Minutes

WARRICK COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION

Regular meeting held in Commissioners Meeting Room,

Third Floor, Court House,

Boonville, IN

Wednesday, November 10, 2004, 6:00 P.M.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Guy Gentry, President; Carl Conner, Larry Willis, Gary Michel.

Also present was Sherri Phillips, Executive Director; Leslie Shively, Attorney; Sheila Lacer, Staff and Angela Fehr, Staff.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Duane Erwin, Robert Addington and Mike Moesner.

The meeting was called to order by the President and roll call was taken by the Executive Director, a quorum declared present.

Sherri Phillips stated that it would take all four members to make the motion to approve any application.

The President questioned whether everyone received a copy of the minutes and if any corrections or additions to those. If not, he would entertain a motion.

Larry Willis made a motion to accept the minutes as circulated. The motion was seconded by Guy Gentry and unanimously carried.

REZONING PETITION:

The President then explained the Rules of Procedure to the audience and stated that any zoning petition being given a recommendation this evening will be forwarded to the County Commissioners on Wednesday, December 8, 2004 at 4:00 P.M., Commissioners Meeting Room, Courthouse, Boonville, Indiana.

PC-R-04-26 - Petition of Donald & Celinda Sisco to rezone 1 acre located on the S side of Golden Drive approximately 300’ E of the intersection formed by Bell Road (W 850) and Golden Drive, Ohio Twp. from “A” Agriculture to “C-4” General Commercial.

(Complete legal on file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard September 23, 2004. Continued from October 13, 2004.

Donald Sisco was present.

The President called for a staff report.

Ms. Phillips stated that she placed this back on the agenda because the motion at last months meeting was to table this item until research and a decision was made regarding the right of way to Mr. Sisco’s property. She stated that she placed it back on the agenda to ask for a motion to continue it to a certain meeting, a certain time period so it is not lost and it is known what meeting, and so notice to adjacent property owners will not be required again. Ms. Phillips stated that she told Mr. Sisco that was her intention of placing it on the agenda, he has supplied information to his attorney, who is reviewing it. She stated that Mr. Tubbs has supplied some information to the office. Ms. Phillips then stated that she has gone through the office’s paperwork and got together what she could on the Golden Drive right of way, and that information needs to be taken to the County Attorney’s, which is Martins, and have them review it and come up with a decision. She stated that in the mean time, also at the last meeting this Board told Mr. Sisco that he could continue operating his commercial business until this was voted on one way or the other. She stated further, on November the fifth Jack Tubbs filed a complaint form in the Planning Commission office stating five different items of his complaint. She stated one, is operating a heavy equipment business in an “A” zoning district, which we are dealing with on this Board. She stated that his second item was whether or not his building conforms to commercial construction codes for the operation of a heavy equipment business, that is the building departments realm of building permits and the building codes. She added also there was an issue about septic, which would be the health department, and it was explained to Mr. Sisco that even though the Board may approve the zoning that does not mean that the Board is approving all the other department’s approvals. She stated that another item was the right of way, or the roadway easement.

The Executive Director stated that since she had spoke to Mr. Sisco this afternoon, Mr. Winge, who is the inspector for the building department, came into the office and Mr. Tubbs has contacted him regarding the issue of the building codes and the building. She stated Mr. Winge informed Ms. Phillips that Mr. Sisco is in violation of the building codes and that Mr. Sisco should not be operating this business until such time that the building is proved to be in compliance with state building codes or he brings it in to state building codes, and that the business should have to cease until such time that it comes into compliance.

Mr. Sisco stated that would put him out of business.

The Executive Director replied yes, but that she is just reporting this to the Board and the Board can do what they want, and that is two different departments. Ms. Phillips stated that she did not know if Mr. Sisco wanted any legal advice on this matter, but that she had to inform Mr. Sisco of Mr. Winge’s stand regarding the operation of the business, and it could be in violation of the building codes.

Attorney Shively questioned that Mr. Winge is the county building inspector and enforces state, there is not a Warrick Code per say, is there, about building code.

Ms. Phillips stated that the county adopted the state building code. She further added that there is an ordinance in the state building code.

Attorney Shively stated that if there is a building code violation and the inspector sites them for a building code violation is that not something under the auspices of the Commissioner’s Office and the County Attorney would handle any kind of legal action with that, in which, Ms. Phillips states yes. Mr. Shively then stated that building codes are a different matter than what this Board is charged with doing, and to consider that and keep that in mind when making a decision this evening. He stated likewise, Mr. Sisco has to be apprised to the fact that just because this body may choose or did choose the last time, would choose not to do anything with regard to Mr. Sisco’s operation as being in violation of a zoning ordinance, the Board can not stop another agency of county government be it the health department or the building inspector in their area of jurisdiction if they find a violation this Board can not stop them from doing what they may or may not do. Mr. Shively questioned whether Mr. Sisco understands.

Mr. Sisco replied yes he does.

Mr. Shively then stated that all this body does is the zoning ordinance and limited to that properly so. Mr. Shively stated that he is going to leave it to this body to decide what to do, but just keep that in mind. He said the board is not here to enforce anything else other than the zoning ordinance.

Ms. Phillips stated that is all she had to add, and that she thinks Mr. Sisco was going to ask that this be continued for thirty days, and asks Mr. Sisco if this is correct, in which, Mr. Sisco replied yes.

Mr. Sisco stated that he is working with Warren Matheis and looking in to all these issues and addressing some; they have been in touch with the State Board of Health and working these issues out and they just wanted to table this for thirty days.

Mr. Shively stated to the Board that the following day after the last meeting, Mr. Sisco did contact his office and told him what he was in the process of doing and Mr. Shively just wanted the Board to know that Mr. Sisco did contact him and that Mr. Sisco also notified Mr. Shively’s office when he made council. He said he wanted the Board to know that Mr. Sisco has kept in contact with him and his little part of the Planning Commission operation.

Guy Gentry asked for questions or concerns from the Board.

Gary Michel stated that it sounds like all the parties are trying to work it out and it sounds like they may have something available and he moves that the Board table it to the December 8^th meeting. Mr. Michel then stated that everyone should continue working and get their facts together to work out a solution amongst themselves.

Guy Gentry stated that at the last meeting it was tabled until information or whatever and that Mr. Sisco could remain in operation because technically he was in violation of zoning ordinance as he presently stands. He stated so that is part of the question too, that the Board really needs to address as far as the zoning issue, that the Board needs to address this issue in the motion.

Gary Michel stated that he feels that the issue was addressed in the motion at the last meeting and does not see any reason to change. Mr. Michel stated that Ms. Phillips requested it to be tabled then and that it sounds like it is being worked on.

Guy Gentry stated that there is a motion on the floor, does he hear a second.

Gary Michel questioned whether there will be any problem in getting a conclusion by December 8^th.

Guy Gentry stated that he does not think so and that he believes there is ample time.

Attorney Shively then asked Mr. Sisco to have his attorney, if his attorney has anything that needs to be reviewed to get that to the county attorney and that Mr. Shively be copied on that also, so he can assist this body. He said it would also be helpful if Warren might summarize in some sort of memo to this body in advance to the next meeting so it is not looked at cold, that would be to Mr. Sisco’s disadvantage, and to the disadvantage of any other party involved if this body comes in here on December 8^th and has to make a decision based on seeing this information for the first time.

Guy Gentry stated that there is a motion on the floor, does he have a second.

Larry Willis seconded the motion and the motion was carried unanimously.

PC-R-04-27 – Petition of Moore Development Group, LLC, Greg Moore, Mbr. To rezone 1 acre located on the N side of Jenner Rd. approximately 650’ W of the intersection of Jenner Rd. (S 150) & SR 261, Ohio Twp., from “A” Agriculture to “R-2” Multi Family. (Complete legal on file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard October 28, 2004.

PC-R-04-28 – Petition of Moore Development Group, LLC, Greg Moore, Mbr. To rezone 7.08 acres located on the N side of Jenner Rd. at the NW corner of the intersection of Jenner Rd. (S 150) & SR 261, Ohio Twp., from “R-1B” Single Family Dwelling to “R-2” Multi Family. (Complete legal on file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard October 28, 2004.

Guy Gentry questioned whether or not the Board would look at these items individually or together.

Ms. Phillips stated that the items could be viewed together but that they would have to be voted upon separately.

Present was Jim Morely Jr.

The President called for a staff report.

Ms. Phillips stated that the office had all the return receipts for the 04-27 and the receipt still needs to be turned in from Rolling Hills Country Club for the 04-28. Ms. Phillips then stated that these petitions are to rezone 1 acre to R-2 multiple family, the other is to rezone 7.08 acres from R-1B to R-2 which is multiple family. She stated there is a plat that will come before the Board this evening called the Villas of Woodfield which takes in this property which requires the R-2 for the PRUD, that is the reason for the zoning. She added further, this zoning requires a minimum lot area of sixty (60) feet at the building line with 6,000 square feet of lot area or 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit, unless a PRUD is filed which they have. Ms. Phillips then stated that the comprehensive plan projects both areas to be moderate to high density residential. She stated the 04-27 has a residence on it which is going to be removed, the other is vacant. Ms. Phillips stated 04-27 to the north and east is R-1B which is primary platted Woodfield Subdivision, to the south and west is agriculture. She said the 04-28 to the north is the rest of the Woodfield Subdivision, to the south is agriculture which is Rolling Hills Country Club, to the east is agriculture across 261, and to the west is agriculture, which is the other petition. She stated there is no Flood Plain located on the property. She then added that 04-27 fronts Jenner Rd. of course the lots will have access on the interior streets in Woodfield Drive same as the other application and they both are in order.

Guy Gentry asked if there is anything to add to the staff report or any questions by the Board members.

Carl Conner questioned Ms. Phillips about whether she said that she had not heard anything back from Rolling Hills or that she had heard.

Sherri Phillips stated that the return receipt had not been returned but that it has been mailed and just not received yet.

Guy Gentry asked if there were any remonstrators for or against this project, being none, he stated he would entertain a motion. He stated that a motion would be needed for each petition.

Guy Gentry made a motion based on the evidence presented and petition on file to recommend approval to the County Commissioners of PC-R-04-27 from “A” Agriculture to “R-2” Multi Family. The motion was seconded by Gary Michel and carried unanimously.

Guy Gentry made a motion based on the evidence presented and petition on file to recommend approval to the County Commissioners of PC-R-04-28 from “R-1B” Single Family Dwelling to “R-2” Multi Family. The motion was seconded by Gary Michel and carried unanimously.

Sherri Phillips stated that these petitions would go December the 8^th at 4:00.

SUBDIVISIONS FOR PRIMARY PLAT APPROVAL:

PP-04-13 – Canterbury House PRUD by Herman & Kittle Properties, Inc., Jeffrey Kittle, Exec. VP. OWNERS: Kenneth and Ruby Moyes and Martin Property Dev. Corp., Steve Martin, Sec. 8.70 acres located on the S side of Lincoln Ave. approximately 250’ W of the intersection of Lincoln Ave. (S 450) & SR 66, Ohio Twp. (Complete legal on file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard October 28, 2004.

Larry Willis stated on the subdivision for primary plat approval coming up next, that he was an adjacent property owner and that he did receive notice. Under the advice of Attorney Shively, Larry Willis excused himself from the meeting. This matter was automatically tabled to the next meeting due to lack of a quorum.

PP-04-14 – Park Place III by Ubelhor Homes, Inc., Kenneth Ubelhor, Pres. 5.55 acres located 500’ N and 500’ W of the intersection of Park Place Drive and Highpointe Drive, Ohio Twp. (Complete legal on file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard October 28, 2004.

Present were Jim Morley Jr. and Kenny Ubelhor

The President asked for a staff report.

The Executive Director stated that that they have submitted all the return receipts of notice to the adjacent property owners. She stated that the zoning of the property is “C-4” General Commercial and is Lot 10 in Highpointe Center North, which was primary platted and approved in 2001. The Board granted an extension of primary plat to August the 18^th of next year. She then stated that they will need to record the secondary plat which they are submitting of lot 10 and lot 9 because an entrance is also going to be used and was approved on lot 9, before this PRUD can be recorded. She further added there is no flood plain on the property and it is one lot with seven proposed buildings, which will contain a total of fifty-eight units. She said it will be private streets within the development, the commercial driveways for lot 10 and lot 9 were re-approved by the County Commissioner’s today for a use of going into the apartment complex. She then stated that there were no additional drainage plans required for this primary plat, they were already approved in the initial Highpointe Center North Subdivision Drainage Plans. She stated there is a capacity letter from Newburgh for sewer and from Chandler for the water. She stated that there was also a capacity letter for gas and electric from Vectren. She added it is a proposed planned residential unit development which is allowed in the C-4 zoning and the subdivision plat is in technical conformity; the only condition is that lot 9 and 10 be recorded before this one can be recorded.

Guy Gentry questioned whether or not there was anything to add to the staff report.

Kenny Ubelhor stated that it is basically an apartment project like the existing one it just sits south of it, so it is kind of a duplicate of what is out there now.

Guy Gentry asked the Board members for any questions, being none, he asked for any remonstrators for or against the project.

Being none the President called for a motion on the plat.

Carl Conner made a motion based on the evidence presented to find PP-04-14 in technical conformity with the Subdivision Control Ordinance and to approve it. Larry Willis seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

PP-04-15 – The Villas of Woodfield PRUD by Moore Development Group, LLC, Greg Moore, Mbr. 8.08 acres located on the N side of Jenner Rd. at the NW corner of the intersection formed by Jenner Rd. (S 150) & SR 261, Ohio Twp. (Complete legal on file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard October 28, 2004.

Present were Jim Morley Jr. and Greg Moore.

The President asked for a staff report.

The Executive Director stated that return receipts from certified mail of notice of the public hearing to the adjacent property owners have been submitted. She explained that the zoning for this was on the agenda for this meeting, so of course none of the plats could be recorded until such time as the zonings are approved by the Commissioners. She said there is no flood plain on the property and it is a planned residential unit development with two lots, believed to be condominiums and Woodfield Drive is going to be a dedicated right of way and those were approved with the primary plat of Woodfield Subdivision. She stated The Villas of Woodfield is using the proposed lots 1 & 124-127, of the Woodfield Subdivision that was approved by this Board on primary plat previously. She then stated that they were then going to renumber the lots that will be in the Woodfield Subdivision on the primary plat. She stated that they do have a commercial driveway entrance that was on the Commissioner’s agenda tonight that comes off of Woodfield Drive which is Woodfield Court, which is a private street. She added further that the Commissioner’s continued the commercial driveway entrance, tabled it to the December 8^th meeting due to the fact that there is a Vectren easement that goes through this development, that the applicant is going to have to vacate. She stated that it would have to be a condition of this plat approval, by this Board, since the easement is going across five of the buildings. She then stated that they are putting new easements around the border of the subdivision to replace this one but it will have to be done. She further added that the vacation of the easement should be done before any approval for the commercial driveway. She said that the commercial driveway is not located within the Vectren easement but they also need a Hold Harmless and they need to vacate it. She stated so if the Board approves this subdivision, it would have to be conditioned upon the Vectren easement being vacated and the commercial driveway being approved by the County Commissioner’s on December the 8^th. She said that a Hold Harmless has to be submitted for the median in the road right of way of Woodfield Drive prior to being recorded. She added further that the drainage plans were approved by the Drainage Board, we do have a capacity letter from Chandler for water and sewer. She added that they also have one from Vectren for the gas and electric. She said that it is a proposed PRUD in technical conformity and any approvals would have to be condition upon those three items.

The President asked if there is anything to add to the staff report or any question by the Board members.

Larry Willis questioned what type of easement, is it a gas or electric or all inclusive.

Mr. Morley states that it is a pole line easement. He then used the plat to show the Board where the easement was located. He stated the work on that has already started, and they have started placing conduits along Jenner for that relocation. He added that he believed that for the commercial drive permit the easement has to be vacated or a consent agreement.

Ms. Phillips stated that that is correct.

Mr. Morley stated that most likely if they do not have it moved before the next meeting they will ask for a consent agreement from Vectren. He further added that the work has already started in the vacation and relocation of that line. He said he feels that the Hold Harmless is not a big deal.

Ms. Phillips agrees and stated that there is a standard form.

Mr. Morley stated that he does not believe that there is anything that would stop the project from moving forward, from the County Commissioner’s meeting. He said that he did not think anyone said that they did not like the placing or the geometry.

Guy Gentry confirms that Mr. Morley is showing on the plat the existing and the proposed. He said that there would be no need to redraw. Mr. Gentry stated that Mr. Morley would just have to attach the vacation to the existing plat to know to eliminate.

Ms. Phillips stated that Mr. Morley does have a note on the plat for the easement to be vacated. Ms. Phillips states that if you have overhead lines from Vectren then in the past, everyone has always been allowed consent agreements, because you don’t have to worry about the road being dug up. She added that if it was in the ground you would want it vacated and or agreements made with the Commissioner’s to replace the road way if it was torn up, but this is not the case.

Ms. Phillips stated that she believes the issue with the Commissioner’s is that, it was their feeling that these issues need to be taken care of before it was brought to them and it wasn’t an objection to the plat. She added that the Board can approve Primary Plats with conditions.

Mr. Gentry questioned whether all the units are going to be basically the same.

Greg Moore stated that they are all going to be duplexes with the exception of one.

Guy Gentry asked whether they were two bedroom or three bedroom units.

Mr. Moore stated that they were three bedroom.

The Presidents asked for any other questions from the Board.

Mr. Morley verified to Mr. Michel the easement location using the plat.

The President asked for a motion of recommendation by the Board.

Gary Michel questioned whether there was any advantage to approving the plat tonight, verses waiting to get everything squared away.

Ms. Phillips stated that the only advantage is that they do not have to come back to the meeting. She stated that nothing is going to happen with this until December the 8^th when it goes back to the Commissioners.

Gary Michel stated that it would be much cleaner if the Board waited.

Ms. Phillips stated that she feels the issue is not that it be approved tonight, just that there were no other issues.

Mr. Morley stated that if the Board wanted to table the plat tonight, he just wanted to ensure that it would go on December the 8^th.

Mr. Moore stated that he would appreciate any comments that he could get this evening about everything, verses run the risk of coming back. He stated that from a developer’s standpoint the advantage of it being done tonight is that it is one less hurdle between him and the end goal. He added that that would be one more assurance that the project is going to go.

Attorney Shively stated that it sounds like they have been working with Vectren and it is agreeable about the five foot easement.

Mr. Morley replied yes and that all of this information has been sent to Vectren.

Ms. Phillips asked if your going to vacate this easement, which has to be done in a public hearing and notice sent. She asked if it is a Vectren easement can they just abandon an easement and not have a public hearing.

Attorney Shively stated yes and that if it is an exclusive easement in favor of Vectren

there is no public hearing, Vectren will sign some instrument, you can call it vacating. He said that what they will probably do is this, there will be two instruments recorded simultaneously one that creates the new easement, because they are not just going to want to rely on the developer to show the easement, they are going to want a separate instrument that shows their easement and the abandonment of the other. He stated further that there would be no public hearing. Mr. Shively gave an example of if they were vacating a dedication of public right of way or a public utility easement than that would be part of a public hearing.

Ms. Phillips stated that that was her question, and that she just wanted to make sure.

Guy Gentry asked for any other questions or issues with the plat.

Attorney Shively stated that he would like to also add that Indiana law is pretty clear that the first moment a plat is presented to the Board in a public hearing the Board, has the duty to note all nonconformities/concerns. He stated further if it is before the Board this evening, and it comes back on the 8^th and the Board denies it, because of something that was not discussed, the Board may be putting their decision in jeopardy.

Larry Willis stated that it would be a lot cleaner if the Board waited to the last meeting, he hates to go ahead and approve something ahead of agencies that need to approve something, the Board has got itself into situations before by doing that.

Carl Conner made a motion to table PP-04-15 Villas of Woodfield to the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Larry Willis and unanimously carried.

OTHER BUSINESS:

Formal Complaint: Pamela Thomason, (OWNER) – William Bruner II (TENANT) – 2996 Arnold Road – Alleged Salvage Yard, Used Car Sales and Mobile Office in an “A” Agriculture zoning district. Granted 60 days on September 8, 2004.

Present was Pamela Thomason.

The President called for a staff report.

Ms. Phillips stated that this came before the Board on September the 8^th and at that time there was a commercial storage trailer on the property that Ms. Thomason’s nephew was using. She reported that the yard has been cleaned up; there was a complaint filed about other items, all that was cleaned up and the only thing remaining was the trailer. She stated that the trailer was supposed to be removed in the sixty days and on 11/4/04 it was still there.

Ms. Thomason stated that she is asking for sixty more days.

Mr. Gentry stated that he thought the trailer was full of stuff.

Ms. Thomason stated that she was trying to get it cleaned out so they can sell it and she just needed a little more time.

Ms. Phillips questioned whether or not Ms. Thomason’s nephew was still there using the trailer.

Ms. Thomason stated that she has not seen him in a while.

The president asked for any questions by the Board members.

Ms. Thomason stated that it was a storage shed.

Ms. Phillips stated that she had not heard anything from the person who had filed the complaint.

Carl Conner made a motion to grant the request for sixty additional days to remove the trailer. The motion was seconded by Larry Willis and unanimously carried.

Discussion – Sherri J. Rissner ~ Comprehensive Plan development along Epworth Road Corridor south of Deaconess Hospital Complex.

Present was Sherri Rissner.

Ms. Phillips stated that Sherri Rissner had appeared before the Commissioners and she had emailed her asking her to place this on the agenda for this meeting. Ms. Phillips presented a petition to the Commissioners tonight from the property owners along Epworth Road north of Lincoln Avenue, basically asking that there not be any rezoning to commercial. Ms. Phillips added that the Comprehensive Plan protects all of that area from 66 to Lincoln on the west side of Epworth to be commercial. Ms. Phillips stated that she had explained to Sherri Rissner the petition is fine but everyone still has the right to petition to rezone the property, the Comprehensive Plan even if it was amended, they still have a right to petition to rezone the property and you could rezone it if it did project it to be residential. She stated that all this had been gone over in the Commissioner’s meeting.

Guy Gentry stated that Ms. Phillips is correct but that the Board will give her an opportunity to speak.

Sherri Rissner stated that she just wanted to present a petition, since this is an Area Planning Commission and she thought as a resident of this county she had the right to present the petition to the Area Plan Commission. She stated that she is concerned about everything on the west side of Epworth. She stated she does not care about the Deaconess Hospital complex, she is talking about everything south of the complex to Lincoln Avenue. She said that currently everything south of Lincoln Avenue is considered residential and it is kind of protected, she does realize that people could rezone down there. She stated that everything between Lincoln and the Deaconess Complex on the west side of Epworth Road is pretty much open for commercial development and being actively pursued at this time. She stated that it was their desire to present a petition with sixty-three names on it, and publicly let their intentions be known that they are opposed to any commercial development there. She added that they feel like the Comprehensive Plan protects the home owner, but they don’t feel like the Area Planning Commission or the County Commissioner’s necessarily protect the homeowners sometimes. She stated that she knows that whole area is economic expansion and it is about funding a TIF district, but they are not about funding a TIF district or about economic expansion, and she know that the Comprehensive Plan states that this is going to be a great place to raise a family. She stated that she is just here to share those thoughts and opinions with the Board.

Ms. Phillips asked Attorney Shively if someone filed a petition to rezone a piece of property can this petition be considered or would it have to be resubmitted at that other hearing.

Attorney Shively stated that it would need to be resubmitted at that public hearing to have as part of the record. He stated if they would attempt to keep referring to this petition with every rezoning they would be creating an administrative nightmare. He stated that one of the things the Planning Commission may consider is reevaluating the Comprehensive Plan.

The Executive Director stated that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1993. Ms. Phillips stated that funding is an issue. She stated that she is waiting for the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Control Ordinance to be completed and then try to approach the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that with the Interstate 69 expansion there will be $50,000 in grant money available.

Attorney Shively stated that one of the things that is required by state law in order for a community to have zoning ordinances, there must be a Comprehensive Plan. He stated a Comprehensive Plan is what it supposed to help guide the Planning Commission and the Commissioners on requests to amend the zoning maps or rezoning. He stated that the comments she has made this evening since they do not pertain to a particular petition or request would be more concerned with a public hearing that would be held on a Comprehensive Plan and what he thinks the Board should do is file this as part of comments regarding the now existing Comprehensive Plan. He stated that if he understands correctly, the comments she is making are stating that this Comprehensive Plan needs to be adhered to. He advised that so it gets picked up and not lost in some miscellaneous way, maybe it should be cross filed with the Comprehensive Plan so that we have these comments of record because there is a case that is before the Indiana Supreme Court right now that says, depending on how the court rules, may make those Comprehensive Plans extremely important to zoning petition. He added that the case before the Supreme Court is a case where a local zoning body was admonished in making a zoning decision and not taking consideration, in fact ignoring the Comprehensive Plan, and the Court of Appeals said that was wrong and if the Supreme Court affirms that it is going to be very important to follow the Comprehensive Plan.

Guy Gentry stated that the Comprehensive Plan is not hidden, it is looked at on a regular basis as the Board is looking at a zoning. He stated that as far as an actual review of the plan itself, he thinks that if it has been over ten years he feels that it needs to be looked at as well. He added however if the Board can wait a year and receive an additional $50,000 he thinks it would be worth waiting.

Sherri Rissner read a survey that she found containing information on what the residents in Warrick County wanted. She stated that the residents relate Religion, Public Education, Family Ties, and Housing Values as the most important strengths of Warrick County. She added that she does not once hear commercial development. She stated more concerns about being notified of changes in zoning and commercial development.

Guy Gentry thanked Sherri Rissner for her time and voicing her concerns.

Robert Klippel approached the podium with a question for the board.

Mr. Klippel questioned if there was a web site that is maintained that any kind of building

request can be placed on or in some fashion could be communicated.

Ms. Phillips stated that the Planning Commission does send all of the Agendas and Minutes to the employee that is supposed to post that information. She stated that she know this is not being done and it is important, she is glad it was brought up.

Carl Conner stated that this issue was brought up at the meeting at the fire station and that he has assured the individuals at the meeting that he would follow up in regards to getting the information published on the website, because that the person responsible for the information being posted is a direct employee of the County Commissioner’s office.

Attorney Business: None

Executive Director Business:

Ms. Phillips stated that Jaynann Hebner started working Monday, October the 8^th. She stated that she is the new employee and one of the five that had been picked during the interview process.

Ms. Phillips asked Attorney Shively if he had contacted David Isley, in which Attorney Shivley stated yes and no.

Attorney Shively stated that they had been playing phone tag and on the last voice mail he told Mr. Isley what the call was in regards to.

Ms. Phillips stated that BLA is doing the subdivision ordinances, and it had been a couple months since BLA had met with the Board and that she keeps getting the bills but that she has not seen anything. She stated that she received a bill for $510.00 but that she is unsure what BLA has done concerning the subdivision ordinances.

Guy Gentry made a motion to retain all bills until the Board has been contacted on where BLA is on the process. The motion was seconded by Carl Conner and carried unanimously.

Being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:10 pm.

________________________

Guy Gentry, President

ATTEST:

___________________________

Sherri Phillips, Executive Director & Secretary