Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

You guys hear anything from Byron? Is he and there's a basketball game this evening that you might want to watch.

Oh, watch. I was going to say they better not be watching. All right. All right. Good evening. We'll call the meeting to order. The January 27th meeting of the Area Plan Commission. We ask that you please turn off your cell phones and electronic devices. Our first order of business this evening will be the adoption of the November meeting minutes for those uh that were in attendance. submitted electronically.

Motion to adopt. Second. It's moved and seconded to adopt the November meeting minutes as presented electronically. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. Same sign. Motion carries. And Janine would abstain because she was not here. I was I wasn't here and it was Derek. So neither was I. None of you were here. One, two, three, four. Okay, we got four yeses. That's not enough. That's not enough. Yeah. That's not enough. So, we'll have to table that to next uh next month then. Okay.

All right. I will advise you that all of your testimony this evening is recorded and taken under oath. We request that anyone wishing to speak do so only when called upon. You'll come up uh face our attorney to my left and be sworn in before speaking. All persons speaking will be asked to give their full name for the record. Spell your last name so that we have accurate meeting minutes and speak directly into the microphone if you will so that we can get everything recorded. Kayla will give her staff report and then the petitioner is given 10 minutes for their presentation. That is then followed by a collective 10 minutes for any remmonstrators. We offer five minutes for government officials to speak uh for or against and then we then offer a final five minutes for the petitioner's rebuttal. Our attorney will give the uh each speaking party a two-minute and a one minute warning as time is expiring. We ask that all persons conduct themselves in a civil manner. And if you can't do that, we reserve the right to ask you to leave. This meeting is being recorded and streamed for public viewing. By participating, you acknowledge that your image, voice, and comments may be captured and made publicly available. This meeting has been properly noticed in accordance with Indiana Code 514 1.5. All right. This evening we're missing uh two members. Renee Oldm and Byron Holden are um not in attendance. And then we have we are welcoming one member back after 10 years. Janine Gray will be our commissioner's representative for the calendar year with lots of experience. 15 years experience I think. So

14. Yeah. Okay. All right. With that, our first order of business was the election of officers, which we could go ahead and do that if you'd like. Or being that we are missing two members, if you prefer to try and do that next month, we could do that as well. Hey, if uh Michael Long still wants to do it, we can nominate him as president again if you're willing to do it. Still got two other positions to go. So, hey, can we go ahead with a nomination for president and then hold on the other two being that one of the two is um currently seated is missing. Acceptable. All right. Well, we can open the floor for nominations for president.

Nominate Michael Long as president. Second. All right. Moved and seconded to elect Michael Long as president for 2026. All those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. Same sign. And then you want to table um vice president and secretary or should we go ahead with that? You guys anybody interested in what was Renee? Secretary Rene secretary and we didn't have a vice president did we? So Tyler was off. Let's see if we've got any nominations for vice president. Then we can knock that out. Anyone want to nominate any anybody? Maybe somebody that's

got some experience. No, I don't want to do it. Nobody. Would Derek like to do it? I don't. It doesn't matter. I want not hard. All right. Motion. Motion to nominate Derek Tol for uh vice president. I second it. Any other nominations? M. I I move to close the nominations. All right. It's moved in a second and to elect Derek Ta as a 2026 vice president. All those in favor signify by saying I.

Oppose. Same sign. And then do we have any nominations for secretary or do we want to we always we like to nominate people that aren't here sometimes. Yeah. I'd go ahead and I would make a motion that we nominate Renee. Rene. We can do that and let her resign if she doesn't like it. So, all right. Who seconded? I do. All right. So, it's been moved and seconded to elect Renee Oldm as the vi as the secretary for the planning commission 2026. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Post. Same sign. Oh,

we're still working on our video. Okay. All right. Uh, with that, I guess we're all set for the whole year now. So, item number two, which was the, uh, board of commissioners residential uh, reszone, has been continued to February. Do we have a motion to accept that continuence? I moved I move to accept the continuence. Second. Okay. move and seconded to approve item number two um reszone 26 to6514156 uh to February. All those in favor signify by saying I

oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. So if anybody's here for item number two uh we'll be um hearing that case in at our February meeting. And I thought I had the date here. and commission February 24th. I have a quick update on that. Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, that's anybody here for the Ninstar Park or the property located at 336 South 300 West. That is a reszone in Sugar Creek Township from R1.0 residential to institutional uh for parks and wreck purposes. Uh that is being continued like Mike said for due to improper notice. I do have a handout up here for anybody interested uh for a community input session for February 19th at 10:00 in this room. For any ideas about what sort of a park that should be, concerns about access, use, anything like that, please take one of these pamphlets with you. Um, and we hope to see you back here uh on February 19th. I'll put these up here. Other than that, we'll talk about it February 24th.

Serious stuff. I didn't know he was hand. Thank you.

Is there a packet for item three? It's this one right here. Oh, is that the packet?

Yeah. All right, that takes us to item three. When you're ready, Kayla. All right. As you guys might recall, um, in the, let's see, this back in October of 2024, uh, a reszone for outback storage from R1.0 zero to industrial light uh came before this board and was given a favorable recommendation uh to the board of commissioners who passed it in January of 2025, ordinance 2025-1A. The intended use was for outdoor boat and RV storage. It was also a special exception. So, it went to the board of zoning appeals and received an approval with conditions in February of 2025. One of the conditions of that reszone was that the only use that is permitted is boat and RV storage outdoor as listed in chapter 156.021 of the Hancock County Land Use Matrix. Boat RV storage outdoor requires a special exception approval from the

board of zoning appeals. If a certificate of occupancy has not been issued by October 22nd, 2025, the property zoning shall revert to R1.0. This deadline was not met and that's why we're back here. So, we're having a public hearing so that this board can give a recommendation once again on whether or not the property should revert back to our 1.0 zoning or if it should remain IL zoning. This is a timeline that shows when the reason was adopted, when the BCA petition was filed, uh when a development plan was submitted for tech review, and the whole timeline of this property up to 1125 when I notified the petitioner that we had to bring this back before the plan commission and board of commissioners due to zoning. Um, I was reviewing the application for the permit uh at that time for the the project. So, um, I'll give you a minute to read through that timeline and if you have any questions, just ask me and when you're ready, I can move on. I have a question from before. Um, I made the motion for this to pass. I did not when I made the motion I did not state if a certificate of occupancy has been issued by mine was the BZ as long as it went through the BZA within a year. It then went to the commissioners who I think changed it looks like because that's in the ordinance. Do you can you tell me more about how that went down? I know Janine's here, but because I I don't understand how I mean I understand they can change anything from what we do and that's up to them, but I was curious how that went down because we did not set that deadline.

I don't recall the commissioner setting that deadline, but I mean, it's been a year.

It's been a year. I know. I had to go back and read it and and then I went and read the notes and I I made because I because I've never used the word certificate of occupancy in any motion I've made here in the three years I've been doing this. So I knew I didn't say it. So I was like that's weird. I would never say that. My guess is that was probably part of staff's conditions and That's what you're looking for. And it it's our common language that says within a certain amount of months. And so we just said how long is that and set the date based on that number of months that was in the staff report. Aya, you can speak exactly to that.

Yes. So, in ordinance 2025-1A, it mentions um an amendment of reszoning the subject area from R1.0 to IL. And it says the subject area is described herein as exhibit A, which is a legal description, and is subject to the conditions described in exhibit B. And exhibit B is that is this right here. It shows those three conditions. Um first that uh yeah it says that the proposal to reszone 2.25 acres from R1 to IIL received a favorable recommendation subject to the following conditions. An 8ft privacy fence must be installed around the perimeter of the site uh in conformance with the zoning ordinance. The only use that is permitted is boat and RV storage and um that certificate of occupancy date of October 22nd, 2025 um like I just mentioned. And number three, a development plan review is required in conformance with uh section chapter 156.107. So yeah, that was exhibit B to the the zoning ordinance. We could certainly look back at the minutes of the plan commission and board of commissioners meeting if we need more detail.

Well, I mean, um, it's going it's going to affect how I would vote because if the commissioners made the move, I don't want to interfere with the commissioner's decision versus if it's something we said, then then yeah, I would I would have a different vote for that. The only thing I remember about that particular commissioner's meeting is that it was we had made comment on the improvements of how everything aesthetically looked out there. Mhm.

That is what I do recall. But I and I do recall the fence, but I do not recall changing it back to Rw. So the se the sequence though would this would have been a special exception which is under the jurisdiction of the BCA. So the BCA would impose that and typically I don't know that we would have had power to revert. I don't know if there's a reversion that we could have imposed um without the it's typical language we would have a BCA but I don't know the reversion would be within our jurisdiction. Yeah. Would not unless that was in staff recommendations.

Yeah, I it might have been because I mean here's the here's the I'm reading the minutes now from October and it says and it's off my motion. So two ILIL zoning only to be used for RV/boat storage outdoor with BZA approval within one year, zoning reverts to R 1.0, O comma striking all other permitted and special exception uses. So it doesn't mention any staff conditions. Usually I do I will read the staff conditions but I don't recall if I did or not that you know one year ago

pull the staff report. We can also pull the certification from the BCA. Do you have that with you right now? So, that would is where we'll find that, I believe.

Yeah, cuz I'm assuming that this somehow made its way into the certification letter. We also have the certification from the PL cuz I'm see if it's in one of two places. That's my guess is that was a um that's one of it's just one of our regular conditions generally included. Actually probably also in our ordinance. So the the variance had a condition for a building permit within 12 months. Doesn't talk about a certificate of occupancy. So that that would be correct for the BCA to do that. Did you want to see that? I'm good.

You read it. And Kayla, during your presentation, you said something to the effect and I just want to be clear that you were still reviewing the certificate or reviewing the building plans. Is that right?

Yes. The point was an issue at my desk is when the building permit application which was filed on September 18th, 2025 hit my desk which was on November 6, 12th somewhere in there. So this went to in that timeline has that explained as well. So this went to this was permit application was received on 91825. Uh the deadline to receive a certificate of occupancy which is what you get after we issue you a permit. You've done everything on the permit and then we go out and issue you a certificate of occupancy at the point of your final inspection. Um so on 1028 a drainage permit was issued by the surveyor. So this spent 9:18 to the to 10:28 in the surveyor's office working on drainage review. Then it came to the building department desk and got its approval from the building department on 116. On 1112 I notified the petitioner about the expired zoning. I guess my um question is then if it hasn't passed everything that was a short deadline and could it not be I mean did he have an opportunity? Did there was a delay? What was the cause of that being

such a making that so tight to where he where the deadline was missed? Yeah. If you look at the timeline too, this spent a couple months at tech. There was some time spent at the technical committee where the department heads review comments on the site plan and other um aspects looking at how this site plan and the permit application is or isn't um applicable and in line with our rules and regulations and there were a lot of questions. So this got continued for a couple of months 626 and that's where it got held up for a couple of months. Does that make sense?

There's some additional history I think in the past as well where the original application was under a different zoning. Yes. And what the only thing we're seeing here is under the current zoning. There's a bunch of history before this and then they reapplied under the one-year period. Yes. Yeah. So, there was a change in zoning before this that Yeah. The first time they applied for zoning, it was denied. under IBP.

So when this zoning was adopted in 17, he had to have or I say he but the petitioner had to have everything done by October 22nd. Wow. And it had to go through all of those conditions to get to that point before then so you could issue that. I mean, to me, that seems like there's been other delays that may not be completely the petitioner's fault, but yet, um, I'm surprised that it's that quick of a turnaround to revert back in less than a year to do that, unless I'm missing something. I mean, someone please help me with that. But that just seems like an awfully short timeline. That's just my two cents. There were still approvals from drainage building and planning just from drainage from the surveyors and the building department. There was approvals after that. So

because my office is the one that checks back on any BZA and plan commission conditions that are associated with the reszone or special exception. From what I understand, um, this had received an unfavorable staff recommendation, but the plan commission u did choose to give the petition petitioner a chance to move forward with the project. And one of those conditions was if you can get it, and this is just my recollection, but if you can get it done in a short time span. That was my understanding, but like I said, I would love to refer back to the minutes and maybe even the recording to understand a little better um if there's any confusion on your part. Part of that issue, part of it was that we had a new comprehensive plan and um we were still within the gray area of um applying that and that was part of the issue also between the IBP and the IIL which there's just kind of a gray area enforcement. So I think the um the drive was also to um come in under that time frame because of the implementation of the comprehensive plan.

Yeah. So, it's just a natural procedure. We impose deadlines all the time. It's nice that we are tracking and enforcing against those. I think that's a that's a a good thing. That's a good indication that we're kind of standing by the deadlines that we put in. Um and and providing proper notice that we're doing that. I think that's a a a good thing that we're doing. Um but I think the question here is uh you know, what what was the delay? Typically, when would you see a certificate of of occupancy or a permit application? Because we see a big gap here um between the approval and the development plan. Was there something that would would you normally have expected from 227 to 626 that type of a gap?

There's a number of things especially for commercial projects that can delay. Um but that was that is a concerning gap. We'd let the petitioner speak, but I I'm not sure if they fully understood everything that had to happen after the fact that they came here and maybe thought that that's all they had to do. So, there was a fourmonth waiting period when all these other things have to start to play in with tech committee and everything else. So, there was kind of a I think maybe a period of time where there was no action according to my notes. No, just uh moving forward so I can leap through the rest of my presentation. Um and I just took a we had a Dennis, our code enforcement inspector, go out and take a couple fresh photos of the site. Um so you can see the house has been re remodeled really nicely. It looks great. Um they did go ahead and install the gate and the fencing uh to the lot, but it is not being used, so it is not in violation as far as land use goes. Um so we just went out and looked at it. Um, this was just the zoning map showing zoning in the area, what it was at the time that we um, reszoned it, some area photos. I did update my paths moving forward. So tonight and what we're considering at this point is a favorable recommendation would mean uh favorable to recommendation to the BOC to revert the zoning back to R1. That's what favorable means. There's no recommendation of course and there's an unfavorable recommendation which would be to keep the zoning IL zoning. So those are your paths forward. Of course, you can attach conditions to this recommendation, uh, which could include things like

development plan review required and prohibiting inappropriate uses. Um, like last time it was anything except for boat and RV storage. So, I'm going to go ahead. I think there wasn't much else. I just want to raise one thing because um

in the BZA condition it says the petitioner shall seek and obtain an ILP prior to site development and clearly there's been site development. We've had a fence, we've had the lot graveled and ready. So I think this board needs to take that into consideration. There's clearly been site development without a permit. Yep. So there are some I've put in my requ recommendation from the original uh my original staff recommendation which was unfavorable um due to the um inappropriate uses are generally permitted as part of the IL zoning district um and other vision for the area like Lacy mentioned in the comprehensive million. And I've got a few notes here that if zoning reverts to R1, um, what happens next would be revoking the BZA special exception, which as Rhonda pointed out is pretty much in violation already.

Has there been any code enforcement done on that? We haven't. We've just been monitoring the use, especially since we had this kind of in the works to see if zoning was going to be upheld or not. um to ensure only permitted uses are taking place on the site. Um if zoning remains ILIL, continue with review of permit application and ensure compliance with the BCA special exception. If this goes to R.1, what structural re reversions would need to take place, if any?

Officially, the fence would need to be chopped down to six feet. Um, the house is being kept residential, so nothing there. Um, the gravel in the backyard for the surveyor's purposes doesn't count as lot coverage. So, really, it's just the fence height. That's what I've got. If you guys have any questions for me. So I I think if I'm understanding, maybe I didn't follow everything, but the special exception is technically in violation as of today based on this evidence. And we don't know 100% whether or not the zoning is really set to revert because we don't have record that the certificate of occupancy was actually required.

Typically a certificate of occupancy is required when they receive or pass their final inspection. So after I approve this and they complete everything that is in these plans, I go back and review, make sure the landscaping's in, the fence is in, all of this stuff,

and then check off on that final inspection, which issues their certificate of occupancy. It's not quite as cleancut as when there's like say a new single family home built, and the inspector goes out and is like, "Yes, you may occupy a new house." But in our case, it's when you pass everything in in the zoning uh conditions and the special exception. Then we go out and say yes, they have indeed planted all the trees and shrubs they said they were going to plant. The fence is up, the uh everything else has been reviewed, and then we issue our okay to issue that final certificate of occupancy. So, it's permit and then certificate of occupancy. And if you're in the middle of winter with 12 inches of snow on the ground and it's freezing outside, do you still approve it or do you have to wait till spring?

We issue a temporary certificate on occupancy, especially for outdoor things like landscaping. Okay. But I I guess I just wanted to be sure though what our actual zoning certification said because the the minutes aren't proving that we ever had that condition that we're standing on here of the certificate of occupancy being required for the zoning to remain. I have I have that written on the

I cut and paste part of it. It says the proposal to reszone 2.25 25 acres in R1 residential to IIL received a favorable recommendation. This must be from the minutes. Um perhaps number two is the only use that is permitted is boat RV storage outdoor as listed in chapter 156021 of the Hancock County Land Use Matrix. Um requires special exception approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. If a certificate of occupancy has not been issued by October 22nd, 2025, the property zoning shall revert to R1 1.0. So, are you wanting to see the actual um certification? That's what you were reading from the certification or

reading from a clip. Could have come from the minutes, but let me see if I can find the certification. We can pull that. And yeah, Kayla, I know you probably have that, too. And while she's doing that, resolving this issue with the um special exception, I mean, they would technically be in violation. So, we just would have to make sure that the office deals with that quickly this week to clear that up.

Typically, if the special exception is in violation, we would revoke that at a public hearing at the BZA. But they could resolve it if they get their ILP approved here this this week. Right. That's what you're working on now. That's what I'm working on now. BZA is is the is tied to the permit, not the occupancy. The BCA certification was just that it that they needed an ILP prior to doing any site work. Got it. The ILP is not done yet and the site work is done. So, or some site work is done.

I'm happy to handle that however you guys see fit. I have a copy of the ordinance, but it's not the executed version. It's the one before it was executed. Um, it was on January 7th, 2025. If you could find that one. So this could So it could have been the commissioners that put that in. It's just in the ordinance. We'll have a certification that will that would give all that to the commissioners. She may have to go pull it from the file, but

see board of commissioners can if you guys want to, we can I'm sending Maria to look for that original folder. We could table this item while she sees if she can find it to move on to other things on the agenda or however whatever you guys want to do. She's going to go look for that, but it might take a minute. Would that have been Would they have done that on no their November meeting 24?

Believe it was an October 2024 plan commission item might have been tabled. Let's check it out. Yeah, I'm not seeing it in the minutes. I was looking for the board of commissioners meeting minutes for I'm on November 4th.

It ultimately appeared in the January 2025 uh board of commissioners meeting. It's on page three. Fast. tell you who voted for what?

Yeah, there's it was two to one. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, you have a motion to table this and we'll come back to it when uh she gets that that file out for us. So moved. Second. All right. Been moved and seconded to table item number two, outback storage reszone until um further study this evening. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

All right, we'll move on to uh item four. which is a major subdivision primary plat. And what we do with major subdivisions and primary plats is those are approvals here at the planning commission. Herman and Bill's Primary Plat. This is a three lot major subdivision located in Vernon Township. Uh it is at the corner of State Road 234 and North 300 West just a mile to the west of Mount Vernon schools. It is across the road um from the to the west from Fortville Town limits now. Uh and it is a major subdivision because of the maximum because the maximum number of splits for a minor subdivision has been exceeded. So a minor subdivision is three lots max and that includes the remainder of the parent tract. So in this case you can see we've had uh the Zachary Bills minor which was out of the same field. That's really one, two, and three really right there. But um the Tracy Bills minor occurred but that was before we started counting which would

have been our parent track date is January 1st 2002. We've been using that because it's easy to track in our office. So, um, for that reason, because we've exceeded that three number the number of three splits from the parent tract, um, this counts now as a major subdivision. Um, I'm happy to to talk to any one of you about that, um, later if you if you want to talk about, uh, that this is 9.46 acres. Uh, it is around the Caldwell Cemetery, Caldwell Brokeoff,

Caldwell Brokeoff Cemetery. Um the petitioner is is um or the surveyor on this project is Philip Going of Acura. Um and he did reach out to the se to the DHPA or the division of historic preservation and archaeology with the DNR, the state of Indiana. um and uh made sure that he had the latest and greatest regulations noted here, which is if you're going to develop within 100 feet of the boundary of a historic cemetery like this, you need to submit a development plan to the DNR. So, a note is going to live on this plat stating, don't mess with within 100 feet of this cemetery because we don't know for sure that this is actually the accurate outline of it. That's what that's there for. All right. And so, we've got three lots here. Lots one, two, and three. Um, all driveways are going to be off of 300 West. There is a pretty good ride-of-way dedication of 70 feet off of both State Road 234 and 300 West as that 300 West is viewed as a major arterial. Um, with the plans to add turn lanes off of that as that area develops. So, right-of-way dedication in this area is important. Um, Mr. Going worked with Gary P to limit the number of driveways to two. You can see we've got one shared driveway um between lot two and three before it splits into two. Um the plat will include a uh shared driveway agreement um and easement. Thank you. Um the ser the uh atte all all comments have been addressed. Um Mr. going worked with the survey department to make sure that all drainage uh tiles noted on this platin easements were located. Um so we know for sure that's where those outlets meet up. That's where they're located

and we still have good locations for septic fields and houses and driveways. Okay. So um as this is the primary plat we're kind of just looking at that overall layout. Does this make sense or not? Um and then based on those comments, uh Mr. Going will prepare a secondary plat which will then come back to my office and be approved by both technical committee and then within my office administratively. I expect that it will look almost identical to what is here in front of you today. We did have some comments um from one neighbor um about wondering where the location of her well was. Um Miss Klene, I will let her talk about more about that as she's here tonight. Um this does meet our minimum lot standards um for road frontage and acreage. Uh it does need one waiver for the depth to width. It is more than three times as deep. Lots two and three are more than two times as deep more than three times as deep as they are wide. Um typically a requirement um in our lot standards uh is that a lot be no deeper than three times its width at the right of way. So 125 ft as our minimum lot width um in this zoning district which is R1. Um so 125* 3 we get 250 and then 375. So anything deeper than 375 needs a waiver um for those lot widths. And because we have to use up the remainder of the parent tract given this arrangement of lots on this remainder of the parent

tract, there's long skinny lots. So that's why a waiver is required of you guys. Um there's not really a good alternative that I could find to suggest to Mr. Going, but I'm open to suggestions. And with that all said, my uh staff recommendation is u is favorable given uh that Mr. Going has already agreed to add the access easement and shared driveway maintenance agreement on the secondary plat.

That the same um easement that would address the secondary septic that came or is that is that waved at this time from technical committee? If you look on the let's see one of the sheets in your staff report, it shows that Mr. Going has already addressed the secondary septic locations on each lot. Thank you.

Right. Any more questions for Kayla? All right, we can have the petitioner come up. Yes. Okay. We're affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Last name. My name is Phillip Going. Last name spelled G O I N G. Okay. Go ahead. You

Good evening. I'm Philip Going with Acura Land Surveying and I'm here this evening uh representing Lisa Harmon and Tracy Bills on this particular property. And uh once again, Kayla basically took every bit of my presentation away. Um so uh she she does a thorough job and I appreciate that. But uh we're here tonight to ask for your approval for the um uh three lot primary primary plat approval for the three lot residential subdivision and to also ask for your approval for the 3:1 depth to width waiver. And I'll talk a little bit more about that in a little bit. This is a 9.462 acre tract of land located at the northwest corner of State Road 234 and County Road 300 West. Uh, surprisingly, I don't think 300 West is considered a major arterial yet, but it is in the comprehensive plan to become that. And so they at at tech committee they requested that we go ahead and dedicate the right-ofway as if it were. So you'll see a 70 foot half ride ofway for 300 West which is quite unusual and it does take quite a bit of land. Uh we're dedicating a total of 1.389 acres subject to your approval here tonight. This property is already zoned R1.0. Um it it has shown up on the maps that way for quite some time. Uh so the county was already anticipating residential homes on this property. the the entire area that goes toward the northwest of this is also zoned R1.0 um as it leads into the town of McCord McCordsville. Now, as you can see, this is a very oddshaped piece of property and that's what creates the challenge that that uh

develops the need for the 3:1 depth to width ratio exception. Uh when this first came to me, I I sat down and tried to figure out about three or four different ways to lay out lots and lot arrangements to make this work. And um uh some of some of those ways would either have to require variance from the BZA for road frontage or things of that nature. um we have significant uh amount of land to accomplish the three lots but um but that odd shape just gives us the challenge. So what you see before you tonight was I think about my fourth attempt and the and the best um layout that I felt like uh created the best situation for the land owner here because we maintained the 125 ft required road frontage on those northerly two lots and just extend them further back to the west. Now, on those two lots, the further you go west, the land uh rises and becomes higher, and it's actually the better land to build on. Anyway, um there was a different plan that was filed um and it got changed, so I'm not sure what you're looking at. Did do they have a copy of the updated

one? Um, and I wanted to explain a little bit about the reason for that update. Uh, Chad Cookanau, the county surveyor, um, started asking questions related to the tile because the bill's uh, minor subdivision had run a tile kind of right through the middle of this property and connected up to another tile that runs north and south. So the plan that was initially filed showed where the tile appears from that minor subdivision plan. When they did their plan, they actually created an easement and I think it was somewhat of an asbuilt type plan. Um, I felt uncomfortable with that and so I personally went out and actually probed the ground for several hundred feet on a very, very cold day and found out where the tile actually was located and found out that the connection point from the minor subdivision actually extends beyond its own easement uh, by 100 ft or so. So, our plat will actually clean up that little bit of a problem that was created with that minor subdivision in the fact that it's tile is not actually within the entire easement. So, you'll see on the plat kind of a kind of an odd arrangement of easement for that. And that's what we're doing. We're creating new easement to cover and protect the tile that services the two minor subdivision lots to the west. Now, the tile that that connects into that runs kind of north and south through the property um seems to be an an older drain tile and um we we will be preserving it from the tie-in point running north because we don't know where that goes, but um u Chad Coconau requested that from that

tie-in point to the south that we replace that with a new 10-in tile. So, the old 8 inch tile will come out and be replaced with a 10-in tile at that location. Um, so based on all of those issues that we feel like we've already worked through with all of the department heads and the tech in the tech committee, I respectfully ask for your approval tonight. We feel like this is the highest and best use for this particular land. And I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may want to throw my way.

Sometimes when something is in close proximity to um something like Fortville, we ask if you've spoken with or coordinated with Adam or anyone there. Any

um I have not spoken with Adam related to that. um did look at the location of their current sewer and water system. It's significantly far away to be able to service three lots. And um and the property that's directly across the road from here that I think was fairly recently annexed into Fortville is actually about twothirds of that property is in flood plane and there there would be a ditch crossing. So, it would be an an exceedingly expensive thing to run sewer and water for these three lots, especially when they're not even annexed at this time. So, I I actually put I think most of that in the feasibility report that should have been attached to the project, but um but it we're not annexed into Fort Bill and their sewers and sewer and water is nowhere near at this time. Are these custom homes going in?

I would assume so. Yes. Any more questions for Philip? None. All right. Thank you. Do we have anybody here this evening that would like to speak in opposition to this plat? I would, please. Come on up. just one person. You have 10 minutes. Then I'll need to swear you in. Do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. State your name and spell your last name.

It is Karen Klein. K L E I N.

Okay. You have 10 minutes. Go ahead. Thank you. I technically own the uh Bills Tracy Bills plantation that was built. I'm assuming um 2022. I purchased that house in October 15th of 2010. So I've owned it for 16 years. Unfortunately, when I did buy it, his parents did live neighboring to me. Um and it was a family farm. When I bought it, what you see in this picture here is a direct square. What I have been maintaining and taking care of for 16 years is the opposite land lot that you can see is matured and grown trees. My well after they surveyed an annex or surveyed the plane for these plantations or after his mother passed to sell these properties when the surveyor came out. I'm not sure exactly how close because it's, you know, the survey stick is from here. My wells here, the back property's here. But this corner lot here that you see that's matured that I've been taking care of for 16 years is not my property. And it should be, but it shows this. So, I believe my well and my property power needs to be in question for the subdivision/plantation to be built. Also, if you're standing at my house, if you're holding out your arms, it's like this far away. So, you're building directly on top of my bedroom. And so, I do commission and want to ask especially about the easement. In this picture here, these are my trees on my property that I've been maintaining. And this is my property line that I have been maintaining.

This would coming down to that circle area. And that is no fault to anybody besides he was taking care of he was gave more land than he was given and I have continued to take care of it. Um, now the question is where my well and property line sits that he installed because I bought this property off the original builder which is now in the plantation or three partials of question. So I wasn't I wasn't following. Do do you think your well is is not on your

It's very questionable. When I had no clue until about 3 or 4 months ago when they came out and surveyed and I saw the pink stakes, pink or red stakes and if you're standing there,

it's from it's between you to him and I have like little decorative chairs on it. I used to have a whale house. Now I have decorative chairs on it. But it's from you two apart. If you're looking straight back, they installed a cement um laundry, you know, two cement laundry thing uh laundry pole and it has bushels of trees and so that would not be on this, but I have maintain been maintaining that and taking care of that, which I thought was mine. Do not technically know if my land was surveyed. I'm in the process of figuring that out. Again, I was very young and naive 16 years ago. So, I'm trying to look up the original deed of the land survey. He built the house prior to me, so he should have had a land survey to build on that.

And I will looking into finding that out if that's questionable or priority. Also, I did reach out to um Adam Zach and Joe Reiner multiple occasions on this which is Fortville and they reverted me back to Hancock County because it is a county issue. So, my question to you is I know you have an issue with the your well and what your property line is. Um so, do you want houses to be built there or do you want What do you want there?

Preferably, no. I when I bought that property, I wasn't I bought it with the estate of a plantation with family. Um I also now live on a farm and so that is what we planned on doing. Did you purchase that property then? Say it again. Were you able to purchase all that property so that you could keep it the way it currently is? Have not been offered. So when they decided to sell or to divide this, it didn't belong to you. Is that correct?

Was unaware that it did not belong to me until they sold their parents' house, which is on the 234 beside the cemetery. And then that is when I learned when they did the survey to do the three um lots is when I actually saw the survey stakes. And that's when I started calling and asking questions of why if it's zoned residential R1 uh would you expect houses to be built on that vacant property or that agriculture land at some point

if they are built there? I am open to that. However, my um stipulation would be to make sure that when my house was built and I purchased it that that my property and well and power was on my property, which was my understanding for the last 16 years. So, if they did build, I'm not opposed to that, prefer not. But if they choose to do land development, that's absolutely fine. I would just want to make sure that my property would still be maintainable. And without my well on my property, then you'd have to do I don't know. I've been told a lot of things, but

the property um I guess south of you is also appears to be agriculture. Yes. It could be someday turned into something. Have you considered to purchase that so you can keep it all the same way or is what would you I guess my question is just because somebody decides to put this into homes. Yes. Are you against that? Because if you are then maybe you should have bought the property and kept it that way. If not then are you against the homes being there? What are you against by their development? What are you against other than protection of your well? Protection of my property that I originally thought I owned which is

but that's in question with you and that's not what's before us. Yes. What's before us is to say are these three homes this subdivision what we should look at and should we give that type of a recommendation. So then what would be my opposition if my well that he built is not on my property that he grandfathered in and overtook that you have to talk to an attorney that would know that because I can't give any recommendation to that. Correct. I'm just I'm wondering are you do you want houses there or do you what do you want because you're in opposition of it. I understand you have a complaint, but

what do you what do you expect to see in those places next to you at some point? Well, I could say a lot, but I'll be professional and say you can build um preferably not. However, professional answer would be you can build with a caring and loving neighbor. Thank you. with making sure that my property is maintained that I bought. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. So, the the main your main concern is just the the really is the functional components of your property being the well is on your

property and power. Ninear runs my power. My laundry room and bedroom are on that side of that house. My power line runs there. Now, we all know we have fiber optic electricity. The fiber is on the buried on that side of my well, which was put in after I bought my purchased my house. And so, I'm assuming Ninstar put it in correctly. Mhm. However, um

Yeah. Yeah. So, like Mr. Tol said, we this that's not these aren't really zoning issues, which is what we're dealing with here tonight. So I guess I would encourage you to speak with a land use attorney maybe to see or even talk to Philip about easements as a part of the plat or something because none of this got picked up in tech which normally it would have. So I was a little surprised that a well or any power would not be properly delineated on the plat. So, I would just maybe get with Philip tonight and see about, you know, picking up some of those things in the survey and seeing where things really are and then see if you can work out easements or whatever with the current owner. That would probably be the right move there. So, okay. All right. Damn. All right. Anything else?

Any questions for her? No. All right. Thank you. All right. Uh, Mr. Going, you've got five minutes of uh I think there's one more. Oh, was there one more rebuttal? Oh, thank you. I didn't didn't catch that. Seven minutes left because there was a lot of questions. You got about seven minutes. Raise your hand. Swear or affirm under the penalty penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Didn't hear a word you said, but yes, I do. Okay. Um, can you state your name and then spell your last name? Bills. B I L Ls. What's your first name? Paul.

All. Okay. Grew up right there.

That whole mess right there. Uh concerns not to me, but probably to you guys. When I was a kid growing up, back there in the corner there, my dad was an iron worker. And there's a bunch of nasty stuff that's buried out there. You guys probably didn't know about that. I mean, I was 12. All that stuff that come from any foundry in Indianapolis, from Allison's, Massachusetts Avenue, wherever back in the day that we had a big, it was a low spot. It was about this low. And dad brought the stuff back from the foundry. I'm just bringing your attention to it. You might want to go out there and take a sample. It may be all right. But I just thought you guys ought to know about it or whatever. So

you said it's in the back corner.

He moved out there and dad bought that property in ' 61. That's how and then through the course of me growing up and whatever him, excuse me, being an iron worker, an old guy out there that they would take the trash and they get if they could find a place and they still do that today. If they can find a place to dump dump the trash for free and dad had that area that was real low and he filled it up. the guy come out there and filled it up with cast iron renderings or whatever and he put dirt over the top of it. I don't know if it's it just I don't know if that's going to be an issue or anything. I'm just bringing your guys thoughts to it to go out there and it's where those big trees are right there. And three three years ago, I was walking around down there and water was up to my shins walking through there. That's how that's a flood plane going right through there coming down from 300 going out to 234. But when you guys start digging right there, I suppose that will all go away, I guess, when they do their thing out there when they start developing that. So, I'm down at the other end where it's dry. So, I'm good to go.

All right. So, I just thought I'd bring that to your your attention. Yeah, sounds good. Thank you. Was there anybody else that wanted to speak before I move on? All right. Now, Mr. Going, you have your five minutes of Oh, do we have any No public officials? It doesn't look like so. Okay.

Thank you. Um, yes. Um the issue I think that Karen Klein is talking about, it's rather obvious that that property has been mowing a significant amount of property of that belongs to my client. Uh probably 40 or 50 ft. It does extend beyond those trees. If you were driving down the road, you would think that those trees and that lawn belonged with this property. Now, the the pink stakes that she's talking about were not set by me. They were set by another surveyor. Uh I think it was Core Consulting out of Nightstown if I'm not mistaken that set those and I actually physically shot those pins and agreed with them with the with the property deeds within about a tenth of a foot. Um so that is two surveyor's opinions that you have right here uh from this county that have agreed on the on the exact same place for that actual property line based on the deed descriptions. Uh we don't just look at the deed for our property. We also look at every deed that touches our property and how it affects it. There's no deed overlap. There's no deed gap. It's simply a case that somebody is using more than they're supposed to. Um I personally walked nearly every inch of that property. You can see too shots on the topo. I I took that too myself, which means that I walked a significant grid. I even walked through that portion. Uh, I did not see any evidence of a well. I didn't see any evidence of uh power lines or anything like that. Of course, I can't see underground. Um, the tile that you see that we located that runs north and south, I probed that all the way up almost to her property line, uh, even into that grassy area. I do believe that that tile probably crosses onto her property and maybe even passes through it to the farm that's to the

north. I think what I would offer here tonight um on her behalf, I I just think it would be prudent if if she's willing to call like 811, the uh IUPs number to have uh underground locates marked, then I'm willing to go out and uh survey those markings. And if we find that there are utilities that are on this property, then I think we need to probably uh look at pro possibly providing easements. I would have to talk to the client about that. Um, and also um if if the well is obvious, I can uh take GPS shots on that and verify its location, see if it affects us. I didn't see anything of that nature that caused me concern when I was there.

Okay. All right. Any more questions for I just have one. Are there any designs? I You said they're custom homes. any at this point any discussion of design standards other than what the county is providing? Yeah, I I don't know what homes that this particular land owner to my knowledge is not planning to build the homes. They're planning to sell the lots for others to build the homes. So, um I do know a significant number of builders that are constantly looking for lots like that and so I don't think that will be a a real problem. Do you have any objections to the staff's recommendations or conditions um with regard to the access easement?

Oh, no. And would you have an objection to a condition that you will further explore the adjacent property and well through a survey um possible easements and other other reasonable adjustments? Yeah. No objection.

All right. Any more questions for the petitioner? No. All right. Thank you very much. So what we have then is is there any discussion before we move to that? All right. So what we would have then is the is the approval of the three lot major subdivision primary plant and the approval of a 3:1 depth to width exception. No commissioner's involvement going to do that two separate

probably would be good. Yeah, we could probably start with the uh well, we'll need the exception to approve the the plat. So, do we have any motions? Make a motion. Motion for a favorable recommendation. It would be in a Sorry, it' be an approval.

Oh, approval. approval for um the three lot major subdivision and primary plat with staff conditions. Um adding a condition that the applicant will work through the adjacent property power and well location through survey and if needed easements or reasonable adjustments as approved by the comm uh planning director.

Second. All right. It's been moved and seconded to approve the primary plat based on staff conditions and stated condition for additional survey. All those in favor? Well, I'm sorry, Don. When you're ready, you do a roll call on that. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Mr. Yes.

Okay. So, that motion carries. And then we need to address the 3:1 depth to width exception as well. Can make that if you're okay with that. A um motion to approve the 31 depth to width exception um ensuring that the conditions from the prior approval carry with a 3 to1 depth exception as well. Second question. All right.

The question I have is that you there's also an um add a access easement for the shared driveway agreement. Does that need to be part of that or should it come in after that was actually part so um I didn't read that in but it's it's the staff exception or the condition so the staff is um I I should read it add access easement and share driveway maintenance agreement for shared drive between lots two and three on secondary plat

um so that is the condition and then I added the condition that we'll work with the adjacent property owner on the power and well issues Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve the 3:1 depth ratio with staff conditions including that stated easement condition to be clarified. And we'll call the role on that as well. Yes. Miss, yes, Mr. Wridge. Yes, Miss Mr. Mr. Mr. Yes. 7.

All right, I'll approve. Thank you. All right. Can we bounce back then to uh item three, the IL zone? Did you get some additional since that was tabled? Can we get a motion to move? Oh, yep. Thank you. Second. Just one. We've got a motion to move this back. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to reopen item two that was previously tabled. All those in favor signify by saying I. Oppos. Same sign. Thank you.

Thank you. One. One of each. Hey man.

So I guess it's uh So this contradicts the minutes. Yeah. I'm like that's that's not how it should be. And just to confirm, there's nothing in this particular procedure that would have a certificate of occupancy expiration naturally. I don't think anything would just there there there are always unstated rules that we sometimes restate as part of our minutes just to have a healthy reminder. Uh runs with the petitioner is a good example. We don't always say that, but it does. Uh, but I I don't think there's anything that naturally

I guess if we went all the way back to the staff report, I wouldn't be surprised, like Rhonda mentioned, that that might have been a a staff condition. I I think it's it's somewhere in the rules or it's it's it's a condition. I think in the rules. Um, it's something that we put on all the time. So, um, and I'm not I'm trying to I read the minutes. I'm trying to figure out how those are in conflict, but um let me see if I can pull your rules up real quick.

Yeah, it's not it's not uncommon for this to be there, but it um but Scott had a good point. It didn't match what uh the motion was that he made in the minutes. Can you copy? So our course of I think what we need to decide then is so the The petition would be to make a recommendation to the commissioners as to whether or not this should revert to R1 zoning or remain ILIL or is it to actually reup the IIL. It's to to remain ILIL.

Well, it will be whatever you want it to be. Um but tonight based on the zoning the conditions for that original reszone to give a favorable recommendation tonight would be for a R1 to for it to revert to R1 zoning. If you give it an unfavorable recommendation tonight since we as planning commission are basically acting as the petitioner um then that would mean it would stay zoned IIIL. So unfavorable means I favorable means R1 and that would go to the board of commissioners.

That doesn't have to be the only option. We can say unfavorable and we could say for a period of time um they would have to apply for and obtain the permit and then we can correct the provisions within this certificate through a recommendation. Yeah. So are it it could be unfavorable with conditions and a condition being an additional time frame for this certificate of occupancy and and the permit the ILP right to clean everything up the not everything the BCA will have an issue we have to clear up as well well the BCA's issue can be resolved because they're well you have days

are they It's March. Oh, it's the site development, right? But if the ILP is issued after this is after the commissioner's meeting, then that clears that up. But there's a period of time, right, that needs to be would need to be stage.

Yeah, we need to give a date or we need to give some uh grace period before um Dennis goes out there and starts making citations. So, okay. Um, questions for Kayla or do we ready to hear from the petitioner who's probably thoroughly confused now? So, so, all right, come on up.

Do you swear affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. John Smith, SMIT.

I think I'm a little confused, but I think I know where we're at. So, I respectfully ask for a non-favorable vote as the way I understand it tonight, which just converts to what I would normally ask for. So, thank you for being here this evening on this bad night. It's very cold out. Um, Kayla mentioned a few things. I think kind of start from the beginning. As we know, we received an 80 favorable recommendation and then from the commissioners, a 300 favorable commit and then from the BZA 5 in favor. Um, so to back up a little bit, we talked about the proximity to the school and maybe I'm digging too deep here, but I just want to have some clarifications cuz it seemed like we were two weeks away from permit. We did everything we could. There's delays and I wouldn't call it delay. I would just call it takes a lot of time to get permits and get plans drawn up. So, um, Dr. Olen, this and and Renee was who's not here this evening was aware and she brought it up as well that the school gave us a letter of recommendation for the project. Um, and yes, I'm eager to get things going. So, we did some work. I think we could do it under the current zoning. And if you want to find me for making it look a lot nicer, I get it. We reszoned the house. Um, or not reszone, sorry. We kept the house in the residential zoning. It's been uh it was a dilapidated piece of junk and we made it look really nice. We have a tenant in there in there now who takes really good care of it. We have good landscaping. The fence was there before. We've updated the fence to an 8 foot high fence because the neighbors asked for it and so we came to you folks and said, "Hey, we'd love to put an 8 foot fence instead of a six foot fence." Um, we had no remmonstrators on the project. We did uh every surrounding property owner Lotus wrote us a letter of recommendation including the vesters, Janet and Rodney live to the north, Indiana Automotive who have property to the north. um County Materials who's directly east of our property as we talked before to the west there's a Ninstar now owns the sanitary treatment

that used to be the school systems there and the bus parking lot I don't think is zoned for that but it's there and so really nothing's going to go to the west of us um so we're kind of surrounded in a small niche area I saw it as an opportunity with we own Maxwell Meets um Smith Projects Apex Electric out back storage to the north of at Jackson Weld Drilling. We purchased it um after Tim passed and have really been working to improve it. So, we love the area. Uh we bought the post office. We took it from a dilapidated building to a really nice building, invest a lot of money in it. So, we've poured a lot of lot of money into Maxville, Indiana to make it look like it looks today. And so, hope that carries some weight. And you can see what we've done because we're done almost. We still have more work to do there. We still have to to cap the parking lot. We have to do striping. Um there's a few other things but the delay was through the as we call it through the civil engineering we used Jeff Pal uh landscaping architect Michael Terry who you all know um he had some confusions on some things and we came back and forth with K to get those taken care of and so it took about 3 to four months to get those plans put together which I think is pretty typical for a project. Then we went to INDOT uh went through their review process. We um got approval on that. We've installed the driveway per end dot standard just passed that ninstar at one of our meetings said we were okay with um the current septic that was there because we're on a residential home and then at the next meeting we have another representative from Ninstar who was there and said you can't have that John you have to have and you should know this and I didn't know it because we were approved at the prior meeting to have the septic so we had to spend about $25,000 bore under uh two state road 9 sorry and hook up to their sanitary put a lift station and we've done that for the house that's still residential but had a commercial septic system to it now. So all those things take time. Um we turned our information in on September 18th and then on the 22nd uh

we kind of had no control because this in a review process. So I take a little blame to say I I feel like we should have set our time frame when we turn our information in because we have no control as to how long the entity takes to review the process. So they could take a day or two months. Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying I have no control over it. So in the future, I won't make that mistake. We'll say or we'll at least try to put that condition that we say we turn our plans in. And so I asked Kayla if she could do that. And I know she's following the letter of the law uh and said, "No, that's not how that works, John. It has to have actually an ILP." So we're not doing any building permit, but I think it's still called the same thing. It's an ILP ILP improved location permit or a BU building permit. Um I ask that we don't have to go back through a development review plan. We've done that. We've met everything that's been requested or required or asked of us and so that's monotonous uh waste of your time, waste of government money um to go through that process. Be glad to answer any questions you have. Um that's really all I can say at this point. I just asked that we can move this forward because we were two weeks away from having a permit and obviously that's a bigger assessed value of the property than it was as a residential dilapidated piece of property. So get this thing online and start using it would be great.

Are there any other deadlines you're worried about? I'm sorry. Any any other deadlines you're watching or worried about that we haven't talked about tonight that we should know about?

I appreciate that. So to that point, I really don't have I have no control over when my ILP is issued. And so I actually um sent an email to Kayla and I asked if we could use the application date of 918 as a certificate of occupancy in replace of that. Right? So I have no control over the ILP being issued. So I would revert to you folks to tell me how long is it going to take to get the ILP if everything we've turned in is good as that. a week, is it a month, two months? I don't know. That's my only concern. I feel like we've completed everything that's been asked. So, I just can't control how long that review process will be.

You intend any other uses other than what was originally approved, RV boat storage, and got the house there, but that's it. Okay.

Yeah. The house was always addressed as residential and to stay residential and and it's occupied and they love it and no, we don't want to change anything. Like we said, we were two weeks away from I thought we would had the permit and then I got the call or the email that said you missed your deadline and I'm like, oh, okay. Can we use the time I turned it in versus the time that you issued the ILP? And the answer is obviously no based on how our agreement originally stated. I don't guess I fully understand the building department's process, but is it typical in a project like that with where it's just parking to do that much construction prior to the ILP being issued? Is that a typical thing? No,

you just got to jump on it. Okay. Knew the weather was coming. I have 110 employees in the county and when we have an opportunity to do something, we try to keep it rolling. Okay. Okay. We still have more work to do to the fence. We and and when we received a letter that said no more work to be completed, we stopped immediately. We haven't used the parking lot. We haven't put one single vehicle back there. We demobilized all our equipment. Okay. So, I don't know under a residential zoning if we needed a permit other than an 8ft fence versus a six foot high fence, but also zoned IIL at the time we did that.

I at the time, right? So yeah, I'm thinking ahead to the BZA to make sure we'd clean that up, which I think gets cleaned up when the ILP is issued. So I think we're it probably be fine, but we'll have to just pay attention to that. I think so. My understanding from what Kayla stated, you stated that we need to assuming we have approval here, not approval, however you want to say that, but we move forward from here, then the commissioners still need to vote on that. And if that's voted on correctly, we don't need to go to the BZA, the development. We just that's it. Is that correct? That's the BCA special. What was it? A special exception. Does it stand? Yes.

If we approve it tonight. Um Kayla, I'm going to have to defer it. Well, it would it would be I think everything with the BCA gets cleaned up if the ILP is issued. That That's why I was I can read what I received. The planning commission will move forward with the reszone from IO back to R1 as a deadline stated in the condition has not been met. There will be public notice of hearing which we have no sooner than January 28th to which you will have the opportunity to remmonstrate against the change which we're here tonight and then a planning commission will make a favorable or non-favorable recommendation on the matter. We'll proceed proceed to the commissioners for a final decision. So that's where I get that we don't need a BCA.

Yeah, I think you I think that's right. I don't think we have to involve them us so only subject to code enforcement since the right that's why I think if we if we had a motion for the unfavorable I think we might want to put something in about putting them at bay for a month or something maybe or keeping them

we'd probably want to do a couple things we'd want to um what I'm hearing is that you would want to request that we stay any fees for the prior construction prior to the um the ILP being issued. I think we would perhaps want to strike the certificate c uh certification the um reference to the certificate of occupancy. You might want to strike that and in favor put that with an ILP with a deadline unless that's required. Rhonda like this certification is goes away. So you're kind of starting new again from the reszone back to R1 and that will go the commissioners but you could put conditions on Yeah.

In case and they may say they may shoot that down. Um if if you give it unfavorable here, they may say leave it as is or don't do the reszone. I I do think we would want to preserve the requirement for the 8oot fence. We'd want to preserve the requirement for the development plan review which has already been issued, but we would want to not re-up it. Um, but maybe we strike the certificate of occupancy and then substitute in a time frame for the ILP which is probably usually we do a 90-day period. We say submitted for the ILP and then that's all. No, it's obtaining obtained Mike typically obtaining ILP. I Yeah, I think it needs to be in hand.

Um, but I mean we could put I it's at the finish line it sounds like. So if we put six months on it or something, I think you should be I hope it'd be within a week or two, but yeah. Yeah. I still don't have any control over that, right? I understand. Yeah. Kind of why we where we are today.

Yeah. You guys have uh persevered on this one for sure. I normally do, but some's harder than others, unfortunately. All right. Um, any other questions for the petition? Oh, go ahead.

His BZA special exception was issued in February of 2025. So, typically those are good for 12 months. He gets his permit by the end of February. We're still good to go with the BZA. We don't always put that in the letters, but it says in our ordinance that those special exception approvals are good for one year. I don't foresee that being an issue, just to let you know. February. Okay. So, it's not the date of this letter of March 4th then. Correct. It's February. Okay. So, just wanted to mention that. So, maybe good. So, okay. Any more questions for the petitioner? All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Do we have anybody that wants to speak in opposition or remmonstrance to a reszone to he he would have been the remmonstrator. He is is now the he is the remmonstrator. Do we have anybody wants to speak in favor? The which was the county but nobody is. Anybody? No. Good. All right. Then he wouldn't have any rebuttal period. These are always fun when we're backwards like this. Oh my gosh. The the county has she has a rebuttal period. I know. Do you want to use your rebuttal period, Kayla? What about you, Maria? No. Okay.

We haven't heard from Larry today either. Okay. With that, is there any discussion? I think I I was listening. I think that I agreed with um Lacy. We would a motion for an unfavorable we would want to maintain the 8-ft privacy fence and the use permitted to be the boat and RV storage only. I don't know about development plan. It sounds like that's been being done, but I guess it could if that stayed. high guest development plan is happening now, right? So you're I mean it would it would be moot, I suppose. So

my my only thought is I'm wondering what Janine's thinking because it looked like it passed two to one by the commissioners. She was one of the yeses, her and Gary who was on here. So I'm just curious what Janine's thinking. I would send it forward to the commissioners with I can make a motion. We're

interested. unfavorable recommendation and in the original certification preserving bullet one regarding the 8ft privacy fence preserving bullet two regarding the boat and RV storage with the exception of the final sentence swapping out a certificate of occupancy requirement for an ILP to be obtained within a six-month time frame from date of certification the replacement certification and then maintaining bullet three uh with regarding the development plan I would also add um a condition that All fees will be stayed during the pendency of um sort of this application. I think that's all I got.

Second. Is that fees or fines? Fees or fines. Okay. Second on the fees or fines.

All right. We've got a motion for an unfavorable recommendation to the board of commissioners with the stated conditions from the original certification letter and the added condition of the stay on the fees and fines. We'll have a roll call when ready. Whenever you're ready. Roll call. Yep. Yes.

Mr. Yes. Mr. Long. Yes. Miss. Yes. Yes. Yes. Mr. F. Yes. All right. All approved. When's the commissioner meeting? Do you know what the date is on that? Okay. It's probably online. Yeah. You have a question? Okay. Yeah. Come on. Yeah. Commissioner meeting be before February 28th. Okay. Yeah. It's probably going to be the first. It's either the 3rd or 17th. Yeah. 1st or the 13th. February. But call the auditor's office or check with K.

Thought we might address it tonight if it was after the fourth February 28th. So All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That concludes our hearing items tonight. So that move us down to other business and we have the fee schedule to take a look at. probably gets Scott Waldridge excited.

Yeah, man. Before we get into the um fee schedule itself, I just wanted to mention real quick that as part of this year's kind of expense tracking, we did do a little exercise where every month we looked at our expenses versus our revenue. And what we came up with is that as a department uh we are lo not losing per se, but we are costing the county um about $12,000 a month. So those are expenses that our department is acrewing but not covering with our own revenue. So not to say the planning department's a cash cow, but we do like to charge fees that cover our administrative expenses. So, I would say that signals that there is room to potentially increase fees to cover those costs. I thought you might be interested in seeing that little presentation and how that uh came up. Now, since we did raise fees in 2024, I will also point out that we are costing the county um on average $2,800 less each month than we were in 2024. So, an increase in fees in 2024 is definitely apparent in our month-to-month um and how we're uh how our pro I guess a profit loss statement.

Can you share that with the council and commissioners in an email or something so that they're all everyone's aware besides just me and Janine? Yes. Thank you. Does that in does that include all um submitt fees like for instance that submitt fee that came from surge development? Is that really okay? Yeah, cuz that was a substantial one. In fact, I can go back to the month where we collected that and you can pretty clearly actually the profit loss.

It's the month where we actually um yeah, made some money, which was February. That's when they filed. So, you can see that pretty clearly. That was a I believe a $16,000 PUB filing fee. Okay. All right, I'm turning it over to Maria.

Which one of your 2024? Do you collect the uh impact fees for parks or are those collected by the So that's one of the fees that um I'll let Kayla touch base on that.

Okay. So, beginning on February 6th, I believe, uh we will be um we will be collecting uh for the parks board essentially um a $412 parks uh and recreation impact fee. So that will be collected at our desk um in the same way that we collect planning and building department fees all under one charge. We will now also collect a $412 parks and recreation impact fee which with each new dwelling unit permit. So that would be any one of uh the m 108 multif family permits that we issued last year or any one of the what two maybe 200 new single family homes. So multif family or single family. Each one of those units will also have to pay a $412 parks and recreation fee, which will then go into an impact fee fund that can be spent on parks and recreation uh items by the parks board.

Is that is it I'm I'm looking towards Rhonda because I know she sends us emails every mo every week. Is that going to get is that going to get kicked out with the current legislator legislature that we may have an issue with the park fee? Um right now that's resolved. Okay. Um at least for our ordinance that we passed on impact fees that they had made some changes that would affect ours retroactively and we would have to include some new language and there would be limitations and now they've made that prospective. Okay. It's okay right now as it is in the bill, but that bill has some a lot of other things in it that's not good.

Okay. Yeah. Um so in your packets you'll see a copy of our current fee schedule. Um if you want to turn to the second page um where it says reinspections on the back of the first page I apologize. So under reinspection if you look under the IOP fee which is for the planning department u we currently don't have any fees for that. Um so what we are proposing is that the planning department um adopt the fees that the building department has in place um as the fees for our department. Um this would just help us cover uh when we have to go out and do reinspections. Um for example, when we do landscape inspections, um typically those don't pass the first time, so we're always having to uh reschedu another inspection to go inspect um once they install whatever is missing. Um if there's a monument sign that doesn't have the landscaping and we have to go reinspect it after the initial initial one. Um this helps us cover that cost and that trip that we're making out um to inspect those projects. So on the second page under major subdivision um there is a category for single family law primary and secondary. Uh we are proposing to um strike that out. Um that is not something I think we typically use in the um department. So there is not really a need to have that um section in our fee schedule.

And then moving on to variances. Um in your packets you'll also see a little um description of how um the current fees are laid out and what we're proposing. So currently four variances in all zoning districts. There are um a fee of $400 plus um 55 for any additional variance on the same petition um for all zoning district. What we are proposing is to divide um the variances into two categories where we have the residential, institutional and park into one category for the fee of $450 plus $100 additional for a variance on this same petition. And then um a second category for the commercial and industrial with the fee of $550 plus 100 for any additional variance on the same petition. Um in this packet it kind of just talks about the breakdown of what goes into when a petition is filed and um all the work that goes into it. So um it talks about the pre-filing meeting. It can depending on the type of project um it can range from 30 minutes to 2 hours. Um that includes um review and research of the property. Um if they have if the property has a history, whether it be like zoning violations or if it has gone to one of the board meetings before, um that covers all that as well as time to explain the process to the potential petitioners. Um more than likely these petitioners haven't gone through this process. So we are taking um extra time to explain to them, walk them through um up until the point they are filing um and answering any questions. And then as well as just discussing any alternative um or potential outcomes in those pre-filing meetings. Um and then once the petition is filed and we're in intaking the petition that approximately takes an

hour. Um this includes to review the application completeness and accuracy when it's um being typed into our system as well as um ensuring all the required documents are being submitted as processing the fees and generating our receipts u for our accounts as well as for the petitioner. Uh we also provide a list of surrounding land owners and walks them through the public notice proc process um and ensuring any questions whether it be for the public notice or um addressing any other questions that the petitioner may have. Um and then it moves into the meeting preparation. This can range anywhere from 2 to four hours um depending on the petition. That's why we kind of separated the two categories because residential and institution and park doesn't really take take us as long as commercial and industrial um petition does. So in this section essentially it covers um creating and managing the physical and digital petition files, scanning and uploading the documents to our county um document manager system. Um that just is like our one drive folder and our county website. um doing research, touch and base with other departments, making sure that if a recommendation doesn't affect um if we're recommending approval or deny doesn't affect um other departments and then um kind of puts the petitioner in a difficult spot if um whatever we're recommending um doesn't comply with their standards. Um and then drafting the staff report and recommendation. Um and then moving on to public hearing and board presentation. We attend the meeting, give the staff report. Um prior to that, we might have some questions um from the petitioner or um remmonstrance or people who want to speak of support answering questions for that. um

responding any questions that the board may have. It clarifies standards and or ordinances and staff recommendation. And then the final thing that was taken in consideration for the breakdown was um postmeating processing. It takes anywhere from an hour to two hours. Uh depending if the BCA approves or deny it, um if there's approval letters that need to be drafted, any commitments um that need to be drafted as well as coordinating for legal review of those documents. Does this cover the cost of our employees? So if you if you do the residential and it's 450 plus 100, look at from a county council perspective, is is this a net zero?

No. Then we need to get to a net zero. That'd be ideal. So that would include, you know, the hourly rates of everybody, the BCA type fee, you know, we pay them a fee. the uh the benefits. Don't forget the benefits, which is pretty big for most people. And then also, you gota think about the attorney, paying the attorney to be there. And so it'd be ideal to be net zero because if it's not net zero for variances, then guess who's paying for it? The taxpayers. Everybody else is chipping in to pay for that variance to be done. Could we work with with you to kind of help us, I guess, figure this out? Yeah, problem. We're planners, not math people. Well, I guess that though, how does it compare?

You not not that I not that we have to match other counties, but doesn't it com does it compare to other counties?

Well, I've always felt we were low. I mean, looking at your justification, I was kind of thinking base filing fee should be $1,000 probably. Um, so looking at other counties, um, we're relatively, I would say, in the middle of it. Um, Hendricks County charges 3.45, Henry County charges 500, Marian County charges 579. Um, and then Rush County charges 220, and then Johnson County charges 200. Because what you don't want to do if to get to the net zero, I mean, you'd have to be over $1,000 probably to start, but then you make yourself a little unattractive to development when you start.

Well, this is for the this for BCA variances. They're already built. Let me see uh row one what the categories are for each of those. Just scroll up just a little bit. There we go. Commercial, industrial, exception. Got it. Yeah. perhaps the to cut the difference here um and to also encourage feel like they're in the three to four range and that's what they're proposing

there there might be a policy position we can take uh what we don't want and I I was just looking at my notes we've had special exceptions with seven variances eight variances perhaps the increase from 55 to 100 is not aligned to our policy um it's just not a fit if it has to have that many variances. Um, so maybe that's one way we can, you know, both I don't think it's going to at the end of the day make that much money. Um, because it'll discourage variance bond variance, but I do think that's a policy perspective we should have in the

VCA. I I agree because it's, you know, to discourage some of these variances because some of the variances it's like, yeah, why not? It only cost me 55 bucks to do it or 100 bucks to do it. Why not throw it in, you know? And then yeah, it's it looks like everybody else is doing it too. So

is there um when we talk about time extension um if if if a petition or not tonight I think we we that was our application but if there's a continuence request that is administrative work that is our time that that that there is do we charge for a a petitioner requested continuence? It should be I haven't been charged for a what? Petition. A petition or requested continuence. So currently we don't have any fees for that. Um and I don't necessarily think we discussed that. Um because it's a time requirement. Yeah.

And and it is again that's a policy decision that we could make through fees to say please have your package ready to go when it comes before a board like this because sometimes we can only take so many applications.

Mh. Um, and then we hold that space. There's a continuence. That space could have gone to someone else in some time frame. So maybe there's a new continuence related. Um, I also think there might be something we can consider on special exceptions. Again, a policy item that um, if we have to go find an expired issue on a special exception, there's some sort of a fee associated with that. because right now we got to go find this stuff and there's no fee associated with it and we're approving these. I don't know Mike thoughts from the BCA on that. It it it it would be in kind to the running violations, which I'll have a comment on here in a minute, or running fines if they're doing construction before obtaining a work uh permit, or running fines if um cons construction continues after a stop work order has been issued. Very similar. Okay. And the only other comment that I'd have on those running fines is that we've run into some issues that those are capped out and it's like so what? 300 bucks.

So what? So yeah, they're small. That's nothing for some of these businesses. That's nothing. So we need the ability, and Rhonda probably knows this best. We need the ability in some of these situations to um to have the fines do what they should, which is discourage in, you know, behavior that or activities that we don't that are against our Yep.

Yeah. The one that comes to mind is we had a discussion when we had a we had a boat storage issue and we discussed making the fine like per boat, not for the site. And I don't know if we really legally could do that or not. So that's the type of thing that would be helpful to let the give the BCA some teeth. I guess this isn't per day. It's just

uh it gets to per day, doesn't it? Um at one point I think it would. And we did that with that boat one. Is it I think we I think the fifth one came or something or the fourth one and we did it like per day of violation or something like that. Um we had we thought we could Yeah. We weren't sure, but we said what we would do is we would fix it in the next iteration of the finding. And that's what probably do now.

Yeah. But that that whole section could probably get Yeah. some policy stuff and then some clarification on what the BCA can and can't do with those. Like you said, maybe they're all they should all be per day. We should also reserve the right to make changes to this um upon UDO discussions, which we'll hear about here in a second. But if we change things like categories of special exceptions or uses or other things come up in the UDO that would need to have a fine accompany, we would probably just reserve the right to make changes to this. Yeah. To align with that. Do we have a fee for the sign, the yard sign? Do we just share those with people?

No. Um we mentioned potentially um because we were also kind of in the process of trying to design a sign that is I guess serves its purpose cuz currently right now um it hasn't. So we are slowly in the works of that. Um once we have something ready for you guys, we'll present it. Okay. So the sign's not working too well right now. Um there was issues with the QR code. Um so I've been working with um John Milurn to figure out how we can get that resolved. Okay. So, is that what you needed? Some direction.

We could probably use a little bit more. So, get that. Well, yeah, it would be interesting to work more with the council. I don't know who on the council would be able to jump in and help with that, but just to understand what they can. It's just trying to get it to I mean you're not never get the net zero but the more we can then they show it it's going to be easier in the future when she comes and says I need another you know because I know they've had a lot of issues with this we need raises on this person we need more people it's much easier when you can show us the data and everybody goes oh they're they're almost net neutral they're essentially paying for themselves well of course we're going to add somebody

well and look at how they're saving I mean you look at because she showed how it went from 2022 24 before the fees and then now the fees and That's very important. That's why I asked her to send it to all the council and commissioners so they can all see the the good work they're doing and and how they're, you know, they're essentially starting to pay for themselves. Yeah. And you can keep bringing those fees up to get to that point. But I just Well, you won't get you'll never get to that point. But at least every time you bring a petition in for the BZA, then you would say, "Okay, they're going to pay for our time. It's not going to be supplemented by the the taxpayers of Hankai County."

Yeah. I just think it's interesting that we always try to compare to other counties and we do that with salaries. But then we look at the same counties we compare salaries to. Their fees are also low. So they're they're not we compare them to all kinds of I mean we have some people want us to compare to Henry because if the or Shelby like like some people want to be compared to Shelby when it comes to hey I want um I want more money for our uh our trash people because you know they have they have a trash you know they get they make money off that. You can't compare it's hard to compare sometimes. Bartholomew is the big county

and we use that for sheriff and because of similar size and then sometimes we look at Hendricks and Hamilton and and a lot of times we're looking just to see where our our employees would go else they could go elsewhere and where do they live some some of them live in Henry County so it's like okay we got to at least pay more than Henry County so we look at different counties of near us geographically and then also similar size as usual right and I think how many did you have additional appropriations last year too. Yes, we did. How many did you have? For our planning budget specifically, it was just the legal fees and some thousand this year. That was an addition all of it.

I mean, I guess in theory, you can make these fees anything you want until the commissioners start getting complaints, right, from developers that say, "Well, I'm not going to come here because you charge too much." But if it's it's that neutral, then I think they would understand. Okay, it's the time they're taking. I mean, you're not you're not making money off of it. No, it's just essentially paying for the time of our employees. In a way, I kind of think that's kind of a slippery slope to go down. Okay?

Because in my opinion, that when we start that process that we're paying for everything, then why am I paying property taxes? Why am I paying for the county tax if I have to pay for everything I have to go get? So, if I want to go to the surveyor, I got to pay to go to the surveyor. I want to go to the building. I have to go pay here, too. Oh, I need to go up to the treasur. I need to pay for my I have to pay every county place I go, but I also have to pay overall tax and I got to go pay gas tax and then I have to pay for this. I have to pay. Next thing you know, I'm taxed on every single thing I do. And but I'm still paying for those. So, I think we can go too far with doing that. at some point either my overall tax, my property tax goes up and I pay for those services or I have to pay for them individually. And I understand there's there's a debate there. How much do I have to do? Because some of the stuff I mean I don't want to pay for somebody else wanting to put a room addition on their house for them to look at it. I could care less whether they got that room addition. However, I also feel like there may be times that we have to work together as a community and if we're going to continue looking at it. So, I just want us to be really careful with what we do and how we do it as opposed to just saying I want to raise fees and get to a point where it doesn't cost me anything. Me, I don't want to have to pay for a parks fee. I could care. I've grown up without parks. Do I really care if we have a parks department? No. But now we do. and now I'm going to have to pay for it if I want to do anything. I don't know. I just don't necessarily think that was a good move. And I'm not

Well, I voted no on that point, but I know. But I'm I'm just saying that's how I feel about I think things at some point it goes. I think it's good that what everybody said is you take it and you say, "Okay, we'll take a look to see the net neutral part and then we will also look to see what the other counties are charging and try to find middle ground. What happens if the net neutral parts lower that you know then you guys have a different decision? I I don't think they're far off. I think it's probably pretty close to the number they're asking for right now. I bet it's fairly close to that.

I was telling Janine I I was cleaning out my dad's shop because I mean it's now my shop, but I found a paper and it was the receipt for his building permit for the accessory building. $5 in 1976. And now I look at it and it's like $225 for that same building 76 to now. I mean, is $200, $220 an increase enough to get to that point? Probably would be, you know, for for inflation and so forth. But that's the piece of it that we I just want us to be cautious with. And and like you said, are we discouraging development or are we creating by having those fees real high somebody doing some work and trying to get by without getting a permit because they can't afford it, but they need to do some type of work to their home or their business and they're trying to slide by because the fees are too high. What do we do? So now do we let the building get bad? what you know how does that where is that balance I guess is what I want us to be careful cautious with and I don't that's my where I sit with reading these over the last few days when you guys would send them to us okay why why do we have this where does it go what's the purpose why are we looking at it so my sock go on next

that well it does make sense I mean that you know the taxes should mean something, I guess. So, yeah, it makes it that does make sense. But when we the other part of it that's always on my mind is we go looking for we go to the council asking for raises to keep our employees paid similar to other counties and they say no because I don't disagree with what you're saying there either. I just want us to be cautious and really consider all that we're doing as opposed to just raising them just to be raising raising fees just because Yeah. Um planning department's never been a

cash cow anyway. No. Can

I just tell you a little bit procedurally like some things I as I was digging into this? So the building department's fees and the planning department's fees are kind of handled by two different processes. So um in the in our Hancock County code for building fees, it says that the commissioners are to review those annually and set those exact wording and that and that's done by resolution. And then the process for planning department fees. Um the Indiana code says that the plan commission may may establish a schedule of reasonable fees to defay the cost um administrative cost connected with and then it goes through all the items. Um, so and then you look at our Hancock County Code, which the process, just so you know, is um the planning director shall review the fee schedule annually and bring any necessary revisions to the attention of the plan commission and the board of county commissioners. So that doesn't mean, Kila, that you would have to bring it every year, but it's like if you you you in your office review and then if you think something does need to be addressed, you bring it. And then um the plane commission basically makes a recommendation to the commissioners and then the commissioners ultimately set the fee schedule through an ordinance. So it's a little tricky. I think in 2024 I have this resolution where everything was just done together in one resolution by the commissioners and so there really is kind of two different um paths to go on that. Okay.

I know we're watching some pending legislation, too, which could, you know, curb our ability to set fees. All right. So, she'll bring more information next month, it sounds like. Okay. The other piece of that that I'm always curious about though that was in your is the legal the legal fees seem to what always gets us, right? So, I don't know if there's any discussion. I know that we've got that to approve tonight as well, but that that's a budget item that needs to probably be addressed.

You want to jump to that right now? Uh to the legal services agreement. Yeah, we sure can. Did I give you each a copy of It was emailed, but I don't It's in the packet. Yeah. Rhonda, I'll let you explain this if you'd like. Well, I know I think Greg coordinated with you on this and sent this over. So, I um I work for Greg. This is for contract with Brandon Morlock. So, he may have had a conversation with you. Um I'm I work on contract for Greg. So

all right. And so the um let's see, article five states that the contractor or his associate, so Brandon Morlock, um shall be reimbursed by the count contracting agency, the plane commission, um in the amount of $250 per hour. So that's the hourly rate that we pay for legal services. where this where this kind of comes into play, where it became so evident to me is one, that's a really good per hour rate, you attorney people, by the way. So, well, I I charge less I charge less than that hour.

I can't do it. But no, but Greg Morlock's got tremendous experience and I think it's a good and the only thing only thing I've ever said to Kayla is that you maybe you should have a bidding process sometime every couple years do a bidding process. That's it. That's my only comment I've ever made on that. Otherwise, I haven't had an issue.

Right. But I guess it be I guess what I was going where I was going with that though is that it became evident to me with the surge development project that that adds up even though that's a re very reasonable rate, it adds up really fast. And so a a project like that that had a $16,000 filing fee seems like a lot, but it wasn't in the end because it was all spent, right? and and that wasn't 100% planning. That's also economic development. That's transportation. There's other things that are being reviewed. Um and just stuff that's not really planning. So,

the price tag last year for uh was it 225 last year or had we already jumped up to 250 the fee for the rate? Yeah. Or do you mean the overall amount? Oh, just 225 an hour. I remember it was 225 or 250. I think it was two. Yeah, I was thinking 235, but that's probably it had slowly started coming up from 200 an hour. I think either I think last year was 225 an hour

and you increased your budget on the legal loan. I have not figured out how much to increase my legal budget yet to precipitate all of the you unforeseeable things we run into every year, but um but we keep trying to correctly budget. Well, you you were successful in some additional appropriations, right? And you were able to push some things off to the RDC as well. So, yes, I was able to take about $11,000 in legal expenses that were related to redevelopment to the RDC and have them pay for those. Okay. Not have those additional appropriations because it doesffect our bond. Right.

Okay. So, we're looking for an an approval of uh commissioners, a recommendation, right, to the commissioners to accept this legal services agreement at 2. Everything else I think was the same. Just changed the rate. Right. Did this go to Binky yet? Not yet. Okay. Forward that on to him. Perfect. Any more discussion? Any motions?

I move we uh forward this on to the county commissioners with recommendation. Uh caveat that it is uh approved also by our county attorney. Second. Okay. Moved in a second and to forward this with a favorable recommendation to the board of commissioners with the caveat that it is prior approved by the commissioner's attorney. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. What else did we have? Confidentiality agreement. Oh, you want to b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b bounce back up to I got you out of schedule there. UDO update. Sure.

Just add one item to add in and that is a draft RFP for a UDO light. Um, I've been talking to, um, Mike, Lacy, and Renee, um, here over the past month, uh, to get this kind of somewhat in line. Um, guess I'll turn it over to to Mike now to to talk about that more um, and how you guys want to proceed.

Well, I guess to take you all the way back to kind of relive the whole thing. So the UDO became a really large endeavor and it got um to the point that it was going to be I wouldn't say impossible but extremely difficult to put that document in front of this board to be digested to make a reasonable recommendation because we we went so far with it with our consultant that we were rewriting the county zoning ordinance essentially completely not I mean not completely but there was enough there that it was going to be really hard for us individually you would have to it's such a different format that it was very hard to look and say, okay, what was it before and what is it now? And so that got really hard to to digest and I felt like I wasn't going to be able to make a reasonable recommendation to the commissioners and then expect the commissioners to do that same thing, be able to sit there and compare it. Our consultants had a lot of trouble trying to create these sidebyside comparison documents that we asked for. We talked to several different consultants about that. Bill Spalding went on a fishing expedition trying to figure out if there were other people out there that could do such a thing. Kayla took a crack at it and we finally arrived arrived at this idea that maybe what we could first do is take our current subdivision control ordinance and our current zoning ordinance and put it into a UDO format. So essentially, we've got a reformat. It's not a change in anything. It's just a new format of the existing stuff. There will probably be a couple of tweaks and that's in the RFP. There will be a couple of things that'll have to change because they won't fit nicely and and tidy in there. Um, so what we will be looking to review here and send to the commissioners will be a more digestible thing that uh is just a

reformat that allows the commissioners then to be able to easily digest it and share that with their constituents and make sure that everybody is clear on what has just happened. From there, we can take chunks and start to make changes in our normal process of resoning. So, just like if we wanted to change something about the R1 reszone or zoning ordinances, we would change that through a hearing, send it to commissioners, they would vote on it, change it. So, that's sort of the the concept. And what I've learned, and Kayla has helped coach through this as well, is that really a lot of it wasn't too difficult to digest, but what we were starting to do is we were changing zoning districts, classifications. we were changing what they were called and that's where it really got hairy. So I think what we're asking these consultants now to do is reformat it and give us a list of what are some of the hot items that we should look at today. So in my mind, what I think where we're headed is with these then the consultants will help us with this is they'll put this document together and they will say maybe as a part of this you can go ahead and make an update to accessory dwellings or you can make an update to home occupations. Those are a couple things that we struggle with now that are pretty easily changed. So maybe we'll do that all in one process and then we will also get a list from them of what would be the next chunks to try to address and things that maybe we don't that we even need to address and there will probably be processes where we talk we have more community open houses and things. It's like do we really need to change our industrial zoning? do we need to change and make layers of agricultural zoning and things like that and let them help us with that to put together what are

the next chunks that we would try to reszone. So it could be that we do two or three changes, I guess, or maybe we only do one, maybe we do 15. I don't know. The consultants will help us figure that out. But ultimately, in the end, where I think everybody was getting pretty uncomfortable was we were starting to get to the point where we were going to make such a large change that we didn't feel like we were being responsible to make sure that everybody really knew what they were approving. So, we're going to drag this process out and allow us to make sure that everybody knows exactly what we're reading and what we're doing. And um I spent a weekend trying to read that draft UDO and that's when it kind of appeared to me. I was like, I I don't think that it's fair to ask any of you to try and read this thing and understand it. And um it was hard to to create I tried to create a digestible side by side myself and I I really couldn't do it. So

and I think it was rolled out kind of I took a beating from

it was really hard for people to come in under and understand it. Um, what I was seeing is that there were certain groups that had issues with different things that we even changed in the draft, but they never that there wasn't a way to communicate that to them. They never knew that it we fixed it, you know, they were still just kind of complaining about it even after it was fixed, you know. So, that's another thing that's in the RFP is to help with some of the communication and the outreach and make videos and things like that to try and make these changes. but in easier forms. This first thing will be a pretty big move. It'll be a pretty big lift to create the formatted UDO. Um, but in theory, we won't be changing the zoning. We'll just be reformatting our current subdivision control and our current zoning ordinance with possibly a couple little policy things. But the other thing that Rhonda realized that we were missing some legal things like tracking of statutes and things like that in that ordinance. So we needed we need to address that as well and that's that's in the RFP as well. So this is going to go out to I think she's got a list of firms that can help us with that. I think one's already looked at it. You also had an attorney that you are maybe going to send it to that might be able to to do such an exercise. So, I think what she's looking for us to do tonight is to give her the the nod to go ahead and distribute that RFP for proposals that um we could then send to the commissioners for their approval. And we're looking at probably that something that's in the 20 it's probably a 20 to $30,000 thing. Is that kind of what we were thinking? Sounds like from what we're hearing. Okay. and and included that scope would be recommending process for approval as

well and yeah and overseeing those almost like years ago we had the um presentations on the sidewalk plan sort of a a consultant or third party type of present um not only generating the documents but also presenting at these types of Yeah, I think that's included still.

I think that was in there, right? That they would give us they would lead us through some of that community involvement and some process of how to get the input and make sure that everything is transparent. Yeah, that's why Kayla had the idea. She knows an attorney that's a AICP planner and an attorney. So, she thought that might be kind of a interesting mind to help lead through something like that from a legal and planning perspective. Maybe when you're two things, maybe you're a little spread, but I don't know. We'll we'll see how the proposals come back. So unless you all hate the idea of a starting with a reformat of the existing zoning and moving forward with some changes in modernizing our zoning. So, that's the other thing. That's what started the whole UDO process is we really have a very antiquated zoning ordinance and that's really what's causing a lot of our issues like um the BZA having a full agenda every single month which I did some research on other surrounding counties and a lot of the counties around us that have newer zoning ordinances and use oos they're not even meeting every month their ba ba zoning have to meet every month because the zoning ordinance is already addressing everything that people really want to do on their property. So they don't have to and our BCA is approving special exceptions with layers of five to seven variances on top of it, you know. So we just we need a modernization and the UDO is the the modern um format of of zoning and they are easy much easier to use than trying to track down all of the various ordinances and resolutions and the subdivision control ordinance even seems to be lost in space

somewhere here in the building it sounds like too so it's not even readily accessible so so with that I think we just if you've you distributed that or was that just to definitely email it out okay so we could do that and then give her the the go ahead um next month. Or if you're comfortable with this direction tonight, we could give her the go ahead to go ahead and seek the the proposals and then we could just review proposals next month.

You guys want to read it tonight? Read it at your leisure. have it electronic. Okay. I'd like to have it sent, but I I trust your opinion and your values as far as looking at that. And if that's what you guys that have been working with say that that's a good thing, then I will go with with that with getting it started. Doesn't mean we have to award it to anybody, but we can at least get that information in. So, that's true. we could go ahead and submit it and then if you have any concerns with the RFP, we can send those to Kayla and she can send out an amendment to the RFP if if need be. RFP

is there is that's kind of the next question. Is there a spot that you guys would like me to post that? Um whether it be on the county website or whatever you guys want. Gary recently started using bid prime.

Okay. U because we had done and it wasn't uh we had no response. So we did some uh research at the commissioner's conference and uh Deborah Karns and her office uh can help you that that's why I couldn't remember the name of it. Gary told me about it and I couldn't remember what it was called. Bid prime. So unless there's any objection, we'll just go ahead and have you send that RFP out and then um copy the planning commission and copy um is it okay to copy Gary McDaniel as well on that. All right, that takes us to Shirley interlocal agreement. I

think this is still in between the town attorney and Rhonda Wendell. Am I correct? I was told at 4:00 that Julie had not got back with her. There's your answer. Thank you. That's our update. So, Julie needs to get back with her. conflict of uh interest form.

Those are Dawn to you.

They were in the packet. I think they're here. What I guess disclose actual potential conflicts of interest. I don't if you know of anything right now. I guess you could put that on, but I think normally you just make the decision based on uh what you see on the agenda. All right. I think I is that effect. Yeah.

Are we talking about this here tonight? Okay. Yeah. Um, you should have received an email from me yesterday with the findings of fact from Michael Friscorn. Did that did that go to this group or to the BZA? BZA. This is a BCA thing. Yeah. True. I think you sent it to the BCA. Okay. Maybe I maybe I am out of line here. Um,

okay. I don't know. I don't think we have to act on that. That's BZA. I think I think I'm losing it. Um, okay. Anyway, we will give you an update on this though because Okay. Um so the board of zoning appeals uh there's a lawsuit going on and so as we talked about legal fees um of one of the examples of why some of the things that we've had recently at least in the last couple of years we've had some lawsuits. So um this is if you want to read through those um findings of fact that the BCA will be considering. So that's at on Thursday, but just to reference um so you those of you that are on the BCA can get a head start reading it if you um hadn't hadn't looked at my email yet, but you guys don't mind. I have one little tiny update that I'm kind of proud of that I just wanted to give you as we close out tonight. Um we updated our zoning district descriptions, our lot standards and land uses um which is a form a packet that we used to hand out um at the counter um it had just gotten a little bit outdated and we had some edits and things that weren't lining up. So we did a refresh over December January and have now linked them to our planning website. So, first thing you see kind of a I think it's says quick guide in caps and there is a link to this document which is nothing new. It's just a a quick reference from our zoning ordinance and it includes a description of all of our zoning districts, what their intents are, and then as you go through it, um, it also features the part of the zoning district that we most frequently reference, which is our lot standards table. It talks about the minimum lot sizes, lot widths, uh, minimum house sizes, building setbacks,

things like that for each of the zoning districts. Um, and then it also has our land use table just pasted in here. This these are the 90% of the time this is what we talk to the general public about. This is where we start. So, if we can just hand them this or say click on that link on our website, we're off to a head start.

Um, I also added our accessory use table onto the back page. This was not on our old one. it was kind of buried back in the development standards chapter. So now it's just right here on the last page if you have questions about accessory uses. Um it's right here. So anyway, we thought it was kind of cool and uh wanted you guys to know about it. Right. I think that's everything. Anybody got anything else they want to chat about? Motion to adjurnn? Second. All right. Move and seconded to adjurnn. All in favor signify by saying I. I oppose. Same sign. See you next month.