Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

I'll try to make you want to alter. We'll call We'll call the November 19th Land Commission meeting to order. Can we have roll call, please? Jason Cardan here. Bill Hartman here. Bill Van Y present. Sandy Harrison here. Jerry Yoder here. Jared Balcom here. Suzanne Davis here. Angie Holt here. Tyler Lanning here. Lisa Rogers. Mike McCeritch. Andrew Cruz here. Chris Gmer here. Meredith Wright here.

Okay. We'll now rise for the pledge of allegiance. Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisibley justice for all. [clears throat] We'll now have a moment if uh someone would like to lead us in a quick word of prayer. We have any prayer requests?

That was a good time. Keep your mind bow our heads. Father, we uh we know that uh in your word it says that where two or more are gathered, you will be here also, Lord. So we invite you into this uh plan commission meeting this evening, Lord, that we might make decisions that are for your glory and your kingdom and for the uh residents of Dealb County, Lord, in Jesus name. We pray in your packets, you had the minutes from the previous meeting. If anybody got a chance, if everybody hopefully everybody got a chance to review them. If uh there's no corrections or additions, would entertain a motion to approve.

I'll move to approve the minutes as presented. Second. I have motion and second to approve the previous minutes, previous meetings minutes. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same. Abstain. Minutes are approved. Uh same with the claims for the previous three months in the listed there in the packet. Uh same thing. If no additions or corrections, I would entertain a motion to approve. I move to approve. [clears throat] Second. Have a motion and a second to approve claims. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

Opposing. Okay. Claims are approved. Chris, no old business. Correct. Nothing. New business. We have two items.

Uh, first thing in your packet is the Butler ETJ agreement. Um, we currently have an extr territorial jurisdiction with the city of Butler. Um, that's been in their comprehensive plan for a number of years. Um the city of Butler uh just adopted uh last month or maybe last couple weeks ago uh their revised or rewritten um comprehensive plan and Indiana code uh requires when a new comprehensive plan is written for there to be an interlocal agreement um or agreement between the municipality and the county in which it's in to have a actually actual written agreement. So that is what's before you today. Um the agreement is very similar to what has previously been approved um with the city of Auburn that we've had for gosh before I've been here. So probably 20ome years um recently with Garrett and Waterlue that have happened um within the last four or five years. Um so this will be the third uh written interlocal agreement or sorry fourth written inter interlocal agreement that we have uh between a municipality. Um I'll quickly go through that um for you all to see. This did go through um Butler's plan commission. Gosh Sandy correct me what date that was last month. So October 16th or 17th.

16th. um on that Thursday um and got approval from or uh recommendation of approval from the their plan commission and then went on to their city council and did get did get approved um last week I believe. So uh just waiting for our plan commission and our uh county commissioners to approve this. But with that, um, section two for the zoning, um, just again gives there, and basically what this is doing is just putting into a written form, uh, what they already do, uh, with their extr territorial jurisdiction. Um, for the zoning portion, basically gives uh over their or sorry, the county's jurisdiction to the city of Butlers. Um, they have to maintain a a comprehensive plan. um designate what the zoning classifications are going to be within that area. Uh they still have to go through a drainage board with the county surveyor for any projects within the ETJ. Uh they maintain flood plane management, wallhead protection, um any excavation areas, and then sewer hookup. The one thing that's only different between the city of Butler and the uh other municipalities is that uh the city of Butler wanted to have the right to not require city hookup, city sewer hookup. Uh which makes sense. Um if it didn't make sense financially or um didn't make sense for the city to to run a line to the development, uh they can forgo that and have septic systems. Um so they would have to meet whatever their zoning requirements are. But um that is in that sewer hookup requirement uh for subdivision control gives them the power to approve uh any new subdivisions. Uh so any new lots that are getting created, any new uh developments that would have um a

subdivision would would get approved. Um, street standards are per the highway department that are in um, exhibit B of this uh, agreement. Um, those have all been reviewed and approved by the highway department. So, there's no changes there. Um, would still have to go through the county surveyor or the drainage board for any drainage plans with the subdivision. Um, addressing would go through the county for new addresses, but it would be up to the city to require those. So, um, things again that we're doing now that are just put in put in writing, uh, for enforcement, they, uh, have the enforcement capabilities for their zoning in the extr territorial jurisdiction, but it, uh, still gives the county the right for a public nuisance ordinance. So, um, the public nuisance ordinance is basically for for trash, uh, disabled vehicles, that sort of thing. So, anything within that ETJ the county still has control over. But as far as zoning um enforcement or compliance, they have they have the jurisdiction over that. Um the one thing that's changed um as well is the maps that are in your packet. Um I believe it's in the very back two pages. There's the existing ETJ area um which basically ends at the southern border of Butler and this has been in the talks between um the city of Butler and and our planning staff for for three or four years. Um when the previous two city planners were in office um there was a request to have the ex the extension of the ETJ. um it never came into into fruition basically because they they didn't have a comprehensive plan

rewritten. So with this they've requested um the extension down to County Road 34 uh west to County Road 61 and east to County Road 71. That's on the last page of your document. The red outline shows that extension. Um, basically the ETJ, as you guys all know, is is is for if development happens around the municipalities, um, it allows for that development to align with the city's uh, planning and zoning. So, if those areas would ever be annexed, there's not a lot of non-conforming structures, a lot of non-conforming uses, um, a lot of non-conforming lots. Um, so having those be within their jurisdiction makes sense. Um, and then I think aligning it south um helps with with their uh development potential to the south if there would ever be any. Um, kind of mirroring what mirroring uh what is is north of Butler. Um, with that, that's the nitty-gritty and dirty of it all. Again, we've had these similar agreements with the city of Auburn, um Garrett and Waterlue. Um there is an ETJ in Hamilton, but they uh exist based off of the existing Indiana code that doesn't require any interlocal agreement between the two uh the two the two municipalities. Happy to take any questions you have on that. Um, we are looking for a recommendation to the county commissioners and then this will go to the county commissioners in three weeks I believe. One, two, three. On the 8th,

I have a couple of questions. Um, are there any notable differences from other interlocal agreements? I know you or or updates or improvements that have been made to this one versus the other ones? No, just that sewer hookup is really the main thing that we changed. Um, giving the city of Butler the ability to not require the the city hookup, it sewer hookup, it actually just gives them more flexibility, doesn't it? Right. How does that impact then the people that are in the new expanded area of the ETJ? It's it's up to the city to decide then.

Well, that'd be for new development. So, if Okay. or if a city would if this city sewer and typically from my understanding Auburn is the only municipality that has sewer that extends outside of their jurisdiction. Butler, Garrett, and Waterlue from my understanding have all kind of had have agreed that if they're going to extend sewer outside of their municipalities are going to annex that as well. So, that's probably what would happen with Butler is if a development would come that would request city sewer, they would annex those properties into the city of Butler. Um, but if a new sewer line would come, it just is in there that um that they have the flexibility to to not require the the connection.

Butler does extend a sewer line, I think, to SDI. True. That's true. You wouldn't want necessarily everybody that's next to that sewer line to have to hook up to it since it's there specifically for SDI for SDI and they couldn't have annexed they could have tried to annex SDI but it would I mean I don't know it's it might be because of that SDI [clears throat] lag I don't know why is it in the interlocal agreement why would it not be the other way around is that they can require people to do it versus

they can require people to hook up so the First, mostly all of that is require all new development, new construction of homes, blah blah blah, within 300 ft of a gravity sewer to hook into that main municipal sewer. But then it's saying if it doesn't make sense financially or feasibility wise or if they have a recently developed septic system that's in working order, we're not going to require them. So it just gives that more of a the city would decide. Correct. Otherwise, the default would typically be for cities and towns that you have to hook, right?

That's the norm. So it might help a homeowner not have to if they just put in a new septic system, the city might grant them a waiver or something. I don't know. Right. And then they wouldn't have to pay for a hookup immediately. Yeah, that would be my concern that we're not putting additional people and additional Does it actually benefit people more? It has the option to benefit. That's was the intent of the word. It doesn't harm. It only benefits. Yes. Okay. A good question. And the intention is for pretty much all of it to be zoned in their egg in their egg zoning.

Right. There's some properties that are zoned um industrial that'll switch to theirs. Um, I want to say the only property that did change, maybe a couple of them were the Malcolm farm changed from an our like a rural estate to an agricultural because that'll never become residential. And there was a property um zoned from maybe like the school back to a or vice vers.

Yeah. Oh, that was all sears. That's right. So they're mirroring what our zoning is and also within their future land use mirroring what our future except for those I think I had one other question. I think you answered all my other ones. Um the enforcement of the public nuisance ordinance by the county. Can you explain is that the county's desire or is that just continuing the way that it's currently operating? That's the way we've been operating in the other municipalities as well. Okay.

And so um because a county code cannot extend outside of their municipal limits. You mean like Butler cannot do their nuisance and other codes outside their city limit. Correct. So the county is just saying county has to county rules. I think they would anyway, right? I think they would anyway, but that just makes it explicit. Okay. Thank you. I had one other question. So, this agreement is approximately four years. Is that standard that we have with our other agreements or and are we up to date on all of our other ones? Um, I think we are due for Auburn's. So, I believe the wording is is that

don't think so. Review with planning staff every four years or something. Um, let me find it. So, it may not necessarily come to the plan commission. It might, right? It wouldn't necessarily come to plan commission unless there was some sort of major revision on page seven under section 6.

Yeah. Um if the agreement is not revised, it should try to remain in full force in effect until modified by the count city and the county. Um so really if there'd be anything major that would come and change the agreement if if the county decided just throwing this out, the county ever decided like we're going to switch our addressing standards to be like the cities and towns because we're ours are opposite. are our our odds are their evens on the side of the road and our evens are their odds. Don't ask me how that happened, but it did. Um, so if we would ever say we're going to change all that and make it all uniform, we would need to change.

Otherwise, it stays internal to your staff and unless one of the parties wants to revisit it, then it stays. Right. That's your last question. I think it's [laughter] you can have mine. Okay.

I forfeit my time too. There any more discussion amongst the board? Anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on this petition? See none, we'll close any public portion. And I guess Since there's not really any findings,

no, there's I mean I did publish it in the newspaper. It's not So with an interlocal agreement, it's it's between the two county executives. We do bring it to the plan commission to get a recommendation for the county commissioner. Same thing with Butler. We took it to the county plan or sorry, Butler Planning Commission to get a recommendation for city council. So we would like a recommendation. Um I did publish it in the newspaper just so the public was aware of what was going on. Um during the Butler public hearing portion, um they did send out letters to everyone affected within the the extended ETJ and had probably the first time Butler's ever had a full city council meeting. Um, but their questions were more or less about um, and correct me if I'm wrong, you were there and you were there, too. But, um, taxing, some zoning questions about what what happens with their properties, the sewer hookup. Are we going to require them to hook up to sewer? Um, those are kind of the major questions. And as you guys know, taxing, your zoning is not um doesn't determine how your property is taxed or assessed. that's based off of the use of the property. So,

anything you guys want to add being at the meeting as well? Commissioner Duly and Jared were at the the meeting. Yeah, I I just think a lot of the residents were concerned on how this would change their day-to-day lives or Yeah. whatever. But in the end, it's the county still handles almost everything. It's just permitting and donating that. But then even then, a lot of it still gets down.

Yeah. Yeah. As far as the septic and sewer thing, the number that the mayor used, there's it costs a million dollars a mile to put in new sewer. So, it would have to be pretty advantageous for them to get enough units to make that worth it. So, I think that's why they don't want to do it. There's no more questions or discussion. We would entertain a motion for favorable, unfavorable, or no recommendation to the commissioners.

Make a motion for favorable recommendation to the commissioners. I'll second that. You have a motion and a second for a favorable recommendation. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Bill Hartman, yes. Bill Van White, yes. Vandy Harrison, yes. Barry Yoder, yes. Suzanne Davis, yes. Angie Holt, yes. Tyler Lanning, yes. Jason Carneahan, yes.

Three Mondays, so December. Yeah. So, it won't become effective until then. Was that also your butler future land use discussion or is that a separate discussion? Oh, sorry. That should have been not Butler. Just should have been future land. I was like, my bad. Obviously did not review that carefully. I was a little confused. It's not her fault. It was probably written on the board wrong. Um, so this will be Can I take it over? Yeah.

All right. Absolutely. Um, so in your packets is the So we're working on, as you know, the Decal 20 240 comprehensive plan. I have a draft copy here that I've redlined and we're meeting tomorrow. It is not this thick. I just printed single-sided because I'm neurotic like that and don't like to look at things double-sided. Um, but anyway, um, I wanted to review the future land use map with the plan commission. um make sure that it is something that um the steering committee has reviewed. Um we looked at it, Bill, you were at that meeting. It might have been two meetings ago that we reviewed the future land use map. Um but it's been reviewed again by my office. Um and then the draft land use classifications that are in your packet. um as well. Um I just wanted to see if there was anything glaring that you all thought may need revised. Um, opening up a document right now just so I can look So we condensed one. So in our old compre in our old future land use map and I maybe should have printed this out for you all. Um we had two agricultural districts. Um one was just a plain agricultural and one was a mixed

agricultural rural residential. um we combined that into just one agricultural district. It just made sense to do that. Um our zoning can dictate what should be conservation agricultural versus versus uh agricultural um versus the land use map. Uh the land use map should be more broad I guess you should say um for what for what that should be. So that's the one thing that we did change. So kind of the two colors merged into one. Um and then the other thing that changed was the uh airport compatible use area. So the kind of the hatched area you see there surrounding the airport. Before it was just kind of the the immediate vicinity of the airport over to County Road 39 over to County Road looks like that's 19 south to 68 and north to 56. It didn't match what our airport compatible use area overlay district was. And I felt as though at least the future land use map should should mirror what that airport compatible use area overlay is because it that area is not going to change. It's it's been approved by the FAA. Yes, I was going to say FFA, but that's a different a different group. Um the FAA um to get that revised and changed would would be a whole undertaking and I just don't think that's going to happen. The airport's grown. it's it's doing well. It's supported by the county. Um so I think having that include all of the area within um our airport compatible use overlay district uh made the most sense. Um

so yeah, I don't think the one thing I think that they changed which is odd to me and I'll have to we're meeting them tomorrow. I'm glad I'm looking at this is the SDI area. Uh looks like all of it went to agricultural and that's again this is an error on their part and I'll make sure that gets corrected. But the one thing that we did change was if you all remember there was a a map that I'm going to get up and talk. So all right guys the area that was south here there's a long corridor of industrial future land use. We took that out. Um as you guys may remember we've reszoned four or five properties there from industrial to back to agricultural residential to allow them to build single family homes. The intent I believe when the comp plan was done in 2017 which of what we've done in the past that there would be kind of an industrial corridor down to um probably just not going to happen. I think that there might be small offshoots zoning that area that does have it. But um we just revised the map to include the current SDI properties plus I believe this area here over to uh State Road and Road 51. kind of made it kind of industrial didn't make sense. There's a lot of res. So, I wanted to go over this with you

all, see if there were any areas that you thought needed to be changed or included. Um there was a lot of discussion in in the group about um you know what happens around Auburn and Waterloo that residential um St. in their area has been updated. Um obviously this won't be updated or this map or this plan won't be adopted probably March March or April. So that time included new potential butler area butler ETJ but want to see if there was you guys saw as changes that may need updated or revised. Um that may make sense. Um currently in our future plan as well or in our future land use plan um the classifications um aren't defined well. So in your packet is the eight classifications that we have. Um, having the description kind of what the primary uses are, what could be secondary uses within that area and then additional notes gives the plan commission flexibility in reszoning properties, right? So like as you guys know when we when we reszone properties you should be mindful to what the future land use map is and what the comprehensive plan says but the future of land use map doesn't dictate you have to have these zones under this future land use map designation. Um but having these primary uses and secondary uses and then the additional notes gives gives just gives the flexibility to the plan commission um to have additional additional backing when you make um your recommendations to the county

commissioners for for reszones even development plans uh that sort of thing. So, um, again, this has been reviewed. The draft is to the steering committee now. Um, the future land use map and the future land use classifications have been reviewed already. Um, I've made edits to them, but um, if you guys have anything that you want to see changed or what have you, um, be happy to take those back to the consultant. Um, we are meeting tomorrow at 9:00 a.m., but also, um, edits to this aren't due until, I believe, the first week of December. So, so, um, what's this, uh, the agricultural, um, land use? What's that going to do for the Amish that are moving in that want to have a homebased business that's not going to be agricultural based if they have a business of a small engine shop or something like that? Where's that going to fit into all this?

So that cultural area.

Yeah. So this they would still follow the same laws that we have now. So if they're doing a small engine shop or or what have you, they would still follow under our homebased business part of our zoning. Um but doesn't change the land use class the future land use classification of the property. Right. So like it's still seen as correct and then they're having that secondary use as the homebased business. It just, you know, it just states in here on this that it's includes agricultural areas, low density attached, single family dwellings on large lots and agricultural related businesses. doesn't really state business other than agricultural.

Yeah. So again, that would be looked at in our homebased business section of our ordinance which has the types of homebased businesses that would be permitted and then they have to go to the board of zoning appeals to to review that. Um, I think we could add as a secondary as a secondary use add in there something about homebased businesses conforming to the UDO standards or something like that. Um, which might which would probably make sense. Um, but it's a good question. Any more discussion on the new proposed future land use map?

I can make a comment, I guess. I don't know what Chris thought, but the one we talked about in the meeting, but you have it at 69 and 68. It's all industrial. Yeah. And that's I think kind of a pipe dream if we end up with a off-ramp or whatever. But based on some of the housing in that area, I don't know that maybe those people would be real thrilled about that. But yeah, I'm not sure because that was discussed. I'm not sure why it was left.

Yeah. So that draft came out. I'm not talking about why that edit wasn't made. Maybe it was just um but I think and I need to talk to sometime about people from INDOT. We need to we need to firm that up. Is is that is an interchange at 72 or 68 going to that? Is it coming in 10 years or is it like if we would need another one here's where it would go because it it wouldn't make sense to put this in our future land use now if it's not happening for 20 30 40 years

right right so um we need to figure out through either INDOT or never been part of a new interchange before so I don't know if that's something the commissioners dictate to or is that something dictates Um, but I think we need to have that discussion on if it's going to happen, how far out is it? If it's something that's never going to happen, then take it off totally. It's going to happen in the next, leave it on, right? Yeah.

I also think it would be industrial. Probably be more commercial. It would be way more condensed because the intersections of of of Well, Union Chapel and um Auburn and even 11 where not, right? So, yeah, we need to ask that. Well, unless it was something that wanted to be close to the airport, some sort of an industry,

but they're going to have you know, regulation on what kind of business can be by the airport, too.

Yeah. And the airport, I mean, I'm sure you all have seen the the promoting the area that they are for commercial development. Makes total sense that I mean, I think that they're looking for very low intensity warehousing style element. Nothing that's going to cause large influx of traffic, that sort of thing. But I would see I guess it'd be who the chicken or the egg who who would get there first if if the interchange would happen. Does the development happen at 11A or does it happen at this new interchange first to see where that where that happens? But I just don't talk to that about how soon that may or may not happen or is it just a a rumor that's been around for years that nobody really knows where hap where it came from. So I'll um bring that up. I think I think we discussed it should probably change even Maybe they haven't updated anything. But I wanted you all to take a look at this before you all saw it. February, January, February

when it comes before you as a formal recommendation, we'll see it again. You guys want to take that home, all over it, look at it, provide me with some comments before If you'd like me to send you the existing future, if you want to take a look at these and mark them up after the meeting, please feel free to come up before drainage. Guess that kind of ties right into our next item, which is the comprehensive plan update.

That was it.

That's all right. I [clears throat] uh did get a a draft copy. I've gone through and kind of redlined copies. We're going to be discussing um the goals and objectives and priority projects tomorrow. Um then kind of the month of December, they'll be updating and revising the plan for a public meeting draft. I believe if you want to get two seconds, I can find dates. I found it. [clears throat] Um, so the draft comments of the draft are due by Friday the December 5th. Um, they h hope to have a public draft by Friday, December 19th. a presentation on January 21st and then the first round of those public draft comments are due by February 1st. And so then by the we'll probably have a public hearing in March for the comp plan to give recommendation to county commissioners. It'll go to county commissioners probably March, [snorts] whatever date that would be for county commissioners in March. So, um, if you do have comments on future land use, I'd appreciate those by the 5th. I'll probably send you a little or have Merida send you a text the day before Thanksgiving that says, "If you have comments, please remember to get those to Chris." Um, but yeah, that's all I have.

Good. Do we have reports from city and town representatives?

Auburn had a lot. Um, and October the only thing they really had was they redid they're redoing the parking lot that's just south of Seventh Street by Union Street. You know, where you kind of drive in through that little alley off of what would be 8th Street. They're going to pave that. They're going to put a not a permeable hard surface on that and mark the spots and everything and that will be open to the public. Right now, it's not. So, it will be a public parking lot after they do that. Um, and then this month they had uh the YM these got approved. The YMCA Early Learning Center um is apparently buying the property that was signature construction that's on North Street. Um and they're going to expand. They're going to build another building which is going to be like 6,700 square feet, add five classrooms and a lot of outdoor area, additional parking. So, I think Bob Craft had said they had like a waiting list of like 200 kids or something like that. So, this will take it down. This will let him have I forget the number what they said because I don't remember numbers, but a lot it'll put a lot more kids in. So, that got approved. And then the East Auburn Estates, which is off of County Road 31 and between 31 and 46A, just south of Auburn Drive. That residential plan got approved uh for approximately 65 home sites and they, you know, they that got annexed by the city. So, they're putting in city streets, everything will be to

city standards, sidewalks, everything. So that got approved. Um and then oh this got tabled for Fortify 111 apartments is going to they're going to be building a phase one of apartments but that got tabled till next month because they didn't have all the documents in that they needed. But they're going to be building apartment buildings there. And from the renderings that I saw in there, they look pretty nice. I don't know what the price is going to be, but since it's Fortify, I'm thinking it's going to be something reasonable. But they're going to end up putting in and that's um on that curved road that's there between the Hicksville Bank and the Dialysis Center on 15th Street, you know, then they put that road that goes up the Seventh Street. It's going to be in that area that got emptied out. It looked like it would be nice and necessary as long as the prices are what people but a nice nice looking very nice look. Uh Butler had the meeting about their comprehensive plan and their interlocal agreement. They also had a public hearing on their ETJ. It was a full house. They had a lot of the people ask good questions and um between Chris and Andrew Proines, the answers were very informative and people seem to be satisfied with the answers. I think a lot of the people are okay

with Andrew's answers and Chris's answers, but they're worried about the next people in charge coming on. They're they're like, "Well, we trust and believe you, but what about your predecessors? That's the problem." So, I don't know. You know, it's hard to tell people that it's in writing and you just have to believe what's in writing. So, we'll see what happens. But it's p it's moving on to the commissioner. So, that's just where it's at. um Hamilton had a meeting and they're looking at um subdivision control requirements and sign control ordinances and uh Brent gave uh everyone copies of the ordinances and they'll meet again in January and that's where Hamilton's at. So,

butler Hamilton, no updates from No, Ashley. No, Ashley hasn't done anything in like 10 months.

They haven't seen I think there should be a liaison from the board here to go to St. Joe's meetings. They have the I believe I think didn't think so. We've never done it. I'm aware of. So, we can add that to the list come January. When do they meet? Do you know

where? When? I think it's the second Tuesday of the month. I can ask. When they were here for the meeting, they asked about having a representative.

Yeah, they brought it up. Rona would like one, too. When we met with them for the comp plan, um their town board president asked if he could be on our plan commission. Well, he can't be on our plan commission because he's doesn't live in the county. I told him he could be a liaison or non- voting rep so he might join next year but we could add them to the list too if anyone wants to go to Coronas have to up my budget who didn't two extra meetings there any comments from any public in attendance Mike, if there's no other business, I believe we will be adjourned.