Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

I never remembered to turn back on.

you

All right, sorry for a little delay there this evening. I'd like to call our meeting to order, the May 26th meeting of the Hancock County Area Plan Commission. All right, we ask that you please turn off all your cell phones and electronic devices this evening. Any other noisemakers that you might have? Our first order of business will be the adoption of last month's meeting minutes that were submitted electronically.

I move to approve the March 24, 2026 minutes. Second.

All right, then moved and seconded to approve the March 26th meeting minutes submitted electronically. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Signed.

I move to approve the April 21st, 2026 minutes. Second. All right, it's been moved and seconded to approve the... Janine, you were absent.

Oh, I was absent. That's right. That's all right.

All right. Who seconded then? Oh, all right. Thank you. All right. If you weren't here, don't vote. But all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Approve those meeting minutes. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Looks like this evening we have a full board. All nine members are here this evening. You can look to the left side of the agenda if you'd like to see who is appointing each of these members and corresponding name tags up here on the front. I'd like to advise everybody that your testimony this evening is being recorded and taken under oath. We request that anyone that wishes to speak do so only when called upon. We ask that you come forward, face our attorney to my left, to be sworn in before speaking. All person speaking will be asked to give their full name for our record and please spell your last name so that we have accurate meeting minutes. I also want to make sure that you pull that microphone down so sometimes they don't pick them up all the way. And if you ever have trouble hearing any of us, just kind of raise your hand and ask us to speak up. Kayla will be giving a staff report and then the petitioner will be given 10 minutes for their presentation. That is then followed by a collective 10 minutes for all remonstrators to speak. We offer five minutes for government officials and then another five minutes for the petitioner's rebuttal. Our attorney will give each party speaking two-minute and one-minute warnings before the time expires. We ask that all persons this evening conduct themselves in a civil manner, and if you are unable to do that, we reserve the right to ask you to leave. This meeting is being recorded and streamed for public viewing, and 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.

Mr.. President somebody's I've been told that they're having problems on the YouTube somebody's phones near the mic Near the microphone typically if your phone's near a mic it causes feedback on YouTube so All right, that's all so throw all the phones in the trash I

all right with that we'll move on to uh we have uh four hearing items this evening we'll move on to item number one add via estates

Advia Estates is represented here tonight by the property owner Jeremiah Hammond and MJ Gibson Land Surveying LLC. This property is zoned R1 and is located approximately at 4500 North Country Mill Drive, just north of Greenfield. This is a primary flat for 22 lots, residential. This was continued from April in order to allow the petitioner to find a location for the stub streets for future development potentially to lead to more desirable areas for the neighboring property owners and also to meet the required block length, which they have done. They did appear back at the technical committee in early May and all technical comments have been addressed. You've got a copy of the most recent plat here and you can see that now there is a single stub street that goes south into the field to the south so that for future development there may be a cross access point There's also a T at the end of Country Mill Drive where there was a curve potentially giving emergency access into the backside of some homes up along State Road 9. And the gate toward the cul-de-sac has been removed because there were concerns about that as well. So no gate now. I also worked with Mike Gibson and the highway engineer to make sure that the road was acceptable for the highway department standards. I'm gonna turn it over to Mike Gibson and Mr. Hammond now, unless any of you have any questions.

Any questions for the staff?

All right.

David Gilman is representing the petitioner this evening. Okay. And my staff recommendation is favorable.

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. Please state your name, spell your name.

For the record, my name is David Gilman. My last name is spelled G-I-L-M-A-N. As Kayla mentioned, there were several commission members that expressed a preference to go ahead and continue their primary approval of this plat so what we did not leave a street layout as an unresolved issue and uh... so taking that uh... direction from the commission we did sit down with kayla and gary uh... to discuss the sub streets and the layout of are are twenty two lots One of the things that came out of that meeting was to create a curve linear design. Instead of having the long straight east-west street, we wanted to put a little reverse curve in it for kind of slow down traffic speed and also it does help with curb appeal. So that was one good thing that came out of that. And then we were able to eliminate the Stubb Street to the north, which was a concern with the property owner to the north, and that person is here to speak on that. But we did agree to put a Stubb Street to the south, which has no access to it presently except off of 9. That stub street will have a paved section of about 100 feet so that will allow plenty of room for school buses, fire trucks, anything like that to turn around. If you remember that property to the north where we removed the stub Street already has three stub streets to it on the 23 acres so we filled the intent of the ordinance for connectivity between subdivisions as well served for that property to the north with country mill and then our property providing that connectivity to our adjoiner to the south and We did offer some self-imposed commitments that are covenants and restrictions that sort of increase the square footage of the houses. We're going to do an upgraded entrance for the Country Mill Estate sign. We have no vinyl on our buildings as one of the architectural standards. We will have a landscape mound on our northern boundary. We will have an HOA that will be responsible for maintenance of our new sign at our entrance as well as some of the improvements on our property including our detention basins We think that having that meeting, the collaborative meeting with the staff, was very beneficial. As a result, we have several neighbors from Country Mill that like to speak on my time to support this, and I also believe the adjoiner, the representative of the adjoining property to the north, also would like to use some of my time to speak in support of our proposed primary plat. We would agree with the conditions that staff has recommended in their staff report. And with that, we'll answer questions that you have of us, and I'd like to save some of my time for others to speak.

Thank you.

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?

Yes, I do.

Please state your name and spell your last name.

Sharon Witte, W-I-T-T-E. Go right ahead. I'd just like to say that on behalf of Country Mill that we are totally in agreement with having this subdivision built. Jeremiah, I've worked with him. He's going to beautify our front entrance, which is going to... help his, since they're going to be coming through Country Mill on the access part of it. Also, he's told us that he's going to put up to an eight-foot berm on the property that is to the south of Country Mill, so there's kind of a divider. And we're basically, we're for it, the community's for it, and we hope you all approve it. Thank you.

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. My name is Steve Elsberry, E-L-S-B-U-R-Y. I'm an attorney here in Greenfield, Law Office 8 West Main Street. Some of you know I was here last month. I represent the property that adjoins between Lot 17 and 16. I won't take up much time, but there was a proposed stub road there, and we asked for a month's continuance. So I want to thank you for allowing the petitioner that month, and we are here in support. That was everything we asked for.

We think it's going to be a good project.

Thank you.

If any of you are looking at the plat in your printed out slides, that's the correct plat on the screen there.

All right, anything else? You've got some more time left?

No, nothing more? Okay. Do we have anybody here this evening who would like to speak in opposition of this primary plat? All right, seeing none, any discussion?

I have a question. I didn't participate with last month, and there was a requirement for the secondary plot to return to the commission for review. Is that something that still stands in the minutes as a recommendation? I'm not sure if that would be.

We had required to go back to tech committee.

For this meeting. Let me double check the minutes here with what we decided there.

So the language in the minutes, we addressed the entrance, the stub, the covenants with the HOA, the landscaping, the signage. The last thing would be a requirement that the secondary plot return to the commission for review rather than being approved administratively by staff.

And that's... Oh, yeah, we discussed that last time. Yeah. We hadn't decided if we were going to do that.

Okay. That's just maybe the only open item remaining.

Kayla, I have a question as far as on the plot, what they've presented. It says at the bottom, future dedicated right away. The HOA will maintain the area between lots 8 and 9 until the county installs the street. I don't remember ever the county installing streets and subdivisions, so I don't know if that word needs to be struck or if that's something you guys agreed upon, but I think that needs to be for future developers, not for the county to install.

Agreed. That is something that could be notated on the secondary plat. Does that sound good, David?

Okay. So our decision tonight is to approve the primary plat.

Favorable recommendation.

We would be approving this, right? This isn't the... This isn't a recommendation.

Approve or if you have conditions. Yeah. I think she had a couple of conditions.

This doesn't go to the commissioners.

With my staff recommendation, at the time that I wrote this staff report, two recommendations, that the number of lots in the primary platts shall not exceed 22. And at the time, the Greenfield Fire Territory had not signed off on their comment. They have since, so I would strike my second condition.

Okay. So no proposed conditions for this then? You're kind of standing there. Do you want to use your rebuttal time? Talk some more?

The only thing I wanted to clarify is before when the issues were not resolved on the street layout, that's when we thought an alternative or something for the board to consider was to come back and have our secondary plat appear back before the commission as opposed to TAC. Now that what's resolved and we have no remonstrators and we meet the ordinance requirements, we would ask that that secondary plat be approved administratively if that would be something we could ask the board to consider in their recommendation. Okay. Thank you.

One question. The berm that was mentioned, that's reflected in the drawings that were presented? There's a berm that was mentioned that's in the drawings that were presented? Yes.

Thank you. Yes, there will be one along the north, and I think Mr. Gibson and his crew have added a couple more berms along the west as well.

Thank you.

All right, so we'd be looking for a motion for an approval with any conditions. One possible condition would be to allow this to be, the secondary plot to be approved administratively by the staff. And then if there was any condition that you wanted to discuss about this future right of way.

I'll move that.

A motion for the approval of the primary plat with the condition that the secondary plat be approved administratively.

Second.

All right. It's been moved and seconded. Maria, when you're ready, you can call the roll. Moved and seconded for approval of the primary plat.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED. 9 APPROVED.

Thank you.

First time this evening is a 10.3 acre parcel of land on US 40 near Grandison Road just west of Charlottesville. It is recently zoned rural residential as a primary plot to create a three lot major subdivision on septic and well. Access would be from a shared drive off of US 40. This is the primary plat that Mr. Hollis presented us with. We did receive an updated copy on Friday. I believe you have those in your packet, an 11 by 17. You can see here where US 40 is located and how there is a shared drive that comes off of US 40 and has a left and a right turn option or a drive straight into lot one. There were comments from the technical committee. So from... We wanted to ensure that there was enough of a straight segment drive off of US 40 so that it was long enough to handle a turning radius of a longer vehicle and for a longer vehicle to get off of US 40. So Mr. Hollis did extend that driveway easement to be a little bit wider to get that for us. Mutual Aid had given a verbal comment about this and they are satisfied with the design as it stands today. We also ask that the word remainder be removed from Lot 3, that adjoining owners be labeled, and that the feasibility report be provided, which it has been. So I signed off on my comments on 5-22-26, which was Friday. The surveyor also had some comments that were signed off on on Friday, that the legal description basically be fixed, that the pipe be reinforced under the driveway, that tile to be installed and inspected and bonded prior to recording. And yeah, that was signed off on. Health Department has signed off on their comment about the soils matching between the primary and secondary sites for the septic. And the Highway Department has signed off on their comments that the 70-foot half right-of-way off of the center line of US 40 be dedicated and that a letter be provided from NDOT approving the driveway cut. You'll see that all three lots meet our minimum lot size requirement, which is just one and a half acres in this zoning district. I'm gonna page forward a little bit. The final acreages ended up being 2.497 acres for lot one, 2.799 acres for lot two and 3.514 acres for lot three. With the dedicated right-of-way adding up to just about one and a half acres. Similar to Advia Estates, there are a number of, the primary plat review process is pretty black and white. I've pasted the same section out of our code here, 155.037, primary plat review procedure. and it states that if after the hearing the plan commission determines that the application and plat comply with the standards in the subdivision control ordinance of this chapter, it shall make written findings in a decision granting primary approval to the plat. As a condition of primary plat approval, the commission may specify the manner in which public ways be laid out, graded, and approved, a provision for water, sewage, and other utility services, a provision for lot size, number, and location, provision for drainage design and a provision for other services as specified in this chapter if After the hearing the plan Commission disapproves the flat it shall make written Findings that set forth its reasons and a decision denying primary approval the Commission may also defer a plat back to the technical committee with for review or study on a specific technical matter a The motion of the technical committee was that the comments of the county surveyor, highway engineer, health department and mutual aid be obviously approved with the 70 foot half right of way to be shown on the plat before it goes back to the plan commission on May 26th today. We did get that on Friday, like I said. At that time, I had already done my staff report and uploaded it, which is why we ended up with a staff recommendation to continue to June due to the technical committee's comments not being signed off on yet from, at the time, county surveyor and planning department. Like I said, those have now been addressed. But I wanted to give you all adequate time to review this primary plot as well. So just to let you know where we stand with this, I respect your decision to make whatever motion you'd like with this. So I'll turn it over to Mr. Hollis now. But any questions you have for me?

Who did the feasibility report?

I believe Mr. Hollis or Philip Going.

If you had a recommendation, would you have any conditions or just not sufficient time to make conditions?

It meets the standards, but I would be curious to hear your take on it. I mean, it's a three lot minor, so it's not overly large. I don't love the turning off of the road and left right like that, but no one has objected to it, so it might just be a matter of personal taste, and I will leave that out. So it should function safely.

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?

Yes, I do.

State your name. Spell your last name.

Joseph Hollis, H-O-L-L-I-S. Good evening. I was approached by my neighbors several months ago about him selling the anchorage off 40. He was planning on turning it into a minor sub so he gave me the first opportunity so I decided to go ahead and purchase it. Split it up for my kids, give them an opportunity with price of housing these days, I thought it would be a good opportunity for me to go ahead and do this for them if they needed it. I did divide it out to three large lots. Originally I was going to do a minor sub, but the original split, I wasn't aware that that counted at first, so we had to switch to a major sub on this. As far as the comments, I did address all the tech review comments. I did increase the shared drive to 50 feet, which is a typical right-of-way width of most subdivisions, I believe. So the turning's fairly easy in there. I know I got a tractor trailer pulling a low boy. It can make that turn easy. So all the... Tech review comments have been met. And that's really all I have.

All right. Any questions? Any questions for Mr. Hollis?

Is there a maintenance agreement on the shared driveway? Yes, there is. Is it listed on the plot? Is that where it's listed? Yes.

Thank you.

This is in substantial conformance to what was presented in the March meeting, is that right?

Yes.

Thank you. The only thing that changed, Gary Poole asked for the dedication right-of-way, which carved out, I think it was 1.6 acres. So it obviously shrank the acreage on lot two and three. Still conforming. I haven't changed anything other than the right-of-way and then the shared drive easement, and then made some clerical adjustments to the, this is based off what Chad Koffner found.

Okay. And I think we anticipated some of the driveway work and the dedication work when we originally.

Yes. And I was able to permit from NDOT And they were all for it. They said they would rather have one access point. And their stipulation was to have the one access which is right across from the median crossover. And I need to remove the driveway that I have right now that I'm currently using. So that will happen.

The Commissioner has approved the rezone? Yes.

That's done? Yes.

All right. Anybody else? All right. Thank you. Thanks. Do we have anybody this evening that would like to speak in opposition of this subdivision? None. All right.

Any discussion?

like the last one this is uh would be a motion to approve and the only condition was a possible uh continuance to june if you'd like some more time to review this final document with the understandably the only change being the right-of-way change but that came you said on friday no motion to approve second all right i have a couple minutes to review it

Alright, I'm ready. I said finish those fast.

Alright, so we've got a motion and a second to approve the primary plat this evening as presented. So when you're ready, Maria, please call the roll.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right, you're all set. Thank you. All right, that brings us to item number three, our fee schedule.

Every so often we like to review this fee schedule to make sure Fees that we are charging for plan commission petitions are still in keeping with the administrative costs that we're putting into them. There was some recent legislation passed over the summer with House Enrolled Act 1001 that limited the number of times and how and when we could update these fees. So that put some time, some pressure on when we, I'm getting this updated now, These are the changes I've made to this document reflect what we discussed in March if you'll all recall These are mostly some small small changes to our fee schedule first of all requiring that Pre-filing meeting just as a general note up at the top of our fee schedule so it's very very clear that a pre filing meeting is required for all petitions and and prior to all petition submissions that we will not accept a petition without a pre-filing meeting. The minor subdivision fee was increased to $490 as these have to go to technical committee to be reviewed and all of our other documents that go to technical committee are charged $490 for that review. Additionally, we cleaned up a few items. that were not used or didn't make sense, especially under that exception category and also there were some single family carve outs for major subdivisions and also I believe rezoning that really didn't make sense given the time that we put into these reviews when these sorts of petitions come in. I adjusted the three-to-one depth-to-width ratio fee. That had been, I believe, $350 for that, and we lowered it down to $100 per lot affected. It would be a little bit more equitable if there's one lot affected, $100 for that in addition to their minor subdivision fee rather than charging a whole additional petition fee, really. So that made that a little bit more fair. We also split the variance fees down between residential and non-residential variance requests. So residential stayed the same at $400 plus 55 per additional variance, while non-residential was doubled. So $800 plus 110 per additional variance, as these are oftentimes more complex and require more staff time, attorney time, and also board review time. Special exceptions, the fees stayed fairly, really the same. I averaged a couple out and combined some categories just to make it easier when people are looking at this fee schedule to understand where they fall in this whole fee schedule. We did increase industrial and cellular facility applications as once again, those get complicated and take a lot of time to review. At the request of actually Ms. Willard, I did adjust the way that our zoning violations table for fines reads to more clearly reflect what our ordinance reads. So previously, these are the same numbers for the notice of penalty for violation, $100 a day for the first offense, $150 for the second, up to $300. for the fifth notice of penalty for violation. In our ordinance, it states that these fees are per day that the violation exists. So I added that on to this to once again clarify that this is not we send a notice out and there's a $100 fine. This is your notice and it's going to be $100 for every day that this violation persists. So please fix it quickly so a larger fine is not accrued.

Kayla, on this, I noticed you have first to fifth. So every 30 days, is that how you're determining the first to fifth fine?

Yes, typically there's a first a notice of violation which is your warning letter and that is hey Please clean this up in 30 days if you do you won't hear from us again We'll go out and check it out if it's all okay. You won't hear from us again. No fine But if there's still a violation no contact has been made no effort Then yeah, you're gonna get a notice of penalty for violation and it'll be that hundred dollar per day and THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTS, FINE. AND THEN IF ONCE AGAIN IN THAT 30-DAY PERIOD, STILL THERE, THEN SECOND, STILL THERE ALL THE WAY UP TO THAT FIFTH. SO THAT IS HOW THAT'S FIGURED. And that was, oh, additionally I added the final piece of this. I added our impact fee for Parks and Recreation at the very bottom of this fee schedule just to make sure it was on a fee schedule somewhere. That's it. Next up will be, Rhonda, if I'm correct, this is going to be put into ordinance form and taken to the Board of Commissioners?

Yes, but this, Commission needs to recommend and approve what you've laid out here.

If you would do that, that would be awesome.

Yeah, I was going to say, do we have anybody that would like to speak on the fee schedule, have any input on our fee schedule?

Kayla, where is the one about the parks? Is that... on new houses and stuff, is that that institutional public park 430 or is that somewhere else?

Oh, no. So this year the Board of Commissioners passed an impact fee ordinance for parks and recreation and that is with the, and we started collecting that in February. the understanding that with every new home or new dwelling unit that is built in Hancock County, that's a stressor on our existing parks and recreation facilities, which mainly consist of the Penzey Trail right now. And so this will slowly build into a fund that will allow us to grow our parks and recreation facilities as our population grows. So that fee is not reflected anywhere else in this fee schedule. This is the one spot. And what that means is when we get a new, say a new single family home permit, We have our planning fee assessed, our improvement location permit. We also have our building permit fee from the building department. It's reviewed as well by health and survey and highway for the driveway cut. And then additionally, when the applicant comes to pick up the permit, there is a $412 fee assessed which goes into a separate parks and recreation fee fund. So this is outside of our planning department fees. The planning department desk is simply where this fee is collected.

Oh, I see it. It's on page two at the bottom.

Yes.

Thank you.

Per door is kind of the way that you say it, right?

Yes. Yep. So if you turn, say, a single family home into a duplex, one fee would also be charged because you're creating one new unit. If we have a 50-unit apartment building, then 50 times 412 will be charged for that building when they come to pick up their permit.

So on zoning violations, you did away with the strongly worded letter?

The strongly worded letter is the notice of violation.

Okay. And then you send out the first and the second and the third and the fourth and the fifth. So when does it go to court if necessary?

That's a good question. Typically, though, I believe that's after the fifth. Rhonda, is that typically correct?

I THINK IT'S KIND OF UP TO KIND OF THE BACKS OF THIS CASE, YES. ALL RIGHT. CASE BY CASE, THEN.

SO THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE BZA, WOULDN'T IT? GO TO COURT.

I BELIEVE THE BZA REVIEWED THESE FEES, RIGHT? THESE ARE THE FEES THAT YOU PRESENTED TO THE BZA ONCE BEFORE.

WELL, SO THE FEE AMOUNTS HAVE NOT CHANGED AT ALL. It's simply I took some more wording out of our ordinance. So it was very clear that this is a per day that violation exists.

Okay.

Not just per day.

Yeah. Yeah. Change from a monthly to daily. That's a big change.

Yeah.

Kayla, where did the $412 come from? I mean, what, where'd that number, why did you receive that number?

So for the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee, that ordinance is available on the Board of Commissioners ordinance with the ordinances that they've signed off on. And attached to that ordinance is a whole engineering study that Baker Tilly and another firm, Pro Consulting, worked on to develop. And $412 was the number they came up with as the correct fee to assist in creating the parks environment that the county was envisioning, which is really pretty modest. It's more of a acquire the land and preserve it. As green space approach, a lot of more nature areas, trails, not really anything overly EXPENSIVE OR I GUESS THAT WOULD REQUIRE A LOT OF SERVICE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT TO SERVE A PARKS FACILITY WITH RIGHT NOW. SO THAT NUMBER WAS DEVELOPED BASED ON WHAT THE COUNTY ENVISIONED AS ITS PARK SYSTEM AS WELL AS OUR GROWTH TRENDS. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE JUST CAME UP WITH IT. IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED REPORT AND I DEFINITELY ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THROUGH IT ON THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE.

THAT NUMBER JUST SEEMS HIGH TO ME. That's about my only really complaint. I just don't see a number being that much for a new house coming in and saying you're gonna be assessed that amount for a future park.

I think we voted before you got on and 412's the only no vote, so we should have been here.

And I also, if I recall, there were some other numbers that were much higher than the 412. Like over 600. That was the number that sticks in my mind. YES. SO THE 412 WAS REALLY A REDUCTION IN THAT ORIGINAL PROJECTED NUMBER THAT THEY GAVE US?

YES. I KNOW OUR NUMBER IS VERY MODEST COMPARED TO WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES ARE CHARGING.

ALL RIGHT. ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? NO PUBLIC COMMENT? All right, seeing none, then I can take a motion for a... Is it an approval or a favorable recommendation?

It's a recommendation for... Motion to recommend to the Board of Commissioners to approve the fee schedule as presented.

Yep.

Motion to have a favorable recommendation for the fee schedule as presented and revised on 5-26-26 for that favorable recommendation to the commissioners. Second.

All right, it's been moved and seconded to... RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS PRESENTED FEE SCHEDULE TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUS. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS THE DATA CENTER OVERLAY ORDINANCE. ON THIS ITEM WE FEEL THAT IT'S NECESSARY TO LOOK FOR THIS ONE TO BE TABLED UNTIL A SPECIAL MEETING OR HAVE A SPECIAL HEARING ON THIS. A LOT TO DIGEST HERE. I WOULD RECOMMEND WE TABLE IT BUT STILL HAVE SOME PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION THIS EVENING BUT DO NOT HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL A SPECIAL MEETING THAT WE WOULD POSSIBLY HAVE AT THE FIRST WEEK OF JUNE, POSSIBLY AFTER THE NEXT MEETING OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE. We can discuss the ordinance, we can discuss some changes to it, let it pass through that citizens committee again, and then have our special meeting the week of June 9th.

Do you need a motion to move past this on the agenda?

It would be a motion to table to a special meeting, a date to be determined.

So moved. Second.

has been moved in second into table item number four data center overlay ordinance to a special meeting to be held the week of june would be actually the week of june 8th to be determined just go ahead and when you're ready we can take a roll call on that will there be another um

publication on this in the paper?

Oh yes, this will be renoticed. The special meeting will be noticed.

So should we pick a date today then?

Yeah, we'll pick a date during the discussion, yeah.

Maria, can you call the roll?

Are we moving it or?

Yeah, we'll table it tonight, move it to a special meeting the week of June 8th. With new notice.

I'm pretty sure I'm out of town on June 8th.

Well, we can discuss that.

As far as tabling it, yes.

Mr. Hester?

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

YES.

ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. WITH THAT, KAYLA, DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GIVE YOUR QUICK SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE AND THEN WE'LL HAVE SOME PLAN COMMISSION DISCUSSION BUT IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING SO WE WILL NOT BE TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT THIS EVENING.

Just a moment.

And just for your information, this ordinance was presented to the Citizens Committee. That was just last week, I believe, last Monday. So they have seen it and they have read it.

Mike, could you share with us why we're not, why we're scheduling a special meeting with the one that we were presented? What kinds of issues, why we're not doing it tonight? There's a lot of people that came to us.

Well, there's some, we thought we needed some additional discussion on it. Give it another chance to go to the Citizens Committee for additional discussion and make sure that we have things in it, everything in it that makes it a more applicable ordinance.

For me, I voted yes because I didn't think it was properly noticed. So that was my opinion.

All right. Rhonda, I hope you don't mind. I'm using a few of your slides from earlier this week.

All right.

So currently our data center is defined as part of our communication service exchange definition. And this definition currently reads, a telecommunications facility that houses one or more computer systems and related equipment dedicated to building, maintaining, and or processing data. Such a facility would likely include a telephone service exchange, a data center, and a server farm. This ordinance dates back to the early 2000s before modern day data centers were really envisioned. It did not take into consideration the hyperscale facilities that we're now seeing that are really impacting our utilities usage, things like that that are really more regional, too, in scale. So for this reason, our current ordinance is a little bit outdated as far as what it defines a data center as. So we recognize that this is something that needs to be updated and that our proposed ordinance does do. I'm going to skip over to that ordinance and find that definition. So the new definition of the term data center would read, a facility used primarily for the storage, management, processing and transmission of digital data and that houses computer or network equipment, systems, servers, appliances and or other associated components related to digital data storage, processing, and related operations. Data center uses include data storage facilities, server farms, artificial intelligence training or processing, image processing, cloud computing, email servicing, and similar uses. A little bit more of a refined definition that applies just to a modern day data center. We should also look at where data center is currently a permitted and special exception use in our current ordinance. So data center is a special exception in both the commercial community CC zoning district and the commercial regional zoning district or CR. These are areas that are largely along US 40, around interchanges with I-70, State Road 9, things like that. A lot of times meant for more commercial scale businesses at the human scale. They're meant for people to be there, to be going in and out of these places, things like that, having retail experiences. contractors, those sorts of uses. It is a permitted use currently in the institutional zoning district, the industrial business park zoning district, the industrial light district, and the industrial general district. So that was another area we thought we need some more regulation on this as well. So our proposed ordinance would then shift where data centers could go to a permitted use with a footnote to IG zoning only, which is industrial general with a special overlay district just for data centers. This is very similar to how we dealt with large-scale solar. So this would require then first of all that a property be zoned industrial general in order for a data center to be on it and then also for there to be a special overlay district which would be required to go through the Board of Commissioners and get their approval to have that special overlay district over the top of it. And additionally, as you read through this draft of the ordinance, you'll see that there's a little bit of a modified process for this that would require data centers to first go to the Board of Commissioners to be looked at, kind of like we currently do with subdivision sketch plans, for example. We suggest that you meet and have this idea kind of gone over first before you get much further into that process. So that's what I would compare that to. And I'll let you read through the rest of this draft to understand it better here over the next few days. I would also point out that the data center committee is meeting, as you all know, and our hope is that this is not replacing by any means the work of the data center committee. Rather, this is to be put in place, hopefully, maybe, perhaps with modifications. And then the work of the data center committee can refine it, can put meat on the bone, and really make any data centers that go into Hancock County as appropriate as possible and the best fit possible for our community. I think that's where I'm going to end my presentation this evening. If you have any questions for me or for Rhonda, please ask.

So we met earlier, and to me, the IG is only two areas that there's currently available IG, like farm ground or not being used, like non-conforming use. And that's in Buck Creek Township, which has six lots, and then there's Vernon Township at the very top, which is a farm, which is exactly between town of McCordsville and town of Fortville. It's the part that doesn't connect them. So that's it with IG. It's almost like a true total moratorium because there's only even two spots you can, unless you rezone something IG.

Yeah, this ordinance was drafted. I wouldn't say it was drafted. It was drafted more or less quickly and so things like that were we needed to discuss and I think Lacey you had a few comments as well that you probably want to share with the board this evening possibly and these are things that we could direct Rhonda to enhance this a little bit so that we're. Ready to to act on it and in a special public hearing in a week or so.

I think it's important to note procedurally that a PUD would be handled differently than maybe something within the confines of this ordinance. And so although a PUD might take direction from the content of such an ordinance, it wouldn't, as I understand, be mandated by it. So I think that the way that by default this could happen is an IG, but that's not to say that a PUD could be proposed and handled a bit differently. So I think that's a, I believe that is still a part of the discussion. It's not directly noted in here, but nor would it need to be because the PUD is an underlying availability within our ordinances now. That's correct. What the committee would need to do is decide if it's appropriate to change our existing ordinances do a very good job in a lot of ways, especially with dealing with dissimilar adjacencies, the setbacks. We might need to tweak some development standards as it relates to water utilization and notice, perhaps noise. I don't know that we deal with those types of things. And if there's any specific timeframe requirements as it relates to these new procedures that we would want to look at, or fees, right? Some of these items that are just kind of new are things that the recommendations, that the committee should be taking a look at. Definition of substantial benefit would be very helpful, local and substantial benefit. And the decommissioning process certainly, I don't know if it's appropriate to deal with in these ordinances, but maybe some concepts of incentives maybe not in our wheelhouse as we learned from comp plan. It's like an appendix, you know, but certainly some discussions around that and making sure that the planning director is fully involved throughout the process if this is a new process because it will be important to have our planning director's guidance. So those are the types of comments that we shared at the committee and I would hope that THOSE THAT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE THAT COULD BE LAYERED ON TOP OF AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS.

SO TO ME THIS IS JUST A TEMPORARY THING FOR A COUPLE MONTHS AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A, IS THAT WHAT THIS IS OR JUST THINKING MORE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE MORE PERMANENT LIKE IT'S GOING TO LAST A YEAR OR SOMETHING.

NO, THIS WOULD BE.

I THOUGHT IT WOULD LAST JUST A COUPLE MONTHS UNTIL THE COMMITTEE'S DONE AND THEN WE'D REVAMP IT, WHATEVER THEY COME.

YEAH, SO THE THOUGHT WAS TO GET IT IN PLACE. And that's up for discussion, but to get it in place in a very bare... fashion and that's what this is it's very bare it's IG only it's very very simplistic and we can discuss that maybe you know you make good points about the amount of land available like that so maybe we want this first draft to have maybe a couple other zoning districts in it as just to kind of open that up a little bit but this was shown to the citizens committee as something that would be permanent but that that committee would make recommendations to put additional Thank you. items in here, additional guardrails for these types of projects. But it would be much like our solar overlay. Essentially, it just brings projects like this that the technology moves so fast, it just allows any project like that that meets that definition have to come through a public process so that everybody can see what it is and evaluate it and understand it.

Yeah, absolutely. It's changing all the time. I know Kayla and I talked about that. We're in California. They're already taking people's houses and putting something in the backyard. And Sweden, they're already looking at going underground with it, where it's automatically cooled just because of how it works down there. When you're underground, it's like 54 degrees all the time if you're in a cave or something. So, I mean, it's always changing. You're going to have to keep changing with the times. You can't just fall behind like we did before.

Yeah. And if we have this specific ordinance, we can make, if this were to be approved sometime soon, That committee will make recommendations to the Plan Commission and just like any other ordinance or overlay ordinance, we can then recommend updates to it on any basis at any timing to the Board of Commissioners as needed as we recognize things are changing and needing updated.

Mike, what I did mention, which I think is probably maybe as a BZA member and former BZA members that I probably most applaud with this is that it gives the appropriate procedural due process to something as impactful within the community. Right now, I think we absolutely have a great process and we've refined that at the BZA, but making sure that elected officials are involved in that process is probably the best procedural update that I've seen as a BZA member.

I was going to say one of the challenges that I struggle with is that a data center is a huge Broad scope for a lot of things. There's like eight or nine different types of data centers. It doesn't mean it's the hyper, you know, proposed ones that some are talking about, but there's a variety of different ones. We say data centers, we're not really defining what that is, what type it is, nor do I believe as a community we understand all the different types. And so there could be some that could be really appropriate for... for our community and or the misconceptions that we have about some of the things we need to have a better understanding of. And I'll be honest, I don't have all the, I mean, I continue to read and research and ask people and, you know, what a variety of the rest of us do. But just to say data centers is not, for me, it's not good enough. It's not specific enough. It doesn't really define what that means or what that could mean.

Is way too it's way too broad Yeah, and that's why I think it's you know, we have the basic the sort of the generic definition that seemingly all of those should fall into but then it gives It gives the Board of Commissioners and this body an opportunity to look at those through a typical zoning process and understand what the project actually is and what the impacts might be. And it allows plenty of public input having that process, having at least two public hearings. So I'm hearing one of the most important things maybe is to further define substantial benefit. I think that's a good idea. I'm not exactly sure the PUD piece is a good point, but I don't know what, how to really address there's not much we can do i mean a project could come and be proposed as a pud i don't know how you alter that but that would still be the same similar process so it would still meet the goal of coming in front of all of the various bodies from the project yeah the pud is a zoning process essentially yeah rezoning process and that would And if the data center was a part of that, then obviously that would be a consideration. And you could limit the acreage and limit the uses.

Oh, I'm sorry. I just asked if the PUD would be a separate issue from a data center.

You're welcome. Can we not create a special definition for a special type of PUD that's for data centers that could be a part of our? THAT WATERED IT DOWN TOO MUCH? I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST ASKING. I DON'T MEAN THAT WE WOULD HAVE A SPECIFIC KIND OF RULES FOR IF IT WAS A DATA CENTER, MAJORITY OF THE LAND WAS USED FOR THAT, VERSUS, I MEAN, A HOUSING PUTY, A MULTI-PURPOSE. WE HAVE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF WHAT THOSE ARE. MAYBE WE OUGHT TO HAVE ONE SPECIFIC TO DATA CENTER IN GENERAL? I DON'T KNOW.

THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT BECAUSE IF A DATA CENTER IS A PART OF A PUD PROJECT, WOULD THIS OVERLAY PERTAIN TO THE DATA CENTER PROJECT THAT'S INSIDE OF THE PUD? WOULD THAT OR WOULD THE PUD GOVERN IT ON ITS OWN?

Unless that PUD referred to these sections of the ordinance, it would not. One option that we could look at as well is not only editing the process and land uses and where this is permitted or where an overlay district is required, but also by adding separate development standards for the particular use, however we define that, of data center. So that would go much like large-scale solar would have a separate section in the development standards chapter that would apply to all data center type uses. I'm speaking off the cuff a little bit there, but that's one thing we frequently see is there's the zoning portion of it, where we're permitting it, are we requiring an overlay or not, and then there's the development standards portion of it.

Okay, yeah, so that's a topic that the Citizens Committee could address, is going to address, is development standards for data center projects. So they would apply then inside of a PUD or be referenced inside of a PUD?

Because hypothetically, if you were a developer and you had an overlay district for a data and you could do a PUD going through You know without us changing anything wouldn't you rather go through a PUD then do you want to give you more opportunities to develop? Then if you had an overlay district Mean that you don't have the restrictions Hypothetically So I'll go ahead.

I think like when we address the first data center project that came in front of us It was a big problem to have number one the data center and the PUD all in one package That's that was a start to the demise of that project right there, so Yeah, that would be giving carte blanche to Whoever that developer was to put in whatever they wanted for the most part under that PUD and

Yeah, because I wonder, like, and maybe this isn't for this committee, but like for the Citizens Committee, that we could look at the data centers that are being developed currently. What did they use? Did they have an overlay district? Did they do it all through PUDs? Did they traditional develop? I mean, that might be helpful to give us some insight about how that they were allowed to develop it through planning, how that worked or didn't work. I don't know.

I think if a PUD was proposed for a project of a single building, I think I would suspect that our staff might have an unfavorable recommendation because PUDs are supposed to be projects with some unique element to them. And just a single project, single building is not really fit that definition. And a lot of, I mean, it's up to debate obviously, but that's always been kind of the holdup on those. So you'd want it to be possibly a data center would be a part of a larger project, but demonstrate the uniqueness of it. These development guidelines are met. So I think we look obviously on this ordinance change, we, We'll have to change this May 26th date, obviously, look at some definitions for substantial benefit. We will re-notice for a date, we'll talk about a date here in a moment, but how much time, if the members of this committee were to submit recommendations to the staff and to you for these enhancements to this ordinance, what would be a deadline for that? How many days do we need prior to our meeting to do that?

For a special meeting, isn't it? You're just asking how long would it take if I got the comments of changes?

To make sure that it's ready for...

I could definitely prepare amendments that could be written amendments that you would discuss and you would decide whether you wanted to tweak those amendments or... You could discuss each amendment by itself and then amend the ordinance before you send it on.

Okay. All right, so looking at dates, if we would like to let the Citizens Committee discuss this as an agenda item on the 9th, I believe that's the correct date for them, we'd be looking at possibly June, 10th, 11th, 12th. That would be a Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.

Thursday would be better than a Friday if you're going to want to get input.

Yeah. That would be giving us all.

I can't say I would be here. I skipped my daughter's softball game today. I don't know. I think they have a tournament that week.

Oh, no.

Would we allow for virtual attendance?

Yeah, you could virtually attend from softball.

Yeah. Background noise.

Yeah, I would be out the 10th, 11th, and I could be here for the 12th. That would be work-related, so I can't get out of that.

Yeah, we could... like for that get some more discussion from the citizens committee but they we could we could ask them to to submit comments um via email uh next week if you wanted to try and meet the like on the thursday the fourth see IS THAT WOULD THAT WEEK BE BETTER FOR EVERYBODY? I'D REALLY LIKE TO HAVE A FULL BOARD FOR THIS IF WE COULD.

I HAVE ANOTHER COMMITTEE TO ATTEND THAT DAY, THAT NIGHT.

ON THE 4TH. JUNE 3RD.

JUST TELL US.

I CAN'T DO JUNE 3RD.

WE WILL ALLOW FOR THE VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE OR NO?

We could do virtual, couldn't we, for this?

For the public hearing?

Yeah.

You can only have half the people do virtual?

Mm-hmm.

But yeah, if someone needed to attend virtually, you could. I think it has to be the 8th or later if we advertise tomorrow. Yeah. Re-advertise.

You'd have 10-day notice.

So the 8th would be the earliest?

We can do the 8th.

June 8th, yeah.

How does June 8th sound to everybody? Going once. Anyone? What part of the world will you be in on June 8th? Hancock County, Indiana?

Okay.

All right. All good? June 8th? Uh... Well, I apologize. June 8th has the cemetery commission at 630. Would you be able to do it? Can we do it at 530?

Would that work? I'm in Orlando on that day.

Could you attend virtually? Could you attend virtually at 530? Probably. WOULD JUNE 10TH WORK FOR ANYBODY? THAT WAS THE BAD TIME, RIGHT? I'M BACK TO THE BAD TIME AGAIN. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN MAYBE MAKE JUNE 8TH AT 530 WORK. OKAY. I THINK WE CAN DO IT IN AN HOUR BEFORE THE CEMETERY COMMISSION.

IT DEPENDS ON HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE HERE TO TESTIFY.

CAN WE DO IT AT 5?

Five okay for everybody? Too early?

A little hard for us working stiffs, but we'll probably do it.

Just tell your boss, if you're your own boss, hey, boss, I need to take off and tell yourself. Running out of PTO. Tell myself I need to leave. You're out of it, aren't you?

Yeah, I'm out of it. All right, we'll go June 8th at 5 o'clock p.m. in this room. All right. And if you have any comments, please reread the ordinance, give us some additional thought and any additional comments that you would have, please send those to Kayla and Rhonda.

I was gonna say if I already have a definition, if I could send it. Substantial business, okay. Yeah, it's based on statute.

Oh, great, okay.

To somewhere else.

Yeah.

Business law.

Did we agree to five or 5.30?

Five o'clock. ALL RIGHT. THAT CONCLUDES OUR HEARING ITEMS FOR THIS EVENING. MOVES US UP TO OTHER BUSINESS.

So in your packet up at the very front, actually, is the most up-to-date project status update for the UDO. And I'll take that sheet with you and read through it. Our next meeting is going to be on June 3. And so we'll be able to go through the areas of conflict between our subdivision control ordinance and ordinance. One of the documents at the very front was the most recent little one pager update.

Timeline.

So the next deliverable is June 3rd? Yes. It seems that so far it's going pretty well as far as things being able to fit nicely in the new sections without any. Official changes and. They're further proving how important this has become because things are being found in various sections throughout our ordinances can become conflicting soon.

I think this could be super helpful for people to understand.

Yeah, this is a good format. I feel like we're getting what we needed here. Anything else on that? All good? Thanks for sharing that. And then our last item will be an update on the Data Center Citizens Committee.

So we met on Monday. I'm going to forget the date already. Was that last week?

I think it was just last week, just last Monday, yeah.

Our first meeting went very well. All members attended. We were all scrunched up here. and learned a bunch just in the two hours of introductions and really early conversation. The minutes were completed today in draft form and yep, they're being reviewed and we will have all materials uploaded to our website and we are getting ready for our next meeting. That's kind of the update.

THOSE ARE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND THOSE ARE ON THE YOUTUBE CHANNEL OR WHATEVER. SO IT MIGHT BE GOOD IF YOU GUYS WANT TO SNEAK IN ON SOME OF THOSE AND PAY ATTENTION TO THEM. THE MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE ARE I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FOLKS ON THE COMMITTEE. SO IT'S VERY I LEARNED A BUNCH JUST IN LIKE YOU SAID THAT SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME. IT'S VERY GOOD. I'M GLAD WE'RE DOING IT. It's not even 8 o'clock yet, but we think we've made it through everything this evening.

Motion to adjourn.

Seconded.

All right, it's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Motion carries. Thank you.