Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

to us that was canceled. Well, spot when did it go? Four minutes still week or two ago. We just had a a back and putting the approval for the new appointee on that. Hey, look, we're all in. I'll I'll double check. Double check. Let me know. Text me or something. I'm supposed to be there. All right. Cuz I would think none of us maybe there's only eight. There should be none. I could have we I just He's no longer on Is it an email today? It might be out there. I'd be here. Oh, I'd be the last. I just

I've been pretty busy. Girls made me start coaching again. Self death, Byron. Well, you know, the kids were out for the summer going some going back. My last morning practice was yesterday grass today.

Okay. Along the road, you know. Okay. Hey, Gary canled the September 30th. I thought, you know, actually they're they're doing that simply because Bill and looks like a little white out there in the fields, you know. You know what I mean? That one they did. So I thought that meant July. I wasn't afraid of I I love like Well, I bet we don't have a core, but I mean I would think Yeah, it just I mean I mean I just can't live my email. Yeah. Um

now I got to add it back to my calendar. Hey Gary, keep my It is a little 60. You know what? It's hard to do. Somebody's got to got to help him, guys. You almost had me convinced though. Really? I didn't see that email.

President. All right. I canled my September one. Put this one back. Anybody have an agenda? Who wants one or do we need to copy more? Yeah, that's what that's

Yeah. And then if you have three, they can that rarely happened, you know. I mean, most of the time they go ahead. Got this new G. Can I take this one home and make it my Whoopi? Yeah, souvenir. Souvenir. Yeah, I think this has been around longer than Bill Bolander. Nobody's been here longer than Bill Bander.

Maybe I drop this off of this house. bouncing himself off the head with it or something. All right, we'll call the meeting to order. The uh July 22nd meeting of the Hancock County Area Plan Commission.

Um please be advised that our meetings are now recorded both audio and uh video per the current uh state requirements. Uh we ask that everybody please turn off their cell phones, electronic devices, other noise makers. Um our first order of business this evening is the adoption of our previous meeting minutes uh submitted electronically. Motion to approve. Second. All right. Moved and seconded to approve the June meeting minutes. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. Same sign.

Yeah, that's right. You weren't weren't here. All right. Uh all testimony this evening is uh being recorded as as noted and you'll be taken under oath. Anyone wishing to speak uh only does so when called upon. Uh we ask that when you come up you face our attorney uh to my left to be sworn in before speaking. All persons speaking will be asked to give their full name for our record and spell the last name so we have accurate meeting minutes. And please speak directly into the microphone so that uh all the recording is clear. Uh Kayla will be giving her staff report and then the petitioner is given 10 minutes for their presentation. That's then followed by 10 minutes for um a collective 10 minutes for the remmonstration if there is any. We then offer five minutes to uh government officials that would like to speak. Uh and then concluding with five minutes for petitioners rebuttal. Uh our attorney gives a two-minut and a one minute warning. Uh and we ask that everybody please conduct themselves in a civil manner and then anybody that can't do that uh we reserve the right to ask you to leave. We have a uh basically full board. We have one vacant seat now. Um so uh we do have uh we have eight this evening. So that's that's good. All right. Uh first order of business um item number one was a reszone in Brown Township. It appears it was withdrawn. I don't know that we need a motion for to accept that withdrawal or is it just withdrawn withdrawn. So,

but yeah, I think we've Yeah, if anybody'd like to make a motion, let's just do it for the record that we are accepting the withdrawal of item one. So, moved. Second. All right, it's been moved and seconded to accept the withdrawal of item number one, reszone in Brown Township. All those in favor signify by saying I. I

oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. That brings us to item number two, a um minor subdivision lot one replat appeal. So, um once again, uh this body will be acting as the plaque committee tonight in any decision that it makes this is an appeal of a minor subdivision on L Road in Township on the screen. Um before we get too far into this, um I'll show you the timeline here real quick. Uh in June, this was approved by the technical committee with comments from the county surveyor and health department. uh and it uh it proceeded through uh flat committee um as well uh in June. Uh and then in late June we received u notice and letters from from several of the neighbors. Um so that's the the timeline for this. Um the letters uh were included with your uh staff report and letters of remmonstrance. Um, since then, uh, we have received a letter from an attorney representing one of the neighbors, um, or at this point, I

believe the group of neighbors, um, and I think he is here tonight, uh, to represent this. I would add that a letter was sent to an incorrect email on Friday. I did not receive it until today, um, early this morning. Um so that letter did not make it through to the link and officially did not make the 48 hour in advance notice for written materials that you receive. Um it is a well-written document outlining the app appellants uh case for um for why they are appealing this uh subdivision. Um, so I would say if you would like another month to review that and for Rhonda to review that document, um, that might be um, something you could consider as well. It is included in your documents. We copied it and and included it in Wait, wait, wait.

We did not because it didn't make the 48 hour notice, but the attorney is here tonight to give you a report of what was in that letter if you choose to move forward that way. What was the what the letter contained in terms of who wrote it? An attorney. An attorney did. Okay, that's well enough. How would you like me to proceed? So, there were there was another item that uh one of the remmonstrance letters was referencing some sections of the covenants for the original plat which wasn't included either, which would have been good information. Actually, I went and pulled them and gave it to her in advance. So, it is included you. It is you can review it because I gave it to her in advance beyond the 48 hours. So, I went and pulled it for her. But at the same time, we can't review it tonight.

Yeah, you can. That's right here. It's right here. Yeah, you can review that. I mean, it was I gave it well beyond 48 hours to their office, but it wasn't included in our in our packets. Yeah, I don't think what I what I found in my

massive the papers like that. Well, I know, but you know, it's it I I mean, to be fair with the remmonstrance letter, it it referenced some specific sections that I I didn't see. So, [Applause] so I guess the question would be, do you want to hear do you want to hear Kayla's presentation and hear from the appalent tonight and then make a decision to proceed or continue or would you just like to continue based on uh wanting to to read this? Um I I would prefer just to hear what all eight of us are here to hear what they the people are here that taken the time to come here today hear what they have to say and then we continue

make a make a decision make a decision next month and if somebody has something new to give then we we'll be happy to listen to it. Okay. I agree with that. All good. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, let's just proceed and maybe we'll be so moved to do something. So

all right. So moving forward then. So the minor subdivision of this particular property divides it into two pieces. As you can see, Lane Road curves around this property and gives it frontage on two roads. It is zoned R2.5, which means it is has a smaller residential um lot standard than say our agricultural uh lots tend to because it had ample road frontage. It was a fairly easy property for the plat committee to say uh that this was an appropriate use of the property in the correct zoning district, had good access to public infrastructure, meaning the road. um and also uh met the adequate met the acreage requirements for um for a lot zoned R2.5. Uh each lot I believe is about two plus acres. Believe overall it's an 8 acre parcel. Excuse me if I'm wrong about that. I would have the acreages but they definitely meet the minimum early on. Um, one of the neighbors, Sumills, who was the first to appeal the pro the project, came in and pointed out a covenant, um, which does state that, uh, each lot may only have one home on it. Um, so that's that's basically what it says is each lot can only have one of these um one of one home. That's it. Uh, and the interpretation um that the neighbors had of that was that that meant that there could never be subdivision of this property for um an additional lot to be created where an additional home could be placed. Um we had a respectful conversation and discussed that our planning department and our plat committee uh feel had been

different that it had actually been um they were creating an additional lot and therefore could place an additional residence on that lot. So this was a legal way to accomplish that. Um we also discussed that while there may be covenants uh the planning department does not get involved with covenants. We operate through our zoning ordinance. Ah, sorry. Here's the plat. Um, as you can see, lot 1A is 2 uh.069 acres and lot one, which has the existing home on it, is 5.199 acres. And this is a supplementary sheet. So, it also shows where the potential well would go. and septic field and potential drainage easement. This is the part of the document that our technical committee tends to lean on. So, as you know, the plat committee has uh the technical committee reviews the plat and recommends approval to the plat committee if the following criteria are met. The subdivision will not impede normal and orderly development of improvements of the parcel or surrounding properties. Necessary and adequate utilities uh and drainage facilities have or are being provided. Adequate measurements will be taken to provide ingress, egress, I'm sorry, adequate measures subdivision will not be detrimental to or endanger public health, safety, or general welfare. And the subdivision will not create more than one lot served by a private drive. When the plat committee then reviews that, they look to find that all pertinent sections of the zoning and

subdivision control ordinance have been met. Um that is when the plat committee may grant primary plat approval and then the final plat approval is approved administratively by the planning department when all changes that were noted by the plat committee and the technical committee have been finished. And typically these are you know these are three lots or less every time. That's a minor subdivision. So, just to clarify too, a minor subdivision, all it does, and we went through this recently with another petition as well, it splits land. It takes one lot, it makes it into two or three. Um, so that is the the goal of a minor subdivision process. It doesn't say you have to do anything with that land. It simply divides it. Um, now could the petitioner sell this one of these parcels and could another home be built on it? There's nothing that would stop the planning and building department at this point from allowing that because our ordinance allows for that. So, I guess with that, uh, my recommendation, like it was the first time, is approval, um, of this, uh, minor subdivision plat. It meets all standards put forth by the uh zoning and subdivision control ordinances and and we do not see a reason to hold it up. So with that, I'm going to turn it over. You have any questions for me?

I just have one. What difference typically are we giving to covenants? Really? No. I have a question. So I drove by there and across the street there's a nursing home and hospital. Yes. Is that allowed in that zoning area? Don, do you know the history of that? Okay. Otherwise, it's all residential with corn fields and soybean fields there and then industrial once you get to the 700. Yeah.

All right. Bring the petitioner up. petitioner or the uh appeal appellant. It's the petitioner because we're acting. Yeah, it's the petitioner. Yeah. So, it' be the petitioner. I was ready. We'll do enough of these. I'll finally get the drill. Are you both going to speak? Yeah. Well, yeah. Okay. I'll swear you both in. Raise your right hand. 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.

Okay. Please state your name and spell your last name. Mike Gibson, Gibbs O N. Clark Giles, Gil L. Giles Law Group. Minutes.

Okay. Well, good evening. Um, as as Kayla mentioned, uh, this plat's been through tech committee, uh, plat committee, and we've met all of their requirements, and we feel that the plat meets the ordinance. Um, property zoned R2.5, platted in 2001, was the Beck second minor subdivision. Uh, we are requesting replplatting of lot one into two lots, lot 1 A and 1B. Um, lot one would be 2 point or excuse me, lot 1 A would be 2.069 acres. Lot 1B would be 5.199 acres. Uh, dedicating 3/4 of an acre to the county for rightway. Uh, zoned R 2.5, as I mentioned, 14,000 square foot if it was served by sewer and water. So, get many more lots in there if sewer and water was available. So, uh, I think we meet that density. Um, lot 1A will front on Lane Road to the north. Lot 1B will continue to front on Lane Road to the east. 1A, as you noticed in the map, is all woods. Um I think that's important because one of the mon remmonstrators or appealers the south line of lot 1A as we have shown is 265 ft north of the mills property their north line. It's all woods and mind you that would be nearly a football field of woods. So the buffer is is pretty pretty good there. So whether you see a new home or not from that parcel, um probably not. Um spoke to uh Phil Going uh a surveyor local here in the county.

Uh he was the one that helped Mr. Beck plat this and one of the uh appeals letter mentioned that there was a commitment made or written covenant that these lots wouldn't be subdivided any further and that that's not the case on the covenants or there was no commitment made that Philip remembers back when this plat was went through the process in 2001. Um, far as the covenants go, um, I know I'm not within that 48 hours, so I can't hand you this document, but I can show you. I I researched today and there's at least two, and I've got a line of a thousand pls that I go through, but I try to remember back 25 years ago which ones we did in that time frame. But there's a a U subdivision in Green Township called Happy Acres. It was six lots. It has the same covenant on it. Um, there's another hunter's run which is on 300 North between 7 and 800 West. I think there's 26 30 some lots in there. Two or It has the same covenant on there. If my memory serves me right, that covenant was a generic covenant that would go along with most plats. But we all all know that even if it's a platted lot or a meets and bounds parcel, you can only put one house on it anyway unless it's subdivided. That's why we're here today. We ask for your approval to this project. We feel that we've met all the ordinances, went through all the processes that we normally do.

I have any questions? I'd be happy to ask. I I know the answer to my question, but I don't think anybody else up here does. Is this a minor subdivision or a major subdivision? It's a replat of a minor subdivision. Um the plat was originally done in 2001. So January 1st, 2002 was that new date of the new ordinance and anything prior to that was a lot of record or grandfathered in. And this the these two lots fall with it behind that date.

Yeah. So, we don't need to give deference to the covenant, but um you're offering us testimony that it was standard language just included in documents, but there could be reasonable allow reliance on it. So, I either way, I just don't think that people can read it and and when they're purchasing reasonably rely upon that. I I don't mind that that but what are you going to do about this covenant? Like if we're not doing something, are you taking care of the issues there?

Yeah. Our plat that we're hoping to get approved states that the covenants for the new replat will abide by the covenants that are the previous second minor sub. So we've got that stated with that instrument number on the covenant. Okay. All right. Any more questions? All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And do we have somebody up from the appeal side like to speak? You have 10 minutes total. So, did you want to split that time or

I did I believe there's probably other people here that I may not represent and I'm going to keep my comments very short. How many people would like to speak this evening on the appeal side? No. Okay. I I guess I'm the only one then. I promise I won't take 10 minutes of your time, though. I'm going to do I need to be sworn in. Okay. 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. Thank you. State your name and spell your last name for the record.

Yep. Evan Norris, N O R R I S. I'm with the law firm of Jury Simmons Vorum in Carmel. That's 736 Handover Place. Uh Mr. President and uh members of the commission, thank you tonight for allowing me to speak to you. Uh I represent a collective group of neighbors called the Lane Road neighbors uh which consists of Jeff and Marcy Korns uh Todd and Florence Lman as well as Jay and Susan Mills uh who are uh also uh residents of the Beck second minor subdivision. Uh we the purpose of tonight is so that we can bring our formal objection to the Beck's uh minor subdivision lot one replat petition. We asked that this area planning commission deny the petition due to its adverse impacts on the community. Uh very quickly, first and foremost, I want to talk about these uh restrictive covenants which have been uh uh recorded on the property as instrument number 01-164, which restricts each lot to one single family dwelling and one accessory building on the lot. Um, it's the neighbors position that this replat would violate the covenants by allowing an additional dwelling. And they firmly believe that it's the intent and the spirit of the covenants was to preserve large rural tracks of land in this particular area and that the covenants were silent as to subdividing and and implying in a sense that it wasn't intended by the original grtor to uh that these lots would be subdivided. The way that the lots are laid out, I think it makes sense. uh and that's the way that these neighbors who have lived there for 20 plus years uh believe that it was intended to be interpreted at the time. Uh if you look at aerial views of the subject site, you can see that it as as pointed out by Mr. Woolbridge that it is agricultural uh and these are large uh rural sites uh which are being slowly um engulfed by industrial um from other aspects and other large neighborhoods.

Um I want to direct the commission's attention to ordinance number 115-211 which is talks about uh again which uh director book Brooks read at the beginning of this which is the procedures for the technical committee and some of the uh the the weight that be can be given to uh uh the replat of a minor subdivision. It it's the neighbor's position the petition would disrupt the character of the lane road area and there's a risk of a domino effect and that other owners may seek similar subdivisions increasing the density in this rural characteristic area. The area is already under pressure from subdivisions and industrial and commercial growth in the area and they wish to keep it as rural as they can uh in the surrounding community and we believe or the petitioners believe or excuse me the remmonstrators believe that the petition is incompatible with surrounding development patterns. Second, I want to point out that u the the same ordinance, the same uh review procedures of the technical committee under section 21 uh talk about a detriment to public health, safety, and welfare. I believe that uh anytime that you add something else to a portion of a community, you're going to get an increase in traffic and congestion on rural roads. So, we're not designed for the intake of uh this type of density. If you look at uh the the way that the roads are laid out in this particular area, they they are narrow. They are county roads uh which uh of course the the addition of any additional construction vehicles or any passenger vehicles for that matter will of course have a detrimental effect on the neighboring roads. They're word worried about the maintenance burden that this places on our county officials who take care of these these role these roads. Uh again, the loss of the rural aesthetics and the tranquility. Um your your ordinance also gives difference to um or

discussion about along the same lines with public health and safety. Uh this is a heavily wooded lot as was uh uh brought about by the petitioner when he discussed the football field lid of length of heavily wooded forest. Of course, the na the removal of trees and vegetation has some sort of impact on uh the natural environment and and it disrupts the natural habitat. Uh may also provide for an increase in runoff and erosion in certain areas. And we believe that the ordinance that the way that the ordinance is written that you should give due regard to the natural resources in the area and the effect that this this minor um replat may have on that. Again, I I as discussed, there's going to be a strain on uh local infrastructure, especially roads um who which are not equipped for this type of density. And we talked about again the the parcel is densely wooded and serves as a wildlife habitat and the tree removal will lead to an uh ecosystem disruption, erosion, and the negative impact on the neighboring property owners. uh especially in particular the Korns who live directly across the street um who don't have the benefit of 265 feet of uh wooded lots. Uh they are directly across the street and they will uh be forced to uh because of the way that the the county's uh ordinance are written in particular with uh regard to drainage and erosion um measures that need to be taken. those trees are going to have to be removed and the the corns who have for many years enjoyed looking at a wooded lot in front of their home will now have to look at uh another home that they never could have anticipated. Um just some key points to help to to bring this all home. We believe that the approval of this minor subdivision could disrupt the the overall pattern of development in this particular area by

continuing to to place smaller homes uh smaller subdivided homes uh within this general what I would characterize as rural area. uh we believe that it it that this is more so a workaround around the covenants which again only allow for one dwelling per uh parcel and that this is a way to subdivide that in order to achieve that. So um in conclusion the the the lane road neighbors aren't necessarily against progress in the area but they want to preserve the rural character and the community stability uh surrounding these issues. uh they believe that the petition threatens the quality of life, the environment, and the the planning integrity of the rural uh Hancock County area, and they would request that the APC deny uh this replat petition. Thank you.

Um this uh this letter that came that's came, you you wrote this that we're talking about this letter that came in late. Yes. And we Yes. My assistant put an extra period in uh Director Brooks's email, I believe, and um we she didn't get the we we've submitted it 11:30 a.m. and we didn't get the notice that it wasn't submitted until Saturday morning when it was already too late.

Okay. Was there anything spec in there that we didn't just hear in your testimony? There there are pictures um and there are illustrations and of course the the plat that that everyone um I I don't know if the the commission would like to get their eyes on that as well, but I attached that as an exhibit as well um the original plat and not the the the very large printing format. But and with if that were to be the case, we would request a uh a 30-day continuance.

So to to confirm, you think perhaps that your appeal would be prejudiced if we didn't see that package? I think that the package adds a little bit of uh further character to the photos. Otherwise, the substantive portions of my comments are all still there, but it does give you the plat and I I did lay it out very what I would think very nicely and uniform uniformally throughout the letter. We talked about the you talked about the um how how it developing it will add more traffic and more issues and it changes the character of the area, but I know you may not be able to answer this as well as your clients, but what about that nursing home? I mean, there were a lot of vehicles there. It it seems like there's people must come and go quite a bit. Um I I I've I know usually if I've ever traversed on Lane Road, which is only about three or four times in my whole life, uh it there's not much traffic. It's not it's a very small road compared to most roads.

Um I I I just question how the how your argument of character changing. Uh I mean, unless that unless the woods holds a lot of water, it gets flooded a lot. I don't I never heard that comment yet. I know that happens quite a bit in Hancock County. Uh but but I guess I mean I'm just trying to grasp what you mean by change of character. Well, with that lot changing.

Yeah, right now that lot is full um I mean it's it's 2 acres. It's fully wooded. You can see from some of the I believe some of the photos maybe from the staff report maybe had some I definitely know in my packet I had some photos that that showed the the wooded area and the wooded nature of it. I think what more concerning is is the domino effect of of this type of issue. Um, and to your point about traffic, of course, I I understand that one one residential home is not the same as building a a community center or a school or something like that that's going to receive probably hundreds of vehicles per day. But I think anytime that you you put heavy equipment in there, especially when you're talking about the tree removal equipment, um, site equipment, things like that, that it's going to have an impact on the roadway regardless. Um, and we just think that it could be a development pattern that could continue to see through through different parts of the area if this were to be approved.

Obviously, there's a lot of fields there, corn and soybeans still. Um, does your clients have any opinion? A lot of times, you know, when you're doing planning, you're trying to figure out what the future use would be. Obviously, those fields are probably going to be sold and developed. I'm guessing they don't want industrial buildings next to them. Neither would I. So, I I'm wondering what they vision then for that. or have you discussed that with your clients at all?

I I have not discussed that with my clients necessarily, sir, but um I guess I would say that in my general characteristics or my general feeling would be is that whatever would keep the rural natural aesthetics of the area. Um large I what I would call estateized lots. I mean that's essentially what these are are estatesized lots keeping with that general character. Larger homes, accessory buildings such as barns, hobby farms, things like that may be more appropriate I would believe in that general area. I'm getting a lot of head nods, so I apologize. That that is not one question I specifically and I'm happy to have any of them come up and discuss that further with you if you'd like to hear from them.

Yeah, I think you probably have a little time left if anybody else is wanting to speak. How much time is I got a question for Mr. Gibson? 6 minute 36 seconds. Is there anybody that wants to speak uh in the appeal? Yeah. Okay, come on up. You said we were at 6 minutes or we have six minutes. No, you have You're at 6 minutes 36 seconds. Okay. You'll need to be sworn in. Yep. 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 and spell your last name. J Mills. M I L Ls. Okay, go right ahead. You have about three and a half minutes.

Uh my wife and I own the property directly south of lot number one. Uh when we purchased the property, we purchased it based solely on the fact that the covenants only allowed one additional house on each of those lots that are out there. And not speaking for my neighbors is that everybody has large parcels there on purpose. You'll see that if you've driven down there, I know you said you drove down through there. We do have wooded areas around us in different places. He talks about the wooded area that is uh between my property and this football field length. That particular woods can be cut down by anybody who buys the house because that house is now for sale. It's already got somebody that is interested in buying that particular house which will allow him in his mind to put another house there. I already sent him an email telling that we will file an injunction against him if he tries to build a house there because that specific lot, lot number one in the legal description is tied to the covenants and the covenants are very clear. One residential lot, one residential home on that particular lot, just like there is on mine, which is lot number two. That's one of the reasons we bought. When we bought the property, we knew there was going to be one house there and that was it. there wasn't going to be another one. Our neighbors who we've talked to a few times, we're country people. We don't really know each other very well, but we all live out there knowing the fact that what we have is what we're going to do out there. That we built one house. We have accessory buildings that are out there. We follow the covenants uh to the best of our abilities on on what we're doing out there. We talk to each other. Um Mr. Thomas. Uh, they've lived out there for 20 years. Um, I've only met him three times. All three times I was pulling him out of the out of the ditch because he

drove off into the road. It's the only time we've ever talked to him. Nice people as far as I know. But the simple fact is we bought that property because of the covenants that are tied to it. And I understand that you guys don't necessarily have to follow the covenants because this is about platting. Gibson and I are good friends. We talked about it. I said, "We're not going to allow another house to be built there, even if we have to go outside of the government to take care of it." Based on the information that I know about it, and I work for a lot of developers, is that you guys can take that piece of property and split it up to a minor subdivision. Mr. Gibson said, I said, "What about me? Why can't I do that?" Well, you can, but now it's got to be a major subdivision. Why is that burden being put on me if I decide I wanted to sell my property and divide it? I wouldn't do that to any of my neighbors. That's why we bought what we bought because we weren't going to divide it. And if you look at if you can't see it now,

you have about 30 seconds. If you were there across the street, I'm sorry. 30 seconds. Um, you talk about the traffic. That traffic on there for that nursing home has been there for 25, 30 years. I don't know how long it is. Um, I'm not that concerned about the traffic because the problem is not the traffic of the subdivision or the people that are there. It is all the industrial buildings. People will start trying to go down lane road. Then they figure out, I don't like this road. It's too windy. It's too narrow. Things like that. So, but our covenants, like I said, that's what we bought. The covenants are clear. And you should not be allowed to build another house on that piece of property. Right. Any any questions?

I just wanted to tell that's a really nice house you have there. I loved how the thing in the entry entryway. I like that. Thank you very much. Well, you can tell we work really hard to take care of our place if you've driven out by there. So, and so do all our neighbors. All right. Anything else? No. All right. Thank you. Time's all expired. Time's expired. Did Gary have a question for the attorney? Yeah. Well, you've got some Mitch Gibson. You got some rebuttal time. Uh Mike, so if you want to come up and you had any rebuttal and then Gary's going to have a question for you.

Well, I jotted down as many notes as I could. Um on on the Mills's property, it would be a major subdivision, but they can divide it. Matter of fact, probably less steps than what we've had to go through just to get this minor subdivision. So it the zoning's in place as is all of that property surrounding it. It's zoned R2.5 which is higher density than the properties there and it maybe that zoning is not right for that area but that's what it is. Um, uh, let me see. If you look on the map, there are five to six minor subdivisions. And you might not have anything that packet, but looking at the GIS today, there are five or six minor subs that have been approved in that area, maybe more, probably within the last 20 years. So, I get the fact that everybody's moving away from the city, those that want to, to go to country lots. That started 40 years ago. So, we've had this same argument for over 40 years that I build a house and then somebody else comes in. So, everybody should have that same right whether it's now or tomorrow. But, it ought to be done orderly and that's why the county has put in their zoning ordinances across the whole county. And um just north of the northeast of this property along 500 North there's a 40 to 50 acre parcel that's sitting there waiting for sanitary sewer and water. That's a PUD. That means they can write their own ordinance and I think in a subdivision of over 30 lots was approved several years ago when sewer and water was going to come to that site. Uh drainage goes to the west to an open ditch. Um, most times we don't work in on sites that have good drainage. This

one does. We have access to that. Um, sewer and water. That would be the biggest impact on this area. We're not asking for that. Uh, just asking for one one house that as you look in this area aerial map, it goes with the density. Um, this twoacre lot's bigger than the house to the to the east of it or would be bigger than the house to the east of it. As far as the covenant goes, that's probably bigger than me, but I think that was a typical covenant back in the days. Are there uh design standards if if this were to be approved and another house constructed? Are there design standards that would be um

We'd meet the county's design. The counties, nothing else in the Yeah, we don't have a house plan for that yet. So, speak to that. What What's your plan as far as glot goes? I mean, are are they planning on cutting the trees down or are they just

I think I think there's going to be an area for the septic system obviously and and the new house, wherever that might be, but I think to preserve the the woods is in their best interest. I can't speak for that right now. Um I I do know that uh Mr. Thomas has a a child that uh maybe has some special needs and they've had that big house. Whether they've lived there or not, the neighbors probably know that more than me. I'm not going to speak for that, but he's needing a place to downsize. That's a big house that you've seen on that lot. So, that's kind of what triggered this, I believe. So,

so I mean I mean I would wonder I mean why would you want to live next to people didn't want you there? I mean that's kind of I do that right now. I don't know. I don't know that I was thinking about that today that uh as long as there's neighbors, we're going to do surveying. Mhm. So, figure that out. Uh, no, I just I I didn't You said there's no plan for it, but at the same time, I mean, is there any way to solve this with the neighbors? I mean, work it out or whatever. I mean, from what I've seen and read today, that would be hard fought, I think,

because I mean, that's a lot of property there to say it can never be divided. Yeah. I I I own two acres right now and it's that's a lot of work. So and he he had eight acres and to think and you know the neighbors around

whether whether across the street a neighbor doesn't want this now sometime it's going to be sold and that guy that buys that might have a different feeling and he could do the same thing this gentleman's asking for. That's what the ordinance allows. So, just because this is a two lot platted subdivision, and Jay makes a great point, but just because it's a platted subdivision across the street might not be platted and they can divide it whether they like it or not. Get that neighbor in there that wants to do it or that guy wants to has maybe five kids like me and wants a compound. I don't know. Okay.

I was I was just curious when I'm looking here. That's a lot of woods on there. There's nothing that in that covenant that would stop anybody from cutting down all that woods and just lumbering it out, is there? That's correct. Yeah. I mean, they could just come in and cut it down tomorrow, right? Yep. Yeah. As in any woods around. We have no view at all. Yeah. Right. So, it might be better to have a house there. That's what I was thinking. Could be. that way to preserve the woods or at least get an agreement that the woods be would be preserved, right? To a degree that they could still build a house or accessory, whatever, but

sure. Would would you would your client be open to a contingency for retaining a certain amount of woods? I would have to ask him, but I don't I don't know that that could be answered today. He's he travels quite a bit and he's not here. So, It'd be interesting to know what one of the commitments I was thinking is is at least instead of just a covenant taking care of that is just commit that there would be no other houses built on that two acres.

More procedural question. So we've heard that perhaps the appellant would be prejudiced by not seeing the the the submitt and requested maybe additional review. Would would your case what's your time frame? Is this a contingency of contract? Is it what what consequences might we have if if we were to um reconsider this in a future meeting?

Unfortunately, whether it takes 30 days or not, from what I've heard and what I've read today, whether it takes another 30 days for a continuence, this is this is going to go further than right here. I mean, I think even on our client's standpoint, um, I'd rather a a vote take place tonight and we move on, but if it's a continuence, we'll be here next month. So, because we will not adjudicate the covenant. Yeah, I I Yeah, any more questions for answer your questions?

So, uh, Mr. Thomas is selling the main property and he does have that under contract. So by us continuing this for 30 days it would definitely be negatively adverse adversely affect which I'm sorry what's being what's where's the contract lot one or lot one A lot one lot one is under contract lot 1B if if it was approved it's the existing house the existing house yeah lot 1B you have a copy of the plat the plat Yeah, it's the five acre tract. I've got a whole lot one and a lot. It's called lot one.

Yeah, I think it's called lot one then. Yeah, I'm sorry. I thought it was 1 A and 1B on my sheets. So So he's wanting to split that too. No, no, it's for sale. Lot lot number one right now 7.4 acres as it exists platted. Okay. As

you can see right there, there's a two two different lot. That's all of lot one divided into two lots. [Applause] Okay. Any more questions? None. All right. Thank you. I have a couple questions um Rhonda for you. with um these conditions that we talked about putting a condition of no additional sub dividing. Is that something that could be done? No additional subdivisions of lot one or lot 1A as a condition of the replant. You could um I was just going to mention that the restricted covenants that they're talking about are some those are things private agreements between private parties that we can't enforce. It's not government's role. So you can really set that whole argument aside

and then you're looking at Kayla's staff report which talks about what the tech committee all the things that they required and sounds to me that they approved those and they found that those were met. So you could look at those items again. Then you're looking at from our standpoint whether all the subdivision control ordinance factors were met and Kayla would give you guidance on that. So that's really where your decision comes down aside from the restricted covenants because that's nothing that we can enforce, right?

So um can we put on conditions? Yes. I mean you can add conditions as we normally do if you'd like to go go that direction. And then the appealing party I think was requesting a continuence, but we wouldn't we I don't think we can accept a continuance request from that party to to continue. I I think the reason why we were talking about we didn't have the memo that legal counsel had provided

um and whether or not you thought that that was necessary. I think he did go over that and the contents of it whether you thought you wanted mentioned a continuence in his presentation, but I don't think that we would accept. He doesn't have the ability to to request it at his position. Just wanted to clarify that. Okay.

Yeah. And then of course that was the last piece of my my question was that we I just wanted to clarify that we're we're dealing with the division of the land only and that the covenants are uh outside of our purview here. So I think what we our options here would be to and again I always get this wrong to approve the to approve the plat because we're acting as the plat committee. So to approve it, to deny it, um approve it with some conditions or uh can continue it. Motion to approve the plat.

Is there a second?

Okay. No second. Do we have another motion? Motion to continue. Second. All right. It's been moved and continued to moved and seconded to continue this plat discussion to the uh August meet meeting. Um all those in favor signify by saying I I oppose. Same sign. Opposed. Opposed. One opposed.

All right. um just add add whatever to the packet for next month and we'll do it again. All right. Thank you all for coming out. Thank you. [Music] Okay. Item number three is our parks and recreation impact fees. I hear from Mr. Waldridge on this one. You already know where I stand. I know. I thought about you the whole time I was reading it. And I see there's a correction.

Could Could we maybe page two again? I want to talk. I was going to say that was wrong. I was going to call that out. There's there's problems with that. Yeah. All right. [Applause] There's a correction sheet. That was all of the Okay.

All right. Have at it whenever you're ready. Um, this is Matt Eerley with Baker Tilly. He'll be giving our presentation today. Oh, okay. All right. Good evening. Uh, as Caleb mentioned, my name is Matt Eckerly. I'm a pull with Baker Tilly with offices in Indianapolis. He's a item. He needs to be sworn in. Oh, do I? Yeah. 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. And again, my name is Matt Eckerly. E C K E R L E. Uh I'm a principal with Baker Tilly with offices in Indianapolis. We were engaged by the county commissioners to prepare a zone improvement plan which is before you tonight uh for the implementation of a recreation impact fee on uh the area of Hancock County over which you have planning and zoning jurisdiction which is and Rhonda please correct me if I misspe as I understand it it's all of Hancock County excluding the unincorporated areas. Is that accurate? I know sometimes some incorporated areas have uh

allow the county jurisdiction, but I just wanted to confirm that. Right.

Um so essentially the zone improvement plan lays out the calculation of the impact fee and the impact fee is imposed uh on new housing development on a per unit basis. And the simplest way to put it is it's a mechanism intended to have new development help pay for itself. And in particular with the recreation impact fee, the calculation of it is meant for the new development to pay for the additional recreational infrastructure made necessary by the new development being constructed. and and we arrive at that and really the the summary of uh the calculation can be found on page five and I'll just focus on that. Happy to get in the weeds if you'd like but really we we arrive at that by looking at a few different things. One, we look at the estimated future housing development and the resulting population. And for that information, we look at a 10-year uh plan horizon. And that's defined in state code uh as the time horizon you look at. Uh we used housing and population estimates that are used by the county in all of its planning efforts. We want this document to be consistent with the county's other planning documents as it comes to population and housing growth. So we look at that. We also worked with Pros Consulting, which is a parks consulting firm uh that operates uh really worldwide. Um that worked in conjunction with the county to look at the recreational amenities that the county is looking to uh to provide under its new parks department. and Pros provided estimates on the cost of those amenities and um also uh level of service standard best practices. And those level of

service standards are laid out on page seven and were reviewed with an impact fee advisory committee that was impanled by the board of commissioners or appointed by the board of commissioners uh and had to meet certain statutory requirements in terms of its composition. But those level of service standards um that are targeted means that the these are the the aspirations of the county and what it would like to provide in terms of recreational amenities. And those are then broken down on a a level of service basis based on population. For example, uh a target um level of service I'm sorry I'm looking at the wrong page. Uh a target ratio for neighborhood parks acreage of 5 acres per 1,000 people. a target level of service for basketball courts of one court for every 6,500 people. And this defines not only the recreational amenities types that the county aspires to provide, but also uh how wi which types it uh looks to fund through the impact fee. Because the impact be that the governance of the expenditure is pretty tightly defined in state law that you can only fund what is made necessary by new development and what is included in the plan. So we translated those level of service standards into estimates of future needs and then estimated costs based on again information provided by pros and then also for the the land acquisition information. uh we find that the best resource for that is just looking at recent land transactions uh by the county when the county's bought land for other uses. So that's uh that gives us an assumed cost per acre. And then uh we estimate that based on future development need or future development estimates uh the target level of service ratios uh we come to an a calculation and you

can see it on page 12 of how much new infrastructure that is intended to be funded with impact fees will be required over that 10-year plan horizon. And we estimate that to be $1.4 million thereabouts. Now, one thing that's important to note is that, and I apologize for jumping around. I said I was going to keep it simple, but I understand too that you haven't dealt with impact fees before. One thing that is important to note as well is, and this is laid out on page 10, the new residents, the new uh units can only pay for infrastructure that they make necessary. to the extent that the level of service standards that are defined by the committee and then approved by the various bodies um create uh establish current deficits. And so if you look at page 10, you'll see that we're showing a deficit of uh almost 14 acres for regional park acorage. Uh a deficit of 1.39 miles of unpaved trails. Uh those have to be funded by means other than impact fees. And before dollar1 of impact fee can be spent on any of those amenities, the current deficits need to be filled. So we establish that there's approximately $1.4 million of current deficits that have to be funded through other means. And the county has uh advised us that the current intent and they're not held to this is to fund that through operating budgets that they have currently. Now if next year they determine they want to go out and issue a bond to fund it, that doesn't change this. It's, you know, reasonable expectations at this time. So, we're establishing that there's $1.4 million of current deficits, approximately $1.4 million to meet the estimated population and housing growth over the next 10 years. And then you divide that $1.4 million, and this goes back to uh page five by the estimated future housing units, and that's single and multifamily. and you get to a fee amount

of $412 per unit, which means that once this ordinance is adopted, and it would be approved by the the council, correct Rhonda? Uh once commissioners,

excuse me, I misspoke. Um by the commissioners, uh 6 months from the adoption date, it becomes effective. So, just to use a round date, say that ends up being February 1st of 2026. That's the effective date. That means if someone comes in on Groundhog Day 2026 and pulls a permit for a new single family home, an additional fee will be imposed on that uh applicant of $412 that will then get put into a dedicated fund established by the county auditor and then can only be spent in accordance with this plan. That ordinance would be uh would be in effect for 5 years. Even though the plan horizon is 10 years, the effective term of an ordinance is 5 years. And after that time period, the county would have to go through this process again of preparing a zone improvement plan, going through yourselves, going back to the commissioners for a new ordinance and so on and so forth. Now, if development or parks priorities changes 2 years from now and the county determines we need to take another look at this now and not wait the full 5-year term, certainly within their ability, but again, they have to go through that entire process. Once again, it's a relatively flexible tool in terms of deploying it, but then once it's deployed, it's fairly restrictive. and Hancock County, uh, you know, the city of Greenfield has an impact fee and there are over a dozen, uh, communities in the Indie Metro area that have fees in place. Uh, they're all cities and towns. This would be the first county in the Indie Metro. Um, but they have these fees. It's long been a tool of growing communities to meet parks needs. And in our conversations with the county commissioners, with their consultants at Pros, it was determined that, you know, in this era of uh not a whole lot of tools in the toolbox for local governments to fund infrastructure, especially

infrastructure that's driven by new development. Uh having as many arrows in the quiver, so to speak, would be to the county's benefit. And so that's why they were pursuing this. Happy to answer any questions. I know I kind of hopped around. There's a lot of information in this. Happy to dive into the weeds. Again, we we leaned heavily on the planning and building department. Kayla was great to work with on that. Uh there was an impact fee advisory committee that met a handful of times and from that committee is present tonight as well. And then we leaned on uh legal counsel to make sure that the procedural requirements are being met and the ordinance is being drafted appropriately and that the zone improvement plan is in line.

Has this changed a little bit from the original one I got? Because I thought there was one place where there was three things that told us what it could be used for because originally when we talked about this, we were only going to use it for new stuff. But then when I read through it, there was three different categories, but I don't find it in this document by trails. I'm sure that that doesn't ring a bell on this one. Um, there's been a fairly narrow focus and again looking only at the new development. This was this was strictly what the money could be used for. Correct. They had like Aquar ordinance or in the zone improvement plan for parks, dog parks, all that. I mean,

no, not it. Anyway, it was something I was going to ask about, but then I couldn't find it in there. Is that for As far as what this could be used for and when a compact fee would be assessed, we would be looking at utilizing not only new single but also new mult or unit. Yes. Per unit.

And it could be kind of in the categorization of the uses. I thought it said somewhere where it also could be used to repair something that need the impact fees cannot be used for operations and maintenance expenses can only be used for new capital expenses category. So so a new a new splash pad can be used for or a new playground equipment if it's if it's in the plan. Well, is it in the plan? Now the plan has identified as the deficits as and you know population growth might dictate otherwise but the the categories that we are projecting it would be used for is some acreage uh

but the hopefully the acreage is just donations that's my hope that's the hope that's the hope and goal that's what should be then the question is how to put stuff there that would be our responsibility certainly and and certainly and so what you find in a lot of communities is that impact fees become a mechanism to negotiate those donations in lie of fee and then that opens up the other resources for deployment to put stuff on that acreage. Uh so what could this money be used for? So that would be on page 12. Neighborhood parks, regional parks,

preserves space acreage, paved and unpaved trails, shelters, dog park, canoe, kayak, launch, and fishing dock. So now, like this person that just came up, they were going to divide the property in two. Uh let's say it's all done before the impact fee gets done. If they decide to put a house on that second property, do they have to pay the impact fee? If if they pull the permit after the 6 months after the ordinance is adopted, six months after ordinance. Okay. And and one of the things that we talked about in the advisory committee meetings was that when you're starting from zero, uh it's always, you know, I think it's human nature to say, okay, there's all this stuff we want to get done.

But then when you put it down here and you look at, okay, we need splash pads, we need uh basketball courts, baseball diamonds, you look at the current deficits when you don't have those already in your inventory. and the gap you have to make up to start when you have inventories of zero becomes cost prohibitive to actually imposing the fee because you're ne that the dog's never going to catch the tail. So you start at kind of a lower level, start with the planning process, get your procedures in place and then as your uh recreational amenities evolve, you can evolve the plan with it. I think a good example of that would be Whitestown. We worked on Whitestown's first impact fee oh gosh over 15 years ago now. and um they started very small, but the two times that they've renewed it, it's become incrementally more aggressive in the types of development they're looking to pursue in their recreational amenities. They're building the inventory. They've been working with developers to get additional things donated in. And then they're strategically using debt to fund some of the bigger ticket items in conjunction with the impact fee.

You know, and we talked, you mentioned how no county around here's done it. It sound seems to me that if you're someone that's buying into county, you're like, "Oh, this is one less tax that I have to pay, one less fee." Some people look as a tax, some people as a fee. So, it's one less that we have to pay if we move to the county. Is there any county in Indiana that's done this or we just are we doing? We're going down the wrong rabbit hole.

Rhonda and I have talked about that. I'm not aware of any that have actually implemented it. I know of two that have been considering it. uh Warick County very publicly had engaged an engineering firm uh but I don't believe that they have imposed a fee and I know that Porter County had been exploring it as well. We mainly see it in municipalities. I think and this might be a little bit of Matt editorializing so bear with me. I think it's the the nature of a municipality and how these fees are imposed and managed. it's been a little more natural for them. But again, as I referenced, as counties like municipalities are facing increasing pressures on their funds, they're looking for new tools to solve those problems. I might follow up with that with perhaps an opposite view because um the question would be does this set the precedence for us to continue impact fees into other areas um of our county because we don't have impact fees where it can be incredibly useful and it's a very equitable

opportunity for us to um match growth in a way that is also recognizing the free market. So is this a precedent for us to It could be. And so impact fees in Indiana can be used for parks, roads, and really those are the only two uses that you see around the state. Uh you see some road impact fees in municipalities in Hamilton County and elsewhere. Uh but then also uh utilities like water and sewer, though my utility partners always say that there's other mechanisms that are um easier to use than impact fees, one of the options. And then um flood control

are the the uses. So roads and parks are what you see around Indiana. Nationally you see a lot more uses but uh the general assembly has not given you that power. Okay. Um can I can I just ask a couple questions? All right. I didn't see anything about the provision for in the event of a dissolution of these funds. We just we we assume they will always be put to the capital expenditures that we they have to that that's under state law forever and ever. Okay. Um I do notice that on page one that it is calculated based upon um the current bond capacity, but did you you did mention that there would be maybe an opportunity to bond some of these items. Did you take that in consideration with your calculations? If there's a supplemental bond, will we still be under the capacity?

We we did not take into account any bond issues because that again on consultation with the county, there are no immediate plans to issue any debt. kind of just need to remember that in the event that that that recalculations might be if a debt is comes up and you're looking at okay what's it being used for it's helpful to compare what the uses I see a 10 year and a 5year time frame in here and I see 412 with a note on inflation um there's no prompt though to revisit the 412 and the 412 will inflate away pretty quickly and over a 10-year period yes I mean okay so the county just has to remember to refresh this fee yes exactly

I also see pre-stated um amount for the petition for appeal, which we typically handle in a different fee. I think it's $100. We typically handle that in a different schedule for an appeal in a process. So, I don't know if we need to cross reference that in our in our petitions and fees, which is a little bit different than what we handle typical fees. Say that again. I care.

Who is reviewing the appeals? So we have to establish an impact fee review board and that will be something the commissioners will have to put in place and then we also in the ordinance had to establish who would be handling the refunds. We have by statute we have to designate an official or um like an employee commissioner's um designated I checked this with the county attorney that the commissioners will handle the refunds and then the auditor is the one that will handle the return of the refunds and interest.

I was more just the fee in order to apply for an appeal. All of our fees are in schedules elsewhere. So just as long as it's cross reference. Yeah, I think that would be a really good idea for us to include this in our fee schedule. And the purpose of in that review board not having a me any of us like we're booted. We can't be that. Um the purpose was to make sure there's no conflict of interest when we are reviewing and negotiating some of these approvals coming before us. Is that the issue? Is a conflict? Never been asked that question. I would defer to council. Um I don't I I can tell you right off hand what what the legislative intent was behind that. Um okay. Um, and then I think two more questions. What's exhibit A? Like what is exhibit A?

It's the zone improvement plan. So, um, the ordinance has a blank page exhibit A and that's where you're going to plug in the Baker Tilly July 1st goes with it. It just came to you in two separate documents. Got it. And then um, who's going to govern the in lie of that's at the commissioner's level as a recommendation from the planning commission? Um, for example, you're meaning if somebody comes in and says they want to do something else besides pay the fee, they want to try to build something or do something. Matt, can you explain how that works?

Yeah, it each community handles it kind of in its own procedures. I think typically um they go to the parks department, say, "Okay, this is what we want." want then the parks department has to get the blessing from the plan commission and ultimately the the um and I'd say commissioners here sorry I'm used to working with

um and so this assuming that this might set precedents for us in the future for 12 um which is the max fee what if we do want to look at other infrastructure such as roads um did the advisory committee take into consideration that this could be precedent setting for other impact fees that in total might surpass a grant or or more. Well, and I know that road fees had been discussed at the commissioner's level and I believe the the decision was made when they engaged us was to focus on parks to start uh but leave the door open for others and it is common like like I said in um like uh Fisers, Zansville where they have road impact fees, they do look at them in total and Baggy when they come and talk about them, they look at them in total and Carmel is actually explicit in that we only have a park impact fee. We're not doing road impact fees. That's why our park impact fee is higher. So I I think it is precedent setting and then as other fees are explored and perhaps layered on. Okay.

It's going to be looked at in totality. But this this specific tasking was for parks. Yeah. And the zone improve the the county would have to build a whole new zone improvement plan for roads uh separate from this one. But perhaps that's the pathway for that. And there's a an amend there's an amendment process that the parks can be taken in totality with the other impact fees that passed. So that I think that's dealt with nicely. Great. Those are my questions. Thank you.

I have a few questions. First of all, I think this is awesome that we're going to have a countywide park system. It's really well needed. I know a lot of work's gone into it. So, I want to commend all those involved. Um I sort of curious about when you're pulling together the numbers specifically because all the areas around the county are growing. So, I wonder about annexation as the towns became bigger. Does that shrink the numbers that you're going to have to work with? Was that considered in some of your numbers and pulling together? And does that make an impact in the numbers that we're going to have to work with in the five-year period? And will that impact and then along with that? I know you said it excluded the unincorporated areas in some of those um figures in the beginning. So I guess my question is like the dollars that are going to be captured, will projects take place o only in the incorporated areas or will we see park projects take place outside of the incorporated um areas or like how have you got that far? So

so uh to start with the the first question this is looking at the unincorporated areas. you don't have jurisdiction over Greenfield or McCordsville for example.

So this is just looking at the unincorporated areas and in theory the you know the expenditure of these dollars is limited to where you have jurisdiction though and I I haven't run into this explicitly. uh it might be something you'd have to explore with council if there was a project that was in an incorporated area but it was determined that there was a nexus to the development that's making it where you know I think about I live in Carmel and Cox Gardens is a county park that's in the city of Carmel. So, if you were spending on that, even though it's in an incorporated area, but you're demonstrating that it's serving the residents who are paying the fee, you might be able to get there. But that would be something you'd have to kind of plan through with legal counsel and make sure it's defensible. Um, for any of these expenditures, you need to justify what we're spending is driven by the development that's paying called the rational nexus test. Got to draw that linkage. So, I I don't think it's impossible to spend in an incorporated area. You just have to be able to show how that's serving the residents. Kayla can speak to the the synthesis of the uh the development estimates and the population estimates as it relates to um potential annexations, things like that. Annexation was something that we discussed as we were looking at our priorities um for what impact fees should go toward funding. Um so for example, you'll see that our impact fee amenities include purchase of nature areas, preserves, open space, really things that are just preserving uh open space right now. Um acquiring that land and maybe it stays just nature preserve open space. Maybe it gets developed into a more of a developed park in the future if uh residential growth occurs around it, but we are putting a pin in this

right now that we need to start preserving uh park spaces in Hancock County. You'll also see that we have uh established a priority on trails um as well as canoe and kayak launch and uh fishing dock things that were are basically linear. Uh so think about um our water bodies that crisscross the county and our planned trail routes. These are things that really serve the larger unincorporated Hancock County and really stay um stay rural and natural long-term. That was part of the reason we did not focus on more neighborhood type amenities like playgrounds. Um apart from also the maintenance need that those would require. acquiring land, laying out rustic trails. These all seemed in keeping with our county park systems kind of starting out mission, um, as well as, uh, just establishing a foothold in what a parks in a county setting might look like. I just wanted to say that, um, Johnson County does have road impact fees because I look looked at one of their ordinances and trying to tweak this one. And I was also told that Hamilton County and Lake County do. I haven't been able to confirm that Hamilton does. I know that cities within Hamilton do. Um, but I haven't cities in Lake County that do. So perhaps people are

right. But I can tell you Johnson County has I confirmed that they have road impact fees there. Um, in regards to any of the cities, have they ever applied the park impact fee to any commercial or industrial properties? I have not seen that. It It's harder to draw the nexus. Um, because I mean, it seems like we're shifting in K County, but unfortunately our predecessors to me and Gary, it seems like they've shifted the burden of taxes on the residential and this is just another tax on our residents that I know. I just don't like as elected official. It's like, you know, I I just don't want to text people anymore. It's just it's they're getting they're feeling it.

The other impact fees will be focused on development though if we if we went down those paths. Road road impact fees are generally assessed on a per generated basis. Okay. And um it's more from what I've seen elsewhere, it's more heavily weighted towards commercial and those just generate a heck of a lot more trip. Yeah. Park impact fees. Um, we we've explored it. We've been asked the question before and not found anyone comfortable with going down that path. Do I understand the question? Is this how does this affect Shirley? Does Shirley have its own planning and zoning or are they under your jurisdiction? Under here.

So, this would be applied in the town of Shirley then. So, people who are pulling permits in Shirley would have to pay it. That's actually a great question. I don't think so. It's on the unincorporated areas. Oh, you only did unincorporated. Oh, okay. I apologize if it's not. So, it's only on in the unincorporated areas. Okay. I apologize. So, it wouldn't be Shirley or Spring Lake. Okay. But the commissioners did just invest in property in Shirley because they don't have the money to do it. So, we bought it around the trail up there. They're going to maintain it. really already has the beginnings of a very nice party system.

Yeah. So, just a a kind of a maybe a sidebar question. The theory I guess the theory is because you can only use the money on new capital capital expenditures. If a person builds a new residence, they pay their $412. You go and build a fishing dock or put up a sign or something. The idea is that the the new assessed value, the new taxes coming in off of that new home pays the maintenance essentially in theory for these new things. That's what I've not been able to figure out. Like are we just adding more things for the county to have to maintain and have to pay for? And I think that's part of the point that Kayla made was keeping it limited to start recognizing that this creates a mechanism to fund the new item, but it doesn't create a mechanism to operate and maintain it.

And because of, you know, levy controls on property taxes and everything like that, you know, you're dealing with a limited uh budget for that. So, they didn't want to, you know, get out over their skis, so to speak, in terms of amenities. Yeah. Because I know when this all first started, it was everybody kept trying to reel it in. It's like we're preservation. Kayla talked about we're we're talking about preserve areas here, not not splash pads and swimming pools that cost a lot of money to to maintain.

And that's something that as you develop the infrastructure you and you know build more of a budget for the parks department, you might end up in a position where you can afford to assume additional maintenance costs for some of those larger amenities. But the strategic divi decision here was to keep it limited in scope so you weren't creating burdens on other departments to maintain.

Yeah. But I mean even though there would might be a levy or a cap on the millage rate there is a direct impact to assessed value with the additional amenities um which has an overall increase in the advalorum that can fund the maintenance and that's the thought right because you're giving things that people want to go to and will in I mean it's just a it's it's it's additional taxation through the assessed value. you're you're just not seeing a proport one to one growth in dollars generated to the the through property taxes from uh the new assessed value because you do have those maximum levy limitations. It's it it doesn't keep up.

Um but you still want to drive that growth as much as possible because if you don't grow your levies will keep increasing, your rates will just go up and you'll hit the caps more and lose more money. So it's all interconnected to your point. The other thing that's so interesting is the the theory behind the planning commission being involved in something like this. It becomes kind of like RDC. It's like I I'm still a little like baffled by this board's involvement in the approval of an ordinance or the recommendation of an approval of an ordinance for an impact fee.

Right. So, um, this follows the 600 series in the planning and zoning code, which is the way we typically approve an ordinance for a reszone or a text change. In this case, it was a little different because the commissioners initiated this ordinance and then they have to send it to us and then we start going through the 600 series, which is where you're going to make a favorable, unfavorable, or no, a checks and balances basically. But our fingerprints will be all over the in lie of right. We're going to be making recommendations on a pocket park um in lie of that and and we we're going to be first up on that. We're like front line. That's why I'm guessing we can't be on that board because we're we would be conflicted from

probably. So from we have to recuse. So I mean that it makes sense for us to know and understand what we're passing because all these are going to come to us. And just for clarification because I messed up I missed it I'm sure. So what exempts commercial property from participating in this?

It's not as much as it's exe well it goes kind of down the theory rabbit hole a little bit. It's you have to draw that nexus between that type of development and the increase for new amenities, recreation amenities disturb and the the theory and I've looked at this nationally over the years. The theory is that it's very easy to say more apartments, more housing units, whatever the type of single family housing that's going to bring new people into the community and that is going to increase parks and recreation. It's harder to draw that nexus of if you have a new factory, how does that drive the need for additional recreational? There's not that kind of population test. It's a little more linear than what

but does but doesn't that go to what our economic developers say that quality of life quality of place because that's what they keep on telling us that we need to do for them so they can be able to bring companies and corporations in. I completely understand that argument and um actually I spend most of my time on economic development issues and I definitely see and you know not just you know industrial development but you know such a focus on you know I I live next to Westfield there's Grand Park bringing so many people in who are using the the parks it's just drawing drawing the nexus to justify the imposition of challenge so maybe it's just we need to do a paradigm shift

well and I I think we're always looking for better ways to skin the cat part of the expression Um so if we come across you know data that we can then draw upon that shows that connection that nexus between non-residential development types and thereased need for recreational amenities I think that I just haven't found it yet. And if you find something and what you know we're asking the folks at Pros all the time looking for best practices. I guess I guess you could look at it like we've we've done it with our trails and I and I bet they do it on Caramel. I'm thinking about Caramel. I mean because you guys got splash pad and things and so if I go up there and I'm like well I'm gonna go shopping at Whole Foods and the kids are like can we come along and go to the park first. So like okay let's go to Caramel. We go to a park there. So now I've gone from New where I live to Caramel's Park before I go to Whole Foods because there's no Whole Foods near us. So, um, so the, so there's got to be a way. What they do with our trails is they look at who's parking in the parking lot.

It's like the Guist waterfront. I think they charge that. Yeah, they do. Which is a terrible idea, but uh, not to get into that rabbit hole, but yeah. Um, I I think they can do that is start looking at the the cars that are coming to your parking lot and seeing that, oh, my car says 30 on the license plate, not 29. Sure. I I know because we've worked with Caramel on their last two iterations. they look strictly at residential development there. I understand the point you're making. I think one of the things there and maybe it's a good thought exercise working with some of the folks in Carmel or elsewhere or here is thinking about how can you efficiently track that to then generate the data that can justify the calculation and then imposition of

I think it' be the car the car thing in the Yeah, it could be the car. Um, but then it, you know, I you could go into, well, how many people are in this kind of car versus that kind of car like because it all has to hold up under statute. I mean, I think it's a great thought exercise and um I think I'm going to ask one of our interns to do some research when I get into the office tomorrow to see if they find anything new this time around. I guess I think there's there's some there's a colonel there. Definitely. Well, I guess I was just not to give you down the rabbit hole, but you know, our hospital's done a lot of extensive research. I mean, we're the healthiest county. I know you sit on that board, but we're what the third healthiest county in the state of Indiana.

I think that's right. Is that right? Lacy sits on that board. Um, and I know that our employers that impacts their health cost, which is economic development. And so having a healthy um community impacts health costs. Oh yeah. Which is economic development. Having a park system creates recreational opportunities for their employees which goes around circles. So them contributing to a health um healthy park system, helps reduce their costs. So I mean I doesn't that help them help pay impact fees for our park system?

I I completely understand it. I think it all comes down to though is you need to have that that data that justifies it. Like for road impact fees, I said it's based on trips generated. The the reference is the it's like the International Institute of Transportation Engineers has a trip generation manual. It's like,000 pages thick. Um which is like thorough data and research on that topic that you can draw a reliable nexus. I have not seen anything, but I'm open to looking for similar data that would be defensible, which I think is a key in all of this, that applies to recreational amenities.

I guess I was just thinking, Matt, if we're the first county that's sort of doing this, why don't we be the first county that ties economic development to the parks? I I think, you know, just continuing to explore those things and um sometimes a pathway to that is a voluntary contribution in the discussions for a PUD for a a mixed use or a commercial. Hey, we have a new parks impact fee and um so so that could be a part of larger discussions in economic development and to you know come along with us because your employees will be you know utilizing these as well. So maybe it's a le less statutory and more economic development negotiation.

And I and I I I see, you know, I work a lot with counties that have been dealing with wind and solar over the past, you know, 15 years or so. And one of their um one of the common mechanisms in those agreements is an economic impact payment or an economic development payment. recognizing the economic opportunity generated by wind and solar isn't analogous to tier one auto manufacturer or something like that. And so they make payments based on the the scope of the project to the county that the county then can deploy at its will on other economic development projects around the county. And I work with White County, for example, and they've used it for everything from public safety to recreation, things like that. So there's precedents for things like that outside of the impact fee where you could negotiate, you know, fees associated with economic development that can then be deployed strategically outside of the relatively limited scope under statute that's available to you for

actually we've got economic development agreements. Yeah. With the buildings out there. We just got I think the first payment in. So there I mean and it's going to help fund police and fire and all that kind of stuff. So and it could be and it could do parks in the future. It possibly could. Yeah. Or roads. Yeah. Because right when we were looking at the the data center, the first thing that come up, could we put a park up there between Tuttles and the building that that come up immediately. We used to do it for public art. You know what I mean? Yeah, I mean it can be done fees for cart. We just have to do it.

Yeah, it it can definitely be done and it doesn't have to be an impact fee though. It could end up being equivalent depending on how you structure it. Yeah, we see that all over the state and and more municipalities are starting to look at that honestly too. Thank you. Oh, this is good. I like the philosophical discussions too. Well, I mean it's good big picture um discussion, but I think what's in front of us here is the the commissioners are wanting something to uh get started so they can maintain what they've got, right? or or preserve preserve some things uh preserve some land new stuff. Yeah. To to get the ball rolling. So, um and that's what this is that's what this fee is determined by is those baby steps. Right. So, I'd be happy to make a motion. Well, no, you can't. You can't.

You have to It's an open public. He's got to have five people in the audience. I'm sorry. Sorry. Super Larry out there. He got Larry. He's gonna get up here. You guys are talking. Sorry, Larry. Yeah. Too many squeeze thunder. So, that was our staff report and our petitioner. The commissioners were the petitioner. So, I this would be remmonstrance. Yeah. Or or whatever. Whatever. Or whatever. Okay. Support. Larry fits into everything. Public comment. 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. Larry Saddam, Sedam. Um, I I know this is in a roundabout way. It's a tax. It's a tax on a new house. Um, you know what? For a change, Larry's for this. You know, it's Hold on, Larry. You're killing me, man.

It's a fee to complete trails and parks. developers are selling that they have access to the parks and the trails. 100, you and I talked about it. There's a development on 100. He's selling that he has access to the Pensy Trail. Drive down 40 right by uh Cumberland. What do they have? The town houses on the Pency Trail. Go down the Pensy Trail. All these housing additions have what? Access to the Pensy Trail. Are they paying for it? No. They've got access to our public land and are not paying for it. I came from Marian County. Know it doesn't look like it, but I used to love the Monan Trail. I would ride the Monan Trail up to ends in Westfield. Garfield Park to Westfield. It's a great bike ride.

Or take the one to uh on Fall Creek Parkway. Another great ride. Just want to ride it early in the morning. So to the fact is I came to Hancock County, start pedaling on the on on the Pency Trail and just kind of like the Monan in Westfield. It ends Mhm.

with a little sign says future development and it gives little sections on what they do and to click on it or call or go to the website and see what you can do, see how you can support it. I was shocked. It's not supported by the government. We have a private group that does um all kinds of things to to get money to do the trail. Yes, it's great. We're missing a mile and a half now. Can you imagine riding from the other side of Greenfield clear down to downtown? It's It's great to hop on the bike and go from go from 600 all the way down to Irvington. It's a great ride. Do it. Grab the new part of the trail, which again, private donations donated a lot of that land. You know, you go from 400 to 300. You stop.

I think they didn't they just complete that? Yes. They're working on it right now. Yeah. No, it it's Yeah, it's you can Yeah, I did it Sunday.

I did it Sunday. It's a It's a great It's a great walk. Let's be passionate about this. Let's Let's let let's let basically development pay for what they're selling. You can't tell me that all these apartments that are built over there in the new development off of the highway are not selling how great Hancock County is and how great this is. We've got the the health centers, we got trails, we got parks, but we're not paying for them. But come on,

let's make it fair. Not just them. To your point, make development pay for it, too. How about this? a data center. Let's let's ask them to pony up a million bucks for a I mean, they're after all they're going to make that million bucks in a in a heartbeat. If we're going to let a data center in here or let someone develop something like that, pony up. Let's get the money that we deserve. Let's finish it. We are the fastest growing county. We're so proud of that. People expect these amenities. Yeah, they do. They expect the parks. They expect the trails. Maybe they don't expect a splash pad, but we'll let the cities do that. Yeah, Greenfield's got it.

I go to it.

And and and and that's my point here. Just um you know, do the and I did the study. I hate to say it. I I stayed on the trail for, you know, two or three hours. Ask people, "Where are you from?" You'd be amazed at how many people were from just hopping on the trail. They weren't they weren't in, you know, they weren't driving. They weren't like me have to drive to the the trail. They were hopping on the trail along the trail. Take the uh Pency and you end up going that that little trail that goes south and ends up at the like the soccer fields. Great little ride, great little walk. Um be passionate about this. We've got something good. We need to make sure everybody pays for it that is developing it. That includes the apartments, the condos. If it's got a door and it's going to have people in it, they should have to pay for it. Hate to even say it. If a hotel's developing it, developing here, something we we need we need if we can't get it through our houses, we need to make sure our developers are paying for it. The other part is every time we develop an area with the houses that could help pay for it, Cumberland, Greenfield, you know, McCordsville, they annex it. You're not going to gain anything. I hate to say it, we will not gain anything if we just do the houses. You're going to have to de you're going to have to hit everybody else, too. That's just my opinion. Um, you look at Greenfield, you look at Cumberland, they got great they got great trails. You go in the fall, there's a guy sweeping the the thing with the little little K Cabota, you know, he's trail off the leaves so nobody gets hurt, you

know. Yeah, that's all maintenance, but you know, they have the money to do it because they have the dense population. You don't have that. You walk I mean from Greenfield, hop the trail, take it out to the uh the center out there at 300. What's that begins with a B? Uh the where the dog park is that can hold. Yes.

I mean you you can walk you can buy you can pretty much cover any part of Greenfield you want. You can hop to whatever but we just need it. Um, the other example I want to use is when the Monan first got built, you in some pretty sketchy neighborhoods, especially from um south as soon as you caught it by like I want to say like 10th Street um right past uh um yeah, in downtown right when it hits downtown. I mean, you got some rough rough neighborhoods. You go by that now, you can't afford you couldn't afford a lot. and you look at what's being developed along some of these trails, it's growth and that's that's kind of where we, you know, you go. So, um the other part is you buy land now, it's growing too much. You won't be able to afford a park 10 years from now. You really won't. for I I am totally in support of taxing development and not just houses especially not just houses because they're going to get annexed anyway. That's it.

All right. Thank you. Thanks. Questions? Anybody else? Anyone else? We do have one government official here tonight. Our park board president, Miriam Morales, is here. She is also a local realtor and special projects lead for the board of commissioners. So if anybody has any questions or here I'll let her speak. Okay. We need to probably swear you in. Um yeah. Do you swear to 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? It is

Mary Morales and it's R O L L E S. I didn't um have any intention of speaking tonight, but um I would like to say that uh I've been with the county since June of 23 and uh I was approached to ask to start participating and implementing a park board and which we've done and um there's a lot of really great projects um on the horizon. Uh there was a purchase of the railroad bed up in Shirley um for us and I've worked with Teresa Hester. Is that your wife?

Very nice gal. And uh anyway, we uh got a deal with Mr. Sarowski and Mr. Sarowski wanted to put a memorial bench or some sort of a placard up to um identify his uh heritage, his legacy. And um we got anou with the town of Shirley and um that was to uh cut the grass and make sure that the place is really nice and there was some ruts that we found uh which was not really great for their lawnmowers and there's a lot of groundhogs up there. So, um, we're going to try to capture the groundhogs and, um, we were able to vacate Pennsylvania Street in between, um, the area where the ruts were happening. And, um, not that they're not driving over that still. Um, but the the thought is is we're going to beautify that area and put a nice fence up there. I've been working on several grants. One is the White family fund grant and that is to help put the fence up and put um some really nice um landscaping flowers that are um resistant to groundhogs and and to uh rabbits. But um we also um are working with Ninstar. I'll go away from Shirley right now, but um we're working with Ninstar right now for a donation of 53 acres right off of the brand new section of 300 West to 400. It's the mo it's a really beautiful um property if you do get a chance to go out to 300 West on that trail. Um I think it's the most scenic spot, but um they're going to be putting up a water treatment facility there and it'll almost look like Becken Holt. Um, so if we are able to get that um, donation from them, we'll move forward and and have that

nice collaboration. I've been calling it Ninstar Park. Um, but I don't know if it'll stay that name or whatever, but a trail will run through it. And I've also applied for the um, ITP grant uh, which is about a $400,000 grant uh, for that trail. So, um, we we have a lot of things and I've got a lot of support and, uh, the highway works really hard, uh, to help and you've seen what they've done. The highway's done with the Pensy Trail. Um, that's a lot of capital money that that they've got through, um, INDOT funds. So, um, kudos to to them. Um, I'm not really sure. Do you guys have any questions for me about the park board? Not department yet, but board at all. Well, I got more questions about what you were discussing and we were discussing that last night with the commissioner with the commissioner.

Um, so are you talking about a 300 where they're going to go come there at Skilman's and go south to 100 South? Yeah, correct. Yeah. Are you think is that where you're talking about having the park where they're talking about maybe putting kayaks in the water? Yeah. And that's going to be u pretty far down the road. We really need to look at um all different views of that property. Um the engineer at Instar is going to create a exception we'll call it that's a legal description that will be taking away from the 53 acres because they're going to retain 11 for their water treatment facility and then they'll have easements for their wellheads and their um how many acres is it again? 53 53

minus the 11 and then we'll have an easement uh to give them perpetual well and waterhead rights. Uh this is my vision because I'm a a visionary person. There's also a artisian well on that property that's right next to the trail and it'd be really cool to have a pump house like they have at 116th Street for those that are on the trail uh as they ride their bike or walk by in that very beautiful area. they can possibly stop and get fill up their water jugs and things like that. But um So where do you see the trail going from 300?

Uh you mean if it goes back it's at some point we're hoping it will connect um from 150 to 300, but I'm not involved with that. I'm only involved with the parks part um because there's a capital uh a capital grant I believe on that through the highway that I'm not a part of um between 150 and 300. So um parks doesn't have anything to do with capital grants which are a highway department.

Yes. Park board doesn't have any money. Now, if we'd have done this impact fee 2 years ago, we'd have had $70,000 by now cuz there was 101 new new home builds last year and we've got about 68 new home builds this year. And that's about $70,000 that we could build, shelter houses and and uh vault toilets and and different things for the county and and amenities, you know, that are underserved right now. But I wouldn't recommend everybody running over to 300 and driving down to see the trail cuz that's narrow right there. Well, and there's nowhere to park right now. There's nowhere to park and there's nowhere to turn around,

right? But the the idea is to continue on to 150 from that area. It's just you'll have to we'll have to have acquisition go through there. So, but right now if you go to 400 and then if we are able to get the donation, um the easement from 300 West that is connected to Ninstar would allow us to drive in and create a parking lot there. Yeah. So, um anyway, I um I I do want to say that I appreciate you guys considering this and moving it forward. It's it's uh it's very it will be very impactful.

I I have one more question, but you know, it's just some someone else had asked a question. Uh so there where the graves are at, how big how far do you have to stay away from those? That would be um a state standard that I'm not familiar with. Okay. I would stand I would lean on an engineer or design a design firm that's going to take that through there. So, um but um that was what they were trying to figure out what the standard is for those graves.

Sure. Uh we would the ones that I think you're talking about is at the die cemetery. Yeah. That's a beautiful cemetery of settlement children. They're from ages uh one to like 16 from the they're the settlement kids from the settlements back in the early 1800s. So um but um the parks department I'm just going to say is very grateful to the plan commission for even considering the these impact fees. So, um I believe that um while it's the final decision rest with the board of commissioners that um my board is proud of the progress we've made and the collabor collaboration we're continuing to make with other towns and cities and um moving forward with the parks. So, I think that's it.

Any questions? Thank you. Thank you for the work you're doing. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Anybody else? Nope. Good. All right. All right. So, what we're looking at is um a recommendation here to the commissioners. Oh, there was a correction. Sorry. Yeah.

Real quickly. Um so, I thought it'd be easiest. I have four changes in the recital that I'd like for you to adopt before this ordinance moves on forward. They're all on page two. First one is just a misspelling of the word capital and um I'm taking out the reference to count county council. The board of commissioners is the legislative body and they're the ones that deliberated on this and actually approved the zone improvement plan at one of the recent meetings. So I wanted to make wanted to make that clarification. Therefore I had to re define Hancock County Council and the next whereas clause and I just clarified that it's the Hancock County area plan commission. So those are just really uh scribers corrections and I would appreciate if you take a motion to adopt those changes before it moves on to the commissioners. We need to uh redefine with the parenthesy of council. Is that used anywhere else to carry that down from the 1 2 3 4 fifth whereas to the seventh or the sixth?

I don't think I used council again other than that just right there. Okay. Did did we use it again? Yeah. I don't think I used it again. I don't think so because council had nothing to do with this. Right. Right. There's no reason. I think I only use it one time. So that's why I don't need to define it. Although it is a tax council should

note too that if you look at section one of this um it does expire in 5 years. So this ordinance automatically expires in five years and then you can go back and readopt another one, but it gives us a chance then to go to look again to see if we want to change anything up. Would you accept a combined motion for approval and adoption of the four changes as presented? That's fine. You can do it like that if you'd like. A recommendation for approval to the council as presented incorporating commissioners to to the commissioners. Oh man, I was on council the commission. So So we need to we need to adopt She just made a motion

these corrections and then make a recommendation, right? So you're trying to do that all in one motion. Well, that's true. Let's actually Yes. Let's do adoption of the changes first to the ordinance and then do the recommendation since it is a recommendation and not Yeah. Okay. Um motion to adopt the changes as presented by our council. Second. All right. Been moved and seconded to adopt the changes as presented by councel. All those in favor signify by saying I. I sign. And now we'll we'll hear any other motions for favorable approval to the commissioners for the amended package.

I'll second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded for a favorable recommendation of the impact fee ordinance to the board of commissioners. And we'll do a roll call on that. Yes. Mr. Holden. Yes, Mr. Yes, Mr. McDaniel. Yes, Mr. No. No. Yes.

Passes. Can't do math tonight. Passes. All right. All right. Thank you. That uh that concludes our hearing items for this evening. You guys need a break before we move on to other business. Are you ready to you good to go? All right, good to go. Other business. Item number one, ordinance text amendment for subdivision and control ordinance revision review. A mouthful. An amendment was offered by the board of commissioners um to the uh amendment to the technical review and plaque committee procedures that Rhonda had p had presented. Um however, legal is working with our legal to basically figure out what that needs to look like. Um, additionally, the decision was made by the board of commissioners to um, hold off on any changes to the accessory structure um, ordinance. Um, so that was not brought back up.

Right. I think um, an amendment was prepared to remove the accessory structure portion of the ordinance and um, I think that's where things ended and then it should be back on your agenda for the next meeting. I don't know if it is yet or not. Okay. Okay. I don't get that intended until this week. Yes. It'll get handled one way or another. Trying trying to accelerate something. Just do it in UDL. Well, we're trying to accelerate some things. Okay. Take some burden off.

Uh quick question about the technical committee. Um we've just been called to task on this appeal process more frequently than than his than we than in history. this addressing that issue or no? Um, let me see. I'm trying to go back to my memory about what we were doing here with um, we were fine-tuning some of the procedural steps on notice

on when Kayla would make a determination of whether it went to plat or whether it would come here. Um, so there is some statutory guidance on that that we have to follow depending on whether or not it meets the subdivision control ordinance and whether it complies. And then it's kind of like you go down this decision tree and Kayla would be making those decisions whether she wants to send this like one of these uh petitions directly here or whether it would go to Platt. I think in the UDO it's drafted that it always comes here to plan commission as the UDO is drafted right now. A little bit of a procedural change, but yes, it does kind of address that.

Thank you. Okay. So, no action on item one this evening then. So, no.

Okay. Item two, UDO update. So, I was um showing Lacy before the meeting started that I've been working on a sideby-side comparison, starting with the table of contents to show how here's our new table of contents, kind of how things are addressed, and then digging down into those um topics and lining them up with sections of our existing ordinance. Um so, it's not a pretty document, but it's the start for a um more of a in-depth comparison than as far as content goes. Now, we know if we want to see how contentwise, you can compare our old sign ordinance to our new sign ordinance, here are the two or three sections that were, you know, merged together to form this new one. And we can then use that to look at the content and say, okay, I see here we took this section, this section, and this section. Okay, this is a new section. This,

you know, we can we can compare like that. So, it'll be easier to take section by section and line them up side by side. So it at least gives us a foundation to do a sideby-side comparison. That's my update for this month. Okay. So what I guess like timing wise, what do you I mean this is probably as as you have time, so it's hard to put a time frame on it, but what what's like your goal to start having some of things to share more officially? Um it's hard to tell. Okay. Okay. Is this something we might have done by the end of the year? I really hope so. Okay. I would love That's what I was hoping

because is it Rhonda doing a legal review too?

We went through and we Greg reviewed it and made just we had we spent what eight hours or something just on four Zoom calls or something that were two or three hours each. Um and he went through and did that. But now I want to look at the structure of it and making sure that we've an an existing code. Um like a couple of my concerns were just putting it in context and making sure everybody knows at least the legislative body knows um what we're changing and here's how the current statute reads and here's what we're changing in the UDO. But we have to kind of lay that out side by side. So that's what Kayla's talking about. Um, that is kind of a a big task because we have two very different documents now and then trying to get a handle on that and being able to present it in a way that you can comprehend it and put it into context is kind of where we are. And so I I was asking for some guidance before I start digging in and we're making a lot of changes possibly or maybe some changes. um should I hold off on that doing any further legal review and incurring more cost until we get a handle on this part of it?

Yeah.

So I guess that's that is a good a good question. So the the process of the UDO so the you know we hired the consultant they they embarked on this one of the pieces of that that was actually in their scope of work was to develop these steering committee. the steering committee was having meetings and this is where some of these changes happened. So in my mind we were going to get to this point where we had this draft UDO that had these changes in it and we were going to read it make a recommendation to the commissioners. Commissioners are going to read it approve it. I think there was a lot of confusion as to what was changed and that's where we all started hitting the brakes and we're like okay now we're all confused. How are we going to So that's kind of where we are now I guess. Right. So, we're it's such a different document, it's hard to really digest the two things side by side. So, that's I guess ultimately that's how we got to where we are today. I don't think maybe I just needed to say that out loud so that I understood it myself, but that's kind of how we got to where we are, I believe. Um, and there there are changes. There are definitely changes and it's important for the for this board to be able to recognize those because you're voting on zoning changes and then the commissioners will be doing the same approving them. So it's this this comparison is a piece that was kind of not there and so um I guess Kayla's going to share that burden there. So and helped to digest it for us. So all right. Um UDO is that that's it for the UDO this month. Um quality of place plan discussion.

Uh that I don't have anything new to offer today. I would say that there's going to be a civic circle session tomorrow at the community foundation if any of you are involved in that. Um where the invite that I just got. Yeah, I got it too. So Okay. So, they're going to be discussing that uh document there a little bit with the um the consultant that put it together. So, I'm planning on attending what I can of that um just as a refresh. Um also said it's a Teams meeting.

Well, if you're able to attend by Teams, that would be lovely. Um did Mary Gibble or Shelley Haney send it out? And it was sent out by Brian Jeroski. Yeah. Is he? Okay. Okay. Yep.

Anyway, that's my update. Um, but I don't have anything further to show on that one today. So, number four. So, item number four is our Shirley interlocal agreement draft revisions update. It's expiring soon. So, I put it back on our agenda because I am determined to get it to this board and done uh very soon. So, I don't have anything right now, but it's on the agenda and we'll stay there until we get it done. Shirley and which is I'm staying out of this. You're staying out of it. What do you mean?

Local agreement between the town of Shirley and Hancock County Planning Department that basically says here is how the town of Shirley's government interacts with Hancock County's planning and building department. So, here's what Shirley is responsible for. Here's what the planning and building department is responsible for. Here's how we're dividing um the responsibilities of planning and zoning within the town limits of Shirley. Do we have a similar with Spring Lake? I don't know that we do. No, I don't think

not don't go there. a different story. No, I don't think we ever did. I remember doing the one with Shirley years ago. It's old now, right? The dates the date on it old. That's a good question, but we probably should have one for Spring Lake, but we've never done it. Probably because we just talked about doing something different because they're talking about doing some of their own things with the planning department. Yes, they've got their own they've got a it's a larger footprint, little different situation, law enforcement there and stuff too and public safety that you don't have. So

is there but if there is the desire by Spring Lake to to do something similar I mean there's a document they signed you know that having an agreement I don't you know and heck I just might not be aware of it to be honest it's been a long time ago so I would assume it might be recorded we could check if you find back you may be going back you know what I in 80s maybe I don't know but it whenever a person started appearing on this so what what's our next that goes quite back quite a few years so

okay so what's our next step with with this uh with Shirley uh just some text amendments and getting the right people and pieces together Okay. Uh to get it covered. Okay. And that's just to make sure that they have a corresponding process to appoint someone here. Is that the Not exactly. Okay. There's more than that. Code enforcement and so Okay. Oh, we're taking action on their behalf. Uh sometimes we're working in two counties and town wants everything

a little bit of Henry County is in the corporation. Hancock County is taking care of it. Some conflicting language in the past and not getting rid of them. Well, I can arrange that. Well, I know, but yeah. Okay. So, more to come. New agenda format and procedures update. I'm turning it over to Maria for this. She's done a heck of a job on it. Let's swear her in. No, let's not swear. No, nothing down here gets more than the other businesses.

Um, so the agenda process looked a little different this month and I just kind of want to give a quick little update of what to expect moving forward. Um, so after conversating um with Rhonda and Don, we kind of came up with a new system that will be what we use moving forward. So, as you may saw, this month we um sent out a preliminary agenda and on there um this month didn't have an agenda, but moving forward it will have um the petition um petition length and any site plans um that might be included. Um so, the filing deadline is the Friday of last Friday of every month. Um and so within that week afterwards, we'll be working to scan everything in, get things uploaded into the website and getting things linked in and creating the agenda. And once um that is completed within that week after the filing deadline, we'll be sending that to you. Um and then as we are working through the staff reports, u we'll start adding them as well. And once we have a final agenda, we'll send that out to you as well as uploading it to the um website. And if we receive any letters before we actually finalize this, we'll add that. But, um, depending on the cases, we might receive some after we have the final agenda sent out and posted. We'll just update that. I'll send them in the email that we have, um, as we receive them if they meet the deadline. Um, yeah, that's basically basically the update for that.

Yeah, thank you. I like the links. I think it looks great. I used it as an example today when I was speaking to the whole statewide county auditors group. Oh wow. Because there's a, you know, the new law that requires you to have this information along the side. Okay. And I showed this as a model of how they could do it. So everybody was like, "Oh yeah, that's great. That's great." I was I was at a seminar one time and they showed one of my documents as a what not to do. That was really Way to go, Maria. That's going to be at the front page of the paper now. It's all over YouTube, right? Yeah. All right. I think that unless anybody has anything else they want to talk about, I think that comes to the end.

Motion to adjourn. Second. All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. Sanctu. That's the funniest thing to me. Joy jam first cup. I never got awarded. Can you say the word? She's a wild animal, isn't she? Takes a breath. You're like boom. Like I I don't care if I get Well, sometimes you got question. Oh, you you asked a question today. Yeah, there you go. That's a rarity with me. I know.

It's like Judge Clarence Thomas, you know, it doesn't speak much. She really has found a good spot there.