|
Board of Commissioners April 17, 2000
The Rezoning Meeting was called to
order at 6:43 p.m.
President Jerrel: I'd like to call the Rezoning Meeting of the Board of Commissioners to order. The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. Commissioner Mourdock: And I'll move approval of the minutes. I've lost the date here. I lost the pack. I'll move approval of the minutes of the March 20th meeting as submitted. Commissioner Tuley: And I will second. President Jerrel: So ordered.
President Jerrel: We have no first readings and we have four final readings. If you would like to begin with VC-19-99. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, that's fine. Joe Harrison, Jr.: All those wishing to speak concerning VC-19-99, petitioner R.E.I. Properties, address 3200 North St. Joe Avenue, please raise their right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is true and accurate so help you God? Response: I do. Blaine Oliver: John Habermel is the representative for the petitioner, R.E.I. Properties, in this request to rezone a portion of the remaining 10.6 acres of the tract owned by Thomas Alexander from agricultural to C-2. The address of the site is 3200 North St. Joe Avenue. This petition was heard at the Plan Commission meeting on April 5th and was recommended for approval with eight yes, four no and one abstention. This petition was also heard by the Plan Commission...or first it was heard by the Plan Commission on October 6, 1999 as a petition to rezone this site from agricultural to C-4 and was recommended for denial. R.E.I. Properties filed an amended petition requesting C-2 without use and development commitment for the full 10.6 acre site. The amended petition was heard by the Area Plan Commission on February 2, 2000 and was recommended for denial. R.E.I. Properties then filed a second amended petition which is before you tonight for a small 3.3 acre portion of the original site. They have also filed a subdivision plat, Panther Park, which subdivides the 3.3 acres into a four lot commercial subdivision. The subdivision plat was approved at the April 5th Area Plan Commission meeting subject to rezoning approval. The entire site lies within the floodplain of Locust Creek which is located to the east. A portion of the site is also within the Locust Creek floodway. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the use of floodplain land for open space recreation or agricultural. A portion of the original site was deleted from the petition. That portion was totally within the floodplain...or floodway, excuse me, of Locust Creek. There are many C-2 uses which have the potential of creating heavy traffic volumes. Developments along St. Joe should plan for shared commercial access to minimize curb cuts. To be consistent with this policy any commercial development north of Allen Road must be limited to the St. Joe Avenue intersection and I believe there is a note on the subdivision plat which indicates that the access to the lot on St. Joe would be through an existing easement with the Casey's. The site is in an older area, very mixed zonings and uses. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the area north of Allen Road at this location for agricultural and residential uses. South of Allen Road it is recommended for commercial uses. Recently commercial zoning was approved for a convenience store at the northwest corner of St. Joe and Allen Road. The Comprehensive Plan calls for compact commercial areas and avoidance of new or expanded strip commercial development. John Habermel: I'm John Habermel. I think he pretty well said everything. Casey's has granted a 35 foot easement to the property off of St. Joe Avenue and we plan to have only one ingress and egress off of Allens Lane and a shared road would service the remaining lots that front Allens Lane. Commissioner Mourdock: Blaine, would you define for me the difference...I know what a floodway is, but I see the flood zone is also listed on here. Is flood zone equivalent to the floodplain? Blaine Oliver: Yes, that's correct. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. Blaine Oliver: The floodway is the area that is needed in a 100 year flood for the flow of the water where water is actually moving. You have a lot of area in the floodplain where water may spread out, but a lot of that area is not moving water. But the flood zone and the floodplain are the same thing. Commissioner Mourdock: Mr. Habermel, the question with so much of this being so low, in fact all of it being very low, and the bigger parts of Lot 2, 3 and 4, in fact Lot 1, too, do I recall you said you are not going to be filling the property? John Habermel: That's correct. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. If you're not going to fill it and it's that low what do you hope to use it for? John Habermel: Well, the lots on St. Joe Avenue are buildable and the one immediately behind Casey's is quite buildable. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. John Habermel: Part of the plan was that we would notify the, I believe it's DNR about building on it before we did anything. Commissioner Mourdock: Uh-huh. John Habermel: They have...you all approved the drainage plan for it some time ago that would alleviate some of those problems. I question on the map myself where that floodway is because it just...to me it doesn't look like it's that low. Especially that lot that fronts on St. Joe Avenue and the one immediately behind Casey's. Now the lots that lie farther west I can understand. We went through this with Mr. Lehman and somebody else from the County Engineer's Office. He at that time indicated that there would be no problem building anything on it. President Jerrel: Any other questions? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Is there a motion? Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move approval of the rezoning from Ag to C-2, petition VC-19-99, R.E.I. Properties. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. John Habermel: Thank you. President Jerrel: I'll call for a roll call vote now since this is a final reading. Commissioner Tuley? Commissioner Tuley: Yes. President Jerrel: Commissioner Mourdock? Commissioner Mourdock: I have some concerns simply because it is a low property and I understand your comment, maybe the line isn't quite right on the map. You mentioned a moment ago, Mr. Habermel, about needing to get with DNR and I truly think you're going to have to do that in case you want to do something and I think you're going to find out that may be a real problem. I'll vote yes, but I do want you to be sure you talk to those folks because I really think there may be some problems out there, but I kind of look at this one with let the buyer beware here. In this case let the rezoner beware, I guess. John Habermel: I spoke with Mike Wathen and we have a letter on file that we wouldn't develop more than X number of acres and he felt that if we followed that we would be okay. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. I vote yes. President Jerrel: And I vote yes. Thank you. John Habermel: Thank you.
President Jerrel: The next final reading is VC-3-2000. Joe Harrison, Jr.: The petitioner is Tim J. Zeller, the address 5100 Upper Mount Vernon Road. The request is from R-3 to Ag. All those wishing to speak with respect to this petition please raise their right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is true and accurate so help you God? Response: I do. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Thank you. Blaine Oliver: Tim Zeller is requesting to down zone this 1.12 acre site located at 5100 Upper Mount Vernon Road from R-3 to Ag. Mr. Zeller's property is located on the south side of Upper Mount Vernon Road between Red Bank and Boehne Camp. This petition was heard at the Area Plan Commission meeting on April 5th and was unanimously recommended for approval. The 1.12 acres is part of a five acre parcel which was rezoned to R-3 in 1979. The apartments were never developed on this site and the agricultural use has continued over the years. A .92 acre part of the site was rezoned by the petitioner in October 1999 and the current owner constructed an agricultural barn on that site. An addition is planned on the barn which will require additional land for expansion. This is a request that the zoning be changed back to the original Ag classification to allow this barn addition on the site. The surrounding area is predominately agricultural and residential. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area to remain residential and agricultural. The rezoning to agricultural is consistent with surrounding zonings and uses. The applicant is requesting to down zone a portion of the R-3 zoned site to allow for agricultural improvements to be constructed. The remainder of the site currently used for growing crops will remain R-3. Applicants have indicated that they farm or crow crops on this and on several other parcels in the immediate vicinity of this site. The agricultural district is appropriate and necessary to the addition to the existing agricultural barn. President Jerrel: Is there anything you would like to say? Tim Zeller: I have- President Jerrel: Come up and give us your name please. Tim Zeller: My name is Tim Zeller. I rezoned back in October, we built us just a 50 by 100 pole barn there to raise quarter horses and now we're going to build an indoor riding arena off the back of it if this goes through, but that's all we're wanting to do is build a three sided building with a dirt floor to ride horses indoors. It's presently R-3 and we bought it to keep the apartments out of it and we're farming it and will continue to farm it as long as it is ours. That's why we're doing what we are doing. Thank you. President Jerrel: Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this? Hearing none, is there a motion? Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move approval of the rezoning from R-3 to Ag for VC-3-2000, 5100 Upper Mount Vernon Road. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered and I'll have a roll call vote for the final. Commissioner Tuley? Commissioner Tuley: Yes. President Jerrel: Commissioner Mourdock? Commissioner Mourdock: Yes. President Jerrel: And I vote yes.
President Jerrel: The third final reading is VC-4-2000. Joe Harrison, Jr.: The petitioner is Keystone Development LLC. The address, 5900 North Green River Road. The request is from C-2 to R-1. All those wishing to speak with respect to this petition please raise their right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is true and accurate so help you God? Response: I do. Blaine Oliver: Steve Bohleber is the representative for Keystone Development LLC in this request to down zone a 15.47 acre parcel located at 5900 North Green River Road from C-2 to R-1. This petition was heard at the Area Plan Commission meeting on April 5th and was recommended for approval with 12 yes votes, zero no votes and one abstention. This site will be combined with adjacent agriculturally zoned land and become part of the 80.88 acre Keystone Section 7 subdivision plat, a proposed 138 lot expansion of the Keystone Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for residential and agricultural uses, so this down zoning to R-1 is consistent with the overall plan for the area. The existing C-2 parcel is part of a 25 acre site which was zoned to C-2 in August of 1998. At that time plans indicated that the site would be utilized for commercial development to serve the Keystone residents. The petitioner is now requesting to down zone 15 acres of the commercial property to residential. A 5.42 acre C-2 lot remains at the southwest corner of the Heckel and Green River intersection and a portion of C-2 remains at the southernmost entrance into Keystone off Green River Road. The Area Plan Commission approved the Keystone Section 7 plat on April 5th subject to approval of this rezoning to residential. The developer has agreed to provide the local match should the intersection improvements planned at Green River Road and Heckel Road qualify for CMAQ federal funds. Steve Bohleber: My name is Steve Bohleber. At the Plan Commission I had architects, engineers, the owners and everyone else. Tonight I am the lone ranger. Not hearing anything to the contrary it is my assumption they want to go forward and just were lulled by a four and a half hour wait at the Plan Commission and they will be here by 10:00! I have nothing to add. We seek approval. President Jerrel: Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this issue? Seeing no one, is there a motion? Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move approval of the rezoning from C-2 to R-1 for VC-4-2000, Keystone Development LLC, 5900 North Green River Road. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: And I'll call for a roll call vote. It is a final reading. Commissioner Tuley? Commissioner Tuley: Yes. President Jerrel: Commissioner Mourdock? Commissioner Mourdock: Yes. President Jerrel: And I vote yes. Steve Bohleber: Thank you.
President Jerrel: We're now ready for VC-1-2000. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Wait a second, they wanted to be told. President Jerrel: Okay. At this time we're ready for VC-1-2000. Commissioner Mourdock: Before we get started I would make a request of counsel here and certainly anyone who wishes to speak. One of the problems with this room is just it's hard for everyone to see the same thing and I know you've got some posterboard and some maps here, so if you would when you refer those would you please put them on the easel over there and then because all of our notes are recorded verbatim you'll need to carry the microphone with you over to that spot. Joe Harrison, Jr.: The attorney for the remonstrators, is she in here? Krista Lockyear. She was asked to be- Unidentified: Let me go check on her again. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Okay. I indicated I would tell her. I think Blaine just went to look for her. Commissioner Mourdock: While we're waiting anyone who wishes to address the Commission as you go to the microphone please state your name and address please. Unidentified: Pardon me, you want us to state our name and address now? Commissioner Mourdock: No. Commissioner Tuley: Just when you speak. Commissioner Mourdock: Sorry about that. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Again this is petition VC-1-2000, petitioner Baseline Properties, Inc. The address is 659 East Baseline Road. The request is from Ag to M-2 with a use and development commitment. All those who wish to speak concerning this rezoning petition please raise their right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is true and accurate so help you God? Response: I do. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Thank you. Blaine Oliver: Attorney Tom Bodkin is the representative for Baseline Properties, Inc. in this request to rezone a 36.45 acre site on the south side of Baseline Road between US Highway 41 and Peck Road from agricultural to M-2. The common address of the site is 659 East Baseline Road. This petition was heard at the Area Plan Commission meeting on April 5th and was recommended for approval with seven yes votes, four no votes and two abstentions. Previously this petition was heard at the March 1, 2000 Area Plan Commission meeting. The vote on the Plan Commission at that time was one yes and ten nos, a recommendation for denial. Applicants filed an amended petition and returned to the Area Plan for rehearing of the ordinance as a petition to rezone the 36 plus acre site to M-2 with a use and development commitment which addresses landscaping, buffering, right-of-way dedication and road improvements. The Commitment also limits access to Baseline Road only and addresses right-of-way and improvements to Baseline. Also, billboards and cellular towers and some other uses were limited in the Use Commitment. According to County Engineer John Stoll the obstacles to improving Baseline Road are that there is a lack of documentation of right-of-way on the south side of Baseline and there is a major SIGECO easement on the south side of the road. The developers have indicated a willingness to work with the county to widen Baseline. This site is adjacent east of the 38.8 acre 17 lot Baseline Park Industrial Subdivision. Rezoning this site will allow expansion of the industrial use east to Peck Road. Surrounding property north, south and east of the site remain agricultural. The agricultural classification is also considered a residential district in that it allows single family residential use. This area is identified on the Year 2015 Conceptual Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan as an area of industrial development. A narrow strip along Peck Road is designated for agricultural uses with scattered residences. This proposed use is consistent with the concept in the plan to establish an industrial corridor along US 41 in northern Vanderburgh County. Surrounding is a rural agricultural residential area experiencing a gradual transition to the long planned industrial development along the Highway 41 corridor. Quality site design and buffering techniques would be appropriate at this location to lessen the impact of the industrial development on adjacent residences. High intensity uses are generally considered incompatible with residential without this buffering. Tom Bodkin: Madam President, gentlemen of the Commission. My name is Tom Bodkin, 100 Water Street, Newburgh; 700 Hulman Building, Evansville; counsel for the petitioner. Let me start if I could with some exhibits that were presented to the Plan Commission. The first of the exhibits are three small pages labeled as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. Those come from our Master Plan book. Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 reflect the pages from the Master Plan that show us the projected land use for residential, commercial and industrial. Those become relevant, I think, as we deal with one of the concerns that the staff had with regard to buffering and that is exactly where is the Master Plan's limit for industrial use of this ground. These are three pages out of the plan. We also have, as you know, a large land use map in the back of the plan, the 2015 Land Use Plan, which is scaled and, the top one right there, is a drawing that I requested the engineers make for us and that is also reflected here on the larger board in front of you which I'll have him put up on the easel which reflects generally the zonings in the area now. It also reflects by the hatch marks where the large land use map in the back of the Master Plan would predict the end of the industrial property to be and it is our belief when that map when scaled as the one you have in front of you and on this board is scaled out it goes to Peck Road. Not to the other side of Peck Road necessarily, but to at least Peck Road. Lastly, the other map which is coming starting with Commissioner Tuley basically is a plot plan of the subdivision or the property at issue and we have the larger one here which shows you not only the parcel itself, but the adjoining parcels as well. I'll be talking about these as I go through my presentation and I'll see if I can get them up and down. Commissioner Tuley: Since we have these would you rather they turn these around so the audience can see those? Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah. President Jerrel: That would be fine. Commissioner Mourdock: Excuse me, Tom. The main point of this is so the audience can see what is being spoken of and, again, if you are speaking and you want to show us where your house is please keep it at such an angle so we can see that, too, but we just want everyone to see what is being said. Tom Bodkin: The parcel issue is 36½ acres of real estate roughly. It's east of Highway 41 bound on the north by Baseline Road within the US 41 corridor. It adjoins a parcel of real estate currently zoned M-2 and known as the Baseline Industrial Park owned by my clients and they have developed that ground. Again, the parcel is bound on the west by the existing industrial park zoned M-2, on the north by Baseline Road, on the east by two undivided parcels, two homes if you will, but on the plot plan are in green, if you will, right on the corner of Peck Road and Baseline, the northeast corner. There are two homes there in that...two homes in that area. Then further south on Peck basically it is empty real estate that we own. Then we head to the south, there is a parcel of ground about ten acres where there is a green woods checked off. That's Mr. And Mrs. Epperson's home and then to the south of that and to the west is property to the west...property we own to the south, property owned by Heston Koch. We are seeking zoning to M-2 with use and development commitments. The current parcel is zoned Ag and the balance of the parcel around us except for the piece we own to the west is also zoned Ag. As the staff reported to you this process first began several months ago with the Plan Commission where there was a vote against this proposal. After that there was a meeting with the neighbors. The use and development commitment was developed. It does not satisfy them. It is my client's belief it is the best we can do with what we need to do here, so we proposed the UDC and then went through the Plan Commission and staff reported the Plan Commission's recommendation to you tonight is a recommendation in favor of this zoning seven to four. It is my client's belief and mine as their lawyer that this proposed zoning falls squarely within your Master Plan. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted by us as a recommendation from the Plan Commission and after public hearings by you and it is our belief that the maps reflect that this piece of real estate, this 36½ acres bound by Peck Road as you can see from your map and on the one here, it's right here, falls within the area that if you scale out the Comprehensive Plan Use Map contained in the back of the Comprehensive Plan all of that ground is proposed to go M for industrial. To the north...some of the remonstrators live south, some may live east and some live north. There is a subdivision immediately north on Baseline Road right across the road from this real estate. Within our Master Plan that real estate is projected and predicted to go industrial north of Baseline Road. So as you know, we've provided you with the maps, the big maps that you have in front of you plus the small ones out of our Master Plan. There was indication about step down zoning in the Staff Report and that's what led our desire to try to figure out exactly where the plan called for industrial to go and because of the issue of whether or not there needed to be some sort of buffering to the west of Peck Road or not. We submit the plan doesn't call for it. More importantly, wherever you stop, if you don't stop at the road, you're going to end up on the west side with industrial against residential. Peck Road logically is a breakpoint. It is a dedicated county road. It is a logical breakpoint to break apart industrial versus whatever the next use might be. As a part of the use and development commitment my client will dedicate to Vanderburgh County real estate along Peck Road for the widening of Peck Road. That will happen upon the granting of the zoning on the part we own. Now, I can't dedicate up here because I don't own it, but certainly from the south end of our...I guess sort of the middle of our parcel to the south end of it we will dedicate real estate on Peck so that we have a 35 foot dedication from the center of what is now Peck to the west so Peck can be widened when it is time to widen Peck Road. In addition, my client will not access Peck Road from this development. All access to this development will occur only from Baseline Road. Further, my client will not only dedicate the land for Baseline, but up to the entrance of the subdivision we're going to widen Baseline to the county's standards. We will also then dedicate land on further across our frontage for further widening as becomes necessary with regard to Baseline Road. So Baseline, you may recall, basically we was widening it already for the subdivision we have and we're going to continue that to the point where we really run into the retention area. One of the issues that arose during discussions and during remonstration time was the question of storm water and what effect it may have on parties to the north. This ground basically falls off to the north, so this site collects water from its south and allows it to go north across Baseline Road. Part of what we're going to do, and while this is drainage there is a purpose for this, not drainage per se, we're going to construct storm detention here that is going to capture the water that comes onto this site and we're going to hold it right here in this corner which will then, we hope and we believe, reduce any adverse effect that currently goes into Valley Estates Subdivision now. That doesn't exist today. There is on Peck Road a culvert, an existing culvert, that carriers water through a natural swale. That remains, we're not removing that culvert and that water will also go into that retention lake and be held there so that it goes off at no greater rate then it does today no matter what we may do on the site. As you know, that is required by our ordinance, but I think it's important to the zoning that everyone understand that's what we're going to do. Around starting at the point where the retention lake is shown on the drawing and moving east to the end of our property line and then coming south and then turning east again to Peck and all the way down to the south end of our property line we're going to set aside a strip of ground 50 feet wide. The 50 feet of that real estate is going to be used for a combination of two things. One is a buffer for those people who may live in and around or drive by and look at it. Secondly, as a way to conduct the storm water up to that lake. So we'll have 50 feet here that is going to be both drainage swale and buffer in which we will plant plantings. The use and development commitment as I recall says there will be a minimum of either five feet of either plantings or berm or both, a minimum of five feet. Of course, to the extent they are plantings they will grow. Across the south part of our real estate, our south line which is the parcel or the part that abuts up against Mr. and Mrs. Epperson we will dedicate...we will commit a 25 foot buffer, which again will be a vegetated buffer, we're not going to dig anything up, we're going to plant things there just as we are going to do with regard to the 50 foot buffer here which is also storm drain, but we don't need as much here because the water flows across us. So we only need 25 feet to buffer them. I will note for you the buffer is going to go all the way across their parcel which means we are in essence going to be buffering trees for a portion of their real estate. The use and development commitment however says it is going to stop right here and I am not asking you to amend the use and development commitment. I don't want to go back and start all over again, but I can tell you my client is going to do that because we're going to carry it this far and we're going to take it all the way to there as well. Page 20-3 of our Comprehensive Plan tells us what development activities are appropriate for this location. It basically tells us that we need to look to the master plan as a guide and development activities in the location and we submit that the plan itself calls for and predicted in the cool light of day without anger and remonstration when you looked at the plan some time ago that this area was the area that you and the Plan Commission felt needed to go industrial to bring jobs and development to this county as opposed to having it scattered in lots of different places in the county. Secondly, our plan tells us that existing and future uses must be contemplated so as to protect against uses developing that are inconsistent with the plan. I submit to you that the Master Plan calls for this area to go industrial. It doesn't say M-1, 2 or 3, but it says industrial and therefore we are actually falling within the plan's projection of what the uses should be consistent with what we predicted the ground ought to be in the future. Our request meets both of these principles set forth at Page 20-3 of the plan. Further in Chapter 10 of the plan we address industrial development. Exhibit 3, which I gave you, is actually found at Page 10-6 of our Comprehensive Plan. The land at issue here, the 35½ or 36 acres is actually described in Area B of our Comprehensive Plan found at Page 10-3. Page 10-7 does set forth the framework for resolution of the issue by basically setting out three criteria, if you will, or three things that we are to look at as we approach zoning on rezoning of real estate. First, you set a goal in the Master Plan and you stated for industrial property you wanted the goal to be to promote clean industry which minimizes resource use and waste and contributes to our economy providing diverse employment opportunity. We submit this site will do exact that. We've entered into use and development commitments. We have agreed that there will not be certain uses there and I would like to very briefly run those by you. We've indicated we will not allow a pawn shop to be there nor will there be any manufacture of fungicides or insecticides or industrial and household chemicals. There will be no manufacture of lead oxide. No concrete mixing or concrete batch plant. No scrap metal reduction. No feather processing. No adult entertainment centers of any kind. No bookstores or showplaces. No flea markets. No marine salvage yards. No petroleum bulk storage sites. No shipyards or dry docks, and while that is a little far fetched, it's kind of far from the river, it's still one that was contained in the M-2 uses. No slaughter houses. No foundries. No tobacco curing, amusement parks or theme parks. No animal or vehicle race tracks. No paper mill. No drive-in theaters and no permanent circuses or carnival grounds. There also will be no, no outdoor advertising signs. No billboards. The only signs that will go up are those that advertise whatever the business is on the site. There will also be no cell phone...no cell towers on this site. We are limiting them...not only limiting, we are prohibiting them. So billboards and cell towers will not be allowed on this site pursuant to the use and development commitment. When you as County Commissioners adopt the zoning code you set forth uses by category and you consider those in terms of what are the best kinds of industrial uses we want for Vanderburgh County and you put them in the code and those that you feel do not meet the goal of having clean industries that minimize resource use and waste are uses you did not put in the code, so I submit that the very fact that this parcel is predicted to go manufacturing clearly meets the goal set forth in the Master Plan. You also set out some objectives and policies you told us to look at as we approach zoning. You told us that the Comprehensive Plan calls for compact industrial development and I interpret that to mean as opposed to strip center type development and I submit to you that we are meeting that plan requirement here. If we look at the map that shows you kind of the general neighborhood, if you will, from Highway 41 down to...well, south of the road we're talking about here it is quite clear that we are continuing what has already been desired by the county of compactness in industrial development. To the west of us on the other side of 41 is all zoned M-2. We are zoned M-2 ourselves immediately adjacent to this parcel. We are simply extending that continuation of our subdivision, if you will. Directly south of us on our side of 41, if you will, is also zoned M-2. As we move north along Highway 41 we see again the continuation of the realization of our plan that we want industrial development moving north along Highway 41 with 41 as the corridor. So I submit that our proposal does meet that objective and policy in terms of compact industrial development. You also told us to address adverse impact on the neighborhood and to deal with transportation and utilities. We submit that our use and development commitment addresses impact on the neighbors, not to their satisfaction, but to the best we believe we can do and still gain the benefit of the land for the industrial purposes which our plans calls for it to be. With regard to transportation we clearly are addressing that issue. We're going to widen Baseline Road at no cost to the county taxpayers which will then carry the traffic to and from our subdivision. We are only accessing our subdivision off Baseline Road thus not impacting by traffic anyone along either Peck or I might add Korff Road which runs north and south just a little bit to the east of Peck. That land, whenever that develops, is going to presumptively come down Baseline, so we're accommodating future growth to the north by the widening of Baseline. While we are not going to impact Peck Road with access we are also dedicating the road to the county along Peck Road so it can be widening if and when it is time to do so. As you gentlemen and lady know, that's one of the major problems you have in dealing with county roads is how much right-of-way do we have, when can we widen it? Gee, we can't widen it because we've not got enough land. So we are dealing with your objectives, we believe, by doing that as well. We have dealt with drainage. I have described to you what our plan is there. It's going to meet the county's ordinance with regard to drainage so we believe we have helped minimize some of the impact with regard to drainage in the neighborhood. Finally, water and sewer, gas and electric are there and coming. They get extended into this subdivision. Obviously, SIGECO has a large transmission line which runs right along the north boundary of our real estate and that is in part one of the things that controls how we go in and out of that piece because SIGECO does have a 69,000 volt line that runs along there and we are going to be entering as far down the road we can near the subdivision consistent with the need to create...this is the drainage retention facility here. That's really about the best place for us to go in and out consistent with where SIGECO controls the land as well. It is our belief that this proposed zoning meets the Vanderburgh County Comprehensive Plan. It is our belief that we meet the objectives, we meet the goals, and we meet the criteria for rezoning this ground. My client would request that you pass the ordinance and rezone this real estate to M-2 with the use and development commitment that we have proposed. Thank you. President Jerrel: Do you want to defer until you hear questions? Alright, I don't know how to do this fairly except that everybody that raised their hand are more than welcome to speak. So you want to start on this side? Commissioner Tuley: Don't they have representation? Commissioner Mourdock: Krista Bonewitz is- President Jerrel: Well, we found you. I'm sorry, I didn't see you. Unidentified: Could we please turn the volume up a little because back here you're facing that way and we cannot understand exactly what is being said. President Jerrel: Okay, that's a good point. Krista will speak up. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Krista, can you raise your right hand? Krista Lockyear: Certainly. Joe Harrison, Jr.: You weren't in here earlier. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is true and accurate so help you God? Krista Lockyear: I do. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Thank you. Krista Lockyear: Members of the Commission, my name for the record is Krista Lockyear. I represent ten of the landowners in this area. For the record I will go through their names: Stan and Kim Epperson; Doug and Linda Rickard; Andy and Janie Russell; Tim and Beth Ruston; Bud and Connie Cottingham- Commissioner Mourdock: I'm sorry, Krista, what was the last name? Krista Lockyear: Ruston. Commissioner Mourdock: After that. Krista Lockyear: Cottingham. Ira and Mary Edmondson; Sam and Regina Dempsey; Loren and Cindy Zeller; Steve and Gail Robertson; and Greg Hill. In addition, I have a petition here that is signed...I'm sorry, a petition here signed by the neighbors in the area opposing this that has 20 names on here I will pass out for your consideration. Unidentified: There is 86 on there. Krista Lockyear: Twenty on the first page, I'm sorry. Unidentified: Three pages, there are 86 on there. Krista Lockyear: For the record there are 86 names on this petition in opposition to this rezoning. I typically when I am approached by remonstrators I am a little leery. Remonstrators are often emotional. We're talking about their homes. They don't want development, the not in my backyard syndrome. These neighbors are the most reasonable people I have ever come across to remonstrate in a zoning. Maybe first of all we should take care of this Comprehensive Plan issue. It's easy to rely on the Comprehensive Plan and I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill, but it is my understanding that there is a zone along Peck Road that may or may not be shown in the Comprehensive Plan to be industrial. It is most likely shown from our point of view to be a buffer area of agricultural and I might ask Blaine Oliver real quickly to address his thoughts when they were developing the Comprehensive Plan as to what this strip of property should have been shown. Blaine Oliver: The concept for developing the plan was basically to provide an agricultural area with some scattered residential housing in it between the industrial corridor along 41 and the higher intensity residential use along the Old State Road corridor. The problem that you have when you overlay our map...overlay our land uses on top of, in this case I believe they used a USGA map, is that our map was digitized into AutoCad based on a hand drawn map, so it's not totally accurate or totally perfect. It's meant to be a conceptual land use map and this is hopefully one issue that we can maybe clear up if we get GIS, but basically our concept was to provide that agricultural strip and to have there be some of that on both sides of Peck Road. I believe the planometric maps which we have were flown in 1990 and those were the maps that we used to try figure out where the concentrations of industrial and...not industrial, residential uses were. I believe along Peck Road from Baseline to Old State there was about nine houses on the west side of Peck Road in that stretch. So what we thought was we would take the industrial development from 41 up to basically the backyards of those properties to provide him some comfort that we wouldn't be basically changing the use on them in the future in that area, so that was the concept that we used and the reason why there is a discrepancy. Our map does have a scale on it. It probably should have said an approximate scale. When we overlaid our uses, our future uses, on the planometric maps in this area it also shows Baseline Road being off a little bit, but we're only talking about three to 400 feet which is about maybe an eighth of an inch or so on our Future Land Use Map at the scale that it is at. Krista Lockyear: Thank you, Blaine. The point to be made, I think, is we may have a difference of opinion whether this is supposed to be industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. From these neighbors' point of view when they look at the Comprehensive Plan they were protected with an agricultural buffer. Anyone that moved into the area recently looked at that and believed that they would be protected and I think in general when doing the Comprehensive Plan you look at areas where they're populated, where there are homes, and you try not to move industrial right in on top of them. You give them a little bit of a buffer area. Going back to what I said about these neighbors being the most reasonable remonstrators I have ever spoken with they met with the petitioner earlier and indicated that they would accept an M-1 zoning with some restrictions, but that if they could get these minor restrictions in place M-1 was fine with them. The petitioner has indicated that they don't have a market for M-1, however we haven't seen any evidence as to why they don't have that market. There is a huge difference between M-1 and M-2. There are 54 manufacturing uses and 29 assembly, packaging and processing uses that can be held...that can be built in an M-2 industrial zone that could not be built in M-1. Some of these are extremely offensive in close proximity to a residence. Firearms, raw plastic manufacturing, roofing materials, rubber and rubber products just to name four that struck me as probably the most offensive if they were right next to my home. If not M-1 at a minimum the petitioners requested additional use restrictions in the M-2 zone and Mr. Bodkin read to you the use restrictions from the use and development commitment that they are willing to concede to. Again, there are 83 more uses other than those that he has taken out that are allowed M-2 that aren't in M-1. Some of the restrictions that the remonstrators particularly asked for that the petitioners have not removed include pest control, chemical packaging, experimental or testing research laboratory and pharmaceutical products compounding. I'm not sure what that means, but pharmaceutical products conjures up a picture of the Eli Lilly plant that we have up in Indiana, northern Indiana. I certainly wouldn't want something like that in my backyard. Imagine the smell, the smoke, the noise, the possible dangers associated with these M-2 uses that will be really in very close proximity to these neighbors. That brings up buffering. How do we address...how do we get manufacturing into this area without harming the quality of life and potentially endangering the lives of these remonstrators. There is no natural buffer on this property and I would like to pass out some pictures showing the real estate in question and it shows relation to most of the remonstrators' property. If you will look on the back of each of the pictures, I won't go through one by one, but it lists where the picture is taken from standing on the Baseline Road property and looking at the remonstrators' homes. Now we do understand that the petitioner has presented this use and development commitment that has some buffering. The neighbors requested the petitioners give them 100 foot green space at a height of ten feet from road level. That's certainly not in my opinion very extreme considering that the 50 feet that the petitioners have already agreed to most of that is within right-of-way, drainage right-of-way, and green space that they're going to have to provide anyway. So they haven't given a whole lot to their detriment. These are easy buffers that they've given away. If I could point out on the map the 50 feet that is along the top of the detention pond. Again, a lot of that is drainage and doesn't offer any additional concessions from the petitioner. Running along this property to the...I guess we're running north/south here. This is not in the use and development commitment nor is this here. I understand petitioners to say that they will put in this buffer, but there are no commitments to do so and we did ask for a postponement to get something. We asked for something private in writing that would not have caused a postponement, but petitioners were unwilling to do this. The 50 foot buffer along Peck Road, a little questionable as to whether or not that includes the Peck Road right-of-way. I think Mr. Bodkin will probably agree it shouldn't. I have a little bit of concern that if they dedicate 30 feet of right-of-way or enough right-of-way to make Peck Road 30 feet and they go ahead and build 50 foot off of where Peck Road exists now what happens five years from now when we come in and their construction is already established, you pave Peck Road, widen it, you are shortened down to less than 50 feet green space, so that might be addressed by petitioners, but it's a concern I have that is not real clear in the use and development commitment. Likewise, along the south side of the property the use and development commitment only provides buffer on half of this green space area. The other half petitioners have verbally indicated that they would do so, but we don't have any legal requirements for them to do it now, five years from now, really or at all. They're asking us to go on their word. Another perhaps flaw or lack of concession in the use and development commitment that petitioners have provided it indicates that they will install and thereafter maintain naturalized plantings. That's pretty loose and I would ask that they could come up with some better commitments than that. That they would replace plantings at their expense within a reasonable amount of time. One of the problems that we have here is this is in favor of the Planning Commission and if trees die and we end up with some green space that has no visual shield, trees have died, bushes have died, it's up to Planning Commission to come out and enforce this. The neighbors could do so. There is no provision for attorney's fees, reimbursement of attorney's fees for them, so neighbors are looking at having to go into their pocket to get any kind of enforcement from these provisions at all. That would be a horrible feeling, if you live next to this and you knew that you were going to have an uphill battle to get any enforcement. Looking at those pictures I think it raises...it brings a quality of life issue to my mind picturing a factory right across the street from your house. There are no height commitments in this use and development commitment and there are no height commitments in the...restrictions in the code for M-2, so height on these buildings is unlimited. Again, you have concerns of smokestacks and how high can they go. Forgetting about quality of life and moving on to something a little more substantive, devaluation of the surrounding properties. These people have invested most of their earnings, I'm sure as all of us do, in their homes. Having a factory immediately adjacent to your home without adequate buffering is certainly going to incur some devaluation of property. I have two letters from realtors in the area. One is from DeAnne Naas with River Bend Realty. One is from Billy Lovelace with Flack Realty and Insurance in Gibson County. I picked them because they are pretty familiar with development, the industrial development recently. Both of these letters indicate that there would certainly be an devaluation of residential property if M-2 zoning is allowed to be passed immediately adjacent to these properties and I will hand these to council for the record. There is not a guarantee on property values, but to more adequately protect these people there could be expanded green space on this rezoning. There could be height limitations and though already provided by nuisance laws we could have noise restrictions and odor restrictions, additional guarantees that petitioner really they haven't gone the extra mile to make assurances to these neighbors that they won't harm both their quality of life and their property values. These items may cost petitioners some money, but by not requiring petitioner to come to the table with these it is our belief you are taking money away from the remonstrators in the value of their home. As I indicated we asked the petitioner to postpone this to consider the additional requests that the neighbors were making. It's my understanding that they have property next to this real estate that they own and could be selling or marketing at this moment and they actually own this real estate so there is not an option that is about to expire. I'm not sure why time is more important than addressing concerns of the neighbors at this point. My fear is that the Plan Commission vote gave them some courage and some assurances that it was okay to move forward without finishing the negotiation with the neighbors. And, you know, history says that with a favorable APC vote you might be able to get it through Commission, but they have ignored additional requests that these remonstrators have made. Again, I just want to emphasize the word reasonable. They're not asking for the moon. They're asking for protections for their home. They're asking for things that will protect their health, safety and the value of their lives and their home. We ask you tonight not to pass this rezoning and it's unfortunate petitioners didn't consider a postponement of this, but in lack of that, again like I said, we ask that you deny this rezoning. Thank you. President Jerrel: I'll start on this side now. Is there someone that had their hand up over here that would like to speak? Kim Epperson: For the record my name is Kim Epperson. President Jerrel: You can pull that down, Kim. Kim Epperson: Whoops. My name is Kim Epperson and I reside at 15420 Peck Road, the property to the immediate south of the property in question here. Krista couldn't have said it any better. I don't want to belabor the point. I tearfully spilled my heart and soul at the Area Plan Commission meeting and I just want to go on record as saying that we bought our 100 year old home three years ago with the anticipation that, yes, there was going to be industrialization in the area, but that industrialization however would not encroach and entomb our land, our property and subsequently devalue what we have done since then to our home and what we anticipate doing to it in the future. My husband and I are both business owners. We certainly welcome business into the area, but I don't want it in my front yard. Thank you. Stan Epperson: Stan Epperson, same address. I would just like to reiterate about my property being pretty much surrounded on three sides by Baseline Properties. This rezoning request is only on the one side, but they have promised that they will rezone in the future the other area. Of course, they are not a farming operation so I'm sure their plan is not to continue to be agriculture and I feel like any land use change should be...any land use change whether it be industrial or not should allow for reasonable buffer and anything that can be done to reduce the reduction of our property value and the property values of the neighbors. President Jerrel: Could you point to the location? I've got a map here. Either this one or that one up there. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, point at that one. Stan Epperson: It would be this area. President Jerrel: Okay. Stan Epperson: This is our property. Baseline Properties own this and there is a 30 foot strip right through here that they own also. President Jerrel: So let me be clear. They haven't rezoned that yet? Stan Epperson: No. President Jerrel: But they rezoned on this side that isn't shown? Kim Epperson: Members of the Council, what they've rezoned at this point is nothing that surrounds our immediate property. They have rezoned or are requesting to rezone this. We have talked with the president of Baseline Properties and he has indicated that he will rezone this and there is a 30 foot strip here that abuts our property to the south that we have the deed as proof that indeed Baseline Properties does own that and as a Baseline Properties it too will be industrialized. President Jerrel: And then they also own and have a building up on that section? Commissioner Tuley: The west side. Kim Epperson: They have one of the 17 lots sold, to the best of my knowledge. There is one building on the 17 M-2 lots. President Jerrel: I'm just asking this because I'm not real clear. I can look at these, but it is easier...what kind of...well, maybe I ought to ask Mr. Bodkin. What is the buffering along this area? Commissioner Mourdock: Now I can't see where you're pointing. President Jerrel: Right here. Commissioner Tuley: The southernmost edge. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. President Jerrel: See, that's theirs. What is that area...what will be here to buffer this part? Tom Bodkin: It's a strip of ground 25 foot wide on our property. Basically, it will be buffered...the easiest thing to do is just to read to you, Madam President, what it says if I can find it real quick for you. Here we go: "Baseline Properties shall install private construction of any buildings on the real estate and thereafter maintain naturalized plantings of native and non-evasive, non-noxious ornamental trees and shrubs to be at least five feet in height." We're not going to dig up anything there, we're going to plant stuff there in that 25 foot strip. The same thing is true around the other parts, by the way. President Jerrel: And does that run along the entire border? Tom Bodkin: Sorry, get away from this thing. President Jerrel: Okay. Tom Bodkin: The use and development commitment only calls for it to go to here. President Jerrel: Uh-huh. Tom Bodkin: And we have told Dr. and Mrs. Epperson that we are going to extend it to this property line, but to change the UDC at the time they came in on Friday before the Plan Commission meeting on Wednesday, I think that is when it was, would cost us another month to change it and tonight it does the same thing. They can either accept our word or not, but technically it stops there, but we are going to extend it across their woods as well. President Jerrel: I don't know if I am overstepping. You stop me if I start talking about something...can you not enter into a private covenant with them? Tom Bodkin: Yes, ma'am, and we would be pleased to do so if that will satisfy them. President Jerrel: Well, it's not for me to say. Tom Bodkin: I appreciate that, right. Yes, my client will give them a private covenant. We will pick up where the UDC stops and carry it along to the end of their property line. We go on further to the west, obviously, doing exactly what the UDC says it would do for the rest of that ground. Commissioner Mourdock: Mr. Bodkin, would you clarify...Mrs. Bonewitz made the point...I'm sorry, it's not Bonewitz. President Jerrel: Lockyear. Krista Lockyear: That's okay. Commissioner Mourdock: It better not be Ms. Bonewitz at this point. Krista Lockyear: I still answer to that. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, sorry about that, Krista. Tom Bodkin: You just dated yourself badly. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, it's only been a couple of years. She raised the issue on Peck Road about there was some question as to what was being dedicated and what was being reserved for the buffer. Would you clarify that? Tom Bodkin: Certainly. We are dedicating 50 feet outside the right-of-way of Peck and we will dedicate enough land so that Peck will be...from the center line of Peck over to the edge of the right-of-way will be 30 feet, so if you add the two together to the middle of Peck Road will be 80 feet. But the 50 feet we are dedicating is outside the right-of-way of Peck. Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, I think you said before 35 feet. Tom Bodkin: If I did I misspoke. It's 30 on the use and development commitment, I believe. Let me find it here. Thirty feet, Page 3 of the UDC: "D. Baseline Properties will dedicate right-of-way along Peck Road so that there is 30 feet of right-of-way starting from the middle of Peck Road extending west into the real estate." And then we'll pick the 50 foot buffer up from that point and go west with it. So technically- Commissioner Mourdock: So it's a total of 80 feet? Tom Bodkin: From the middle of the road and I'm not certain how wide Peck Road's dedication is going east. I don't know that. But one would hope it is at least 15 or 20 feet. President Jerrel: And you'll have foliage on top of that? Tom Bodkin: Yes, ma'am. The same description in terms of the kind of, again, non-evasive, non-noxious ornamental trees and shrubs. Land forms within the green space easement...cumulative height of land form and planting shall not be less than five feet above current grade. Again, part of it can be berm, part of it has got to be vegetation because again we are taking storm drains up that side as well. President Jerrel: What is considered current grade? The grade of the property or the road? Tom Bodkin: As it is grade...at its elevation today whatever that is and I don't know that elevation, but whatever it is today is the current grade so we start and go up from that. I don't know if the property is higher or lower than the road frankly. Several responses from audience: Lower. Tom Bodkin: So the road is higher than the property, I guess. President Jerrel: So which are you going to- Tom Bodkin: Our grade, from our current grade. President Jerrel: Okay. Unidentified: We wouldn't be able to see your bushes. It would be below the road. Tom Bodkin: If you have any other questions otherwise I will sit down and let them have their time. President Jerrel: And when these issues are raised- Tom Bodkin: That's fine. President Jerrel: -if you could come back. Tom Bodkin: Sure, happy to do it. President Jerrel: On this side we have a speaker? Calvin Rickard: My name is Calvin Douglas Rickard. I live at 900 East Baseline Road. You have a picture of my house that I took. I took those pictures by the way with a $7 35mm throwaway camera. There is no zoom involved there. Okay, that's actual shots. Commissioner Tuley: Would you show us which one is yours so we get a feel for where you are at? President Jerrel: Is this it right there? No. Calvin Rickard: I'll get it real quick here. That's mine right there. Commissioner Mourdock: And where are you? Calvin Rickard: I'm standing about 20 feet into their land right...okay, I'm standing right here. President Jerrel: Okay. Calvin Rickard: I'm standing right here when I take this shot. Okay, so I'm standing right here. My house is right here. Commissioner Tuley: Right there. President Jerrel: Okay. Calvin Rickard: I'm on that first lot. Commissioner Tuley: Alright, thanks. Calvin Rickard: First I would like to bring up the fact that two years ago I came before this council when there was an article put in the paper about this Comprehensive Plan. At that point in time I was told, well, nothing has happened yet, it's not a problem. Don't worry about it, you know. My argument was we don't want industrial in our residential area. They said, well, it hasn't been zoned yet, so there is not a problem there. So they were still planting corn over there, so I let it ride. Now I've been going through this madness for the last two and a half months trying to along with my neighbors trying to stop this thing. We're all taxpayers. We all are homeowners. We all thought we had a vote in what went on in our neighborhoods and in our residential areas. We do have a school within a half mile of the back of this property, Scott School. I know that has been pretty well disregarded, but I am sure there are a lot of parents out there that wouldn't. Someone has spoken with the fire department up there, the new fire department which I might add I really like and it's very close to the house now, but it will not...they do not have the equipment to handle a heavy industrial problem. So you're going to have to end...you know, you start building a lot of industry right there within two miles of that fire station you're going to have to expand your fire station also. At the Area Plan Commission meeting I got the impression that Baseline Properties was trying to blame the County Council and the Area Plan Commission for buying this land. I really don't think it is anybody's fault but their own. They could have asked, even knocked on a door and said this is what we propose to do with this property what do you think? My first notice was 14 days before the first Area Plan meeting. That was my first notice. I didn't even know the property had been sold. I would also like to show you where the flood zone runs here. They're all along the backside of this valley it states the majority of all this land here on into this farm land here is in the flood zone. This water carries from the school in McCutchanville it carries down through here and, by the way that pond is not in the UDC it's just a picture. I didn't see anything written about it in there. All this water falls this way. All this water falls that way and it has to blast through a six foot by six foot culvert right here in this road. That's right at the corner of my property. I've seen this thing coming out of that culvert 40 miles an hour. It will literally try to come up over the top of that culvert. Luckily this area is just high enough that what it does is it spills out. Unluckily for some of my neighbors it spills over the road and then into their front yards. I've had it come out of this drainage ditch and cut through other people's homes. Okay, coming off this land that water moves really fast. It's all downhill. I would just like to say that most of us in this area are adamantly opposed to this. We thought we could bend without breaking by making some concession and we feel that all of our concessions have been ignored. Thank you. President Jerrel: Is there somebody on this side now that would like to speak? Yes, ma'am. Mary Edmondson: My name is Mary Edmondson and this is my husband, Ira, and we live at 15715 Peck Road. Our home is located directly across Peck Road from the Baseline Properties site. That's on the east side of the road. We've lived at this address for 36 years and we hope to spend many more years at this location. We don't want our property devalued and we are very unhappy at the prospect of having M-2 manufacturing in our front yard which is what it is going to be. We sincerely hope that you will vote no to M-2 zoning. President Jerrel: Ms. Edmondson? Mary Edmondson: Yes. President Jerrel: Would you just point for our purposes? Mary Edmondson: Right there. President Jerrel: Okay. Mary Edmondson: That's right across the road. President Jerrel: Okay, thank you. This side? Sorry. Greg Hill: I'm Greg Hill. I live at 1045 East Baseline Road. I'll show you the property on the map that I own. I own from Baseline Road back to the back of these properties here. All along the back of these houses. My lot is approximately 450 feet by whatever long it is. I've lived in the city. I moved out there about eight months before these people bought their property. I moved out of the city to get away from...I lived next to a business. We finally worked out a deal because, I don't want to say it, they had activities that went on during the daytime, but they didn't go around the clock. I mean, I didn't mind it and eventually they bought me and gave me a fair price for it because I didn't gripe about it. But I have a couple of questions. When was the Master Plan made? Blaine Oliver: In 1996. Greg Hill: 1996. Since 1996 there has been a lot go on in the area, it would be east of Peck Road. You approved a couple of subdivisions. This is a unique situation here. They're pushing back off of 41 wider than I think anywhere along there right now is back into the residential zone. No one has said, everybody is talking about the property along it, there is probably 30 to 50 houses that are there now established. We've got millions of dollars tied up in them. You know, new subdivisions, everybody has approved them on the other side. The Master Plan is not wrote in stone. It's to give you a guideline, I think, is what I understand it to be. On Peck Road they're saying that they are going to give an easement plus their 50 feet. Now they are not going to have access to Peck Road which is not wide enough. Is there something...you know, once they sell it to another company or whatever can they come back and petition whoever and use a road? Commissioner Tuley: I think that's what their UDC calls for. I think everything transfers to whatever ownership there may be. Greg Hill: So in other words whoever buys it can't use it? Commissioner Tuley: Correct. Greg Hill: Okay. Like I said, I moved out here and it's nice and quiet. I come out, it sounds funny, but I have three quarter acre pond on the property and I come out at night and listen to the frogs and crickets. It's dark. You know, I don't want a factory across the street where I'm going to have to listen to some guy come out there and squall for whoever in the middle of the night. Lights, everybody likes it out there. I mean, there is a few dusk to dawn lights, but if you come out there at night it's a nice rural setting and that's the way we would like to keep it. Thank you. Calvin Rickard: Can I say one more thing? President Jerrel: Sure. Calvin Rickard: I'm Calvin Rickard again. Greg mentioned that the norm is not that deep, you know, off of Highway 41. If you'll look at this right here this is Koester, okay. This is the land that they now hold and you look at this line nobody seems to be coming back into our residential area at this point because this is all residential, you know. All this is residential. As a matter of fact, all of this is residential also. It seems to me like you've got a quarter of a mile here. That's a quarter of a mile. This is a half mile. Quarter of a mile is enough. President Jerrel: Thank you. Somebody on this side that wishes to speak? Loren Zeller: I'm Loren Zeller and I live at 15849 Peck Road. The question I have is we've got an awful lot of M-2 zoning already there that could be utilized and not much of it is really utilized yet, so what is the big hurry to put in the M-2 into these piece of parcel, you know, ground here to buffer it up against the residents when we've got all this other M-2 ground out there along the highway that is probably more suited for the heavy industrial uses anyway and let our neighborhoods stay the way they kind of were intended to be residential areas? One other question I have, if indeed our properties are devalued is Baseline Properties going to give us a check tonight for our properties? Hell, I'll move to Kentucky. Hell, they ain't doing that stupid stuff down there. I mean, I'll take a check tonight and I'll be out of there in the morning, you know what I mean? That kind of stuff, you know, seems kind of odd and funny, but, you know, heck these are our homes. You know, we bought them with the intention of staying there. I bought mine 23 years ago. My brother-in-law up the road owns dairy cows. I go up there and help him milk, pitch hay and stuff like that. It's country. You don't believe it you should have been there last summer when he spread cow shit all over it. I mean, it's country. You know, we put up with a lot of flies, but that's what we moved there for. It was country, we didn't mind it. You know, we get along with Jim and, you know, the farmers and stuff. I buy hogs from Ralph Rexing and butcher them every year. You know, that is country. That's what you move out there for. It's not to, you know, have industrial right up in your backyard. President Jerrel: Could you show us your property? Loren Zeller: I live right here on the corner of Baseline and Peck. Thank you. President Jerrel: Someone on this side now. Andy Russell: My name is Andy Russell. I live at 910 East Baseline Road. I want to express my concern along with everybody else about the M-2 zoning in this area. The most striking and the perfect illustration of why we don't want this is the pictures that Doug took. If I could just point mine out? President Jerrel: Sure. It'll be the last one. Andy Russell: Probably. This picture right here shows that they could put a plastic plant where he is standing and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. The bottom line is I feel unsafe with that. All my neighbors do. No matter the property value is a big concern, but if you put a plastic plant right here, if you allow this to go M-2, with other than their word saying they won't we have absolutely no protection and the only real way that we can stop it would be to get an attorney and hope...pool our resources. This is really a watershed hearing, really, because if you put a plastic plant right there who is to say they can't go right up the road and put it right next to the next development, residential area. So this is very...my concern, number one concern. President Jerrel: Are you...let me make sure I'm looking at this correctly. You're here, this one? Andy Russell: Yes. President Jerrel: Okay, so you're right across from where this lake is going, this retention? Andy Russell: (Inaudible.) President Jerrel: Okay. President Jerrel: Okay, anybody over here? How about...yes, sir. Unidentified: Is the middle alright? President Jerrel: That's alright, I'm working my way in. Joel Gallant: I'll keep it short. My name is Joel Gallant. I am one of the petitioners who signed one of the petitions. I live currently at 1751 East Baseline. That's the corner of East Baseline and Old State and right across the road almost from the Scott Fire Department that we just built. I'm glad this is coming up now, to tell you the truth, because I just moved into this area and I'm looking at a house on Old State. It would be very well affected by this situation if it moves in. I won't buy there now. I have a wife and, well, five kids now at home. We home school so we really are in our home a lot. It's important to me. We come from a rural area back in Maine. We moved to Indiana to be near friends and because of the ruralness of it. We don't need smog right where we are at there. I lived for four years in California and I got my fill of that. I was kind of amused and not to put the gentleman down, but when he says there is no cost to the county taxpayers for widening the roads and making it sound like it's kind of a gem, so to speak, that shows it would be a good thing for them to do. I don't know about you, but these people here who live next door are going to lose the value of their property and it's not just going to be a small amount. There is no one that is going to want to buy their property with this plant or any of this other stuff going in like this. There is no one. I don't want to buy and I am thinking about buying within half a mile of the place and I am not interesting in buying if that is going in. So that's what...will the county lower, this is one of the questions I've got, will the county lower their taxes accordingly? How do you prorate something like that when these people are putting not just money into their properties, but they put their blood, sweat and tears into them. I don't understand. I drive by every morning on 57. An M-2 designated area, there is nothing happening. In fact, I found out the other day if nothing happens with it in the next year or so the county is going to buy it back. That's what I understood. This was the information that I got that there is some kind of stipulation when they went and agreed to put this land up for that situation. It's over by...well, it would be East Baseline Road and 57. Right in back is Kingsman or what is it call? Commissioner Tuley: The old Shell. Commissioner Mourdock: VIP. Joel Gallant: There is an M-2 designated area over there that is pretty much an eyesore, at least as far as I am concerned. How long would this take to develop as well? I just don't think it's a wise decision or a wise use of the land and I think it's kind of sad on the people in the back. So that's all I've got to say. Thank you. President Jerrel: Is there anyone else over on this side? Connie Cottingham: My name is Connie Cottingham. I live at 15990 Valley Court. I'm here on behalf of all the children that are in the neighborhood and hopefully they're all tucked in their beds right now. This is their neighborhood. This is where they play. This is where they run. They ride their bicycles. Hide-in-seek. We have cookouts, bonfires and we have lots of fun. I have a six year the Lord truly blessed me with and we bought this property last year and we would just ask that you vote this down. Thank you. President Jerrel: Yes, sir. Sam Dempsey: Good evening this evening. First off I want to address- Commissioner Mourdock: What is your name, please? Sam Dempsey: Okay, Sam Dempsey. I live at 16041 Valley Court. First off I wanted to say their drawing here does not accurately illustrate all the houses that are here. There is a house right here. There is a house right here that fronts Baseline. A house here, here. There are no empty lots right along Baseline here. The reason I got up this evening my main concern I live on the house right here in the Valley Estate Subdivision on the very back. Our house, my wife and my house, is built up on a mound, okay. We have water problems which Baseline Properties in their initial building out here on 41 is divided into little plots, if you will, 17 of them and I think they've got one built for Farm Bureau Insurance or something. They've got a little retention lake out here and already...we haven't had any big rains to contend with and yet that retention lake has ran over on us already. Okay, and the gentleman, we addressed this with them, Baseline Properties on 41 North, and the gentleman we asked them were they aware that it had overflown and they kind of looked at each other and nobody had knew that it had overflown. My idea is this here retention lake there is no way that this can handle the water. I've got a map here, you might have that copy here. This is a floodplain here that I got from one of the offices down here. Right here, this section here, was four...hold on just a second. Okay, right here is 41. This is what Baseline has in their possession right now that they've developed and this is the land tonight before you all. Right here along Baseline it's in the floodplain. A lot of time the Sheriff has to block this road off east of Peck and we can't even get home this way. When floods happen you can see this floodplain all along right along the back of Baseline here. When that floods, my house is built on a mound, I can't even drive up to my house if I'm not already in the house. You can't drive down that's how deep the water is there. So I'm saying and anybody that has been out here, living out here and I've been out here five years, there is no way that a retention lake can handle water that is going to come over on us. One other point I wanted to make, the Area Plan Commission voted this down ten to one the first time that they brought it. The second time they brought it it passed seven, four, one, okay? The first time Mr. Shetler and Mr. Hatfield voted no and the second meeting they brought another attorney in and had some fancy drawings like this and both Shetler and Hatfield both voted yes and passed this as one of the seven votes, but yet in the first Area Plan Commission they both said no and there was discussion among the members, especially those two, saying...excuse me a second. You should have some water here. You get nervous up here. Commissioner Mourdock: Hold on a second. Take a deep breath because we need to change tape anyway. Sam Dempsey: Oh, okay, that's good timing. Tape change Sam Dempsey: Okay, we're ready? I apologize. The first time they voted no in that saying that we wanted Baseline Properties to tell us who is going to come in here, okay, and they don't have a buyer they're saying and yet Shetler and Hatfield both voted no and yet then they both voted yes and there was no discussion about them asking Baseline about who was coming in so it was kind of an ironic situation that, hey, you know, you're voting no the first month and the second month they come in and they're giving a yes vote and the reason they state that they're not voting for it the first meeting is because they're not telling us who is coming in here, you know, so what us as homeowners are saying, you know, yes M-1 but why put M-2 right across from us. That's all I've got. Thank you. President Jerrel: Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Yes. Stan Epperson: Stan Epperson, 15420 Peck Road. Could I show you my house? President Jerrel: Sure. I think it was this one, yeah. Stan Epperson: Yes. Remember, I'm the one who is surrounded by Baseline Properties. Project into the future if you would and if it is M-2 around me and if I would want to sell in the future, again in reference to the loss of property value, I would be surprised if anyone would want to buy it as a residential property being surrounded. Suppose I wanted to try to rezone to an equal zoning that is all around me. Would you rezone me M-2 with only access out onto Peck Road which is one lane in spots? Of course, we don't know what is going to happen with Peck Road, but I'm sure the neighbors would prefer it to remain a small country road. There is a lot of walkers along there and I'm sure that's what most people would prefer it to be. So then what would I do? I couldn't sell it as a residential property. I couldn't sell it as a manufacturing property with poor access out onto a narrow road. It seems to me that's what zoning laws are all about anyway is to try to protect those types of extreme, abrupt land use changes. I would also like to ask everyone that is against this petition to stand up if they would or at least raise their hands. Thank you. President Jerrel: Yes, sir. David Vella: My name is David Vella. I used to live at 15420 while my house was being built. My brother-in-law and sister-in-law allowed us to live there while our house was being built. I have a degree in packaging engineering. I have been working in the field for approximately 17 years. I have worked for IBM. I've worked for Lexmark. I currently work for a pharmaceutical company in this city which I will keep as nameless. I am observing quite a few of these potential companies that could easily be built on this property. As an engineer it surprises me that I have not heard anything regarding what environmental impact these companies will have on the landowners that live around this area. These companies can produce quite a few potential chemicals, quite a few potential industries that will produce things know as volatile organic compounds which as most of you are probably aware will have a drastic impact on the environment that these people live in. There is prevailing winds there that will bring that...the waste products produced by these companies into their area and it will affect their quality of life. The issues you talk about with runoff, it all depends on how that water goes and how it drains in the soil and what affect that has on the soil. There are marshlands in that area that would be affected by this. There is a whole degree of companies listed here that even though they mention certain things like a packing company won't be there you still have a lot of wood based product companies that have very similar industries and will produce quite a lot of environmentally not...how would you say it? Environmentally unfriendly byproducts. I have not heard anything mentioned about the environmental impact that will happen to this neighborhood and the surrounding area. Thank you. Commissioner Mourdock: Mr...is it B? David Vella: Vella. Commissioner Mourdock: Spell it please. David Vella: V-e-l-l-a. Commissioner Mourdock: And what is your current address then? David Vella: 2342 Waterstone Drive, Evansville. Commissioner Mourdock: Thank you. Greg Hill: This gentleman...I'm Greg Hill again. This gentleman is a lot smarter than I am on this stuff. 41 and Baseline Road, Azteca I'm sure you've all heard the problems we've had with it and how long it took us to get it resolved. I mean, there is no telling what there will be here. We know what that was. All the neighbors know. I mean, you could smell it for two miles around. That's what we're trying to avoid again. Thank you. President Jerrel: Yes. Ann Gryczon: Good evening. My name is Ann Gryczon. I am representing the National Trust for Historic Preservation and I just want to very briefly reiterate some of the points that were made this evening. The first thing I want to say as Ms. Lockyear said earlier is that this is by no means an unreasonable group. This is a very reasonable group. They're willing to concede to have M-1 zoning, which is again an industrial zoning, in an area and in a spot where they could actually try to have a much lower zoning available, but they have been very reasonable in this situation with their requests. There are three main points, I think, in this situation. Three main impacts that the neighbors would feel if this property were zoned M-2. The first as was mentioned a moment ago is the environmental impact. In fact, Mr. Bodkin himself stated that there really should be a very strong emphasis on the uses in each zoning category and we completely agree with that and that is why our concern is not to have the area zoned M-2 because the level of impact of M-2 is far, far greater than the level of impact on M-1 in the area as Ms. Lockyear stated and the gentleman speaking before stated as well. So our hope, again, is by no means to try to stop progress in the area. By no means to try to stop development in the area. Our concern is the health of our residents in our area. Again, one thing that has been mentioned as well is that, yes, we do need to have some development of the area and one of the concerns is with Toyota products and the Toyota plant and any Toyota related industries. We're not opposed to Toyota related industries. In fact, in M-1 there is the availability for auto parts to be constructed so therefore, again, in M-1 that would by no means hinder their use in their ability to have auto manufacture...excuse me, an auto parts manufacturing plant on the property. The second issue is the aesthetic or the visual issue and that is something, again, that my organization is very involved with around the whole country. We're very concerned about the impact of industry on rural areas and the rural character of America as well. Again, we're willing to concede to M-1 zoning, industrial zoning, but with some more provisions than Baseline Properties has offered and provisions which would include having a minimum height restriction on the buildings themselves as well as having far higher berms. As we heard this evening five foot berms will not help us very much especially considering the level of the land that we have there. The third impact, and what is very important to the area residents is the property...excuse me, are the property values of their homes, the homes that they have invested in. Some are new residents who have come here thinking they're escaping to the country. Other residents have been there for 20, 30 or over 40 years, so we're very concerned about their property values as well. Thank you very much. President Jerrel: Maybe at this time, Mr. Bodkin, do you have anyone with you that would be able to speak on some of the questions that have been raised about environmental issues? This is not a Drainage Board now. Obviously, we don't deal with the site or the drainage because that has to come at a different time in order for the property to be approved for a site with certain buildings. Tom Bodkin: I'm not certain about that, Madam President, but I'll certainly try to address what I can and see if they have anything else that can help. President Jerrel: Okay. Tom Bodkin: You're absolutely correct that you're not sitting as the Drainage Board tonight, but drainage is an integral part of what the remonstrators were concerned with at least when the first meetings occurred and an attempt to deal with that problem Baseline Properties approached the issue of drainage. Number one, this area, not just this parcel, but this area is in an impacted drainage area. You declared it that way. That means that we have to design this drainage structure for a 100 year storm just as they had to design the structure that the gentleman said that has overflowed once. Well, if we have 102 year storm presumptiously the water is going to come out. But we are required by this county's ordinance to design the drainage off this site to hold the water that would be generated by a 100 year storm. A storm that occurs once every 100 years and not let it come off any more quickly than it goes off today. Now there is no question that this subdivision up here probably today couldn't get built because it is in the floodplain, but we have to accommodate that subdivision in dealing with the storm water on this parcel so that it does not create any more problem for them than they have now. We're not...we cannot solve all their problems, but we certainly can make sure that what we do will not exacerbate it and that's what we have to do by your ordinance. Commissioner Mourdock: Mr. Bodkin, the detention basin that you're showing on that, and I realize a lot of engineering goes into those, is that drawn to scale on there? Tom Bodkin: The engineer is here and he just nodded at me yes. This area to the north of it which abuts up to the south side of Baseline Road is the equivalent to a dam. Now there won't be any vegetation on that because you can't put vegetation on a dam, you lose the dam if you do that. But we'll have to build a dam in essence there to hold that water as a part of the retention. Is it retention, is it not? As a retention basin here. So to the extent that we're dealing with issues of storm water and their impact on the environment we are required by your ordinance to capture it and hold it and not let it go off at any greater rate than it does today no matter what we put there. So I think to that extent the people who live north are going to gain a benefit. They may not think so, but in fact it is true over what it is today from the standpoint of the tremendous amount of water that may sheet across that parcel today and it all ends up right here in one place. Again, we're capturing not only the water on our parcel, but we're capturing the water coming off of the land to the south and the east which flows through the culvert down this little ravine area and into that lake as well. So that is one item perhaps of interest to you. Secondly, the buffering is there number one to convey the storm water so we can route the water to that lake so we control the water. The buffering is there to provide some visual break, if you will, between Peck Road and this piece of real estate and also between these pieces of agricultural zoned real estate. I don't think any of this is zoned R-1, it's all Ag and we're providing a buffer there, again, to provide some buffering from our parcel against their parcel. The two gentlemen who live in these two parcels obviously have a vast amount of buffer available because the lake itself will provide a buffer. A substantially greater buffer than most anything else we can do. With regard to other environmental issues our own...I'm not sure, our own EPA type person here in the county just announced just a few days ago with regard to prevailing winds that they come from all different directions in this county and that there isn't a particular direction, so I'm not certain that is a relevant concern other than, and I don't know where the other map went- President Jerrel: It's behind it. Tom Bodkin: Behind it? Okay, there we go. When the Planning Commission puts together maps and they hold public hearings and they bring them to you and you hold public hearings there are some things that they do and they do without reference to rezoning petitions which is a time for consideration and thought about issues like where should we have M zones based upon environmental considerations, based upon property value issues, based upon the very kinds of things that you always hear in every zoning that ever comes before you save a down zone and even then sometimes you'll hear people complain they lose their property value by going the other way. When you passed the Master Plan in 1996 you looked forward under the plan itself to the year 2015. That was your planning period. Now staff has now stated that they may have made an error on the map or the map doesn't mean what it says. I can't address that. All I can tell you is in the back of this book is a map which says it's the future land use to 2015 and it has got a scale on it. From that scale people who buy ground, people who develop ground, people who try to figure out what you want have to try to figure out what to come to you with. That scale and that map tells you a number things that you considered when you adopted that plan four years ago. Number one, you said that you're going to have residential development down Old State Road and that is what this shows right here and in fact is what is happening right down to Baseline and then you're coming across Baseline a distance back away from Peck Road and then it continues on down and that's again Old State Road coming on down this way. This area on the map you got is what you said you expected to be residential and that is in the drawing. You said in the drawing to the scale that this area in white was the buffer. You didn't know what it was going to be. Maybe Ag, maybe it will be residential and that buffer I submit under our map continues right on down just as you see it here about where Ms. Gryczon...Ms. Gryczon, I think, is a tenant of an adjoining parcel owner to the south. Probably where she lives is probably that white space, I suspect, but you showed in that map you wanted a undesignated area as a buffer. Then you showed us that you wanted residential down here to the south down below Darmstadt and then you told us that you wanted us to consider this area as manufacturing. I submit to you that when you do that with a master plan you consider without reference to a particular parcel, without reference to remonstrators or owners like my clients or the good folks here tonight the very kinds of emotional issues that always come up in every zoning. They are not avoidable any time you take ground that is basically not being used and put it to some use. We know what the market has told us. The market has told us it wants to look at the availability of M-2 ground not M-1 and you've noted that in the zonings you have granted along the corridor now with regard to M-2 real estate. You also considered, you see, the uses available in industrial zoning, M-1, M-2 and M-3, when you set forth in the Master Plan the area that we should consider available for growth in the future. One thing I find very, very difficult the good folks who live in the Valley Estates Subdivision lived there when the Master Plan was passed. Valley Estates Subdivision is right here. It's on the north side of Baseline Road right across the street from my client's real estate and there isn't any debate at all that we said that was an area that we expect to go manufacturing in the Master Plan. Now with regard to smoke, smell, all the people in this room won't want to hear these four letters, but they are the four letters that in this state control those issues and that's IDEM and they can all hiss and boo because it took IDEM forever to solve the problem in their neighborhood with the smell from the corn processing plant, it's my understand they may have settled that problem now- Unidentified: No. Tom Bodkin: Maybe not, I can't answer that. But the Indiana Department of Environmental Management is charged by the law in this state to deal with issues of air and water pollution. We as developers are required to meet those rules just as all citizens are required to meet those rules. By the way, open burning is prohibited by IDEM, but I suspect a fair number of people may do that, too. With regard to issues of prevailing winds and winds blowing across M-2 zoned parcels and schools being located within a half a mile, none of that changed between 1996 and today. Scott School was today where it was then and these M zoned parcels some of them were there then as they are today. I submit to you that is an issue that you considered when you decided what you want this ground to be projected to be in the Master Plan. If we were here, lady and gentlemen, in real estate that was for five miles in every direction Ag zoned that you had not predicted to be industrial in your plan we would have a very different kind of question. The issues then of environmental, the issues then of value would be issues you didn't consider, but you did consider them. By definition you had to of considered them in the plan, but you did so in a way that didn't try to grind any particular axe, but did so with regard to the benefit of the entire county and all of the kinds of issues that come into play. I really don't know what else to tell you. It is our belief that your plan clearly delineates where you want the buffer, the Ag buffer. It's in the drawing and it's scaled. It exists right there today. One of the gentleman tells us that he lives here in that and doesn't want to see us here and I suspect he is probably not real happy about us being here just another quarter section away. But we are on Baseline Road. That's the property. We are going to widen it because we need to do so for the benefit of the county and for the benefit of our development. So the county does indeed gain that benefit without having to deal with that roadway in the future. If there are other points I'm not getting please let me know and I'll see if anybody can answer them for you. Commissioner Mourdock: I have one question. I don't know that this is necessarily relevant to the zoning per se, but I noticed some reaction when either Mr. or Mrs. Epperson said something about being surrounded on three sides with a right-of-way or something that your client has and I know that question came up at APC. Tom Bodkin: Correct. Commissioner Mourdock: Is there in fact that right-of-way? Tom Bodkin: Mr. Mourdock, all I can tell you is I asked the client that tonight and they called back to the people that we bought the land right here...let me put this one back up, it's probably better. Okay, we own this going that way toward 41. We do not believe we own anything south of the Eppersons. If there is something there and it's a 30 foot strip deeded to us in fee we are unaware of it and I'm not certain what you would do with a 30 foot wide strip of ground. I suspect it may have been an easement if there is something. They got to Peck Road from that parcel if there is something there. My client does not believe we have any ownership rights of ground south of the Eppersons. If we do and it's 30 feet wide I'm not certain what we would ever do with it because you can't build on a 30 foot wide strip of ground. Again, we are not going to access Peck off our parcel anyway. Commissioner Mourdock: That was going to be my question. If, in fact, such a right-of-way did exist you're still maintaining that you're not going to be accessing Peck Road off that street? Tom Bodkin: That's correct. Could I have one second? Commissioner Mourdock: Sure. Tom Bodkin: In fact, if there is a 30 foot piece of real estate that is deeded to Baseline Properties, Inc. we'll prepare a deed tomorrow and deed it to the Eppersons. We have no intention of going to Baseline Road from this parcel or this parcel. It's not in our benefit to do that. Baseline Road is the ground we own, that's the road we're improving so we can go in and out. That's where the market, we believe, wants it. If it is an easement we'll be glad to vacate it. We don't think we have anything, but if whatever it is we'll get rid of it if that will satisfy anyone. President Jerrel: Ms. Epperson, did you have something you wanted? Kim Epperson: I have the deed. Tom Bodkin: May I? President Jerrel: Sure. Commissioner Tuley: Whatever you want to do. Kim Epperson: Thirty feet. Tom Bodkin: It's a roadway easement 30 feet wide off the south side of the northeast quarter. That's an easement. Kim Epperson: But that property is deeded to Baseline Properties. Tom Bodkin: It preserved a road...well, this granted us an easement in the deed. Commissioner Mourdock: That's not the same as a deed, ma'am. That doesn't mean they own it. That simply means they would have the right to use it. Kim Epperson: Who owns it because our deed specifically says who- Tom Bodkin: I think...I thought Kirk Heston. We will take care of that problem in the morning. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, okay. Tom Bodkin: I mean, we'll deed it back to whoever gave it to us if it's in fee. If it's an easement we'll vacate it. We have no interest in accessing Peck Road from the land south of the land at issue here. President Jerrel: So what you're saying is it's your ground but he has an easement? Kim Epperson: No, our deed specifically says we do not own that property. Stan Epperson: Our property is excepting. Kim Epperson: Excepting that 30 foot strip and here it says the Stecklers have deeded it to Baseline Properties. Tom Bodkin: What the warranty deed does is warrant and convey the east half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the northeast quarter northwest of the northeast and a 30...and a roadway easement 30 feet in width off the south side of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter. It deeded property and gave an easement with another piece. I do not believe that is in fee to us here. If it is we'll deed it to the Eppersons. If it is an easement we'll vacate it. It is not...we don't think we own anything south of their real estate and don't plan to develop it. Unidentified: It's an easement because John (inaudible) used to live there and the guy owned it before Steckler used it to go back over- Tom Bodkin: To Peck? Unidentified: -back in there and he says you're going to have to build a bridge over that lake if you're going to go over it because that lake...you have to build a bridge if you're going to use it. There is a little lake out there. President Jerrel: Okay, so that's an issue- Tom Bodkin: Again, it would appear to be a private easement. We'll be glad to vacate that. That's not an issue. We don't plan to use it. Didn't think we owned it, quite frankly. President Jerrel: And if you own it- Tom Bodkin: We'll deed it to the Eppersons. President Jerrel: Okay, did you want to ask that question? No, I didn't. Tom Bodkin: For the record I would like to make one final comment and then I'll shut up and sit down. President Jerrel: I think- Tom Bodkin: Unless you have questions. President Jerrel: -Commissioner Tuley has a question, so you can just maybe stay put. Commissioner Tuley: After seven plus years of sitting up here it's fun to watch the attorneys come in. This is not a knock on the attorneys, but- President Jerrel: Yes, it is. Tom Bodkin: It's alright, go ahead. Commissioner Tuley: To argue whatever side of the issue they're on that night. We've seen some come in and argue one way in the first half of a meeting and have a different client and argue completely the opposite side in the latter half of the evening. So kind of take the attorneys out of it because they're doing the job that they're paid to do. Mrs. Lockyear said the remonstrators are a reasonable bunch of people that she is dealing and representing with. My question, I guess, is this. I don't really see the harm if this thing is extended for 30 days given the fact that you have that M-2 zoning directly to the west of you that has one building on it right now. I don't know if you've got the rest of them sold. Are the remonstrators and are the developer, proposed developers, of the same mind and agreement to be reasonable people that if the M-2 with some greater use restrictions, some higher buffers...obviously, giving five foot if the road is three feet above the ground that doesn't do anybody much good, height restrictions on the buildings and these kind of things can that be worked out in 30 days or are the reasonable people that live out there insisting only M-1 will do? That's a question that each of you need to talk to your clients you represent and try to- President Jerrel: Do you want to take a five minute break? Okay, just take a five minute break. (The meeting was recessed for five minutes.) President Jerrel: Six minutes, okay. Krista Lockyear: Members of the council...Commission, the neighbors would certainly appreciate the opportunity to get back with the petitioner in order to negotiate. We would like to see some good faith movement. We don't want another pawn shop deleted. You know, something that is substantive, but absolutely if we can come there and 30 days is a place to start so hopefully we can come up with some commitments this time that will really mean a lot. Commissioner Tuley: I think what we're asking or at least what we've been advised is it would have to be without going through the whole process all over again. It would have to be through private covenants. Krista Lockyear: A private covenant would be acceptable as long as we have legal compensation in there that the prevailing party would- Commissioner Mourdock: Let's not negotiate at the microphone here. That's not going to be any value. Krista Lockyear: Okay. Private covenant would be fine. President Jerrel: There are two or three things. We're trying to come to some kind of negotiated settlement. If everything changes then it has to go back to the drawing board. We can't make any changes in this, but legal and private covenants can be entered into with the property owners. All we're asking here is that we've tried to list the things that we hear coming from everybody and if we can meet that then our plan will move on and the neighbors will have met some of their greatest concerns. What we want to know is do you think you want to try that, Mr. Bodkin? Tom Bodkin: Madam President, my client of course is perfectly willing to do that so long as we understand number one, we will not propose to change the UDC because that puts us back to square one. President Jerrel: We understand that. Commissioner Tuley: We're not asking that. President Jerrel: That we understand you don't want that delay. Tom Bodkin: Right. President Jerrel: And you would enter into to private- Tom Bodkin: Private, and we'll be glad to negotiate in good faith, but everyone has to understand from my client's perspective basically going back to what was proposed in March is not starting...not the good starting place because we've already been through that one, so we both need to take a look at where we may be able to move and we're willing to do that, certainly. President Jerrel: Okay, that would give...well, I think we've heard some things. This has been a reasonable group and you all have done a good job. I mean, it's a good lesson for everyone in government in action. Tom Bodkin: Madam President, could I please have a...could I please request that the Commission continue this matter for one month so we may have the chance to meet with the remonstrators and see if we can solve some of the difficulties? President Jerrel: Is there a motion to that? Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move approval of that request. Commissioner Tuley: And I'll second. President Jerrel: And I'll say so ordered. We'll see you and we will have to- Commissioner Tuley: Do we need a voice? Joe Harrison, Jr.: Yeah. Commissioner Tuley: I guess we need a voice. President Jerrel: Okay, voice vote on that. Commissioner Tuley? Commissioner Tuley: Yes. President Jerrel: Commissioner Mourdock? Commissioner Mourdock: Yes. President Jerrel: And I vote yes. That will be...is it the third Monday? Commissioner Tuley: The 15th. Commissioner Mourdock: The third Monday, whatever day that is. Commissioner Tuley: The 15th of May. Tom Bodkin: We'll be back. Thank you very much. Commissioner Mourdock: Mr. Zeller, you had a comment. Loren Zeller: Yeah, I have one question. Could you explain exactly what is going on right now as far as what we're going to do is have 30 days to meet with them to come up with some kind of concession that we both think we can live with and they can develop their property and we can still live out there as human beings and then in 30 days we're going to come back in front of the Commission again? President Jerrel: And tell us that you've reached those agreements. Commissioner Tuley: But we won't- Joe Harrison, Jr.: Or not. President Jerrel: Or not reached them. Commissioner Tuley: Basically, yeah, we won't...I hope we won't sit through two and a half hours of what we just went through tonight, but now we hear from you and from the developers areas that you are most concerned about and maybe in the next 30 days the group's representative or whoever and their attorneys can sit down and come in here and say maybe we didn't get everything we wanted but we got what we can live with and we can come in here and vote and move on. Loren Zeller: Okay, I just wanted to make sure everybody understood this as clearly as possible. President Jerrel: Right. Commissioner Tuley: Okay. Loren Zeller: It's kind of confusing. Commissioner Tuley: I understand. Loren Zeller: This is our first time for some of this stuff, too. Commissioner Tuley: We understand. That's fine. Commissioner Mourdock: It doesn't |
