The Vanderburgh County Rezoning Board met in session at 8:17 p.m. this 20^th day of August, 2001, in Room 307 of the Civic Center Complex with President Mosby presiding.
 

Call to Order

President Mosby: I would like to call to order the Rezoning meeting of the Vanderburgh County Commissioners for August 20, 2001. 
 

First Readings

President Mosby: There being no First Readings tonight. Do we not have anybody from Area Plan here? Oh, they are still in their meeting, okay.

Philip Hayes: (Inaudible. Mike not on.) Her file here.

Commissioner Mourdock: I will go ahead and move that we approve the minutes from the (Inaudible. Mike not on.)

President Mosby: Oh, I'm sorry.

Commissioner Fanello: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second to approve minutes from last month's meeting. So ordered. There being no First Readings.
 

Final Reading: VC-11-2001: Petitioner: Daylight Properties

President Mosby: Third and Final Reading, VC-11-2001, Petitioner: Daylight Properties LLC, P.O. Box 72, Evansville, Indiana. Request Agricultural to M-2 with a use and development commitment . Mr. Bodkin.

Tom Bodkin: Tom Bodkin, 700 Hulman Building, counselor for the petitioner. Let me hand you, sorry, a set of photographs, if I could please, and a part of my presentation. They will be useful, I think. The parcel of real estate at issue here is just east of Highway 41 on Baseline Road, on the north side of Baseline Road. In fact, it is across the road from the parcel that the County Commissioners rezoned a year ago or so owned by Baseline Properties LLC. It's right across the road from a part of that real estate. The first photograph in the packet is a view of the property looking from the Baseline Properties property, looking north easterly. The little yellow dot sort of in the middle of the picture is a fire hydrant. This parcel has water along Baseline Road. It's an 8" main. When this parcel ultimately gets developed, that main will probably have to be moved, because it appears to be in the public right-of-way, and, obviously, the issues of Baseline Road will require that to be moved. Photograph two is a little bit further east, looking, again, north onto the caption parcel. The cornfield you see is the caption parcel. In photograph one, if you flip back to that, in the middle of the picture is a row of trees that come on off to the right. That tree line, ladies and gentleman, goes along the creek that is called Kneer Creek, and that is the boundary along the north and a part of the east portion of this parcel. The third photograph is, again, another photograph looking from the south side of Baseline Road. Looking north and east, again, at the tree line, which is the, which is the creek and is the boundary with this parcel versus others on to the east. The next photograph is just sort of standing in the road looking, again, at the tree line very close to the southeast corner of this parcel. Again, the tree line goes along the ditch, and it's the barrier between this parcel and the subdivision to it's east. The next photograph, number five, is the photograph of one of the remonstrators. Is a photograph of the house of one of the remonstrators you will hear tonight. We took the photograph today to demonstrate to you the house's proximity to the ditch, or the creek, Kneer Creek, and the trees which we believe provide the buffer between this structure and the parcel issue. The last photograph is back to the east further from the previous photograph showing two houses in a road, both which front Baseline Prop...Baseline Road. Again, looking at the trees that run kind of across the photograph. This particular parcel of real estate, ladies and gentleman, is, again, bordered on the north and part of the east by Kneer Creek. We also have south of Kneer Creek and west of the part of it where it turns and heads south, a sanitary sewer easement with a sanitary sewer in place that's on this ground. So, between the creek and the balance of this parcel is a sanitary sewer that turns, and in the packet of material you can see, and I'll show you here off this drawing as well, the green is the parcel at issue. The Kneer Creek, and you can see marked here at the top, and this is the sanitary sewer that comes along the northern boundary, turns and comes a little more than half way down the eastern boundary, and then goes through the adjacent subdivision. One of the remonstrators tonight lives here on lot number 16. That was the house on photograph five. The tree line that you saw in the photo, that you see in the photographs comes all the way along this boundary and follows Kneer Creek all the way back around. The real estate falls from Baseline Road north and east. A fairly large portion of this property is in the 100 year flood plain, the part down toward the creek. The part up near Baseline Road and in the southwest corner is up out of the flood plain. In fact, the elevations range from approximately 452' mean sea level in this corner, or this area, the southwest part. When you get down along the creek, the elevations are as low as 338' to 340'. Which is substantial fall, obviously, from here going down. I would ask you to keep that in mind as I address an issue that I think will come up, and that's an issue about barriers or berming. Because, again, we go from 440' to 452' is 12' from roughly here to here just in fall. Which is a pretty substantial fall. This property is currently utilized for agricultural purposes. As you can tell, it's got corn growing on it. The petition before you is to take this parcel to an M-2 with a use commitment. The ground right across the street in Baseline Properties is the subject to a use commitment. It limits, or eliminates, certain uses. The use commitment submitted here mimics the one right across the road. Any use not permitted by Baseline Properties property over here, would also not be permitted on this parcel. So, it matches up in terms of uses that would not be allowed. The caption parcel, ladies and gentleman, is, again, currently being used agriculturally, but with regard to the Master Plan here in our county, which was adopted by you and the Plan Commission some, a few years ago, the current land use, as you can see, reflects the parcel being basically white, which is agricultural for current land use. We do have just to the west of this parcel, however, a piece that is used right now as M-2, and it is here on my map, I'm sorry, M-1, which is just a little sliver right here where there is a car repair shop. Next to that is a C-4 parcel which is the RV Center right at 41 and Baseline Road. So, we have that use here. Our Master Plan, however, projects that all of the property from Highway 41 to the road, which the name just went absolutely right out of my head. There is another road back to the east about 1,000' or so. Korff Road, Korff Road. The Master Plan would project that all the property north of Baseline Road from 41 to Korff Road is to go into a manufacturing industrial use. That is what our Master Plan says this land is suited to do. The County Commissioners obviously examined the issue with regard to this land at length when you decided to pass the Master Plan and project that real estate to go. Unlike the Baseline parcel, which was the subject of some debate about how far to the east it might go for industrial use, there is no debate about this parcel being squarely in the Master Plan area. It is just dead smack in the middle between 41 and Korff Road, and right in the middle of what was predicted to become industrial parcel, industrial use here. The access to this ground is only off of Baseline Road. There is no other roadway to access it. I understand that and one of the comments that was made at the Planning Commission, which by the way sent this forward with no recommendation, five to five as I recall, was that there is problems of flooding in the area. The subdivision immediately to the east, Valley Estates Subdivision, is basically built in the flood plain. Some of the people, perhaps some here tonight, will talk to you about the cost of their flood insurance. They have flood insurance because they are below the 100 year flood plain. The ground here falls towards this creek and the creek drains back this way, goes back to the northwest. So, the land is coming this direction, falling down to the north. Basically, when this parcel gets developed all of the rainwater that falls on this parcel has to be held there under your ordinance. We cannot let more water go off now, later, than we do now. There is no way that the development of this parcel is going to cause any further water problems for the subdivision, because your ordinance will not allow that. We simply have to hold the water and not let it off any faster than it goes off today as an undeveloped parcel. I also talked with the County Engineer earlier today, I understand that you may have approved tonight a bridge project somewhere back to the northwest of this that may relieve some of the problems with Kneer Creek. In terms of raising a bridge up about 4' along Royal Drive or Royal Street, maybe? Maybe you didn't get to-

President Mosby: Boyle.

Tom Bodkin: Boyle? Okay. Apparently that is in this neck of the woods. According to what he told me, and he thought that might be some, might be of some relief. I don't know that. I can't represent it will make any difference to them at all, but the County Engineer indicated there was some work being done out there. Again, the use commitment we have offered limits the uses of this parcel to exactly the same M-2 uses as are allowed across the street. We have given a commitment with regard to that. When this parcel gets developed, then the question of how much land will be needed for Baseline Road will be taken up at that point, because we don't know at the moment just exactly how much the county will need with regard to Baseline. I can tell you in the photographs, you can see along Baseline Road running from east to west is a fairly good ditch, a side ditch, that carries water from the west to Kneer Creek. Obviously, that is going to have to be maintained from a drainage standpoint when this ground is developed. Again, I indicated to you, there is a water line that runs along the north side of Baseline that also will have to be moved when Baseline Road is widened. That would, again, be part of the development plan that would have to be approved by the Planning Commission at which time this parcel ever got developed. We believe the parcel meets the requirements of our Master Plan for M zoning. It is within the area that you predicted, as Commissioners, would become commercial, not just commercial, but industrial. In fact, we've seen the corridor developing along 41 as you know from

(inaudible) drive. If you have any questions regarding the parcel, I would be glad to try and answer them for you. The parcel is still owned by Mrs. Shepherd. Daylight Properties is the prospective buyer for it, but Mrs. Shepherd is still the owner. If you have questions, I'll try to answer them.

President Mosby: Do you have a particular use?

Tom Bodkin: Not at the moment. There is no specific user for it yet. We are rezoning it for purposes of determining or finding users for that parcel. But as Ag parcel, you can't go out and sell it industrially. 

President Mosby: Okay. Is there any questions by any member of the Commission? If not, I'll take remarks from the remonstrators and then you can have rebuttal.

Calvin Rickard: Good evening. My name is Calvin Rickard. I own the house that is directly next to that in his picture five there. Let's address this natural break he is talking about, this tree line that's been deteriorating ever since I've lived there. I've lived there 15 years. This tree line has fallen, I've had like four trees fall on my house out of this tree line. The drainage ditch there is eroding, and I don't see that the county is doing anything to maintain it. I'm going to show you in this, this drawing here Baseline Properties already had decided in order to control...up here is Scott School. In order to control the amount of water flow coming off all this land, there is a drainage ditch coming across this road here. They had to put this pond in to slow the water down and keep it from coming on to this land. Okay?

Commissioner Mourdock: Mr. Rickard, you are going to need to grab the microphone. 

Calvin Rickard: I'm sorry. Okay. The deal is that there is no development commitment here, which means we have no guarantee that they are going to catch this water, and these trees are collapsing. I mean, when we had that tornado two years ago, or a year ago, I had four trees down on my land, three on my house. They say that this UDC is not really a UDC, it's a UC. I think I told you that already. There is no development in this. In fact, if we want to go to a definition of words, it's more developmental, which has nothing to do with property. They've...when Baseline Properties proposed zoning M-2 across the road from us, I had 86 people that signed a petition that didn't want that. When we finally let it pass, we still didn't want it. We were in here after about 60, 90 days and we were told that it was going to pass. If we didn't, if we remonstrated at that point, Baseline Properties was going to withdraw their development commitment, and we were going to lose what I just showed you on that. So, we let it go. We said, well at least we got berms. We got trees. We got water runoff. We got some protection, you know. With this, they don't want to offer us anything. They just want to develop. I mean, they don't want to develop the land, they just want to buy the land after it is zoned. In your comprehensive plan, which by the way, he keeps saying that you did this. Was anybody here sitting on this board in '96? Okay, then you might have done it, but you all didn't. Okay. Alright. So, in the, here in your Master Plan it says development proposals must be evaluated for consistency with the land use plan. However, the plan is conceptual as meant to be flexible. There may be development proposals which will arise during the plan period '96 to 2015 which do not conform. Well, if you, I thought the rule was you were supposed to have step down zoning. Okay, this is a residential area. Okay, you are starting out at the highway, and you are going backwards. You've got an R-4 at the highway, then you've got M-1, now you want to put an M-2 right next to homes. That's not stepping down, that's stepping up. I mean, you know, what do you want to do to us? Do you want to put a factory 30' from my door. From my bedroom window. It says here in section 10 in industrial that it is strongly recommended that available land and already planned and zoned for industrial use was in the area served by water and sewer be utilized before additional land areas are rezoned. We've got 45-50 acres right across the road that has not yet been developed completely, or sold. There's probably 200 acres over on 57 that's just 10 minutes from us that's already zoned M-2. You have in this county probably somewhere between 500 and 1,000 acres just in rural land that is already zoned M-2 that hasn't been developed. So what you are doing in essence is you're wanting to zone a 13 acre or 14 acre plot here that is going to affect our homes. Now we are not all in a flood plain. That's bull. Okay. If I was in a flood plain I would be paying flood insurance. I'm not. There is only one person in this whole thing that is really paying flood insurance, okay. And that is only because they have a small portion of their lot that is in the flood plain. This land that is to be rezoned is, the majority is in the flood plain. Well, to develop that land they are going to have to build it up. They are going to have to bring in dirt. They are going to change this flood plain. Then who is going to be liable for the damages done to our homes when we are flooded out? When this flood plain changes. Now, I know they are going to say, well that's up to the developer. Well, how do we stop the developer later? If we don't stop it now, how do we stop it at all? Okay. You know, even if they were to get zoned, how can you let this go thorough with no development commitment at all. The 19 uses out of 300, none of us agreed on really. We were backed into a corner and accepted last year. You know, there is 281 uses there, most of them are very undesirable, especially to residential areas. This bridge thing on Boyle that he mentioned, that is to relieve the flood they are having over there. Not our flood, okay? That's to relieve that flood, because they put a big retention pond in there and it's running over the banks. They can't control it. Okay? This whole area is very much out of control as far as water is concerned. When this thing was drawn up these homes were existing. Now, regardless of whoever was on the board, I would think that this was meant to be a variable thing where you could decide whether you, you know, I thought you people were the ones that were going to make this law or make this zoning. Not this plan. This plan was written by or drawn by somebody else. You all didn't draw this plan did you? I mean, I know I didn't. No one even asked me. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Let me clarify that. 

Calvin Rickard: Okay.

Commissioner Mourdock: I'll explain how it was drafted. APC staff drafted that plan or a basic plan. There were then a series of public meetings held to allow anybody in the county who wanted to come in and comment about the plan to do so.

Calvin Rickard: Okay.

Commissioner Mourdock: Based on those public meetings, typically, there is some revision made, and then ultimately the plan goes back to the APC board which votes on it and it came to the County Commissioners to vote on it as well.

Calvin Rickard: Okay, so then when that was being proposed, did they notify the homeowners in this subdivision that that was going to be happening?

Commissioner Mourdock: There was public notice that went to all county-

Calvin Rickard: Public notice only.

Commissioner Mourdock: - yeah, for everyone in the county.

Calvin Rickard: Right. Okay, well, see the problem is that most, I would say a lot of the public doesn't realize it until you get an official notice. Because your land is touching that land. You know? I don't think everybody reads the paper or watched the news everyday. I mean, we should, but we don't' all. We have our own lives. All I can say is, we as homeowners in this area feel that we are not being represented by this county if you pass this. Because we have begged you. Last year we begged you not to do this. It still happened. We are begging you again. We should have a vote in this. Now, if you will look at that file which Mrs. Cunningham didn't bring to you, they didn't send this forward with a recommendation. I think that is partly because they don't believe this should happen to these local residents. I think our vote should count. I mean we've got 15 on this particular petition. Last year I had 86 on the petition, and you know I'm just running out of energy. Thank you.

President Mosby: This was sent forward with no action.

Calvin Rickard: That's correct.

President Mosby: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. 

Philip Hayes: (Inaudible. Mike not on.)

President Mosby: Pardon?

Philip Hayes: The cover letter of August...the cover letter of August 2 is in error. It states that this petition was denied, and Ms. Behme pointed out to me that, in fact, that's no action taken, therefore, no recommendation. 

Calvin Rickard: Right.

Philip Hayes: Where it says five negative votes, actually the requirement would have been seven to deny.

Calvin Rickard: It was just basically sent forward just with no recommendation.

Commissioner Mourdock: Exactly.

Philip Hayes: Put in, yeah, these are the matters to which the speaker refers and they are being passed down for your review.

President Mosby: Yeah.

Philip Hayes: Land owner petitions and attachments.

President Mosby: Are there any questions by any member of the Commission? Mr. Rickard, okay. Is there anybody else that wanted to speak to this matter? Okay. Mr. Bodkin did you want to address anything that was said?

Tom Bodkin: Only briefly, if you don't mind. It's getting late. A couple of quick points.

President Mosby: Okay.

Tom Bodkin: Boyle Road is the same Kneer Creek, your engineer indicated raising the bridge 4' on Boyle Road should relieve water problems on Kneer Creek, both ways, up and down. So, it is something you've looked at, and asserting that you are doing nothing for the neighborhood, I think, is an unfair statement. You as Commissioners adopted the list of uses for M-1 and M-2. You decided which uses you thought were the right uses for that zoning category. Not developers or anyone else. What this petitioner has done is agree not to use some of the M-2 uses that you said were proper M-2 uses when you adopted the Zoning Code. It is exactly the same list of "we won't do its" that the parcel across the street said it would not do. Now, it's kind of difficult for me to address an assertion that somehow or another I did something I shouldn't have done and therefore forgive me for doing it on another rezoning. If the people who did not want to, didn't want Baseline Properties to be rezoned they should have kept fighting it, I suppose. The point of fact, Baseline Properties entered into a use commitment saying it would not do exactly the same uses in that list you are looking at. You, as County Commissioners, found that to be an adequate use restriction on land that you said in the Master Plan when you adopted it was land that should go M zoned. So, I submit to you that that is an issue that is a non issue. There isn't any question that a fair amount of property before you now will fall within the 100 year flood plain. I submit to you, it's highly unlikely that anybody is going to develop houses in that ground. It's too expensive. Ladies and gentleman, you've got a 12' drop from, you know, from one to the other. Down by the creek. In order to get it to the 100 year flood plain you are going to have to fill it to put a house there, let alone talking about any other kind of berms or items of that nature.

Commissioner Mourdock: May I ask a question regarding that?

Tom Bodkin: Sure.

Commissioner Mourdock: The staff report mentions and it simply says flood zone, yes, part of this site lies within the flood plain. We are only looking at 13.7 acres site. How much, I don't see in here where it specifically says five acres or four acres, how much is in the flood plain. Bev, do you know?

Beverly Behme: No, we don't. That's determined by the Building Commission.

Tom Bodkin: I really don't at this point because it's got to be surveyed and lay it out.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

Tom Bodkin: Obviously, the stuff along the creek is. That is where the flood plain is going to be.

Commissioner Mourdock: Well, let me chase the point-

Tom Bodkin: I can't tell you how many acres, Mr. Mourdock. I don't know.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, let me just kind of follow up on the question Mr. Rickard was raising. Given that part of it is in the flood plain, are you looking to put fill in to bring the remainder of it up out of the flood plain?

Tom Bodkin: I would assume that there could be some fill, but most likely the property in the flood plain, which is going to be along the creek, is where the impoundment is going to go. That would be logically where you would put the impoundment. You wouldn't fill there. You would take dirt from there to create impoundment for the storm water that would come off the rest of the parcel. Whether we fill or not, however, doesn't make any difference. Under your ordinance, we cannot let more water go into that creek than goes into that creek today. 

Commissioner Mourdock: I understand. I'm just trying to make the point though, if you were to take the borrow off that property, you are otherwise creating impoundment-

Tom Bodkin: Correct.

Commissioner Mourdock: -which should help the overall drainage situation-

Tom Bodkin: Yes, sir.

Commissioner Mourdock: -whereas, if you brought in fill-

Tom Bodkin: If we just filled it.

Commissioner Mourdock: -from off site, Mr. Rickard's point about the additional water and the damage going to adjacent properties could become a factor.

Tom Bodkin: I suppose-

Commissioner Mourdock: If you brought all the borrow in.

Tom Bodkin: Yes, except I don't think under your ordinance we can do that. I think we have to balance the two out. If I bring in dirt to fill that ground, I still have to capture all the water that would fall off otherwise.

Commissioner Mourdock: Right.

Tom Bodkin: Now, when I dig out the borrow pits to catch the water, that gives me dirt to fill with, certainly, but I can't let more water go off than goes off today. Whether I fill it and don't' dig borrow pits, or dig borrow pits. Likely that's where the drainage is going to be. Don't forget we have a sanitary sewer that is running along the north and half of the east side here that we can't, we can't deal with. We can't pile dirt on top of that. That has to be left the way it is, because the city has an easement for that.

Commissioner Mourdock: One other question, and you have made the comparison several times to the use and development commitment that's done with Baseline Properties on the south side of the road. Mr. Rickard made the point that although it may not have been specific in there use and development commitment , although, I think it might be too, the use of buffers and some set backs-

Tom Bodkin: I'll be glad to address that. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

Tom Bodkin: There is no question that Baseline Properties did, in fact, as a part of their commitment indicate, they indicated a number of things, some of which are not even relevant here. For instance, they said they wouldn't go on Peck Road.

Commissioner Mourdock: Right.

Tom Bodkin: Well, that's not an issue here, because we don't touch Peck Road. They agreed they would build berms around two sides of the parcel. That ground, and the purpose for that was so that Mr. Rickard could look out his front door and not look at their development. They agreed to put berms and this is by memory, maybe 10' tall, I don't have it in front of me.

Commissioner Mourdock: Along their north line?

Tom Bodkin: Yeah, because they had...they were going to build a lake on the north line, so it was part of the berm anyway. Then they were going to have some berming, except for where the entry way came in, as I recall, and then down the east line on Peck, Peck Road. The berm actually came up ,Mr. Mourdock, and tied into the drainage ditch. Which would have been kind of across the street from his ground, as I recall. He's got a map, he can show you what they proposed. Let me suggest to you-

Calvin Rickard: (Inaudible. Not at mike.) All of that is bermed.

Tom Bodkin: Right.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

Calvin Rickard: No berming here.

Tom Bodkin: Right. Correct. No berming here.

Commissioner Mourdock: It shows here, actually, let me get, no that's right.

Tom Bodkin: Our ground is over here. Right here. So, there is no berming on Baseline property across the road, per se, from our real estate. It was only across the road from Mr. Rickard's house, which is where they were going to put their drainage impoundment. They already knew that because they are going to turn this into a subdivision. They already had a subdivision back to the west, so that was a continuation from their standpoint.

Commissioner Mourdock: This drawing then is not accurate because their proposed detention, as it shows here, actually ended up over here, correct?

Tom Bodkin: I don't think this has been built yet. I think it is going to be built.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. It's a later phase.

Tom Bodkin: Right. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

Tom Bodkin: They are actually, not even, they haven't even got into that, I don't think. Let me submit to you a couple other points, the berming here was on the south side of this parcel, was specifically because of a veterinarian who lived right there. So, they agreed to put a berm in there so he couldn't see the parcel. The berming along Peck Road, basically, was because of a couple of houses along Peck Road, and they didn't want to look across, out their front door. Mr. Rickard can't see my ground from his house, there is a row of trees, as much as he might want to belittle, it's been there a long time and they are big trees. You've got photographs of them right there.

Calvin Rickard: (Inaudible. Not at mike.)

Tom Bodkin: That blocks the view that direction. Secondly, I cannot, my client cannot build a berm along this part of the real estate because there is a sanitary sewer there. We cannot do that on top of the city's easement. You know, there is, we simply cannot. Yeah. Could we build it here? I don't know. Again, we get into the problem of it we are going to build a berm, we are going to build a lake. Secondly, if we put a berm of any kind right here, then the question becomes where's the water going to go that goes into that ditch? Because that is the ditch. The ditch comes all the way along here. We've got this one little section here that is not encumbered with the sewer line. That is the only section. Baseline Properties was able to go ahead and agree to berms, they also had a substantially bigger parcel, I might add too. They also are much higher. If what this gentleman wants is no site line to here, then the question is how high would this berm have to be? How wide would the berm have to be? I don't have exactly the measurements here, but we know that the land falls this way. Again, I gave you the elevation averages, and we could be looking at a berm that could be 15' or 20' just to get even with the top of a building. I submit to you that is just simply not feasible, at this point. Now, it may well be that when it comes time to submit the development plan to the Planning Commission, which has to review this. That may well be something that could be worked in there. I don't know where the entrance to this parcel ought to be yet either. Until such time as we actually have a user for it, it may well be that your engineer is going to want the entrance right here. Because it is right across from the Baseline entrance. Or it may well be your engineer is going to want it back at this end, so that we don't interfere with entrances in and out of the parcels. Those are issues, obviously, that have to come up and be decided by the Plan Commission site review committee when the actual development plan gets submitted. The Baseline people knew what they were going to do because they already had a subdivision platted that they were simply extending on. They knew that this was the only place they could put the catch basin, ultimately, because the water falls that way right to that creek. This one on Baseline actually just charges through a pipe right into that creek. That is where the water is going to go out of Baseline's retention. So, again, trying to compare this site to Baseline is a little bit difficult because the topography is different, and the uses they way they are going to lay it out is different, and the purpose for the berming was substantially different with regard to most of Baseline. They got berms because they created a lake there, and they simply went ahead and agreed to do those because of the dentist on the south end. Still, and there was a debate about this parcel, about how much if all of it was within your Master Plan, as I recall. As I recall, I think, perhaps, the Plan Commission Executive Director and I, perhaps, had a difference of opinion about how much of this ground was in that Master Plan. There is no debate about this parcel. There is none. That is clearly shown as within the area that is supposed to go industrial on your Master Plan. There just isn't any debate about that, in my view. Again, the mix of uses, are a mix of uses you said, not you personally, but you as Commissioners said were the right kind of uses for M. My client is willing to give some of those up, as did Baseline to get the matter through in terms of zoning. Let me quickly check and see if there is anything that I've forgotten. Again, as you know, we have to deal, no guarantee that we will catch the water. We don't have any choice. If we don't catch the water, you are going to fine us into oblivion. Because that is what your ordinance was for, to make sure developers do catch the water. We simply have no choice but deal with that, as you well know. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Let me go back one more time to my question about the 100 year flood plain-

Tom Bodkin: Uh-huh.

Commissioner Mourdock: -and what may or may not be filled. I have to believe that your client in doing due diligence in putting this purchase agreement together had some basic numbers to work off of as far as determining his economics as to how many acres are really useable. So let me ask the question in that way, how many useable acres out of this 13.73 do you see?

Tom Bodkin: As one of the gentleman pointed out, I guess, if you fill it, it's all useable, but that is not feasible. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Right.

Tom Bodkin: Probably, eight or ten acres by the time you get done with borrow pits, digging out borrow pits and then filling in some areas. Because, again, we, you know, you've got the set back away from the creek. We've got the city sewer line we can't deal with that. So, we lose all the ground on the north and east side of that. That is not useable at all, but it's part of the 13 acres. The clients have also indicated that their prices are probably going to be a little bit cheaper than Baseline Properties prices are which they think is why they've not been selling their land. One final point, when this issue came up with the other folks across the road, we had a concept that I can't, and if it's in your zoning ordinance I stand to be corrected, and I would be pleased to be corrected. That is the concept of step down zoning. I think I know what that means, but I don't find that dictated by your Zoning Code or your Master Plan, per se. Now, I'm not sure exactly if we look at Highway 41, if you just use your own mind about what people do when they develop ground, C zones are less heavy, perhaps, than the M zones, and C zones are, you know, they are restaurants, they are shopping centers, and they are things that want access to big roads. Roads where people can get in and out. M zones don't necessarily need that, they need ground, but they don't necessarily need, you know, traffic going in and out of them. So the concept of step down zoning, step down zoning, I can't say that, is a little difficult for me to understand. I understand what it means, but I'm not sure which way we step. At this point right now, we have a C-4 at the corner of Baseline and 41 in one corner. We've got M's on the other corner, just across the road is Azteca, which, of course, is an M zone. We have next to the C-4 and M-1 coming toward my clients perspective parcel, towards Mrs. Shepherd's parcel. The parcel next to the RV center east is zoned M-1. So, when that happened, obviously, step down zoning wasn't the order of the day. If step down zoning is what we want in this county, we need to define it, we need to put it in an ordinance so everybody can understand it before they buy land. Because it is not, I submit to you, in any of your ordinances or defined as a rule, if you will, of construction that anyone should be using in trying to determine whether to buy ground or not. If you have further questions, I'll try to answer them. I would request that you adopt the ordinance rezoning this real estate to M-2 with a use commitment as proposed.

President Mosby: I have one question.

Tom Bodkin: Yes, sir.

President Mosby: Why are you zoning this without a client?

Tom Bodkin: Basically, I think that the client believes that they can sell the ground once it's zoned, but you can't sell it Ag for any kind of M use. The client, I think, also believes that the issue as they understand it is, is that the right use for the ground, not do I have somebody who is ready to build an M building on it today or not. We really don't have that much zoned M ground yet. There is some, certainly, but we don't have vast quantities of it up and down 41. If we look at your current land use of '96, in fact, the Baseline Properties parcel here is about all that has really changed along here. There has been a few over here, obviously, where we've put some restaurants and things along, near across from the State Police Post. The client believes that they have a chance to either market the parcel as is, for one use, one M use, but until it's zoned there really isn't, you know, people who are interested in the parcel, we think, will not be interested until it's zoned.

President Mosby: I guess, my biggest problem there is, I wish they had a client because I would like to know, I would really like to know if they are going to try to fill that ground. I understand what you're saying about, you know, having to drain the water, but I would really like to know if they are going to try and fill that ground and make use of that. I would like to know where the building is going to be on that ground. These are questions I would like answered. You, obviously, can't answer that.

Tom Bodkin: Jerry, do yo want to speak? The point made was, perhaps, Baseline Properties didn't have any users either. Yet the issue there was what is the proper use for the ground, not which user may be using the ground.

President Mosby: Well, I understand that, but I'm not going to buy that. I didn't rezone the property across the street.

Tom Bodkin: I know.

President Mosby: I'll challenge you to go back and look at anything that I rezoned in the City. Anything that I rezoned in this City, had a use on it. So, if you want to put that argument forward, it don't hold a lot of water. I mean, I'd like, if there's going to have be an ingress/ egress, I want to know if you are going to commit to 

(Inaudible) the property?

Tom Bodkin: Well, certainly, we have to do that.

Jerry Lamb: My name is Jerry Lamb. I'm with Daylight Properties. We don't know the answers, Mr. Mosby, to allow these questions as far as to who the ultimate user of this property is going to be. We have absolutely no one in mind at this point. This could very well be a cornfield for the next five years. We just don't know. Really we don't know if it's going to be a single user, or if it's going to be, possibly, sub-divided. Certainly, if it were to be sub-divided, this body, along with the Area Plan Commission would also be given another chance to look at it, in great detail at that point. That's the process that the Baseline Properties went through. They actually went through a commercial subdivision process. We're simply asking for a land use change which will then allow us to pursue marketing this property to industry and we may end up with a single user. There aren't very many large parcels along Highway 41 with an M zoning. There are a lot of individual little one acre lots, as in Baseline Properties that are $75,000 an acres. That is not the market we are shooting for. We are shooting for the light industrial market with larger parcel users. I'm sorry we don't have the answers to all the questions. Believe me, our banker would like to know as well. We just don't have the answers. It's something we are doing to, hopefully, capitalize on the industrial growth which is happening along 41. It's certainly well positioned. We're 1,000' east of 41. Fully improved stoplight intersection. It's just a perfect spot.

Commissioner Mourdock: Just to clarify something, Mr. Lamb, you said if you did a subdivision it would come back to this board. It would go back to APC, but the subdivision would not come back here.

Tom Bodkin: Drainage would come here.

Commissioner Mourdock: Drainage would come here.

Jerry Lamb: That is what I was referring to. I'm sorry, Mr. Mourdock, that's correct. That's right and any road right-of-way issues would also be dealt with at that time. So, in other words, there is going to be ample opportunity for further comment on those issues in the future. We are just strictly looking at a land use change here.

Jack Tubbs: Jack Tubbs, I'm a partner with Jerry in Daylight Properties. I moved back home here in '97. I like to say that it was the Toyota effect that caused me to move back home. My background in Engineering and Economic Development and also Project Development. I'm very excited about the next eight to ten years for this area. I've had offers to move back to Indianapolis, but I really am excited about what is going to happen, what could happen. From Vanderburgh County's standpoint I'm also excited about the possibilities. What we would like to provide is another opportunity in concert with Baseline Properties, in concert with VIP that could be presented as an option to some of these prospects. That is what we are trying to do, is that we are trying to provide investment opportunities for the county, and also create jobs.

President Mosby: Any other questions or comments?

Tom Bodkin: Thank you ladies and gentleman.

President Mosby: Thank you. Chair will entertain a motion.

Commissioner Mourdock: Obviously, we'll do a roll call vote here, but I'll move approval of County Zoning VC-11-2001 for 13.73 acres to zone from Ag to M-2 on the north side of Baseline Road between Boyle Lane and Valley Court.

Commissioner Fanello: Second.

President Mosby: I have a motion and a second. We will do a roll call vote here.

Commissioner Mourdock?

Commissioner Mourdock: When you make these votes sometimes they are tough, because ultimately these are all about property rights. The people owning adjacent properties have rights and the people selling the properties have rights. Certainly, they want, both sides want to get the maximum value they can for their property and that is perfectly fair. As I look at this one I have some concerns given the size of it, that it can really be anything very effective as an M zoning, given that it is by definition something like eight acres out of the 13 might be useable. I also have some concerns, as you've raised, David, as far as the access points and those kind of things, but it seems to me ultimately this one does fit with the plan. There is a lot yet that needs to be done with it by way of how it gets approved. So, this is a hesitant yes.

Commissioner Fanello: Well, I have too many concerns at this point, so I'm going to vote no on this one.

President Mosby: I have concerns. I expressed them to you. I don't know how the property across the street was rezoned. I wasn't sitting here. I've been over in the Council for 13 years, but I in no way want to just open up and rezone a piece of land when I don't know what is going to go on it. I don't know what I need to ask for and what I don't need to ask for at this point in time. I might need ingress/egress. I might need somebody to donate right-of-way. I really don't know, but with there being no plan and you not being able to provide me any information I am going to vote no. There being two no's and one yes, VC-11-2001 is defeated.

Commissioner Mourdock: Motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Fanello: Second.

Commissioner Mourdock: I have a motion to adjourn and a second. So ordered.

Meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
 

Those in Attendance:
David W. Mosby 
Catherine Fanello 
Richard E. Mourdock
Philip Hayes 
Madelyn Grayson 
Beverly Behme
Tom Bodkin 
Calvin Rickard 
Jerry Lamb
Jack Tubbs 
Others Unidentified 
Members of Media
 

APPROVAL:
VANDERBURGH COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

______________________________
David W. Mosby, President

______________________________
Catherine Fanello, Vice President

______________________________
Richard E. Mourdock, Member
 

Recorded and Transcribed by Madelyn Grayson