Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

He hired Metropolitan Engineering to do a flood study. That flood study proceeded all the way to approximately 300 ft north of Penibberry. Um we've been using that for Ripplebrook West and Ripplebrook East. Um last year I believe it was uh the DOT reconstructed 164 from Hterbury South to the county line. Uh the culvert that Ripple Brook drains through underneath 164 was a 30-inch corrugated metal pipe. They upgraded that to a 53x 83 elliptical concrete arch pipe. Um if you look at the end area, that's about six times as large as what was there. So, I'm I'm not terribly concerned with the flood plane at this point, but Ben and I have reached out to both the DNR and the DOT because it's possible there was hydraology and hydraulics run as part of that uh DOT project. We just would like to know. I was by there this morning. I took a whole bunch of videos a little bit after lunch and there's two three feet of freeboard on on Ripple Brook. So, it really doesn't concern me with all the water that's standing around there, but I am a little bit concerned with lot 16, particularly the southern end. Um, the elevation that was identified in 2005, 300 ft north ahead of area was uh 795, which is basically the top of the slope along the entire side of the property until you get back on lot 14 or so. Um, but like I say, there was two or three feet of freeboard out there today and the culvert underneath tenant barrier was only flowing about 8 in deep.

It's just a condition I I I before we grant a permit for some of those lots, I'd really like to see if there's any information out there. Overall though, the final thought looks just fine. Yeah, there's some technical stuff and a lot, you know, what was it? There was a an Adams County treasurer listed instead of a Waka County treasure. Just typos that we surveyor, we tend to plagiarize our previous work. It's not unheard of. It just happens. There's no such thing as a perfectly submitted plat.

I haven't seen one in 38 years in this business. So um the the other thing is you know the the department of administration is going to send this off to county and they're also going to be because they're going to send it to DNR because it is about an inhabitable waterway. Ripple Brook is a map that waterway. So the village is not the only one that's getting kick. Um there's going to be at least three other regulatory agencies that are going to be looking at it.

And I've had all the land perked. out of bed. The studies done especially on lots 16, 15 and 14 and then the west side of the road lots one and two. Um all the studies have been done in park test done for all that and with county with the state. Yeah, I I think from my perspective it's more a matter of making sure we're going to allow house to go on lot 16 and it's set up high enough so it's not full of water

and that that'll be up to the builder to come up with a lot of that stuff. And we are to a certain extent covered with that because we enforce the Walkshaw County basement standards which require the basement to be above the groundwater elevation. So it's probably not going to be an issue, but I'd rather feel safe than sorry. Greg will beat me up if I make a mistake on this. that just a condition on this may require yes lot all lots are all required to do that

yeah we're going through that we're looking at two of them and ripping them up right now we had to have modify one and do an engineered drain on the other because they couldn't meet that separation requirement so as far as because that's groundwater but as far as the flood plane piece you think it could I mean technically it's on the flood plane because it's never been submitted to it's never been mapped, but I I would say there's probably you you could probably find someone that's been around town for a long time that could come up with an idea where the the high water mark was. Um this the statue. Yeah, I I don't think there's anything that they would need to show on the plat. No, not at this point.

Because there's no there's no flood plane to show. I just in terms of your concerns because it could flood regardless of whether there's map flood plane or not. just in terms of how how how I think it's a good idea to hold up a building permit. I'm just trying to understand how that Oh, yeah. We're a long way away from building permit. I mean, if it doesn't dry out pretty soon, uh it's going to be a little difficult to move around out there. Oh, yeah. We've had seven inches of rain since the first of the month. Supposed to start on Monday and it has not yet. So, hopefully next Monday. I'll make a motion to approve the final plat as presented. I'll second. Any further discussion? All in favor?

I opposed. Seconded that one. Motion carries.

Mr. Commissioner point of order if I may. I would like to move to strike the item number four from the agenda for a procedural defect case on the 319 meeting. At the 319 meeting, this was moved to table. It was made a specific motion to table until the board acts on the PUD that was recommended. Since the PUD has not been acted upon by the board, this should not have made it on tonight's agenda. Motion to strike this from tonight's agenda. Fur your specific motion.

You can review it in the video. There's a specific motion to table until the board acts on the PD. It just says until the board has a chance to review. It doesn't specify anything right now. It may not in the minutes but that doesn't matter. The motion was made at the table until the board staff part of this meeting not for member of the public to make a motion that that can be considered by

I'm bringing it to the plan. You can move forward in I'm going to move forward with my agenda because we let one and four review it. You didn't say whether it would be approved or not. Didn't plan the vote on the board. It was just pending their review. It hasn't been on the board's agenda items and then subsequent meetings.

Well, no, to a certain extent. Um, I think it's probably helpful for everybody to understand the sort of the multi-step process. So the idea is whenever you have a request for a conditional use permit um or to any municipality um what you do first is they send it to the plane commission because the plane commission has members on it with sort of specialized knowledge and experience and training to evaluate you know issues related to development but they're not the ultimate body that decides whether conditional use permit is actually granted or not. It's essentially an advisory uh decision or advisory recommendation to either uh approve or deny the commission of use permit and then eventually it goes before the uh village board and that's where the actual decision is made. So any motion that occurs this evening by the plane commission is essentially to recommend to that other body to recommend to the full board. So the process has has that has gone through thus far is there has to be of course a public hearing and that's why they scheduled the public hearing at the church a couple of last month and they held a uh about a 3 hours worth of of of public comment to kind of get feedback from where what people are feeling on this and their their questions and their opinions and that kind of thing. So, you know, it was a long meeting. Everybody was understandably, you know, tired and and and you know, worn out after a long meeting. And so, rather than take the issue up after 3 hours and then go another hour or so or more in discussing it, that the decision was made to okay, let's we're going to table this. We're going to bring it back at another meeting. So right now what procedurally what's happened is the applicant has

submitted a packet and I'm sure you you saw those materials when it was on for the the public hearing. U they've submitted some reports from engineers um they've submitted a report from uh planners and other individuals to address these standards. So at this point there's a couple of questions that the that this body has to answer. And there's there's two layers of regulation over anytime a municipality considers a conditional use permit. First, there's a state statute and that's 6223. And what it says is if the applicant that's seeking the conditional use permit meets or agrees to meet the requirements and conditions specified in the local ordinance or those conditions imposed by the plane commission or the village, then the municipality shall grant conditional use ordinance. So that's that's big picture. That's the state statute. So that begs the question, what are the local conditions and if we look at if you have a copy or if you printed it out, the local ordinance is 16.25A sub17. And it says in in making the recommendation, in other words, the plan commission's recommendation to the full board, it says the plan commission shall evaluate the effect of the proposed use upon such things as but not necessarily limited to then as A through H. A is maintenance and safety of healthful conditions. B is existing topography, drainage and vegetation, vegetative cover. C is the compatibility of the use with other uses on adjacent properties. B is existing and proposed vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Uh E is the adequacy of existing and proposed parking areas and driveway locations. F is the adequacy of existing and proposed public utilities. And G is compatibility of the use with the comp plan. And H is the

suitability of the subject site for the type and density or the intensity of proposed uses. So at this point the applicant has submitted information relating to those who the public there was a public hearing to take feedback and uh thoughts and questions from the public and that's what happened at the church a few weeks ago and so at this point the body's come back and said okay we want we want to talk about those factors that I just read. So this the point of tonight's meeting is now that all that public feedback has come forward the applicant has submitted the record has submitted a number of things in writing it's considered a submitted reports from engineers and others. So this body is now going to talk about those factors and then decide what they're going to make what recommendation they're going to make to the full board and the full board is actually the body eventually that's going to decide yay or nay. This is just essentially an advisory opinion and it's part of the process that gets us to the full board and then the full board is is is going to vote up or down on it. So that's tonight. This was our opportunity and the planner uh Mr. Greenberg has submitted some documents, some additional documents and and uh some talking points for them to address those issues in 1625. Those those A through H that we just read. So, I'm going to turn it back over. I just wanted to explain um it's generally not it's generally not it is not uh it is not the time for um the body does not entertain motions or suggestions or requests from the from the gallery or the public. This is the time where the body deliberates on its its duty under the statute and its duty under the local ordinance. So, I'm going to turn it back over.

We're not following your own not following your own stipulations. Sir, we we we I appreciate that. We certainly all appreciate everybody's passion about this issue. We certainly appreciate that. I'm sure everybody does hear that um that there's public engagement on it. We have a statutory duty and a duty under the local ordinance to talk about these issues, evaluate the evidence that's been submitted. Certainly, there's been a record uh submitted by the applicant and there's been public feedback given at that hearing for over three hours and this this this body has a duty to the applicant and the public to evaluate that evidence and then make a recommendation and agree and understand that I'm saying

so we're not I'll turn it back over that should that should not happen tonight as per your own motion you have not fulfilled your own the alert under your own motion that the board needs to act on the PUD. Board did not need to act. That was the motion review.

The motion was review, not act. And I'm done with discussion here. Thank you. It's on the agenda. I bring it up. Item four, old business. Discussion action items A review discussion and possible recommendation on conditional use permit C and site plan of operation request to allow development of stage/phase one of the wreck athletic complex on a property located at the southeast corner of state highway 164 and coline road. That's key number BBV 202299 002. owner Eric Oyar agent player off item was tabled at March 19th meeting

what I would suggest is entertain a motion to remove from the table I'll make up that motion further discussion removing money from the table

all in favor I opposed carries. Ben.

Yeah. Well, I think uh the attorney did a great job kind of providing you guys with sort of what what we're here to discuss. Um so again, I'll just repeat uh what substantial evidence is. Uh, substantial evidence means facts and information other than merely personal preferences or speculation directly pertaining to the requirements and conditions an applicant must meet to obtain a conditional use permit and that reasonable persons would accept in support of a conclusion. And and so as as uh the attorney said, there's a a a significant body of information. Um we've had three hearings related to this. um over four hours of public comment, hundreds and hundreds of written comments have been received on a nearly daily basis as recently as this this week and there's been substantial information submitted by staff and the applicant.

I'm sorry, let's turn to um and so again, I think what what what is uh what what staff encourage regardless of how you which way you deliberate is that you provide a clear record of your findings whichever way that you guys go. Um, in the staff report um that was attached to the most recent memo, there are several conditions. We we discussed them quite a bit, I believe, at the last meeting. Uh, I I want to note that staff are are providing those not as a not as an advocate for the project. Uh, but to uh let you know that staff don't believe that any approval absent uh uh something similar to that set of conditions would would meet the the standards for conditional use. So, uh staff encourage you to first perhaps go through those conditions and then there may be some some process by which uh that needs to be discussed with the applicant uh to find out if they're willing to meet those conditions. Um and that's significant in this process because there are I really believe two ways that you can determine that that a a standard of the ordinance or a standard of conditional use has been met. One would be simply that they've provided the evidence up upfront that demonstrates compliance with whatever standard you're you're reviewing in particular. Uh but the other way would be if they agreed to meet a condition and you believe that by meeting that condition they would demonstrate compliance with ordinance standards. And so I'm just going to repeat this. I think it was written well by by an attorney. A finding of MET may be based on the applicant submitts andor the imposition of reasonable and measurable conditions of approval necessary to achieve compliance. So I think that's significant because you may not have all the information in front of you uh but provided there are conditions in place that will make sure that um that information is provided uh before that uh particular activity occurs uh you can consider that that condition is

met and a storm water permit would be one example of it. it it it would be uh unlikely for a storm water permit to be sought and obtained prior to going through all this. Um but it would typically be a condition of an approval. And so if you have concerns about grading, drainage, environmental review, um that permit process screens for those endangered species and and does a review uh to make sure there's no adverse drainage, that storm water is being managed, erosion control measures are in place, etc. Um, so I I did want to point point that out with respect to how conditions can allow you to come to the conclusion that a standard's been met or or or or not met if you don't believe that that condition is is substantial enough. And so uh staff did provide a worksheet um just to kind of guide you. Uh you don't have to fill it out. We're not taking votes. We're not tallying uh totals. A member did point out in the first section which is uh derived from 1625. They don't read verbatim, but they are the same standards just written in a little bit more use user friendly way. So, if you want to go verbatim from 1625 A throughI that the attorney cited, um I think that would be just as appropriate. Um but what we have in here are those general conditions. We have the list of the conditions being recommended by staff and then we have um behind that are your performance standards, noise, vibration, sound, etc. Um, and so the idea of this worksheet would be to guide your findings um, as you go through this process. Happy to take any questions, but uh, that's about all I have for you. Who who wrote this? I Well, I I derived it from another community that I work in, but I put that together.

Okay. Yeah. Um, Senator Greenberg, could I ask a quick followup question for you for the for the benefit of those who are also here? Um, when you grant or deny a cup, um, or when you're when you're evaluating a conditional permit application, the law also says that you can you can put some caveats in there or say yes, but you have to do AB and C. And I'm just looking at your March 16th, 2026 memo to the uh plan commission on page six. There's a number of items there. For example, it says conditions of approval to consider and one it says PUD and zoning prerequisite says subject to approval. Um there would be uh it would be subject to approval of the overlay district and two say subject to approval of this final site plan. Are those items one through what is it 10 or 12?

Are those your suggested two sheet that you put together correctly? And then the three would be your uh building performance standards. And I included four is just like a discussion about the site plan. Maybe include uh findings about the site plan as well. A simple one. So if I'm understanding your suggestion then is that the the body talk about specific elements in the uh code that we that we read earlier 1625A those A through H

and they'll talk about whether there's substantial evidence support or those are the conditions of I mean I think you can attack it from either end. Um, I think you need to talk about the conditions to get to the evaluation of the right. The other thing I think the commission needs to take reference to is the February 23rd, 2026 conditional use permit narrative that was authored from Clare Roth. Um, that was given to us back in February in conjunction with the March 16th. And what I think you're referring to is that part of the applicant's um materials that they submitted.

Correct. There's a report from uh the a planner named Cla Roth and on page six of her report. She goes through A through I to address the elements in 1625 detail in regards to everything. I apologize. What was the date on that one? February 23rd of 2026. Thank you. The conditional use permit narrative.

And you know, the other thing you can do is um you know, if you have question about something, you can ask the applicant. Um you know, if there's something that came up at public hearing that you have followup question about, you know, you can ask the applicants as well. Well, do we have any update on the TI

traffic impact site? Pardon? Traffic impact. Yeah, that got started, but at this point it's it's on hold until the decision here happens. That's for high energy C4 and local by the engineer. Thank you.

You have completed traffic counts at this.

So the traffic counts have all been completed at this juncture. The projections that are on What other things are on hold? And so the CDP gets gets approved or we're given besides like the traffic impact study and stuff like that. Is there other things pering will need to take place but apply for the permit until you have a viable. I understand that.

I guess my question is what happened to Sher? Why did we switch lawyers in the middle of this? And why wasn't that communicate? I mean, the trustees, you guys had to vote on that or make that decision in order, right? Why did we do that? Because Mike and John looking to pull back from the village and they felt eventually by the end of the year retired, right? But I saw Mike respond to an email the other day. because he's they're still involved as they're doing this as we're trying to do a smooth transition. Okay,

that's what's going on right now for and that making sure that attorney bear is up to speed on everything. Still working hand in hand with attorney Schar and Carllo up to speed on everything. On top of that, um, with this project, um, Attorney Schaer felt that, um, it would be better for the village at this point because he doesn't know if he'd be able to see the whole thing through. You have to remember he's up there in years.

No, I I understand that. I just that wasn't wasn't communicated to us why that happened. So, Does it make sense to talk through the conditions? That's where I was thinking to see if there any questions. If there's a discussion in the ad folks want to add, subtract, revise, just go through. Okay.

So, so the the first one is is simply saying that this doesn't happen unless you get the approval. Um the second one uh simply requires the the approval subject to the applicant submitting a final revised site plan of operation satisfactory to the plan commission or its design addressing all related conditions of approval and reflecting all revisions required by the plan commission prior to issuance of any permits or commencement of construction. Um the third uh I'm going to start paraphrasing some of these. They're very very long. um you have it in front of you uh that they're going to basically uh submit plans and substantial compliance with what you're reviewing and approving here tonight. Um the fourth requires the completion of the traffic impact analysis and that any required improvements of that will will get installed. Uh it also requires that pri prior to uh that that study if a twist dot or town engineer determine that uh intersection improvement from stage one are necessary um that those will need to get installed prior to the use. Uh there's a lighting compliance requirement that all athletic fields shall comply with the build zoning per performance standards related to glare and light spill. Light lighting shall be installed consistent with the submitted photoometric plans following installation of the lighting system. The applicant shall provide asbuilt lighting documentation including pole locations, pole heights, fixture types, and aiming angles to verify consistency with approved plans. The applicant shall applicant shall also provide asbuilt phototric measurements conducted at the property line to verify compliance with village performance standards. If the asbuilt phototric measurements demonstrating lighting levels exceed applicable ordinance performance standards, then the property owner shall implement corrective measures including shielding, fixture adjustment, dimming, or other mitigation measures necessary to achieve compliance. Hours of operation operating hours for

the athletic field shall only occur between 9:00 am and 9:00 pm on weekdays and 7:00 am to 11 p.m. on weekends consistent with the operations submitted for the application unless otherwise approved by the village through subsequent review processes. Sound and amplification. All activities associated with the athletic complex shall comply with the village's zoning performance standards relating to noise and sound emissions. No permanent or temporary amplified sound systems or public address systems shall be installed or utilized unless specifically authorized by the village board. If the village determines that noise associated with the operation of the athletic complex, including athletic activity, spectator activity, or any amplified sound results in sound levels exceeding applicable performance standards, or creating a nuisance condition on adjacent properties, the bill may require the property owner to implement reasonable mitigation measures. Such measures may include but are not limited to operational adjustments, installation of additional buffering or sound attenuation or other measures necessary to bring the use into compliance with applicable performance standards. Parking compliance. Off streetet parking for stage one shall be provided consistent with the submitted site plans demonstrating 176 parking spaces. any modification to the parking layout or supply shall be subject to the approval by the uh plan commission through the site plan review process. All parking associated with the use shall occur on site within the approved parking areas. Parking along Townline Road, State Highway 164, or any adjacent public roadway shall be prohibited in connection with events or activities occurring at the AT athletic complex. The property owner and facil facility operator shall be responsible for managing site operations, scheduling and event activities to ensure that adequate on-site parking is available and that event related parking does not occur on occur on surrounding roadways. If the village determines that event related parking is occurring on adjacent

public roads, the village may require the property owner to implement additional parking management measures which may include event staffing, parking control personnel, temporary traffic control measures or other operational adjustments necessary to ensure compliance with this condition. Uh I will paraphrase the next one. We they submitted a uh detailed landscaping plan. Uh we are requiring compliance with the landscaping plan. um and that we we also set a deadline for installation. They are proposing storage containers for the athletic equipment. Uh and so there's a little bit of ambigu ambiguity in our code. There are some some pods provisions or I'm sorry some prohibitions on containers. Uh but that could be authorized by the board through a uh as a as a temporary structure. So that should just be articulated by the board. Um and they should obtain that approval. That's all that condition is saying that the board needs to obtain or approve these special storage containers. Uh they need storm water approvals. So that will require obtaining DNR and local storm water permits. Um emergency access site access and circulation shall be designated and maintained to accommodate emergency vehicle access as required by the village fire department. The applicant shall submit a final emergency access and circulation plan for review and approval by the village fire department prior to field use. The approved access configuration shall be maintained for the duration of the use unless modifications are approved by the village fire department. Um the property owner shall and operator shall comply with all applicable village ordinances including zoning performance standards related to lighting noise traffic and nuisance uh and future phases. Approval of this conditional use permit applies only to stage one of the athletic complex as described in the application materials. Additional phases of the development shall require separate CPS site plan approvals unless otherwise authorized by the village.

Can I ask one question? If you have all the spots that are parking and you need more parking, where are you going to find more parking besides on the street? Just ask. I am not in the athletic complex expertise field. Um I don't know what they normally do. I I don't know if they expect 176 cars there for soccer every weekend or if they expect 100 and they building 176. Maybe you can answer that.

I'll let Kelsey chime in if need be, but basically there are standards for design development on any project like this. And so we've actually exceeded those standards for this phase and will do so for subsequent phases. So, and especially at the stage we're at right now with phase one for soccer fields, uh that's roughly 24 acres of space that's being taken up. I'm sure we could probably find additional space if needed within the other 125 acres. Thank you. In regards to the roads and the public service and fire, did you guys consider that Big Bend Road is also part of the farming act for vehicles on that road? Yes, we have.

Thank you. Can I just make a point where I understand there's concerns from the public but as we already discussed this is supposed to be our time to discuss this as much as I appreciate the questions we'll be here till midnight if we don't stick to the agenda and stick to the way that the meeting needs to run. Yes sir. It was about the service roads in the meeting. verification.

Sure. Yeah, please. You guys have heard the conditions. You guys have any comments, concerns uh about these? Are you comfortable with with everything that that has been stated? Did you talk about if they met conditions for Sorry. No, you're out of order. I I had a question about the traffic study. So, you guys said that you guys have done the initial count. But then it says in here that if the DOT requires you guys to make significant changes that you guys have to pay for that, right? Yeah. That's correct. Yes.

Like if they I don't think they'd want to put an intersection on 164, right? But I mean for phase one, probably not. Yeah. Cuz I I mean I just my whole thing is I know an intersection cost like a million bucks, you know, and so I just like before you guys start I'm just want to figure out the timeline. Do you guys you start building it and then the DOT gives you your traffic compact and says you got to do substantial improvements to the or changes to the roads around it. Does that change your plan at all or no? Well, you put the card before the horse. You don't you don't do the improvements and do the building until you have the traffic study and the DOT is going to tell you whether you need that or not before you put the horse shovel on the ground.

Right. So, your question is moved. We we've been aware that the study would take a little while. They they're aware they will need to we sat in on the initial uh meeting with the with with DOT's uh development review team and the way they explained it is uh anything that this project triggers

but this let me just finish. I'm just answering your question. Anything this project triggers they're on the hook for however there are some excuse me existing problems that may there may be some existing traffic problems out there. Um and Wisto may take the opportunity to fix those problems while they address this impact. They may not be on the is that correct that they might not be required to deal with other problems that are getting done. Those would get paid for by the state. Uh but yes, they're well aware and the condition uh that I just want to get an answer from that you guys are are willing to agree to these conditions because this condition if they're willing says they understand these.

So I'll speak on behalf of the development group. So this is our attorney. This is our representative ISG. So she's done all of the work uh the front end work on the design and development and the studies and things like that. And so uh Chelsea here has has reviewed the sheets that he handed out and and so as Andy and I both confer both of them and neither of them have any objections to what we have in our hands currently. Thank you. So all the conditions he just read one after another you guys agreed to those terms as far as to meet the requirements of those. Yeah. Yeah. We were following along here on the uh the sheets that you handed out. So

a couple comments on the conditions. I know there was discussion with previous discussions in the meeting. Um the lighting um I believe you are you correct. Are these dark sky certified? uh the muscul is this something that I know we've talked about but I didn't see anything in the language about maintaining that dark sky um dark sky international certified lighting I believe Musco is but I'm not 100% um so I just haven't seen that so I'd like to add that as a line item which is verified with your engineering that you guys do meet the dark span requirement I I believe that is included in the photometric plan

I've looked at the photometric plan but I didn't see anything as far dark gray international certification on that and I think come with your final proposal from Moscow but that's just something that I would like to you know there's concern with the over the you know light light pollution from the site and I I believe that do you have the dark sky requirements that there's not going to be any significant you know light pollution coming from the site right without having no without having plan and everything in front of me in all respect to the lighting I will say that has been the intent uh so we can verify that That's actually

And I guess the second item that I have um regarding the pods or the storage containers um I believe when we redid that ordinance that using a pod as a accessory structure is not a violation of the ordinance because as long as you do a basically a permanent foundation and treat as an accessory structure and it complies with the fire and building code then I would say I would accept that. My concern is that you have shipping containers on the site. We don't have proper fire extinguishers, proper exits. Somebody's, you know, some people and their kids are in there that these are built as an accessory structure, not as just shipping containers thrown on some stone base. So, I guess I would want that written in the uh condition on those uh those temporary structures that are the con temporary storage containers that they would be treated as an accessory structure and be required to have a building permit. accessory structure building permit and supply our requirements or support for accessory structure.

And you get that. Uh so I've heard dark and I want to be clear because they're that you you are requiring dark sky dark sky certification. Dark Sky International is a it's a third party verification on the lighting that that I know Musco the the field lighting company I believe that's what's under yeah Musco they they can make sure that the fixtures the lighting units they provide provide that you know full cut off they're not going to have that light pollution but I just want to be clear you're you're saying you want to add a condition that they're required to to meet that compliance

meet the dark sky for yeah they don't I don't think you really need certification like a national historical site would need but I believe that all the lighting units should be meet that dark scare international certification fixture themselves would fix photometrics all of that would then meet that requirement um so that way they're manufactured to that so if you ever needed to get that third party certification you should be able to get we can provide the specs and correct

but this is in like a national historical site where that's going to be an issue so I don't know if we if you go that far to get that that lighting then I'm reasonably you know assuming reasonably that there's concern about light pollution and you know being able to see this giant bright field from 20 m away is not going to be situation correct the second was containers storage containers that they would be treated as an accessory structure subject to any permit requirements

permit so I mean you can still have a foundation of stone you know crushed stone or whatever foundation it's just that you know as far as exits ous exits the uh you know if they need reported lighting for emergency lighting if they're that large enough that you have all of the permits on an accessory structure like a a shed or a small pole bar would have you know as far as you by thought is if you're going to have staff or children or athletes in there that it's it's a constructed structure not a storage container that they go get trapping equipment. We have two conditions to discuss. You guys want to just accept those?

I think it's I think I think that's reasonable. I think that's reasonable. I heard that you guys are okay with those two additional I got a question by the ordinances. you have lighting sound and structures are required to be approved by the by the by the board. I believe in our or if we did the ordinance for the and I don't have it in front of me. We did the ordinance for the the portable storage containers that commercial property you have you have a sun you can have them but only for so long.

Yeah. And staff could approve you for an extension. Um, if you wanted to build a container home or you wanted you got a business and you wanted to turn containers into storage space. Now that's you're using as an accessory structure, you're not using that. You're using those as a structure and not using them as temporary storage. So then they should be treated like a structure and they should be compliant with the code requirements of structure. I'm not as concerned about those as I am about the lighting. I'm I I thought we were initially discussing the fine. We're fine.

Any other condition? I just one last thing I want to talk about and I don't know if this is the right might not be the right time but I guess just the biggest thing for me is I'm just kind of thinking about what is your guys cuz I think what this all kind of works into is the water right and what is the what is the board's what is your guys's vision for the water and how it ties into the development you know what I mean because I know at the last meeting you said, "Well, the water would come in over phases, but then we've talked about if the developer wants water, he has to pay for it all on his own."

That's correct. Or but we had also talked about at one point we had talked about borrowing. We have never talked about borrowing. You mentioned it in one of the meetings. You said in November's meeting, I said we have the capacity to borrow $12 million, but never said that the village in doing that, right? So I guess my whole thing is if the water if the ultimate goal is to get a wastewater treatment plant, right? Is that the ultimate goal? And and put water and sewer in. Yeah.

Right. So I guess my question is just long term because not everybody's going to be on the board forever and ever and ever, but the wastewater treatment plant will be here forever and ever and ever. What does it cost annually to run that and staff that to what is that going to cost? Have we done any analysis on that? We've we've worked on it this agenda. I am. Yeah. I And I said this might not be the right place. I was just going to say so for phase one there's no water requirements from a utility standpoint. It's it's the village the village has done our we've done our studies.

Yep. Right now they're 2026 they're 13 14 years old. DNR is requesting us which we are in the process and Jim Smith is working on is updating all that because we're working off of you know costs and figures that are 14 years old or whatever right

and I mean Will was part of that too where that was all done as well. So we have we have a sewage treatment plan we have a location. We have the map of where the pipe's going. We've got all that right now. The DNR is saying, "Hey, we know what our affluent levels are to going to the river and everything else." So any future development on the north end, everything's going to end up coming down the hill into the village along the river where this sewer plant would be and go from there. The water tower has always been something right on the southeast corner of the interchange. the village has already done two two or three tests warrants more than that.

No, I mean I I understand and we've probably done our due diligence and getting the engineering stuff in place. I just my whole thing is the long-term costs. Are we going to be able to cost to update the long-term cost? We wouldn't be looking at a full-time person running this place. It would be a part-time person. That's all that would be needed to run this. want to operate the actual wastewater the wastewater facility. Yeah. Because of the size of it. It's a modular newer technology based does scale if there is growth that is needed but the initial requirements would be a part of time and that was part as part of the original plan. Okay.

So like Kelly says it'd be a modular system where it grows. Correct. Okay. I have one more question for that. Okay. Um, sanit sanitation facilities are going to be origins. Is that a trailer based facility? That's on on phase one, we're going to have to do temporary facilities. Phase two would have an actual building. You're actually putting up. Yeah. Okay. Um, I guess coming from the construction industry, those the plastic ones are not the first choice. I'd recommend with you're talking 1676 cars uh a trailer based facility annually something seasonal you bring in. Yeah, I would say

I would recommend I can't I can't tell you what you got to really do until you have your volume there, but I would I would highly recommend that you shy away from the the ones that get tipped over by the teenagers and go. Well, I'll tell you my background is being instructed as well. We wait when it's hot out. That's the last place you want to be. Um, I've been on project. Yeah, I mean it's in our best interest. I can't put it as I can't say I can put it as a conditioner, but I would highly recommend that.

I I get what you're saying. I think it's in our best interest to buy the most comfortable place for the kids and the parents and the spectators everyone to go to. So, yeah, suffice to say that. That's definely consider I I have a Um just because I I don't know. Um so the operating hours between 99 and 71 those conforms as well ordinances

correcting. Okay. Clarify weekends and weekdays. So weekday start Sunday night and run through Thursday night. Why don't you want to just make it? I assume your intent was weekdays were Monday. Well, may maybe you guys could clarify what your intent was. Weekends are every Sunday. Weekdays are Monday through Thursday.

You would go to 11 p.m. on a Sunday night. I mean, likely not. clearly never been at a at a baseball tournament on a Sunday. Kind of need to I mean it we can't have the likely we're just asking when you when you're asking and they'll decide if it's appropriated in their recommendation. So I just wanted to I would have thought that didn't include a Sunday, but I'm glad you brought that up because but just let us know. Well, I mean the question was uh don't does that conform to the the village ordinances? So, I guess I would put that question back to you. What is it for? Those are the hours that you're asking for.

Your website says 10:00. Does Does the village ordinance specify what a weekend is? That's my question. I don't think so either. Generally, it's weekends are to the average person, weekends are Saturday and Sundays. Weekend based on this the state. So, Friday nights would not have to conform to what makes Is that what our trying to find it? Could we just say they need to I mean, did the villages does that ordinance contain the hours so that we could just reference that? Jamie, I just text it to you.

Thank you. Just have them comply with that. So, we're talking under loud and unnecessary noise prohibited. Um, no person shall operate a public address system, radio, loudspeaker, amplifier, or other amplified sound devices of any building within the village between the hours of 11:00 p.m. Friday and 7:00 a.m. on Saturday. 11:00 p.m. on Saturday and 7:00 a.m. on Sunday. and all other nights from during the week from 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. the following morning. Nothing in the SE section shall be construed to prohibit the use of sound amplification devices uh by authorized personnel um for emergency purposes. No person shall make or cause or be made any loud, disturbing, unnecessary noises or noise unnecessary sounds or noises such as may 10 to annoy or disturb uh in or about any public street alley or park within 75 ft of any private residence.

So to review, that was 11:00 p.m. Friday, Saturday, and 10 p.m. Sunday. Correct. That was related to noise. Correct. operating hours.

This is under chapter 10. 10.03. 10.032. Yeah. So that would allow them their proposed hours. They just couldn't go past 10 on Sunday, not Sunday. Friday the clos on Friday and Saturday is that was that referring to noise

right but I what I heard was it had language about sound amplification right or other noises without sound amplification so it's a general noise ordinance it's different than operating hours just a general So as long as so it's not necessarily operating it's a noise right that one is right this one is

so the reason why to kind of address one thing that you said where you're saying well we don't want typical right we're not a restaurant or a bar or retail shop where we tell customers get out right you know so we're having you imagine we have kids they're playing a tournament or championship games are typically played on Sunday let's say maybe there's a rain delay and it's 9:58 it's the second inning right and you're going to all these kids. Yeah. Right. So, you could also you could always consider it just depends. I was going to say I've been at Infinity till 1 in the morning. Yeah. Because of the how a tar tournament gets delayed because of rain. You know, we've been late. It happens. It's not every day though, right?

But it happens and things can happen, right? when I've been to, you know, these tournaments with with my kid for years now and I don't think we've ever been anywhere past that. So, I think the fall's been on an enforcement thing. If it's if it's a one time every month, it's a matter of changing the rules because of an exception situation. you find that it's not it's not the nor you have incident traffic. It's an exception to the normal.

It's an Yeah, it's an extended circumstance. I I would I would agree that if we keep if you make this language match the noise ordinance for Friday 11 p.m. Saturday 11 p.m. Sunday 10 p.m. Correct. And then it would be an enforcement thing. If it happens, it happens. But then it's an enforcement thing and it's up to the village to enforce the ordinance for conditions. So are we clear there? So under the highway district. Yeah. It's a condition seven.

Correct. So, it would be 10 p.m. on Sunday night.

So, we want to write that 900 p.m. Monday through Thursday night, 11:00 p.m. Friday, Saturday night, 10 p.m. Sunday. Uh, Thank you. Sunday is a school night. Monday through Thursday. They were 9 to9 where you stay 9 to9. That's 99 start time didn't sound like it was correct. And then I have Friday, Saturday. Thank you. 7 to 11 and Sunday is 7 to 10. It should be the same as Monday.

Sunday 7 to 10. Everybody concur or thank you. Okay. Do you guys have a I mean you're landscaping plants with significant trees and is there a plan in place if there is a let's say a noise issue? one of the conditions.

Yeah, I mean it's one of the condition I'm just asking if there's like you know plan B, plan C. So I mean looking at your landscape plan there's a significant amount of vegetation and trees in that that should block any you know it sounds I'm not concerned but I just is there a plan C or plan B for that? Well, I think it it would be circumstantial, right? So, if you know, so for instance, for phase one we're talking about is, you know, the north uh west corner. Um, and I don't remember all of the tanks there or not, but um due to the, you know, the elevations and everything else, there's going to be some fairly substantial burning around the north side for sure. Uh, and some on the west side. The west side burning is really more about a safety thing. Keep the balls from flying out there. Keep people from want to wander out on 64. The north side burning has more to do with sound and visual mitigation. So, um, beyond that, there really isn't a need anywhere else because, you know, it's in space at that point, you know, on the other side. So, yeah,

I understand that. Obviously, future phases, you'd have more. Yeah, I mean we would take the same approach at all future phases, right, which would be incorporating perms and screening things like my my concern is all of a sudden there's a some issue. We don't want to have construction highways.

No, I don't want that all of a sudden no addressing, you know, case by case basis kind of thing. But the the intent of you know this stage for not only phase one but future phases is that we would have those things as you can see in phase one significant trees and plants um firming there's all those types of things already included um and those will be included in subsequent phases um as things move along and as as construction starts. If we decide, you know, hey, let's make this put a little higher or add a few more trees, we're certainly open to that. But, you know, I mean, it's I think we've made it pretty clear that we um that we're putting in a significant effort to to address that,

right? You're always open to adding more, but we've got a base level of what we should install as far as that goes. Yeah. I mean, a certain amount.

Yeah. I mean, I I know a landscaper, so I'm sure we can Yeah, I I think uh you know this is a good dialogue back and forth in terms of getting everyone's questions answered to help them make a decision. Uh my suggestion would be that um once that process is complete that the body have a a short discussion as to the elements contained in 162517 which is um you know essentially to go through those and quickly ask you know for example is there substantial evidence to suggest that they will maintain a safe and healthful condition under 16 uh 25 uh 1A um then you Is there substantial evidence to demonstrate that it would or wouldn't be consistent with the existing topography, drainage and vegetative cover in terms of the use and just in both reos so that there's a record of of uh the body's uh findings in that regard with respect to any motion. Well, I think Mr. Chairman,

so so the again reading the the ordinance, here's what the ordinance says in making its recommendation. In other words, the planning commission making a recommendation to the village board whether to either uh approve or deny the requested conditional use permit. It says the planning commission shall evaluate the effect of the proposed on the following and then so the first one is um the maintenance and and safety uh and healthful condition. So in other words the question is is there substantial evidence to demonstrate that the use would be maintained in a safe and healthful manner. So that would be the kind of the first first launching point for discussion

and based on the reports submitted by ISG and CLA uh February dated to to speak to that point their narrative that they presented was this proposed stage one development is designed to maintain safe and healthful conditions for site users and surrounding properties. Site access, internal circulation, parking layout, pedestrian routes are arranged to minimize conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. The use does not involve hazardous materials or activity that would pose risk to public health or safety. It's too cold. That's their answer to that, not our code.

Looking at the preliminary plans, it seems to meet that. Question two. So that's essentially is there substantial evidence to demonstrate that there would be any negative impact on existing topography, drainage and vegetative cover and whether or not you know the the topography and drainage and the vegetative cover are appropriate for the use.

You've seen landscape proposed landscape and grading plans. Uh this would be subject to uh storm water and erosion control. because it's adjacent to 164. It's not only reviewed and approved by the village and the DNR. The DOT also gets involved because they're draining their drainage system. So it's a threeprong attack or a threeprong approach for the review of that the adding of the broom adding of trees and landscaping into that satisfy that as well. That's what's needed. There was a comment made about the permeable paving. Is there any concerns with that or that's just be subject to the water?

We have received additional information both on the forest pavement and on the curve fields. Um, I'm satisfied that they can meet the ordinance uh requirements not only above of the village ordinance but also the DNR standards because they designed it for the DNR technical standards for porest. Thank you. Yep. Thanks.

Okay. So the next one is the compatibility of the use with other uses on adjacent property. So the question is, has the applicant demonstrated substantial evidence to demonstrate that that their proposed use is compatible um with other uses on adjacent properties? No. I don't know where is this is this comparison of adjacent zone properties of the same type

cuz we have we have properties adjacent that are zone R properties across the street that are zone conversion business so is compatible with B4 correct that's what my understanding is this comparison is that adjacent zone prop property in the village is what we're addressing here. Sure. You certainly can take into consideration the zoning.

Currently, there's no development adjacent. So, it's hard to say that it doesn't fit development adjacent because there is no current development adjacent in the military. It says that it says no. The next factor to discuss um under the code it says existing and proposed vehicular and pedestrian traffic generation and circulation. So the question is do you do you believe that there's substantial evidence um that there will be adequate vehicular and pedestrian traffic uh

circulation and and those pedestrian vehicular circulation issues will be properly managed. Is it based on the plans that have been submitted, it seems appropriate, plus that in combination with the fact that the traffic study will be completed if this goes through. So they'll be able to identify any needs for renovations that are needed for any existing or new intersections or traffic devices in place. So once all that is completed and approved, I would I would say that this does meet with that criteria just because of the fact that it's got a basis for an ingress and egress and emergency vehicle access. It shows the walking trails and the appropriate areas for pedestrian track as well as then allowing for the traffic to finish off everything and any kind that are identified when they're done. I mean if I'm if I'm reading I'm reading I just want to understand okay the conditional use permit standards right and it says that these in order for us to off for the planning commission and the board to approve the EUP where the proposed use can be demonstrated to comply with applicable conditional use permit standards and performance. These standards generally require that the proposed use and the second bullet point is that it requires

what page I'm on the page two of the Cedar report. Thank you. It says that these standards, the middle paragraph there generally require that the proposed use not create excessive noise, lighting, traffic, other impacts, right? So, if we're going to approve the cup, that's what we're being asked tonight, right, Ben? You're we're recommending approve, right? Well, we're depending on how the vot comes out, we don't know yet.

Correct. But what I'm asking is what we're stating is for us to approve the CUP tonight. It says that it will require that it will not create excessive noise, lighting, traffic, or other impacts. And we I don't know that we know that because we don't have the traffic study that

there's a condition that requires the traffic. There's a condition that requires they meet performance standards. There's a condition that says they need to provide as builds that demonstrate their photo plan. That's that's what I want to know. That's what understand the law says that if the developer agrees to meet the condition and you believe that if the condition is met that substantial evidence uh had can provide that that standards met even if it's not provided up front which is what we would all want to make a decision but have to consider that condition met. Okay. Now it's on them to demon they have to hold their own and and there are measures in place that require changes that that if they if they can't meet it but they've agreed to meet it. that you have to accept that. No, I just want

No, I just I just wanted to clarify. There's a lot of Again, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just asking questions.

No, that's a great question and I'm sure it helps people understand um you know, and the the state legislature a few years back and a number of years ago did, you know, change the conditional use permit statute that governs local municipal evaluations of conditional use permits. um to change that standard and say, "Hey, if the applicant agrees to meet or doesn't meet the conditions in the local ordinance, then you know, then there becomes a compelled to to grant it kind of a thing. So, everybody's trying to analyze this as dictated by the state legislature and answer these questions." So, the um the next one is uh the adequacy I'm sorry, go ahead. Is there no right it says the adequacy of existing and proposed parking areas and driveway locations. So the question there is, is there substantial evidence to demonstrate that there will be adequate parking areas and driveway locations?

And we discussed that earlier in regards to the amount of spaces and stuff. Yes. Staff's analysis was was that they they uh Yeah. When you apply a reasonable when you take their use and apply it to the reason, you know, reasonably to a similar use in in the code, they exceed the required parking standards. uh a condition is require review of access plans. Um so so there are are several things in place um to consider here.

Any other comments on E? Okay. So the next question it says the adequacy of existing and proposed public utilities and other public services. So again, the question for this body is whether there's substantial evidence that there exists adequate um utilities and other public services to serve the proposed use. And that's state stage one, not not uh not anything else. Simply what's what's before us here? And we heard of really no utility serving the site any

electricity. electricity that's clearly on site already. So that combined with the fact that they're proposing to use for John's and given the recommendation requirement the recommendation that they use a trailer type facility versus a standard plastic facility. Um again like we said that's up to them at the very end but we did provide that recommendation from us that we prefer to see something like that and whether they do it or not is fine but I think that based on those things that's also been something that's been covered. So, I'm not too concerned about the fact that utilities and any kind of toiletry issues any kind of concern.

Were you planning on putting a well temporary in there? Base one was what was your water fill like bottle filling station? Were you going to have a well put in for that? I don't think so.

So then the next one is the compatibility of the use with the villages comprehensive plan. So again the question is is there substantial evidence to demonstrate that this proposed use is compatible with the village's comprehensive plan plan designates commercial further its own for the commercial uh P4 that is the most intensive um commercial district available in the village. So, so it would seem to very much align with the comprehensive plan.

Further, I think state law requires that CUS don't have to be compliant, but it's a good standard to have consistent organization recommends for district.

So, the next one is the suitability of the subject site for the type and density or intensity of the proposed uses. So the question is, have you seen substantial evidence that the proposed use is suitable to this particular site? falls within the comprehensive plan falls within the zone. Remember this is stage one. This is four approval projects before lighting pipes.

Anyone anyone else on before we move on?

Um so the last one is the creation of noise, traffic, odors or other conditions that may be detrimental to the public. So in other words, the question is, is there substantial evidence that the proposed use will not create noise, traffic, odors, or conditions that may be detrimental to the public? So I think that's the part we've kind of covered that based on the operational hours and the noise ordinance within the village to make sure that we're in compliance with that. So that way there's no exception, no crossover. So I think for noise purposes, that's been discussed, that's been settled. Um the traffic situation, again, like we said, we got the counts. We don't have the study yet because we're waiting on this process to finish up to get that process started. It's all building on top of each other. So if again they've agreed to saying yes any kind of traffic impacts that are brought up any kind of updates that are needed that wouldn't be state property issues they are in agreement that they're going to cover that they're taking care of those things to make sure that the traffic to make sure that any kind of traffic mitigation I guess you should say or intersections things that anything that's identified that's needed they would be in agreement to what was the last part with the and other conditions.

Other conditions, you know, things like the lighting and landscaping. If you're not going to create, it's not a

no. There's never been one concern about from public discussion condition that it has to be dark certified and making sure that the lights for that was in the development as well. So again I understand about the lighting. I have driven to other locations and look at the lighting at night when it's there and there is a glow that comes off it but it's concentrated on the fields. So I I do understand the concern, but I believe that with the type of lighting that they're proposing and the techn the technology that they're going to be using for that, a lot of that can be mitigated and controlled as far as spread, spill, and things like that that properties

and there's nothing in there. I mean, we're not look there's when it comes to amplification and stuff of that nature, we're not there's nothing in here that we're going to have in regards to amplified noise or anything like that. So,

that's that's the last item from the code. So as you have further discussion or you may have questions of the applicant um when you come down to it there are essentially two motions that you may entertain. If you if if you don't find that there is sub substantial evidence uh or that the applicant has submitted substantial evidence that it can meet or agree to meet the conditions as found in the code. you can you can move to to deny the permit. Alternatively, you can move to grant the permit upon a finding that the applicant has demonstrated substantial evidence um to meet the conditions in the village code and there is a recommendation and you discussed this for about 45 minutes earlier. the um planner has given you this this worksheet and part two is special conditions imposed by the village. There's a number of them and then there was two that were added tonight. One was the dark dark sky certification for lighting and then the second one the temporary structures being treated as accessory structures. So, um that's that's another um element if you decide if you so choose and decide to grant the permit subject to the special conditions imposed by the village. Um I just wanted to remind you that those are out there as recommended by your planner. Is there anything else you wanted to add on those?

No. Okay. Covered. Um so again, we can you know we can help you depending on how the discussion goes. um we can help make sure that we get a good clean um motion language for everybody to consider so they understand clearly what they're voting on. Um but again the key word either to grant or deny should be based upon substantial evidence and if if it if the body so chooses to to make a motion to grant um it would be subject to those special conditions talked about by the body earlier. Don't correct me. And the the motion to recommend the forward to grant.

Right. Right. Right. Exactly. 100% correct. This is only an advisory. Exactly. We don't want our our approval our vote for or against is to recommend to the board.

That's they would be the final body to grant any approvals. And I think that's really important point so everybody understands that's here tonight that this is a body that has some specialized knowledge, skills and training and experience in development and and in these types of projects and they're just making they're evaluating it and then making a recommendation to the build board which will ultimately be the one that grants or denies that request. sometimes just to being just to open for discussion. Um you could make you know you could make a motion and then see if there's a second for that motion. If there is then you could have further discussion or debate and then um or alternatively if there's more questions that you have for the applicant you could do that. It's all it's all up to the body as to how it wants to whether it feels like it's ready to deliver it or not. At the last meeting, I was the one to table this because I felt that there was just not enough clarification at the time to to move this forward. Um then I think the conditions here um really spell out um what they're trying to do here um for the you know phase one or part one. Um I believe it was mentioned in your video that you want to be a good neighbor without actually having a home in the area to be a good neighbor. It's hard to prove that you're a good neighbor and I think the step phased approach here is the right approach. So, I would be the one to make the motion to recommend to the board to

grant approval of the COP with the conditions in Ben's recommendations plus the conditions we added tonight. And is that based upon finding that there's substantial effort that they've met the conditions in the code? Yes. in their 12ap and the 16 special conditions that were drafted and amended by that. Maybe you want to read that.

Um so it's a motion to approve recommend approval of the request subject to the conditions in the staff report in addition to the two additional conditions. was the the lighting conditions the lighting and the accessories and the modification the modification of the hours conditions. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um we get a second or and subject to the subject based on the findings uh that substantial uh pursuant to the conditions required in 1625 that uh substantial evidence has been demonstrated. Is that um did I get

Is that your intent? Yes. Okay. I'll second a motion in a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Unanimous. Next up, planners report.

Uh, the one thing I want to mention, I ordered it to Will. Um, FEMA had sent some information about folks that were subject to blood losses last summer that um that there's funding available. So, I think I sent it to Mark today. Sorry. I don't know if you guys experience any significant damage last August.

Um the only thing nature we had village flooded that was temporary industrial park did flood. I mean, um that did flood bad, but within a few hours, the water had receded rather quickly. Um cuz we did get uh measured out over uh over six almost 7 in of rain within a very short period of time. I had to go back and do that and double check. We do we do have an official. Did they Did anyone in the industrial department make a claim? No, not that I'm aware of. Okay. Eric Eric was here last,

correct? Yeah. Cuz he fire department was out there cuz we had to shut down industrial. Eric was came out with barricades and stuff. So, um, but like I said, the water receded very quickly. Shame on you guys.

We're good there. All right. Moving along fire inspection report Bill.

Yes sir. Uh we've been doing our inspection going on for the first part of 2026. Still going uh the process of the planning addresses are missing. Uh especially up on National Avenue West 23 South 23. West 23365 at uh National Avenue. And then the place is a backwood address. was about Lake Park condo. Um, in the process of building it, they gave it an address and that address is there no longer.

The new address is South 82 West 22900. The old address that was not there anymore is South 86 West 2280. So, we'll have to get that changed or they're going to have to they gave it to Katie, so she's going to take care of it and so forth. But there's another address there that belong to the house that faces the 164 and that's West 229 South 8650 Big Ben Road. That sign is not up there. That address is not up there. That need to either be put up or rectify make sure that that's the right address for the house. That is the right address for the house. It just needs to have a new sign put up there. So, that's something that our DPW director can handle.

I was going to do that from the school. Yeah. Yeah. I had that under control already. They took care of it. Wow. He told there

he told you just goes crazy. Uh in our process of uh inspecting and finding three businesses that are running already, moved in, but no occupancy permits were taken. They will be here. They will be getting their occupancy permit. I'll be on their back until they get. And if we need to find them for it because they didn't do it on time or because somebody didn't tell them properly to get occupancy permit, well then we'll have to figure that out later. Okay. Hang on. Uh people really

we had well we had the fish fight which a lot of us know. I don't bring this up. I'll bring it up. Uh we had a fish right went very very well and I want to thank everybody that participated and everybody that's all I have any questions please no good anything from Jason for building inspector

I didn't get one left a copy my engineer report. I'll just go over a few things very very briefly. Um May meeting we will bring be bringing forward uh changes to your land devel division ordinance um as a result of act 68 which the legislature passed last December. Um once upon a time when Warren first took office back 2019 um we looked at chapter 14. We I have a markup version that Naomi was nice enough to provide me from back then. I'm not sure we're going to be able to get it all done, but I'm going to try and get it in front of the plan commission in during the May.

Chapter 14 is chapter 14's land development land division. Yeah, because I'm working on chapter 11. So,

um I'm going to try and get it marked up. What I what I've been doing with my other communities right now is I take your ordinance. I leave everything black except what I change I change red and anything that I'm getting put on I highlight. So it'll be a working meeting in May. Um I'm anticipating that well ordinances all require a public hearing. So changing an ordinance requires a public hearing. So we need to make a recommendation to the board to schedule a public hearing because it's all got to be in place by July 1st. So, um, fortunately or unfortunately, we're we're running out of time for this, but, uh, it's got to happen. Um, after discussions with Jamie and Tracy, we tabled the 2026 paving program, the Windalker Highlands, as a result of the cost of fuel, etc. Um, the project is on the shelf. It's virtually ready for bidding subject to modifying the invitation of biders. Um, uh, Eric at DPW completed the 2025 annual FS4 report that was at the end of March. Uh, we helped where we could, but he did the lion share of the work. I give him a lot of credit because those things are kind of a giant pain. So, um, uh, Ben and I have been working on some home reviews with Jason in Ripple Brook East right now. Lots 3 and 12, I believe. Um, one thing that I've noticed is the village ordinances do not reflect compliance with the Waka County dry basement standards. I think we may want to consider getting that into the zoning ordinance. Just food for thought for future. Um,

the entire code is being Yeah, I would I just think that it it just adds to the basically well I would just add it to the list. We've been going through everything and we're finding stuff that is so outdated that we need to be updated and and nobody's talked about it at this point, right? Legally, I think we need to get it on the books.

Correct. Um, we received a plan commission application for a conditional use permit for ideal core, but they did not submit the conditional use permit paperwork. So, um, just kind of forewarning you that that might be coming forward at the main meeting as well. Ideal core, they're the ones that bought the old hammer rehab facility up top. You saw they cleared a bunch of the land that work. Um, and I think if I recall the content of that, they're they're basically looking for approval for outdoor storage at this point. Um, contractor office longterm. Yeah, that's the the strategy. Ideal windows. Remember that?

Yeah, I know. I've seen the equipment storage. Yeah, the equip the equipment's already out there, but they're working in Whose equipment is it?

Contracted, I guess. Um DPW has indicated there's an ongoing shoulder wash out issue on River Birch Court in Ripple Brook East. Um down toward the end of the culde-sac. It looks like everything's channelized and it kind of every time it breaks this shoulder washes out. So we're going to work with Eric. I think the probably logical solution is probably get some recycle, try and heat it up and try to stabilize that shoulder. I'd rather do that than trying to put an asphalt fluid in there. Trying to paper in there for half half a ton of asphalt is not real. So I don't see unless we can get someone out there when they're paving ordo fields. I think uh recycle is probably going to be easier. Um it appears based upon my watching the state dol program that we got a partial grant for the verd lane project. We applied four last year to the two of about 34,000 bucks.

It's not bad for that small stretch of road. Well, it's not. We just need to, you know, it's 50/50 m grand. So, if we can get the price down to 70 grand, we might have a prayer, but we just have to figure out what's what. I had lunch at Kelly's today and let's just say that the road's not in very good shape. No, it's one of the worst ones that needs to get done. What was the name of that road you

Burnon Lane? Um the other thing, this is a reminder, Jamie, you and I talked about this, but Capora got a grant several years ago for wind drive. Um that is for about almost $31,000 and that sunsets June 30th of 2029. So we have time to do that work. I just wanted to remind you that it's out there. Um that's also a match grant. think they they won't pay more than 30, but I'm going to tell you that wing is going to take more than 60 grand to fix. Yeah, I would think so. I'd like to say that Edgewood, Bron, and Wind last year was what about 230? Yeah, that's about where

this this isn't as long, but it's it's got a lot more truck traffic, and I think we might want to beef up the pavement section like we did with industrial

industrial. And that was kind of the reason why we didn't throw it into the mix on this because we knew it would have to be a separate problem. They're different standards and that's to handle the truck traffic so the world lasts. I mean if you look at what we ended up doing on industrial the curb and gutter and everything else that we're thicker pavement the world's last even was thicker pavement with the thicker base uh it's starting to show its age and keep in mind it's 13 14 years old already. Yeah, it's still in better shape than it was 64 at the same time. Yes, that's all I have. Thank you, sir. No correspondence?

Nothing. Next meeting, Thursday, May 21st, 2026 at 7 p.m. Make a motion. I second that. All in favor? I we are making sure