Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

be here.

That's true, too.

Turn off. Look at the pretty cow. If it makes any difference, you ready to go? Everything's on. All right. All right. Well, welcome everybody to the October 28th meeting of the Hancock County Area Plan Commission. I'd like to uh go ahead and officially call the meeting to order. We'll ask you all to please turn off any cell phones, electronic devices, any other noise makers you might have with you. Uh first order of business this evening will be the uh adoption of our previous meeting minutes, previous month's meeting minutes that were submitted electronically.

Move to approve. Second. All right. Moved and seconded to approve last month's meeting minutes submitted electronically. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed. I want to abstain. Not there.

Right. All right. Uh, we have, uh, all but two members tonight. Uh, Mr. Waldridge is absent, Mr. McDaniel is absent, and then this evening, we'd like to welcome back, I guess, Mr. Derek, um, Tol. [laughter] Everybody says your name three different ways. So, Derek uh, spent some time with the plan commission many years ago and has uh, rounded out our board uh, now for this uh, next term. Moving forward, I'd like to advise you all that your testimony is being recorded. It's taken under oath. I will request that anyone that wishes to speak will only do so when called upon. You will come up and face the attorney to my left and be sworn in before speaking. Uh, everybody speaking will be asked to give their full name uh for the record. Spell your last name for our meeting minutes to be fully accurate. And please speak directly into the microphone when you're doing that. It It's a little little touchy. Kayla will be giving her a staff report. Uh after that, we will bring the petitioner for a 10-minute maximum presentation. That's then followed by a collective 10 minutes for all of our remmonstrators. We then offer 5 minutes for any government officials and then round it out with 5 minutes for the petitioner's rebuttal. Uh our attorney gives two minute and one minute warnings. We'll ask that everybody conduct themselves in a civil manner. And if you can't do that, we reserve the right to ask you to leave this meeting. uh for your information is being recorded and streamed for public viewing. By [clears throat] participating, you acknowledge that your image, voice, and comments may be captured and made publicly available. This meeting has been properly noticed in accordance with Indiana Code 514 1.5. And with that, we will move straight to our first agenda item, Hancock Regional Hospital, PUD. All

right. Just going to be giving a quick introduction of tonight's uh petition for uh the Hancock Regional Hospital PUB final detailed plan uh for the expansion of uh an an emergency room addition. Um it's also includes a replat as part of that emergency room addition.

The screen's not working here. Okay, I will turn that back. Um, for this evening's uh for this petition, it should be noted that a vote is not required of the plan commission. This is more or less anformational uh presentation for the plan commission and the general public. The approval at this point is B is all administrative. both the replac and the approval of the final detailed plan to make sure it is in compliance with that PUB technically speaking it has been to the technical committee. Um so uh that is why this is uh this is going to be umformational. The plat will be recorded before any building permit is issued um after all uh technical comments relating to it have been addressed. Um and then when a building permit is applied for, final administrative review will occur by all necessary departments. Once again, making sure that all technical comments regarding the site plan are addressed. I have included the technical comments in the staff report for anybody who is interested. They are technical. Um, and at that point I will um go ahead and turn it over to Harold Gibson and Matt Browning of Hancock Regional. Do you have any questions for me?

Good evening. [snorts] Go ahead. Swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Please state your name and spell your last name for the

Sure. Matt Browning. B R O W N I N G. Okay. So, good evening, commissioners. Uh Matt Browning. Uh brand new with Hancock Health. I'm uh coming out of my third month at this point. So, I've successfully found where like the bathroom is in some conference rooms at this point. But it's a a pleasure to meet all of you. I am the new chief administrative officer. Uh, and I'm here to give you a quick overview, uh, at least programmatically about what we're trying to do with this new ER expansion. Uh, and then I'll have my colleague Harold Gibson come up, uh, speak a little bit more about some of the technical requirements. So, um, as you may are likely aware, uh, the continued growth on the western side of Hancock County is really driving the need for health healthcare services. We've seen nearly a 21% increase in the amount of demand for emergency room services in the last 5 years. Uh certainly a lot of that came through COVID, but also because it's an incredibly fast growing area. Um if you what we know from looking at a lot of the migratory data right now is that one in three Hancock County residents actually leaves the county for ER services. Uh they either come to uh they either traverse up to Community North, they go to uh Saxony uh Ascension Fisers, or they come to us in Greenfield if they stay locally. We certainly are uh being the county provider want to make sure that we are doing all we can to increase patient access and doing so um would require us the opportunity to grow uh an emergency room addition here at the uh the gateway facility off of Mount Comfort Road. Um a couple of other things we're very excited about what this will allow us to do. Uh obviously number one continue to grow use of that campus. Um, the other thing, having it in such a prominent location allows us to be more nimble and more responsive in the need of emergency preparedness, working with our local fire uh and other type of emergency responders should there be situations out on I70. Um, this just gives us another opportunity to be able to intervene and provide care if needed as

quickly uh as possible. We're still we we we're still working on the operations of what this building may look like in terms of the number of actual ER beds we'll have um and whatnot. So I don't have any firm figures for you right now. But as you know tonight's more about a uh a technical plat application. So um with that I'm going to step aside and let Harold come up and uh talk over some of the uh overall technical requirements for the site. Thank you. under the penalty.

I do. Thank you. Uh Harold Gibson, Gibbs N, the director of property development with Hancock Health. Um appreciate Matt doing the ER overview for me. He that's uh his lane much more than mine. And um I'm excited though and pleased to be here this evening. It's been a while since I've been in front of you. It's always a pleasure to mission. But tonight uh excited to be part of the growth that's in the Mount Comfort corridor. Uh you know in 2020 we opened the gateway clinic and before that we were here presented the planned unit development that only a couple of faces I recognized as maybe being part of that process. But this is the planned unit development ordinance that we govern uh the Gateway Park by. And um since 2020 uh we've presented many commercial projects to you, retail projects and residential projects to you. But this is the first time that we've been able to share with you anything that's located in our 25 acre medical campus that was part of the land use plan uh that is is intended to be the anchor for Hancock Gateway Park. So, we're excited that we get to continue the uh medical campus that we master planned. And at the time, it contained uh an illustration of um and those of you that were involved in that process will recall it contained an illustration of several buildings that were within that 25 acre campus. And u as you might expect um as we've we've come to learn as the planned unit development, if there's anything one thing for sure is that it's going to change. And since that time, we've had lots of things affect that. CO being the number one thing. We've had other growth north and south of us. And we've also learned that the medical industry is changing and evolving. And one of the things that we are finding now is we don't put lots of

buildings on a campus. We put it in one. So our plan now we have a uh conceptual plan that we've been working on uh that has several phases to it but ultimately it would become a home for as you've heard us say before a second hospital have medical offices there and always part of that has been the emergency room and the emergency clinic is now the next phase that we're ready to uh embark on it being part of the planned unit development the permitted use lies within that medical campus obviously. So, that's a permitted use. Um the um intention here tonight, as Kayla said, is to inform the planning commission of what we're doing. And certainly, we're always excited to promote the uh the the the ideas and the vision that we have for the Gateway Park in the Mount Comfort area. But this is just the first step of many before we are able to really start on the construction, which we hope happens in 2026. But as Matt said, we have a design of the building. It'll be approximately 16,000 square feet. Uh that'll probably change before we get to the final design. We're going through programming. One of the things that we will be doing is bringing the immediate care that's at the gateway clinic now into this space. So we'll have both the emergency room and the immediate care entrance the same and one patient entrance. And then we'll have an ambulance entrance as well. This will all is, as you can see on the slide, goes on the northwest side of the uh Is your screen not working there?

Ours is. No, I apologize. I Well, that's not your fault. All right. Well, I had a presentation, but I was too late getting it on a PowerPoint, but uh it may be in the packet. Um

so, we're excited about that. Um we we at one time thought the emergency room would go to the south when we were thinking about would the hospital be north or would the hospital be south. So with this plan, the Gateway Clinic building was always designed to ex to add on to uh so we'll be adding on to the north side of the building and eventually the medical office space and the hospital will go to the south and will be one large building with a tower and a beautiful building. I think you might have seen that rendering at some time in the past, but all will fit on the 25 acre campus. the um the site itself. Since we're going to the north of the building, we will have to relocate some utilities because we thought we would be going to the south with this. So, there'll be some drainage easements that we'll have to go to the drainage board and talk about uh vacating and relocating. There'll be some sanitary sewer and some water lines that we'll have to move uh that otherwise would be under the building. So, we all have we have that all planned out. uh we will have to go to the commissioners to ask for some easement vacations on some other communication lines and some things of that nature. So this is just the first step of many uh we're excited to introduce that to you and certainly here to answer any questions that you might have um as how it affects the rest of the uh the development. Uh we will be extending the uh road to the northwest. Uh John Modin will be extending it to the west and uh ending it or terminating it temporarily with a traffic circle uh which will help people get in and out of the ER. Um and also lead which I think is most important lead to future development and expansion in our hospitality loop to the north and to the west behind Starbucks and then over towards uh the convention center and the hotel. And if you haven't been out there recently, the hotel uh construction is coming along finally. It's coming out of the ground. They're building the elevator shaft. I think they're up to like the fourth floor on construction of that. So, people are starting to notice, hey, what's going on there? So, it's exciting to see that.

It's been a long time uh getting out of the ground. I'm sure they're not happy with the delays, but uh we're excited to see that. So, uh any questions you have of us technically? Um I know we've been working with the fire department to make sure that they can get in and out. Two minutes. Um I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. Um, uh, Chief Welch works very very close with us and we're excited that, um, that he's involved and takes a a a very, uh, proactive approach early on and that's worked out well. U So, any other questions you have for me? So, you're planning on an emergency room, but you're going to keep the immediate care.

Yes, we're just going to move it from the clinic now, and it'll share the same space in that 16,000 square ft. So, you'll go in the same entrance and then once you get inside the entrance, you'll be able to go to either the ER or the immediate care. And that seems to be a very popular trend now. Uh, obviously immediate care is much less expensive than ER. And some folks come to the ER that only need immediate care. So, they'll have a choice to make and um it'll be first class. They really do a good job of that. You know, somebody gets banged up sports, they run them over there, they do an X-ray right away, right? And the costs are usually lower. They are.

X-rays and stuff than if you went anywhere else. So that's part of that 21% is yeah, the price is good. Well, I can brag a little bit on our staff. I get to be involved in our staff out there every day. And that those folks really really do care and I get lots of compliments. So uh if if if you haven't been to [clears throat] Gateway, I applaud you for not having to go there, but if you get to go there, I think you uh will be treated well. So, [clears throat] so Harold, just I just want to make sure I'm getting acclimated correctly. So, the the current front of where the immediate care is, that is what faces 70. So, this is this proposed piece is on the back side of that.

It just really kind of adds on to the west. You know, the building sits at a little bit of an angle. So, technically, if I'm doing directions, it would be the northwest side. So, if you just view that building and just take it and extend it west towards the pond. Okay. What we're doing. Okay. Yeah. So, when you get all settled in, is there any plan to put some signs towards the interstate? A lot of people ask a lot of questions and wonder, "What's that building? What's that building?" Yeah, we we do have um you know, we've been very careful about that not to become a commercial uh uh advertising row of signs. As you know, we got rid of the billboards. Uh hopefully everybody notices that. Thinking of advertise, I'm just thinking of just people know there is

where it's at.

Yeah. I I I didn't get right to your answer, but the um yes, we have plans for a separate sign that would be Gateway Clinic, immediate care emergency. That would be a second sign, not the size of the one that's out there now by the interstate, but one that would be like due north of where the entrance where where the clinic is and it would just focus on us. So, yes, the signage would be better. So, sounds good. We we get um we've been cautioned from day one uh Mr. holding about that because we have to be careful not to advertise anything that would reflect a hospital because we're not a hospital yet. So the marketing folks are very careful to point out to us we have to be careful how we do that sign. So but we will be uh helping with that and adding a bigger sign on the building.

Okay. Thank you. So can you now I'm just curious. Can you define what a hospital designation is and why what's missing people to entitle that? I mean, does it have to have, you know, operating room? Does it have to have what? I mean, if you can't say it's a hospital, why what keeps it from that? I'm just Well, maybe I should let Matt answer that question. Okay. Sorry. I'm just a little curious.

I just follow I just follow orders on that. I say, "Okay." Yes. No, it's a great question. Like what what exactly is a hospital? So, a lot of times what we look at is it's determined what do we have to offer 24/7. Okay. So when you offer an ED, obviously that's something that's available 24/7. Um in Indiana, hospital lure also requires a minimum number of inpatient beds for it to be a considered a full hospital. Um ironically, there is not an O or a surgically surgical component to it, although that does make a lot of sense if you're rounding out a a well thoughtout plan for an entire organization. So um so long story short ER services is a minimum. Usually if we want to call uh and put it on a hospital license it has to have impatient beds as well. So which we're not at that point but that is certainly something that we have looked down the road to to pursue that help.

Yeah that perfect. Sorry that's why I brought it along. Do you have a uh proposed schedule for this project? We we do not yet other than we'd like to break ground in 2026. So, uh takes a long time for programming, longer than I ever expected when I got into the hospital world, you know. So, my my hat and my world is let's get it approved. Let's get it going. And uh we're working on those right now. So, we have Mr. Han is here with us. Dave's the director of that process and uh our architects and all of our staff meet. Uh there there's a lot of people have to have a have to have input on it. So

yeah, I've just been the reason I asked it just see this this PUD has been very well managed and it's it's been going very well. I I just think it's been interesting that we can't seem to get the pace of construction and planning to work with the pace of how healthc care is changing and keep them melded together. But this has done a good job of that, I think. But that was the basis of the question was just where this was all going to fit in. So it didn't uh change before you got it built again. [laughter] Well, interesting enough, uh Mr. long. They we you know we we built that building to add on to and we built it under the rules and this is this is I'm in Dave's space now but we built it and the architect designed it so that it would be easy to add on to and we started these discussions with him probably a year ago

and those rules are not the same now. So our ability to hook on is not like it was in 2020. So Right. And it just adds cost. Yeah. Y exactly. Yep. So any other questions? be happy to answer those for you and we appreciate the time this evening and uh certainly the cooperation from the county continues to be marvelous and we we're happy for that. Thank you.

Okay, since this isformational we'll take we can take our u monstration period if anybody has comments, questions, would like to speak? None. You guys want another two minutes? Good. [laughter] All good. All right. Um, no action from us other than just nod our heads and move on and say thank you, I think. Right. And good luck with the u with the plat committee and all the folks you get to see next. Yeah. Thanks for coming out. Appreciate it. [cough and clears throat]

Okay. Um, item number two is the I3 and the Hancock County Plan Commission Board of Commissioners reszone of three parcels. Turned ours off. Still [clears throat] technical person here. [clears throat] Okay. Are [clears throat] all of them on now?

No, don't worry about it. It's fine. Okay. Sorry. It's all right. Kind of weird. That one didn't see that over there. I can see that one there.

[cough] [clears throat]

So I3 reszone, you remember This was a reszone from Agg to IBP back in 2022. The area outlined in red is what we're discussing this evening. It is located at approximately 2811 to 2765 North 500 West in Buck Creek Township. This is a deadend stretch of 500 West.

I know. Uh, if you know where Louder Cemetery is along 300 North, if you were to go south right there, that's 500 West. This is also adjacent to I7. As you can see, uh, it's in an area that is shown in our comprehensive plan as largely industrial and it has developed as such over the past several years. However, there was a commitment in the reason of this particular piece of property um that I would like to touch on. Now, uh it was that uh sorry, let me grab my actual here. There were three commitments. Think I'm saying this right

like this. These were copied in two reszone ordinances that reszoneed this area in two phases [cough] belong to. So first there were use require there were uses that were not permitted such as parking lot structure as primary use outdoor boat RV storage lumberyard and mini warehouse self storage those stayed with the ordinance with the as a commitment

[laughter]

Secondly, the plan commission was able to uh review a development plan prior to any issuance of permits. uh and this was to be performed in conjunction with the technical committee. Third, county approval of an economic development agreement and tax abatement approved from the county council uh related to the subject properties. Um, if this condition is not satisfied on or before May 2023, May 1st, 2023, then the zoning of the subject property shall revert back to agricultural. So, a tax abatement and a economic development agreement were passed. Uh, there was also a commitment to put a roundabout in up at 500 uh west and 300 north. um uh culde-sac and some other sort of uh commitments uh related to this project. Um however, none of that occurred. No development plan was ever filed and the EDA has since expired. Well, the way this ordinance is and this is ordinance 2022-9 C and I think the other one is 9D. Well, this ordinance uh says that the property shall revert back to agricultural if the or if the uh economic development agreement was not passed, which seems to signal sort of an automatic resone to agricultural. Um, since there was this agreement passed by the RDC and the county council, the safest way to have a reszone occur that seemed to be in spirit with the reszone ordinance uh, back in 2022 was to run

this reszone back through the public hearing process, which is what we're doing tonight. A neighbor in the in the neighborhood along 300 uh, north actually brought this to my attention and said, "Hey, isn't this expired?" um didn't they promise to reszone that back to a and that's why we're here tonight. Um the commissioners have given me the kind of the thumbs up to run this through and see where we land. Um and that is uh that's how we got here. So because this um EDA has expired and nothing has happened out here, the development plan on which this was reszoned uh never occurred. the plan appears infeasible basically. And part of the reason we require these plans and commitments back when uh in 2022 when uh I3 brought a plan before this board asking for a favorable recommendation to go to the BOC which ultimately it did get reszoned to IBP with these commitments. um it hasn't acted on them in a timely manner. And that's why at this point we are considering uh this as a an opportunity for reszone back to agricultural not agriculture not automatically but rather through the public hearing process to give anybody who has uh any thoughts on this issue an opportunity to come and speak. Uh the owner of the property I3 uh I'm sorry that's probably not the technical name. Um, Mount Comfort Realy something or other.

Comfort realy I3 Industrial

represented by Matt Matt Dickerson um was informed um via public notice and also we played phone tag back and forth a couple times um that this was occurring um and that is how we got here. So you can see that the surrounding properties are a mixture of industrial zoning. IBP is purple. Uh the blue is IL industrial light. And then there's also agricultural zoning on the north and also to the south across I70. In our future land use map, this area is still largely shown as industrial and also as a borderline area between regional center where we shift from more commercial enterprises more commercial enterprises to um industrial uses. The green is uh sh is generally shown in areas where there is flood plane or wetland. Our land use categories are intentionally broad and provide general guidance on how property should be used and zoned in the future. In almost all instances, the county should not reszone property on its own or preemptively reszoned based on the plume, which is the future land use map that I just showed you. Reszoning should be driven by requests with specific development plans. Given that the plans I3 presented have not occurred at this time, going back to the drawing board or in other words, the agricultural zoning district is the responsible thing to do based on our comprehensive plan. It is possible that another project may

come along in the future that will require another change of the zoning map and different zoning commitments. Another public hearing will be held if and when another reszone is pursued. Typically when we look at reszones we take this uh these five criteria into account. Um is it consistent with the comprehensive plan? Is it consistent with current conditions and character of the area? Is it consistent with the most desirable use of the land uh with property values and is it consistent with responsible growth and development? This is a mixed bag considering that we are reverting it back to agricultural zoning. Um it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and that the specific development plan that it was originally reszoned based on has not occurred. Um, it is placing this back in a a less or low inensity zoning district that like we said most likely we will see this back here again someday with another project, another development plan. And at that point, the plan commission and the board of commissioners will be able to make decision based on that project. Because of the failure of I3 to make progress toward commencing this project, zoning should be returned to agricultural zoning until such a time that a more feasible project is proposed. the plan commission. Uh, my recommendation as staff is that the plan commission make a favorable recommendation to the board of commissioners to reszone my free property [cough and clears throat] from industrial business park to agriculture.

All right, that's all I've got. Do you guys have any questions on that? I have just a few. Um, are there any existing violations um that that we haven't heard about thus far? There were some complaints along this area, right?

Um so [clears throat] this this was another another thing that brought this area to our attention. There were two house lots that were part of this reszone in that north area um of the area outlined in red. Um, the houses were not demolished when I3 took ownership and instead sat empty and vacant, were vandalized, people were dumping there, and then ultimately there was a really unfortunate public safety call out there where there was a deceased person involved. Um after uh a lot of uh this was brought up to the county commissioners, um there was luckily an opportunity for the fire department to use the houses for training uh to as burn properties basically. Um that's my understanding anyway. Um probably not phrasing it correctly. Uh but that's how those properties were finally demolished and put in their current state. Um, I think the economic development agreement was well drafted that there had to be some delivery of some type to take advantage of those benefits, financial benefits as well as the abatements. But is there anything on the books that was remitted under the EDA or just kind of sat there?

I believe there's been some payment of uh engineering fees for the roundabout. Um, but that's the extent of my knowledge as to what's happened. Got it. And and the expiration is tied to the original date or the amended date? The amended date, I believe. Yeah. In your communications, uh, were there any pro the phone tag, any protest about this proceeding? Any requests to extend anything that you heard? No protests. Uh, we did make sure that um the the owner was included in the public notices that were sent out.

Okay. Thank you. Just to clarify, we're only dealing with the three parcels on the east side of the road. Correct. The parcel to the west is not under consideration. That's correct. The commitment that mentions that zoning going back to a is only tied to these three parcels, which is only part of the I3 project, but it's what we have to work with. Okay. All right. Any more questions, Kayla? Nope. All right. Thank you. Have anybody in the audience who would like to speak in opposition to this project?

None. I'm sorry. In opposition to in opposition to the reszone. It's a proposed reszone to agriculture. So it would be an opposition to the proposed reszone. Okay. All right. Uh seeing none then we would move to any public officials that would like to speak. All right. None of those.

We do have sometimes we take under demonstrance those who would like to say anything about the uh if if volunteered but I'll leave it up to you Mr. President. Yeah. Are you guys okay with that? Taking some monstrance time to let anybody make public comment just public comment. [snorts] Support in support or opposition. Yeah. I don't know why we would just take open. Okay. Well, it's going to be any support or in opposition. One of the two. So, all right. We'll we'll use our remmonstrance time for that. Do we have anybody would like to speak? Okay. Come on up. [laughter]

Hi. Thank you. Do [clears throat] you swear affirm under the surgery that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing? Yes, ma'am.

My name is Leah Letterman. L E D E R M. And um thank you for this chance to speak. I just wanted to add a few quick things um about reszoning this um about I3 and and some complaints about Buck Creek zoning in general. And um I'll just start. I'm a former resident of 500 West. Um I3 came in and said, "Sell your house at land value only or we'll just build next door." Which was an unconscionable choice. Um but I'm not here because I have an axe to grind. I sincerely hope that I3 can be a cautionary tale. They violated their IT EDA on multiple counts before it ever expired. The EDA manded upkeep of the property. If you guys want, I can give you the specific sections like section three. I I Yeah. Um anyway, they boarded up the houses. As Miss Brooks said, they left. They didn't mow the lawns, which sounds like I'm complaining about dandelions, but that did violate a weedboard ordinance, which violated the EDA section about compliance with the laws. And more than that, um, because the weed board had to dedicate so much time and equipment use to dealing with these lawns, the county council in May 2024 gave the weed board $5,000 to help out with that. And when the weed board didn't do it, the Buck Creek Fire Station did. I3 did not. Um and yeah, the the pro properties being left derelict attracted vagrants that we talked about. Um it took a full year after the deceased person was found in nearly two years after signing the EDA before I3 ever tore down those structures. And that was only after neighbors directly complained to the county about what was going on there. Um it was just one of the houses that was burned down in a in a fire training exercise. Um, but and I'm glad that they received that exercise and that practice, but again, it just seemed like

I3 used county resources to skirt costs. Um, and also, oh, in the spring of this year, uh, when I3 burned all those down, that was August of last year, um, and when they tore the other ones down, um, as of the spring of this year, when the commissioners told I3 to fill in those foundations because they just left them gaping holes in the ground, uh, they were told to fill those in in the spring and they have not yet done so. Um, so this is a problematic developer. They should not be in Hancock County. Um, as far as this particular parcel going back to a, I think it's the right thing to do. I know this area was slated for industry, but the plans set forth 20 years ago, I think have shown themselves to not be entirely sustainable as that area is saturated with industry, squashed up against, I think it's the fastest growing residential area in the county and then there schools in between. Uh, that's with the spec buildings not yet even occupied. So, and as I just learned, it's a 21% increase in calls to the ER because of the rapid growth there. Um, and that's obviously consistent with an increase in EMS calls, which also is burdening the already overburdened and understaffed Buck Creek Fire Station, which was just told by county council that there's no money for them. There's no money for them. Um, the EDA money that's supposed to be coming down isn't. There are developers who aren't paying. Um the EDA money is not coming out to the amounts that it's supposed to be coming out to and it's not going to Buck Creek which falls within 85% of the tip district. So there are some major inconsistencies with this and if it was slated for industry it's not being treated as though you know 20 years ago they were planning for this but the plans are not going well for the people who are there and for their safety. Um, last thing I would just like to say, I'm not against all development. Um, but I don't want what happened with

I3 to happen again. Um, there's been a tide change in Hancock County. Uh, I appreciate Miss Brooks and the plan commission and other government officials have been listening to residents, voting down potentially harmful projects. Um, we have the benefit of hindsight here, learning from projects like I3 and other developers who are not making good on their promises and signed contracts with the county. But now more than ever, as we're heading into much larger development with higher stakes and larger repercussions, I'm talking data centers and power plants, uh we really really need our appointed and elected officials to protect residents interest, safety, and quality of life. Moving forward, I hope that we don't just grant approvals, but enter partnerships that we can be home to companies that will protect green space, offer community centers and parks, entertainment, sponsor community grants, and maybe, just maybe, one of them will put a mural on one of their buildings. [laughter]

All right. Thank you. Any time left? Yes. Um, five minutes or so. Anyone? No. All right. Do we have anything that you want on behalf of the board of commissioners or whoever you're representing [laughter] would like to speak on this? So, we're basically the planning commission can initiate a reszone. So, that's what we're doing this evening at the request of the board of commissioners. So we would be we would be looking at offering a recommendation to the commissioners to then backdoor our way back into the normal process here.

Yes, more or less that's correct. Yeah. So that's what we'd be looking for a um favorable non-favorable no recommendation or we could continue. Uh and then of course we can do um you know standard conditions uses things like that which you know we wouldn't want to probably change many a uses I guess but all of our normal things. Motion for favorable recommendation of the reszone of three parcels from IBP to a agricultural due to non-compliance of commitments. Second.

All right. has been moved and seconded to offer a favorable recommendation for the reszone of the three parcels to agriculture. So, Don, when you're ready, you can call the role on this one. Mr. Tol, yes. Yes. Mr. Hen, yes. Mr. Yes. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Fout. Yes.

Yes. All right, thank thank you Kayla for that presentation. We'll move on to uh item number three which is uh core consulting and appeal of plan director decision criteria. I don't think I got everything good, you know. Don't see it in that. Everybody had a chance to familiarize themselves with this packet?

Yes, we need to. I can give you a couple more minutes to You all good? Okay. Yeah. Go ahead.

Okay. All right. So, this is a little different. Um Chris Cooper of COR Consulting dropped off a minor subdivision plat application um like he typically does in my department. Um a month or two ago now. And um I've been um taking some time to review a lot of these to make sure we're getting the big picture before they hit our agenda. Um, and one thing that stuck out to me on this particular uh three lot minor subdivision proposal was that there was already a lot one of a Robinson minor subdivision, which in my mind I thought, well, that seems to mean that this was already then lot one and then the remainder is lot two. Um, so I I definitely looked at looked at this and told Chris, I need some more time to look at this and review it. Um upon further review, uh I saw that there was a uh an additional subdivision, um an Abbey Anderson, one lot minor further north, um along County Road 50 West. This whole area is still zoned a major subdivisions are not allowed. Um, and the fact that there was a lot one, the Robinson minor, a lot two, the basically a lot two, meaning another lot, another single lot, minor subdivision to the north with that Abby Anderson out of the same parent parcel. Um, seemed to, my interpretation then to leave the remainder, which was a larger uh, parcel uh, farmland as the remainder. So, lot three. Um, I've given a description of this in my letter to Chris, which you guys have a copy of, um, in your document. But for those reasons, because it appeared that there had already been

three lots taken out of the parent parcel or the original tracks since January 1st of 2002, um, I made the decision not to file this as a minor subdivision. There's also a uh survey uh by H. Gibson of the uh that broke the property into 10 plus acre parcels uh in 2020, which as you guys know that's exempt from the platting provisions. Um that created um a 13 acre tract that is uh shown on this uh proposed subdivision that the three lots are being created from. Okay. So, um I'm going to just quickly read the definition of a minor subdivision just for the benefit of everybody here. [clears throat] Minor subdivision is defined by the Hancock County subdivision control ordinance as the division of a single lot, tract, or parcel of land or part thereof into not more than three lots, tracts, or parcels of land, including the remainder of the original tract, any one of which is less than 10 acres, for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of ownership or construction. construction of residential, commercial, or industrial purposes. That's kind of where we're at. Um, I did note that a division of land pursuant to the allocation of land in the settlement of a dissident's estate or a court decree for the distribution of property is considered an exempt division as well. In addition to that

10acre split, uh, 10 acre plus splits. Um, so please feel free to take the time to read through the rest of my letter to um Chris Cooper. I'm happy to explain any more of it to you guys on why I chose uh to not file this as a minor subdivision, but simply put, the remainder being 10 plus acres uh does not count as the original an original tract. Um that was probably the the trickiest part that Rhonda and I went back and forth on. um it was an interpretation within our office to use January 1st, 2002 as that date. The other alternative date that we have to use is when our subdivision control ordinance was passed, which was 1993. So that does not benefit uh residents wanting to split their land.

So the option here would be to go to a major subdivision to create this project. Yes, that would be the the alternative alternative option would be to reszone to something other than a like R1. Um and then to pursue a major subdivision. You also outlined some options to sell or purchase and it's probably some exemptions for some estate related activity.

Um yes. Um, another option that I outlined in the letter is that um, the this parcel at its current size, which is 13 acres, um, there is an option to just sell it as a building lot. And considering it is more than 10 acres, it's exempt from platting. It's still, um, buildable. There was uh yeah, the settlement of an estate. Um where where did where did we land on that with this decision? A division of land pursuant to an allocation of land and settlement of a descendants's estate or a court decree for the distribution is considered an exempt division.

So back in 2020 um when Mrs. Stevens uh divided the estate for the land for estate planning purposes into um parcels one through six um which you can see in your packet as well. There's a original survey um of of this land. Um you can see how the parcels were broken up. Um most of them are 10 plus acres which would have made them exempt from platting regardless. Uh, parcel two, uh, we would have probably called a commissioner's rule because it has a house slot on it. So, we're used to seeing that. I did not count that toward the max number of splits, um, because of that estate rule. Um, and then parcels five and six, um, and also the subdivisions shown in the corner of that second page of the survey being across a public rideway. I also chose not to count those toward the number of splits in this situation. Okay, you guys have any questions? I'm going to take a minute to peruse your documents before we call the u

I guess the petitioner, right? So, we're doing an appeal. I don't know if we've done an appeal of a decision before. So this would be the he he would be the petitioner and then we could have her monstrance after that I suppose right so

I'm going to read a quick section out of the code.

Okay. So this is what I what I told Chris in the end of the letter. So in our subdivision control ordinance there's a section 155.124 appeal. Any person feeling agrieved at the action of the commission or commission staff or lack of action of the commission or commission staff may apply in writing to the commission prior to the next regular meeting for modification of action complained of or lack of action on the proposed plat or replat. The application shall be considered by the commission at a time and in a manner as it may determine but within 90 days following the regular meeting. So you as the plan commission can choose um basically what happens with this plat. Does it remain unfiled as a minor subdivision? Needs to reszone and be a major subdivision. Um you could say no, go ahead and accept it as a minor subdivision. Take it through the normal channels. Um or you could continue it and take up to 90 days following this meeting to consider. Rhonda, does that sound Yeah, just keep in mind too that we've made changes in our rules recently about division of subdivision making subdivision that are for minor subs in order to circumvent the major subdivision process. We just made changed some of our rule process about that. So we we have kind of doubled down on that policy.

Is that policy considered in the in what we have here? But that that predated or would that be applicable here at all? Um our policy was to strengthen what we already thought was the rule and then we had some people that were kind of going around it and that's why we tried to make it crystal clear and and the packet that we have in front of us occurred concurrent with the crystal clearing up. Say that again. Uh when was the when we made we made it crystal clear what what was the date? Um July I believe. July. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. I guess to that point though, I don't I don't know that this was a project trying to do what the others were trying to do with the minors necessarily, but that I think her point was that we were trying to strengthen the process and the policy of a minor subdivision, right? That's why it's getting some additional attention. So, okay. Um, Mr. Cooper, are you here? Come on up.

We're affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Please state your name, spell your last name.

Uh Chris Cooper, CO Per with Core Consulting. Um, I prepared something here kind of the exhibits that were hopefully distributed to you just kind of to step through them to give the short history of the property. Um, I'll start as background. Um, the parcel we're concerned with tonight was um, created in 2020 as a part of estate planning matter rather than for development purposes. Um my concern is that if the estate division is counted against the minor subdivision limit, it leaves the property more restrictive position than the ordinance uh seems to contemplate. Um and then exhibit A, it shows the original 111 acres um from 1942. That's when um our client, Mrs. Lun's grandmother owned the property um in 1977. Following her grandmother's passing, the property was transferred to Mrs. Lun's mother um through the Superior Court of Hancock County. Um exhibit B shows the original minor there was one minor subdivision done um in 1986, the L minor subdivision. Again, it was taken from the overall 111 acres. Um, and if I'm going too fast, please slow me down.

Um, exhibit C shows additional minor subdivisions that were done 2002, 2004, 2006. Again, they were divided from the overall parcel, 111 acre parcel. And then in Exhibit D. Uh there were six parcels created from the remaining farm as part of the state planning for Mrs. Lun's mother. Um a recorded survey was completed in 2020 and it formed the basis for these divisions. Um following Mrs. Stevens passing in 2024, then the parcels were distributed per her will. Um parcels four and five to Mrs. blonde. Parcels 1, 2, and three to her sister, Miss Anderson. And then parcel six um to her other sister, Mrs. Gable. And really, the only parcel that I'm concerned with this evening is parcel four because that's the one Mrs. Lond is trying to subdivide. Um, exhibit E just presents the proposed three lot subdivision being created from parcel 4. Um, and then exhibit F is just kind of a detailed view showing the acreages and that these are larger lots and in comparison to what's in the area. Um uh these exhibits collectively demonstrate the historical progression and the current proposal related to the L family property from 1942 to the estate divisions and this proposed subdivision. Uh because the 2020 action created a new parcel, I believe it's reasonable to

view it as its own track for subdivision purposes. From that perspective, the current parcel has not yet been divided under 10 acres and should therefore remain eligible for the smallcale flexibility that the minor subdivision process was designed to allow. I fully recognize and support the county's goal of ensuring orderly and consistent growth and I wish to align with those objectives. At the same time, it appears equitable that the estate related divisions which did not involve in development should not permanently foreclose a property's future ability to make use of the minor subdivision option. Um, and with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that I can about this property and what we're trying to do.

Be my first two. How many divisions are you saying have happened overall on the the just what's your uh you said it was zero in your in your opinion? I look at it as parcel 4 was created as a part of the estate. Um and it should be looked as an original parcel that never existed until now. It's never had anything taken out of it. How many non-exempt subdivisions have occurred since 1942 in your interpretation then for this parcel for yeah for the full done because I mean they've all been done through the minor subdivision process

through minor subdivision or from estates? Well, yeah. So in 2020 the six parcels were done through the estate. Yes. There were two estate actions that you're saying. I'm just trying to track your estate actions. Just one. Just one. Okay. All right.

It's a brilliant way to try to get away around the rule. So, I mean, good attorney there trying to get around the rule, but um why not just do a major subdivision knowing that we'll probably pass it? Why not why not just do that and not worry about us? the major subdivision we would have to reszone it um because it's agricultural. The biggest thing there is I I think this is more in line with the area. I mean major subdivision it gets reszoned. These three lots could turn into more lots. I think I mean you could do as many as the zoning would allow. Um and I don't think that's in the spirit of what Mrs. Lond is trying to do. Um it's not in the spirit of the area. Now, this is the future. This is future Fortville. Um, this we're about a mile west or east of Fortville. Um, I don't I think there would be pretty good remmonstrance if there was going to be a major subdivision done near all these larger estate type lots. It's not a high dense area. Um,

I guess to Scott's point, if you did a major subdivision, you could go ahead and subdivide some additional things. You could you could plat this and you could deal with your your issue on lot three of frontage. at the same time you could deal with the the remaining parcel the previous parcel three right as well. I guess what I was getting at is the the purpose I think of the reason why we were working harder on minor and major subdivisions was to help to create not that this is a bad layout but help to create better residential layouts than just rows of lots with driveways along the county road. And so I think that that's probably where Kayla's mind was, if I had to guess, was trying to create a more cohesive development in some way, not just the difference between minor major subdivision, more or less like like that. But I was trying to determine what which of these exhibits existed. I was having a hard time with this. Would it be is it exhibit B that existed on January 1st, 2002? Is that or is it okay?

Nothing would have been done until after that. Got it. Okay. So, there was actually then one, two, six. Okay. All right.

Could we get a read about the um exempt division for state purposes? Is that for historical or current? You know what I mean? Because there's a cumulative nature to that. So, we can't we can't cumulatively count estate subdivisions in the total today. Or let's say this needed to happen one, two, three for an estate. Does it only preclude that? Only one one exemption for estates. Tell me Kayla, you probably have that language for

platting. So divisions made for estate purposes are exempt from the platting provision of the subdivision control ordinance.

Platting only. [clears throat] So, the way we're viewing it legally is that there was the 60 acre original parcel and we kind of had some debate about what date we were going back to start looking. So, Kayla's been using the date of 2002 and then we could even go back to 1993, but for purposes, we're using 2002, which doesn't change the story at all. So assuming that um there was you you get two splits and then a remainder. That's what our stat or what our local law says. So the first split was in 2002 was a 0.91 acre split for Abby Anderson and then in 2004 there was another 2acre split for Robinson. So there's your two splits and then the remainder was the 57. So, we feel like they've got their two splits and a remainder regardless of the estate, which is only exempt for platting purposes.

That's kind of where we came down. Okay. Any additional questions for Mr. Cooper? It's doing some research. You got to develop a question there in a minute. Nope. Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anybody that wants to speak I guess in um opposition to the petition for appeal?

None. All right. Um that would give you I guess Mr. Cub give you couple minutes of rebuttal if you have anything else you want to say. No, you're good. Okay. Any further discussion? What we're looking for, I think, here is uh like Kayla stated, it would be a a decision to grant the appeal, deny the appeal, or we can spend another 90 days on reviewing the appeal. Be a motion to uphold the staff's decision. Okay. Motion to uphold the staff's decision.

Second. All right, we've got a motion and a second to uphold the staff's decision on the PL on the minor subdivision of three three acres. Um, Don, when you're ready, have the roll call, please. And I assume you've you've got you saw Mr. Waldridge coming in, right? He can. Okay. [laughter] He voted before. You voted before. Okay. Will. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. No. [clears throat] Yes. Mr. Long. Yes. [clears throat] Yes. Mr.

Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. That brings us to item number four of our agenda this evening. Amendment of chapter 156 of the code of ordinance. Proposed amendments. power generation facility as permitted as a permitted use with special exception.

Before you start, um, one of what looks to be a submitt for agenda item number four was in my agenda item number two packet. So, just in case you're looking for it, I noticed that. Yeah, there. Okay. Look at all the all the all the all the friends already. I printed that. Everyone got it. I printed an extra one. Oh, there's a second. You have another one in there, too. Oh, you have two now. You can read it twice. I will. [cough and clears throat]

commercial. quickly summarize you guys with what this um particular ordinance changed about. the Chesco Energy or the natural gas turbine facility um that was kind of has been tossed around for Blue River Township um is what brought this item to um the board of commissioners attention um and also the residents of Blue River Township that uh this special exception use in the agricultural district does include a commercial power generation facility. Um, after review with the concerned group of of residents in Blue River Township, um, many of whom provided letters that were included in your packet, um, it was a resolution was passed by the board of commissioners, um, recommending uh that, um, the special exception for commercial power generation facility um, be removed uh, from the agriculture ultural zoning district. So where it currently says an S in the agricultural uh column for commercial uh power generation facility, we are removing it and it'll just be blank. Meaning that commercial power generation facility is no longer a permitted or special exception use in the agricultural zoning district. It would still be a special exception or permitted use in the industrial zoning districts.

All All the industrial just a certain one. I would have to look, but I'm I would have to double check that. You want me to pull it up real quick so we can look at that? I mean, just the only the only reason you ask is I mean, how easy would it be if they wanted to reszone that area to industrial and then which which one would they have to do? Would they have to do the heaviest industrial? Would they could they do the IB? That's that's really the question.

Okay, let's pull that up. There we go. All right. It is a special except currently it is listed as a special exception in the a district. That's what we're trying to remove altogether. And it is a special exception use in IL and IG. So it would need to be res a parcel where this is a desired use would need to be reszoned to IL or IG and then it would require a trip to the BZA for a special exception. So, what we're doing here tonight would mean that in order for a power generation facility to occur in the agricultural zoning district, um it wouldn't just require now a trip to the BCA, which is today what it would require. Just it would which seemed um to the residents of that area uh scarily close I think to approval. Um so that is why it is being the request is to remove it altogether from the agricultural zoning district as even a special exception use.

Is the new UD is the UDO we're working on is that how it is that's been proposed. I can't remember that either. I don't believe so. I guess I'm curious like the why why now be one and then this has been on the books forever. I mean, this isn't just something that was recently done. I mean, the power generation facility. I mean, it's been a part of this section for how long and it's never been an issue up till now.

Yeah. I I think you I'll let her work on getting what where she is. my my thought on it and I may change my mind listening to more of this but it's kind of like when we started started to dig into solar and we started to understand utility scale. I think that these facilities are much larger and more intrusive than they probably were when the zoning ordinance was drafted. I think power generation facility was probably substations things like that. I don't know that it was these large 100 150 200 acre facilities that are kind of intrusive to the community. So, I think that that's what we're probably recognizing here and trying to to make sure that it goes not that it can't be done, it's just that it can it gets more oversight from our elected officials, I think, or gets more opportunity to be studied and by the public and noticed and all that stuff. So,

what kind of zoning would a data center have to have? That's another one.

Industrial. Let me pull that up though, too. I can show you. All right. So, a data center, a modern-day data center would be referred to in our ordinance as a communication service exchange. That is a special exception in CCR, which are commercial districts. It is permitted in institutional industrial business park, industrial light and industrial general. So not a special exception or permitted in egg. [cough and clears throat] Can you define um a power generation facility? What is that definition? Rhonda, do do we currently have any power generation facility commercial

that we could visually understand now that our county I don't think we have anything that's comp in our county that's as big as what this one they're talking about would equate to that we have anything like that now? Not that I didn't know of. I think they only have one up in New Carile, uh, Indiana. So, a power generation facility is defined as a facility that produces usable electricity by harnessing any array of resources, including fossil fuels, water, wind, and solar sources.

Thank you. So, it's only electricity. Uh, digesttors are not included that de we don't even we don't probably deal with those right now. That's a good point. Yes. I think those are two issues. The electricity part, but is it utility that that is produced? Could you repeat what she said? Power generation facility is a facility that produces usable electricity by harnessing any array of resources including fossil fuels, water, wind, and solar sources. What' she say?

Oh, there was some discussion about digesttors um and whether natural gas digesttors counted as power generation facilities. And because natural gas digesttors produce gas, not electricity, according to this definition, they wouldn't fall under power generation facility. They wouldn't fall anywhere. Yeah, that's why question is what is a definition? Because if we're going to eliminate this, is it really affecting what was being proposed? That was the reason for my question.

Okay. Um yes, the u the Chesco petition had um proposed a natural gas turbine power plant which would utilize natural gas to produce electricity which would then go on the power lines that cross this site along with a very large gas line.

So they are using natural gas to get electricity. So it does affect it. That's that answers that question. So thank you. I I was wondering and not to make it even more complicated but the definition of power generation facility it's are we with these scale of facilities that are coming online now should we have possibly two different definitions instead of one where we're dealing with the large scale and small scale. and I would have to go figure out how to define those. But I kind of felt like the a power generation facility like I mentioned earlier was a was a smaller type thing. It wasn't of these massive scales. And so it's kind of two different things. I think that the old the old def this definition and what we might have seen in the early 2000s is probably much less intrusive than what something like this will be. So would that be something worth considering as another definition?

Yes, I think scale definitely could come into account. Substation, utility substations are a separate use

um that are looked at differently uh in our use matrix. Um however, one thing that we've become aware of is that utility substations are largely exempt from local zoning laws altogether. So, when you see an electric substation go up in an area, um I believe there's a couple next to each other on um 700, no 500 North and 700 West um in that neighborhood up by McCordsville. Um those did not come through our planning and building department for any sort of permitting or review um of landscaping or anything like that. They are exempt because they're considered a local utility and necessary for the public good.

Distribution would be different than generation. Yes. You're looking at as distribution mechanism. Okay. Yeah. And this I think the the definition is commercial I think is also commercial purposes. What why are we why are we hearing about spot reszoning in the monstrance? That's what I was wondering too. Oh, not all remmonstrators are I think they're probably not.

It's not simple. This stuff's not simple people. [snorts] It's complicated. I think I think they're looking at like if you change it then it would become a spot reszone in some areas where it's just a and then they want to put industrial in one spot would be a spot reszone then that's what they're thinking about

I think the thinking was that the use especially in Blue River Township is extremely rural lifestyle residential and agricultural it's beautiful area and And as Commissioners Spalding has said, we've been directing residents from further west in the county to move that direction if they want to avoid development. So allowing something like this even as a special exception would amount to a spot reszone. Um I believe that was the intent. Okay. All right. Any more questions for Kayla. So, another interesting procedural thing here. So, you were representing a request by the commissioners, I believe. Right. So, we would be to anybody want to be in opposition to this uh proposed ordinance change. So, is there anybody in opposition to this proposal? All right, we got somebody shifting around. Do

you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. State your name. Spell your last name.

Jonathan Lawler. L A W L E R. I appreciate the comprehensive plan to protect agriculture, but at the same time, I' I've had the privilege of traveling the country. uh doing a advocacy as well as rural advocacy and cyber security as well as our electric grid is country. We're in a crisis and I think just putting something in number one as a farmer telling me that it's kind of the p private property rights thing and that's why Farm Bureau on issues like this tend to be neutral. save farmland, private property. I I get that. Um but when it comes to saving farmland, my grandfather did 48 bushels an acre in corn. That would be a insurance claim today. It really would be. Um we're producing enough that if we can carve out certain areas for economic development, even in our rural areas, it it makes sense. And I just would not like to see this changed. Not not today. So, uh yeah, I I I appreciate uh Scott talking about the spot the spot um resoning. I'm still trying I I still don't really understand that why it it's going to cover the entire county. So, yeah.

And that's all I have. Thank you. Excuse me. She got a question for you. Sorry. Go ahead. So, are are you a resident or you or Yeah, I I and I apologize. I'm also diabetic, so my blood sugar is really low right now. I I speak in front of a lot of people usually. So, um

I am a resident. I have a neighborhood next to me and I'll just be brutally honest. I take a toxic waste dump over having a residential neighborhood next to my farm. I've had thousands of dollars worth of damage done to my crops. I have trespassers constantly. Um, I would take a power generation plant next to me any day of the week. Um, my rural neighbors are great. The neighborhoods not so much. So, and I can tell you, sorry, I'm starting to relax. I I have been inside meetings uh some cyber security meetings and when we bring up data centers and they're the main cause of this, that's not the case. uh Farm Bureau Ohio just released when they pe there's media out there saying that data centers are are causing the utility rates to go up. Well, what they don't tell you is of the 23 generation plants that were there, they've shut down all but three due to EPA regulations. We don't have we don't currently have the infrastructure in this country to maintain what we have, let alone start competing with China. Um, it's just it scares me when I go into these cyber security, food security events where, you know, because I'm considered a member of the media, I'm not allowed to go into like the FBI meetings. But just hearing that our hog barns, our chicken barns, they're all controlled through data centers now. They're they're controlled through it's all out there in cyber and the electric the electrical grids are that's what's necessary. I think if Hancock County is able to allow something like this, you know, not particularly at that spot, but any place where we might have an opportunity to to

put power generation in, I feel like everybody needs to be on deck. It's scary to me seeing the constant push against where we need to be technologically and we're not we're not going there. We're I hate to say this, we're sitting there going, "Well, I don't want that in my backyard." I agree. I mean, that's that's I I I feel for those people. And I also when people say, "Well, it's an a community and they don't want this." Well, what happens when one of my fellow farmers wants to put up a hog barn and the same people that are against this say, "Now, put that in the ordinance. Make it to where you can't build hog barns because the environmental groups that are against these things, against the natural gas generation, that are against data centers. They're also against what they call factory farming where we as Americans, we call it feeding the world, but that that's that's also the problem. So, I just employer implore you to uh make sure that that you weigh all the all the possibilities, especially looking nationally, how Hancock County might have a chance to help our aging infrastructure versus being one of the places that says no, especially with Governor Braun. And I wasn't sure when she read that is nuclear part of a power generation uh like a power generation plant. So Governor Braun has really pushed those and he's pushing them as an economic development tool and that is the future for us to to get clean reliable energy. And I would hate for something like this to keep or make it difficult for another for for for an opportunity like that to

come to Hancock County. Again, I appreciate people wanting to say farmland. I will always appreciate those people. It's just as a farmer, I don't think enough of us farmers are asked this question. Not enough of us. We don't we don't we don't get a way into it and they don't think about sometimes there's no legacy to to take us on. So again, I apologize. I promise I'm not usually this shaky, but I I my blood sugar is dropping, so I want to go sit down. Thank you. Right. Thank Thanks for your time. Uh, anybody else like to to speak in opposition? Come on up. Or I'm sorry. Well,

yeah. So, it would be, I guess, in opposition of the um removal. So, yeah, I don't think we're there yet. So, all right. So, nobody else wants to speak on that. So, do you guys want to take any Okay. All right. Opposition to the change, right? Not necessarily. We're in our opposition period. I I'm going to I'll tell you why it's opposition. Our firm under the pill testimony. You're about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing. I do. [clears throat] Steve Ellbury, Els Ry, an attorney, sheep producer. I think this is the punk rock farmer. Is that right? Yep.

Look him up on social media. It's pretty cool. Follow. So, u not in opposition. I'll just say you see the room is empty. Even the the folks that are in support of this, we're in harvest season. Kayla, I don't know if Kyle's still in the fields right now, but you're not going to get farmers here in the in the end of October. So, that's it. Okay. All right. Um trying to say a continuence would be better, I guess. Yes. [laughter] I'm trying to interpret what he said there. I want to hear feedback maybe.

So this is a question for you Rhonda in this drafting. This doesn't eliminate power generation projects coming forward. So basically it's just taking it out of out of the current ordinance and creating a different process for people to move to bring a project forward. It's taking the the S out of our land use chart where it used to be a special exception

for a power generation plant to go through the BZA process for approval and then it would have to be reszoned. So, it's a more it's it's a more arduous process where there's more chance there's more opportunities for hearing because it would require a reszone. So more public input and more vetting is involved in a reszone versus I I would maybe phrase that a little bit differently. Perhaps it aligns the discussion about where we harness um to other changes we've made very recently.

The procedural alignment or procedurally um we said that solar certain types of solar need to go through a certain process. This is very similar to that. And so so it just we have a we we are we are mistreating two different items and it's just an opportunity for us to say here's procedurally how we handle large utility questions. The only thing we haven't done which you were talking about Mike is um we haven't said this micro range to that that's where we haven't done and I don't know that this is the opportunity to do that. Perhaps that's a that's why I brought up digesttors and are we is it just electricity to others? we should properly deal with this in the UDO um all utility like activities and there should we shouldn't be giving a differential procedural treatment depending upon which where where this falls or doesn't fall definitionally that that's what I think we are at risk of not having the a a consistent procedural handling

right we did com do a lot of comparisons with wind and solar because it's what we've done recently to change those so it made sense to change this one too it's kind of the logic The only question I had procedurally and you might be done with we've got a fourth whereas um with the commissioner's um adoption of a resolution is that a is that just a a step by what was the decision to have that included? Right. So in the um Indiana code there's two pathways to how a reszone can happen. And one is the a petitioner can bring it. That's how we most the time see it. Got it. Thank you.

Um well I guess I'll say there's three ways. or the plane commission can [clears throat] bring a change or the commissioners can and so in this case the commissioners are asking you to make this change so important in order to note that in the whereas for our our thank you thank you

so to follow up with Lacy when you're talking about the procedure piece so here's the what if to me so I don't have an issue but I think the procedure piece is is a big process so but Does it open up for everyone to come forward that knows that we're going to change that process to put in an application for a potential um power generation facility? Does that open up us a liability perspective? But I'm just saying were people rushing to the table. You know, when we're going through solar, we had several people that were wanting to get in under the old guidelines versus they knew we were working on the new guidelines. I guess I'm just wondering about how we might you know I don't know I say a hiatus why we're working on

this language I am does that makes I don't I'm not articulating like attorneys but um how we might be able to protect maybe potential projects coming forward I think what you're is there anything pending in front of the BCA that No. And I think that's kind of why kind of [cough and clears throat] there's no requirement at this time for a mortorium if we're able to take action, but perhaps there might be need, but I don't know if we we would be able to put one in place though. That would need to come from a higher court than ours. Yeah. Yeah. Um we had we probably have a couple pear apparently we have a couple people want to speak in favor of this. Is that where you're at, Larry? You guys okay to hear another testimony this evening? You got a couple minutes?

Sure. All right. Come on up. We'll give you two minutes. You swear affirm render the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

I do. Larry Saddam, SDAM. Um, it doesn't limit putting power facilities in Hancock County. This only eliminates putting it in egg. According to that chart, there was four other places you could still put power generating facilities. So, I don't think we're limiting our options in Hancock County. We are narrowing down who we affect as our neighbors. You know, I preach and preach and preach about our neighbors. Let's keep it out of certain areas. We've already ruined enough of our county with industrial. We got plenty of options to put a generating plant if that's what we want in Hancock County in industrial or commercial. But I think going to open up a bigger hornets nest when you start putting this in industrial area closer to people. But this still gives you an opportunity to put it in Hancock County if that's what the county wants. Keep it out of our a district. Keep it out of where we have strived to keep a as a Okay, that's all I ask. Let's let's again I agree with him. put a power plant in if that's what the county wants, but put it in an area where you've already agreed to make an industrial or whatever we deem it. I'm not telling you to limit it, but keep it out of a

All right. So, I got to ask you a question on this. I don't Well, can I I wouldn't want this. My neighbor is an egg. I wouldn't want this in my neighborhood. So obviously this is a um a pipeline. Yes. That they're going to use. Pipeline only goes through the eastern part of the county. It's not going to go on the western. It's all zoned industrial. So you saying we should say okay no to the egg, but then they could come in do a spot reszone and make it industrial and that's fine.

Can can you can they not put a pipeline? You got all the Where's all the gas and everything coming in from Marian County that go feeds the western side of the county? Where's all that gas coming from? There's there's there's gas available, is there not? Look at the indust this is massive industrial pipeline here. Well, got you've got to be on one of the transport lines to the transport. Yeah, not there's tra there's transport lines. There's transport lines that run and look by the airport. There's those transport lines that run on just just just on the east of uh yeah the east of me. There's some power lines. There's several power lines about the gas

gas lines. They're more restricted and they're they've got to be the bigger Yeah, I get it. So So I'm trying to ask you, we eliminate the egg, but then we do a spot reszone right there or somewhere on that pipeline. Is that what you're trying to say? Is that we should spot No, I mean I I I don't want it in egg. I I agree with what we're doing here. Okay. I I support this. I mean, it's one of the very few things as long as it's not an act. It can be anywhere else but act is what you're saying. Well, it's it's except for industrial. It can be an industrial or commercial, which is where you're saying it can can be industrial, not commercial. It No, you have two C's there, didn't you? No, that was for data center.

Oh, is that data center? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes. Okay. I just Okay. Any more questions for Larry? All right. Thanks, [clears throat] Larry. Sorry. Thanks. I'm starting to wonder if maybe we um kind of a radical idea, but do we need a power generation corridor in our future land use map? Because I mean, it's it's a it's an asset to the community, right? It's a whole it's we got a thing that we need to deal with here. But um

I do have a comment though. Um and I I've you mentioned earlier that I was here many years ago

and this is back before a lot of um the rules and things that we currently have um back before we actually became a a board like this. So we had to transition quite a bit in that time period and it was a very a big learning process and some of the rules have been modified over the years since then. So I mean we're talking 25 years ago when all this started with Hancock County. We had a small planning commission but it was very basic. But with that um and the community looked a lot different than it does today when I sit here and I listen to that and I see um a lot of what a farmer or anybody else has on their property. And if I'm raising corn, nobody complains about the corn or the soybeans. But as soon as I want to raise something alternative now, that causes a lot of questions. But me as a farmer, I should be able to raise on my field whatever I need to raise to make an income because my farming is my income. Now, with that being said, I realize that there needs to be some control as to what happens on that property because it could affect some of the neighboring pieces. And if there is a opportunity for a farmer to be able to make his income farming corn or farming natural gas, he should be able to farm whichever one is possible. Now, I don't think that opening that ground up and digging out all the minerals or anything like that would be conducive to what we're trying to do as a farmer, per se.

So there needs to be some guidelines. Um I believe that with that there should be a some limitations to to this and we make it a little not necessarily difficult but there needs to be some oversight to some of those those items. So with that, I guess I'm in I I will move that we have a proposed amendment that we use this that we remove it from the agriculture that um that does happen. There is an opportunity to go ahead and put these in and that would be the best place for it and I would think that we would be in favor of that if that did come about and we said we had to have that. It just makes it so that we could zone it there because there is a specific area. So I will make that motion to um have the amendment for the land use to remove that as a from the agriculture area.

Can we clarify exactly what we're motioning with council first before we take a motion? Because I I think there's in front of us some ordinance and language that I taking two dual action might not be best in the best interest. Maybe we should ask council what the motion should be. favorable, unfavorable, or no recommendation to go to for this document. Um, it is the ordinance that doesn't have a number right now. An ordinance amending title 15, chapter 156.

Is this just when whenever we amend the zoning code, it's what we're doing tonight. It's just a recommendation to the commissioners. So, no recommendation re a favorable recommendation or um unfavorable. And my motion is the favorable recommendation to remove uh in the form of this this drafted ordinance. Okay. Thank you. All right. And I'll second that.

Okay. has been uh moved and seconded to offer a favorable recommendation to the commissioners to remove power generation facility commercial has a permitted use with special exception. Do we have any discussion on that? I'll just make make a comment as well. I I I agree we've got an opportunity. Um the gentleman was speaking uh made very good points. So, we do have a good opportunity here to to be a leader in this. Um, but I also do like the the additional oversight that this would give us with the reszone and [clears throat] uh passing these things through the planning commission and the board of commissioners as opposed to a special exception that slides over to the BCA. And uh that was the issue we had with with solar is that these big projects were kind of missing our elected officials I think and this kind of protects that. So

it's also a very binary process which doesn't allow for uh just like this. So um appropriate handling of BCA we're not ideulating and here we might have better opportunity to idate. Yeah I agree. I I would have preferred uh my preference would be a continuence, but since hopefully the farmers since they can't be here today, they'll they'll go and talk to the commissioners then and let them know whether they like it or not.

Yeah, that's a good point. Yeah, hopefully the U agriculture committee that wasn't aware or was um unable to attend will be able to catch the ear of their commissioner prior to that vote. One more note, there probably should be some um careful handling of the definition of power generation facility in our UDO adoption of this looking at the corridor and making sure we're looking at the full array of of what we're harnessing and distribution. [clears throat] Excuse me. Yes. Yes. Mr.

Yes, Mr. Long. Yes. Yes. Mr. Wal. No. Yes. Yes.

All right. Thank you very much. I believe that concludes our hearing items this evening. Move us into uh other business. A lot of other business. The election of officers. We are still missing a vice president. And I think we decided that we would just defer on both boards to January. And should we have a need, we can appoint prior to the beginning of the meetings for those. So that probably satisfies other business number one. So

all right. Yeah. So we'll do Yeah, I guess. So, we'll let's plan on elections in January for both the planning commission and the BCA and make sure that they're on the agenda and noticed for January.

All right. So, then item number two, the uh UDO update and transition plan discussion. Not a whole lot to add on this. Um I have um believe at the last meeting I told you there was an executive session that was coming up for discussion of this

and one thing that came out of that was a wish of the commissioners to look into adopting kind of a the structure of a UDO but with the old content as one sort of way of moving forward with this slowly and over time. Um, in the meantime, I do have a final draft of our UDO um available to the plan commission if you'd like to look at it. Um, and I am uh working with um to see what additional scope would be necessary to have sort of that intermediate uh sorry interim or transitional UDO put in place. So, that's where that's at.

Yeah. So, I I sent you all an email and I think that sort of where everybody's minds were on that was if they could see the same requirements in the new format, they could adopt that. the commissioners could adopt that and then changes could then be dealt with not maybe not necessarily on a onetoone basis but maybe a chapter by chapter basis or something and through the standard uh public process essentially. So then they felt like they had more transparency and they could see that gave the public more opportunity to see what was coming at them and digest it in chunks as opposed to just one giant document getting approved all in one one vote. So

then we also additionally say that different groups that were impacted like developers agriculture they could have a jo have a have a separate meeting to address those changes that that was a part of the convers yeah that that'll be I guess that'll have to be that would be outlined in the transition plan to pick which chunks would be approved and like what changes would be approved together, I guess. So, would it be based on focus group or whatever? So, we'll just have to have those discussions, I think. So,

all right. Uh quality of place plan discussion.

We have one quick item to report on this. Um the uh Mary Gibble and Randy Serell. So that's the economic development um and the community foundation uh brought the quality of place plan to the board of commissioners on I believe October 20th and the board of commissioners um passed a proclamation proclaiming that the quality of place plan was um a great plan for the county and that they uh really appreciated it being uh put in place and that was all the further action that was necessary. So there is a proclamation and it's done. No action needed by this board. Shirley in our local is um ongoing. Uh we Rhonda and I spoke with uh Teresa Hester, town clerk and their council about moving how to move forward with that interlocal. And uh Rhonda wrote a very nice email about who needed to do what. And uh I know that Teresa has been in touch with uh American Legal about how certain things got into Shirley's Town Code and the best way to move forward with editing that a little bit to make it very very clear how um Shirley's town government is um basically anything that is in the town limits of Shirley. Uh the wish is per this interlocal we're working on that it be governed by the Hancock County Plan Commission and Hancock County Plan Commission's zoning ordinance and subdivision control ordinance. Even the part that's in Henry County. And so there's some going u going back and forth about how to best word that so that Henry County understands what's happening to you and is on the same page.

I don't think that's going to any questions on that. So, when does that when when do we see that again? Um hopefully next month. Okay. Or at least we'll have an update on it next month.

Um before we jump to trail plan, back to quality of place plan, there there actually is there's no official action, I guess, but that quality of place plan, I would encourage you to give it a a read. I mean, it's a pretty decent sized document, but there's some interesting things there that were generated by professional planners. And so, it's a good guiding document. I mean, it's like when things come up. I mean I I made the comment I don't know how well it was received but I made the comment that I look at documents like that and like those corridor documents that we have from um Urban Land Institute as testimony in a way you know when you're looking for guidance on a petition you know that I think that documents like that are very good uh reference material for us when we're trying to make decisions on things like say power generation facilities and things like that and trail plans. So with that we can move on to uh the trails plan.

So this is more or less to introduce a trail plan update as an option as something we need to pursue at a future meeting um meeting next month. Um and to get some direction on how to pursue this. Uh so the trail plan that was passed in 2018. Oh and Mike totally agree. And uh we're already we're already doing the quality of place plan like before it even Mhm. was totally adopted or not adopted but

proclaimed um it was it's been it's already happening. So, we we're really excited as a county and as a community um to see quality of place be be put in in the in the spotlight um and that quality of life or quality of place activities and projects are being given some some credit for part being part of economic development because they really are. Um, okay. Uh, the trail plan update. Speaking of quality of of place uh items, uh there is a a road uh in eastern Hancock County, 1050 east, that is shown on our final trail map as part of the trail plan. And it is not a great road to have the trail be um kind of a shar situation with cars. Uh it is uh the school the school Eastern uses that same road. Charlottesville's on it. It's really a main thoroughfare between Charlottesville and US 40 and Wilkinson. Um which seems like a great thoroughfare, but when you're on a bicycle, not so much. Um so the uh the trail plan update will be to simply shift the um the map so that that one road is shown on I believe Oh goodness, I'm going to mess it up. I'll have to show you the map next month, but shift it just a little bit further to the west. Um, so that it is on not such a thoroughare. Um, and the reason that this is the time to do that, because of course any cyclist would probably be able to tell you, yeah, I use that road, not that road. It's much less busy, is because we have a great new trail uh uh trail signage program. And um in order to uh get the signage on this other road, we need the map to show that this is the route our trail plan takes.

Cuz because I mean I think originally the thought was that that road would be expanded, widened and then put like the which bike laid there to where people could use it because it is such a thoroughare probably the original tent. The original um trails plan was more than a proclamation I think it right. Oh yes. So what was the administrative handling of changes to that? Your office can make those. It's in the cover of the trails plan in my office. Um I will have to I'll have to pull that out. I really haven't had a lot of time to work on this this month. Um but I did want to just mention it to this that we're

going to be seeing next month. And if there is any action I need to take first uh before we introduce anything more formal here um please let me know. Um, and Rhonda, I'll be talking to you about the right way to get this started over the next month as well. So, that's that's the over that's the gist of it.

These these last two items are administrative. But before that, I was [clears throat] sorry to be jumping around, but back to the power generation stuff. Do you guys feel like it's would be a good use of the staff's time to do a little research on power generation facilities and what different types there are and what types of definitions might happen to that. Um

just maybe spend a little time on some research um and report back to the planning commission and board of commissioners as to some recommendations on definitions kind of like what we did with solar utility scale micro scale those types of things. Maybe a quick memo of just professional advice, I guess. All right. So, let's look to do that in the next uh month or so to help the commissioners before they take action on that. Um 2026 meeting calendar is very colorful. [laughter]

makes it easier to read than previous years. Yep. We had one uh conflict with tech, but we can work that out with the tech committee on how we need to deal with Did we figure it out? Oh, okay. Okay. Plan commission. Look, all of you all right with Yeah.

Every year it seems like you always pick spring break week for the kids. Spring break week would be what? That last week of March. Probably. Yeah. Is it this upcoming year that all four schools will have the same calendar? Probably. I think it is. Yeah. So, like I guess we don't have a quorum then you don't have a Yeah, you don't have a quorum. Yeah. Those weird things. Yeah. Yeah. Do you need any formal approval of this or are we just good? Everybody's good. No complaints, no comment. Okay. We will be taking this to the board of commissioners. That's the next step. [clears throat]

Okay. Uh, I assume we'll see it at the BZA as well. So, all right. Um, expiring appointments.

Dean and I have expired. You're expiring. Yeah. And let's see. And of course, our elected officials need to choose um if they'll be sending the same appointments here or if they need to change things up as well.

I included your um sheet showing the expiring board members. So, um, yeah, Gary and Scott are the one-year elected official appointees to the board. And then Mike and Dean, uh, your terms are your initial terms are expiring as of December 31st. Um, so please let your, um, appointing bodies know if you are still interested in serving, um, or if you need a break. So, we would have a big party if you left, Mike. Been doing it for so long. You guys would like it, wouldn't you? [laughter]

Put the BZA in the lurch, though. Probably because I've got two more years there. So, for the the um for Mike, that's the board of commissioners as the appointing body. And for U Dean, that's the county surveyor. He's out there rocking. [laughter] Yep. He's watching to change his mind right now. He's watching out your vote and saying yes. He wants to fire me. Also, we've got um the plat committee, which is a subcommittee of the plan commission. Those are one-year terms. Um and I I need to reach out to them. They have had a couple months off um to see but to see if they are are interested in serving for another year or if we need to look for new membership there.

Who is Byron Holden? Has he ever done anything on the plat committee [laughter] before? I think that's ours. That's our Oh, that's our guy. Okay, that's who we have to pick. And then, uh, let's see, Board of Zoning Appeals. Um, Lacy is the appointee from the plan commission. Um, oh, and a an appointee from the plan commission, appointed by the board of commissioners. Um, and her term will expire on January 5th. So, that's another one that um please let them know. Okay.

Th this round will get us onto our new everybody will be into full terms now based on our reorganization two years ago. Right. So, this this one should put us right everybody will be in full terms then as opposed to all those partials that we had because we had a few partials or something. But I think I was a partial maybe. Okay. Getting closer anyway. Yeah. Okay. All right. Any uh closing comments?

One other quick thing to keep in mind for um next year is this is the time of year also to think about is 6:30 um a good time still that kind of thing. Um now's the time where we can adjust that step. So I mean it's I would do I mean want to make a change. This year hasn't been too bad but I mean if you get you start getting those where you're here till of course I've not been here for that but it better not happen midnight is after midnight one time.

We've we've had them. I was trying to figure out how to stall to get us to nine o'clock tonight. I hate for you guys to have to leave early. So, [laughter] so county county gets his money's worth. Yeah. Yeah, they do. Well, give that some thought. We can talk about it again next next week I guess on the time and see if that's good with uh would that affect anything on the administration of the room and the technology that never works and all those things or no half an hour earlier on the same no big deal. Okay. All right. I guess we can entertain a motion to hang it up.

All right. Second. All those in favor signify by saying I I the same sign. motion carries. Hey