Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Can we have a roll call and declaration of quorum, please?

Mr. Grubbs. Here. Mr. Culp. Mr. Beeman. Present. Mr. Bill Reed. Mr. Turner.

Present.

Mrs. Williams. Present. Mr. Howells. Present. And Mr. Rice.

Present.

And Mr. Spencer.

Here.

Quorum is present.

Let's stand for a quick invocation, a pledge of allegiance, please. Dear Heavenly Father, please give this commission the wisdom to make decisions that are good and healthy for our great city, Anderson. Great state, Indiana, the greatest country in the world, United States of America. And let's remember in these times of world conflict that we have men and women fighting for our freedoms all over the world. Let's keep them in our hearts. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We have minutes to approve from February 24th. If everyone has had a chance to review those, we can just do a voice vote to approve those. All in favor of approving the February 24th, 2026 minutes, unless someone has questions, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Minutes are good. Micah, Tim, the floor is yours.

Thank you. We have a total of four petitions tonight. First one, Should be familiar to you. You've looked at it for the last five months, and now we're into a sixth month. All we're asking for Petition 2225, Ordinance 3525, submitted by Kelly Drews for a zone map change, is to continue to keep it tabled. There'll be no action taken on Petition 2225. What's the reason for tabling it again?

Yeah. Can you follow with the state? Yeah, he, I don't think he's had a file with the state with what he's done so far, but he's getting into the other, he's been a third of the building. I think he's going to have to get into the state when he gets into these other parts of the building.

Mike? Yes.

Thank you.

Mr. Stiers?

Thank you. Next item, petition 526, submitted by PR Properties for a replat of lot 201 in the Evelyn addition located on the southwest corner of West 3rd and Locust Streets. You have an updated letter in your packet from... The petitioner's attorney, Jonathan Cook, asking, he was hired at the last minute. He just got the staff report this afternoon, so he wanted some time to familiarize himself with this proposed replat. So he asked for a continuance. Last month's continuance was by staff. We asked that it be continued because they had no one here to answer questions about the replant other than the engineer, and we were more specifically wondering how the petitioner planned to use the property. So first continuance is on staff. This one was stricken against the petitioner, so we should be at it at the next meeting July 1st.

Can we get a motion to continue then petition? Is this 526? Yes.

Correct.

Make a motion to continue. Second. Petition 526. We have a motion and a second to continue petition 5-26. Can we get a roll call vote of that continuance, please? Mike?

Mr. Rudd?

Yes.

Mr. Beeman? Yes. Yes. Mr. Turner? Yes. Mrs. Williams?

Yes. Mr. House?

Yes. Mr. Hikes? Yes. And Mr. Smith? Yes. The team is approved.

Mr. President, I would like to go back to what I was actually asking about this first one. Yes. So we are, the city's tabling this?

And I wanted to ask Tim this. I'm not for this zoning change and the use of this building, but we continue to table this and continue this, and I keep hearing the same thing. He's working on it, which indicates almost like

If he does whatever somebody's telling him building-wise that it's going to be approved, that's what I'm concerned with.

Yeah, we've conveyed to him that his chance of getting his own rezone approved is slimmed through plan commission. It's going to really be up to city council because they don't think it's going to pass plan commission.

It's on the table, so it remains on the table until a motion is made to bring it off the table, and then it can be considered by the... by the commission at that point.

At some point after it's continued for so long, I think we've done it before, where a petition's been continued and continued and continued or tabled for a long time, does the commission have the ability to call it off the table and just dismiss it? They do.

Well, it's been, what, five months now? It's been several months.

I guess it sort of depends on what representations have been made to him. Were there representations that would just remain on the table until the safety board proceedings were finished?

I can't remember how it was addressed to him at Plain Commission when it was put on the table.

Why don't we do this? Why don't you let him know that if it's... If there's no action at next month's meeting, we're just going to dismiss it, likely.

I think that's a good way to do it.

Yeah, so let him know he's either ready to make his presentation at July's meeting, or we're likely going to take it off the table and dismiss it.

Okay, we'll do that right.

Yeah. Is that okay?

Yes, it is.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Dyers.

Thank you. Third item, petition 6-26, ordinance 8-26. This is submitted by Nadege Timotis for a zone map change from R2 residential to R3 residential. This is located at 1425 Dewey Street. Get on my horse here.

Okay.

Okay. Here's the property, second house in from the corner. Yeah, it's Dewey and 13th? 15th, I'm sorry, 15th Street. The property is located in 1400 block of Dewey Street, 1425 Dewey Street specifically. This is on the west side of the road, as you can see from the map on the wall. Here's the zoning showing the property. Everything around it is zoned R2. Property is surrounded by R2 north, south, east, and west. Petitioner has expressed hope to renovate and convert the existing home on the property from a single-family home into a residential duplex, which is the reason for wanting to rezone it from R2, which is single-family homes only, to R3, which allows single-family homes or duplexes. Staff would urge Planning Commission members to remain focused on how the proposed rezoning would fit with the surrounding homes. Comprehensive plan does classify the petitioner's property and surrounding neighborhood as traditional residential, which allows for all other residential uses such as single-family or multi-family residences. which also encourages the rehabilitation of existing homes. So the proposed rezoning from R2 to R3 is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan since it will remain a residential use, in this case a duplex. Staff note, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to demonstrate that the character of the property in question has changed and that the highest and best use of the land is to rezone this property to R3 residential in order to allow the current residential use to expand. In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the proposed zone map change from R2 to R3 because of the following. The affected property is surrounded by or abutting other pre-existing residential uses, in this case single-family homes. The proposed rezoning to R3 residential is not in conflict with the city comprehensive plan because the R3 zone allows for residential uses as well. The petitioner is making an attempt to create additional living quarters for deserving individuals. Here's a picture from the 15th Street side of the existing structure on the property. And I believe that's also a different angle from the same 15th Street location. Staff notes the required certified mail notices were sent out back on May 15th as required. The legal ad was published a day after on May 16th as required. Petitioner is here representing herself, Nadege Timotis. She has filed a findings of fact sheet, which is in your packets. Nadege, if you'd come on up. She'll give your name and address, if you want to fill in anything that I left out.

Hello, my name is Nadege Timotis.

What is it? Your address.

Oh, my address is 1406 Walton Street, Anderson, Indiana, 46016.

Do you have anything to add to what Mr. Steyer said, or do you just want to answer questions?

I just want to answer a question. I think it did pretty good.

Are you going to have all street parking?

Yes, I think it's enough space in the back for at least four cars to park Yes Yes Yes Yes

Do you have any intentions on improving that area?

Yes.

Explain what that is.

After I get approved here, so I'm going to get an architect to design it. I don't know if it's going to be possible, but that's what I'm thinking.

I have a question, Chairman. Are you going to tear what's there down and rebuild?

No, we're just going to increase it, like a modest increase.

Okay, I'm trying to place this. I can't see the front of the house. My church is right down the street, and I can't place this house.

It's there. I think it's the tree on the side.

Okay. The one on the corner I know, you're next to the one on the corner at 15th and Dewey?

You mean my residence? Uh-huh. I'm on the other side.

Oh, the other side of the street.

Yeah, I live on the other side of the street, Walton Street. Is that what you said? Okay. Mm-hm.

Okay.

Yeah, it's in the corner. But I think the tree, that long tree, is the front of the house.

Okay. Okay. That's all I have.

I actually went out there the other day and I just, you are going to leave the house as it is?

Yes. Maybe a little change in the front to make it look more homey, but it's the same thing. We're not going to really change nothing just to make it look nice.

So how is it going to be a duplex?

So the back will be increased. So the same part of the back, I don't know how to call it, but there's a space in the back that is already covered. It's part of the house already, but it's just like an empty space. So I guess the architect will increase it a little bit further just to accommodate the two bedrooms.

And they have an entrance in the back, and then the other people would have entrance in the front?

Yes, sure, yes. Okay.

And the people would park in the back though, correct? And park their car there and enter? I'm trying to understand how you're gonna make this a duplex.

Okay, so in the entrance in the front, there's an entrance. Two car can park there if they want to. On the side, yes. Not in the street, like in the entrance in the front. There's like an alley on the side.

Mm-hm. There's a driveway that runs up the both sides. Yes. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's the driveway I'm talking about.

It's like the entrance, so two people can park there. I'm not sure, but yeah.

How many bedrooms is the front and how many bedrooms to the back? How many bedrooms are you going to have?

Two bedrooms each. Each? Yeah, two bedrooms in the front and two bedrooms in the back.

That's enough for two bedrooms.

Yes, yes.

So you're going to remodel the whole property?

Yes, we just remodel and then increase.

The new siding roof?

Yes.

Tim and Michael, let me ask this question. Going to an effort to get her to zone this properly, are you going to follow the same effort to make sure that instruction-wise this meets a duplex standard? Meaning both sections will be separated. So if there's a fire in the front, it doesn't transfer into the other section.

Yes. How close is the south, the wall on the south side of the house to the south lot line? I don't know. Probably, yeah.

Oh, no, it's probably an older house, so it probably meets narrower side setback, which is currently five feet.

But it doesn't meet building code setback. That's part of the reason I'm asking.

It's lawful nonconforming. It was built years ago.

Conforming is a single family unit once you make it to it. I would be up to the building commissioner to really would be up to the state building codes.

Can the architect figure this out?

Sure. Okay.

Okay.

I'm just thinking out loud. Uh, I don't, I'm not, really invested one way or the other, but it seems to me that possibly if you're going to have an architect get involved, maybe you should have some of that planning before you come here so that we have a better idea of actually what's happening.

So I wanted to be able to do it first because I don't want to pay the architect and then you guys don't approve it. Because architects are expensive.

Yeah, I get that. How much is the fee? $200 to come here? Yeah.

You're doing it in reverse because what if the architect says you can't do it and you made a motion to rezone? Just for the side set, though.

That's why I'm saying that it kind of makes sense. It should be done first before it comes through for rezone. That's kind of what I'm thinking of. But I guess that protects you, too.

Sure.

Have you talked to an architect?

Yes. Who is it? I forgot his name, but it's my husband that talks to him most of the time.

Is it Jesse? Jesse Wilkerson.

A black guy? Yes. Yeah.

Jesse? Yeah. He's not an architect.

I could get another one. I have another one in mind.

Do you have any advice, Mr. Landon?

Well, I kind of like your suggestion that it makes sense for her to find out about the feasibility of the project. Right now, it's sort of like... Yeah. My questions have been raised. I know that costs money to hire an architect to get... I don't know how much it would cost to at least get an opinion as to the feasibility of the project because it's a little bit of a... You know... The cart before the horse.

I do see, as I'm sitting here thinking about it, I do see what Mr. Reitz is saying, and that the side setback, if it's not five feet, so we need to know what it actually is, because these maps aren't totally accurate. But if it's not five feet, then it's a lawful nonconforming, and even if the zone changes, as soon as you modify that house from a single family to a two family, that you have to fix that.

Okay. Well...

I'm thinking maybe getting a consultation with an architect, not exactly hiring an architect to do the entire project, but to get a consultation to determine the feasibility, including the cost that you might be looking at to actually turn this into a duplex, would be helpful for you as to whether or not it is a realistic type of a project.

Well, my husband is kind of a contractor, so he's going to do all that. I mean, he's going to hire people to do the thing that he cannot do, but yeah.

I think we should do that. Should we continue it or table it?

I think we should continue it. Continue it to next month? Is there a resident in there now?

Yeah, my dad lives there.

Try to verify the side setback and try to consult with...

It is a lot more than just a side setback.

Right.

That house is... It has plumbing. It plumbs the entire house, and there's one meter to it. It has electric. There's one. All those things need to be separated.

She has to consult with the architect.

It's a major ordeal to do it right. That's why I asked him. You know, this is going to be done right.

Okay. I mean, even if it takes 60 days or something for it to get all that together so well, you know, I just, for your sake, almost think it's... You need to... Do a little bit more of a feasibility study.

All right. So can I have the questioning so I can consult an architect and try to get all the questions answered?

Provide that for her.

Yes.

Okay.

I'm just curious. Do you know who owns the empty lot next door?

No, I don't know.

Have you ever?

No. No.

Have you ever thought about the possibility of buying the empty lot?

If I know who it belongs to, yes. I'm sorry? If I know who it belongs to, I don't know who it belongs to.

Is that a little house? Yeah, 2110. Yeah, there used to be two houses on that lot.

It's a possibility if I know who it is.

I mean, I know what you're thinking, but that's not going to cure all the building problems. I mean, first of all, when you take a single family resident and you turn it, legally turn it into a duplex, you have to separate all your utilities. It's not an easy, I mean, it's gutting the whole thing. It's not doing it all.

Okay. I don't mind going and check everything out just to make sure.

It's a learning process. Yes, sure, sure.

Yes, yes, I don't mind.

Let's entertain a motion to continue this.

I'll make a motion to table petition 626.

Second that. Does it matter, table or continue?

It's essentially safe. I like that it did continue. Put it right back on to be heard next month. Continue. Okay, I'll retract, yes. Continue. Move it along.

Anybody second?

Second.

Motion and a second to continue petition 6-26 until the next regularly scheduled plan commission meeting. Roll call vote of the commission members, please. Micah.

Mr. Grubbs? Yes. Mr. Lehman? Yes. Mr. Turner? Yes. Mr. Williams? Yes. Mr. House? Yes. Mr. Rice? Yes. And Mr. Spencer?

Yes. Get with Micah here, and maybe he can help you get the proper questions that you need to get answered, okay?

Okay.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Good luck. Appreciate it. All right. I think it's just best for everyone involved.

Can I email me or something? Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Mr. Stiers.

Thank you. Moving on to our final petition. Petition 7-26, Ordinance 926. This is submitted by Bex Farms LLC, Tyler Hancock. This is for a zone map change from R2 residential to I3 planned industrial development. This is located at 1128 West 66th Street. Actual address, 1128 West 66, also in the 6500 block of South Madison Avenue. They are requesting a zone map change for the area outlined in black dashed line. The property is two parcels, currently zoned R2. They are seeking a zone map change from R2 residential to I3 planned industrial development. The two parcels contain just under 22 acres, 21.93 acres to be exact. The present R2 zoning allows only single family homes. The proposed I3 zone class also allows for excellent industrial sites to occur, but which may not be developed without a special exception through the Board of Zoning Appeals at one of their monthly meetings. The I3 zoning permits dwellings as well, but businesses are not permitted. Taking a look at the surrounding zonings, different colors here as you see. The staff would note the properties surrounding the proposed rezoning request are mostly zoned R2 residential to the north, northeast, northwest, and west. Property located directly to the east inside the city limits, which is Beck's Farms, is zoned I-3. That's the purple reserved industrial. Land to the south, southeast, and southwest is out in Madison County and is currently zoned conservation residential. Purpose of the rezoning from R2 to I3 in a letter of intent that was sent by the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking the zone map change from R2 to I3 in order to prepare the nearly 22 acres for possible future expansion for the Best Way Company. The rezoning will allow for Bestway to provide expanded services for solid waste disposal and recycling services to their clientele, not only here in Anderson, Pendleton, LaPelle, Alexandria, Summitville, Ingalls, Chesterfield, and Shirley. Currently, Bestway services all of Madison County, plus Hancock, Henry, Grant, Delaware, Hamilton, and Tipton counties. City comp plan classifies the affected site as a business park, which allows for accessory commercial uses like a refuse and recycling company. Therefore, the best way companies use is not in conflict with the city comprehensive plan. I would note city comp plan is currently in the process of being updated and revised. It should be completed sometime during 2026. Staff-wise, we are recommending approval of the proposed rezoning from R2 to I3 because of the following. The proposed rezoning will allow for an orderly planned expansion of the Bestway facility. The proposed rezoning adjoins or abuts existing I-3 zonings to the east, and the proposed rezoning is compatible and not in conflict with the city comprehensive plan. The proposed rezoning will allow for expansion of an existing industrial use, which is Bestway, which will benefit several nearby communities. Certified letters were sent out by the petitioner on May 11th, as required. Legal ad was published in the Herald Bulletin on May 15th, also as required. Petitioners are represented by their local attorney, Tom Beeman. Other petitioners are Tyler Hancock and Jeff Lilj. There is also a prepared findings of fact sheet in your packets. Tom.

Mr. Landon.

You're not related to the petitioners, are you?

No. You're not the trash business, are you? No. You don't even like Tom, do you? Pass it out over Thanksgiving dinner.

Good evening. My name is Tom Beeman. I'm an attorney at 3737 Scatterfield Road, Anderson. I represent the petitioner Beck's Farms, which does business as best way. And if you're familiar with the transfer station on this property, then you know what I'm talking about. I've represented some other landowners in this area, and I've been on this property quite around it a lot. It's a pretty rough area. and I think pretty appropriate for I-3 zoning. The impetus for this petition was the fact that Bestway is in the process of doing an expansion, and they realized the back part of their property was not zoned appropriately. So the reason they need to do an expansion, there's several reasons. The main ones are they need to office or expand their office facilities, and they also need to expand their service and maintenance facilities. And the reason is they only have two maintenance bays for over 90 vehicles that they use. So they definitely need some more expansion in this area. There is a The plan is still in the planning stages, but most of the expansion will be on the existing property at the front. But by having this rezone in the back, it will give them some flexibility in planning and enable them to deal with various issues in the area like easements. And they may, in fact, need some of that back property to do this expansion the way they want to do it and the way it would maximize their investment in that. I have with me tonight Tyler Hancock, who's the division manager for Bestway, and Austin Masters are here with Bestway, as well as Adam DeHart, who is our engineer with Keeler-Webb Consulting Engineers. Adam is the one doing the drawings. So if you have technical questions about what the plans are, he's the guy to ask. And then if you have operational questions, Tyler would be the guy to answer those questions. So we're asking for a recommendation for an I-3 zoning for that back property behind our current operation. If you have any questions, let me know.

Mr. I've got a couple of questions. First, I'll just start with staff. I know a Greystone addition went in there. There's plans to go to the west eventually.

Not that I recall. They went north. They built Greystone north to the north. I don't recall.

How many acres is the west there? How many acres?

As I said, notices were sent out. We have nobody here representing any landowners or residences.

This is 21 acres, so that's got to be close to 30. If I remember right, it's close to 50.

Okay. I mean, I was done. I had thought Greystone was eventually going to go to the west, and it makes sense for a residential build to go that way. So my question would be, and I'm not sure what you guys did buffer-wise for existing Greystone, but at least that one portion there would prohibit that area. If nothing was done... for development for residential. It makes total sense that that would be residential right there.

I mean, it is stubbed out to the west. Graystone Road there, the one that goes two-thirds of the way down, it's stubbed out to the field.

I mean, I remember. That was back in my days. We were planning on bringing that through there. Do you want my right here? Yep. I just would like to see that addressed, but I think now would be the time.

Except that this is really for rezoning. To provide a buffer would be when they go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Since they are going for an I-3 zoning, that would be the time to present such drawings in regard to buffering.

If I'm recommending body, and I'm supposed to say it's east of that, and I'm looking at this parcel of land right here, knowing that there's a road step right up to this hill.

Either one's the same. One has color. The other has just plain. No color. I agree with you.

Go ahead, sir.

My name's Adam Dehart. I'm project manager with Kelo Web Associates. Our offices are at 486 Gradle Drive, Carmel, Indiana, 46032. I'm trying to answer your question here, sir. The property that we're developing is the 22 acres right here. We own this piece of property here also. And then we have a neighbor to the north of us that's zoned I-3 that is not our property. Right here you see a dark area on the aerial photo. That's fencing and... spruce pine type trees that were installed as a part of a previous project that was done in about 2008 to be in compliance with the buffer yard requirements. Any of our development in the future will comply with the buffer yard requirements. Part of the reason we're here in our thought process of getting this done and, excuse me, I'm sorry, I pushed the wrong button. Not used to the equipment here. Part of our reason for rezoning this is if this remained R3, we would have to build our own buffer yard along our west property line to buffer ourselves from ourselves. Which is not very efficient. And then to further answer your question, sir, you are correct, and the gentleman did point out that there is a substreet in that subdivision that's here north of the legal drain. The Grubau legal drain is along our west property line, and it also bisects the corner of, I believe, the property that is owned by the Grubau Farms that's not a part of the Greystone subdivision. It's a different ownership. So along with that open legal drain, there comes a 75-foot top of bank easement that the county surveyor maintains where you can't put any buildings or install anything with a foundation. So the vast majority of that little triangular area there that would abut our property and the subdivision is an area that couldn't possibly be developed. the building just because of the easements that are required by the county surveyor. As I said, that's 75 feet from the top of banks, so it'll be quite a distance back in there. This little dot right there, lines up with another dot right here and those are uh... high-tension transmission power lines that bisect the property they have about a hundred and fifty foot easement with them and then currently there is a pipeline easement that cuts through the middle of the best way property and continues on to the in a West, northwest angle, apologize for my shakiness there, I didn't realize I had that much coffee today. So we have multiple easements that we have to work around, both with drainage power and a gas pipeline that we have to adhere to and not have any buildings in the way. So again, that's another reason why we're asking for this rezone, so we have enough room to take care of our storm water drainage, access in and out of the buildings, and then try to figure out where all of our pieces and parts lie within the site. With that, I'd be available for any more questions you might have regarding the site or the future development.

I would just make this comment. I think that your plans would have to come before Board of Zoning Appeals, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, I know for sure, will look at buffering to any potential neighbors.

Absolutely. We'll have a full site development plan that will take care of all the zoning requirements and present that site plan as a part of the special exception. We fully intend to do that.

Thank you, sir.

Any further questions? I was looking at a parcel there that was two years old, but the property to the north was under John Raines, and then the property to the south was under Bex. Is that John Raines? Is John Raines related to the...

No, sir. There is another property ownership of Beck's that is called 600 Land Development. That's a separate LLC that had to be created by Bestway for just the transfer station because it has special IDEM regulations and permitting attached to it. So there is property that's owned by BEX. There is property that's owned by 600 Land. But the rezone petition only involves the two BEX Farms parcels, which are these two right here.

I wonder when the Northern Best Way was developed, if there was discussions about how close they would build to that neighborhood. Because they have that buffer up there, but if there's trash being stored on the other side of that buffer, it would be noticeable from the neighborhood. So I wonder if there was some talk about how far away from the property line they would have trash.

The trash itself is all self-contained in the transfer station itself. That property, as I said, is fully enclosed by the other property that Bestway owns, and it's especially regulated and so forth where there is no outdoor storage of trash. Everything that comes in on a truck is recycled within the structure. It's separated. loaded up on other vehicles and then sent to either landfills or other recycling agencies or other people that purchase the recycled goods from Bestway. All shipping is done by Bestway vehicles on and off the site also.

Is this going to increase truck traffic in and out?

As you can tell from our letter of intent, we already cover the whole area. The expansion of this facility would be based on the expansion of the area. The area is not growing super fast at this point. I think that's why at some point in time they were wise in purchasing the larger property. The rezone would allow us to grow with the community, but our current plans are just to provide additional space for office and maintenance of the vehicles that we do have. We aren't planning any new employees, any additional vehicles because the number of vehicles we have uh, are sufficient to take care of the community at this point, the way it's, uh, sized and organized.

I have an odd question. It is a Barrow pit. Is that the description of the pit or is that the name of the pit?

Uh, borrow pit is a common term that's used, uh, and it was brought about during the interstate design during the 60s, 70s, and 80s. It was a common area to gain dirt because Madison Avenue is an overpass over the interstate, and all the dirt that was pulled out of this borrow pit, which created basically a wet retention pond, was used to build that interchange here. And it could have potentially been used to build interchanges up and down 69. It's an older way of doing things. It's certainly less expensive because it's moving dirt as opposed to the MSE and concrete walls that NDOT prefers now, which are much more expensive.

I like your thorough answers.

I try, sir. My thoughts on the residential area and the future residential area. If there's trash right there in any form, it's not good. But if there's an office 100 feet away, it's not as bad. But this rezone would allow for you know, 30 years, maybe they're gonna move some, you know, have something up there that smells really bad. There's gonna be houses being built, potentially, you know. So that's my concern, is the zone would allow in the future for the trash to impact a future,

might interject, but only with Board of Zoning Appeals approval. They would have a second hurdle to clear, and that would be pretty tough to get another transfer station put close to the houses. That would be pretty tough to get that through the Board of Zoning Appeals. You mentioned John Raines. In my distant memory, I recall working with Mr. Raines in the concrete block building there at the front. Have you talked to him?

No, I wonder if I clicked on the wrong one.

It seems like he had some kind of made backpacks or some kind of military, not uniforms, had something to do with the military base. I just can't recall, but it seems like backpack sticks in my mind that he produced those in that concrete block building. Whether he's still there, I don't know. I've not seen him in years, talked to him in years.

Uh, Mr. House, I have one thought on that. Nobody wants any type of landfill transfer station, any of those types of things anywhere near where they live. I don't want it where I live either, but I want to be able to throw my trash away. I mean, it's just one of those things of society that we have to live with. So the developer, in my opinion of Greystone future has to recognize that that South portion of their property probably shouldn't really be developed. And these folks have to realize that the north portion of their property really can't be a trash area. And hopefully you guys realize that. But at some point, we have to be able to throw our trash away.

I agree with that. I think if you're thinking of the reason for zoning something, it would be The zone should prevent the potential for a dump. It's not a dump. It smells like a dump if you're right up in that.

It smells like a dump. Have you ever been there?

Yeah.

Yeah, me too.

I mean, the whole reason for the zone would be there's not a possibility someone's going to put this right by the property.

Well, then the solution would be then they would have to separate it into two different property plots, right? It could be one. That could be a solution. Another solution is that the Board of Zoning Appeals has the authority, Mr. Lannan, to make sure that there is a tremendous buffer there for any future development. I can assure you that some of the Board of Zoning Appeals members would be on top of that.

They can attach conditions.

If I might add a couple of things that might

help answer a few of your questions. I know for a fact on the IDEM permitting there are required buffers and distances for the actual transfer station itself away from residentially zoned property. That's why that little piece where it's labeled transfer station is a different property name for that IDEM permitting. And another thing that goes along with that, it would make perfect sense if we ever did have to expand the transfer station, it's going to be a building addition to the existing building. Having a separate facility to do the same thing on the property would not be efficient and would not be good business. What I can assure you is when we come back with our site plan for our special exception, we will take this into consideration because best way is not only in the practice of being a good business, but they're here to take care of the community too and they want to be a good neighbor.

What type of permitting process is required by IDEM to locate any type of...

I believe this is regulated under the Rule 6 IDEM permitting for a solid waste transfer station and the state of Indiana regulates that heavily. They have weekly and monthly and yearly inspections plus the inspectors can come at a moment's notice. This facility, since it's been operating, has had no violations, so they're complying with the permit and intend to continue to do so.

I agree with everything he said about Bestway. Here's my concern. We don't know when we're going to develop anything there. Correct? You may not.

No, it's imminent. It's happening.

Well, On the overall property, as far as the close proximity to the neighbors, we would prefer not to be up there next to the neighbors.

See, that's not what I'm saying. I don't know when you're going to do this, but until you do that would be when you go to BZA. For us to try and get someone to develop that residential housing there, which is one of the main priorities of the administration, that's a big question mark right there. Excellent. If we're answering that now so that I can talk to a developer now and I can say, hey, best way is keeping this back or if you separated that so they knew there was a safeguard there.

There's potential for things when we do our site development, like putting our stormwater detention in that area, which automatically creates a buffer area. I'd love to tell you exactly what we're doing, but we've got to get the use in place so that we can look to our expansion and work around all these easements. And I knew going into this that those were questions and issues that we would have to address and address in a manner that is acceptable to the planning staff, the neighbors, and the boards.

Okay. I'd like to ask staff just to... Tim? The notices that went out for this rezoning went to?

Property owners 300 feet north, south, east, and west of the area that is outlined in black.

And that would obviously include some of the current residents of Greystone?

Easily, yeah. It butts right up against that southern boundary.

And then as to the area then just to the west of Greystone, that owner obviously got.

300 feet football field length up into that property as well.

All right. But you did not get any... Did you get any contacts at all?

Zero. That's really surprising.

You know, sometimes when there's a commercial property that develops and it's been sitting there for 30 years, we as a board will say... And someone will complain about it. They're like, this is a nice field. We as a board will say, well, you know, that's been zoned commercial for 30 years. You knew something was coming. This one will be... Well, you do the... The person that does all the trash in the area has that zoned I-3. I think it could be a little bit negative to develop in the field out there to the north. If they look, what could be worse than the person that is moving all the trash having an I-3 zone directly adjacent? Not that it's not a necessary service. I was trying to think through the risk of...

I don't disagree with you, but he makes a good point. There already is a drainage ditch there that has a buffer that the future developer has to know that they're going of the future Greystone. They have to know that they need to, that's going to be where they need to put their pension pond. That's where they need to put their playground or whatever. Uh, and then these guys have already said they're going to, to buffer their, their property. So I, I feel like as of right now, What else do you expect them to do?

I might note that you've got I-3 right here. Greystone wasn't built. That was already there when Greystone had the inkling to build houses here. You've got houses built right up to that property line. I guess it would be in reverse by rezoning this to I-3. I guess I don't see the impact. I don't... It didn't affect these houses. This place is full. All the houses are sold. As he just said, they've not received any complaints from the state with their operations. You're going to have to go before city council anyways.

Yep. They're not as nice as us.

That's what we got to talk for.

If you look at the findings of fact, would you honestly say this expansion is going to not negatively affect the property? What about the house that's closest on the corner? You know? It would have to, I would think.

I don't disagree that 6350, 6355, whatever those lots, those potentially could be negatively affected, possibly. But 6602 is not going to be. 6401 is not going to be. I mean, there are properties that aren't going to be negatively affected either. So is the standard any property, or is it the totality of the property surrounding this property, Mr. Lanham?

Well, I think it's... It's kind of in the mix. How does it generally affect, I think, that whole area there?

Well, there could be an argument for both ways.

That's right.

And in essence, that's really my initial point. That's how, at this point, we were going to do this. Could we safeguard the future expansion, whether it's Greystone? I don't think the same developers are going to do that. But I talk to people who want to develop housing in the city weekly. So by doing this, and I think as long as Bestway is running that, there might not be a problem there. But now is the time, it seems to me, to fix that.

So what's the fix? Add border zoning appeals or split it into multiple?

That's the BZA's jurisdiction to do that.

Rezoning the old office depot for outside storage, changing the zoning for that, and that fell through. It's a perfect example of putting the cart before the horse. Now it's rezoned. And what we were told was going to be there isn't going to happen.

Was that the, like, it was like a tractor supply? Yeah.

It's the perfect example.

That wasn't the reason that didn't get developed. The reason was there was covenants on that property which restricted the use, and the buyer balked because of those covenants, and I was involved in trying to get those covenants released, and we couldn't do it. It had nothing to do with the BZA.

The city council. I'm not saying the BZA did it. This board and the city council went ahead and voted to do that, thinking that's what's going to happen. It's not a reality. We changed the zoning of that property. Yeah. I mean, I talked to Tom earlier. I agree. I know who we own that property for and couldn't really do anything worse than what it is, but I'm not trying to do something worse.

I'm trying to, but the sit, you know, the system we have is you have to put the cart before the horse because we can't get to the next step. If you're going to have development, you have to allow us to get to the next step. That's the only way this moves forward.

Tom, there was some statement that this project is imminent. What do you mean by that?

Tyler, you want to talk about that?

Well, one example of that is they're operating today in 2026 out of an office building that was built in 2008, and it just doesn't work for... their management and efficiency of the facility and getting people in and out of their offices. An example of that, they have a conference room that literally can only have four, five, six chairs around it. It doubles as their HR room and their closed off room for employee checking and drug testing. It's just not cumbersome and well laid out with today's rules and regulations that they have to adhere to. Secondly, they're running a fleet of 90 vehicles that have a lot of hydraulics on them. They need a lot of maintenance, and they have two maintenance bays to operate that fleet out of, and it causes major problems for them. Those are the things that we're looking to correct. As a part of the project, we have to provide stormwater detention for the additional impervious area. And then, as I said, it would be our intention to... use that stormwater detention area as a part of our buffer. I can't commit to that until we get into detailed surveys and locations of structures and so forth. But that is the need for why we're here asking for the expansion of our use so that we can get all that worked out and come up with a good plan to present to the BZA that would be something that would be approvable in their mind's eye.

So the intent is to, if they get the rezoning, to then apply for the special exception to the BZA at that point?

Exactly. As Tom said, this is our schedule that we have to go through, and this is why we're here with our horse today.

Any further questions? Is there, you have nothing, petitioner has nothing more to add?

No.

Is there any remonstrance? Any questions about the petition? Seeing none, we're ready to entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve petition 7-26.

Do you, uh, do you also agree that the findings of fact I submitted are appropriate to support your motion?

Yeah. That's after review the fighting facts. I do. Okay.

We have a motion second motion and a second to approve petition seven dash 26 roll call vote of the commission members, please. Micah.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Mr. Williams? Yes. Mr. Howitz? No. Mr. Ites?

No.

And Mr. Spencer?

I vote yes.

Motion passes 5-2.

It's the city council you have to worry about. I would address that. Mr. Stiers, I don't see you. Are you in here? Yep. Thank you.

That is the end of our agenda. I appreciate everybody coming tonight. Thank you.

Thank you all for coming.