County Council - Regular Meeting

When I founded the band, I thought two names, Whiskey City Pipes and Drums or 35th Indiana Pipes and Drums. We ended up on 35th Indiana because whether you know it or not, most pipe bands are a pseudo military organization. Pipe bands grew out of the British Highland Regiments back in the early 1900s. So we wanted that military adjustment. So we found out 35th Indiana Pipes if you guys don't know, was also known as the First Irish of Indiana. It's the only all Irish regiment in the infantry at that time. Now, every state had their own First Irish Regiment Infantry Regiment, but that was ours. The membership was included. Most of the officer corps came out of Indianapolis or Hamilton County. But all the membership, all the enlisted and all the non-coms came from this area, Northern Kentucky and Southwestern Ohio. So it was very much a regional force and that's what we wanted the band to be and have a real good regional identity. So they were Irish. Obviously the bagpipes is Scottish, but we're Americans. So we talked about the tartan that we wear. The tartan is the kilt that we wear is the Irish American tartan. So it has the red, white, and blue to signify our American heritage. It has the green for the Irish heritage, and it's a tartan, and it's a Scottish kilt to recognize our Scottish heritage. So I like to make sure that everybody understands, now, we're an American pipe and drum corps. But we love our Scottish and Irish heritage and celebrate that as much as we can by arguing and fussing and fuming and all those things. You hear localisms about those groups, Celtic groups. We keep those alive as well. But that's a little bit about us. If anybody has any questions, please feel free to ask. We regularly support a Ride to Remember that comes out of Batesville. It's fantastic. sponsored by the Patriot Guard writers. We'll be doing that in June, where we ride around all over southern Indiana commemorating and remembering our Gold Star families and those who have lost loved ones from the Iraq wars on forward. So if you have a chance to catch one of those services and ceremonies, I highly recommend that. You'll see the honor and dignity that our boys deserve. Anybody with questions about us?

How does somebody reach you? Where do they find you at?

Go on Facebook. We're on Facebook, 35th Indiana Pipes and Drums. You'll end up calling me at my cell number, and I'll tell you what to do. We practice Wednesday nights at the Tate Street Station next to the hospital, fire station up there.

Ludlow Hill State.

Ludlow Hill State. That's right. Tate Street is where we work. I'm a country guy. I can tell you, go to the red barn and turn left at the oak tree. But anyway, so we're up there. Lessons start at six. They run for about an hour, 45 minutes or so, and then practice starts for the rest of the performing members of the band after that. You don't have to have anything to show up. One of the things, one of the mottos we have with the band is nobody will ever want for an instructor or gear to learn to play this instrument. When I first started learning to play, I would drive down to Cincinnati and try to catch somebody at the pipe band there. Oh, excuse me, can you show me how this works, how to play that, how to do this and how to do that? And I decided when we started this, man, we weren't going to do that. If you needed help, somebody was going to be there to help. So we'll supply you with a practice chanter. We'll supply you with a drumsticks, practice pad, and all that stuff. We do require a little bit of a deposit because we lost a lot of practice gear out the door over the years from that. But once you're there six weeks, six months or something, when you feel fully committed to something you want to do, we refund that $40 deposit. So it's really, in essence, free to join. But we'll take you all the way from not knowing how to read music all the way to being a piper. The gentleman you heard playing earlier there, I've known that guy since he was eight or so, somewhere around there. He's probably one of the best bagpipers in this region, in this area. We've got some very highly talented people, some very good solid pipers. When you join us, you're going to join a family. So if you've got kids, they automatically have aunts and uncles that will help spy. All you've got to do is ask. But we'll all be there to help each other out. We'll all try to be there. Just like joining a family member. Just like joining the military, the fire department, or the police department. We'll be there for you. Any other questions?

Okay.

Well, thanks for having me. Thanks for listening to me drone on here and ramble. So thank you very much.

Thank you again. Okay.

To Move to the public hearing.

So, Dwayne, if you would, motion to open a public hearing?

Yeah, I'll make a motion to open a public hearing. I'll second that.

All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. So you want to go?

Yeah, just as far as procedurally here, I believe we would want to start with the petitioners who are positioning to establish the apparent right-of-way who are represented by Mr. Eubank as well as Mr. Krause. And then I know that Mr. Reeves is here on behalf of the Highlands and Denslers, I believe. And so I was thinking just to keep us Moving forward, 10 minutes aside, and then general public comment after that. If that's fine with you guys? Sounds fine.

Okay. Andy, would I be allowed to rebuttal if I'm alone first? Real quick. Less than two minutes.

Rebuttal for two minutes.

Thank you.

And also you need to. Okay.

So 10-minute chief, two minutes each rebuttal, and then there would be time if there is any other general public comment since this is a formal public hearing. But then I guess we would start, Jared, with your... Thank you.

Commissioners, Mr. Bondestal, I represent, as Andy said, I represent the Grapple Properties. And before I begin, I'd like to give Mr. Bob Grapp, the patriarch of the family, a chance to speak to the commissioner. So you could, Bob.

And he said, my name is Bob Graff. I am the person that actually purchased this property on behalf of, it was a gift to my children. We purchased it, well, we made the agreement probably about September. Okay, the first thing I did, well, I knew that was a road one because I had traveled that road years ago when you could travel. Okay, first thing I did went down to the courthouse. check with the surveyor make sure that we had a county road and okay we had a county road when i bought this the thought never even entered my mind to put a a house or subdivision these people came up i don't know where they came we have no intention of doing that that property according to our LLC, has to remain in one continuous piece, okay? It can never be subdivided. If someone of the family decides that they don't want their portion, they have to offer it to another. So it's gonna stay in one piece. The way it's set up, it can't be subdivided, so therefore, You can't put, if you can't be subdivided, you can't put a house on it, much less a subdivision. That thought never even entered my mind when I bought this property, to put a subdivision on it, much less a house. Where they came up with this, just, I don't know. Okay, and I've been a member of this community for my entire life. I grew up in New Elsis. I Currently reside in Dover. I've lived here my whole life, except for the years in the military, okay? I'm a member of the American Legion for over 50 years. I belong to the North Dearborn Conservation Club, All Saints Parish. So I'm well invested in the community. And I'm not going to do anything to adversely affect the community. Where they come up with this stuff, I don't know. And furthermore, what I want to say is a couple months ago when we were at a meeting, the commissioners did not want to set a precedent. They said there's too many county roads. We don't want to set a precedent. But what I don't understand is it seems to me like a precedent was set back in 99 when they gave tensors the permission to use that road to access their property. Now, we're asking for the exact same thing. So how can you give it to one person and not the other? I would think that if you follow the law, you have to, as President has said, that you have to follow that. That is my argument, okay? Other than the fact that That property is going to remain as it is. I don't plan on doing anything as far as constructing a house, much less a subdivision, which is, they just pulled this out of thin air. I don't know where they came up with that. So that's my argument. That's just what I want. I just wanted to bring that home and let you know my stance. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Bob. I'd like to call Mr. Denny Krause up, and Denny's going to show you some exhibits that prove that Dog Ridge Road is a county road.

Good evening, commissioners. Louis Krause, Jr., JDJ Survey and Engineering.

Good evening.

There it is. Right there. Look down at this computer. There it is. That one.

There you go, sir.

All right.

Thank you. A little technologically challenged this evening. You're halfway through.

All right.

This is the same slide presentation that I showed the commissioners a few months back. So it's still called the Dalgridge Road driveway permit. Essentially what the change is, is now we petition for an apparent right-of-way. This is the property that Grackle LLC owns that they purchased from Severs. And I just have the application is for Grackle now where prior I was here with for Seabrook Incorporated. It just gives a little outline of what I've got here. This is the 1860 County Atlas that shows the road running Along the approximate east boundary of the Highland track down through two parcels of the Severs, what was the Severs' property now is Grackle Lane, the Severs Incorporated property. You can clearly see here that the road came in to another road that followed the creek. And then you can see Jacob's Road coming in through the left side of where the number 27 is. This is a undated map that I recovered that essentially shows the same thing. Here's the 1875 Atlas. I've got a couple of boxes highlighted in blue where we believe there were residences on these parcels. This road would have been used to access those residences. This is the 1899 Atlas, which was put together by Albert Gridley County Survey in the 1890s. I have an orange highlight mark on this showing where the road was at that time. This is the 1936 Indiana Highway Survey Commission map that shows that this was a 33-foot wide right-of-way. I could find very little information on this map other than the information that was on it. But that's where we used the 33 foot width for the establishing the apparent right of way. This is a 1970 flat book page that shows Dog Ridge down there. where the orange highlight mark is. Given the scale of these maps, I probably wouldn't have expected this to be exact. This is a circa 1899 auditor's map. It shows the ownership at that time. This is approximately a 1930s auditor's plaque that shows um but the um sievers tracks weren't separate in a typical time and then that's my handwriting that shows that the detail of that prior to this i meant to hang wow um this is hill shade uh i've got highlighted where the two uh The shortcut was bought in 1903 and where the original road was in orange. This is a deed to Seabirds Incorporated that calls out a post in the road indicating that it was definitely a road. This is a Densler's deed that calls out to the center of a road that's with said road and it goes two courses, which those two courses run between Densler's and Highlands. That shows that the piece accepted Heinlein's deed was conveyed to a guy named William Hammerly, whose deed also calls the center of a county road. another old deed that references the road. That deed and the next deed are where the township trustee purchased land to build another road that severs the Highland property and the Krause property, which hasn't been maintained in many years. This is the commissioner's minutes. They clearly indicate the commissioner's authorized purchase of the right-of-way, and they do not mention a vacation where when other parts of Dahlbridge Road were moved, it's specifically mentioned in the commissioner's minutes that the road was vacated, the former road. This is just some information from the 25 years ago and this is a 1936 aerial map and i'm told that i'm finished so thank you sir

So just real quick, the chairman and members of the board, this case is not about creating a new road. It is not about the Dearborn County to spend money maintaining a road. And it's not about allowing a private landowner to invent a shortcut to his neighbor's property. What we're asking to do is to look at these facts. We have the 1999 decision with Densler. That's exactly what we're asking for this board to do. Allow us to indemnify the county, let us to take over maintenance, let us to repair, maintain that road in perpetuity moving forward. We also want to put forth some of the evidence, of course, is that you have a deed that absolutely says County Road. We found a common owner. It was back in there, basically the man by the name of Basket gave it to Hammerly, then gave it to the actual Highlands. The Highlands are actually in the deed record. They traced theirs back to Basket. Basket, when he deeded this property, he... called for a county road in the middle of his property. He didn't have to do that. He did. It happens to be the Densler or the Highlands right now, their eastern boundary is defined by this county road. So the very deed record says it enough. And so some other issues. Well, You know, here we have more than a faint trail. We have, you know, the old maps. We have deeds using the roads as monuments. We have surveys. We have physical evidence. We have a county action in 1999 to 2000 where we're doing exactly what we're asking for today. And we have the deserts previously being allowed to use that road. So this is what the Grackles are asking, Grackle Inc. and the Graff family is asking, that the apparent right-of-way of Dog Ridge Road under Indiana code be put forward as an actual county highway into their maintenance and control. And I just want to thank you for your time. And we respectfully ask the board to recognize what the records have already shown. Dog Ridge Road may be overgrown, but it has never been erased. Thank you, commissioners.

If you're fine. I was just gonna that was a little bit longer. So I was going to change it to 12 minutes aside. There's just a little bit longer.

Is our slideshow on that.

Danny, how do I kick you off here?

I think you just exit and close me down.

That's Suze. Oh, this is your... Okay, do you have grants then that he submitted? He had a PowerPoint also?

Yeah.

Do you know where it is on here?

It's under my emails.

This is all on your phone.

Micromachines going.

That's a blast from the past. All right. He should probably just be able to maximize as needed. Does that work if you can kind of scroll through as needed?

Okay. Okay. All right.

So yeah, so the commissioners gave a little leeway there, so I changed it to 12 minutes. And you still have your two. Okay.

Alright, so what we are here tonight for is establishment of the parent right-of-way under Indiana code. The key thing to remember is that is a permissive process. It clearly says the commissioners may do this and if they desire to do this. Another key that came up towards the end there is this does bring the right-of-way into the county system. This makes it your baby. If there was ever any doubt on if it was your baby or not, this brings it in. This is not a process of creating a private driveway. To... Greg, could you say who all you're speaking on behalf of? Yes, I am speaking on behalf of the Highlands and the Densler Institute, adjacent property owners primarily. If anyone else wishes to join in, I've worked at the halls as well to some extent, so... This standard does not, we're not here to decide if this is or is not a highway as of this moment. I respect what Mr. Krause said, although I would like to preserve an objection that there is some ambiguity that he represents a private citizen and is the county surveyor, which does give some challenges to due process for my clients. But that's not what we are here for as far as is this or isn't this established county road. We're here to determine if this should be an apparent right of way. Prior actions don't govern this as far as the prior precedent. That was 25 years ago. That's locked down. Neighbors were not contesting it. I believe that if you establish this potentially with the neighbors contesting it, if there's actually not grounds for it, you're basically, this is a taking, that you're taking property away from my clients. Additionally, if you look back at Mr. Krause's documentation, there's a couple things in there. One, at the time that they did do that in 99-2000, the county attorney said that we are going forward, and this is in his slideshow, that you're going forward because it's not clear if this was a road or not. There was an ambiguity, and they said we're going forward with the apparent right-of-way petition at that point. Also, if you look at the survey that was dated March of 2000 from what Mr. Krause presented, there is a cutoff between the Densler's and Highlands property. This did not establish that there is an apparent right-of-way going through down to North Dearborn Road or even back to what's now the Greco property. It established a narrow band on a narrow property. focused effort there. It does not create a precedent, does not create anything that binds you to anything because we're talking about different circumstances, different facts here. And again, at that point, they went through this process because according to those meeting minutes, they did not establish that this was a county road at that time. If opened, as I said, this is your baby. You can attempt to indemnify. You can attempt to pass off maintenance. For you, you've got a good partner here in the Densler so far, and that's been great. Going forward, though, you have to understand that you're doing that as well, and you're doing that for a lot bigger territory potentially. You're doing that potentially connecting on south from here. And that may not always be the case. I'm sure the graphs are great people, but you have to think about what's going to happen 50 years from now, 100 years from now when you make this decision. Because once you bring this in, unless you vacate it at some later point, this is part of the county highway system. It ultimately does come back on you if there's liability issues, if there's maintenance issues, any of those types of things. At the end of the day, if that agreement doesn't get upheld, you brought this into the system whether it was or not to begin with. Additionally, if you do do this, you do need to set up clear maintenance standards. You need to make sure that this is safe and passable. You need to establish that. I don't think anything has been presented as far as any guidelines on what's going to occur with that. If I'm wrong, Jared can correct me on that or someone else. But that needs to be thought out as well because you are passing off the obligation on this. And again, you are passing off something that you are bringing into the county system. The Another point here, you can kind of step through some of the slides here. So this is also the apparent right-of-way is based off of appearances of roadways. If you look back in time, going back even to 1953, the portion south of that 1903 right-of-way, which would also be south of when the Denslers did an apparent right-of-way, is already overgrown in 53. It's also largely overgrown in 1936. If you look today, there are some pictures along back through there. There are some pictures up at the opening of this near Dentlers. But if you get back in there, again, on the apparent right-of-way, these are pictures that were taken along back, you can see here, along in this section where we got curvature and going back. where this is overgrown and it's far from apparent that there is a roadway there. In addition, when you're looking at this, when you're looking at the aerial, there's obviously far from a road there. And again, or a right of way there and apparent right of way there. Again, we're not determining if this was a road or wasn't a road, we're determining if you are taking the permissive step of granting them an apparent right of way. So going on down into this, they deeded this property back in December. This was contested at that point back in December, was up in the air. And I would ask you, to me, it's readily apparent that there is an alternate access to this. There's an alternate way to get to that underneath the ordinance that your attorney put together as far as an easement by necessity over the seller's property. If they didn't have that, would you buy a property, put down your money on the table when you've got this as your only means of contested access? When it's not been established, you're going to go forward. You may be landlocked. You don't know. To me, that's pretty good, solid evidence that somebody must have thought that there is another way to get to this. I believe that way is an easement by necessity. There is access coming from the property of the South. Additionally, and I can hand in a copy of the deed, it's a bit hard to read. There is an easement on here granting access on further south from the immediate property we're talking about where the property to the south will also have access. There's discussion, I think, about potentially acquiring that property, but there's no limiter on that. If you're opening up to this tract, you are now inherently opening up on further south because there has been an easement granted in this deed. And again, I can hand you a copy of the deed as it has been hard to read up here. Finally, I mean, we have talked about development down there, but we've got operating agreement here. And the purpose is for it to acquire and own, manage, improve land, use, enjoyment, potential future investment in the property. The land is intended for various forms of recreation, ATV, agreed upon activities. There it talks about potential for profits to be distributed. One of my clients pointed out, it talks about fishing and it does not appear that there's a fishing lot on there. So this would belie that at some point, it looks like there's probably going to at least be some development on this. And again, you are also now, because of the way that deed is drafted, inherently opening up onto the south of this property to development. And I think, I don't know if I have any other key points. The other significant point here is, to me, this really is a taking. If this is not a road and was not a road or never was properly established, as I don't think it was going back on that part beyond the 1903, then you are taking... In any case, even if you do determine that this is public by this, or you determine that this public as a road, you are then converting that to a private driveway. And the difference here is at the time, the Highlands acquiesced to that. I mean, there was not, you know, it's been 25 years ago, most actions of commissioners have about a 30 day appellate window on it that you'd have to file for the judicial review. So that's long past, they acquiesced to that, they have worked with them. In this case, that's not what is happening. You will be taking whatever you deem this to be if it's within the county highway system and dedicating it to one property owner or potentially property owners if they do develop on south. and you're putting that maintenance obligation on them, putting all of the access on them, which is really converting it to their private driveway, which is taking away a right from my client. Even if this is a roadway, if this roadway gets vacated, it splits down the middle and goes to my clients. that the right to have a road there and the right to have an apparent right-of-way there does not give the right to put a driveway for one person on it. And I understand that that had occurred in the past, but again, we've got a different set of circumstances here where we have two very concerned landowners about what is going to happen what has been happening so far. They already had an issue where someone was out there attempting to clear on the roadway when there was no agreement in place as to doing that, which unfortunately kind of set us back on some discussions here. But they have grave concerns about this and grave concerns about what's going to happen with their property going forward. So again, just to wrap things up in conclusion, I'm hearing that this is mandatory. You have to do this. It's not. This is permissive under the statute. They have another means of getting access to that. It may be inconvenient or expensive, but they have chosen that. There's court precedent saying that if they've chosen that, that's their baby. That's what they have to live with. That's what they have to abide by. And they obviously, to me, thought there was something there because they did go ahead and close on this property. I think that's all I have at this point.

OK. Thank you. Thank you.

Very good.

I'll be quick.

So there's a good scene in My Cousin Benny where the guy goes, well, that other guy's just full of BS, but I'm not going to go there. First, I want to talk about alternative ways to get there, right? The only alternative way to get there is an airdrop. There is no way. We talked about that before. You have to go down a mountain, cross a creek, go up another mountain to get there. The other thing I'm going to say is that the evil capitalists that Grackles are, their great plan to develop this is to have a fishing pond. that they maybe want to invite their grandchildren, neighbors to come fishing. Maybe even the highlands and the denslers come out, go fishing sometime. There's no great plan for development. Bob just came up here and told you that. One thing I want to do, Denny, can you come up here real quick? There was a statement earlier that this road is ambiguous, right? And so if I could, I want to go down here and we'll look at your survey real quick. And I just have... One question, or a couple questions here, Denny. First off, when you established this survey, did you find a physical roadbed?

I found a depression that looked to me like it was a roadbed. I met out there with the county engineer who also believed that it was a roadbed. I walked that all the way down to Tanner's Creek. We stopped the apparent driveway at the end of Highlands property because it met the purpose.

One question I have for you. This right here is this property line for Highland, correct? Property line for, yes. Highland's here? This is Highland. Understood. This is Grackle's starting right about here, correct? That's correct. Understood. Now, when you did your investigation, when you looked at all the surveys, deeds, and everything else like that, all the atlases, were you able to measure or look at where those property lines were at? My big question, did you look at the basket deed?

Yes, I looked at the basket deed. There are two or three of them, actually. There are two descriptions in the one, and it makes reference to the road from Tanner's Creek to...

Well, he's blocked out. Well, one last question. Real quick, when you looked at the basket deed, you saw the measurements of where that's located and where it calls for the county road. Is that where you found the actual location of the county road? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

All right, cool. make it like two and a half minutes to try and keep things straight. I should be pretty brief. So a couple of points. One, I apologize. Mr. Gensler could not be here and I would like to preserve an objection that he could not be here. He's had heart surgery. We'd requested a possibility of a continuance. I understand that did not occur, but I would just like to preserve that for the record. Another is There are no mountains on this property. I mean, yes, we're going into my cousin Vinnie route. That was a little bit of hyperbolic. I mean, they chose this route. They chose to go ahead and close on this property. Finally, regardless of what Mr. Krause is saying, we are not here tonight to say if this is or is not a road. We're here tonight to determine if you are going to remove any doubt and then you are going to attempt to convert that to use by one private property owner or when you have adjacent property owners that are negatively affected and are contesting that. So that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'll make one quick point.

Andy? It would be up to you guys. I mean, we do have to open it to general public comment. Real quick. Real quick.

We actually bought this property, had an agreement in probably about September. We did not close on this property until the end of December after you people decided that that was a road. That's when we actually paid for the thing. So we knew we had access. So to rescind that now, that would be a hell of a hardship.

Thank you. I'm going to close this and make a suggestion.

We're still in the public hearing, so any general public.

Go on up. Tell us who you are, like we don't know.

I'm Greg Highland. I own the property with my wife there, that 18 acres. And one thing I'll point out to you, if you look here, Danny can verify it or not. There's somewhat a disputed boundary. This isn't etched in stone as you might think it is. There's a question right here. Danny could explain to you whatever's going on there, but there's some question that isn't as precise as possible. I would like, I'm an electrician. I've been an electrician for 56 years. I'm not a public speaker. I'd like permission just to read a page and a half here that I think states something Unintended consequences. I'll be honest with you. I'm not one of these computer gurus. I made copies. Okay. Or the commissioners. Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you.

i titled this the case for denying the apparent right-of-way at dog ridge road On December 30th, 2025, Grackle Properties purchased from Seavers 58.8 acres of property with a tax personal ID. This is significant because in the state of hand, we were told you cannot buy or sell so-called landlocked property. Purchase of the property by Grackle LLC would declare that the property is not considered landlocked, and therefore they're requested to The parent right-of-way is not necessary and should be denied by the Dearborn County Commissioners. Crackle property LLCs for ingress and egress of the property they purchased from Seavers can use the same routes Seavers has used since they first purchased the property in the early 1970s. Additionally, we believe there are several unintended consequences that should be considered and warrant the denying of the parent right-of-way at Dog Ridge Road. The first one is, if the requested right-of-way at the end of Dog Ridge Road, it will effectively open the apparent right-of-way for the entire distance from the current end of Dog Ridge Road all the way down to the paved North Dearborn Road. When this issue started out, it was represented as one parcel of property applying for a permit for a private driveway constructed on the right-of-way at Dog Ridge Road, formerly the St. Leon to New Alsace Road. The attendant apparent right-of-way is very detailed in a pro forma survey that was presented by Dennis Krause and was published with the notice of this public hearing. The pro forma survey shows a clear ending of the apparent right-of-way at the south property line of the 18 acres that's owned by myself and my wife. However, the deed for the grad school probably purchased on December 30th from Seavers includes the following paragraph. Grantor, that's Seavers, hereby reserves an ingress and egress easement and utility easement over and across the described real estate above. This easement shall run with the land and shall benefit Grantor's track to the south, briefly described as located in Dearborn County, Indiana, and better described as follows, dot, dot, dot. Please refer to exhibits 1A and 1B. That's a copy of the deed with that there. Plus, there's a plot map and it shows the amount of ground. This is out of the Dearborn County Atlas. It's just 231 acres. And what's interesting is it goes on both sides of North Dearborn Road. So I'm not an attorney. I'm an electrician. I don't want landlocked me, but you landlocked, you got road furniture on Dearborn Road on both sides of the road. It's hard to think you could describe it as landlocked, but again, I'm just a humble electrician. Says the above paragraph effectively gives access to the apparent right-of-way for both the 85 and 84-acre parcels that Sievers still owns on the south side of the 58.5-acre parcel they sold to Greco Properties. So in other words, The apparent right-of-way will cover a total of 227.91 acres and extend from the paved end of Dog Ridge Road to the paved North Dearborn Road. In our opinion, it does not take much imagination to see what development possibilities the approval of the apparent right-of-way would mean for the remaining 169.11 acres still owned by Seavers. The paragraph about the grantor maintaining an easement across the property they sold begs the question that if that is what they wanted, why not include that information on a pro forma survey? What was the motive to sneak the easement in to the additional 169.11 acres into a paragraph of the deed for the property that just sold? Why not be open about the entire extent of the apparent right-of-way? Unintended consequence number two. If the requested apparent right-of-way at the end of Dog Ridge Road, it will create an extremely dangerous driving condition on the last half mile of asphalt paving of Dog Ridge Road. Please let me explain. The last half mile of Dog Ridge Road is at best 12 foot 8 inches wide. Please refer to photographs marked 2A and 2B. They are attached. That's my tape measure there. It shows less than 13 feet. It should be noted that the last half mile of Dog Ridge, in addition to being very narrow, also has no shoulders on the sides of the road and there are no bump outs to permit cars trailing in opposite directions to pass one another. The last half mile of Dog Ridge absolutely cannot accommodate two-way traffic. If the apparent right-of-way has permitted traffic traveling across the new apparent right-of-way and turning north on the last half mile of Dog Ridge can very easily meet another car or truck driving south on the last half mile of Dog Ridge Road. Since there is no ability to turn around to let another car pass, I think the majority of citizens in Dearborn County would agree that allowing a right-of-way of Dog Ridge would create a very dangerous and unsafe condition by virtue of the fact that two-way traffic will increase on a road that cannot safely conduct two-way traffic. Please keep in mind That if the apparent right-of-way is granted, it has the potential to cover three parcels of property that total 227.91 acres and can result in significant increased traffic on the last half mile of the asphalt paving on Dog Ridge Road. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay. Who wants to come up? All right, come on up. Sorry, I was just trying to catch up.

Oh, that's the one.

My name is Dan DeVers, Severs Incorporated. Wow, that's a lot. The reason we put the right-of-way agreement in the property that was sold to Crackles so that my children, my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren won't have to come before the commissioner to do the same thing, to try to get an easement to access this property. We spoke about accessing over to North Derren Road before. We spoke of the expense of doing that. If I was, I think the thought of connecting Dultridge and North Terminal Road, the cost of that, you would not recoup it in developing all this property. But basically, the right-of-way agreement, which we put in, which is simply so we don't have to go before the commissioners again to have an easement onto this last piece of property that we have that we cannot currently access to any other given roadways thank you does anyone else care to speak come on up

Is that a sigh? Yeah. I'll take that person.

It's a lot of deep digestion here.

I take that person. My name is Mark Hall. Raised since 1954 on Dahl Bridge. Know it very well. Now my family, my son Chris and Amanda have their two girls there on the home place. And RJ and Kelly live on my grandpa's farm there. So we're all the two boys and my daughter Kelly. And I want to talk about the danger of this issue that is now and then apparent down the road. Right now, between the farms, they walk down that half mile. We're talking about a dog ridge, the blacktop part. And it's not even places. It's not even 13 feet wide. Two vehicles cannot pass. There's no place to pull off, no shoulders, no pull offs that no one can get out of each other's way. They'll have to back up a half mile. Number one. Number two, the fear is Kelly. She loves to take her dog down the road and take walks. My girls love to go down there with their mules and horses and four wheelers. And it's nice, quiet little road. But the thing is, there's hills that come up and you can't see over them. So on a regular road, if the road's wide enough for two vehicles, then you meet on a hill and there's plenty of room to bypass. There's not that in the last half a mile of Dalkovich. So that's a big concern is safety and the change in our community there, what it's going to do. Number two, I was offended when... Joe Graff brought up the point that he didn't trust the petitions that were turned in to the commissioners. There was over 125 people that did not want to see a road opened up into that property or continued over to North Dearborn. And he said that we were telling the wrong things. Well, you know, I've read the letter to the commissioners that they wrote and at the very back end of it, it said that it was bought for recreational and as an investment property. Look up the definition of investment property. But the big concern, I guess, in the future is this. You have the decision to open up 227 acres, how many acres, to development. What can happen is if you open this up to Grackle Properties, In their deed, which you have a copy of, they say that the lower, all the Seaver acreages going to North Dearborn has egress and has the right of way to go through Grackle property to Dog Ridge. So if you give them the right to go on Dog Ridge there, at some point in time, they can build a full width, whatever it takes, the width of the road into the lower Seaver's property. 50 foot wide. I don't know what the regulations are, but then they could put 40, 50 houses there if they want to. And then think about it. They all have in the deed, they have all 50 of those houses have the right to use that right away on the Grackle property. So all those people could go up Dog Ridge, East Central High School to go see the football game. So it's one thing can lead to another. And talk about safety. Or the county. The county is going to be responsible for all that road. And it's a narrow road. So are you going to go ahead and redo the entire Dog Ridge Road? So it starts out small. And it can get big and bad down as time goes along. And that's our big concern. That's all I have. Think about my family, please.

Thank you. And I'll just say for clarification purposes, this property is zoned agricultural and they cannot subdivide it without a zone change. It is zoned agricultural. I just want that to be clear to everyone. It is zoned agricultural. That's what I was just asking Nicole about.

Publicly

So I just want everybody to know that. Like, I know there's been a lot of talk about potential, how much acreage is there and it's potentially able to be developed. That cannot happen unless this property were to be changed, the zoning were to change, which is a process that would have to be a hearing in front of the plan commission, would ultimately have to come to the commissioners. So as we sit right now, that property is zoned agricultural and it cannot be a subdivision. Nice question, Nicole.

If they come up to the North Dearborn Road with the right width, how many homes could you put at 227 acres?

It'd have to be brought up to public standards. So one of those public standards is the percentage of slope. So from what I've seen at that property, I don't think you could put a public road that would meet the standards of the slope on that hillside.

I've seen some slopes around subdivisions.

But what I'm saying is not for public growth, not for newer roads. They might look back in the day, but not for newer roads. It has to be under a certain concept for public growth.

Anyone else?

That property before has recreational property only. It was not bought for any other reason.

Yes, sir. We understand. Thank you. If you're going to speak, you've got to come up here. Tell us who you are.

I'm Tim Seavers, also the Seavers Incorporated. I just wanted to ask, it's zoned agricultural now. Is there any request for a zoning change?

Not that we know.

And there won't be. That's just what I wanted to say. I mean, I can't see there being head-on collisions on Dahlbridge Road. Thank you. That's all I have.

Okay, anyone else? All right. Motion to close public hearing.

So moved. All second, all in favor? Aye.

Motion carries. Awesome. Andy, you have something you want to interject into this?

Well, I mean, this is the first time we've all gone through this process um if the commissioners were to establish the parent right away it does require an ordinance my suggestion would be to take what's been presented to the commissioners the testimony that's been presented under advisement and that um that mr eubank mr reeves submit proposals to the commissioners and i would suggest reviewing those at your june 16th meeting The other thing is, obviously, Commissioner Turner's not here tonight. That would also give him an opportunity to watch tonight's meeting, listen to the testimony, review anything that's been submitted so that he's fully informed also.

Okay.

But if that's the route you wanted to go June 12th, that's the Friday before. Grant, is that fine? Jared?

You guys understand what we're saying?

Get an ordinance to Andy.

I have a couple of questions.

Yeah, fine.

So, 1st. The easement, the easement going through that property. And Nicole might be able to answer this then so. If Mr. Sievers wanted to build a house and use that easement. Does what what we're granting is access to that property. If they would have to change zoning then to be able to build a house on the second, on the lower lot. There's a picture. On the next lot below, the south lot.

So Mr. Siever's property or the property that is in Bush?

The Siever's property. Because where this easement now goes through, hang on until he gets the picture. But I'm trying to dispel. I've looked at the GIS maps and trying to, now I'm trying to remember what it looks like.

Just going to search for the Densler's because there's not a lot of those in there. Yeah, that's how I mean, it makes it easy to find. So, Nicole, this is the property, the great old property. And then the discussion about the easement is to access the properties here. I assume here. Well, I'm just saying. It's just this one, the Severs property.

Easement through what property?

So there's an easement, they granted an easement through this property to this property. So could that property build a house using, if we grant the access for the road to the Grackle property, will their easement allow them to build a house?

It depends on how you would report. I don't know what the decision would be on how you would word the decision or the ordinance. Honestly, because if you did it in a parent right-of-way, I don't know if there's any restrictions that could be made as far as on those parent right-of-way requests.

Right. I mean, what's before the commissioners is whether or not you're going to say, okay, there's an apparent right-of-way. Now, that doesn't mean that the county has to develop it and maintain it. Now, if the apparent right-of-way is established, then I assume Grackle is going to come to the county and say, hey, we would like to use that apparent right-of-way to access our property. And so then that's going to be some type of agreement, you know, grant from the county, because... I mean, just in talking with Todd, obviously there's no reason for the county, even if you guys were to determine right away there that the county is going to do anything with it. So this would just be another step in the process, ultimately.

But nothing, going from agriculture to residential would require a zoning change.

Or a zoning. uh so any additional split like just so in agriculture they put two homes on a property they can't split they have to have two homes on a property so it'd have to be family or something but we run into issues if that's the old standard as far as you know farmers family wanting their family right most of the time nowadays banks do not allow they want to grab on to something. And that's where we run into that ordinance. People are like, oh yeah, I want to do this. We go, we say, go check with your bank first. Because we may not say no, but your bank will say no. And the other part of that too is they, splitting it, it would have to be on a publicly maintained road to have a product change. Not just a right-of-way. So if you guys say it's an apparent right-of-way, you can't split it because it's an apparent right-of-way. It has to be off a publicly maintained road.

So granting the apparent right-of-way to the Grackles doesn't meet the standards to build a house on the Severs below Grackles.

Because there's no frontage to a... Well, so that's an existing, pre-existing non-performing lot. I'm saying an additional split.

Okay.

So these are pre-existing non-performing parcels. That's what we find out with most of these roads that are on old right of way. So nothing of the property owner did anything to create the situation they're in. It was at some point the county stopped maintaining it, or it was too hard to maintain it, or something, a part of it collapsed. but it's no apparent fault of a property. Now, if someone came, now we actually do research when we have someone that is requesting a permit, we try to figure these out. We actually do the research. Has this been created as a non-buildable lot? Because if a survey came in, split this as it is, and it had no frontage, that's how it's labeled as non-buildable in today's standards. But if we go back and this was created, this parcel was a parcel back for a whole road right away, it's a pre-existing non-performing parcel. So it's hard for us to say, no, you can't build on it. At least a single family residential house. But it is easy for us to say you can't have five splits on it. Because you're looking at a parcel that hasn't changed over how many years. Okay.

You guys have any other questions? Oh, probably.

So I guess you want to clarify. So, Grant, you said that was fine to June 12th, June 12th. Yep, June 12th. So I would just ask the commissioner's motion to table this matter and request that the attorneys present to the county attorney proposed ordinances by June 12th. So move. I'll second that. Yeah, end of day, because the meeting's the 16th, so I'll have time to get it to everybody. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Motion carries.

Jim, did you first add or did Wayne?

I made a motion.

Thanks, everybody. Thank you.

Okay, moving on. Old business. Miss Beatty is not here. She's at a graduation for kindergarten.

Yep, for her granddaughter. Okay. She deeply apologizes that she just found out that this graduation was tonight. And one of the original questions was why it took so long and why the files didn't upload. And she's still trying to wait, or she's still waiting, and she reached out to him again today, and I didn't hear back from her. Her vendor is called ES&S. And they're trying to determine why their files did not upload to something called election where. And the numbers, she said, that were reported were were correct. And she certified them to the state. Yeah. On Monday. OK. And she will come to the meeting on June 15th. second, with anything she hears from okay, yes.

And so if anybody has questions, they should hold off until Wendy's here. When he's here on questions from the person responsible for this. Okay. All right. Thank you. Nicole, daily, planning and zoning, you have an update for us?

Just a small one, but I told you I'd be here at the evening meetings. So we do have a public workshop for solar, FES, and data centers tomorrow in this room from 6 to 8.30. We've put out flyers, put it in the paper, try to get as much notice out there. It's going to be a workshop-based where we'll have different stations, take different questions, have different Based on already collected input, there may be some short, just standard ordinances, examples. Comparison side by side chance for people to vote. We're actually also going to try to have this at least. May not be tomorrow exactly, but the day after for people that can't make it. We're uploading it on our website, the same boards and everything that we will have at the workshop to where people could still be included. If we take votes, if we have surveys, questions, they can still participate in that. It just won't be during the meeting, but they can do it still after the meeting. So they'll have an opportunity to still see those boards, review that information from the website. And then we will also have, I'm trying to have also the noise study that we did. We're going to try to have that on a rolling rotation so people will be able to see it as far as the different locations, what those readings were, where those were at. Trying to put that together to make it easier for visually seen on the TVs while we're also meeting. here in the room. I also wanted to say we will have two other public workshops that we will start advertising. How we do those two will be based on how this one works and then some further information in the Planning Commission meeting the following week. We will have one on June 18th and July 16th. They will be here. So I will tell you we've looked at a couple different places. And the last would be any schools because, so we looked at Agner Hall to make more room. But the cost of that for one meeting was $500 deposit plus 350 for the rental. So it was a large amount of money for our budget to be expended on one meeting. Which school was that? No, that was just Agner Hall. They have a larger space. But one of the things that's nice about this is we'll still have it live streamed as well with the cameras. And like I said, so any conversations will still be able to hurt. Questions and answers will still be able to be heard. And like I said, any boards will be on the website for people to still be able to watch it and participate even after the fact. So that's just a short update on what we've done to date and what we'll have for tomorrow and then proceeding at the additional workshops. Do you guys have any questions?

Do you have anything else?

The only thing I want to be able to say is, in case the commissioners don't know, today we had a meeting with the convention visitor tourism group. We were granted $16,400 for the park board. They have met their million dollar goal for the Stellar Pathways program for the Bright Park.

Wow, that's great.

And just to let people know, because we have had rumors, the money is being spent at that park because we were only allowed to do one park. We couldn't divvy up the monies. And it was, it's the most used park out of the five county parks. So just that that's a bit of good news for tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. So this is review committee resolution to establish that many.

Yes. So we discussed this last meeting. Yep. And we kind of, I reviewed the purpose and duties, terms and operations considerations, and then we kind of discussed the composition. So I'll just read through the composition as put together based on the discussion last time. Committee shall be composed of seven members appointed by the Board of Commissioners and shall include one member from the Board of Commissioners appointed by the Board of Commissioners. Six citizen members appointed by the Board of Commissioners. All committee members must be residents of Dearborn County and at least 18 years of age. Committee must be balanced as to their position pro-anti-neutral as to SESC, BESS, and or data centers. Committee members serve at the pleasure of the Board of Commissioners and may be removed and replaced by majority vote of the Board of Commissioners. I did add under terms operation considerations, again, based on the discussion we had last time that committee members and any public in attendance at committee meeting shall abide by the meeting decorum rules previously adopted by the board of commissioners. And C there, 4C, I did also add that public written and email comments not only could be submitted to planning and zoning, but also could be submitted to the county administrator, just cleaning that up. And then had... Did put together an application, as we discussed, that would be completed and then submitted to the county administrator.

Yeah, I read it all this afternoon. Do you have any questions? Nope.

In case we've got a motion to approve the... Do you know the number?

It should be written on... Yeah, six.

Oh, six.

Yeah. I think I got two copies of the same thing, yeah. But that's okay, because I'm not signing these anymore.

No, the second one, this is a different one.

I think mine are the same.

Look at the number at the bottom.

Oh, those are those are that's different. That's the next thing that that resolution has a real long title. That's Jared's doing. That's not my doing. Well, you don't have this. I don't have them.

Well, that's okay.

So, it's a little bit resolution 2026. that's your 06 resolution of the different kind of board of commissioners establishing the solar best and data center citizen review committee.

Make a motion to accept it as presented by Andy.

Mr button is okay. I'll second it. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. You're going to get that application out there?

Yeah, I have a list of everybody that has submitted interest, and I will tomorrow email that application and the requirements, and there's a sheet that they need to sign.

Make the one requirement crystal clear.

Yeah, and I'll also email a copy of the resolution as well.

But the one where it has to be completed.

Completely.

100% or going to be thrown out. Okay. Okay. Donation to land acreage on White Hill Road.

Oh, you got the LCD one before that? Yeah. What's that? The LCD one first.

Oh, I got. Okay. You asked it out already. This is.

Go ahead. We're just playing some catch up here to county council as you are both, I think, well aware that Lawrenceburg Conservancy District did appear in front of county council and had a very long and I think successful and informative discussion about the project that the LCD is working on with the Lawrenceburg levy system as well as the Green Dough levy system. And ultimately County Council did vote to allocate up to $420,000 towards that project to be utilized as matching funds. So I do actually have two resolutions because council approved one and then they ultimately amended it. And I think just to keep our paperwork straight, you would wanna approve both also. So initially the funding, one of the contingencies was that the project received formal grant award from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, or through a FEMA administered program providing funding for the project. So that was joint resolution 2026-004. And then after Mr. Eubanks spoke with the LCD's grant writers, they did ask if that could be widened somewhat and not just limited to FEMA or FEMA backed grants. And so council did approve joint resolution 2026-004A. And that does change that to say the project contemplated here in receiving a formal grant award from any federal or state agency or through a grant program administered by such agency providing funding for the project. So I would ask for a motion to approve both Joint Resolution 2026-004 and Joint Resolution 2026-004A. So moved. All in favor?

Aye. Motion carries. So we're all second and all in favor of it. Thank you, gentlemen. You're welcome. I thought the third guy was just a little confused at some point.

All right. There you go, two signatures. Yeah.

Okay, good. You're putting them all the way down. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

Now we can do the donation of land. So, yes, this is a parcel of property that... Who did they reach out to?

Connie.

Connie. They reached out to the auditor. That's Charles W. Jones III and Vicki L. Jones. They own a small .127 acre piece of property that is essentially almost the entire intersection of Whites Hill Road and Pinhook Road. So it is a piece of property that they own, but it is largely... made up of roadway that we maintain. And so they had reached out to the auditor about donating that property to the county. So that ultimately is gonna require them to deed it to us. But I did think it's just, it would make sense to keep the paperwork straight and to do a resolution accepting the donation of that real property. And the county is permitted to accept donations of property pursuant to Indiana Code 36-1-4-10.

So everything's been completed. All we need to do is review.

So I reached out to Andrea Ewan, who had handled the closing when the Joneses bought the property. And she said that there was an existing mortgage that was paid off, I think, when the property sold back in 2024. And she wasn't aware of any new encumbrances. I had mentioned it to Connie about checking with Joyce, but I never heard any information.

issues raised so you want us we can legally go ahead and accept this so unless you want to want me to double check with um the auditor and the recorder just to make sure i think maybe i'd rather have you check yeah that's fine just be sure okay yeah all right

And also, yeah, Todd saw it too, and he said, yeah, it would make sense for us to own that because it is mostly our roads.

Should we move to table list?

Yes, so it's 2026-007 if you want to move to table that.

So I'll make a motion to table resolution 2026-007 until the next commissioner thing. Before such time, you can get a check.

I'll second it. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Okay. Okay. All right. Next up is the 911 board appointment.

Andy, do you want to do that? Or do you want me to?

If you want to.

Okay. So Jason Sullivan sent an email out alerting us that Austin Woods has resigned from the 911 board. And the 911 board member was appointed by the aurora no he's matthew helms is from the aurora police department and they would like to have recommending him be the replacement for um austin and the the mayors all three mayors carstetter swing and milan have approved um they give their blessings so if you guys would want Matthew House to replace Austin Woods.

So it's an Aurora appointment?

It's a commissioner's appointment, but the mayors have to give their blessings.

If that's a design, it's just a matter of approving Austin.

Yep.

She has a question.

What's his name? Matthew Hunts.

I'll make a motion to accept Matthew Hunts to the 911 board.

I'll second and all in favor. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. You'll notify them?

Yeah, I'll let Jason know when Jason comes.

Okay. Do you have anything for us?

The only thing that I have is I've been emailing you guys about the CGI digital, the video program that Dave's offered up. It's a free video that the county can partake in. as long as we do a two or three year agreement with them and then provide a letter for them to send out to businesses to advertise on our video. So I didn't know if you guys had reviewed that and you would like me to move forward with it. You want to review it a little bit more.

I mean, they answered all the questions that I was concerned about, about what, What could be advertised on it? Can it be, you know, gotten rid of the content of it and they're granting us kind of review of it. So yeah, I mean, the ones they showed, the ones I looked at, all look, I mean, nice, that could be useful to the county. I don't see it. I mean, there's no cost in it to us.

Right. It's just time-consuming, and we'll have to work with them to do a script and then have them bring in the drones. And there are some... They only go like five miles, so it's not like they could do the whole county in one video. But she did say that there was an opportunity to do up to six videos, so maybe we could showcase the northern part of the county and the southern part. Because One Dearborn already does videos like this, and they put it out on the One Dearborn site, but this would be our own Dearborn County one.

I don't see any harm in it. No cost, right? Yeah, no cost.

Okay. The only cost would be is the time consuming.

You've got nothing else.

I got nothing else. And Andy, you looked at their agreement that they sent and you didn't have any real problems with it.

And I felt better after I read their, their, what the additional attachment they sent us as far as what they look for is the advertising and their policy.

Yeah. And then you would be more comfortable with being requesting a two, because if she sent a three year agreement, And I can send her back and say.

What happens after three years?

After two or three years, then we can remove it or we can sign back up with them and have another one done, I'm assuming.

There would probably be a cost involved. Maybe this is what you get. They're funding themselves by selling the advertising. Yeah. That's how they're paying for it.

Okay.

Yeah.

So they're making some money, but we also get a video we can use.

I'm always suspicious of money. Yeah. Trying to lure you in. Okay. Anything else from administrative?

Nope. But do you want to make a motion? Andy, should they do a motion?

Do we have an agreement? Or with everything complete, or should we motion to have them send us an official agreement?

Well, I can sign it. So if you want to make the motion that they send to your agreement and authorize me to sign it.

So moved, since you're right in the minutes. Okay, I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. All right.

And that's all I have.

Okay, for administrator, you're filling in for Connie tonight. Yes.

Actually, do we do minutes first or claims? I don't know what the order is. Yes, we have several.

What do you got?

I don't know. Whatever she's stuck in this.

That's going in your file.

Don't ever let me be the auditor. Okay, so this is payroll. One, two, three. Five sets of claims.

Okay. I'll make a motion. We accept claims.

I'll second it. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Are you going to fill in for Kevin? Nope. Okay. You don't have to.

They'll put absent on.

Okay.

And like on all the resolutions that you signed, I have put absent.

Yeah, I saw that. That's why I asked.

I have a set of payroll.

Motion to approve payroll. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Motion carries.

And then there's a set of minutes for May 6th.

Motion to accept the minutes from May 6th.

I'll second that. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. All right. Mr. Bottendissel, you have anything additional for us?

Oh, I think I've spoken enough.

We pay you by the word, though, right? Do we have any late arrival information?

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

All right.

I'm Tamara Taylor. I'm here on behalf of the Bright Area Business Association. Yet again, this year, we're having the Bright Parade on July 25th. And I am here to ask that we close State Line Road from Snakeville to Salt Fork and then Salt Fork to Judd on that day from 1050 until we'll say one, but I'll bet it's 1220, 1230. What date was it again? July 25th. And she, Sheriff McHenry has already agreed to this. Okay.

It's the rubber stamp type thing.

It's the rubber stamp.

2050 is it?

Yeah. Practice your waves now.

You want to make a motion to allow them to close the road for the parade on July 25th from the time 10 to 1?

1050 to, we'll say 1, but it could be 1220, 1230. 1050 to 1.

Okay, I'll second it. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Taylor. Okay. Anyone else for this? Okay. Public comment? Commissioner comments? Do you have anything you want to say? I don't either. So I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. To adjourn. I'll second it. All in favor? Aye. Meeting adjourned. I was.