VANDERBURGH COUNTY

REZONING BOARD

JUNE 19, 2007

The Vanderburgh County Rezoning Board met in session this 19^th day of June, 2007 at 4:19 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex with President Cheryl Musgrave presiding.

President Musgrave: We will start the rezoning portion of our Commissioners agenda at this time, and we’ll wait for Beverly to....is this your last meeting, or do we have one more?

Bev Behme: No, I have two more.

President Musgrave: Two more, okay, well.

Bev Behme: July and August.

President Musgrave: She’s going to retire.

Commissioner Nix: No, she can’t.

Bev Behme: We have approval of the rezoning minutes from May the 15^th meeting.

President Musgrave: Is there a motion to approve the minutes?

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

Bev Behme: We have one first reading, that is VC-12-2007. The petitioner is DPF, Inc., 4401 Hogue Road, change from agricultural to C-4. You can just, a motion to send those to Plan Commission.

President Musgrave: Is there a motion?

Commissioner Nix: So moved.

Commissioner Tornatta: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries.

Bev Behme: We have three final readings. The first is 2007-18-PC VC-9-2007, 701 Jobes Lane. Level Development LLC is requesting to rezone the property located at 701 Jobes Lane from agricultural to R-3. This is a 29.33 acre site located predominantly on the west side of Jobes Lane, north of city limits and south of the end of Jobes Lane. Access and traffic are major issues which must be addressed prior to rezoning of land for higher density use. The road improvements necessary to accommodate growth must be in place when needed for our community to meet the goals and the comprehensive plan of developing a transportation system which moves people and goods safely and in an efficient manner. Evansville MPO has raised concern that the existing 12 foot wide access for this proposed development is adequate for two way traffic. The pavement should be widened to a minimum 24 feet to provide standard two way access. County Engineer, John Stoll comments;

“Number one, improvements to Jobes Lane will be necessary if the site is developed, and Vanderburgh County has no plans to improve this road. As a result, it is recommended that this petition be denied unless the developer is committed to improving Jobes Lane. Jobes Lane is currently not wide enough to accommodate two way traffic, and therefore it cannot provide suitable access to the development. Number two, any public roads that must be constructed as part of this development will be limited to a maximum grade of ten percent. This may be difficult to achieve because of the terrain of the site.”

This site is in an area designated by the comprehensive plan as an area of residential development. This step up in zoning to R-3 is consistent with the overall plan for the area. Although consistent with the comprehensive plan in one area, it is inconsistent in another area. Both Evansville MPO and County Engineer, John Stoll, have identified a potential area of conflict with access for the development. The comprehensive plan states that it is essential for development proposals to be accompanied with commitments to construct the infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate site generated traffic. No information has been submitted by Level Development which addresses the number of units proposed for this site, and there is no commitment addressing the needed infrastructure improvements. According to the comprehensive plan, development of proposals that are not accompanied with commitments to construct the necessary infrastructure improvements to accommodate site generated traffic should be denied. At the Area Plan Commission meeting of June 14^th, a draft copy of a private covenant was submitted to Area Plan Commission regarding the use of the property. Area Plan Commission voted eight yes and two abstentions to send this forward to you.

President Musgrave: We welcome now the attorney for the petitioner, Ms. Krista Lockyear.

Krista Lockyear: Good afternoon, Madam President, members of the Commission. My name is Krista Lockyear. I’m here representing Level Development LLC, who is the petitioner with regard to this matter. Level is owned and managed by Dan Buck. I believe most of you know Dan Buck who has been building homes in Evansville since 1980, and has a really attractive dream for this area here on the west side. Dan came in, looked at this property and as everyone is familiar out here, it’s an area of increasing development. A lot of commercial development, obviously, encroaching onto the residential area, as well as a lot of student housing, and a lot of discussion about student housing over the past few years. Dan’s interest in this area is to do a residential development, but to preserve as much of the topography, the trees, the dips and valleys and the beauty of this area as possible. To do that, his best option would be to, rather than put in your typical flat subdivision, to put in some condominiums, so that he can move around the topography of the land. His idea is to put in really two different types of condominiums on this development. For stand alone and/or duplexes, which would resemble any other single family dwelling or duplex. He’s got a price point of $175,000 to $250,000. Those would have potentially walk out basements. Every unit, including the multi-family units will have their own garage attached. The second type of development on this property would be up to six units in a building, with a price point of $115,000 to $165,000. Again, those units will each also have an individual, attached garage for each unit. Dan contacted me about this rezoning, and we started looking at the area and who our neighbors are, and Mr. Mike Lockard, who is a member of the Plan Commission, is a neighbor of this property, as is his father. Mike lives at the intersection of Shady Court, which you can see down in the lower right hand corner of the picture. His father lives up in the, exactly where that pointer is, up in the top corner of the property. I contacted Mike and we got together, we had a preliminary discussion about this rezoning and about potential concerns of the neighborhood. Most of you probably are aware it’s a close, organized neighborhood. They recently obtained the grant and got the water and sewer brought into that area to serve their residences. So, they’ve kind of been through the development and construction route and planning previously. After Mike and I met, Dan and I went out and met Mike and walked the property, looked at Dan’s plans for the property, answered questions, kind of took Mike’s expertise of the area, and, again, developed projects and plans a little further. We finally did have a neighborhood meeting, invited, with the required notices that we sent to all the abutting neighbors. We invited all the neighbors to attend a meeting at the Red Bank Library. The West Side Improvement Association facilitated that meeting for us, and sat in with us, and we talked to neighbors, addressed their concerns. Dan has given some of them some written explanations of questions that they had had about the development, and, I believe have successfully gone a long way in becoming who Dan hopes to be the new neighbor in the block and developing very good relations there. At this point, and all of this leading up to the Plan Commission hearing. We walk in to the Plan Commission hearing with the idea that we’ll do, in writing, a commitment that we would not do apartments on this project. The neighbors were satisfied that we would put this in writing, it would be a private covenant, and run in favor of the neighbors. Mr. Lockard is familiar, and the West Side Improvement familiar with these type of covenants. We’re satisfied with that as well. At the Plan Commission meeting the request was that we add to that private commitment, the commitment that Dan would widen Jobes Lane to a minimum of 24 feet in width. Dan also agreed to make that commitment in writing in favor of the Commissioners. Leads us to this week, because the Plan Commission meeting was last week, and several conversations that Mr. Ziemer and I had over the last couple of days, we are trying to come up with ideas, because Dan hasn’t bought the land yet. How he can bind this development to include the widening of Jobes Lane, as well as the non-binding, or non-ability to put apartments on this project. A little bit of a chicken and an egg here, because for Dan to go forward with the development, he’s got to close. But, he doesn’t want to close on the property until he’s assured that he gets the rezoning. Long and short, since we can’t commit to buying the land with the widening of the road and the no apartment covenant and restriction, we would ask that you delay a vote on this rezoning for 30 days so that we can at least either get the owners to sign the covenant itself, or Dan could get to closing so that he could sign the covenant to bind this real estate. The reason, and I apologize for taking up your time tonight again is, if there’s any concern about that zoning, we wanted to go through with the process and flesh out any other final problems that we may have, or issues that we should address before the final vote. That all having been said, I would be happy to take questions. Dan is here, and I believe Fred Padget with the West Side Improvement Association is willing to speak as well.

President Musgrave: Commissioners, do you want me to call for remonstrators before you ask for questions? Are there any remonstrators here on this project? I suppose that’s you, Mr. Padget. Please come forward and state your name for the record.

Fred Padget: (Inaudible).

President Musgrave: Well, that’s the name they gave me to call for, so.

Fred Padget: There you go. I’m Fred Padget. I represent West Side Improvement Association. We did meet with the developer and the attorney last Tuesday. There were a few neighbors there. We talked about several of the concerns. The, I guess, the concerns, and I’ll just go through them. One had to do with road closure. When they had put in the water/sewer lines they had some road closures, and so they were quite concerned about that. The developer said the only road closure that he might possibly have, is if he has to put a pipe across the road where they want to do that all at one time. But, other than that, there would probably not be any road closures, and if there would have to be, that all of the neighbors would receive prior notice. Another concern was the road improvement that’s been expressed by the County Engineer and also the MPO. At this point we feel satisfied that the intent is to widen the road, and the question comes up about the covenants and how we get to that point. But, we’re satisfied with that answer. We asked about ingress/egress or entrance/exit to the apartments on the west, the Copper Creek Apartments. We were assured that would not happen. We don’t want that to happen. One of the neighbors has a lake that borders right on the property that’s in question here. He wanted to work with the developer on that, and, I think, I got the impression that the developer was willing to do that also. The density of housing was a concern, in the beginning, and we think the plan, as it’s been verbalized with the condominiums, is satisfactory. Actually, it’s probably a good plan, all things considered. We also had concerns about the terrain and the trees and the wooded areas, and, again as the plan’s been verbalized, I think that satisfies our concerns in that regard. All these questions about drainage, I know this will be handled at site review, but the answers that we were given there were also satisfactory. The attorney did mention a letter that one of the neighbors had written requesting information, and in some respects, maybe some commitments. The developer was very responsive to that. He answered back, in writing, within just a few days after the request. We appreciate that. The one thing that came up today, and I see, Madam President is reading it, is the e-mail from Mike Lockard. It’s about a page and a half, and I won’t go through it. One of the things he was concerned about, and I think this is something we should be concerned about is parking. Right now, on both sides of Jobes Lane, as it goes out into Middle Mount Vernon, we probably should consider either through the Safety Board or however we could get it done that parking be restricted to only one side of the road after the development is in. The covenants, Mr. Lockard would like the County Commissioners to be involved in all of the covenants that are written. I know there is some question from a legal aspect as to whether that can be done or not, but we also understand that the developer is not the property owner at this point, so the covenants they become more difficult because of that. Hopefully, we can find a way to work that out. As the attorney said, if it gets extended that’s fine. Whatever works that out. Bottom line for Westside Improvement is that we recognize this developer is one of our premier home builders in the area. The Westside Improvement Association is really quite pleased to be able to work with them, appreciate the meetings we’ve had, and we’re very supportive of this project. In fact, assuming and if the project gets approved in the next few months or whenever it does get approved, we certainly wish the developer the most success in this project. So, thank you. Any questions, I’ll gladly try to answer them.

President Musgrave: I don’t have a question, but in regards to the parking issue, I would like you, as the neighbors, to come back, in conjunction with the new property owner, when he becomes that, to tell us which side of the road should have parking and which side shouldn’t.

Fred Padget: Okay, we will do that. Mike indicated what he thought in his e-mail, but we will do that, yeah.

President Musgrave: Yeah, okay. At this time I want to go ahead and make this e-mail part of the official record for this. Do you have a copy? Great. Mr. Ziemer?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I have a question. I have reviewed the proposed covenants, or two separate covenants, one running in favor of the county for the making of the improvements to Jobes Lane to 24 feet. The other running in favor of people within one mile of the proposed project, and that only has one, other than enforcement provisions, it only has one covenant which is that it will be used for single family dwellings, duplexes and condominium units, and shall not be used for apartments.

Fred Padget: Right.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: So, none of the other, well, I think maybe minor things you mentioned are specified in the covenant.

Fred Padget: Right.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: If that’s satisfactory with the neighbors based on the verbal representations, then that’s satisfactory to the Commissioners.

Fred Padget: That’s satisfactory with us. I can’t speak for all the neighbors, because we haven’t talked about that specifically, but from Westside Improvement’s standpoint, that’s acceptable to us.

President Musgrave: Alright. Are there any other remonstrators? Would you like to sum up, Ms. Lockyear? I’m sorry, Mr. Nix, has a question.

Commissioner Nix: I do have a question, or a couple of questions, I guess. Is it the understanding that the county will maintain this road? I mean, is this all going to be private from now on out? Or, are we looking at the county...I mean, I guess, that’s my–

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: John, is this an accepted county road, Jobes Lane?

Commissioner Nix: Well, I guess, my question is, I understand that, but at some point, if this is brought up to standards, then we need to go through the whole process that we normally do? Year inspections, and, you know, then the county would oversee the construction of this?

Dan Buck: My name is Dan Buck, I’m the developer. Yes, it’s our intent to build the Jobes Lane improvements to county specifications–

Commissioner Nix: Okay.

Dan Buck: –so, it can be maintained by the county.

Commissioner Nix: Okay.

Dan Buck: Anything inside the subdivision then will be private. Still be built to county specs, as far as thicknesses of asphalt and gravel and things like that.

Commissioner Nix: Okay. The property is within Jobes Lane, so easements and that aren’t necessarily a problem in access then?

Dan Buck: Not that we know of today. The roadway is pretty much within the property that I’m buying.

Commissioner Nix: Okay. I’m just curious, you would be willing to work with them on parking on one side or the other?

Dan Buck: Well, in reality, the improvements that I would put on Jobes Lane, I would say there would be no parking on that improvement. That is what I would recommend. Because there will be parking within my whole project. So, there shouldn’t be any parking at all from my project out onto Jobes Lane.

Commissioner Nix: So, we could make it just no parking altogether then?

Dan Buck: As far as my improved area. If that’s okay with the neighbors. Maybe the neighbors want to be able to park some vehicles along Jobes Lane, I’m not sure. But, I’m not against–

Commissioner Nix: That’s something you all can work out.

Dan Buck: Right, yeah, I’m not against parking on one side or no parking.

Commissioner Tornatta: I would rather it be no parking, but I think, Fred, if you could talk with the neighbors and see, I’m not as familiar with what parking needs they would have to have on that street.

Fred Padget: We’ll follow up with the neighbors on that. But, there’s two parts of Jobes Lane, one part as you get closer to Middle Mount Vernon, and I don’t know for a fact, but I think that meets county standards now, or close to it anyway. That’s where the parking on both sides of the road is taking place. The part that Mr. Buck is talking about is further north on Jobes Lane, and it is a very narrow area, and, of course, that’s what he’s talking about bringing up to standard. I don’t think there’s any question about that as to whether there would be parking or no parking, I think that could go either way, because there’s not too many along there. It’s when you get down below that, closer to Middle Mount Vernon, there’s people who live on both sides of the road.

Commissioner Tornatta: Right.

Fred Padget: They have driveways, if they have a family in or something like that, they don’t have room for everybody to park.

Commissioner Tornatta: We’re just talking about the improvements side.

Fred Padget: No, what I was talking about was the portion that is already there that, I think meets county standards or comes close to it. I wasn’t talking about the unimproved area.

Commissioner Nix: I think there’s a pointer in there.

Dan Buck: I think there may be a little difference here. This right here, until this intersection is 29 foot wide. I think that’s maybe what they would like to see parking just on one side.

Commissioner Nix: Okay.

Dan Buck: I’ll have to improve from this intersection going north is only 12 feet wide. So, I’ll have to improve this intersection from here to probably about back into here is where I go into my subdivision.

President Musgrave: Commissioner Nix and Mr. Ziemer, I just want to make sure that the covenant needs to or should incorporate the issues that he was raising with regard to the road and so forth. Is that appropriately part of that covenant?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Certainly it is, if that is required by the Commissioners to induce them to pass this.

Krista Lockyear: I’m not sure what, what question are we?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well, for example, and some of this, Krista, I mean, we have talked about it before, and you did generously provide me with a copy of the proposed covenant, and John Stoll has reviewed it. For example, it provides for the improvement of Jobes Lane to a minimum width of 24 feet, it really doesn’t say to meet county standards. It says to be coordinated with the Vanderburgh County Engineer. So, I think I’m going to ask you to amend that to say that it will be built in accordance with county standards for the construction of roads, and then also to coordinate the construction with the Vanderburgh County Engineer.

Krista Lockyear: Certainly.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: I know that’s an easy enough thing for you to do.

Krista Lockyear: Which will, and have to be agreed upon at site review, etcetera, etcetera.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Right. Secondly, we’re talking about parking, if the Commissioners are suggesting that we incorporate into the covenant where you’re going to park on this side or that side, or whatever, if that’s something you can do.

Krista Lockyear: Well, again, from Dan’s property line, I think his preference is that moving forward the improvements that he’s doing he would prefer to not have any parking on either side of the road. As you can see, there aren’t any people living on either side of that road. So, there really shouldn’t be the need to have parking on either side. As far as further south on Jobes, they’re not sure that we really have any say so.

President Musgrave: (Inaudible. Microphone not on.)

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: So, Commissioner Musgrave is suggesting that for the portion of Jobes Lane that’s going to be improved by your client, that we provide that there would be no parking on either side.

Krista Lockyear: I think that would be actually ideal from my client’s point of view. He would rather not have the parking.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Well, that will be more palatable to the neighbors and the Commissioners and to your client.

Krista Lockyear: We’ll add that to the covenant.

President Musgrave: Is that it?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: The only other thing that I want to mention, I did hear in the course of the comments by the neighborhood association, two or three other comments where it was stated that they were verbally satisfied. It doesn’t make any difference to me, or I would think the Commissioners, we just want to know that the neighbors are satisfied. So, if it should be incorporated into the covenant, I’ll leave that to your discretion.

Krista Lockyear: That’s fine. Just to address that a little. They were a little difficult to pinpoint, and at the meeting we had at Red Bank Library, we talked about in writing, and it’s the commitment that it will not be apartments, and it was very important that it be in writing and binding and run with the land and affect any future landowner. The other things like road closures and things like that is kind of difficult to put into a written document, and I believe, and I will confirm again through Mr. Padget and Mr. Lockard that Dan’s commitments to, hey, I’ll send you out a notice a couple of days in advance if there will be any road closing during this construction is probably acceptable. If it’s not and we can do more, we’ll do more.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: It’s just that if the Commissioners defer this for 30 days, which as County Attorney we do recommend, then when this is heard again in 30 days, if some neighbors come in and say, well, we don’t see this in writing, that will be a problem.

Krista Lockyear: Understood.

President Musgrave: Alright, if you can put those little things in writing I think that settles it for all time, and work out some language that works for you and for them. Alright, Commissioners, is there a motion to defer this for another 30 days?

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: Excuse me, well, should we say to what meeting date?

President Musgrave: Okay.

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.: That’s what I would prefer.

President Musgrave: Does anybody–

Bev Behme: It’s July 17^th.

President Musgrave: July 17 is our next–

Commissioner Tornatta: Motion to defer this issue until July 17^th.

Commissioner Nix: I second that.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries. Thank you, we’ll see you again in a month.

Krista Lockyear: Thank you very much. We’ll get that covenant revised to the County Attorney well in advance of the meeting then. Thank you.

President Musgrave: Alright. Ms. Behme?

Bev Behme: VC-10 and VC-11 are merged together in one comment, but they will need two separate votes. VC-10-2007 rezoned 5.94 acres from agricultural to C-4. That addresses 7445 North Green River Road. VC-11-2007 is the adjoining 14.77 acres from agricultural to R-3. Dauby Properties and Investments, LLC is requesting two changes to the zoning of the 20 acre site located at 7445 North Green River Road. VC-10-2007 is a request to rezone a five acre parcel along the Green River Road frontage of the site to C-4 for general commercial development. VC-11-2007 is a request to rezone the remaining 15 acres of the parent site immediately east of the proposed C-4 site to R-3 for residential condominiums. The proposed R-3 lot includes 50 feet of frontage along Green River Road, and a 50 foot strip along the north property line. The 20 acre site is located on the east side of Green River Road between Heckel and Millersburg Road. Access to the site will be determined by site review at the time of submission of plans for the development of the site. Evansville MPO has indicated that the current plans for Green River Road widening project at this location indicates the installation of a center, two way left turn lane, but additional auxiliary lanes, such as right turn decel lane will likely be warranted if this site is to develop as high density residential and commercial. County Engineer, John Stoll states that;

“Additional right-of-way will have to be acquired for the proposed C-4 property in order to construct the Green River Road widening project. The access to both sites should be limited to one shared drive that serves both the proposed C-4 and the proposed R-3 residential land immediately east of the C-4 site.”

This site is located along the North Green River Road corridor, northeast of the Goebel Soccer Complex development. Public sewers have recently been extended to the area, and the county has future plans for widening of Green River Road at this location. The comprehensive plan future land use map has not yet been updated to reflect these improvements, which make future development of the area more likely to occur. The two petitions require separate votes, and VC-10-2007 is the first vote. Area Plan Commission voted on June 14, 2007 with nine yes and one abstention on both petitions.

President Musgrave: Thank you, Ma’am. Welcome.

Shannon Frank: Good afternoon. Shannon Frank here on behalf of the petitioner, Dauby Properties. The principal, Ron Dauby, who is a builder and developer for several decades is also here with me. He is the developer of this project. We’re first going to address the tract before the Commission which is the five acres located on the North Green River Road property. As noted in the staff report, it’s about a half mile north of the Goebel Soccer Complex. The surrounding area, as you can see by the map, is the majority of it is agricultural, although there is some residential within about a half mile of the proposed tract to be rezoned, as well as property located a mile to two miles south is commercial, that’s the Lynch Road, and commercial development is creeping further north past Lynch Road, which we certainly anticipate with the Green River Road being widened in the near future. As noted in the staff report, it’s anticipated that as part of the Green River Road widening, there will be a two way left turn lane as part of the widening project. My client does understand that access may be limited to this property while the widening project is going on. I did want to make note of that, because the Area Plan Commission did bring that up last week. We do understand as well, as noted by the Area Plan Commission, and the staff report that these two parcels will share one drive. My client is acceptable to that shared drive as well. We did want to clarify that the petition does note, as did the staff report, that sewer has been extended to that site, and we want to correct that. Sewer has been extended to Millersburg Road, which is directly north of the site, but my client will run the sewer from Millersburg Road to the site. So, we just wanted to make sure that was clarified from what is set forth in the staff report. As noted in the county’s comprehensive plan, it has not been updated to reflect the widening of Green River Road, so, there, at the current time the plan does not show commercial or residential development, but as noted, just south of Lynch Road commercial development is moving north. It’s coming from the west of this parcel as well. So, we believe that commercial development, as well as residential development would be a good use for this property, and is actually going to be needed for this area as the county and people tend to move that area and along the Green River Road corridor. With me is my client, Ron Dauby, we can answer questions, as well as we have Keith Poff with Sitecon, who is the engineer for the project to answer any questions you might have.

President Musgrave: Thank you. I know Commissioner Nix has some questions, but let me first call for any remonstrators on this? I see no one. So, Commissioner Nix?

Commissioner Nix: I’m just curious, you had mentioned, I guess, sewer. Sanitary and storm or both from Millersburg down? Which way are you coming with that? I guess, Mr. Poff could answer that.

Keith Poff: Keith Poff with Sitecon. Yes, we’re anticipating that we’re going to have to connect at the Millersburg lift station, which is northwest of our property. We anticipate a lift station in order to push the sanitary–

Commissioner Nix: What’s the route of your line, I guess, is the question I’m asking?

Keith Poff: It hasn’t been confirmed. We’re expecting to be able to push up to Millersburg and across Millersburg over to the lift station.

Commissioner Nix: But, I mean, will it be along Green River?

Keith Poff: North along Green River to Millersburg, and then west along Millersburg.

Commissioner Nix: Okay, is, does that fall within the construction limits of the Green River project itself? The widening project?

Keith Poff: We’ll have to negotiate those areas.

Commissioner Nix: Has that been worked out?

Keith Poff: No, we still have to coordinate with the utility department.

Commissioner Nix: Okay. You know, this project is going to move ahead fairly quick, what are you looking at here as far as a time frame?

Keith Poff: Immediate planning.

Commissioner Nix: Okay, but you, you will coordinate with the County Engineer and the utilities, so that we don’t have any conflicts with the Green River Road widening then? I mean, I know you’re aware that we’re going to do this.

Keith Poff: You’re ahead of us.

Commissioner Nix: Pardon me?

Keith Poff: You’re ahead of us.

Commissioner Nix: Okay, but, once again, you’re going to push it all?

Keith Poff: That’s what we expect to do.

Commissioner Nix: Okay.

Keith Poff: We would have to get cooperation with several west land owners to explore a gravity situation, that’s probably not feasible.

Commissioner Nix: I was going to say pushing’s not very good for gravity anyway, but, once again, once again, you will work with the utilities and the County Engineer on this line, so that we don’t have any problems with the Green River Road project as part of this?

Keith Poff: Yes, we will.

Commissioner Nix: Okay, and you’ve got a plan somewhat in place to do that? Or, you’re in the process of doing that?

Keith Poff: I’m afraid we’re going to have to essentially negotiate for our own path away from your street construction.

Commissioner Nix: Okay, okay. That could be across private property and what have you then?

Keith Poff: Most likely, yes.

Commissioner Nix: Okay, okay, because I’ve got a feeling they’re not going to let you push it. I mean, I don’t know, I might be wrong.

Keith Poff: You’re talking about open cutting versus–

Commissioner Nix: Yeah.

Keith Poff: When I say pushing we’re going to be installing a lift station in order to have a force main to take our sewage across the site.

Commissioner Nix: Okay, so, it’s a force then?

Keith Poff: It is a force main.

Commissioner Nix: Okay, okay.

Keith Poff: We will have a gravity collection on our site. More than likely that system will be available for a little bit more of the hill that’s north of us, and then we’ll have a force main leave our site and connect to the Millersburg lift station.

Commissioner Nix: I guess, my point is that we just don’t want to give something, we don’t want to approve anything today that’s going to cause us a problem when we get Green River Road going, because that’s going to be, there’s going to be a lot of work that’s going to be done in that area there.

Keith Poff: We’ve already been advised by the utility department that they have some interest in how we’re going to plan the water. They have some desires to work with us for the water relocation. So, we will be in contact with them.

Commissioner Nix: Has there been any interest, I’m just curious, this is off the subject a little bit, but for that line to run any further south at all?

Keith Poff: If you’ll notice, there’s one exhibit here that shows the area with a flood plain land on it?

Commissioner Nix: Yeah.

Keith Poff: We are effectively at the end of the reasonably developable area that’s on the ridge. You can see that there’s a cross hatch area that goes completely around our property, as well as the ridge, that’s almost the last edge of developable property relative to the ditch.

Commissioner Nix: Until you get on the other side of the creek, which is probably low anyway.

Keith Poff: South of there is even lower yet.

Commissioner Nix: There’s some concern there because with that project, a lot of the homes on the south side of the creek are still on a field bed septic. But, I mean, that’s another whole issue.

Keith Poff: Yeah, we’re actually on the north side of Schlensker.

Commissioner Nix: Oh, yeah, I know, I understand.

Keith Poff: We’re on the other side.

Commissioner Nix: Okay.

President Musgrave: I’ve heard you say that you have touched base with the Water Department several times. I would appreciate it if you would touch base with John Stoll and bring him up to speed on this whole sewer project. I know that there are some other folks further south there who are talking about sewers, and they’ve had numerous conversations with Mr. Stoll to make sure that everyone knows everything there is to know about the road widening work and when to run pipes and that sort of thing.

Commissioner Nix: Just an FYI, and I don’t know how up to speed you are on the Green River Road project, but we looked at doing a rough in across, underneath Green River for future sewer for all those homes on the south side of the creek. I didn’t know if–

Keith Poff: The utility department advised me, because we asked about taking our site across the ditch into the sewer that was built for the soccer complex. We were told that the ditch is the dividing line, Schlensker Ditch. Everything north of Schlensker Ditch has to go to Millersburg, we don’t have a choice. We cannot go across the ditch–

Commissioner Nix: Okay.

Keith Poff: –into the area south of the ditch. So, everything south of Schlensker Ditch has to go to the Keystone area back.

Commissioner Nix: Yeah, because there is a lift station across, is it Heckel? Heckel Road?

Keith Poff: Yeah, Keystone seven. That limitation is Schlensker Ditch. Nothing north of the ditch is supposed to go that way. We tried to go that way. It’s a shorter run, and they said no.

President Musgrave: Anything further? I already called for remonstrators, oh, I’m sorry, sir,

Craig Kendall: Oh, that’s alright.

President Musgrave: You have to come forward to the microphone, state your name and address, and let us know what your concerns are.

Craig Kendall: I’m Craig Kendall. I live at 5621 Winthrop Court. We own the property just to the south, and really just came here to get educated. Now that I’ve gotten educated, I’ve got some questions, I guess. First of all, I guess, that’s the driveway to the north? On your property? Is that your entryway?

Unidentified: Probably not.

Craig Kendall: Probably not?

Unidentified: (Inaudible. Not at microphone.)

Craig Kendall: Okay.

Unidentified: (Inaudible) in the middle of our property.

Craig Kendall: Okay, I just wanted...the tract that we received the drawing that you had previous to that.

President Musgrave: Would you give him the pointer?

Bev Behme: I can actually explain that.

President Musgrave: Okay, thank you.

Craig Kendall: If you don’t mind.

Bev Behme: That’s–

President Musgrave: Be sure you use the microphone, Ms. Behme.

Bev Behme: –no, the other one. Yeah. The way that is shown there, that’s their required frontage. That’s not the access. That will be decided at site review. But, the way that looks right there with, like a flag lot right there, that’s their required frontage for their residential in the back. That doesn’t indicate access.

Craig Kendall: Again, I agree with you all, from what I understand with the people to the south that they would much rather it go to the south. Of course, we would rather go to the south too. We haven’t looked into the cost or anything like that, but if, it sounds like, you know, there’s not communication between everybody as to what needs to be done. Because I know the people on the southeast corner of Heckel Road were real upset with Keystone getting the lift station and then not being included in on it. So, if it’s more feasible to go south, I would think now would be the time to do it, not later. That’s really all.

President Musgrave: You’re saying that if that goes south, you would be more interested in it?

Craig Kendall: Yeah, I–

President Musgrave: But, he testified that he cannot run it south.

Craig Kendall: Well, because of the–

President Musgrave: He’s been told to go north.

Craig Kendall: Yeah, what the people had said. It sounded like the utilities says one thing and the sewer department says another.

President Musgrave: No, they’re saying the same thing. You’ve got to go north with it.

Craig Kendall: Oh, okay.

President Musgrave: So, maybe you need to work out a deal with him where you can hook on to what he’s doing.

Craig Kendall: That’s fine. It just sounded to me that what you were saying that he had checked with one group about going to the south, and then the other one was, you know, to push the sewage to the north would seem kind of silly if it’s already got the lift station. Thank you.

Commissioner Nix: Thank you.

President Musgrave: Are there any other remonstrators? Would you like to respond and sum up?

Shannon Frank: I did want to confirm that the little small, 50 foot parcel is because of the road frontage required for the residential, and that it is my client’s intention to run the drive to the residential across the commercial property.

President Musgrave: Is there any questions? Is there a motion?

Commissioner Tornatta: Motion to approve.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries. Do I need to do a roll call vote? Commissioner Nix?

Commissioner Nix: Yes.

President Musgrave: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

President Musgrave: And I vote yes.

Shannon Frank: Alright.

President Musgrave: Thank you, Ms. Frank.

Shannon Frank: Then we have the second parcel.

President Musgrave: Alright, same issue, except it’s commercial.

Bev Behme: There’s two–

Shannon Frank: The second parcel is the 15 acre parcel that we’re asking to go from an agricultural zoning to an R-3 zoning. Rather than take up your time, I will confirm the statements I made previously with respect to the commercial rezoning application.

President Musgrave: Let’s go ahead, and–

Commissioner Tornatta: We can do this.

President Musgrave: Alright. Are there any remonstrators for the residential portion? Alright. Commissioners, any questions? Any further comments? Is there a motion?

Commissioner Tornatta: Motion to take from residential to commercial.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: I think it was from agricultural to residential.

Commissioner Nix: Agricultural–

Shannon Frank: Yes, agricultural to an R-3.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, wrong one there. Okay, motion to change from agricultural zone to an R-3 zone.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: The motion carries. Thank you, Ms. Behme.

Shannon Frank: Thank you.

Commissioner Tornatta: Roll call?

President Musgrave: I’m sorry. Commissioner Nix?

Commissioner Nix: Yes.

President Musgrave: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

President Musgrave: And, I vote yes as well. Do we have another one, Ms. Behme?

Bev Behme: No, that’s it.

President Musgrave: Is there a motion to....any other business? Motion to adjourn?

Commissioner Nix: Second, or first, or yes. One of those.

Commissioner Tornatta: Second.

President Musgrave: All those in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Musgrave: Thank you everyone for your patience this evening.

(The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.)

Those in Attendance:

Cheryl Musgrave                                Bill Nix                            Troy Tornatta

Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.                    Madelyn Grayson           Bev Behme

Krista Lockyear                                   Dan Buck                        Fred Padget

Shannon Frank                                   Keith Poff                        Craig Kendall

Others Unidentified                             Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

REZONING BOARD

Cheryl A.W. Musgrave, President

Bill Nix, Vice President

Troy Tornatta, Member

(Recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.)