VANDERBURGH COUNTY

REZONING BOARD

JANUARY 15, 2008

The Vanderburgh County Rezoning Board met in session this 15^th day of January, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex with President Jeff Korb presiding.

President Korb: Do I call this meeting to order? Okay, we’re going to call this meeting to order. Are you ready to go on the tape recorder there, Ms. Grayson? Great. We are going to have the Vanderburgh County rezonings. Good afternoon.

Janet Greenwell: Good afternoon.

President Korb: How are you? We’re going to have Ms. Greenwell make the presentations.

Janet Greenwell: Okay, the first rezoning we have on your petition, on your agenda tonight is 2007-35-PC VC-15-2007, 12700 Old State Road. This is Habermel Investments. They’re requesting to rezone the property located at 12700 Old State Road from Agricultural to C-4 with a use and development commitment. The commitment included as part of this rezoning request prohibits billboards, identifies uses to be prohibited on this site, and addresses lighting and drainage. This is a one acre lot located at the northwest corner, I think we have the right one, of Old State and Boonville-New Harmony Road. In December, 2007, the petition for rezoning of the properties adjacent north and west of this site was approved by this board, extending the C-4 zoning classification and the potential for commercial development east to Old State Road. With the approval of the adjacent land north and west, the rezoning of this one remaining corner lot on the north side of Boonville-New Harmony is consistent with the overall development plans. The Area Plan Commission recommended approval of the amended petition at their meeting on January 10^th with nine yes votes, zero no votes, and the one abstention.

President Korb: The petitioner’s attorney is here with us. State your name.

Chris Wischer: Good evening, Commissioners. Chris Wischer, Bamberger Foreman Oswald and Hahn, here on behalf of Habermel Investments, the petitioner on this rezoning. Are you all ready? This property is located at 12700 Old State Road, there at the corner of Old State Road and Boonville-New Harmony. As was previously explained, the property is pretty much what’s left on that block there at Boonville-New Harmony, between 41 and Old State. The property immediately to the west and north was rezoned in the last 60 days, leaving this small corner, which was not part of that. It’s under separate ownership, under ownership of Habermel Investments. We, with the petition to rezone C-4, we filed a use and development commitment. That use and development commitment mirrors the use and development commitment that was submitted with the previous rezoning of the adjoining property, in all respects, except two. That is, there was a limitation about access to Old State Road. The information we received from the Plan Commission is that the access to this property should be from Old State Road, and limited to Old State Road. So, we removed that limitation, as well as there was a limitation requiring buffers adjacent to residential property. This property, except for there’s a small residential piece directly across the street, there is no residential property that adjoins this property. So, that was removed. With that, I think this one’s pretty straight forward. Obviously, if there are any questions, or any remonstrators, I’m here to address any of those issues. As was stated, the Plan Commission did unanimously recommend this, and we ask for your approval.

President Korb: I’m just curious, what’s Mr. Habermel wanting to do with this?

Chris Wischer: Well, initially, when we filed the petition, his initial thought was he may move his own office into that location. That’s why it was originally filed as a CO-2. At that point, that property had not been rezoned around it. So, there would be a gap, and CO-2 seemed to make sense, but we didn’t feel comfortable going forward with C-4 at that point, until the property surrounding it, now, for development purposes, quite frankly, the property could be, you know, he sees it as a retail bank location, or some form of business location. Frankly, it makes most sense for that to be combined in some way with the adjoining property in the Schnuck’s development. Either Mr., either Habermel Investments would acquire some additional real estate from them, or he would sell to them. There has been some interest expressed, but until the rezoning, we think once the rezoning’s done, maybe we’ll approach them for that.

President Korb: Okay.

Commissioner Tornatta: Now, you said there was not an adjoining house or residence, are we not looking at an adjoining residence?

Chris Wischer: There are houses there, but now that that’s all been rezoned C-4, my expectation, those will be a part of that Schnuck’s development.

Commissioner Tornatta: That house has been rezoned?

Chris Wischer: Yes. Immediately to the west? Right. That’s the best map to see, everything in the purple is C-4. So, you can see, the only thing that’s left that’s not C-4 would be immediately south of that corner, but that’s the last piece.

President Korb: Can you use the little, red pointer?

Commissioner Tornatta: So, just for clarification–

Chris Wischer: Sure.

Commissioner Tornatta: –so, that property, what is it, west–

Commissioner Nix: That was part of what, Hahn came in?

Commissioner Tornatta: Now, does Hahn own that?

Commissioner Nix: I don’t know if he owns, I think that he does, because when he came through a month and a half ago, or whenever that was.

Commissioner Tornatta: Do you know?

Commissioner Nix: That was all carved out–

Commissioner Tornatta: Yeah.

Commissioner Nix: –as part of that.

Chris Wischer: Right.

Commissioner Tornatta: Hahn would own all that property in the purple, correct?

Chris Wischer: All of that is zoned C-4. This was zoned, I don’t know, two years ago, three years ago, some time ago. This was over here was zoned, I think, at that time or thereabouts. This was just rezoned in the last 60 days. This is the last piece of the puzzle for that, what would be that development. We believe, you know, if it could be worked out, that it would be ideal to be included in this, but it could be a stand alone business location as well.

President Korb: Okay. I’m sorry.

Commissioner Nix: Well, I’ll wait for questions. I’m sorry.

President Korb: Any remonstrators in the audience? Okay, questions from the Commissioners?

Commissioner Nix: Okay, now? Janet, you had mentioned a use and development commitment, can you repeat that for me, please?

Janet Greenwell: The use and development commitment that was filed with this, like Chris said, sort of mirrors what the Schnuck’s did, with the exception of a couple of things that he left out because it didn’t apply to this site.

Commissioner Nix: Okay.

Janet Greenwell: The buffering adjacent to residential, there is no residential left adjacent. I’m assuming that Schnuck’s will go forward once the land is transferred, and they’ll be tearing down all the houses, probably fairly soon. The access to Old State, this, as a stand alone lot, needs access, and Boonville-New Harmony is, was determined to be a much busier and less safe access. It would be too close to the intersection.

Commissioner Nix: Okay, okay. My concern, as always, is double standards for two properties that adjoin each other. We’ve had that situation come up recently, and I don’t think we ever need to go there again, so.

Chris Wischer: No, in fact, the purpose of filing the use and development commitment the way we did was to make it identical–

Commissioner Nix: Okay.

Chris Wischer: –in all respects. That’s why we amended the rezoning from CO-2 to C-4 was to make it identical and compatible so that the, you know, it would be a compatible use to the surrounding property. Certainly, if all the rest of the property is C-4, which is the highest commercial use, it has no utility as a residential property, at that point.

Commissioner Tornatta: Right, and then my question would be, would they fall under this same rule? Because, at one time, we went through the zoning, there was going to be one outlet on Old State Road. If they now have an outlet, now we’ve kind of let that whole project have two outlets. So, I guess, what my question is, if they were to go into an agreement with the rest of the properties, would they also agree to the condition of the rest of the property?

Chris Wischer: I would expect that to be the case. I mean, if the property becomes, if it becomes part of their development, it’s going to be out of our hands at that point. But, they made that commitment, and I would expect that that would be–

Commissioner Tornatta: Well, but if you, if we go into this agreement with giving you a cut off of that road–

Chris Wischer: Uh-huh.

Commissioner Tornatta: –then you would still have a cut off that road.

Chris Wischer: Right, and if there is no agreement, and there’s not been anything discussed to my, I was just basically giving a hypothetical of what we think this property would be used as. It’s a stand alone piece of property, and it has to have its own access. So–

Commissioner Nix: But, I guess, to go along with what Commissioner Tornatta is saying, is if, in fact, we approve this today, you’ve got an entrance off of Old State–

Chris Wischer: Yes.

Commissioner Nix: –and we’ve limited one entrance off of Old State already. If this piece of property is purchased as part of that bigger parcel that was rezoned last month, will we now have two entrances? I guess, that’s a concern I have too. That was a concern that the neighbors had out there originally, was that access be limited.

Chris Wischer: Right, and at this point, given that my client owns this property, and there’s nothing at all definite at all that it would be transferred, I think that’s right, at this point.

Commissioner Nix: But, that’s not any assurance to this board right now to make this approval today.

Chris Wischer: I can’t give you any assurance, I don’t think, at this point, that, from our perspective, if it stays under our ownership, we have to maintain an entrance on Old State, unless we could reach an agreement for ingress/egress access from there.

Commissioner Nix: I’m just wondering from a legal standpoint–

Commissioner Tornatta: We’re not worried as a separate entity–

Chris Wischer: Right. What I’m saying is–

Commissioner Tornatta: But, if it was transferred into the bigger unit, we do have an agreement with that unit.

Chris Wischer: Yes.

Commissioner Tornatta: So, I guess, the legal question is, is there a way to bind them to that in a use agreement? Or would that have to be done at a separate time? Or would they have to come back with that? Or how would that be accomplished?

President Korb: I think he was looking at you, Mr. Ziemer?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: And, I’m thinking, Mr. Korb. I think it could be in the use and development commitment that the, I mean, I know it could be in there that if the property is ever sold to the adjoining property owner, that in order to keep only one access on Old State Road, this access would no longer be available. But, it’s not in the use and development commitment today. Otherwise, if they’re permitted an access to Old State Road, they are.

Commissioner Tornatta: Well, and I think that that’s the one thing that we heard, limited access on Old State Road. If that were the big unit of which Mr. Hahn is working with Schnuck’s on, we only want one access. So, I guess, I would be more comfortable, I don’t have a problem with the project, I don’t have a problem throwing it into the mix. Don’t know if that’s something that would have to happen in the next week, two weeks, but I would be very comfortable to know that it’s in the use and development, if that were sold to the bigger unit, that, at that point they would not have access. So, they could not sell that with access in the interim as well.

Chris Wischer: Right.

Commissioner Nix: I think, one big issue, and I don’t know that you could even do it, unless, because the parcel is that small, but the entrance would have to be pretty far to the north anyway–

Chris Wischer: Yes.

Commissioner Nix: –just because of spacing–

Chris Wischer: It would have to.

Commissioner Nix: –and stuff off of the intersection. So, I mean, would your client be acceptable to agreeing to something to that nature? If, in fact, he is going to develop this as one parcel, I don’t think, it sounds to me like we’re pretty well in agreement that you have to have access to your property–

Chris Wischer: Right.

Commissioner Nix: –but, if he is, in fact, going to sell this as part of this bigger parcel, I just don’t think you need, we don’t need another entrance there. I mean, that was a big sticking point on the rezoning, on the prior rezoning–

Chris Wischer: Right.

Commissioner Nix: –for this bigger parcel there.

Chris Wischer: Right, right.

Commissioner Tornatta: We can hold this off, if you need to make a call to your client. Go to the next petition, and, if you have to come back and give us an answer. I don’t know why we couldn’t do that.

Chris Wischer: Well, why don’t I do that. I mean, let me, I think what ultimately, if, and I think it’s quite likely that he would be agreeable, but if he was we would have to postpone, I think. Am I right, Mr. Ziemer? That we would have to file a different use and development commitment?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I think so. We would have to change the use and development commission, commitment, you have to go back to Plan Commission.

Chris Wischer: So, I think, at this point, what I would suggest is that we table the matter and let me talk to my client about it, and amend the use and development commitment, if that’s what we agree to do.

Commissioner Nix: You do understand the concern, Mr. Wischer?

Chris Wischer: I do understand the concern.

Commissioner Nix: Okay.

Chris Wischer: And, it has crossed my mind, understandably, there’s, just from the standpoint of that access.

Commissioner Nix: I guess, the other thing that, a little bit of a concern that I have is that, let’s just say that he does develop this on his own, as a commercial, and there’s not curbs, or there’s not a hard surface, or there’s a way that somebody could cut through there and get back to Schnuck’s, that’s something that, a concern I have also is that, you know, they would be using this as an entrance. So, I think that that needs to be taken into consideration too.

Chris Wischer: And, you’re bringing those to our attention, we’ll certainly, I think, go back and consider that and find a way to address the issue. There’s no intent, understand, on the part of my client to circumvent that access issue.

Commissioner Tornatta: No.

Chris Wischer: That may have been raised in the last one.

Commissioner Tornatta: Right.

Chris Wischer: But, I understand that. We’ll, you know, I think we have some time, so, we’ll look into that.

Commissioner Tornatta: I mean, if that’s okay.

Chris Wischer: I don’t know how. I don’t think I can legally make it, even if he were agreeable, I can’t make a commitment here that would bind him to that on the record. So, it would be best if we amend the UDC, it would seem to me.

President Korb: By tabling this, Mr. Ziemer, do they incur any costs? We’re just tabling this as Commissioners, asking for clarification, is that correct?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I don’t know about additional costs. When they go back to Plan Commission, they don’t have to re-advertise do they?

Janet Greenwell: Yes.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Or, do they?

President Korb: That’s what I was saying by additional costs.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well, to change, that’s the only way you can change the use and development commitment.

Janet Greenwell: They would have to amend the petition. There’s an amendment fee of half the original fee. They would have to, it would have to be re-notified. They would have to re-notice all of the abutting property owners, and it would have to be reset for hearing by Plan Commission in the same form that you hear it for final hearing.

Commissioner Tornatta: Now, what’s the other way we could do this?

President Korb: I don’t think there is.

Chris Wischer: Okay, how about this? Let me–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I don’t know, we could do it by private covenant.

Chris Wischer: We could, I think. I mean, it’s not, but what I can do, if you’ll allow me, I will go see if I can catch my client, and discuss this with him, and if he’s willing to offer a private covenant to that effect, then I will commit to that–

Commissioner Tornatta: He’s watching.

Chris Wischer: I don’t know if he’s watching or not. He had some–

Commissioner Nix: He’s having dinner.

President Korb: He’s choking on the chicken he was eating.

Chris Wischer: –back trouble today, or he would have been here. He wanted me to apologize, and I forgot to do that on his behalf.

Commissioner Tornatta: That’s fine. If he can get me that, I’ll be satisfied.

Chris Wischer: But, then we could put that private covenant together and get that recorded and save all of the time and expense of going back through the process.

President Korb: That’s our goal.

Commissioner Tornatta: I’m agreeable.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Then, all we would be doing is putting this off until the next meeting of the Commissioners. You would have your private covenant by then.

Commissioner Tornatta: Or, if he finds out , oh, he would bring us back the private covenant?

President Korb: That’s why I’m asking if we can table it?

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, let’s table it.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: For that, yes.

Commissioner Tornatta: Then hear it on the 27^th, yeah.

Chris Wischer: Would we then come back at the next meeting?

President Korb: On the 29^th.

Chris Wischer: On the 29^th? That would be good.

President Korb: That way you don’t have to re-advertise it, and go to that extra expenditure.

Chris Wischer: I’m glad we talked this all out and found a way, but–

President Korb: You’re comfortable with that then, Mr. Wischer?

Chris Wischer: Yeah, I’m comfortable with that.

President Korb: Great.

Chris Wischer: We’ll come back at the next meeting with something to present to you at that time.

Commissioner Tornatta: Motion to table it until our next Commissioners meeting.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Korb: Discussion? A motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye.

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Korb: Opposed same sign.

Commissioner Nix: Thank you.

President Korb: The motion passes. We’ll see you on the 29^th.

Chris Wischer: Thank you.

President Korb: Thank you. Did I hear the tape? Do we have to redo the tape?

Madelyn Grayson: No, but we do need to approve the minutes from November 20th.

President Korb: Okay.

Commissioner Tornatta: Motion to approve minutes from November 20^th.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Korb: A motion has been made and seconded to approve the minutes of our past meeting. All those in favor say aye.

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Korb: Opposed same sign. Okay.

Janet Greenwell: Thank you, Madelyn.

Janet Greenwell: The next rezoning on your agenda is VC-16-2007. It’s the property behind 7801 Old State Road. Randall Johnston is requesting to rezone the property. It’s a 12 acre site located at the southeast corner of Eissler and Old State. The petition was heard November 8^th at Plan Commission, as a petition to rezone the 12 acre site from AG to R-3. It was recommended for denial, with one yes vote, eight no votes, and one abstention. Then it came back an amended on November 19^th and Mr. Johnston added a use and development commitment. I believe we have a signed copy of that in the record with both the owner and Mr. Johnston’s signature. So, that was a little issue that we were having a little trouble with. Not on this particular petition, I’m sorry. The new use and development commitment states that there will be single story condominium units with a density not to exceed 52. A copy of the document was included with our report. Mr. Johnston submitted the conceptual site plan that includes 14 multi-tenant condominium buildings. Site review and sub-review will address the access requirements upon submission of the plans. I know there was a lot of discussion about the access, but sub-review and site review will address the access adequately. The rezoning, it was brought up at the rezoning that there were a bunch of parcels that were illegally split, and that’s being taken care of through the subdivision process. It’s been filed, and it’s proceeding through to correct that issue also. The future land use map of the comprehensive plan does recommend this area for residential use. So, that the change to R-3 for the 12 acre site is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Plan Commission recommended approval of the amended petition, with the use and development commitment, at their meeting December 13^th with eight yes votes, zero no votes, and one abstention. I believe it was continued from last month’s meeting to straighten out some issues with the use commitment between the owner and the applicant. So, we’re back tonight with, hopefully, a final hearing.

President Korb: The petitioner representative is Krista Lockyear. Ms. Lockyear, welcome.

Krista Lockyear: Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the Commission. My name is Krista Lockyear of Rudolph Fine Porter and Johnson. I’m representing Randy Johnston, who is the petitioner on this property. I do want to point out that he is not the landowner. The illegal split that has been referenced, we really haven’t been involved in that. The landowner, it’s my understanding, has been proceeding to do that subdivision, and we’ve been kind of “hands off” on that. It doesn’t really involve our rezoning request. Randy is under option to buy this property. This rezoning is a contingency of that option. As Janet from Plan Commission pointed out, the history of this property, we had originally filed for R-3 without a use and development commitment. Remonstrators at the November hearing, in front of Plan Commission, greatly emphasized concerns about density. In fact, there were even signs posted out on the property, “stop the apartment buildings”. Mr. Johnston has developed several properties here in Evansville as condominium units. This is a consistent request with what he does, and we presented that. But, Plan Commission member pretty unanimously felt that, hey, let’s, in case Mr. Johnston himself doesn’t end up being the one in the end that develops this property, let’s restrict it to condominiums, protect those neighbors against the possibility of a hundred, 200 unit apartment complex out there, which we did do. So, we are in front of you with a petition to R-3 with a use and development commitment. The commitment does limit it to a density of 52 units, and they must be condominium units, not apartment units. The December Plan Commission, after we had presented that use and development commitment did recommend this for approval, a unanimous vote. While, I know we still have some remonstrators that aren’t happy about this, and they say that density was the main concern at that November 8^th meeting, or their November meeting. It was everything to, you know, turkeys crossing the road, and we just like this being a field, and the things that we understand neighbors are concerned about. Rightly so. What we’re trying to do, and what we’re asking you to approve is a zoning, with a use and development commitment that is good land use. The commitment limiting to 52 units fits in our plan. We actually had the engineer take a look at it, and we could probably do 40 single family residential, without the rezoning. So, we’re not increasing the density very much. If you look at the traffic patterns associated with condominiums versus single family residences, the condominium developments generally have fewer traffic trips per day, because of the demographics there being either, generally the younger without kids. You don’t have teenagers driving and additional cars in the family. Or, elderly folks that are downsizing, and don’t make too many trips during the day. So, given that 12 more units may be possible, the density factor here, as it affects traffic, is probably less than what could occur in a single family development. We ask for your approval. This is, as Janet pointed out, consistent with the comprehensive plan, the residential development. Condos in this community also have not had a negative impact. If you look at the developments that Mr. Johnston has done, and other condominium developers have developed, you know, they’re positive things. This community likes condominiums. They’ve been good for the areas that they’ve moved into. It’s new construction and that’s often times better than what may have currently been existing, and a positive thing for the community. Although we recognize neighbors don’t always feel that that’s the case at the moment. For all of those reasons, and based on the Area Plan Commission’s recommendation, we ask that you approve this ordinance, and rezone this property to the R-3 with a use and development commitment. Myself or Mr. Johnston are both here. We would be happy to address any comments. I know you have some people behind me that also want to speak.

President Korb: Well, do you want to, let’s hold off on questions. Is that okay, Ms. Lockyear?

Krista Lockyear: Of course.

President Korb: That’s great. I know we’ve got remonstrators. One of them was the one who was just throwing us bouquets, not ten minutes ago. So, what I would like to do, to be fair, let’s just limit it to 15 minutes. So, get your heads together, speak concisely and clearly, and when 15 minutes is up, we’re going to pull the plug and go back to allowing us to ask questions to both remonstrators and also to the petitioner. So, whoever starts at the microphone first, your 15 minutes starts then.

Nancy Laswell: Hello.

President Korb: Hi.

Nancy Laswell: My name is Nancy Laswell.

Bill Mattingly: Bill Mattingly.

Nancy Laswell: Right here we’re going to base this on a reading from the County Commissioners from December 21^st of ‘87. The reason being, it was when the petitioner, Garrison, he was wanting to develop that land out there. If you look up on the County records, the weight on the bridge is just six tons.

Bill Mattingly: It’s on page four.

President Korb: Okay.

Bill Mattingly: A regular service truck, a van service truck, I drive one, it weighs 11,000 pounds. I mean, I’m just a thousand pounds less than what the bridge is rated. So, you have trash trucks, you have concrete trucks, you have tri-axles and stuff going down that road all the time. The bridge did have six ton limit signs on it, and they disappeared over the years.

President Korb: Can you, do you have the pointer there? The laser deal? Can you point out where that bridge is located on the map, please? Right about there?

Nancy Laswell: Uh-huh.

President Korb: Okay, great. Thanks.

Nancy Laswell: It’s right off of Old State.

President Korb: Okay.

Nancy Laswell: It’s barely off Old State.

Bill Mattingly: Then also you’ve got school busses that are traveling down that road now on a six ton bridge.

Nancy Laswell: We’re also concerned about the existing sewer in the area. It was a 12 inch sewer. It’s an eight inch sewer with a culminating access of 400 homes, and this is a 12 inch sewer. There are no problems that I know of. It’s a new sewer run into cap and replaced sewage treatment plants in the Evergreen Acres Subdivision, approximately 12 years ago.

Bill Mattingly: This was said by Mr. Morley in ‘87. I guess, that was approximately 300 houses from Evergreen Acres, and then they’ve added to that sewer 25 houses up Old State Road, they put the Villas on it, the new Buck subdivision, another 35 houses, and, I believe, they tied the Jagoe homes which were a hundred houses or so back there. There’s illegal sewer tap on the property now that will have to be taken care of if this is done, and that will mean an extension of the sewer up Old State Road, which I’m sure the county or city will do, and that’s another ten or so houses that will probably tap on to it there. Then you’ll have the 52 condos, I guess, you’re pushing close to 600 houses on that sewer there, plus whatever development is into it down below that (Inaudible) progresses.

Nancy Laswell: That’s all on page seven. Also on page seven President Borries, at the time, he stated that on the Evansville-Urban Transportation Study report they mentioned that EUTS had evaluated the proposed subdivision, phase one, for transportation impacts. The proposed development along a long and narrow road which measures the pavement width at 17 feet. The site plans provided for the extension of Forest Trail and Fox Run Drive to the north for streets that tie into future development. EUTS recommends that the developer participate in the widening of Eissler Road to provide a minimum 20 feet wide pavement to accommodate increased traffic resulting from the proposed development. This improvement is for between Old State Road and the proposed development of approximately 800 feet in length.

Bill Mattingly: The 800 feet is from Old State Road, right there, to the yellow line–

Nancy Laswell: Right there?

Bill Mattingly: – well, back up just a little bit. The end of the development that we’re talking about tonight.

Nancy Laswell: Oh, right there.

Bill Mattingly: Approximately 800 feet.

President Korb: So, their suggestion was to have the developer, back in ‘87, make that road wider?

Nancy Laswell: Uh-huh.

President Korb: Okay.

Bill Mattingly: Right. Right. That was all with Garrison, that Mr. Borries was talking to him about.

Nancy Laswell: Then, Mr. Willner, down at the bottom of the page,;

“I’m going to work hard toward widening the road. I’m sure that Mr. Borries intends to do the same thing. The fact is, I would like to see the County Highway at least do the work, and maybe the developer can participate in the material needs.”

Bill Mattingly: This was all put together before The Villas, and before Jagoe Homes in the back, it was all supposed to be done before that. That was part of our problem with the traffic on Old State, or on Eissler Road. Yesterday morning was really bad, because nobody can get up Strawberry Hill, so they’re all going out Eissler Road, you know, of the 400 houses that are back there, or 400 or more. What was supposed to happen in that subdivision of Garrison’s, there was supposed to be two roads go through to Mt. Pleasant Road, which would relieve the traffic, plus the widening of Eissler Road to take care of it. Since he defaulted, then it didn’t get done, and then somebody built The Villas and it didn’t get done, then they built the Jagoe and none of this got done.

Nancy Laswell: This one would be directly, you know, right on to there. But, the next page there, Mr. Garrison said;

“We would like to see Eissler Road widened. We realize that is an enhancement to us, and would be an enhancement to the neighborhood.”

I don’t know, it just needs to, they need to take that into account. Then, Mr. Willner, on page nine:

“Move that ordinance number VC-23-87 be approved with the following stipulations that have been set here tonight, and have asked the developer to work with the County and any other areas of problems that we know of to work through with us.”

Bill Mattingly: And none of that was ever done, and they’ve already built two complexes out in there, and it still hasn’t been done. Now we’re going to build another one right in the section of the road that they approved that all this would have to be done in ‘87 before they could even build the other two developments, and now we’ve built another development and still haven’t done anything with the bridge or the road. We feel like, I mean, we had 400 signatures on this against R-3, and that should mean something to you for the amount of people that are against this. It seems like you should be listening to us. I know the first meeting they threw this thing out, it was almost unanimous in favor of us, then the next time with this commitment, I mean, I know you’re thinking 52 units really helped the matter, but he does stipulate in there that he can rent them, and that could mean apartments, you know. It doesn’t necessarily have to be condos, it could be apartments.

Commissioner Tornatta: I have a question. What, would there be something you would be comfortable with back in that area?

Bill Mattingly: Single family dwellings, because that’s what’s in the whole area.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay.

Bill Mattingly: We would be comfortable with that.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, and just trying to go a little further, do you consider a condo a single family dwelling?

Bill Mattingly: Not when they’re attached. It could be apartments too. I mean, he could rent every one of them, if he wanted to.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay.

Bill Mattingly: In his commitment. It could be apartments.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay.

Bill Mattingly: You know, we don’t really know, you know, I mean, but that’s what it could be.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay.

President Korb: Would you be asking for the same sort of improvements, road-wise and bridge-wise, if this was a single unit, single family units being built?

Bill Mattingly: That should have been done a long time ago.

President Korb: That’s not my question.

Bill Mattingly: Okay. What was your question then?

President Korb: Would you still be insisting on the road improvements and the bridge improvements if this was sold to a developer who was building 42 units, or 40 units of single family homes?

Bill Mattingly: Yes, we will, because that’s what was approved in ‘87.

President Korb: Okay.

Bill Mattingly: They said they were going to do that.

President Korb: Okay.

Nancy Laswell: And, basically, at that time, those were all, you know, single family, whether it was in a subdivision, or, you know, or not.

President Korb: Uh-huh.

Nancy Laswell: And, you know, obviously, that bridge really needs some work done if they’re going to have that much more traffic going across it.

President Korb: Okay. Anybody else?

Janice Wittgen: Yes.

Bill Mattingly: Thanks.

President Korb: Yep, you’re welcome. Thank you.

Janice Wittgen: I don’t have any statistics, and I’m not an attorney or anything like that.

Commissioner Tornatta: Name.

Janice Wittgen: But, one thing–

Commissioner Tornatta: Name.

Janice Wittgen: Oh, I’m Janice Wittgen.

Commissioner Tornatta: I know, we gotta do it, though. Part of the meeting, sorry.

Janice Wittgen: I’m sorry. Alright, the one thing that they keep saying this is inconsistent with planning and stuff. Now, I know that all of you probably have been out there. Do you see any condos very close? All those are homes. R-1, we wouldn’t be upset about. R-3 is not what we want out there. Another thing, the thing where they are talking about the roads. It doesn’t matter if you have a bunch of single homes, or whatever, you will have, you need to do something about that road, because it’s tight out there. You people don’t live out there. We do. So, I, you know, let’s see if we can come to some kind of an agreement where we can all live together out there. Okay? Thank you.

President Korb: You’re okay on time. I’m not going to pull the hook on you.

John Hendricks: Okay, I’m John Hendricks. Thank you for letting us speak. In high school I had a teacher who informed his class that we should never tell our doctor what’s wrong with our body, because the power of suggestion. Regardless of how much, how intelligent he is, how much education or experience, professionalism, he could be swayed by the power of suggestion. There are two assumptions here that I’ve heard again and again that this property is not developed. So, it should be developed. It’s a mind set. That’s similar to somebody in the 1800's saying there’s a field of buffalo, shoot them and skin them. Somebody needs to say, hey, wait a second, you know, there’s something else to think about. The reason this is not developed, and this land is, is because there’s something inherently difficult about that land. Okay? It’s a lower level, right here, than our house, right there. If they put this in, it’s going to be two feet higher than our property, which is already below the flood plain right here. It’s right through here. So, all this water that comes down here, you know, you can say it’s going to come down here, but it’s going to have to stop, and it’s going to back up. That flood we had a few years ago was right into our house. That’s a consideration. There’s two things, now, I’ve gotten off my notes, sorry. The idea of investments is one assumption. My wife and I are in the antique and collectible business, and, if we buy something for an investment, and we’ve made a mistake, it’s just too bad. We lose. The owner of this property bought this as an investment idea, but it turned out to be a little less of an investment than some of this other land that they could have gotten. Let’s see, okay, this land has a purpose, and, you know, as a natural thing for slowing water down and filtering it. That’s a possibility. Then there’s an alternative that I’ve brought up to several people, and most of them are very positive. That’s if the 400 people that are opposed to this could get together and buy this property, and I’ve talked to the landowner, and she’s favorable to it. She just wants to sell it, so she can be out from underneath the taxes and the upkeep, along with the mowing that has to go on. But, we could buy that and develop it into a wetland, natural preserve. That’s a possibility. It would take care of the flooding that has been a result with water run off. That would take care of problems, if we could do that. Okay? I don’t know, I don’t want to put Mr. Johnston on the spot, but I was wondering if you’ve been provided with the pictures from the Area Planning Committee of his rental properties?

President Korb: I’ve seen those.

John Hendricks: Okay.

President Korb: I doubt that the other Commissioners have.

John Hendricks: Okay, I don’t want to describe them, but it’s pretty horrific. If he rents properties here, we don’t want to see that kind of stuff right across our street. I think those pictures demonstrate that Mr. Johnston has not been a proper developer, or citizen. I don’t want to make him feel bad, but I don’t want him doing that to this property too. Okay? The pictures are worth a thousand words. Alright? So, I urge you to vote no on this, because if he rents properties here, and there’s a good chance he’ll have to, because things are not selling very well right now. He has committed to having the right to rent them. I don’t blame him, but if you’ll stop this rezoning, I will devote myself to organizing, a banker said we could start a non-profit and we could get together with the owners, and I think we could build this and develop it into a natural preserve for all these people to come out here and take walks through the woods. We can get trees and shrubs and things from the state nursery. We’ve brought hundreds of things to develop our land and some land we have in Perry County with some things. So, I would appreciate it if you would turn him down on that. If the Commissioners haven’t seen the pictures, they probably should, because it’s just not right.

President Korb: Do we need to switch the tapes? Okay, hang on one second. Thank you.

(Tape change)

President Korb: Any other remonstrators? I’m going to give you a couple of extra minutes, just because we were, as Commissioners, asked questions, and we weren’t really supposed to do that. We cheated. Are you coming up as a remonstrator? Okay. You know, remonstrator has such a bad connotation to it.

Commissioner Nix: It’s kind of like a politician.

President Korb: It does, a whole lot like a politician. State your name please.

Anne Vaughn: Anne Vaughn. I live at 7616 Rock Creek Lane. That’s right on the edge of that division. Right in there somewhere.

President Korb: It’s not as easy to hold that thing steady as it looks, is it?

Anne Vaughn: No, it isn’t. I just want to mention that there have been a lot of drainage problems. We live right along there. It was a flood zone before, but they supposedly raised it. But, the area behind us is still a flood zone. If they raise up that level, then where is all that water going to go? We already have issues with the drainage ditch behind our house, down the way. There was a lady who last week, Ms. St. Claire, and her drainage ditch is already eroding, and the county won’t take care of it because they say it’s her property. But, it’s eroding because the subdivision up the way here, in The Villas, they have a retention pond with a big pipe that drains under the road and drains into our drainage ditch. So, we’re getting the run off from other areas too that weren’t originally there. Also, back in the area back in here, when I went to get petitions, and like they said, we had quite a few petitions, I don’t think I had anybody that refused to sign it. Everybody that I talked to signed the petition that they did not want this. I may have had maybe two from the same household. Most of them were individual households, just one from a household. Several of those people said they had flooding in their street every time it rained. It wasn’t just the 100 year flood, it was like every year. They couldn’t get in their driveway. One guy said he had to take a boat to get in his driveway at the end of one of these subdivisions back in here somewhere. It’s all because of the low drainage. If you build that up, this is going to put more water and drainage on our system that we can’t really handle. Another thing, a lady back here said that when she built, she wanted to have access on her driveway to go out to Eissler, and she was told she couldn’t do it because there were already too many outlets on Eissler. But, yet, now we’re going to have this whole division, this whole complex here have an outlet on there. It’s very difficult to get out on Eissler in the mornings too, the way it is without these other ones. I know they say they’re condos, I guess, I’m old, but, to me those are just duplexes. They’re double family houses. That’s not what this area’s about. It’s all single family houses, and we really don’t want a big, rental property, you know, 26 things that look exactly alike in our backyard. I do think it will hurt our property value.

Commissioner Tornatta: Let me, this has been brought up a couple of times, this would go through drainage review, if it got that far, and they would go through a site review and all these different facets. So, although there are some drainage problems, maybe in some other areas, this would be the new drainage plan for this area, if that were developed in that way. So, that would accommodate what the drainage flow is, at this time.

Anne Vaughn: Okay, I just want to say that when the....oops, it’s not up there anymore, but that subdivision that was. I think it’s called The Villas.

President Korb: If only it were that easy.

Anne Vaughn: I’m sorry. I’m sorry, The Villas, no, maybe that’s The Villas.

Unidentified: No.

Anne Vaughn: No, there?

Unidentified: No, you were right.

Anne Vaughn: I was right? Okay, The Villas. Sorry. There, okay, The Villas, when they were put in, it went through the Drainage Board and all that, my husband and I had to go to that Drainage Board meeting because, like I said, that retention pond from that area, despite what they said they were going to take care of, we ended up getting a lot of flooding. The person down here, Chapman, he doesn’t live there anymore, whoops, over here, his basement would get flooded out, it would just come pouring from, there’s a creek that runs through there. There’s a creek that runs through there somewhere, and it would flood and just flood right into his back door, into his basement every time it would rain. So, they did build a bigger bridge down there, but the point is, you know, they always say they’re going to take care of these things, yet, they really didn’t. We had to have some, and the Hayden’s, that live down in here, we had, in their backyard, a bell shaped pipe, I don’t know the terms, I’m sorry, but a bell shaped thing to, the storm sewer, because it would come down that culvert behind our house so fast, the drainage ditch, that it would knock the top off it and go, and all that water would go down into that pipe and come into our houses. So, I know you’re saying that, I’m just saying I wish I had more faith that that was actually going to happen.

Commissioner Tornatta: I understand.

Bill Mattingly: Can I help her out just a little bit here?

Anne Vaughn: Yes, I’m sorry, I’m not a public speaker.

President Korb: You’ve got less than 30 seconds.

Bill Mattingly: Okay, I’m a quick pointer. Before this was developed and this was developed, Carson’s owned all that ground right there. And all of that water came down to Eissler Road, an inlet right down Eissler Road took it, this ditch right here. When they built this, they crossed the road with the water she’s talking about and came down through here with it. Originally, all of this where the Carson estate was, where Deerfield and all of that, all drained right down through here, right down Eissler Road through the ditches at Eissler Road and went in the big ditch right here and came down. That’s what she’s complaining about. That never was there until they built The Villas.

President Korb: Okay. Thanks. Alright, now it’s time for the Commissioners to ask questions of whoever you want to ask it to.

Commissioner Nix: I guess, if someone from the neighborhood would be a spokesperson, I do have, just to re-emphasize, you have no problem with single family at all? In other words, if someone came to this Commission and said we want to put up 80, or 90, or 100 homes there, as long at it fit within.....well, now, but, but....well, how many could they develop in this?

Commissioner Tornatta: She said somewhere around 40.

Janice Wittgen: (Inaudible) acres, about 40, yes.

Commissioner Nix: About 40? Okay, 40 homes then. The neighborhood wouldn’t have a problem with that?

President Korb: Would that be about right? I know–

Janice Wittgen: There’s 50 in The Villas. About 50.

Madelyn Grayson: Mrs. Wittgen?

Janice Wittgen: Yes?

Madelyn Grayson: You’re going to have to come to the microphone.

Commissioner Nix: Please step up, yeah.

Janice Wittgen: Oh, okay. There’s about–

Commissioner Nix: Hold, hold, wait.

Commissioner Tornatta: To the microphone.

Janice Wittgen: My name is Janice Wittgen. Anyway–

Commissioner Tornatta: You’re learning.

Janice Wittgen: –The Villas there, there’s about 50 of them. Now, I will tell you this, we also, those ponds get the drainage, we also get it from the Deerfield Estates, Dentino is developing that. That comes down in through those pipes, I mean, we get it all. We sometimes have flooding in the streets. So, it’s not just The Villas that is causing it, I mean, you just get, you just have a lot of drainage out there. That used to be farmland and everything, so.

Commissioner Nix: And, once again, like Commissioner Tornatta–

Janice Wittgen: Yeah, you asked about the 80–

Commissioner Nix: –yeah, 42 homes, you would have no problem with 42 homes out there?

Janice Wittgen: No.

Commissioner Nix: Slab homes or whatever could be–

Janice Wittgen: But, what are you going to do about the street?

Commissioner Nix: Well, and, once again, that’s not this board’s decision.

Janice Wittgen: Oh?

Commissioner Nix: This board’s decision is strictly rezoning. The Drainage issues is this board, but another meeting, streets all that type of thing are a completely other meeting.

Janice Wittgen: Oh, okay.

Commissioner Nix: You can’t really mix them together.

Janice Wittgen: Okay, well.

Commissioner Nix: I guess, for Mrs. Lockyear, or Mr. Johnston, planned entrances, where are you, I know we saw somewhat of a sketch of like a preliminary layout. One off of Old State, and one or two off of Eissler?

Krista Lockyear: That sketch is as conceptual as you can get. What we did in the use and development commitment, limiting to 52 units is set in stone, if this is approved. This sketch could be shifted all around, and I did want to address that, you know, the remonstrators have talked about the 1987 zonings or subdivisions, I’m not sure exactly what that was, but John Stoll and Brad Mills, MPO, have both looked at this and said, you know, when we start to talk about entrances, we want input and will have input at site review. So, we don’t know where the entrances will be, and it’s going to be input from John and Brad as to where they believe that they should go.

Commissioner Nix: But, you feel like you’re going to need more than one entrance, and that one or more entrances would be on Eissler, is that correct?

Krista Lockyear: I can’t tell you that we even feel like that. I mean, it’s going to be very dependent upon John and Brad’s recommendations. I’ll tell you, what John said was access points for the buildings, if we go with this conceptual plan, will need additional evaluation in order to determine if it can relocated on to Eissler. That would be re-evaluated when a detailed site plan is submitted for review. MPO comments that access to the buildings at the corner of Old State and Eissler should be from Eissler Road, if the access will not conflict with the bridge approach on Eissler. So, I think there’s a lot of planning, exactly where that would be located, and discussion between Randy’s engineers and John and Brad.

Commissioner Nix: Okay, and, Janet, if, I should know this and I don’t. I’ve been at it for three years now, a little over three years, do we allow, in R-3 do we allow condominium owners to rent? Or is that, is that something that, because I should know that and I don’t.

Janet Greenwell: I don’t believe that it is a land use issue. The issue is whether they can build structures, units, single family homes, whatever they are, the issue of whether it’s purchased, leased–

Commissioner Nix: Yeah, because theoretically a home could be leased–

Commissioner Tornatta: Right.

Commissioner Nix: –just like a condominium is.

Janet Greenwell: Absolutely. Any one of the homes in the adjoining subdivisions could be leased.

President Korb: And that question was asked at the last Area Planning Commission, and I forget who the individual was, Mr. Jeffers brought the point up, anyway you own a home and “x” amount of corner, and Mr. Jeffers asked do you live there, and he said the respondent said no. The next question was do you rent, and the answer was yes.

Janet Greenwell: Directly across, it was one of the homes directly across Eissler.

President Korb: Yeah, okay.

Unidentified: (Inaudible).

President Korb: Not yet. Sorry. Hang on. I would like, I’ve got some questions for Ms. Lockyear, please. At the Area Plan there was some concern, maybe lack of communication between Mr. Johnston and the neighbors, has that been rectified? Have you reached out to the neighborhood at all? No?

Krista Lockyear: No, we have not had further communication with the neighbors. Things got a little hostile, and from my client’s point of view the recommendations and the discussion of Plan Commission members was condominiums are–

President Korb: Appropriate.

Krista Lockyear: –acceptable to the Commission members. The other debates and discussions and name callings didn’t really seem like the way to go. So, we have not had other discussions with the neighbors, and the restriction to the condominium is about the best we can do from a legal point of view in a use and development commitment. Anything else, I believe, has to be, a lot of things seem a lot worse before it actually happens. I don’t know if these neighbors have actually driven and seen Mr. Johnston’s other condominium developments. You know, again, we could probably talk and argue for hours, but we have not had any other discussions.

President Korb: Sure.

Commissioner Nix: I’m just curious, between the first meeting and the second, was there any participation from the neighborhood as far as things that took place, or was this all basically volunteered by the developer to do these things?

Krista Lockyear: Well, volunteered by the developer based on the discussions of the Plan Commission.

Commissioner Nix: But, the neighborhood didn’t say we want to see these things and we’d be okay with it? As far as you know?

Krista Lockyear: No. At the Plan Commission, the neighborhood, the density was the predominant concern. Now, again, as you’ve heard tonight, there’s drainage, there’s road, a lot of emphasis on the road. There was an emphasis on wildlife, a lot of other things that as a developer, and as an attorney, quite frankly, in a use and development commitment, there are things that lend themselves to we can put that in the use and development commitment, and it was the use.

President Korb: Obviously, since you’re here, everything has been ironed out between Mr. Johnston and the property owner in terms of conditions?

Krista Lockyear: That’s correct. We are not under purchase agreement, we have an option.

President Korb: Okay.

Krista Lockyear: And this rezoning is a condition of our exercise of that option.

President Korb: Okay. Then, is your client prepared to, if this is not approved tonight, to potentially develop single family dwellings and build them in that area? That’s a hypothetical question. I mean–

Krista Lockyear: Not prepared, at this point.

President Korb: Okay.

Krista Lockyear: You know, I don’t know, again, you know, my relationship with Randy over the past several years, it’s all been condominium development.

President Korb: Okay.

Krista Lockyear: That’s his concentration right now.

President Korb: The approximate cost of these units as you’re selling them on the market would be?

Krista Lockyear: The initial price would be $130,000. Typically, a purchaser could come in and say I would like an upgrade granted, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

President Korb: Sure.

Krista Lockyear: There’s definitely room for fluctuation there.

President Korb: Average cost of the current dwelling in those neighborhoods? Ball park?

Krista Lockyear: I don’t have–

President Korb: Audience? 150,000, 170,000, 125,000?

Janice Wittgen: Well, I know there was one of them that went for 180 something.

President Korb: Is that probably on the high side though?

Janice Wittgen: Yeah.

President Korb: Okay.

Janice Wittgen: Most of the time you’re in the 160,000, yeah 150,000 to 160,000.

President Korb: 150,000 to 160,000 range? Okay.

Janice Wittgen: Right now, because of the market.

President Korb: You guys can jump in with questions any time.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, of the remonstrators, where’s our Ms. Witten?

Janice Wittgen: Wittgen.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay.

President Korb: W-i-t-t-g-e-n.

Commissioner Tornatta: I’m just, I know. It’s a bad mix.

Janice Wittgen: Yes, Mr. Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, thank you. You said it right. One more time, we’ve talked about, they’re talking about this condo situation versus a single family house. If there were people that would buy the condos, that still, to you, is outside of what you want to see in this development? Or what the group, I guess?

Janice Wittgen: I guess, the whole thing is that it’s just, it does not fit in that neighborhood, condominiums. I mean, I don’t care. I mean, you don’t see any. The further, the closest condominium is over there on Petersburg Road on the lot that I grew up on from the time I was three to ten years old. They were put in there by Jeff Hatfield. He’s got one unit there, I think there’s two units there, and he’s going to put up another one. Now, that’s quite a ways, it’s right across from Hamilton Golf Course. But, if you look at the area, I just don’t see where condominium is the thing. Granted, the renting, there was houses a couple that were rented in The Villas, there isn’t anything wrong with renting. You know, but, I think it’s just the idea of, I don’t know, condominiums. It’s just not the area, and then the tightness, you don’t, I mean, we’re not talking just The Villas, and what he wants to develop. You go down the road you’ve got that Woodland back there, or the Sterchi thing, and the Strawberry Hill, like you say, sometime they have to come down Eissler because Strawberry Hill is a booger to try to get up on ice.

Commissioner Tornatta: Right.

Janice Wittgen: So, I mean, that’s the whole thing.

Commissioner Tornatta: Mr. Johnston, is this kind of indicative of what that condo would look like?

Janice Wittgen: I’ve seen his condos–

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay.

Janice Wittgen:–over there on Burkhardt Road. I mean, there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just they don’t fit in our neighborhood. I mean, you’ve got to do something about the road, and then if you want to develop it. Why is it you always wait till the horse is out, and then you come and want to close the barn door? It’s happened several times here in development. Excuse the farm, but, I grew up on a farm.

Commissioner Tornatta: Right. Okay, now, let me ask this question, if the road were fit to the specifications that you’re telling me, the width and what have you, do we change our mind?

Janice Wittgen: Most likely we probably would where you’d make it safe where people could move and not worry about, and then your entrances and stuff. You know, your access or whatever you call it coming out onto the road. Because, I mean, that’s tight along there. You know that, you’ve been there.

Commissioner Tornatta: Sure.

Janice Wittgen: So, think about it, guys.

Commissioner Tornatta: What, I mean, just narrowing down where our discrepancies are, where our differences are, does the group, and you can turn around and phone a friend, does the group feel like it’s more of a road issue if they’re only dealing with condos and single family housing more than it is the traffic or any of the above mentioned things?

Janice Wittgen: Okay, before I look around there, I want to know R-1 can he still put a condo in there? R-1 zoning can he put a condominiums in there?

Krista Lockyear: Sure.

Janice Wittgen: Can he?

Janet Greenwell: I can answer that question for you.

Janice Wittgen: Thank you.

Janet Greenwell: The concept of condominiums is that a landowner owns the land and sells the buildings that sit on the land, but maintains ownership of the land. Technically, it would have to platted into individual lots, and then those lots, to build single family homes, it would have to be one house, one lot, and those lots would have to be subdivided and sold off individually.

Janice Wittgen: Yeah, well, I think the whole thing too is the R-3. You know, someday he may not be around, you know. Or, say that he doesn’t get those all sold, what are you going to do? You know, I mean, there’s stuff sitting around here in the city. But, anyway, we would prefer single family, R-1 zoning please, or leave it agriculture.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, okay. Thank you.

Janice Wittgen: Thank you very much for listening.

Commissioner Tornatta: Can this gentleman speak? Go ahead, come on up.

President Korb: Pretend to ask him a question, Commissioner Tornatta.

Commissioner Tornatta: Can you speak?

John Spurgeon: Yes.

President Korb: There you go. Works for me.

John Spurgeon: My name is John Spurgeon. I live in The Villas of Deerfield.

President Korb: Thank you.

John Spurgeon: I don’t know how this works, but–

President Korb: Just like that.

John Spurgeon: I live right there.

President Korb: Okay. On the corner?

John Spurgeon: On the corner.

President Korb: Okay.

John Spurgeon: I think it’s not just one issue, it’s a number of issues. One of which has not been mentioned and that’s right, that intersection right there is very dangerous. In the last three months there’s been two wrecks there. I don’t know the, I know because both times I tried to get out or get in, and you can’t. That typifies one of the major problems that we have out there, density of population and only two entrances. Three if you come over to the Bob Court area, then you can add Bob Court entrance, but you can’t get there over to our area. So, it’s, this is Bob Court, I think, in here, you can’t get from there over to here. There’s no street that connects. So, we live back in here and all these people, most of them come out this road in the morning, and come back in the evening. It’s a number of school busses, and it’s also, occasionally, sadly, the McCutchan Fire Department rescue people that are coming with their three or four vehicles to help someone who has been stricken with a heart attack or some other ailment. That further congests this and people can’t get out then either because of those rescue vehicles. It’s, if something seriously happens out in this area, a serious storm or something else that’s of a terrible nature, there’s going to be a lot of people wanting to get out and go somewhere else, and they’re not going to be able to. Now, I moved there, I bought a house there knowing that, or now know it, so, I’m to blame for that congestion, I recognize that. But, it doesn’t minimize the importance of the problem. You are elected officials, and you have to accept that responsibility for adding to that congestion, if you choose to do so. So, I’m asking you to think about that seriously. One last comment about are we just against multi-family, and would we be against single family homes? Well, the Buck, the new Buck thing is right up in here off of the chart. Buckingham Estates, I think is what he’s calling it. It accesses off of Old State Road. I think it’s 36 homes he’s going to build back there. Nobody raised a peep about it from our neighborhood. No pickets out in front during the construction. We haven’t said a remark about adding to our neighborhood with single family homes. I think that testifies to the fact that we don’t have anything wrong with that.

President Korb: Which is the confusing part to me, because the main complaints that I’m hearing are traffic–

John Spurgeon: Yes.

President Korb: –safety–

John Spurgeon: Yes.

President Korb: –congestion–

John Spurgeon: Yes.

President Korb: –bridge safety.

John Spurgeon: Drainage.

President Korb: And drainage. Okay, I mean, I’m sure there are other things.

John Spurgeon: Uh-huh.

President Korb: If I remember correctly, you’re the gentleman who came with the wildlife?

John Spurgeon: I was the tree hugger, yeah.

President Korb: The tree hugger.

Commissioner Nix: I was glad you said that and not him.

President Korb: I was getting ready to. No, I didn’t want to get sued. I’m learning. See, this is a process for me.

John Spurgeon: Yeah.

President Korb: But, if this is denied for Mr. Johnston, and another person comes in and buys this and develops it, you’re still going to have traffic, congestion, safety, drainage, the bridge issue.

John Spurgeon: That’s true, but we won’t have as much.

President Korb: Yeah, you will.

John Spurgeon: We’ll have 42 homes, although I don’t think any reasonable developer is going to get 42 homes on that plot of land. This out here is about, maybe two–

President Korb: Okay.

John Spurgeon: –frontage on Old State, two. If they’re the same lottage as the house right here, maybe one. That’s a big plot of land there. If someone wants to buy that and build a nice, big home on it, they may buy the whole plot, but, two at most there. This, nothing, that’s the creek. Maybe six along there, and maybe two or three there.

President Korb: But, the reality of it is, a developer could come in and plop down 40 homes. I mean, you and I, within reason, go, oh, there’s no way you can put a home there. A developer can do it. They’ll find a way to do it. We’re looking at, if you’re looking at, in my opinion, as we’re looking at this, we’re not looking at that many more vehicles with the process of a single home versus a condominium. My personal experience with this, and I told this to the remonstrators when they came to Area Plan, I had the exact same thing happen to my neighborhood. I totally freaked out, because I’m thinking, oh, my gosh, I don’t want condos in my neighborhood. And, it’s actually worked out better for us. They came in higher than 130, it’s enhanced property values. I’m not saying that would happen here. The other question I have is, the comment was made that there is, if this does not work, there would be a petition by the neighbors to purchase the land themselves. Then who pays the taxes? How is that assessed?

John Spurgeon: That was Mr. Hendricks.

President Korb: Yeah, I know, but, you’re part of the neighborhood, so.

Commissioner Tornatta: Well, they could form a neighborhood association, if they wanted to do that, and they would take care of it all.

President Korb: I totally get that part, but, here’s my thinking on that, if the seller of the land is really desiring to get out from underneath this, it’s not worked out the way he or she planned, then we’re going to come back here at some point in time and really be viewing the exact same arguments. I’m sorry, to me, you can’t differentiate, I know you can, because you don’t really think the condos fit there, but in terms of safety, traffic, bridge, all those things that are concerns of yours, in my mind don’t change, because we’re not adding, “A”, that many more cars. Actually, my experience with condominiums, at least in my neighborhood, has been that traffic is less, you have people who are not there six months out of the year. So, that’s my concern, because, I’m thinking, you’re really punishing the developer for something that could potentially go in there anyway, which is single family homes. That’s my biggest argument. That’s the biggest problem I’m having with sifting the difference between condominiums, which they potentially could rent, except for the fact that we’ve already determined at least one of those residences is being rented right now, and I would be willing to bet ya’ everything I own there’s more than that one that’s in that neighborhood, and all those neighborhoods we’ve talked about, that are being leased. So, do you see where I’m coming from? You may not see where I’m coming from on this, but I’m trying to, in my mind, have this make sense. Right now, it kind of isn’t.

John Spurgeon: I don’t understand your–

President Korb: You’re talking about how many condos, 42?

Unidentified: No, 52.

President Korb: 52? So, you’re talking about potentially 24 more vehicles in the neighborhood, if each of those condos has two vehicles. I’m going, well, now, wait a minute, Mr. Buck is adding potentially 72 more vehicles, and you’re not complaining about that.

John Spurgeon: But, that accesses off of Old State Road.

President Korb: And, I totally understand that, but, at the same time, you can’t tell me those people will never come down and use your roads and that bridge.

John Spurgeon: I don’t, if they wanted to come to a Saturday morning garage sale, I guess. But, no reason to do it other than something casual or personal like that.

President Korb: Okay.

John Spurgeon: Not to go to school, or work. There aren’t any work places back there or schools back there that they have to go to. I still question the density of single family residences that’s possible there, but, I’ll close my remarks. You’ve been patient with me, and I appreciate it.

President Korb: Not a problem.

John Spurgeon: The quality of living is important to us, and that’s what we’re talking about too. I thank you for hearing us.

President Korb: Ms. Lockyear, how many more additional entrances and egresses will you have out of there?

Commissioner Nix: She doesn’t know.

President Korb: You don’t know? That question was asked while I was, going to the restroom, to be quite honest with you.

Krista Lockyear: Quite alright. We don’t have a definitive site plan at this point.

President Korb: Okay.

Krista Lockyear: The only thing that’s set in stone is we can’t do any more than 52 units.

President Korb: Okay.

Krista Lockyear: John Stoll and Brad Mills both have weighed in and expressed that, hey, we want some input on the entrance and exits.

President Korb: Okay.

Krista Lockyear: That’s where we’re at.

Commissioner Tornatta: Can we have a motion for summation?

Commissioner Nix: We’ve got one gentleman, so, maybe just–