Apc - Regular Meeting

doing updates soon. Okay, we're going to get started here uh in just a second. For plan commission, we did want to make just a brief announcement in case anybody's here. uh the application for a variance for the data center for board of zoning appeals, they've asked to push that to March. Is that correct? So, if anybody was here specifically for that variance, uh they they've asked to be moved to the March meeting. So, didn't want everybody to have to wait around for Board of Voting Appeals to see that on the agenda, but we'll go ahead and get started. Uh today is January 21st, 2026. This is the Miami County Plane Commission. We'll go ahead and start with the roll call, please.

Tim Owen here. Dan Hunt. Brad F here. Garlet Graves here. Brian Palmer here. Brad Muscleman here. Jamie Hopper here. Lynette Smith here. Greg Wilkinson here. Courtney Schmidt. Okay. Uh, first item for tonight is our appointment and election of officers. We will go ahead and we need to elect the president, vice president, and secretary. We'll open nominations for president. I nominate Brad Pro

nominations. It's been closed. Any discussion? As soon can you start? All in favor say I. I. I oppose. Motion carries. We'll now open nominations for vice president.

I nominate. I'll second that. Be closed. Second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I opposed. Carries. We'll open nominations for secretary. Second. Commissioner Musman. Yes. I nominate Commissioner Musman. Second. Second. All in favor say I.

I. Opposed. Motion carries. We also need to select our BZA appointment from plane commission to BZA. Currently it is Brent. Do I have a nomination? nomination. I nominate nomination. Second. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I.

I. Opposed. Motion carries. Okay. We do have uh a couple of boards. We've got developmental plan review, feed committee, and personnel committee. Uh, I guess I will ask if uh there's any changes or we could potentially do it in one motion if we wanted to carry the same folks over to next year. Would you mind speaking up so we can carry it back here? Sure. Okay. So, we have to now put uh people on the personnel committee, the fee committee, and the developmental plan review. So if there was a motion to carry those same people from 2025 to 2026, we could do it in one motion.

A motion that we carry the same individuals into 2026 from 2025 for all committees. Second. Okay, we have a first and a second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Motion carries. Or anything on uh meeting dates and times. Yep. Um so we just need to set our meeting dates and times for the year. I don't know if you want to. I assume you would keep them the same that they are, but feel free to adjust. I didn't I see somewhere there's a conflict in November. You'd have to move that one.

Correct. November it does fall on Veterans Day, which the courthouse is closed on that day. if we kept to the same schedule. But we could do like this month and do it early or late. Please speak into the microphone. Which part did you get all of it? We can't hear anything where you stay up there. Yeah. So we could we have a conflict with November's meeting being Veterans Day. The courthouse would be closed. So, we need to adjust that if we wanted to keep the same schedule that we have,

which is the second Wednesday of every month. This meeting is out of order due to there was a conflict with scheduling for this venue, so we had to move it to the 21st, but normally it's the second Wednesday of every month. Suggest we move the November meeting to the 18th. Okay. So, we have a motion to keep the same meeting schedule as we did last year and to move the November meeting to the 18th. Do I have a second? I had to second that. Any discussions, conflicts? That just third Wednesday. Yes.

That'll be moving it back one week. Okay. All in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Next item is the approval of minutes. Just to be clear, are we keeping the rest of our meeting dates the same the second Tuesday? Second, Wednesday, whatever. Yeah. Yep. Thank you. Okay. My motion that we approve the minutes as presented. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Any discussion? These are the minutes for the December 10th, 2025 meeting. Hearing none. All in favor say I.

I. opposed. Motion carried. Okay, we'll go ahead with the staff report, please, Corey.

Okay, so uh looking at what we did in December, uh we did issue 18 permits, which was uh quite a big jump about 125% increase from December of last year. of of of those 18 permits, we had one that was an addition, five demolition, one uh new dwelling, three electric permits, one fence, uh two mobile home placements, two pole buildings, two roofs, and a storage shed. You do have an a permit that is been requested and that you will review here in just a little bit. Uh we were able to close out 36 permits, which is always a nice feeling. Uh 18 split applications processed. It's end of the year, so everybody's trying to rush to get those all done. Uh we did assign one new address and uh we did have one petition filed to vacate a public way with the board of commissioners and so that was we just heard that Monday. Uh it was an alley piece of an alley out in North Grove. Um bonus points if you are able to tell me what Northro was originally called. Morfield um is your Jeopardy answer there today. So um that one did get approved and so just another thing that we were working through. Uh revenue from permits we brought in $5,270. Um there are two variances that were applied for um and then four contractors registered for the month. Um it'll look a lot different as we look into January, beginning of the new year. We have contractors flooding our inboxes. Um on the unsafe building side of things, we did not have a complaint, uh which was nice. Um I don't know if we've had a month like that recently, so that's a good thing. I did issue one, uh unsafe building order for demolition. I was able, well, Megan,

I think did most of these, was able to close out three unsafe building cases. Um, and there was a 20 or $2,580 civil penalty uh that was paid for willful failure to comply with a rehabilitation order. That's nice because that will actually go into there's a second um unsafe building account that will it will be put into that we can use for like emergency actions that we have to take, anything like that. Uh, and it'll be a non-reverting fund that it gets transferred into. So, um, that's nice that we're starting to see that there. So, Uh at this point I'll turn it over to Brooke and she can talk through violation side of things.

Yep. So for December I received six complaints and all of those turned into active violation cases. I closed out the year with resolving 26 cases. Um so we have 109 active cases in process which is a 12% increase from that time last year. Three cases were sent to the attorney. Um, our total active violation cases with the attorney are 23. We had three fines issued for violations totaling $175. One lean was placed from unpaid violation fines that was for $160. We did receive um payment for some violation cases that totaled $1,985 and total fines received from violators was $4,565. No mowing orders issued um and none were completed. This month's complaints included one case involving a vehicle that had expired tags, one complaint related to the possible occupancy of an accessory structure along with having unlicensed dismantled vehicles and a generous assortment of trash and other miscellaneous debris on the property. one complaint on a property um that I have previously worked on and brought into compliance concerning trash and discarded used property. I also closed and reopened two cases from before my time here with the blank commission. I just wanted to clean up and start fresh with some cases that had gone stagnant before we had a wonderful full-time code enforcement officer such as myself. Lastly, I did open a case for a mineral extraction operation that's taking place without a required approved special exception and two required approved variances. On a brighter note, progress is already being made. Half of the new cases are already in the works to get

their properties into compliance. As for the remaining three cases, I'm hopeful to hear something soon or at the very least see some improvement during my next round of inspections. I got

any questions for the staff when they report the one for Hansen aggregates. Is that going to have to come before BZA? There's going to be if all goes as planned, there will be a special exception and two variances for the one violation.

So according to the violation you have here for that aggregates, it said that they had two previous variances. So, are they non-compliant in those variances? Are they operating? I'm not not following the line here. They um had variances back in I think one was in like late 90s and one was in like the early 2000s and they were both to have permission to operate um an asphalt plant. Doesn't appear to me that an asphalt plant has ever been in operation. It's always been mineral extraction, but that's just from what I've gathered. And the only approval they had was for one parcel, not where they expand it now. Yeah, that's expanded to there's three parcels in total, all azoned.

Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? This also stems from the gentleman that was here last month talking to you guys about some of the blasting and the flood stuff that we've been dealing with. Okay, we'll go ahead hearing them from the board. We'll go ahead with the expense report, please.

Okay, so I have two expense reports in there just looking at how we closed out 2025. Um there were quite a few different uh expenses that we did push out there. Uh you'll see that we did um purchase some new code books, um different various supplies that we needed from Amazon. Um, and then oil change. We did pay out Mark for his work. Um, just a bevy of different things that we uh didn't didn't have. Um, but also just wanted to while we had a little bit extra left in uh in the tank to be able to to buy some things uh that were needed. So, uh, as we look at 2025, we did spend about 50 well that might number might be adjusted. Uh you'll see that I did encumber the funds which was 40 40 oh no I encumbered funds for the plan uh the comprehensive plan update. Uh so it does show that we're we've spent roughly 58.11% of our budget from 2025. Those numbers are going to be off a little bit because of that incumbrance there. Um, so we did return somewhere around $118,136, which is I think a nice amount of

uh money there. So, county council should be hopefully happy with that. A lot of that is due in large part because we had a large line item for that comprehensive plan update and we're able to find a uh a firm that was able to do it for significantly less than what we anticipated. So, um that's exciting. So, that finishes out 2025. Uh looking at 2026, you'll see that there is that encumbrance on there. Uh $59,730 was encumbered to pay for the plan uh update. Other than that, uh we did pay out our yearly geo permits, our software for the office. Uh that was 8,000. Questions on the expense report?

Any committee reports for tonight? I'll just mention on the committee reports the comprehensive plan. Uh you have a flyer in there. Uh we are in phase one right now which is data collection and so looking at the 2015 plan to see where we were at and then we're collecting data from the public to see where we should be going uh and focusing our energy on. So uh to do that we have our first public open house. Um, and so anybody's welcome and it's on January 28th out at the fairgrounds. There are two sessions. There's no formal presentation. You can just come and uh supply feedback on if you think we as a planning commission should be looking or the county should be looking at building uh infrastructure or um I don't know, you name it, those kind of things. Um that's what we'll be looking at. So two different chances on the 28th. There's 11 to 1 session and then there's a 5:00 pm to 7:00 p.m. session that anybody's welcome to attend

and that is on Wednesday. And there also you can go online if you can't physically attend that event and uh share your input that way as well. And this has been posted online on several venues. You can you're welcome if someone wants my flyer. Um it's got information about the website and stuff at the bottom. They really want input, feedback from residents in the communities. So, your thoughts matter about it. Okay. Any other reports for tonight?

Okay. We'll go ahead and move along to old business then. We've got a couple of updates for some unsafe building cases. The first one is unsafe building case 20-23, Stronger Family Trust, 467 East, 800 South of Bunker Hill. Still be a 90-day progress check. Yeah. Uh just an update again. This was a pursuant to a demolition order. Um and so you had looked at that back in October. Uh and then we were out there today and it does look like there's been a little bit of work that's been completed. Um you'll see on the front of this one um part of that's coming out and then uh the back of the

um house the the roof is ripped off. I can't remember. Oh, there's like one of the Pinterest things I believe there was. Oh, good evening.

Good evening, sir. Just your name for the record just real quick for small. In September when I was here, Ruth asked me pointedly, would I have this done by Christmas? And I honestly thought I would and I said yes. Some things have happened since then, right after uh the September meeting. Part of the issue was, if you recall, there was an issue, a potential issue about getting the people out of the house. That was solved the very next day or within 36 hours. I have a I have a uh a signed affidavit from a worker that works for me that they were out by the 17th. Now, it becomes an issue because when we left, I said I would either have them out or file um an eviction and uh Mark said he would check the filings and see if that if I did that. Right after that, I had some heart problems and I was not able to and I was supposed to be leaving. I had als I also I asked you Brad, I told you at the end of the meeting that I was going to be leaving on a job that I had out west and you said that go ahead and give the travel documents to Corey and I did that. So, that's all part of willful compliance. Right after that, I didn't get out of town like I expected because I had some cardiac issues and I couldn't be here for your October meeting which unfortunately was an opportunity for um Mr. Roger to expect to get a sanction against me. When I got back on my feet, I was out there working doing a lot of work, which isn't shown in the picture because the barn and all of the woods we hauled out there. Multiple multiple big I did send a series a lot of pictures to Brooklyn. I'm sure she has them. There was a series of numerous days of of different pictures that were being done. If she doesn't have them, I can certainly

provide them. But the point is is when that was going on, I was supposed to be out of state on a job that I was getting paid good for. I stayed here because I did have willful compliance, not non-compliance. Unknowingly, while all this is going on, the sanction comes in the mail for $5,000. Imagine my surprise. Right after that, we had a lot of early cold, real cold in around Thanksgiving time as everybody remembers. And I was in there pulling out wood almost every day for my wood burner. The sanctions came, the letter said willful compliance, but I I tell you, I did comply on the getting the people out of the house and I did comply on getting stuff out of there. did not succeed in getting everything as far as the house down. So I'm asking I'm I'm saying here that this the total total compliance was present and documentable and therefore the order to sanction was not based on facts but rather on an errone erroneous opinion and with respect the sanction is requested to be rescended. Next up, progress. As I'd said, we've pulled a lot of wood out there. Unfortunately, we didn't get the whole house down. The strategic alliance has been now uh documented. I have a purchase agreement with Marcus Ramsey, who is now going to uh get the um excavator. And he was the one that had the excavator lined up before. If you remember, there was one, but it was in a it wasn't his and it was a a arrangement that fell apart and so we didn't have access to it. But he's doing it a different way now. This is what this purchase agreement the signed purchase agreement. This is not signed by me yet. It's there's going a

couple of changes, but showing you that we we've got progress and he's got money lined up to go ahead and go forward with this. I have to be able to get a storage unit in place before we tear it all the way down because there are medical records that I have to use that I have to supply to doctors all over the state by copying them or up uploading them uh digitally or faxing and then conversations about them because people do call me because these patients have all gone through 10 years now or eight or nine years of of complications from their back surgeries or from their long-term chronic pain problems. And they I'm getting a lot of requests now. We need your opinion about what that was back there then. And how and so I can do that legally because I'm not practicing medicine. I'm just giving an opinion and as a as an educated man I can do that legally. So the issue now comes down to we've got progress set up with this, but I'm going to be having some surgery, cancer surgery, and I'm going to be out for about eight weeks. And that the date on that is not set, but it's within the next few weeks. And then that's going to be another document that I will turn into uh Mr. Roger because I'm not going to be here. I'll be out of state. Mr. Ramsey is going to work on this, try and go ahead and get started on this with the with his he doesn't have an escalator right now, but he's got the money set aside to do it. He knows where he can get one, but I have to get uh some sort of a storage unit in place to get those medical records and protect them into a unit. And we are working on that possibly a container the different ways we're looking at that. Right there is that container there that's in front is a different type of container. It's a rolloff and that's going out of there tomorrow because it's full and we we are going to have to obviously have much more. Um, with respect to

the uh the proceedings, it's all going to have to do with with this the strategic alliance that I've got here, the purchase agreement, arranging the storage units for the medical reg, which cannot be touched by federal law by anybody except somebody that I designate that works for me, but I don't do that. I I I take care of it myself. So, those those are what I have to protect. So now what we are is a little bit of a of a conundrum trying to get it done and now the good news is it will be able to go forward because he's got the money set aside to do it that I don't have. So the point that I'm asking for here is that we get and and Ramsay is has asked for 90 days because that's what it may take for me to get back from being away from having surgery to be able to help him finish up to get the medical records out and him to get a storage unit set up for me to be able to put them in before we before we tear it down with the excavator. It's it's it's a problem. I'm sure you can understand how complicated that is. Um, so I'm only I'm asking for a couple things. One, for Marcus Ramsey for 90 days, the rescending to the sanction to be rescended, and then unfortunately on October 29th, um, I know most everybody one way or the other, either long-term, either long-term, one way or another. I've been operating on doing surgery on people since 1982 in this community, so I know the good people, honest people that work here. on the October 29th. Unfortunately, Mr. Roger transmitted an illegal document and we'll let him do the talking to you in close session because I don't want to embarrass people. That's me being a good guy because this had this is not good. I sent stuff to Mark. I do not know whether he received it, but I called his office and I did send it. And if you have it, then good. And if you don't, then I will send it again. All of the documentation. Did you receive it?

I've had it well before you received it. Sorry. I've had it well before you received it. Oh, and what he's saying about an illegal document, he had an exparte communication with the judge. I have no problem saying this in open session because your allegation to me a felony being committed is absolutely false. There was no felony committed. There's no what? There's no felony committed in an attempt to jury tamper. He's my jury. This is an active case. The judge is your jury. He is my jury. Yes, he is. This is a bench case. He's the jury and it's been decided for years. There is no obstruction of justice. There's no jury tampering. Yeah, it's obstruction of justice. Any any communication that is exparte is illegal.

No, not of criminal. I'm sorry. Not in the sense of criminal. And so it's certainly not legal. Is an exparte communication that was sent to the judge. The judge acknowledged it. Acknowledged it was wrong. Made it all public record already. So it is out there. It is open. Everything that was communicated is out there and available. So nothing is wrong with that. I don't think we need except that it was malicious in an attempt to get my to get my probation violated because if it was just what you say, why did he send it across the hallway and why did he send it to probation? Because they're all parties to the case. That is standard procedure whenever a judge has an expartation.

He would not have done that if he wasn't trying to offend me and hurt me. And that's what the problem is. It is not all contrary. That might be your opinion. We'll see what the attorney general says. That's fine. Prosecutor's known about it for months.

Exparte communications are not acceptable in any form. If it happened to you or anybody else in here, people don't like to be accused of things they didn't do. I was subjected to 55 felonies, all of which were dropped in five minutes when Embry saw the evidence that indeed I have practiced properly and observed all federal and state regulations. People don't like to be accused of things that they didn't do. That's why I didn't want to bring it out in session here. If you want to bring it out, you bring it out. That's fine. But it's not it's not okay to do that. So, the only thing I'm asking here is first of all, the $5,000 was erroneously put because I was totally compliant and number two, we need to get ready for April to finish this project.

Great. So, let me recap some of some of what I heard. Okay. Um, so you have medical documents that you're storing inside of this structure. That's correct. Medical records. Okay. So, how many months have you had to remove the medical documents from that from that structure?

Those structure I I had to bring them in there because I didn't have because I lost where I had where I had them stored. I've had to have unfortunately I've had things stored in three locations and I have have been getting a lot I've been get requests to to supply uh information so I had to bring them there. And so my question to you was, how long have you known that you're going to have to demolish the structure and you're storing medical documents in it? You've been storing them ever since you got the the

Yes. Oh, yeah. No, I felt No, no. I No, that those this happened September, October. It was after was about the time that when I had when I was mis meeting here and was was seeing the cardiologist to move medical records into that structure knowing that there's a demolition order on that structure. Yes. Okay. Point number two. You said you have a purchase agreement. Is that a purchase to purchase an excavator or is that an agreement for him to do the demolition? What's the purchase agreement for? He's going to buy this whole piece of property. He's buying it from St. Family Trust.

Okay. And he understands that any leans violations will carry along with that purchase. Intends to tear that down. Yes, he does. Okay. When is when do you think that purchase agreement is going to be executed? Within the next couple days. There's just a few uh there's just a few typos and few minor things here to change. Not not much of anything. I'll be glad to bring it in. Okay.

In a day or two. So I believe when we had our previous com conversation, typically every time we deal with an unsafe building, we tell everybody it's okay if it's going to take you longer, but you have to communicate with Corey in the office. You have to communicate with him. Even if I go into Cy as an opportunity to

hold on just a second, sir. I we we listen to you. I just ask that you show the same here. So, in that communication, I believe the board put the civil fine because we had not been able to reach you or get an update on why the structure had not been taken down. The discussion in the meeting that is public record, you can go back and scroll through many hours of YouTube is that we are happy to take that off once the structure is down and are you are compliant with the order to demolish. Okay. Does that make sense? Yeah. I didn't see that when I read that. Yep. So, didn't realize that was

the order is in there. And this board has done that multiple times where we've had to use that to incentivize you to hold up your end of the bargain, right? And do that. And if you comply with it, then we will consider removing that. However, at this time, the board, somebody could make a motion and disagree with me, but this board probably is not going to be able to do that because the structure is still standing. No, I totally agree with that. And I would just add that this medical record thing is of your doing. This is not of the board's doing because you willingly an emergency. It wasn't

sir. Please let please let me finish that you willingly did that. That is not that is not us. You made that decision to do it knowing that there is a an order to demolish that structure. So, all of this being being said, when can we expect to see the structure down and you be in compliance with the demolition? Marcus Rondley asked for 90 days. That was his words.

So, 90 days from today. So, we're talking the end of April. Yeah. 90 days visual. So that' be the May meeting.

So any other questions from the board, Mr. Sponder, on this? We are going to need a motion to the board put something a motion that we um revisit this at the May meeting and I hope to see lots of progress and change. I said I hope to see lots of progress and change by then.

So the motion was to give to the May meeting for compliance knowing that if the structure is not down by May, there could be another fine for non-compliance. A second. Any other discussion on that? All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. till May. Okay, the next one for tonight, unsafe building, case 72-25 for Jerry Cooper, 4032 North Water Street in Mexico. This is a 60-day progress check from the November meeting.

Um, so the picture's in there. Um, it's not coming up on the screen here, but uh, the structure is still standing. It doesn't appear anything's been done. We have not had any communication from Mr. Cooper or anybody associated with the property at all. Mr. Cooper here tonight or representative from Mr. Cooper.

Do you have anything you can add on that? Um the last I talked to the gentleman that was helping him. Um Jerry is in nursing home. He has severe Alzheimer's. doesn't know anything at this point. And the gentleman that was handling the stuff from what I got from him, he wasn't being paid. So, he wasn't going to go forward with anything. So, does this individual have other family that you know of or resources?

He has a son, but he's been estrange for him for a while. So, um that's the last I' grown. his wife died a few years ago. So to the point where we need to clean it up, I think the next step would be to seek bids for demolition. Am I correct in that Mark? Yeah, like three of them right

I think they're all owned by Cooper, aren't they? Yeah, there's fix out there. Three are being lived in, three are empty. This is the only one that we've had issues with. I hear a motion from Mr. or wanting to seek bids for demolition. I'll second that. Any discussion on that? Is there something we need to sett on that Mark for or the bid or the next meeting or 60 days or we'll just let Tory make the call on? We'll just follow the process of issuing the notice that we're going to seek bids for.

Any other discussion on that? All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Okay. Uh, new business for tonight. The first one, we have an A permit for tonight. 315-26 here. Nick Couchman.

Uh, yep. This is for uh Nick Couchman at 619 South 100 West in Peru. We'll go ahead and start with the staff report, please. Uh Nick brought this request in office on January 15th. He would like to construct a 248 square foot pool building to house uh trucking equipment and a implement. The structure will have a concrete floor, but it will not have bathrooms or electric. There is potential to add that later down the line, but he's not sure when Mr. Couchman here tonight. Yes, sir. Uh anything that you want to add on this? You're not you're not installing any living quarters or anything like that in it.

Any other questions for Mr. Couchman on this? Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Okay. Uh the next item we have one unsafe building hearing and a continue enforcement order hearing for tonight. This is unsafe building case 53-24 at 2595, excuse me, West 3rd Street in Mexico. We'll go ahead with the staff report on staff report presentation. Presentation. Okay, so the presentation's in there.

Um and so you're welcome to follow along as they work on this here. Uh so this was uh like you said unsafe building case 53 uh property owners 2595 West Third Street Land Trust. Um so a timeline of events looking at this April 18th of 2024 we did have a formal complaint that was lodged against the property claiming the garage had been uh roof was in rough shape and falling in. And then uh May 6th of 24 we did complete a formal inspection. The building inspector and I we did find the garage to be in rough shape and falling in. However, the tenant uh assured us that he had the materials on site and would be uh fixing the garage shortly. Uh and we did see some of those materials there at that time. Uh on then in May, May 23rd of 24, I did issue that order to rehabilitate and then June 4th, 24, uh the tenant did pull a roof permit to repair the damage, uh which I thought was exciting, uh to see some of that go on. So, we've been monitoring that progress for the uh over the course of 24 and 25 um as that permit was valid. Uh however, May 12th of 25, we did receive a second complaint about that one. And then June 4th of 25, that roof permit, original roof permit expired. Uh and when we looked at it, there was no work that had been done to rehabilitate. So, at that point, we started the case back over again. uh sent a second SE sec uh request letter. It went un uh no contact was made from that. So, we did have to file an inspection warrant with the courts. Uh that was in July of 2025. And then October 6th, we did have that uh hearing with the courts. Um the tenant was there and did allow us uh before we had to go through all the proceedings to go into uh the structure and and look at it again. So that was October 14th. We did uh the building

inspector and I did complete a second one uh formal inspection. We did find that the garage was in worse shape than what it was before. Um and so but again he assured me that he was going to fix it. Um and as of December 16th nothing had happened. So I did issue that order to uh demolish then and then we're here today. you do have copies of the orders there that you can see. And then um this does sit right there across from Mexico um elevator. So it's a 24x 28 or 672 square foot detached garage. Um things that make it an impaired structural conditions uh making it unsafe

has no roof.

Yeah. So there is quite a bit of the roofing structures that are missing, damaged or rotting. Uh the walls and wall structures are missing, damaged or rotting. Um so sill plate is missing in multiple different places, exposed electrical wires. It's not weathertight at all. Uh and then just blighted in general. So you can see some of those pictures there um of where the studs, so plates, everything is missing or damaged. Things that make it a fire hazard uh are the exposed electrical wires, the rotting or damaged missing roof and framing structures. Um it's not weathertight. It is in very close proximity to adjacent neighbors. Uh you can actually see there in one of the pictures the garage that's right behind it uh on the adjacent property which is roughly 13 feet from the garage. And then not to mention the other buildings on the parcel and the home that's on the parcel. Uh the building is a hazard to public health uh does present potential harage for insects, rats, mice, snakes, and other vermin. Uh we have had multiple cases of uh noxious grass and weeds uh on this property as well. And again, it is uh in the heart of Mexico and and close to other uh structures. Uh Indiana code or the unsafe building law does state that these types of buildings um if they're left in this way do present substantial problems um in urban areas. Um again, potential for harage of rat, snake, mice, uh all those vermin, just a blighted structure in general. Uh it's dangerous to this property because of the imperative structural conditions, the fire hazards, health hazards, public nuisance, uh blighted structures, and then being so close or in the town of Mexico. Uh we were out there this morning and no work has completed to demolish the

garage at all. I've not had any contact with the tenant uh or the property owner. Um, again, it does uh an Indiana unsafe building law does find these structures um to discourage people from moving out of the neighborhood and discourages people from making improvements to properties um in the area. uh it does require services of government in excess of services required by regular properties because of the impaired structural conditions, fire hazards, health hazards, public nuisance, dangerous to persons or property and the blinded structure. Um there has been a willful failure to comply. Again, no progress has been made since that demo order or contact has been made since that demo order was issued uh on December 17th, which was 36 days ago. Okay. You have a ballot. I'll also ask, is there a representative here from 2595 West Third Street Lane Trust? audience. I'm I apologize. I spent a lot of work on a presentation for you to see and it's not even there. So, technical difficulties.

You did a great job in case you're wondering. Everybody voted to affirm the unsafe building order. Only two voted for a civil penalty. Two voted to postpone the civil penalty even though they didn't vote for the civil penalty. So I'd say the order is just

and we need to adopt the continuous enforcement order for that too. You need another motion for that? Yep. Okay. So we have uh we've had the hearing. Do I also have a motion for the continuous enforcement order on this? adopt the continuous enforcement order. A motion we adopt the continuous enforcement order. Second. Any discussion? All in favor say I.

I opposed. Carries. Next item for tonight is uh a resoning update for the state police post, Miami Cast RMC, and 31 North Portland.

Yeah. Uh so this was brought up again uh this week by one of the business owners in this area. Uh there's a map in your uh documents there. This and it's up here on the screen. Uh I think this is what well part of the piece that kicked off our comprehensive plan update as well. But there's a business out here. Um, if you look on this, a lot of these businesses on this US 31 north corridor corridor are zoned for agriculture use. Um, and it's causing a little bit of problems with some of those businesses. Um, especially I think maybe even with compliance uh with the Secretary of State and the business filing office or something like that. Uh, and so one of those business owners wanted to know if we were going to be doing something about adjusting these or uh, I guess what course of direction we would like to go with that or if I should have that business just file for a reasonzoning request. And so I guess I would just entertain discussion or thoughts on what we should do here. I think the gas station there is zoned for residential. Not really sure how that works. That's missing.

When we've had these issues previously, we've tried to correct it to the current use that it's currently in. Do you have a suggestion on what's the purple? There's B3 it looks like. Yeah. So there's going to I would guess some most of these are going to be some sort of business or industrial use depending the business back there are actually houses like behind there there's a house that's zone B3 I don't know how that house got to be zone B3 that like this and that doesn't make sense there's just a lot of errors here like

y so I guess I would suggest coming up with a recommendation based on the current use of the land think we're in I I don't think there's any desire to change it to something else, but right. Yeah. Based on what those are used for right now, we would just have to cross reference that with the use table. Yep. Does anybody else have any other suggestions or I assume some of this stems from the two-mile discussion?

Correct. The gas station is actually within the city limit though. Yeah, it's annexed in Oh, that's not black and blue right there. Yeah, it's the dash blue and black line. Yeah, I guess I would I would just see what the business is being used for use table and come up with a suggestion and

when we initiate res notify that there's a hearing and the adjacent land owners do as well. Okay, any other discussion on that? Next is an amendment to the zoning ordinance for demolition standards.

Uh yeah, so this one came up um I've been working with the state since oh goodness early spring of 25. Uh just trying to get some clarification and um was able to get the clarification I needed. And so, um, typically here in Miami County, we fall on, uh, Indiana residential building code or on international building code, uh, to dictate and govern what our building process is. For the most part, um, there are some exceptions in the zoning ordinance as well. However, um as we looked at uh the building codes that Indiana has adopted, they have amended uh Indiana's quite a problem child and they've amended about everything out of building code that's useful. Um it seems like and so one of the things they've amended out is all of the demolition standards. And so uh I was able to find out from the state that uh I was like, "Okay, so we've amended this out. What do we fall back on?" And so they said that it is up to our the local jurisdictions to adopt their own uh demolition standards because we have ripped it out of as a state ripped it out of our building code. So um I have put together some sample standards uh for demolition here that I would hope to adopt here in the county. Um, one of the big things is that we've run into it a lot when we get to our unsafe buildings and the the demolitions that have to occur with those. Uh, it's put us in some stickier situations as far as interpretation with uh, some of the contractors when they're taking things down or the people when they're taking them down. There's not a clear guideline on what has to be taken down, the extent of the building that has to be taken down, how far below the surface needs to be taken down, do you have to cap off wells? Do you need to crush septics? all those different pieces are are missing here. Um, and it's causing a lot

of headaches between myself, environmental health department, um, and everything as we go. So, I've put together these sample uh, standards here and these are I looked at several different counties surrounding um, and just across Indiana to see what what people were doing and threw this in together. These are not perfect by any means. I think it takes a lot of it will take a lot of like words smithing on Mark's part to make sure that we are meaning it clearly and everything like that. Um but this is this is the direction I'd like to go. So I would love to see you all you're welcome to take these home with you review those uh and maybe we can start having some discussion on that at the next meeting. But definitely something that I would think we would want to put some some standards in place. Was this for would this be for any demolition then Cy or only residential commercial? What do you

the all the above? Um so would cover residential and commercial. I wasn't sure how to break this out. I started doing just residential and then a lot of them were overlapping things that needed to fall. So like I said, it's going to take some some movement in here. Um like one of the standards is about fencing and that's an OSHA standard. that's more on the commercial side of things that needs to be followed rather than a residential side of things. So, it's not anything we could always put like if applicable or whatever.

Oh, the other thing that we kept getting issues with is our mobile and manufactured homes as well with demolitions. um a lot of these mobile home parks, mobile home communities, we're just uh moving or demolishing these homes without um making sure that there are the appropriate title holders. Um that taxes are been paid and so the treasurer gets pretty uh pretty I don't know what the word is. Everyone knows yeah they get uh pretty hot when it comes to that. So, uh, it was just again should I get hit by the beer trap, like somebody actually knows what's happening or how to handle these in the future.

So, this just be for when we're taking down a structure or for anybody that comes in and gets a demo, anybody if we're taking down or anybody and everybody. There just needs to be some sort of I mean, common sense is a scarcity most days and so we need to have it in writing to say what actually needs to happen. Most of the surrounding counties have some they've adopted something like this. No, it depends. There's probably less that have adopted standards than than have um a lot of our bigger town or counties in the state we we were able to see.

You for feedback at next meeting then? Yeah, if that's okay. Okay. Uh, moving on. Violations, remedies, and penalties.

Yeah. So, that one's me. Um, I have been here just a little over a year now, and I have noticed some issues um that just some issues with our zoning ordinance um generally with my section here. Um, so I have a few amendments to the zoning ordinance that would focus on violations, remedies, and penalties. and then adding in a repeat offense provision. I have seen a pattern um in my short time here where certain properties would come into compliance just long enough for them to get me off their back per se um and then fairly quickly fall back into the same negative patterns. That cycle takes up a lot of time and makes it harder to enforce um our ordinance consistently. Consistently. Yeah. Um, so the solution that I've come up with, uh, would be to impose an initial fine for repeat, um, offense that would penalize the property owner for falling back into the same pattern within a defined time frame. Um, and then as well as doubling the the violation fines. So right now it's 100, so the next one if they repeat it would be 200 for the first.

Okay. Um, just an idea. So, I've also found that some of the current language works against us. There's incon inconsistent timelines, references to the receipt of notices, which can be difficult to verify and a fine structure that doesn't escalate in a logical way. Almost as if the longer that a violation continues, the less severe the penalty becomes. We are also proposing reasonable limitations concerning anonymous complaints. Our office has taken complaints from individuals who are known to staff but um requests remain analogous which I believe could create a concern for property owners um when they wanted to request public record public records. Um I don't want to discourage legitimate reporting, but the goal here would be to strike balance between allowing concerns to be raised and ensuring a fair and transparent process. I would still accept anonymous complaints if they're submitted in writing or online or if the complainant indicates a legitimate concern for their safety or potential retaliation. We believe these amendments um would address these issues and clean up the notice process as well as standardize u compliance deadlines and uh simplify the fine schedule. Overall, the changes would not be about penalizing any responsible property owners, but about closing loopholes, reducing the fee issues, and using staff time more efficiently, and making enforcement uh consistent and fair for all Miami County residents.

Do you think it would be helpful if someone's going to report an unsafe building that they pay $50 to report it? If it turns into a violation, they get their money back. Would that curve a lot of it? I don't know. Uh potentially. I'm not trying to turn people off from from reporting anything. Um more so people who just think that a property isn't as pretty as theirs is. Um or people who want to retaliate against other people who had turned them in or bad ne they think that their neighbors a bad neighbor. I I don't

I still don't like the idea of people not being able to um file anonymously. We've talked in the past about the retribution of others etc. I do think like I said I think uh if it comes in writing then I wouldn't know who they are. They can submit it online and they don't have they can skip putting in their name or uh any type of contact information. And then if they say hey like I am scared of my neighbor or I have blood with this person. Um, we've done that as well. So, but I'm not opposed. It's just an idea. The $50 thing for the unsafe building, I don't think it's

I don't think people should have to pay to report something that is and some people don't have an extra $50 to report something. We don't go around driving looking for it and we don't take care of it. It turns into a violation. They get it back. You're talking like a hole that just prevents someone from driving 10 miles from their house and driving by. I don't like that building. I'm going to turn it in.

I think you do it the other way on it. I think if you say turn in come up with a number, let's say three in a row or two in a row, whatever, that don't end up becoming violation cases because we have people that are driving around trying to find stuff. So if you turn two in that don't end up being cases, then it's a $50 fine along with bill them or whatever. That way you're not detouring people from turning the biding people from just saying they got a garbage sack. Yeah, they left that trash out a day too long. Yeah,

that's definitely something that we could talk about, too. I I've not thought about putting a value or anything like that on complaints. So, well, when we have 40 active, I say buildings, that's a lot. That's not even ones that we haven't filed yet. We have like three or four sitting number. So, and I'm not trying to stop someone from turning in an unsafe building, but the nuisance people just driving around. You had to lay down 50 bucks, you might think about it.

Well, and we've also received some complaints from like Eagle's Point because they're not happy with the HOA out there or whatever, and they're just they're mad. They're not getting their way because they're not fixing something right away. So then they call us and it may not be an unsafe building issue, but we still have to send the inspection request letter and you know what I mean. So I mean there I would report you have to go out there. So yeah, if it is they left the garbage out there as long and you drive out there that cost the county something to

Yeah. And so, um, in the little packet that I had prepared, again, like Corey stated, and his is a lot prettier than mine, but, uh, this is the first time I've ever done this. So, um, I did lay out maybe some guidelines in general. Uh, so a submitted complaint should include the following, and they're listed out in there uh, for you to review. But just a general idea because a lot of the times people will be like, "Well, it's around about this area. Okay, I I don't have my compass. I'm not sure where you want me to go." Um or I go out there and it's there's nothing there. So, I'm like, "Right,

I've got me lost because truly they didn't send me on a wild goose chase." Well, you absolutely need that information. But I like Jamie's idea. Like, three strikes, you're out. Now you got to or something if you want to try to curb it with some kind of B. Yeah.

One of the issues I know has come up previously and it's it's getting worse, not better, but the 10 days from the date of notice, I mean, it's getting difficult right now to send anything through the mail that gets there in a timely manner. So, I think my concern and my suggestion was that we look at that 10 days and maybe make it a little longer because for somebody to receive a piece of mail like that could take five or six days for them to get it and then when you're sending another letter on day 10, it just compounds the issue. And so, I I I don't think that's achieving the outcome that we want there. It does seem, sorry, it does seem that 10 days is pretty standard from the ordinances that I've looked at. I did see a couple that were 15. So,

right, but Yeah, our postal service was different when they wrote those ordinances as well. 30 days for me to get I cleaned up some of the language in there also. So, it says 10 days from the date it was mailed. Um, which is No, that is I'm sorry. No, that's in here. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I changed it to. I'm sorry. I got confused. Yeah. She's looking for suggestion on language then at the next meeting. My my only push back on this is that we do have just as many that never respond and so now we're giving them ample extra time to not respond.

I'd rather have that though than somebody get that's legitimately trying to help get caught up because if somebody's not going to be compliant whether it's 10, 15, 30 days, they're still going to be non-compliant. Are you going to take these letters directly to the post office and have them postmarked in front of you? They are. Okay. You got to Okay. Because now there's those new Yeah. But just cuz they're postmarked doesn't mean that the person gets them. No, but it says from date it was mailed. Yeah.

Um but what really brought this up, the whole purpose for for me wanting to make some amendments was the repeat violations. Um that takes up a lot of time. Um, so we were wanting to have maybe a more severe penalty. I like your idea there where it grows instead of shrinks. So by increasing the fine, they're going to become in complant.

I would I would like to think that if I if my property was trashy and they're like, "Hey, you just resolved this a year ago. You you have trash all over your yard. Now you're you're going to have a $500 fine off the bat and $200 initial fine. you have to get this done now. I would think that I would do it again. I think it might be helpful in the cases about mowing especially. It's like if people are just being lazy and they're pushing her to her limit and not doing something till she comes out every time. You know what I'm saying? That it might make sure the action that we're taking that we're expecting the right outcome here.

I did add that to the mowing as well, Scarlet. We have suggestions to this get this to you before the next meeting that ask if you have suggestions feel free to send them to Brooke or well any of us I'll give them to Brooke.

Hey next item on the agenda a data center moratorium discussion. Yeah, I wanted to out here. I do know uh it seems like data centers, crypto mining, all of those concurrent grouped items, whatever you want to call them. Um that seems to be the big buzzword. It was uh wind and solar and now it seems like it's data centers, crypto mining, things like that.

Um we our current zoning ordinance doesn't address these. Well, very little does it address it. Um, and so we have a committee that has formed and will be meeting here soon, uh, I believe at the beginning of February to start drafting some potential verbiage language ordinance to regulate these items. However, should something come in in the meantime. Um, I don't feel like we're adequate adequately protected. So, uh, my thought was put a moratorum on those types of projects until we can get restrictions, an ordinance, something put in place. So, I wanted to throw that out there,

um, to see your thoughts on it. We don't have to do that. This is just my idea. Feel free to shoot it down. So, the the current allowed use for a data center is within a which zone? Industrial B31. I think that's which would basically be an industrial park, right? Um yeah, like kind of where uh Gryom like the base right there, that area. So if if we pass this moratorum, we're just saying that they would not be allowed to build it in business or industrial park. No, I think at all. No. Well, nope. Well, I think it depends on how the motion is stated.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, no. I'm just saying right now as we sit today, nobody can build a data center outside of a business or industrial use. But if you're putting a moratorum on the moratorum, my my viewpoint would be a blanket even in business or industrial until we get until we get the ordinance cleaned up, right? I understand. But what we're essentially doing, you're already right now restricted from building a data center outside of those areas unless unless you get a variance which had to go before BZA, right? So by putting a moratorum, all you're doing is restricting use data center within a business or industrial area.

Oh, so you're saying just I get what you're saying, right? Because it's already restricted. I all we're doing if we do a moratorum blocking it from a business or industrial area which is right now restricted to the grisomelex but you're also then you would you would also be preventing anybody from filing in front of BCA that's yeah that's what I was going to ask however the public process for BZA if somebody files everybody gets not you know everybody gets notified and it is a very public process so my logical brain says if we move forward with the moratorum. The only thing that we're really changing is we're stopping somebody from building one within a business or industrial area

and they would still they could still come and get a grants or no or do you mean like hey if they want to do it outside of there there is a public process that they go through which is board of zoning appeals that currently has one under discussion. Let me get our legal counsel to clarify this.

I'm going to add one thing. Yes, I understand how your legal brain is working, but it also means that any additional regulations we might put on a data center or might need to be applicable wouldn't be applicable. And so, if you have one that does apply and does file for in that zone and doesn't need a variance, you're saying you can operate under the current or zoning ordinance that in my opinion is willfully inapp. And so what you would be doing, yes, only stopping them in those two zones, but you're also saying you can't build anything until you're going to be subject to all these additional regulations that have yet to be decided.

Yes. The moratorum would say we're not going to accept or process any application for that. So you're not going to be able to be grandfathered in until you're the new regulations are in place and then you're subject to those. That's that I think is the real benefit. If we say we need to regulate differently than we currently are for that specific use, we have those in place. So, but in order for that to be true, it would have to be an existing parcel that already exists within that zoning area. But I think I understand what you're saying. If somebody has a lot, let's say industrial lot, they say I want to put a data center there.

I don't think we could stop it. Even moratorum in place if the moratorium in place is been in place. Yes, we could. Correct. Meaning they couldn't even apply for a variance. Correct. I mean, they could submit the documents, but we don't accept them as file. We don't process it. We don't until that's what I was asking for clarification. Cy Mark, we're having the first meeting on what February 2nd. How long do you think or what is feasible timeline for us developing this ordinance? Like if we put a moratorum in place, are you talking

say no longer than a year at max? Moratoriums are supposed to be temporary. They can't just be indefinite. The longer you go, the more ability some company can try to validate. So if we don't have something I mean if we put one in place it would be we start immediately on a committee saying let's look at other county regulations figure out what we like and get that moving. So you're saying if we do put a moratorum on we need to have a timeline involved in that. It doesn't need to be a hard date like saying it will only be effective until January next year. Although I have seen that done but we can't drag our feet either. Yeah. We can't wait a year before we have the first meeting.

I mean once once we have suggested language, it takes three months to have a hearing for planning commission to make a recommendation the commissioners to adopt. So right for the potential change. Yeah. Which was which so it takes three months once you have everything in place. So a year would be a feas feasible amount of time. But how does this affect the one that already on the board? Have they already filed for a So they're they've already filed with board of zoning. So it would not be subject to this unless they would grant application later. I would make a motion to put the moratorum on data centers in place until we get a

ordinance. I second that we have to do a public hearing. I mean you can walk me through the process but that itself is a zoning ordinance. So we have to go through all the steps to even put that in place that would any other changes. So if Yeah. Okay, back up to put the moratorum in place.

It's a zoning ordinance itself. So, we have to go through the you adopt the proposal, we have the public hearing, you make the recommendation, it goes to the commissioners. I think we can squeeze the time frame to less than three months, but you're looking at at least two months. So, even if we bring back the proposal next month, which I think I've already drafted, then we we're starting that process then. So we would basically have to hold a public hearing at our next meeting February 11th.

I think you have to adopt the proposal which is essentially say you're looking at the moratorum. You're saying yes we want to go through with this and then you have a public hearing the next meeting and then after that you have recommendation then it goes to commission. You can have a public meeting and then we have a regular meeting adopted that goes to commissioners. Yes. Yeah. And there are just different notices at different pages that have to be published. So we just to line up the dates. So do I need to resend my motion then

tell Corey to move forward with bringing a proposal forward to bring forward the proposal to adopt a work to adopt a work. We know what you mean. Yeah. Second at the next meeting. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor say I. I.

Opposed? Nay. Motion carries. Okay. We've now come to public comment. Is there any public comment tonight for the planning commission before we get started with BVA?

Yes, sir. Just state your name for the record. You live out on West Road. Um the data center. We were here for the last meeting that they had about zoning and uh we were not notified of Then when he put a data center in from the north side of the river fronts and we all stated, "We are joining land in the south side of the river and none of us were notified." And this is out on um County Line Road in 400 North. There were people in Cass County that own land on our side, too. Okay. Nobody was notified. We don't have to notify for Cass. They're not in the county.

But if they own own the line, you're supposed to notify them because they're adjoining properties in another county. Get the mail. And the state told me that because of the Wash River, I was told, but we didn't have to notify. Well, you have to because it even though it's a waterway, the federal government and the state all consider waterways as transportation roads. Even though this part of the river is nontransportational, Lafayette South is controlled by the Coast Guard and sir, what's your address? Huh? What's your address?

4337 West River Road. I can see that substation from my house. Mark, if we put that in the paper, is that notice too for what we didn't cover? Oh, no. Certain land owners within certain distances or adjoining land owners need to get individual notice. So yeah, there's no newspapers. Well, if you get one, it's what once every four days if you have one. Is it 4387 West River Road? 4337 West River Road.

Well, I think lucky for you, I mean, it did get pushed to March's meeting, so we have to send notice again. And so I appreciate you bringing that up. We'll we'll look at that to make sure. Why not a countywide moratorum on these AIS? That's that's what we just voted on. We couldn't really hear it was too much.

We just we just voted to um do that until we at least complete the new ordinance. federal government uh last week announced that they're going to start working on regulating these AIs where they'll have to generate their own power. They cannot use our water. Um they have to control their noise and their light pollution and so forth and uh pay property taxes. The state of Texas lost over a billion dollars in revenue from those AI installed and uh yeah, I mean you guys got paperwork for you to read, but I'm sorry.

It then was not being notified. Well, thanks for bringing that up. Um be on the lookout here. We'll be sending that out. Well, it's not yet February. Uh Mark, what's the six people on the south side that did not notify? What's the requirements for adjacent neighbors? We can address that. Okay. Yep. Okay. So, they'll look at that. They'll get that taken care of. Anybody else for public comment? Yes. Just state your name for the record.

My name is Pendell. I'm the speaker for this daily coalition that we've created in response to the crypto mining and data center. uh facility. We have the Miami pass counties coalition for utility and environmental protection. We are having a meeting tomorrow night. If anybody wants any more information, you can get a hold of me. Just wanted to introduce me. We have a coalition for Oh, there is a she sounded thrilled that you pointed that out. Is it?

I said my name is Tori Pendell. I am the speaker for the Miami Cast counties coalition for utility and environmental protection. We were formed in response to this crypto facility being built. We're having a meeting tomorrow night at 6 p.m. at BO Grady's. If you're interested, get a hold of me. I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know you'll be seeing a lot of us. Thank you.

Anybody else? Any public comment for tonight? Yes ma'am. Just need your name for the record Johnson and we own and uh we live a half a mile from this proposed variance industrial variant where it's agriculture now and what you did with the moratorum it didn't seem like that's going to cover agriculture varants which is really Cleveland, you're protecting the industrial where they need to be. You know what I'm saying? Like let's have the mortorium will cover everything in agriculture. Yes.

And the variance too. The current variance that'll be heard in March. It would not cover that because they've already filed for a permit, but that'll be heard in front of BZA in March. Yep. Yep. Yep. We were not notified. We only got we're half mile from it and we're right on the wall batch. an organic farm. We're so proud of it and I just I'll speak at the Y. Okay. Any other comments for tonight? Motion we journ. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor say I. I. We are adjourned.

Would somebody like a flyer about plan comprehensive plan? Um coming up. Yeah, you can take if you're here for the board of zoning appeals meeting. We'll get started in five minutes. There's a player on the clock. It looks like two after