And so you got this for free without
having to pay any consultant, I say congratulations.
I say thank you. Yeah. And so it's valid data. Yeah. And from my world as a former analysis division
chief, the data speaks for itself. Absolutely. And it's replicable. Somebody can go to an line item
on that Excel spreadsheet. And yeah, it may say 243 units.
When they show up there, there could be 244, maybe 245, but we're aware of that possible discrepancy
and we reported it as 243. Mr. Bishop. It is a great representation of gross mathematical data. It is
not a representation of housing weakness. I need to assert that.
It cannot become a conflation of the two, though. I did not. I just quoted what had been asserted by
the BEDC, by the city of Bloomington, and by the Indiana Business Research Group. I tested their claim
against the data, and I did not assert housing need whatsoever. I said, in fact, this is not a wage
study. It is not a job study. It does not answer the affordability question.
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
it to get conflated, that it could be seen as the same or informing the other. It is just the representation
of the number of units that we have in the community, right? Yeah. I mean, I don't have control over
what people think, but I didn't assert those statements. So I have no responsibility for it. But for example,
If we, I mean, I, and I can see that, that broadening this database would be beneficial, you know, how
many are vacant, how many, you know, how many duplexes are vacant, not even beyond apartments, because
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
know how many are still in the market, how many are, you know, sitting empty still. Um, but what this
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
built and,
and to get a sense of, to ensure that we are providing a variety of housing options as well. Not just
any housing, but a variety of housing options. I mean, we could extend this out to look at the price
point when new construction's completed on housing. There's a lot of things we can add to this, but
that doesn't mean that the data isn't valid or important to have.
No, this is the starting point on which because it's authoritative, unique, reconciled data that on
which you can add price points if you're able to get them. Fee structures at apartment complex. But
I don't know what that type of market research is something that we want to spend time and money on.
But knowing that there are five thousand four thousand two hundred fifty units about ready to bid.
is really important to Bobby LaRue. It's really important to the planning department. It's really important
to our local economy. It's really important to know before we approve another 4,250 units that we've
got phase one, two, three, and four of the Summit District coming on board. Let's take a look at that
and make sure we don't create an oversupply and create
problems for the people who have invested in our community. You know, that's a big risk. You know, and
the MCAA complained about it through the postcard letter, you know, that they've got vacancies that
they didn't anticipate. It's only to student housing, though. I don't know that. No, I'm telling you,
because I engage with them and I've worked closely with the MCAA since then, and I've had these conversations
with them. And so it's trying to understand
exactly what the nuance is there. And yes, they are concerned about student housing. It's not about
the Lacey markets and regular rentals. And so there's a difference there that you have to tease out.
Well, I, you know, when they came for approval, they were asked, is this is this apartment complex being
built for students? And they said, no, it was workforce housing.
And so the building department does not differentiate. They differentiate according to fire code and
they differentiate according to, you know, the fire duration of a shared wall can withstand. That's
what they differentiate from firewall. Yeah. So that's not, that's not within the purview of this study. And, um,
When they came before the planning commission, I was there, you know, there were maybe 200 residents
concerned about overbuilding student housing. And they said, no, it wasn't. So I don't know exactly
the point. I'm personally for moving this to the planning department. Yeah. And for them taking ownership
of this, assuming that they have the resources to do that. Yeah. I go back to them. How many hours did
you put into this? Oh, my God.
And so we want a staff of two to take on the upkeep. The data's there. They just kind of manipulate
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
not within our purview, it's within their purview. I have your concerns about the capacity of their
ability to do it. I mean, you're saddling them with a commitment. If they say they can hand it, that's
a different. That's why I asked the question. So, but I don't want to maintain
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.
So I'm happy to give it to the planning department to maintain it. All right, let's get Trona. Are you
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
your chance. I appreciate it. I didn't want to stop the flow of discussion.
the back and forth is always a great opportunity to kind of have a more extended discussion. My my questions
are kind of were we asked to include the other jurisdictions like the City of Bloomington and Ellitsville
from from the House Enrolled Act 1001 as part of our report.
or is this optional? Sorry for illegal. Well, we will have to report on this for our unit. So it'll
be the county. So there's one of my concerns is that we should just kind of focus on the county unless
we get some validation sign off from the other government units that this information is accurate.
I just don't feel comfortable using data that is extrapolated and I do appreciate the work. This gives
us good tangible numbers that have been reconciled but there's a broader question and I think Mr. Bishop
is kind of chipping away at that which I think is important. I also think there's limitations of what
we can provide because vacancy
would be a very difficult thing. But I think we should stick to just our charge Monroe County and what's
available. A couple things with the data when it says not built and built environment those are very
distinguishable things. I appreciate that and I appreciate having that separated. But also the not built
could potentially
you know, skew kind of what the outcome is. Because if someone doesn't extend, you know, the time of
the approved underlining plat, then it, you know, then it may not be allowed, right? You know, that
expiration would occur. Also, there's potential of people vacating plats.
you know, there's an unknown variable there, you know. And on the other side of that coin, you know,
someone might come and, you know, try to do a major on a parcel that has all the right infrastructure
and can. So, you know, trying to predict that this has the underlying approval of 12, but they're on
sizable lots, it could easily increase too. So,
I think that is good information to provide. I just think it needs to come with a lot of clarity of
how uncertain this information can be utilized. Those are kind of my main things. I think getting to
a starting point and moving forward is going to be the only way we can really address this.
Also I think it's good that we looked at other housing studies and we're not like trying to refute those
but we're trying to utilize that information. But you know the last thing I want an outcome to be is
a report we send up to the state that like starts to question other folks' efforts versus just really
kind of and I think
Colonel Fair said it the best is let the data speak for itself. So it's a big task and I just wanted
to mention those main things that a lot of this data doesn't really show us a clear outcome of what
will be available or what won't be available and
That's all I have. I'm afraid I'll keep saying the same things. I hope these are questions or thoughts
other Planning Commission colleagues have on their mind. Thank you. Thanks John. Commissioner Thomas.
I don't know why we would want to ignore what's going on in the city and in the town.
of Ellisville. I don't know why we would want to do that. It's important to know what is being built.
And it can impact interest in other types of housing. So for example, if the town of Ellisville builds,
you know, a hundred single family homes on half acre lots, then
you know, that's probably not something that we're going to see a whole lot of interest in outside of
Allisville. It may be that people want smaller lots. It may be people want duplexes, calling them hereditary
homes to make them, you know, attractive or whatever they do. So it's important to know what other folks
are doing. And of course, people change the use of their land all the time. But if we track
building permits, then we're going to know that something's changed and there's not one house on that
land anymore. Now there's five. Okay, great. Now we know. Um, so to just take this information and say,
well, we only care about Monroe County. Well, yes, we care about Monroe County. We care about, we should
look at what we are doing. What is being built, the sizes, the variety, that kind of thing. We should
look at that.
but to ignore the other entities within the county doesn't make any sense to me. I would say as well
that I'm gonna go ahead and make motion. This is not to cut off discussion because I think there's still
plenty of discussion to be had, but I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion that the Excel spreadsheets
be transferred to the planning department for updating on an ongoing basis, and the planning staff will
let us know if they're struggling to manage with time to do this work. And secondly, that this report
should be part of the submission for House and Rural Act 1001. Second. Can I add one comment of information
before we vote?
Okay, okay. I think it's really important to know my stated it in the report that the Mural County building
department is the permitting authority for the city of Bloomington. So the authoritative data comes
from Bobby LaRue. That's not so with the town of Ellitsville right now, but we're working with them on
on it's a recommendation to have a memorandum of understanding so that we can at least have their information
but the data came from Bobby for the city so and he is the permitting authority. We have a motion and
a second. I have a point of information. Okay. As the House Enrolled Act states all of these
other government units or subdivisions will have to produce the same report, correct? Not have to. Are
you talking about the template for how? In the House Enrolled Act, it's a requirement for the City of
Bloomington and the Town of Ellitsville to produce this same type of report. Can we answer questions? Yep.
So they've given us sort of like a template of how many units were proposed, how many units were denied.
No, I'm asking that they're requesting a report from each one of these other government units. Yes,
every government entity has to hold a hearing. And the City of Louiston does it differently than how
we're doing it. They already had text amendments in play.
So they were just wrapping those in to be the part of this requirement. Thank you. I just wanted to
make sure that my thought process was correct when I was speaking on, you know, Monroe County data,
city of Bloomington data, town of Elitsville data, conducting a hearing, putting the findings together,
ultimately having a report back to them as requested. Thank you.
that point of information. And this would be as the motion as I understand it the report that staff
is going to be presenting later on after this part item one of the new business. This report that Margaret
put together would be an exhibit to that report. So it's not necessarily the required
data that we have to submit to the state. This is part of the minutes of the meeting, if you will, the
hearing component for what the public is going to be discussing. Those nine items, the nine questions
from the state, and then adding this report does open up the public discussion to include this with
all the other reports. So does that answer it, Tron? Yeah, I guess. And I guess the point of my information,
since we're not having discussion,
I'll try to stay in this lane, is this isn't the final feedback. And who is going to be the body that
looks and approves that document? Because these are all steps to getting to the final document. And
I just want to understand where that procedure falls so I understand, you know,
how I can support one and the other because as of now, it's additional information I'm in favor, but
the end document and how that is approved and crafted is also something I want to understand that process.
I'm sorry, I just don't understand your question at all. I want to support this as a question. I want
to support it. Wait a second, please. Tron, Tron, stand by. When you say final document, are you referring
to the report that we are sending to the state? Is that what you're referring to? Yeah, OK, thank you. So the.
resolution that was approved by the plan commission and the county commissioners delegated the authority
of the hearing requirement to the plan commission. So the plan commission will hold its hearing on October
22nd. We, we have a report in the next item under new business. We reviewed that together a few times
now, and that's what's going to be published as part of the October 22nd hearing.
with this report and the Excel spreadsheets as an addendum to that and a notation of the different housing
studies. So I think it's also under the next item for discussion under new business, but the vote in
front of you is to take the report and the Excel spreadsheets and put that to the House Enrolled Act
report that will eventually be sent to the state. Okay. Thank you. I'm clear on the modifications. Okay.
If there are modifications to be made to that report later before it goes to the state, I think the
deadline is January 30th, 27th or something of 2027. We could do that, but I think it would be staff's
recommendation to put together what we think is the final package. We'll hear from the public. We'll
have a work session to discuss whether the
factors and any changes that we want to send to the state because the whole goal of the hearing is to
say yes, we heard the public. They had these questions, these points. Yes, we're making changes to our
code. No, we're not making changes to our code. Or to be determined if we're making changes to our code.
Anything else, Tron? No, it's just a complex process and I really appreciate taking a little time to
kind of walk me through it. Thank you.
Okay, so there's been a motion and a second on the table. Is it okay if I go ahead and call the roll
on that? Okay. It's been motion to have the Excel spreadsheets updated by the Planning Department and
we would alert Plan Commission members if we're struggling to keep it updated and that we should also
include the report in Excel spreadsheets as part of the House Enrolled Act 1001 submission to the state.
A vote yes is a vote to do both things.
Rudy Fields? Yes. Jack Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Larry Clements? Yes. John R. Randolph? Sorry,
I'm in the middle on this one. I feel like I need to understand a bit more information, so I'm going
to recuse myself.
Thank you. Scott Paris. Yes. Okay. So that is approved by a majority. So we have five to zero to one.
Okay. One clarification. You talked about, you talked about now you're, you now own, you now own that,
that spreadsheet and that database. You own it. Okay. Uh, in order to make it real, uh, I would, I would
offer that you need to tell us how often you think that you should update us with the information.
whether it be monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, annually, et cetera. And I think that it needs to be
formalized. I mean, it's like when you give an update on something, this should just be a standard update
or trend analysis or changes or something like that. I'm not saying we need to vote on that. That's
what I recommended in my report. Do we need to vote on that or is that something you can just do?
We have already started making 2027 agendas, so I would like to just put it on agendas. I would put
it on agendas. Yeah, if it's always going to be a link, right? It's always going to be able to be a
link. It's always going to be an active link for people in the spreadsheets. And then if it's on your
re-agenda, perfect. OK. Yeah, I think it's great. OK. Yeah. Are you just going to do it? We don't need
a vote on it. We can just do that. All right. I just wanted to have some
So did we just vote on did we just vote on number two? We did vote one and two and I mean quarterly
I think everyone's nodding their head. Margaret. Okay believe it or not since we reviewed this like
Friday there have already been changes to the inventory so I my question is should be should I present
this same report
as the exhibit one or should I update it according to the spreadsheets that exist as of this moment
or will there be other spreadsheets that need to be included? Did you freeze the data as the question?
The spreadsheets always include like a working update on the bottom. I think that's good practice. Should
I update this for the October 22nd meeting?
And for the packet, for the public meeting, I think I should. The numbers. So that they match exactly
the spreadsheet because there are. I would suggest an ASS update. Yeah, just say ASS on October 1st
or whatever the date is on your. On mine? Yeah, I wouldn't, I wouldn't. Because there's something like
a thousand units. That's a lot of units. That just got on? That just got on. That are not in here. Okay,
well then go for it.
Are we presenting? Are we having a presentation on the 22nd of the housing report? It's going to be
an exhibit to the Health and World Act. So page 80 of this packet. It's going to be something that the
public can discuss. But there's not going to be a formal presentation. No, I was not planning on presenting.
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.
Yeah, I don't know if you want to bring this to the commissioners. So you want to bring this to the
commission? I don't know. I don't know. Do you should it come before the commissioners? And they put
it as a, as a secondary. Imperator on the document, just sort of, I would have to be on the 22nd because
we're that's our next meeting. Yeah. But if you wouldn't mind coming and presenting during, um, um,
during when staff updates will be coming and do it. Yeah, that would be, I think it would be useful.
I think it's different audience, you know? Yeah, it's important that, well, it's by permit. Yeah. So
it's verifiable and replicable. Yeah. And again, if any mistakes are there, we fix them. We would like
it would, but then there are mistakes in building and you know, elsewhere. So yeah, that's got it.
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
that this could be an ongoing discussion, but I do want to make sure at least number 4.
We want to make sure that we agree to the Excel spreadsheet categories and just some methodology. If
you want us to do that our next quarterly update, one of the things that Tammy and I discussed was just
how do we keep this really consistent, especially in this Discuss category. Does it have to at least
have a newspaper article tied to it or if it's approved but not constructed,
doesn't have to have a permanent petition number, sorry, for whatever, to track it. So what's going
to happen is something will go from a petition number or even a newspaper article to a petition number
to then be built. And once it's in the completed total housing, we'll stop iterating on it. But those
other former spreadsheets continually require updating until it gets to the others. So I would argue
you have a baseline document now.
Okay, if we're going to go to, you know, monthly updates, you know, for whatever meeting, whether it
be the admin meeting or the plan condition meeting or whatever, I would say, what? Quarterly. Did you
say quarterly? Yeah. Quarterly? I like what's the, quarterly. Those things that are evolving and we're
getting more granularity on, that's where you would take and bring that up in that particular portion,
because this is going to evolve. I mean, this thing is just to be getting.
Yeah. The standard, for example, had X number of units that were reserved for low income housing, and
then they retracted that restricted character. So now it's just market rate housing. Does that answer
your question? Yeah. And I think that we can come up with a methodology similar to what Margaret has
used. If we need to move stuff around, we'll just do that.
I don't even think color coding is going to be helpful. I'm just going to put it in there and try to
alert you to some of the changes. But yeah, it's a little bit of a moving piece. And I think based on
some of the discussions, we understand this is going to be high level, just kind of a pie chart.
But note, as Mr. Bishop pointed out, some of the items, especially under just discussed, not approved,
no petition number. We don't know when.
especially some of these older PDs, if they are approved, not constructed, we don't know when they will
hit the market or if they will hit the market. So I'm just keeping those counts as very much like this
is a count, but it's not to be completed with completed total housing. So just that. And of course,
designs change and plans change and, you know, yeah. So I think, I think that's a good,
you know, a good caveat on looking at that data that you can't just assume that it's going to be built.
But we do need to have at least the numbers to start with and that they're, you know, if they're malleable,
they're malleable. For point three, I would say that we should try to get information from the town.
If it's difficult, we might have to do a FOIA request.
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
getting that data from. Right now, the building permits not not but.
But, you know, and then their packets are online, so we know what the planning commission is doing and
we know what the council is doing. So I'm not sure we need an OU with the city, but if you think we
do, I'll support it. I would caution against it, you know, just because it's not reliable, you know,
like the phases of that approval process,
As you mentioned, as Tron mentioned, things can change. There's, for example, a letter of intent for
that first United Methodist lot where the old post office used to be. And that has been in the newspaper.
I don't know if it's gone before the Planning Commission, but the letter of intent expires December
17th. And if it
You know that may change. That may change on December 17th if the letter of intent isn't signed, then
that may open it up for a blank lot again. You know, so I think it hasn't been to the client commission.
It hasn't gotten to the purchasing room. The current time frame is to see if they even come to a greater
price and timing and everything else. But it's listed in our packet as a letter of intent.
So that's accurate and it's annotated that it expires in December and we can revisit it at that time.
Right, but you couldn't count that as any sort of housing inventory either in the back line or beyond
because it is absolutely intangible at this point. It doesn't have any, until you have a purchase agreement,
there is nothing down that. There's no legal structure holding the two parties together. I understand.
It's just in the category of discussed and not billed.
It's just discussed. It's just out and everybody knows about it. Yeah, paper and but I mean, so I have
lots of conversations with people talk about putting more parties out by me and you're able to include
all those because that's a lot of conjecture about just discuss. I mean, what level does that discussion
have to meet?
But to get to this point, or is there any, you know, impromptu conversation? I think that was the question
Jackie was asking. And I think that a newspaper article, a B square article, a letter, an official letter
of intent, you know, there's somewhere like.
That's a verbiage saying like this is the standard for each of these different levels because uniformly,
we just need to know. Yeah, because otherwise, you know, it becomes too loose that it becomes gray and
then don't rely on it. Right. Right. We need that to update it. So that's the secret. So I think we're
saying discussed should at least have a newspaper article or letter of intent, something tangible linked
In the notes section approved, not constructed. We're going to say requires an actual petition number
for tracking under shovel. That would obviously have a permit number and then once that gets completed,
we would be able to see that in the data and move it over to total completed. The occupancy permit when
that's issued, would you just double check with Bobby that they count the units? Yeah, it's that was
nice there.
Is there a time tracking component, since you are looking at things that are discussed, things that
are planned, like we're going through all these stages, but is there a through line to the amount of
time it takes from the time it gets to become discussions, the time it gets built, the time it gets online?
Because I mean, that gives you an idea of how far the runway is for one of these projects, either in
a general sense or individually for certain ones. Like, is the start to finish a five-year construction?
So as we're planning these, we're really going five years out? Or is it like a two-year runway where
these things are going up really quick from approval to getting in there? I would say it depends on
the housing type, the market.
And a lot of other things I've seen Hayden Place, Westgate go up in two, three years or less. But then
there's other developments that are single family residential and spend decades and they're not all
filled out. There's a house left or two houses left. Yeah. But this data would allow you to start to
quantify those things because now you're tracking it through these different stages. You're tracking
them with units. So you can even watch how those units breathe either to contract.
you know whether it goes from workforce housing to all student housing so now you have all these data
metric points that you can tack in there and that are really important keys to what type of housing
you're actually having in the community. I don't think from a building permit point of view the fire
code makes a distinction between student housing and multi-family housing so I don't think that that's going to
distinction that the Monroe County Building Department is going to make. And if it's proposed, we didn't
say that this was proposed as workforce housing and then became student housing. It's merely multifamily housing.
were set aside for workforce housing. They weren't set aside. However you want to package that up, the
number of units did not change. There was the age, there was the restricted. The age, like the IU housing
is student enrollment restricted and there's income restricted, but those are actual restricted housing
units. Right. But Atlas and you know a lot of these other, they are not restricted.
Right, but that doesn't have to do with the number of units. Just because it goes from restricted to
an unrestricted unit does not change. Right. Yeah. Yeah, the units are there. Right, but it's not about
workforce versus student because you can't actually make that distinction. No, that's what we were told.
Yeah, you can't make a distinction now. Well, in the city it's zoned at student housing. It's the city,
but we don't do that. Well, if you want to. No, we don't. No, we don't.
No, we don't want to know if we go back to page 50 again. I was on those three through six and maybe
they're happy with that. I just want anything else we need to talk about on there. I think we'll just
have have this at the end. No, I think we've answered everything. Yeah, we have. This is important because
I think especially doing other staff. We present you want the Golding Commission of present on third place.
Are there any edits? Okay, I don't think so. Does anybody feel like we need to have the building commissioner
there? I mean, you know, he makes up things from a really, you know, he's such a good, that's the one
thing that I really appreciated about doing this is what great people we have working for our county
and helping to protect our
people are building the security of our buildings, you know, the safety of our buildings. And it's,
there are a lot of moving parts and boy, you know, to look through all this data over all those years,
just a couple of edits and meanwhile, you know, occupancy permits are issued. He would appreciate it
knowing about the 4,250 units that are gonna, you know, occupy his department in the future because
that may mean
Manpower needs for him for his department, you know, I think. I don't, but I don't think he's needed.
No, I don't. But you was doing the advertisement for me. Is it you? OK, you're going to do the Commissioners
Council majority may be present yet. OK, thank you. Thank you so much. That's the only thing I would
say other than that. I mean, really,
We're not there to present. We're just there to listen and answer questions. So yeah, we're on that.
We have board of commissioners, county council, redevelopment commission, board of zoning appeals, township
trustees. Are we missing anyone? No. Okay. All right. I'd like, I'd like to close out. I don't think
so. Go ahead. Uh, so you might understand that there will be no presentations to the public since this
is likely their first time getting this information.
Because I think it's really important to have some sort of presentation for the public discourse because
a lot of people will not have had time to read this or maybe have access to the data sets in advance
and really just being able to put out the entire study itself in the way that Marga has I think is really
important in demonstrating what the importance of it is to the public at large. Okay.
I don't know if that's you or if she should or, but I think a presentation is materially important.
Okay. So if it's included in the House Enrolled Act packet, which is on page 80, as like an exhibit,
you would spend the time to separately present on that, but not the other housing studies that are going
to be included? Yeah, it's just the newness of it because everything else has had age to it and people
have had a chance to look at it. It's been referred to, it's been discussed of length.
Okay, but I'm going to say I don't agree because the focus of this hearing is on the CDO and right and
very specific questions that were asked of us or asked of us to ask the public. So I think that should
be our focus and I think obviously there's going to have to be some brief explanation of, you know,
why are they talking about the pitch of a roof? Right and that we don't actually, you know, before people
get up and start
Speaking, but other than that, I don't I don't see. Yeah, I would like to defer this discussion until
we get to new business item one. OK, because that's what will come up. OK, OK, your point is taken,
but I don't think that was the intent, but the data will be out there and posted. Let's go ahead and
move on to. Item three, which is the meeting calendar.
Yes, just a note. This does not include the holiday schedule, but we do have on here, possible conflict
and change of date later required. We're putting some things on there that we think probably will get
moved, but, and we also know we'll probably get booted from somewhere in here. So, but this at least
gives us the ability to do the filing deadlines that are already going to be coming up in October.
that might get hearings in January. So we can always amend this, but there are changes that I didn't
even see specifically. Let me pull it up, because I have a copy of it. I have our... The only comment
I see up there, and of course, this is 2027, right? Yes. Is that December 21st.
Nobody's here. It's a week of crystal. Okay, so move that up a date. I would just argue that everything
shuts down because everybody goes home. Can I read them to you really quickly? Can I help you? Me trying
to compare it on all this reading. Okay. All right. New Year's Day, MLK Day, it's January 18th. Spring
holiday, March 26th.
Memorial Day, May 31st, June 18th, July 5th for Independence Day, September 6th for Labor Day,
Veterans Day, November 16th, November 25th, Friday after that, Christmas Eve is the 24th, which is a
Friday, and New Year's Eve is the 31st.
which is also Friday, and then they're going to be three-footed holidays. I think that's what we're
going with. That's what we're presenting that was going to be on on Thursday. I don't see anything either
except to take off the asterisk for the election because it's a city election year, so we don't need
to have a big step. Otherwise, I don't think there's any.
Yeah, December 23rd. That's not send it to me. We have it December 15 this year. Yeah, I could say,
well, the six feet will be waste reduction districts. Yep.
So, I would say would have to be. Yeah, I don't know that there's an option. That whole week, that whole
week of. How about how about. How about the. The 50, I mean, you could do the 16th and we can just make
sure that the waste reduction meetings done.
Because that starts at four. Okay, but we can do the 15th even. We had, I know these are not great for
people, but we can always just mark it in and then if we have room conflicts or other issues, we'll
just amend it again. Yeah. I think we just need to amend it when we do. Yeah, budget here when we know
the budget hearing schedule just to roll that in.
Okay. So this would be, um, it's on rolling. We would be changing, taking the Astros off of November
2nd, May 4th, and changing December 21st to December 15th. Is there a motion on that? So moved. Okay.
Second. I will call the motion. The motion was seconded. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes.
Mark Clements? Yes. Tron, you're there. I'm here. I'll pass. If you don't got enough votes, let me know.
OK. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. All right. Motion carries 5 to 0 to 1. Thank you. All right.
So that closes out the administrative business. We have no unfinished business. Now we're into new business.
And now we're going to talk again about the House Enrollment Act 1001. And I think you're going to get
a new review of what you plan on submitting. Yes.
So I did make some edits from the last discussion, and as long as no one has questions on those, I'll
go through the questions I had for the group. So first question is, I do need a majority vote that these
are the invested housing studies we want to link to. The Indiana University attainable housing study
in Monroe County, regional opportunities initiative 2019, and then 2023, and then city of Louisville
housing 2020 all
for transparent usage of data and public policy making by Gene Simonian, and that was in 2021.
And then our, this study that, just Pat, please. Can you say invested slash other? This is their. Was
that their template? This is their. State code. Then I would just take and put other. Put other. Well,
you've got the ones, you've got the links above and down below, you just put other.
And then it specifically says invested in and there was no investment in this. It was made very clear.
So to actually go to give the unit a invested in the housing study in twenty one, twenty two,
twenty three, twenty four, twenty five. This also fell in twenty six. So it's outside that scope. It
cannot be. I don't think any of those studies work because we didn't pay for any of them. I would just
say that I invested time in this and I am a member of this body. We have not spent money on any of this.
I think we do include them in another place to say that their county didn't pay for these, but near
our studies. But we can't include marvelous because it was 26. This cuts off at 25. That is a mathematical
thing we can overcome. This was supposed to be appendix. Like I'm okay with additional data, but. I
think this is a question.
Legal. I'm sure that Mr. Bishop's question is definitely for legal, but the other questions for the
planning commission. And I think additional information is fine, but you know, like I would want where
we're adding things that are outside of our political subdivision, which I'm sure a lot of the other
reports are fine.
or do that as well. I don't want to take away from what Margaret has done in the time and she's put
into it. I think we can improve on this and maybe eventually it could be like an official study from
Monroe County housing stock for sure. But without like validation from the other units,
the other groups are independent. So I understand that they might have a broader scope of their studies.
I am fine with it being included, but I would just have it as a appendix versus listed as a study. And
I guess that's the question being asked. And I just wanted to jump in here as we were kind of in the
middle of that discussion.
But my is the only study that studied housing in twenty one, twenty two, twenty three, twenty four and
twenty five. Yeah, Jackie, shouldn't all those be on section B, because really they fall under housing
studies performed by the regional.
Local economic development organizations. All those fall under that because, as Julie pointed out, we
didn't pay for anything, so it really should all be under B, which still would not account for Margaret's
because she's not a global economic developer. That's not necessarily true with the Center for Knowledge
Diffusion. I'm listed as an economic development organization. OK, where are you saying that should
be located? The next piece down. It just needs to move from there. None of these were things we invested
in Monroe County. We didn't. We didn't do any of these.
So that's more procedural. You can always put, listen, this is data. You have to step back and look
at the big picture on what they're doing. These are not the legislators per se asking the questions.
These are the staff of those legislators. They're doing a data call because they're going to sit down
and propose new language. So this is nothing more than data collection. That's all this is. These are
staffers looking at this information, not necessarily the legislators.
I would argue that you could, if you have a problem with what was listed, you could always put a note
and say, we've also, we've also added that that's why whatever we added, you can always say note.
I mean, it does. Then that can allow us to do the 2019 and 2020. And if I guess voted on bar,
it's technically listed as an economic development organization. I think all of it goes under V.
I think that's a good thing. Yeah. Because the years don't matter. I see it. I see what you're talking
about. Yeah. Because B doesn't say the years. Yeah. So they're all everything goes under B. That's our
problem right there. Yeah. I just have one question. We didn't commission the study. I didn't see that.
Sorry. We didn't commission this, right? This has been independent.
but like when other boards and they're like, we're commissioning a study, there's some parameters, there's
some deliverables, there's some official action, it's almost a service. So I do think we need to be
pretty precise on how we do call each one of these documents. And I don't disagree because
From my understanding, we never made a vote from a plan commission to have this done. So to call it
a study from the plan commission, I think, isn't the right course. I agree with Mr. Ferris. We just
make a note. Other, we include it. It's data. It's tangible data. It's good data. But to call it a study,
I feel like it's being
that's like something that we need a commission, you know, like we, you know, that's just my thoughts.
Okay. I would argue that way back in the beginning when Jackie was taking and asking others to provide
data into their surveys, that was a housing study. Uh, the result would have been a housing study based
upon those survey findings. And so if you want to make the argument of whether or not this was a housing
study in the beginning, it was and it evolved to what it became. So, I mean, we're playing with words here.
Yeah, I think, I think what we're looking at, Ron is not, you can't see the screen, but what we're looking
at, unless you're back at the computer, but what we're looking at is item B, which says a housing study
performed by a region's local economic development organization. The word commission is not in there.
Um, the years are not in there that everything in the list it's in there, including, um, the recent study.
that Dr. Cohn has finished. But it does say study specifically, and Margaret's entire document refers
to it as a report. And a report is a compilation and account of data. A study is actual additional abstract
thought about that data and what it means. And I believe that that's the conflation between housing
data and housing study. OK, we need to vote on this because I can't read it. I would like
I would like a vote that this is the all-inclusive list, if there's any other items that you want included
and to move it to B. So could someone make that motion? So moved. Second. So it's been moved and seconded
to move all these studies from A down to B. And then is your motion including Margaret? Margaret, yeah.
Then I'm going to follow the rule. Thank you. Julie Thomas? Yeah.
It's a study. I don't do a report, but I'm doing a study, dude. Yes. Okay. John, right, Randolph? It's
not that I'm talking about. Never mind. You just don't want it in there. That's okay. Ron, do you? John?
Yeah, I was just waiting for the... It just goes not against my appreciation, but I do think
If you need to be very precise, I do think maybe legal should give it a glance and give planning some
further guidance. I'm gonna vote no. Scott Paris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Okay, so
it still passes the move at all under B and add Margaret's by a vote of five to one. Okay, the next
question that I had was that we wanted to just put as a summary to the report
For the House Enrolled Act, nine questions to say any changes to the County Development Ordinance following
the public hearing will be determined after October 22nd. We did confirm the notice of the quorum. We
didn't want to include the regional sewer district during the discussion of that, so I just wanted to
make sure. Those are the two things. I don't think the quorum would show up for this. Okay. I just don't
think that's... Okay. Jeff would know.
You can ask Jeff. I don't think there will be OK. Those were the only five questions I had on that board
and I didn't include it for the delegation of the hearing authority and then the possible notice. This
is just for your own education and I'll post this and then we'll be good to go for the twenty
So you are going to be presenting briefly on each of the questions that were posed and then providing
the information so that people know what they're commenting on. Correct. OK. But the reports, I'm not
planning on going through those links. And just to make clear, this is a public hearing, so they get
their three minutes. Correct. They can talk about anything that's not on the list. I'm sorry? They can
talk about anything that's not on the list if they want. They can talk about it. We're going with that.
As long as it's about CDO.
but there's no real dialogue between us with respect to them, just like we did on the CDO. All right.
Any other comments with respect to new business item one, HEA 1001? Ron, are you okay? Yeah. Thank you
for recognizing me. I'm good. I agree that this is going to be a fluent growing document.
All right, that takes us to SMN 26-4, which is the Zikes estate major subdivision. And I don't know
who's speaking. It says Brown here. I'll go ahead and cover this. I know Daniel is listening in. If
there's questions, I think he's able to answer those. But this was a
Going to be on the regular meeting agenda for the October 22nd. This will be the only other thing other
than the House Enrolled Act. I believe it's the only other thing on the agenda. But it's a primary plot
to create two lots, but the reason it's coming before the Planning Commission is that there's a bill
with labor requested.
It's starting out with 73.58 acres in the AGR and they're creating two lots total. So partial plot vacation,
road with waiver. At the plot committee meeting that we had, they did not yet provide the average daily
trip data. And so there was a discussion that they're seeking that data before it goes on the 22nd.
That was the plot committee's recommendation. And it's fine to use that other data.
I mean, they just have to have it, right? Yes. They might want to take their own. Yeah. Yeah. But that
was just the petition we just heard. They did an average shipment as well under the planning and buildable
area per lot, drug waste being reviewed, not really any concerns by staff. That's one. Could this just
be first before the Housing Rule Act?
just so that they don't have to sit through an entire meeting waiting for this decision if they don't
wish to stay. Let's see where it's at on the commission agenda. I'd just like to... We have not sent
the notice yet. It goes to Meru. That's true. I mean, I can see arguments both ways. You know, if you
have a lot of public, they're waiting. They're not going to want to wait for a petition. It is listed as well.
So it is after. Do you want us to move it? I'm out of consideration for people. I don't know if they
have children. I don't know. They have people they're caring for, you know. You're considering one petitioner
versus the public, right? And so they might have kids. I don't know.
Just I mean there are there are arguments both ways and I personally don't care but I just want to say
you can argue it either way and whatever you all want to do as I look at this one.
Is there anything controversial in it that's gonna, you know, it's kind of taken. I know that it could
just be a. So for that reason we could move it. Yeah, it could just even be without, you know, we could
do what you call it a a fast track where there's no objections and. Yeah, it still has to be a here.
Yeah, so you still have to call for monsters and stuff. But yeah, I would support moving it up.
Okay, if there's nothing controversial and then we can get through it pretty quickly. Yeah, I just hope
that their data helps them out. And if they don't get their data, then it would maybe, maybe it'll be
the next month or something. You know, their data, if they just even had a letter from the owner of
the data that said, I authorize you to use this data, if the data was adequate to the need, then it's
just that, you know, I don't believe that you can use someone else's data.
without permission and still have the confidence that you have the person that generated the data. Yeah,
so you have the data from another source for another need. Yeah, it's an ethical thing too for the server
because he said, oh yeah, we use the state. I said, well, you know,
I don't think you can, because that sounds serious to give away. I see. And you didn't create it so
you don't speak to the accuracy of it. Is it fair to say if we don't get the average daily trips data
by the meeting, just automatically continue it? Or that, in my view, a letter from the owner of the
data that says that it is, they're fine with these other folks' expectation or to utilize it. Have we
asked for that letter?
We talked about it. It was discussed at plot committee. Would it be enough to get that letter and then
the report of the data, right? We do have the report. You guys just approved it. So we know the date.
Okay. And if the data is adequate to the highway's needs to... Right, that's part of it. Okay, then
I'm good with that. I like that review. Yeah, okay. So if by 1022 packet,
publish and or hearing if we don't have either new data from the actual petitioner or letter giving
consent to use the ADT report from the Gardner major subdivision, then it gets continued. And we'll
note that. Okay. Mr. Bishop. Would a traffic count supplied by the Indian Small Business Development
Center be sufficient? Does they do that all the time? Yeah, we, I mean, we were just using people going out
standing there themselves and doing it from four to six with counters and no, no real money invested
really. I think they're sitting there with lawn chairs and your surveyor company is doing that. You
just paid four hours. Yes, true. You could outsource it, but we have taught the public how to do it.
And I think the public, I think they did it themselves based on the submission. But a report would be
sufficient. A report would be sufficient if they do it. Yeah. If you can give us that information. Okay. Okay.
Okay. All right. And we're recommending approval for the subdivision, but for now, denial for the flavor
only because we don't have the team and approval for the application. Is there any other questions on
this one before it comes up? Okay. All right. No questions. So that means we have closed out 26 for.
I have nothing on the backside of this piece of paper.
Are there any other items people want to bring up not on the agenda? Online, Ron. Nothing here.