Common Council - Regular Meeting

in your drawer. All right, it is 7:07. We will go ahead and call the November or October 27th meeting of the Salem Planning Commission to order. Um we'll go ahead and start with roll call. Telicia Day

here. Um Greg Zinc present. Steve Williams present. [clears throat] Max Gamble absent. Absent. Tom Jacobs here.

Scott Nail here. I'm Anthony Ciphers and we're also joined by Ronnie from the building department and our attorney Jacob Vissing. Um, with roll call out of the way, we'll go ahead and move on to the minutes approval from last month's meeting. Does anyone have any additions, corrections? We need to make a correction on the meeting of July 28th. I was absent from that meeting, but I'm listed as having make made the motion to approve the minutes on the previous meeting. Can't be at two places at once.

Absolutely. So, um, other than that, I would move that we accept the, uh, minutes for July 28th as preserved with the caveat that the motion uh, made to approve the previous minutes. My name be removed and we put the proper person's name in. The video recording can be consulted to see who made that motion. So that can be corrected. All right. Motion's been made. I'll second it. Second. All in favor? I.

All right. Minutes have been approved. Um, next thing on the agenda is reviewing the permits issued for August and September of 2025. We have also the minute uh for August the 25th meetings. I apologize. The August did you say 5th 25th 25th?

August 25th, 2025. All right. So, moving on then from the July 28th to the August 25th minutes. Does anyone have any additions, corrections to the August 25th minutes? If not, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as a reading for August 25 2025. I'll second that. Motion's been made and seconded. All in favor?

Those opposed. All right. Now, moving on to permits issued for both August and September 2025. If nobody has any comments or questions or anything on those, I'll make a motion to acknowledge the permits issued from that time period. Second.

All right. Motion's been made and seconded to approve both the August 2025 and September 2025 permits issued. All in favor? I. Those opposed. All right, moving right along. Um, this is what's new. I'll kind of handle talking through that.

Okay. Um, next on our agenda is we have a public hearing on a proposed subdivision from BDA LLC. Um, has everyone who would if you want to speak in the public hearing, I would ask that you sign in. So, if anyone is here to speak other than the petitioner, is anyone are you are you guys here for the subdivision or some the other item? All right, cool. Well, then [clears throat] seeing that there is just the petitioner here along with Ronnie, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Um the way the format's going to work is we'll invite um Ronnie and or the petitioner up to let us know what's going on with this subdivision. Have a chance to ask questions. If there is anyone who has public comment at that point, you'll be given time to speak. Um if there is public comment and additional questions are raised, the petitioner then have the option to answer or address any of those questions. Seeing that there is no one here to comment, probably just going to come up the one time if if that works for everybody. So without further ado, Ronnie, if you don't mind if you'd come up and then I'll just ask real quick, would you state your name and home address for the record?

Brian Newbie at 3672 North Mars Road, Salem. Thank you. [clears throat]

This is a pretty central ballpark There is no roads for him to build. He's just using existing land. It's actually cornfield right now. If you look over here, this is the consistent subdivision. This is just kind of an extension not of that subdivision but of his. So this is if you were at the ball field and you are I guess facing west from the ball field. There's that road that curves behind the

T-ball field and the I think it's the tenu field there. This would be then in that field on the other side of that curved road. Right. Gotcha. And then of course it goes on around street and this is going to be fed sewer that's over here sanitary sewer be that way they come back. This is on the hill there. So there's not much has

So you're you're saying that the exist existing services or utilities can be easily accessed with

and these are conforming lots to an R3. And and just from a procedural standpoint as well, I mean, when when we're talking about um primary plat approval, um so long as the applicant satisfies all of the criteria in the subdivision control ordinance, then the commission or the plan commission cannot exercise discretion and whether to approve. If if if it satisfies everything, then you have to approve. If it does not satisfy one of the items, then you have to deny specifically for that reason and then the applicant has the opportunity to come back at the next meeting with an updated plaid correcting the insufficient item and then it's assuming that it does then at that time you would have to approve it. So um I just wanted to impress upon the plan commission that this isn't an item for discretion.

Thank you. Sir, could you spell your last name for me, please? Could you spell name? Yes.

N A W Y. So since he's presented exhibit B, we can approve with that stipulation. It does have to stay in place, I guess. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. So Ronnie, just does anything stick out to you? I mean, it it seems as though it conforms to

standards in the subdivision control or is there anything that is a concern to you or that you No, not really. There have there's utility between each lot. So if we do need to take a sewer or something to get on the So they would come in the back side and they're not going to come around the front, I guess. This one we are going to come out front because there's more room for them to go and ride out. Okay. That actually has a 60 foot. Okay. So they do preer hookups and water out there.

So does that one have to have the sidewalk to make it conformant? Does he have to do the sidewalk for the ordinance? No. And no more lights or anything like that? That's all good. There's already lights there. They may want to come back. We do want to put a sidewalk in. They're allowed to do that. I didn't know if it had to have one going in. I couldn't remember how that ordinance was written.

No, this one back here doesn't have one either. It' be a sidewalk to nowhere. We don't have any going to us. Where would be the nearest fire hider? There's one right across the street down here. And we run a run a water lane up along a ballpark road and automatically put Okay. So, Ronnie then as it stands we meet all he he meets all requirements as presented. Right. Okay. This is a pretty simple one.

Yeah. Then it for the attorney it would be appropriate at this time to enter a motion to accept. Yes. If if the all of the criteria of the subdivision control ordinance are met and the zoning ordinance are met, then it's a ministerial act and it must be approved. If you guys want to put stipulation in there about a sidewalk, you can. However, there's no other sidewalks coming to that area.

Yes. I don't not across the street. There's not one behind it. There's not one. The nearest one would be I mean, yeah. I mean, I mean, I'm a fan of sidewalks, but I don't I don't see that that really it would go to nowhere. So, do we need to You need a motion, a second, and a vote. Aren't we still? Well, I was going to say, do I need to open and close public comment or You can close it if there's no one to speak or you can take a vote to close it. But either way,

okay, I'll move to close public comment. Seeing that there is no one here unless All right, we'll go ahead and close public comment. Um, [clears throat] go ahead and entertain a motion then. I just have some thoughts and that's exactly what they are. They're just thoughts. They're not really concerning us necessarily at all. Um,

the only thing when when I'm looking at this, we've either all been up there or we've all had children up there. Uh, the flow that's that's through this area. Um, I would just con uh encourage whoever works on on this, look at where driveways are placed in relationship to the intersections and and just so on and so forth. And and I know uh lots two through seven through there, those poor folks, they they park up the whole front end of those grass lots. So that that will no longer be allowed.

Exactly. So is is it going to be no parking or or thinking about no park? But all that city stuff again. I'm just tossing thoughts out there.

So I'll make a motion to approve approve the preliminary plat um uh with all the exhibits that uh that Mr. Dubie has provided with us. Stay with that too. Of course, [snorts] I'll second that motion. All right, motion's been made and seconded. All in favor? I I. Those opposed. All right. Preliminary PL has been approved. And with that, then um entertain a motion to go ahead and close the public hearing. I'll move we close public hearing. Motion's been made. Second. Seconded. All in favor?

I I right. Perfect. Thank you very much.

So, I'll I'll kind of handle the Sure.

I'll handle the introduction of the next item. Um, so this involves a mobile home park. um owned by Timco Property LLC. Uh it is approximately 11 and a half acres um located at uh 508 South Martinsburg Road. Um so I don't know what members were a part of this commission um back in uh 2022 uh but this is a bit of a revisit to that item. Um, under Salem's um, zoning ordinance, a mobile home park is permitted by special exception in in both an R zone and an R3 zone. Um, previously the applicant was uh, granted approval uh for the current um, improved lots in the uh, mobile home park. and the applicant is seeking to expand the park further. Um, back at in 2022, um, it went to a series of meetings in March and May of that year. Um, at which time an expansion at that time of 16 homes was approved um, subject to a few stipulations, some of which are really duplicative of what's already required under um, under federal law and under state law. Um but one of the other items was for uh the chip and seal um u coating on the what's known as Bryant Drive. That's the internal street within the park. Um, in connection with this came about, uh,

there was an exchange of back and forth between the applicant and the staff regarding the status of the sealed road and also a couple I believe there are two homes that are not currently occupied. They're being stored at the site. Um, so we we sat down and talked a little bit about how to address those situations uh prior to um addressing the application for the expansion. Uh so from the staff's perspective, they wanted to see the two homes um you know removed um in short, but they also wanted to see the the roadway to be sealed. uh in working with the applicant um they presented a form of seal that it it's technically not a chip and seal but it is a functional equivalent. uh the staff reached out to uh some local uh consultants to get their opinion on the adequacy and quality of that type of seal and felt satisfied such that um you know we've communicated to the applicant that they would be fine to go ahead and move forward with that is a bit of a housekeeping item because the chip and seal was the verbiage that was used back you know a little over three years ago um on that approval you know we would ask for the formality of the plan commission to give its blessing to that form of seal. Again, it's just a little bit of new technologies come about and and new things that serve the same purpose of making it a hard and dust proof surface. Um, again, it was such that, you know, the city staff felt comfortable with that as being the the manner mechanism of accomplishing that goal. Um so again we would ask just the plan commission for the for the satisfaction of of the staff and of the applicant to give its blessing to that.

The second part uh of what we're here to discuss is um for their application for an expansion. It will go at the not at this month's BZA meeting uh due to public hearing uh notices that have to go out a certain period of time before the hearing before the board of zoning appeals on the special exception. It'll be at the November meeting. Uh but there will be a notice public hearing on a special exception for the expansion um of the mobile home park at at that meeting at which time really the issue of the use is a mobile home park and the expansion of it will be addressed according to the special exception criteria by the board of zoning appeals under the zoning ordinance. However, for mobile home parks, it's a bit of a two um step process where the somewhat similar but not the same as like a plat like we just reviewed for the subdivision, but it's not really technically a plat for mobile home parks, but there is a site layout of how they're going to improve the paths uh and have their internal roads. and it the zoning ordinance places the review uh power with the plan commission on that. So that's what the applicant is here tonight to present on from a what are we here to talk about standpoint because the use is within the purview of the board of zoning appeals. any objections that any individual member of the commission may have as to whether you you want it to be a mobile home park or you want it to expand or not is not really the question that's before you tonight. That's a question for the board of zoning appeals and that's a question will be addressed at a public hearing by the board of zoning appeals. The

question tonight is really looking at the site layout and consulting with the staff on their review of it and the satisfaction of the criteria that's applicable to mobile home parks that are set forth in the zoning ordinance. Um, just for reference, the section of your zoning ordinance that um kind of sets this all forth, my computer can quickly scroll up to it here is um, pardon me. It is section uh 156.084 with regard to mobile home parks. Um, so I know this particular layout has been reviewed by staff. Uh, one of the items that we will um address with the board of zoning appeals when it is considering the special exception is the issue of the stored homes on the site. um you know, we we don't want them stored there, but what we we do recognize that if the um application is approved for the expansion, then we would be willing to allow them to stay there. I think the staff's comfortable with this is to stipulate that they can stay there for 90 days and essentially at the end of the 90 days they either need to be placed upon completed pads and hooked up to utilities and in full working order to be lived in to be occupied at the end of that 90-day period. Or in the alternative if that's not achieved then they would need to be removed. So that's just a separate background in case anybody's kind of has any knowledge of the situation on the site and has any questions about it. Some of those questions regarding use, regarding the current status, they've either been

addressed or are going to be addressed with the board of zoning appeals. So long- winded opening for this item. Um but at this point, I think we can welcome up the applicant to talk about their site plan. Um this isn't a public hearing item, just a regular meeting item. Feel free to ask questions, ask you know Ronnie his um his opinion on the review as well. Um and and again we're looking at this the charge of this commission and I is to look at this from a site layout perspective, not from a should this happen perspective. You know, do we want the mobile home park to expand? Are we okay with the mobile home park? Uh those are not what's before you tonight. I have a question for council. I am a property owner adjacent to to the proposed site and as such or I mean I will declare I have no financial interest or entwinment or whatever with uh Tim but uh should I recuse myself from participation in this due to me being a uh adjacent homeowner. So under the Indiana code whether you have a finan direct or indirect financial interest is kind of the the main objective criteria. The second bit of that criteria is whether you based on the facts and circumstances uh you know do you have the capability of being objective and making an unbiased decision when it comes to your vote on the matter. Let the facts prevail. Thank you.

All right. All right. Please.

Yeah. Good evening. My name is John McCoy. Um I'm an engineer with JLM Engineering. I'm the project engineer. Um this is Tim Bryant. He's the owner of the mobile home park. Uh we also have uh Chelsea Stanley is his attorney uh with us as well. Um so as Jake said uh in his introduction of the project uh you know Tim has owned this mobile home park for several years. Uh the first expansion of the existing park was done three years ago and this board approved that expansion uh of 15 homes. Um, so there's there's 31 total homes now on the little over 4 acre uh parcel of that first section. Um, and then what we're presenting tonight would is the second section which is 49 homes total. Uh, the total property area is about 11 and a half acres. So this se second section is about 7 and a half acres. It's all one property that it's all in one deed, the entire property. Um this did go to the Indiana State Health Department for approval. They do a full technical review um of all the the engineering items, the layout of the park, um the lot sizes, the road layout, the sewer, the water, storm water drainage, uh the grading of the lots, um water, sewer, and electrical hookups to the homes. Uh it's a pretty indepth review. Um, and that was

approved by the state health department back in August. Um, that approved this this section. And then we we also submitted plans shortly after that after the state health department approved it to the city um to Ronnie Voy for for his review. Um, so that's kind of the the the project, the overview of it. We just to just to give you some um some additional information as far as access. You know, Tim is going to build uh an extension of the existing drive into the property, which is Inz Drive, uh that comes off of Martinsburg Road. So, that will be extended into this section. It'll also have an additional access to the north, uh off of Old State Road 60. and you can see that on on your plan. So, there'll be two two accesses um in and out of the property to access these homes. Um there is an existing detention storm water detention basin at the north end that currently serves the existing section. That detention basin will be enlarged. It'll actually be deepened um to increase the the capacity to be able to handle the the future runoff from this second section. The the uh proposed water connection will come in from the existing section on INZ. It'll actually be looped back around to Old State Road 60. Um that's another thing the state health department looked at as far as capacity pressure

um of the existing water man. We had to get all that information from the water utility. So that was checked and all that um is meets the requirements as far as capacity for fire flow for normal demand uh domestic demand of the proposed homes. Same thing with sanitary sewer. That was also reviewed by the city and approved for a hookup at the uh existing line at Old State Road 60. Um, and that'll all be tied in. All the homes will be tied in uh to that connection with an 8 in sanitary sewer. Um, I think that pretty much summarizes the the technical aspects as far as the the proposed utilities. Um, you can see the road layout, how the lots are laid out there. Um, we have a there's a proposed playground area which the state health department requires uh as well. Uh, and we're showing that on the plan there at the south end next to the office building. Ronnie,

we're happy to take any questions you may have. Just wanted to ask Ronnie if the before uh as laid out before us meets all applicables. Yes. You told about the how many fire hydrants will you have up through there in the sub in this? Do you have any? Um, there's going to be there should be three total. Three total. Yeah. I have another question for the attorney.

Yes. So at this point, if I understood your presentation earlier, if we have the city official saying that what we have before us meets all the city requirements, then this commission's responsibility is to to approve it so that it goes to the u the board of zoning appeals. My interpretation of your zoning ordinance is that is correct. So the the ordinance puts the review the site plan review process or site layout review process into the purview of the plan commission. It doesn't go into the same level of detail um that the subdivision control ordinance does as to what what the role is with with respect to plat approvals. How however how I would read it is that it's the same type of process that there are criteria that are applicable to mobile home parks that are set forth in the ordinance and if those criteria are met then the plan commission should approve it is a ministerial act and ultimately the question as to the use and whether you know the criteria that they will have to show and that the uh board of zoning appeals will have to find in their favor on on reviewing a special exception. They're going to review that question and make a decision as to the expansion, thumbs up or thumbs down. But what we're talking about is more of the technical layout. And as as far as

if the technical layout satisfies the criteria in the ordinance, then it should be approved. And if it's not approved, then we should tell them why specifically we believe it fails to satisfy the ordinance and then give them the opportunity to make those corrections. But we have representative from the city saying that's been correct met. So and anything from the state. Was it really necessary to have any more time spent on this other than

Wait a second though because I got a couple questions. Hang on. So why are we expanding out the time frame of the of the um of the I'll say vacant mobile home? the the ordinance is in here and it's it's pretty clear in in uh paragraph B and it's actually set up in there. So why are we expanding that out? Why would we allow that?

So practically speaking and again I mean this this is something that was notice for zoning violation. We received an appeal to that zoning violation which led to some further discussion before it was set for hearing on the violation before the board of zoning appeals. Even if favorably that let's say that the board of zoning appeals affirmed the decision and agreed with our interpretation of the zoning ordinance. The applicant then has the right to appeal that to the circuit court of the county. And whether you know you agree with the basis or not and the city would be in a position to defend its notice of violation there. they would have a high threshold to show that it was, you know, and you know, the decision of the board of zoning appeals was arbitrary or capricious or lacking of substantial evidence. And but e even at that, you're talking about a several monthl long process. And from a practical standpoint, from from our perspective, it's more advantageous to have a an agreement in place that is not in dispute with the applicant over the status of the homes on the site. give them the opportunity, assuming that it's approved,

to have the pads constructed, have the homes placed upon the pads and hooked up within a certain fixed period of time, and if not, then be removed within said period of time

because it actually I mean they can get a permit to do that up to 45 days, right? And I said subsection B. I meant to say C. I apologize. Paragraph C. I mean it will allow up to 45 days. Um and then I had another question and I guess actually this is more for Ronnie. I was thinking that when this was all done two or three years ago there the reason that it went through was because there wasn't going to be any further development. If I remember right now I could be mistaken but that should be in the minutes. I could be mistaken but I

that's not reflected in the minutes. It's not because I remember that's when we had some trouble with a lot of neighbors, a lot of phone calls, that thing, that sort of thing. And I thought that that's what was said. I get my my question here isn't really [clears throat] so much relevant to this at hand. However, it's further clarification on I know we have the formality. The other thing we need to do tonight is to sort of formally address the the verbiage of chip and seal as opposed to the the new solution, whatever the term is. Would you mind explaining what is the alternative? Because I think the my understanding of the intent of the chip and seal verbiage was some sort of hard dustfree i.e. non-gravel or dirt road something other than that.

Right. So what what what is going to be?

Yeah, it's a and it's already been applied. It's a calcium chloride solution that's applied directly to compacted rock. And what that solution does is it it pulls moisture out of the air uh to help keep the surface dustfree. Um so this solution is is basically sprayed on the surface directly uh after the surface has been compacted and rolled which Tim brought in some additional rock uh dense grade aggregate had that applied to the existing roadway um and then the calcium chloride solution was applied on top of it.

How long does that solution last on It just varies. Uh it depends on Yeah. It just depends on the use on u you know how often traffic how much traffic is up and down that road. You know over time he may have to reapply it within a year. Um it could be two years. It just it just depends. It's not a permanent solution. And it just like any surface, you know, asphalt or chip and seal, it's not it's not permanent. There's going to be some maintenance involved with it right right now. Is the city responsible for snow removal or is the property owner responsible for snow? It's a private it's a private street.

Again, the concerns I think from the staff standpoint is hard and dust proof. There is with any surface there's going to be a maintenance component to it. And if it were to, I guess, degrade into disrepair that cease to be hard and dust proof, then we would be in a an enforcement situation where we would be sending a letter to the owner to remedy the situation. But yeah, that was a condition to the original approval and that keeping it a hardened dust proof surface, you know, we would expect to be a condition to any future expansion as well

which should

So are the future roads here going to be the same setup? Yes. Grab a little bit to it. Yes, that's the plan. How long does chip and seal last normally? How long does chip and seal usually last? Depends on usage. Yeah. Yeah. Five years, 10 years. Is it a county road or is it a interstate that's got semis on it all day every day? Right.

I don't know how thick this would be. I hope at least county standards. Do what? It last one summer traffic has to be every so often. So I I I do want to just note for again for the commission on [clears throat] this issue, we asked the applicant before we would move forward the agenda item is we wanted to address that remaining issue from the prior approval to make to ensure that it was done. We ran that to ground the, you know, with with the staff. The staff ran that to ground with subject matter experts and we felt comfortable enough that it was substantially the same method of making it hard and dust proof with, you know, similar characteristics. Even though it's called by something that's not quotes chip and seal that it is materially and substantially the same thing such that we felt comfortable in advising the applicant to go ahead and act on doing that so that they could move forward with their application

and it is state approved. So when I look this up it says the average chip and seal in Indiana is typically 5 to seven years. Uh there's another site that says 3 to five. There's another site that says 7 to 15. Um 7 to 10. 5 to 7. Um 7 to 10. I And I I think I think where I'm coming at with this is I I mean I remember this and I think the intent I mean the chip and seal verbiage was used. I mean I think the intent though was a paved I mean chip and seal i.e. some sort of paved hard surface that was

again we're here now today with this but I think we negotiated down but we actually wanted it paved. No, we wanted to paved. I remember we were this was the opportunity we wanted to do a chip and seal because they were looking for a little bit of a financial easement or whatever there on that and so we gave that and now here we are looking at something in my opinion is not going to hold up as well as what we already negotiated on to begin with. Well, and also it was set up where for the cost of it and everything, we allowed uh them to put in so many trailers before it had to be done, right?

And they put in those trailers, but then from my understanding, they had trouble finding how to do this, so it it lasted a lot longer before it actually got done. So let let me let me back up though a second. I mean what we're doing though as it stands right now is we're we're administrative acknowledging administratively I guess acknowledging the difference there one and two what we're doing is subject to obviously staff and the state obviously is completely out of our control. They approve or decline to their own guidelines. We are here to approve this. However, this is going before the BCA at which point it's all this new will be reviewed and it's going to be a public hearing.

Sure. Yeah. I I recommended that we address the item of the verbiage of the chip and seal because again from the record [clears throat] it appears the issue is a hardened dust proof surface. It's not paved. It's not black top. It's not concrete. So,

but it's going to be a it's a it's a hard and dustproof surface that's going to require routine maintenance. The applicant is going to be responsible for doing that. If they fail to maintain it in accordance with the standards for that particular method of keeping it hard and dust proof, then they will be subject to a violation and they will have to remedy the situation or face the appropriate remedies and consequences under the zoning ordinance. No different than with a chip and seal. That is also [snorts] going to require routine maintenance. Sure.

Much more so than concrete and asphalt. The reason that I recommended as council to the commission for this to come here is for one to just clean up the record of proceedings on this issue, but also to give them the comfort that this is the same substantially the same thing and it's it's satisfying the objective and we're moving forward. But I think the more that's more of an administrative matter I think that I would like to get cleaned up of record. Sure. Sure. Isn't the point moot since it's already done? Well,

well, that's that's sort of the point right now is has it been complied with? Now, I I obviously we don't have those minutes or the recording or whatever right in front of us. However, I'll I think it's it's fair to act on the way it was worded as such if it was worded a hard and dustproof surface and if that's as a staff I don't think we would be prepared to issue a notice of violation based upon that's what I'm getting at it being sealed with this item with that being the case I think for the purpose of acknowledging that as it relates to the already existing correct

infrastructure structure there with the original approval. I would move that. Do I guess do we just acknowledge? Yeah. Would it be fair to just make a motion acknowledging that calcium chloride? Yes. That the calcium chloride treatment on the existing gravel road be considered in compliance with a hard and dustproof surface as originally required. Correct. I would make that motion. We acknowledge that. And who have we talked to that are experts that are saying yes, this is equal?

What what we're going off of is staff, i.e. building department opinion or professional opinion that as the requirement that we imposed being a hard and dustproof surface that this treatment

it it fulfills that box. Now I think there's there's discussion outside of that. However, when it comes to does the satisfy that box. I think we can acknowledge that it does satisfy that criteria and it is an equivalent criteria there. Further the verbiage come into where we said chip and seal because I'm thinking we want a pavement. We downgraded already. Now we're downgrading again. I don't feel like we're doing I don't think we're doing it right. I don't think that's I I mean I understand that it is a hardened surface,

but I don't think that we're we're cheapening it up even more than what we did to begin with to help. And I don't I mean at some point the developer has to do that. And I don't think we're doing that. I don't think we're doing the the project justice. I don't think we're doing the people justice to keep chaining up this project for him. That's just my opinion. Where is the original wording? What is it would be in the minutes from the So the original wording as reported in the minutes is that the road must be chip and sealed to be made dust proof.

I think it says chip and seal. I mean that's that's the way I read it. It says chip and seal. and chip and seal is no longer available for roadways of that of that. Well, and I guess that's where I guess I I should I I'm not I'm not a I'm the president of this board. I have no knowledge of highway construction. However, chip and seal is generally done by milling an existing roadway with yes, [snorts] lots of compaction underneath and then we're going on top. This is a I mean, how how deep are we? Yeah, eight inches. Eight inch. Yeah. Say 10 inches. Eight inches deep. There's if we sprayed it with or I mean I don't know

other I mean this could be paved. However, what we said wasn't paved. What we said was what was said was chip and seal. Right. Which is right. But we were looking right. And the replacement is what should correct? Yeah. Since there's no chip and seal solution available for this project, that's that's the equivalent is the calcium chloride.

I would ask that Google searches not be used for consultation by the commission members. I mean that just look up I just but no just please hear me out because Google is not or whoever is profering that information is not offering information for you to consider. And so particularly with the attorney of the applicant here I I don't think it would be appropriate to be googling what you think your position should be on the issue. I think we should I I would deal with the applicant and also

I would I would see I proposed a motion to a second. I proposed a motion though to acknowledge that calcium chloride treatment of the existing road infrastructure. We acknowledge that it complies with a hard dustproof surface for purposes of administrative clarity as based on what Ronnie just said is it's not it's not a really an option anymore. Based on that, I would second the motion. He's in violation. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The state's pretty tough anymore. They'll let you know. So motion's been made and seconded.

All in favor? I. Those opposed. All right. So that that's taken care of. The the second thing then is I guess this unlike a this is not a preliminary plat approval or is it a no it's a functional equivalent of it is essentially the plan commission must review the site layout for mobile home parks. Sure.

And the zoning ordinance sets forth the criteria that must be satisfied on a in terms from a layout perspective of a mobile home park. And so, similar to how we look at a plat approval, if each of those criteria are satisfied in the site layout that's been proposed, then it should be approved. If not, then you should indicate to the applicant which specific criteria it fails to satisfy and then give them the opport they will have the opportunity to come back at a subsequent plan commission meeting for the layout approval. it shouldn't affect the BZA timeline next month because again that's really a separate issue as to the use itself. Um this is more of practically how that's going to look on the ground assuming um you know for sake of argument that the BCA were to approve. So all of this would be conditioned on it getting BCA approval on the the special exception. I guess the point I would like to make is this is the third time you've explained that to us and in essence the city has already said to represent the city that such criteria has been met. So my question and really it's not our purview it's in the um I'm sorry the AB his own

BCA the BCA's perview as far as use goes but but but why are we spending this much time for something that we can't impact the plan commission still has to approve just like with just like you could make the same argument for a preliminary plat approval that if they satisfy all the criteria then it's a ministerial act and you have to approve it but like in the one we just did road names changing road names for night for emergency services. Things like that could come up. In this case, I'm looking at the road names and it's pretty clear. It's you guys want to put a buffer in between where those houses

and it's required under the under the zoning ordinance, the vegetative buffer is required. Say it looks like you guys have correct me if I'm wrong. There is a fence at least on this property line up here that looks to be noted on the plat. Um will that be I know it it states it up here. Excuse me. Um I don't see the legend. I don't know if I guess that would be south the southernmost tip, but as it comes down as it goes around the Lipkkey property, would that fence continue around up to Old State Road? Yes, it continues around the perimeter of the property.

Okay.

And just again for the for the plan commission in terms of buffering, the zoning ordinance requires a dense green foliage buff vegetative buffering. uh that I believe within three years it must hit six feet in height uh and in that plant's growing life cycle and it must have a full height at maturity of at least 12 feet. So um that's where we stand on a buffering standpoint and that's not necessarily something that you have to impose as a condition that's already required in the ordinance. I've got one little question and I don't know if it'll pertain to this or not, but will each one of these lots have a parking spot off the road?

Yes. Yes, they they will. Okay. Uh if if you remember the original park when it was there, it's probably been there longer than I've been alive, which is over 50 years, but they done the roadside parking. Of course, when the state inspector came in, I was questioned about what can and cannot do. Of course, they'll let you know. But he they made that suggestion that if you can do it, put them up in front of them homes, get them off this road. That way you don't That was my my concern just because, you know, I've been up Bryant Drive before and, you know, they're they're parked on the road, right? And emergency vehicles and stuff have some issues, you know, getting in and out.

Yeah. We've kind of told them if you need the additional parking, go up here by the office, off hours, whatever, and stay for this. I mean, I I just wanted to make sure that was kind of in in the plan to to get vehicles off the road. I think it looks better because, you know, I'm all about safety. I mean, I've been here for all my life and of course, some of you guys are going to recognize I can kind of blame Jim Bennett for getting me started in this. I was a little boy at the time and him and my grandfather Alan Coffee hung around and kind of giving a little bit of history, but I grew up on Arthur Street and of course Pete Brown lived over there. Of course, Wall-E was down at the gas station at that time. Right.

A lot of them guys impacted my life to get me started doing this. And now they're not here. But anyways, they kind of gave me an impression of, of course, I took pride in the town. I mean, I'm from here. And I don't want to do like I can't really call out names, but there's parks around. They need to get their stuff cleaned up. I was hoping that I would make an example to a couple other ones that they would start cleaning up their stuff because there's no reason why you can't throw a little paint on them and at least clean them up. Of course, they're out of state where I'm here and I have to face all you guys. [laughter] So, I'd rather you guys take pride in what I'm doing, realize, hey, we've got somebody that actually cares about what they're doing here in the community and not just bringing in junk stuff and just I mean, I don't I don't want a bunch of junk stuff here. I mean, I I take pride and of course

I've got a good neighbor over here, even though he's trying to get out of talking here, but No, I'm [snorts] just No, I mean, I know it's a this is obviously something that BZA needs to deal with, right? Um, got one question question there. You talking about upgrading the retention pond. So, will will the discharge of it in that ditch, will that be re redone or revamped a little bit or No, it's not it's not going to be? No, not unless it's created an issue that we weren't aware of any issues with the discharge. We were going to keep that the same.

Uh but the the current outlet structure, it's a concrete box that's 3 ft deep with a outlet pipe out the back side of that box. And that's going to be modified and and dug out with the new outlet control structure uh installed. And that whole basin will be excavated out to create the additional volume for the store. The other other question I had was this one here will be a a a gravel or this supposed to be of a paved park. This new addition will be paved the roads. Yeah. No. Okay. No, the same.

Yes. Well, of course, the concern with pavement at that site is the steep grade. You know, it it falls off quite a bit from south to north, you know, towards Old State Road 60. So in the winter time it's going to be really slick on a on a paved surface, you know, versus rock with this with this sealant on it. So it is a safety concern as well, just because of the the grade.

My thoughts to go along with that are coming off of the gravel onto the black top. because it never fails for grab black slick.

I don't This is just my opinion and and throw it out. I don't feel comfortable voting on this tonight. I'll get too many questions in my head. But I'm one person, I think. with a lot of questions about the addition here. Um, council, correct me if I'm misspeaking at all. It's really not all we are doing is as far as the the mapping of the plat, nothing else. As far as just the design itself,

that's correct. if it conforms with what standards exist and assuming staff Ronnie does not see any issues, we really don't have any room to decline. Correct.

Unless there's a specific criteria under the zoning ordinance provision on mobile homes regarding the layout. However, that which this still has to go before board of zoning appeals, which is where a lot of I think questions we might be having or might want to pose would be addressed and would be more discussed. Is that fair? I think it's better situated to be addressed by the board of zoning appeals on the special exception review.

Gotcha. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify Again, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the plan as meeting the criteria based on the uh recommendation of city representatives. And I also have many questions, but they're not appropriate at this time. And so I would move that we meet our requirement and accept this and pass it and then defer to the board the BCA to do as what they are legislatively mandated to do.

So a motion has I'm going to second it. Motion seconded. All in favor? I. Those opposed. All right. So, the I guess the plat acknowledgement or approval has been that box under the zoning ordinance has been checked and we're planning on having them at the BCA meeting in November. Excellent. Okay. I'll see you then, too. Um, new business. Is there board? Is there any new business?

So, I have a question, but I don't know if I should bring it up or not. The on at the central business district, the painting of the buildings on the on the in the central business district. Who's approving those? I thought those were supposed to come before the board. There's more than 50% done. They all look fine. I'm just asking who's approving them. I don't know if it's the main committee. There is a committee now that does all the main street. That's and that that's a good point that there's something in there that we we we've run into this issue before where we normally don't say

no one says anything but then the second someone does something and maybe we don't like it. Now we really don't have grounds to do anything because we've not addressed it with people who com. Right. That's something we probably need to revisit and they all look fine. I'm just asking who's approving it to keep it straight on the ordinances, right? I'll check and see if they bring them. Yeah, that's because I know I mean I brought up last time. I mean, I violated it. We painted our building two times before I even realized there was an ordinance. We same colors it's always been, but I mean, we painted it.

We did it. That's something like as a formal I mean we need to figure out some sort of solution because they Right. Right. Right. And it's not on any kind of a historic. Correct. Correct. Uh board is there any old business we need to bring back up? Well, under I don't know if this would be new business. One thing I'd like

to um share is that for next physical year when we're choosing officers, I do not wish to serve as secretary. Um I let [clears throat] you know it it's like my wife is facing a minimum of two surgeries and recovery is and so I still intend to be a member but I may have to miss at times and so I want you to be thinking about who you want as a secretary so you have somebody reliable to be here as the secretary.

Thank you Tom. I miss it. But you know, well, hey, and for any in 12 months later, we'll we'll get you in 27.

For any willing potential secretaries, I will say that that position has been made significantly I don't know, easier is the right word, but it's it's easier to check your work now that we uh we stream the meetings. There's a video archive. So, it's uh you know, I know I can sometimes be a little slow with my uh handwriting and trying to keep up with notes and and minutes. And when I do shorthand, sometimes I think I look back at it and I think like what was I talking about here? But now that we have a video resource that should be um a little bit more manageable of a task, but you know, certainly thoughts are with with you and your situation and and um

thank you. Hope for a hope for a a good recovery. Well, we're getting old and maintenance is more expensive as you go along.

I do have a question and I don't know if it's old business or new business. I'm I'm certainly surprised it's somewhere in between. as I've been reading and studying and trying to familiarize myself better with with our ordinances and our zoning rules and so on and so forth. Um, and I know this been brought up before. I'm finding information that is 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, um, variations. So things that that cross reference each other that just become circular. Um, we're in 2025 and I know financially we're we're not able to do a whole lot, but at some point we we've we've at least got to bring even if it's pieces and parts at a time. I I don't know how to address this honestly, but in looking at our documentation, it needs help very badly. We really don't have a lot of good things to fall back on. Uh even in our subdivision uh information, you know, we've got we got all of our rule route ones, twos, and threes, and we've got our subdivision information that we can fall back on and and create nice intentions, but our subdivision information is so we can't even do that. So, I'm just I'm concerned. I I am that we are falling more and more and more behind on documentation and even legal standing on a lot of the decisions that we make. I'll just leave that there. Just something to think about and move over.

Does anyone have anything else? Otherwise, I would I would entertain a motion we adjourn for the evening. No, I like the motion. All right. Motion made by Chuck. Motion seconded by Telicia. All in favor? Opposed. All right. Meeting adjourned. Chuck, don't go anywhere. I've got