MINUTES

WARRICK COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION

Regular meeting held in Commissioners Meeting Room,

Third Floor, Court House,

Boonville, IN

Wednesday, April 14, 2004, 6:00 P.M.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Guy Gentry, President; Robert Addington, Phil Baxter, Duane Erwin, Gary Michel, Mike Moesner and Larry Willis.

Also present were Sherri Phillips, Executive Director, Les Shively, Attorney and Sheila Lacer, Assistant Director.

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

SUBDIVISIONS FOR PRIMARY PLAT APPROVAL:

The Executive Director stated that the primary plats PP-04-03 Willow Creek did not receive street or drainage plan approval and the engineer is requesting this plat be continued. She stated PP-04-06 Elberfeld Industrial Park did not receive drainage plan approval and also needs to be continued.

PP-04-02 - Mallard Lake Subdivision by Lake Group, Inc., Stewart Phillips, President. 26.1687 acres located on the S side of Heim Rd. approximately 1800’ W of the intersection formed by Heim Rd. (N 50) & Tow Path Rd. (W 800), Ohio Twp. (Complete legal on file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard February 26, 2004. Con’t from last regular meeting held March 10, 2004.

Bill Bivins and Harlon Metzger, Lake Group, Inc. were present.

The President called for a staff report.

The Executive Director stated they have submitted the return receipts from certified mail of notice of this meeting to the adjacent property owners. She stated the subject property is zoned “R-2” ~ Multi Family which requires a minimum frontage of 60’ at the building line and a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet or 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit unless they file a PRUD. Ms. Phillips stated a large portion of the property falls within a zone AE 100’ year flood plain and the BFE has been determined at 388.4 and they have a Conditional Letter of Map Amendment based on fill that if they fill the property to 388.6 and resubmit to FEMA they can get a Letter of Map Amendment to remove a portion of the property from the flood plain. She added if they do not remove the property from the flood plain, then each structure will require a certified plot plan certifying the first floor elevation of each structure will be 2’ above the BFE. She explained this is a proposed 100 lot residential subdivision and the street construction plans were approved by the County Commissioners on March 24, 2004. She stated the subdivision was approved with only one entrance on Heim Road. Ms. Phillips stated the plat was originally submitted with two entrances; however, it was the recommendation of Steve Sherwood, County Highway Engineer, that the plat be changed to have one larger entrance as currently shown on the plat. (Letter on file.) She stated he cites his reasoning to be inadequate sight distance; however he does recommend that a right of way be considered to access the eastern or western boundary of the subdivision creating additional access points for future developments. She stated this was also a recommendation by the Plat Review Committee, however, the applicants don’t wish to stub out a road to the adjacent properties and they will have to explain why. She added the drainage plans were approved March 24, 2004 and Chandler Utilities have submitted a letter stating they have sufficient capacity to service the subdivision with both water and sewer. She stated the plat is in technical conformity with the Subdivision Control Ordinance and is in order for approval.

Bill Bivins stated the entrance has three lanes which access out to the street which is almost like having two exits. He stated as far as stubbing a road out to the adjacent property the property to the east is the Chandler Town Limits and there is already an approved platted subdivision going in there so a street would just stub into a lot. He stated the property to the west is in the flood zone and they don’t own or control that property and they don’t plan to develop in that direction.

Mr. Addington asked again about stubbing out a road.

Mr. Bivins again stated the property to the east is an existing platted subdivision and to the west is property in the flood zone they don’t own or control. He stated Elmer Brown owns the property and they spoke to him and he said he doesn’t anticipate developing it.

Discussion ensued how the property to the east abutted this property. The town limit boundary of Chandler was also discussed as well as the layout of the neighboring subdivision.

Ms. Phillips commented she has not seen the subdivision plat that the Town of Chandler approved.

Bill Bivins stated he was the engineer for the project.

Gary Michel asked where the flood plain is on the property.

Discussion ensued over the aerial photographs with the flood plain highlighted and Mr. Bivins explaining the flood plain line delineated on the plat as well as the area that is to be removed from the flood plain.

Mr. Bivins explained they plan to build a four acre retention lake and take the dirt from there to elevate a portion of the property.

Robert Addington asked how much fill will be required to which Mr. Bivins stated he believes it will be about 55,000 cubic yards.

Discussion ensued over the elevations of the property and the Base Flood Elevation.

Robert Addington commented they will have to raise the property about 6-8 feet to which Mr. Bivins stated it will average about 3-4 feet and 8 feet at the maximum.

Larry Willis asked if they are putting in a decel and accel lane to which Mr. Bivins stated they are but not much to the east.

Gary Michel asked if there is a flood plain study the Commissioners are doing.

Ms. Phillips stated they did and their surveyor spoke to DNR.

Bill Bivins stated the study was done for 6,000 acres of drainage and if everything would get stopped up this property would raise the water level 1/165 of an inch.

Larry Willis asked if he was saying that by raising the elevation of this property it will only raise the 6,000 acres water shed by 1/165 inch to which Mr. Bivins stated that is correct but only if everything was shut off.

Robert Addington asked if there was any other way they could get another entrance or exit to this property since they have over 100 lots.

Mr. Bivins stated they first submitted a plan with two entrances and the County Highway Engineer and EUTS wouldn’t let them do it because of the sight distance. He stated the entrance has been designed with extra lanes.

Guy Gentry stated the Engineer cited sight distance and the width of the property as his reasoning. He stated he understands that but he is still hung up on them at least putting a stubb out to adjacent property so at least there could be a possibility of having another entrance in the future and not landlock some of that property.

Mr. Bivins stated the County has purchased the property to the south and east for wetlands due to some construction they did to some bridges. He stated it is all wetlands down there and it highly impossible for anything else to be built in the area.

Guy Gentry stated he disagrees and it is wet but he never thought they would be doing one where they are right now and so he knows it will probably extend on west at some point in time. He stated he realizes to the east is an existing subdivision but there is a five acre tract of land on the road and they may decide to sell once the subdivision start being built and so if a road was stubbed out to that tract then it could lead to another entrance.

Mr. Bivins stated right now that would mean they would stubb out a road directly into the brick house sitting on the property.

Guy Gentry stated he understands but he would still like to look ahead because they are looking at several lots.

Gary Michel stated he feels it would be good to look at the property on each side to see what their options are. He added he would also like to see the results from the flood plain study.

Bill Bivins stated they have been through this twice at the Drainage Board meeting. He stated they showed that the effect of this project on the surrounding area is nill.

Gary Michel stated a little here and a little there will end up being a big deal.

Larry Willis stated as he understands it, Mr. Bivins is saying the drainage would have to be plugged up completely to raise the level 1/165 inch on a 6,000 acre coverage. He stated he thinks it would be pretty remote to have it completely plugged up.

Mr. Bivins stated the County Surveyor indicated that she also spoke to the DNR who agrees this project will not effect anything.

Mike Moesner stated essentially the retention is an offset and they are creating a void.

Discussion ensued over the size of the lake and the drainage area.

Guy Gentry then asked where Drake Drive could stubb out to the west.

Using the Think Map computer projection staff measured the distance from the road to the house on the west. Discussion ensued over the existing layout of the property.

Gary Michel stated he would also like to point out that they will be constructing these houses on eight feet of fill and he was concerned over settling.

Bill Bivins stated every lot will be compacted to 95 feet proctor.

Guy Gentry then asked if before permits are issued in that area will a letter need to be submitted to the Plan Commission that it is above the flood plain.

The Executive Director stated once they fill the property and submit the results to FEMA and a Letter of Map Amendment is issued then the property is removed from the flood plain and permits are issued. She stated they won’t be required to have certified plot plans once the Letter of Map Amendment has been done either. She stated if they have any concerns they can make it a requirement that a note be added to the plat that the property is filled. Ms. Phillips stated FEMA has already issued a Conditional Letter of Map Amendment for this property.

Guy Gentry stated he is concerned that it be released and then someone later on buying a lot not knowing the area has been filled.

Bill Bivins stated they would have no objections to placing a note on the plat.

Ascertaining there were no other questions from the Board and being no remonstrators present, the President called for a motion.

Phil Baxter made a motion to approve PP-04-02. The motion was seconded by Larry Willis. Guy Gentry and Gary Michel voted against the motion and all other members voted for the motion, therefore the motion to approve carried.

PP-03-02 – Rising Sun Subdivision by JJRB, LLC, Jim Biggerstaff, VP. OWNER OF RECORD: Estate of Wilbur G. Wasson & Irene Wasson. 12 acres located on the W side of Crescent Dr. approximately 2000’ W of the intersection formed by Crescent Dr. & Crescent Ct. Ohio Twp.(Complete legal on file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard April 1, 2004.

Jim Biggerstaff and Rita Roth, POA for Irene Wasson were present.

The President called for a staff report.

The Executive Director stated they have submitted the return receipts from certified mail of notice of this meeting to the adjacent property owners. She stated the subject property is zoned “R-2” ~ Multi Family which requires a minimum frontage of 60’ at the building line and a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet or 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit unless they file a PRUD. She stated there is no flood plain on the property and this is a proposed 19 lot residential subdivision but two of those lots will go to adjacent property owners as additional acreage and are not building lots. She stated the street plans were approved today with the condition that a consent agreement with Vectren be executed prior to secondary plat recording since a portion of the roads cross under the easement. She added they have a preliminary agreement now and Vectren will execute the document when the property is deeded to the new owners. She stated the Drainage Board approved the drainage plans today and added that Chandler Utilities has submitted a letter stating they have sufficient capacity to service the subdivision with both water and sewer. Ms. Phillips stated this plat was originally submitted in 2003 with plans for 33 residential lots and was continued several times and never obtained any approvals. She stated it was removed from the agenda until it was in order and they had to re notice the adjacent property owners and the plat was re-advertised in the paper. She stated the plat does need minor corrections but it is in technical conformity with the Subdivision Control Ordinance and any approval should be conditioned upon the consent agreement with Vectren being executed and recorded with the secondary plat.

The President called for questions from the Board.

Gary Michel questioned whether the lots have adequate building sites with the Vectren Easement running through the property.

Jim Biggerstaff stated all of the lots have adequate building areas.

Discussion ensued over which lots were going to adjacent land owners and the configuration of the lots.

Mike Moesner asked what is in the easement to which Mr. Biggerstaff stated it is for overhead electric lines.

Larry Willis asked if there was room to build a house on all of the lots without having to ask for a Variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. He stated they have been having to deal with situations such as that recently and he wants to be sure they don’t approve a subdivision that will have problems with their yards.

Jim Biggerstaff stated there is adequate room.

Ascertaining there were no other questions from the Board the President called for remonstrators.

Shawn Shuttles stated he lives in the adjoining subdivision of Russell Hills and the existing drainage pattern runs west and crosses his lot. He stated he knows they are going to build a retention pond but they are going to put in a lot of roofs and he wants to be sure the storm water won’t affect him.

The Executive Director asked him if he attended the Drainage Board meeting to which he indicated he did not.

Jim Biggerstaff stated the drainage plans were approved and the lots will drain into the storm sewers and then into the retention basins. He stated the retention basin releases on a 50 year rate.

Ascertaining there were no other remonstrators and being no other questions from the Board, the President called for a motion.

Mike Moesner made a motion to approve PP-03-02 with the condition that the Vectren Agreement be executed and recorded with the secondary plat. The motion was seconded by Phil Baxter and unanimously carried.

PP-04-03 – Willow Creek Subdivision by Thomas J. & Kathy Merrill. 72.9254 acres located on the E & W side of Pigeon Valley R. approximately 0’ S of the intersection formed by Pigeon Valley Rd. (E 50) & New Hope Rd. (S 300), Boon Twp. (Complete legal on file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard April 1, 2004.

Gary Michel made a motion to continue this subdivision to the next meeting in order for it to receive street and drainage plan approval. The motion was seconded by Larry Willis and unanimously carried.

PP-04-04 – Warren Commercial Park by Warren Newburgh Property LLC & Warren Real Estate LLC, by Gene Warren, Jr., Pres. 2.66 acres located on the NW corner of the intersection formed by S.R. 66 & S.R. 261, Lot 2 in Warrick Place Subdivision and part Ohio Twp. 23-6-9. (Complete legal on file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard April 1, 2004.

Andy Easley, Easley Engineering and Gene Warren, Jr. were present.

The President called for a staff report.

The Executive Director stated they have submitted all of the return receipts from certified mail of notice of this meeting to the adjacent property owners. She stated the property is zoned “C-4” General Commercial which has no minimum lot area and requires a 5’ yard. She stated this is a proposed two lot commercial subdivision that is not located in a flood plain. She stated the Commissioners approved that no improvements to Fruitwood Lane would be required and the Drainage Board approved their drainage plans today. Ms. Philips stated Newburgh Sewer has submitted letter stating sewer is available and Chandler water has lines in place and ready for connection. She explained that one lot has the existing CVS Pharmacy and the second lot is the only new building lot. She stated the plat needs minor corrections but it is in technical conformity with the Subdivision Control Ordinance.

Ascertaining there were no questions from the Board and being no remonstrators present, the President called for a motion.

Phil Baxter made a motion to approve PP-04-04. The motion was seconded by Duane Erwin and unanimously carried.

PP-04-05 – I-164 Commercial Park by Union Federal Bank by Margaret L. Hoke, Asst. V.P. 25.785 acres located on the NW corner of the intersection of S.R. 662 & I-164, Ohio Twp. (Complete legal on file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard April 1, 2004.

Andy Easley, Easley Engineering and Margaret Hoke were present.

The President called for a staff report.

The Executive Director stated they have submitted all the return receipts from certified mail of notice of this meeting to the adjacent property owners with the exception of one from Fredrick & Carlene Seibert and so they will need to submit either the return receipt or unopened letter when it is returned. She stated the property is zoned “C-3” Highway Commercial which has no minimum lot requirements and a 5’ yard. Ms. Phillips stated there is no flood plain on the property and this is a two lot commercial subdivision. She stated the street construction plans were approved by the County Commissioners today and the drainage plans were approved by the Drainage Board today. She stated the existing building (Off the Wall Sports) on lot 1 is currently connected to Newburgh Sewer and the other lot has a statement saying “for future development, not a building site at this time. Lot will be platted prior to Improvement Location Permits being issued.” She stated this statement is due to the current capacity problems Newburgh Sewer is experiencing at this time. She added that Margaret Hoke, Asst. VP, Union Federal Bank, has written a letter requesting this Board’s assistance in allowing this subdivision to be approved in order for them to sell the individual lots. She stated another primary plat will be required for Lot 2 at the time it is being developed. She stated Evansville Water and Sewer Utility has submitted a letter stating they have sufficient capacity to serve the subdivision. Ms. Phillips stated the plat needs minor corrections but it is in technical conformity with the Subdivision Control Ordinance. She added that any approval should be conditioned that Lot 2 will have to be platted and must have availability of sewers prior to permits being issued.

Gary Michel question whether this was ever platted to which the Executive Director stated the permit for the building was issued on the entire parcel and there have been plats before the Board previously but none of them were ever approved. She added this plat is creating two lots and dedicating right of way over the private driveway.

Ascertaining there were no other questions from the Board and being no remonstrators present, the President called for a motion.

Duane Erwin made a motion to approve PP-04-05. The motion was seconded by Phil Baxter and unanimously carried.

PP-04-06 – Elberfeld Industrial Park by the Town of Elberfeld, Duane Erwin, Pres. OWNERS: Town of Elberfeld, Duane Erwin, Pres. & Stoltz Structural, Inc, Linda Stoltz, Pres. 27.52 acres located on the N side of Seven Hills Rd. approximately 0’ N of the intersection formed by Seven Hills Rd. (N 750) & St. Johns Rd. (W 1100), Greer Twp. (Complete legal on file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard April 1, 2004.

Robert Addington made a motion to continue this subdivision to the next regular meeting in order for it to receive drainage plan approval. The motion was seconded by Larry Willis. Duane Erwin abstained from voting. All other members voted for the motion.

REZONING PETITIONS:

The President explained that any rezoning petition receiving a recommendation this evening will be forwarded to the County Commissioners on Wednesday, May 12, 2004, at 4:00 p.m., Commissioners Meeting Room, Courthouse, Boonville, Indiana.

PC-R-04-06 - Petition of Kenneth Brinkley & Nola Brinkley to rezone 1.28 acres located on the SE side of SR 261 approximately 500’ SW of the intersection formed by SR 261 & Quail Crossing Dr. Boon Twp. from “CON” Recreation & Conservancy to “C-4” General Commercial zoning district. (Complete legal on file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard April 1, 2004.

Kenneth & Nola Brinkley were present.

The President called for a staff report.

The Executive Director stated they have submitted all of the return receipts from certified mail of notice of this meeting to the adjacent property owners. She stated according to the petition they are requesting to rezone 1.28 acres from “CON” Recreation and Conservancy to “C-4” General Commercial zoning district. She stated there is no minimum lot size for commercial zoning and the Comprehensive Plan has no projection shown for this area. She stated the current land use is for the Brinkley’s residence. She added all surrounding property is zoned “CON” Recreation & Conservancy with a residence to the north, vacant to the south and east and Quail Crossing Golf Community to the west across the highway and there is no flood plain on the property. She added their access is on S.R. 261 and the proposed use is for a recording studio and seasonal fireworks sales which would be allowed in that zoning. She stated the petition is in order and then added that last summer Mr. Brinkley did sell fireworks from this location and he willingly shut his business down when the office contacted him about the violation and so he is now trying to come into compliance with the ordinance in order to sell his fireworks.

Ascertaining the applicants had nothing to add, the President called for comments from the Board.

Gary Michel commented there is no other commercial zoning in that area with it being discussed that Quail Crossing Golf Course is across the highway.

Ms. Phillips stated the golf course is across the street and Mr. Brinkley’s family lives directly to the north. She stated the property to the south is a vacant wooded area.

Guy Gentry asked about the recording studio to which Mr. Brinkley stated it would be a music recording studio.

It was discussed that a residence is allowed in a commercial zoning and he sells the fireworks out of the garage.

Guy Gentry asked if the fireworks sales have to be inspected by the Fire Marshall to which Mr. Brinkley stated it does.

Discussion ensued over the surrounding area and the requested zoning.

The Executive Director stated neither requested uses are listed in the ordinance and it was her recommendation they apply for the “C-4” zoning since this property is along the highway.

Attorney Shively stated the ordinance can’t foresee all of the various uses or combinations and State Law specifically grants the Executive Director the ability to interpret the ordinance and determine what zoning the uses would fall into.

Gary Michel commented that Quail Crossing Golf Course is across the highway but it is not zoned commercial.

Mr. Brinkley stated they do have a Club House and they have a retail business there.

Ms. Phillips stated the golf course can be located in a “CON” zoning district with a Conditional Use approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals which they did.

Discussion then ensued over permitted uses in a “C-1” zoning with the Executive Director stating she recommended the “C-4” zoning because of the fireworks.

Mrs. Brinkley stated they have upgraded their driveway so people can turn around on their property and not have to back out on the highway.

The Executive Director stated if this is rezoned the State will have to review their entrance and they may be required to upgrade it more.

The President called for remonstrators.

Gerald Lewis stated he isn’t remonstrating but he does have a comment about the property to the south. He stated that tree line belongs to Victoria National and the Warrick County Parks Department is contemplating trading some ground with them. He stated this is potential site for another school and the rest of the property to the south could belong to the Parks Department.

Discussion ensued over the aerial photos.

Robert Addington stated this property could be located near a school to which Ms. Phillips stated there is no way to know where or if there will be a school there.

Ascertaining there were no other questions from the Board, the President called for a motion.

Mike Moesner made a motion based on the evidence presented and petition on file to recommend approval to the County Commissioners of PC-R-04-06. The motion was seconded by Phil Baxter.

Larry Willis stated he doesn’t see any other commercial zoning in the area and he is worried about spot zoning.

Guy Gentry stated he has the same concerns and he knows they are trying to come into compliance with the fireworks sales. He commented that fireworks sales inside the home does concern him.

Gary Michel stated he too has real concerns about spot zoning.

Mrs. Brinkley stated if they get the property rezoned they will not live there anymore, the house will be strictly for business.

The Executive Director asked if they are regulated by State and Federal requirements for the sale of fireworks.

Mr. Brinkley stated they are and they have to have a license and the building is inspected by the State Fire Marshall.

Mrs. Brinkley commented that there are several businesses along the highway near them such as Nadine’s Nursery and the veterinary office. She stated the whole highway is only seven miles long and there are also businesses going toward Newburgh.

Roll call was taken with Guy Gentry, Robert Addington, Gary Michel and Larry Willis voting against the motion and Phil Baxter, Duane Erwin and Mike Moesner voting for the motion.

The President stated the motion to approve did not carry so this application will be forwarded to the County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial.

PC-R-04-07 - Petition of Reed M. Faith & Patricia Faith to rezone 1.0 acre located on the W side of Deer Lane approximately 400’ N of the intersection formed by SR 68 & Deer Lane, Hart Twp. from “A” Agriculture to “C-3” Highway Commercial zoning district. (Complete legal on file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard April 1, 2004.

Reed Faith and Jim Biggerstaff, Utilities Consulting were present.

The President called for a staff report.

The Executive Director stated they have submitted all of the return receipts of notice of this meeting to the adjacent property owners. She stated according to the application they wish to rezone 1 acre from “A” Agriculture to “C-3” Highway Commercial for a proposed mini storage facility. She stated there is no minimum lot area required for commercial zoning and the Comprehensive Plan shows the area to be for public schools or recreational area. Ms. Phillips stated the current use of the property is the Faith’s residence and the property to the north and east is the Town Limits of Lynnville zoned R-1A being Lynnville Park to the north and Deer Lane Subdivision to the southeast. She stated the property to the south and west is zoned Agriculture with Tecumseh School to the south and the Faith’s residence to the northwest. She added there is no flood plain on the property and the access will be off Deer Lane which is under the Town of Lynnville’s jurisdiction. She stated mini storage buildings are allowed in a C-3 zoning with a Conditional Use Approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals and added this property will need to have to file a subdivision plat to create this additional parcel. She added they will also need to file a Conditional Use with the Board of Zoning Appeals for the mini storages as well as obtain a commercial driveway permit. She stated the application is in order.

Larry Willis asked Attorney Shively if he should excuse himself from this hearing since he owns a similar business to which Attorney Shively advised he should. Mr. Willis left the meeting.

Mike Moesner asked if this will be accessed off S.R. 68 to which Mr. Faith stated it will be accessed from Deer Lane which comes off S.R. 68 right by Tecumseh High School.

Mike Moesner asked how many units he plans to construct.

Mr. Faith stated he will have two units, one building with rooms in it and then a large carport type area for R.V.’s. He stated this isn’t going to be a very large area because there aren’t that many people in the area to use it.

Ascertaining there were no other questions from the Board, the President called for remonstrators.

Ron Dodd stated he lives directly across the road from this site and this will be right off his backyard and there is no benefit for the residential neighborhood to have something like this there. He stated this will decrease their property values and it will also increase the traffic on Deer Lane. Mr. Dodd stated this is a country area and it will also ruin their view. He stated the storage buildings can also be a potential rodent breeding area and will increase the noise level in the area as well as present a security issue for their children. He then presented a petition signed by the Deer Lane neighbors against this rezoning. (Copy on file.) Mr. Dodd stated this won’t benefit anyone in the neighborhood and it will be an eyesore. He stated when they bought the property from Mr. Faith he commented that the property around wasn’t commercial and that wasn’t anything they had to worry about and now he wants to rezone.

Christine Hodges and Jerry Hodges stated they also live directly across from the proposed site. Ms. Hodges stated they have two teenage daughters who attend Tecumseh High School and this proposed site will be right on top of the high school property. She stated this could present a security issue for the students there since people will be coming and going at all hours. She stated the interstate is close by and there is a chance that someone from out of the area would rent one to make drugs or something in and they feel it is a real safety issue. Mr. Hodges stated the drawings that was sent to them with the notice doesn’t show his house location correctly. He then stated they have talked to the Principal of Tecumseh High School who told them he didn’t have any knowledge of the rezoning and he contacted the School Board and there was supposed to be an attorney present for them this evening.

Guy Gentry stated the notice was sent to the Superintendent of the Schools so the Corporation was aware of the rezoning.

Lou Wile stated she is also a resident of Deer Lane and that is a dead end street and since she moved in two years ago, Mr. Faith has opened up his eight lot subdivision which has increased the traffic on Deer Lane and S.R. 68 by the high school. She stated the houses that are being constructed are nice homes and are an improvement to the neighborhood but this storage unit will not be an improvement. She stated he is asking to put a commercial piece of property which is offering no assistance to the neighborhood. She stated this use will increase the traffic and theft goes up in the area. She stated people renting the units will at time leave their belongings in the units and she is concerned about the trash removal. She stated she is concerned about the whole atmosphere of the area because they live in a nature center because of the park and the wildlife and she doesn’t think this is needed.

Mr. Faith stated he started this project in his mind at the same time he started his subdivision. He stated what he noticed was the people moving in to this subdivision as well as the park never have enough room in their garage. He commented that this building is going to be setting at the end of his driveway and he isn’t planning on building anything trashy because he has over $300,000 tied up in his house. Mr. Faith stated he is building this because he thought this would help the neighbors so they could put some of their stuff in his buildings and be able to park their cars in their garage. He stated he isn’t planning on renting out to people from Evansville or even Boonville, he stated this is just a little building with about 15-20 units and there are enough people right there to fill it. He then asked if the school is commercially zoned.

Ms. Phillips stated it is not and schools can go in any zoning.

Ascertaining there were no questions from the Board, the President called for a motion.

Duane Erwin made a motion based on the evidence presented and petition on file to recommend denial of PC-R-04-07 to the County Commissioners. The motion was seconded by Mike Moesner and unanimously carried.

Larry Willis returned to the meeting.

PC-R-04-08 – Petition of Roy Paxton & Linda Paxton to rezone .625 acres located on the N side of Locust Lane approximately 970’ W of the intersection formed by Locust Lane and Bell Rd. (W 850), Ohio Twp., from “A” Agriculture to “R-1A” Single Family Dwelling zoning district. (Complete legal on file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard April 1, 2004.

Roy Paxton was present.

The President called for a staff report.

The Executive Director stated they have submitted the return receipts from certified mail of notice of this meeting to the adjacent property owners. She stated accordinging to the application they are requesting to rezone .625 acres from “A” Agriculture to “R-1A” Single Family Dwelling in order to subdivide the property to create two building sites. She stated that zoning requires 75’ frontage at the building line and a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet. Ms. Phillips stated the Comprehensive Plan projects the area to be moderate to high density residential. She explained the existing land use is a residential lot and there is a house on the property and staff understands the existing house is to be removed for a new house.

Mr. Paxton stated it is already gone.

Ms. Phillips stated the surrounding property to north, east and west are zoned Agriculture with residences and to the south is zoned “R-1A” with residences. She added there is no flood plain on the property and the lots access Locust Lane. She stated if the zoning is approved they will need to file a subdivision of the property and the application is in order.

The President called for remonstrators.

Robert Schapker, 8699 Locust Lane stated he isn’t actually here to remonstrate because they have already improved the neighborhood by taking out the old trailer. He stated there were rumors going around the neighborhood they were going to put in duplexes and so he came here this evening to listen.

Ms. Phillips stated duplexes aren’t allowed in this zoning.

Mr. Schapker stated they tried to split the lots next to him when they put in the Habitat house but the lots were wide enough.

Mr. Paxton stated he plans to build two houses and his lots will be about 80’ wide.

Ascertaining there were no other remonstrators and being no questions from the Board, the President called for a motion.

Phil Baxter made a motion based on the evidence presented and petition on file to recommend approval of PC-R-04-08 to the County Commissioners. The motion was seconded by Duane Erwin and unanimously carried.

OTHER BUSINESS:

MINUTES: The President stated he forgot to ask for approval of the Minutes at the beginning of the meeting and so would entertain a motion now. Upon a motion by Duane Erwin and seconded by Larry Willis, the Minutes of the last regular meeting held March 10, 2004, were approved as circulated.

Formal Complaint: Monte Williams, 7320 S.R 66 – Zoning Violation. Con’t from last regular meetings held February 11, 2004 & March 10, 2004.

Monte Williams was present.

The President called for a staff report.

The Executive Director stated a complaint was filed January 9, 2004 regarding several vehicles, a travel trailer being used as a residence and other items being located on the property. She stated staff went to the property on January 28^th and took pictures. She stated on February 11^th another inspection was done of the property and she found the property to be in violation of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance due to the mobile home being used as a residence without permits, the unlicensed vehicles and junk being a salvage yard and not being zoned “M-2” and several trailers sitting on the property which requires a Conditional Use permit. She stated this was continued from the February meeting in order for Mr. Williams to have his Attorney present and then it was continued due to not having a voting quorum on this matter because Mr. Willis excused himself from the hearing.

At this time Larry Willis excused himself from the meeting.

The Executive Director stated staff visited the property again today and took photographs, however, she didn’t go on the property; the photos were taken from New York Street. She stated the trailers and mobile home are still there as well as the vehicles.

Mr. Williams stated the vehicles are licensed now.

Ms. Phillips stated they were backed up to a trailer and she couldn’t tell if they were plated or not and he would need to bring in the registration for them.

Mr. Williams stated some of the junk has been removed as well but his problem is that the State took his building and he has to have some place to store the things that were in the building. He stated this is a replacement building that he wants to build. He stated the trailer is there because his property has been vandalized and he needs someone to watch it. He stated three of the trailers are semi trailers are full of building materials for the building he wants to build. He stated he also has storage containers to store the things that were in his building the State took. He then commented on the date of the photos.

The Executive Director stated the camera dates the photos and showed the Board which ones were current.

Discussion ensued over the photographs with the Executive Director stating the issue before the Board this evening is that she has found the property to be in violation and he needs to ask for time to come into compliance.

Mike Moesner asked what Mr. Williams plans are to which Mr. Williams stated he plan to build a building. He stated he was given permission by the Commissioners but he hasn’t got his Conditional Use permit. He added when he builds his building he won’t need the trailers.

The Executive Director stated the Conditional Use for the warehouse was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals. She added she doesn’t have the Findings of Fact with her tonight because it is a different Board but one of the reasons was because it wasn’t in compliance with the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Williams stated the trailer won’t be there once he gets his building built and secured. He stated they will be empty.

Guy Gentry stated it sounds like they are in a Mexican Standoff in that the Conditional Use was denied because the property isn’t in compliance and he isn’t willing to move the stuff there because he wants to use it to build his building.

The Executive Director stated the trailers are not just for storage of the building materials he is also using them for the stuff that was in the apartment building. She stated those storage buildings require a Conditional Use to sit there no matter what is being stored in them. She stated the mobile home is a residence and there have been no permits issued for it. She again stated she didn’t go on the property today so she didn’t see if any of the vehicles were licensed and he will need to show proof they are.

Mr. Williams commented on the pile of logs on the property and the fact that he planned to use them for lumber but had to cut them for firewood because he had no place to store them and he lost about $1500.

Gary Michel stated he understands that the Board of Zoning Appeals made their decision and denied the Conditional Use for the building.

Guy Gentry stated that is correct and he is in violation and that is what they are trying to determine as to whether to take legal action or give him time to come into compliance.

Mr. Williams asked what the reasons for denying his permit.

Ms. Phillips stated the findings were given at the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting and she doesn’t have a copy of them with her.

Guy Gentry asked if this was done recently to which Ms. Phillips stated the Conditional Use was denied two months ago and the findings were entered into record at the last meeting.

Guy Gentry asked if those findings were mailed to Mr. Williams to which Ms. Phillips stated he was at that meeting but she would check to make sure staff mailed him a copy.

Mr. Williams stated he asked for his building two years ago.

Attorney Shively stated they are not here this evening to discuss the building. He stated the decision on the building was made and he has a violation. He stated normally when someone is in violation, they come before this Board to ask for an amount of time to come into compliance and he suggests that he do that.

Mr. Williams stated he is trying to get across to them that he needs the building. He stated he doesn’t have any place else to store his things and he has materials that cost him over $2000 sitting there.

Attorney Shively stated one of the things that he could do right now and hasn’t is get a permit for the mobile home that someone is living in.

Mr. Williams stated he has never been advised that he needed one.

Attorney Shively informed him that ignorance of the law is not a defense and he is sorry that he is being so direct but they aren’t here this evening to debate all his trials and tribulations; he has been found in violation and a decision was made on the Conditional Use and this commission this evening wants to know what his plan to come into compliance will be.

Mr. Williams asked him if he could give him a good plan. He asked what he can do with him things.

Guy Gentry stated that is not this Board’s responsibility. He stated he is going to have to find another place to store them or the property needs to be brought into compliance. He stated they are willing to work with him and give him an amount of time if he will give them an estimate of what he thinks that might be – within reason or they will have no other recourse but to have their attorney begin legal proceedings.

Mr. Williams stated he sees no way he can come into compliance because he doesn’t have the money it would require to do so. He stated he knows his property will be vandalized if his watchman isn’t there.

Robert Addington asked how difficult it would be to get the permit for the mobile home.

Ms. Phillips stated that wouldn’t be too hard but he would have to check about his sewer and water permits but he could come into the office tomorrow and get that started. She asked Mr. Williams if he owned all of the trailers or if they are rentals.

Mr. Williams stated he doesn’t own all of them.

Robert Addington asked if he could come into compliance within 60-90 days to which Mr. Williams stated this is quite a problem because he doesn’t know if he is going to have to move them. He stated some of them are storage containers, not trailers and he doesn’t know what it would cost to move them and he doesn’t have the money to do that now.

Guy Gentry made a motion that Mr. Williams must obtain an Improvement Location Permit for the mobile home this week and bring in the registration forms for all of the vehicles by the end of this week and if he does those two things then they grant 90 days in which to make substantial improvement toward coming into compliance and if he doesn’t do those two things by the end of the week then Attorney Shively should immediately initiate legal proceedings. The motion was seconded by Duane Erwin.

Mr. Williams asked what substantial improvements mean.

Guy Gentry stated they have had a lot of discussion regarding what is on this property and to be honest it is an eyesore. He stated there has been lots of discussion regarding whether the rocks are going to be used or sold, etc. and asked what he plans on doing with that dirt piled up.

Mr. Williams agreed it is an eyesore and stated the dirt came out of the ditch and he will have to compact it before he puts up his building but it has been too wet. He stated if the weather cooperates he will have that done in a week.

Guy Gentry asked how many of the trailers are on wheels to which Mr. Williams stated there are three trailers and four or five are storage containers that are not on wheels.

Guy Gentry then asked about the need for a Conditional Use to which the Executive Director explained that a warehouse/storage building in that zoning requires a Conditional Use.

Guy Gentry stated he seems to recall that at one time there was discussion that some of this building was to be used for office or something other than a warehouse to which Mr. Williams stated he never said that and that is not true.

Guy Gentry stated that in order to come into compliance he is obviously going to have some of the items off the property and perhaps he should find someplace else to store his items. He then called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Larry Willis returned to the meeting.

ATTORNEY BUSINESS:

Attorney Shively stated the ordinance is done and in electronic form and they are still working on some format glitches. He stated they are ready to schedule the public hearing for the Plan Commission for June 9^th immediately following the regular meeting at 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. He stated if they want to have a special meeting they could do that. He stated they will need to advertise the time, place and geographic area and he will get the format to the staff. He stated he will get copies for the Board and will have a couple of copies for the general public to look at during regular business hours at the Plan Commission Office.

He stated the Plan Commission will hold a public hearing and at the conclusion of that hearing they will either approve it as presented or with amendments or certify it. He stated then it will go to the County Commissioners for public hearing and that has to be held within sixty days of the Plan Commission hearing. He stated if they don’t approve it as it is sent to them and make changes then it will have to come back to the Plan Commission.

Attorney Shively then stated the work on the Subdivision Control Ordinance begins tomorrow. He stated he is meeting with representatives from BLA and they are in the process of getting names of individuals to serve on an ad hoc committee.

The Executive Director stated she informed the County Commissioners today about the committee and they are placing the matter on their agenda in order to appoint some members to the committee. She stated they definitely need to have the County Highway Engineer participate in the update.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BUSINESS:

Discussion ~ Signage on semi trailers & political signs.

The Executive Director stated this discussion is not really regarding political signs. She stated the problem is that last year a landscaping company placed several semi trailers around the County with advertising banners on them. She stated she spoke to the individual and eventually got them removed but he has informed her that he plans on using them again this summer. Ms. Phillips stated now an individual running for office is using them for advertising and one was placed in a residential subdivision. She stated a complaint was filed and the individual removed the trailer immediately. She stated it is her feeling that these are commercial vehicles and she put it on the agenda tonight because she feels there needs to be some type of regulation and control for these. Ms. Phillips stated in reading the definition for a sign she feels these meet that definition regardless whether they set on the property for a month or two or for over a year because they could stay there forever. Ms. Phillips stated she feels they should only go on commercial property and be permitted the same as a billboard sign.

Guy Gentry asked her to read the definition of sign to which she read ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS, SECTION 2 TERMS DEFINED (115) & (116) in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.

Attorney Shively stated the issue came up most recently because of political advertising. He stated political speech is afforded special protection in this country but placement of a semi trailer is not and it is a different issue entirely. He stated it doesn’t matter if the trailer sign said “Vote for Les Shively as King”, if it is on a semi in a residential area it is a violation of the zoning ordinance. He stated no matter what the message is, they cannot allow or condone commercial apparatuses where they shouldn’t be.

Guy Gentry stated nor should they allow it in commercial zoning without the permits.

Attorney Shively stated that is correct. He stated off premise signs or billboards have to go through the appropriate permit process.

The Executive Director stated she wants the Minutes to reflect that it is the ruling of her and of this Board that they are signs.

Guy Gentry made a motion that semi trailers being used for advertising purposes that have been going on for a couple of years in the County are in deed signs and/or billboards and must come into compliance with the ordinance and must be in commercial property and obtain permits. The motion was seconded by Larry Willis.

Mike Moesner asked what is going to determine what is an advertisement on the side of a semi because many trucks have their company’s name and logo painted on them.

Guy Gentry stated when you drive past one of them you know what the purpose is.

Mike Moesner stated he understands but asked where they would make the distinction between someone’s truck with their logo and name parked at their house versus another vehicle with a sign.

Guy Gentry stated they aren’t talking about the 4’ X 8’ signs in the back of pickups or the magnetic signs on the cars, they are talking about semis parked on property with large advertising banners.

The Executive Director stated commercial vehicles that weigh over 1 ½ tons can’t be parked at someone’s residence either.

Discussion ensued over different vehicles with items painted on their sides.

The Executive Director stated if you see a semi trailer sitting in a farm field with the name of a chemical you know what it is being used for but you would also know that if it had a large banner on it that it was being used for something else. She stated there may be times that it will be hard to determine and there may be times that complaints will be filed and they will have to follow up on them but there has to be some type of regulation set on them or they are going to be stuck up all over the County.

Attorney Shively stated he wants to clarify that this body cannot make regulations or ordinance. He stated what she is asking this Board to do is affirm her determination that these apparatuses are billboards. He stated that is really unnecessary but she is simply asking them to ratify her decision. He stated he doesn’t want the Commissioners to think this body thinks it can make ordinances.

Larry Willis stated he thinks if a semi has a piece of paper or plastic on it that is advertising something then they are in violation of the sign ordinance because they are acting as a billboard. He stated there are billboard companies that compete for that business who employ people and they are abiding by all the rules and regulations.

Attorney Shively stated what they are talking about is a semi that someone brings in and parks it on a semi-permanent basis.

The Executive Director stated Vanderburgh County was going to file against the (landscaping) individual last year and they do not permit temporary signage without permits. She stated she also spoke to the State Highway Department representatives and they are changing their signage manuals to include these as signs. She stated this one individual was asked to remove his semi along S.R. 66 last year because it was interpreted as a billboard. She stated this is something new and they all have to deal with it. Ms. Phillips stated she has made the decision and would like the Board to affirm it.

Guy Gentry stated there is a motion and second on the floor in agreement with her decision. The motion unanimously carried.

Determination ~ Concrete patios ~ Structure requiring permit

The Executive Director stated there are different opinions as to whether concrete patios need to be part of the Improvement Location Permit as part of a house or not. She stated at one time in the office it was determined that a concrete patio was a structure and then another time it was determined it was not and was just poured concrete on the ground. Ms. Phillips stated now there is a situation in Linwood Subdivision where there is a 50’ Amoco Gas Easement running along the back of some of the lots where an individual got an Improvement Location Permit for a house not showing a patio and then added the patio to the house. She stated she has received communication from the gas company stating the patio is within their easement and asking why it was issued a permit. She stated no permit was issued for the patio to be placed in the easement. She stated when they read the definition of structure it is anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires location on the ground, or attached to something having a location on the ground.

She stated she has spoken to two township assessors who told her that patios are taxed as a structure. She stated it would be her recommendation that we treat a patio the same as we do in-ground pools in that they do have to get Improvement Location Permits; however, they wouldn’t have to meet rear yard requirements and not be counted in the lot coverage. Ms. Phillips stated every subdivision plat says that no structures or plantings are to be placed in easements.

Attorney Shively stated what she is suggesting will require a change in the ordinance and they can’t just say it is their policy they have to add specific language to the ordinance. He stated he doesn’t see where that will present a problem but it will have to be done.

The Executive Director asked then if she could say right now that a patio is a structure and it will be required to get permits like any other structure.

Attorney Shively stated that would be a staff determination but to say it didn’t need to meet certain requirements would require an ordinance change. He stated what they probably need to do is note in the ordinance that patios do not have to comply with the setback requirements but must be out of any easements of record.

Guy Gentry asked if driveways have to be out of easements to which the Executive Director stated they don’t. He then asked then why patios have to be out of easements.

Mike Moesner stated he didn’t realize driveways were allowed in easements.

Guy Gentry asked if a utility cuts through the driveway are they required to put it back.

Attorney Shively stated he thinks that driveways and patios are going to be treated the same and what they will basically do on driveways and patios is say they are structures for purposes of easements of record however they are not going to impose upon driveways and patios that they meet setbacks.

The Executive Director stated there are public utility easements along the fronts of most subdivision lots and so they wouldn’t want to include driveways in that because they have to cross those easements to get to the house. She stated the Board could consider language about whether the patios are raised or flat to the ground, such as a driveway.

Havia Garcia stated he is a representative of BP Gas and the patio is in their easement. He stated the issue they have in Linwood Subdivision and it restricts their maintenance of that pipeline. He stated that is an 8” hazardous chemical pipeline running under1400 pounds of pressure.

Attorney Shively stated if there is an encroachment in their easement, it isn’t this Board’s job to take civil action or protect that easement.

Mr. Garcia stated he understands that but the development company has represented to BP that they have been given permission to do that.

The Executive Director stated that is not the case.

Attorney Shively stated it makes no difference who did or didn’t give permission. He stated it is like if they rezone a piece of property and there are covenants and restrictions recorded against the property. He stated the Board can’t change those covenants and restrictions. He stated if there is an easement there the patio is encroaching on, the fact that it was permitted doesn’t change the fact that it is encroaching in an easement.

The Executive Director stated she would just like the record to reflect that the Improvement Location Permits do not show any patios or decks for the houses and that is why she has this before them tonight because she feels they must be shown.

Mr. Garcia stated their concern is there is another 15 lots for this subdivision and they are in the backyard. He stated they have had confrontation issues with the developer.

Ms. Phillips stated she is looking at trying to help the potential homeowners because a lot of people purchase houses and lots without any idea there are easements there. She stated if they would be required to get permits when they want to add on a patio or deck then they would become aware they can’t dig into that easement.

Mr. Garcia stated they do their share of that because as soon as a house is bought they knock on the homeowner’s door and explain there is a 50’ easement in their backyard. He stated the easement is defined and it says no permanent structures and concrete is one. He stated if they needed to dig on that line in this yard they couldn’t dig in an OSHA safe ditch because the patio is in the easement. He stated if they allow this patio then there are 14 more. He stated they have been trying to work with the developer on every lot separately because the depth of the pipeline varies. Mr. Garcia stated their 50’ easement is still 50’ but they are trying to work with him. He stated the developer is trying to take dirt off the top of the line and they have to work under Federal regulations for the amount of coverage they must have.

Guy Gentry stated as he understands their attorney, they will need to draft an ordinance to incorporate these.

The Executive Director stated that is if they want to change it to not needing to meet yard requirements. She stated if they say it is a structure and must meet yard requirements and must get a permit then they don’t have to change the ordinance.

Attorney Shively stated the way the ordinance is written now the definition of structure would embrace a patio, pool, etc. He stated what is not in the ordinance is that they don’t have to meet the normal setbacks. He stated he doesn’t think that is an unreasonable position to take.

Mr. Garcia stated their biggest concern in this development is the developer moves dirt and builds in their easement weekly. He stated they fly their lines every week and they have caught him and he refuses to contact them and if he ever hits that line everyone is going to know it. He stated they greatly appreciated the Executive Directors reply to their letter.

The Executive Director stated the developer is supposed to call her tomorrow to find out what the Board ruled regarding the structure.

Mr. Garcia stated all they ask is it be off their easement.

Larry Willis asked if xylene is in the line to which Mr. Garcia stated it is. Mr. Willis commented he didn’t want to be around if it was hit.

Mr. Garcia stated they have to follow regulations and not just anybody can work on that line. He stated they have caught the developer probing the line. He stated that is a steel line that is coated with plastic that has electricity running through it to protect it from rusting. He stated if the plastic coating is broken then the pipe starts to rust and if it isn’t caught in time the line will blow out.

The Executive Director stated he needs to know that if they come in to get permits the staff has no way to verify the location. She stated if the plot plan shows the patio to be sixty feet off the back property line the staff accepts that and it will be their responsibility to get him out of their easement.

Mr. Garcia asked if she will let them know whether the developer is going to move his patio.

Ms. Phillips stated what will happen next is she will contact the developer and tell him that the patios are structures that require permits. She stated if he comes in and shows it to be in an easement then no permits can be issued and he will be told to remove it because it will be in violation of the zoning ordinance and they will have to go from there.

Discussion ensued that right now patios will need to meet yard requirements with Attorney Shively stating that if someone ever challenges why one structure must meet yard requirements and one not they will need something in the ordinance to back them up.

It was the consensus of the Board that patios and decks need to be issued permits and must meet yard requirements.

Discussion ~ Street vacation next to lots with building set back lines.

The Executive Director stated this matter is actually for Attorney Shively. She asked him that when a right of way is vacated between lots that have building setback lines, what happens to the building setback lines since the purpose for them has been removed.

Attorney Shively stated the building line doesn’t change because it is recorded on the plat and they would need to replat those lots.

Discussion ~ I-69 Comprehensive Planning Program

The Executive Director stated she has given them all copies of the planning program and once this is approved it will be done in different phases. She stated Phase II will involve grants up to $50,000 for each city, town or county that is in the area I-69 will go through. She stated Warrick County is in that area and she went to their website and emailed then about the planning program. She stated they gave her this answer. She stated they need to update the Comprehensive Plan and this grant money could be used to fund that. She stated the time frame for applying for these grants is next year.

Extension of Contract ~ BLA ~ Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.

The Executive Director stated the contract for updating the ordinances is expiring and they need to sign a new contract.

Attorney Shively stated this contract doesn’t change anything other than extending the time frame.

The Executive Director stated she has to have signed contracts on hand in order to encumber the money from year to year.

Larry Willis made a motion to extend the contract to April 1, 2005. The motion was seconded by Robert Addington and unanimously carried.

The Executive Director stated the signature page on the contract has incorrect Board members and she will have BLA do a new page and they can sign it at the next meeting.

* *

David Mullen stated he represents the Sudamar Heights Home Owners Association and the various neighbors around Monte Williams’ property. He stated Mr. Williams had problems with his building being allowed and there are State and Federal agencies looking into all of the violations on his property. He stated he made an official complaint on this property back in 1992 and it was brought before the Plan Commission at that time because of him dumping wood chips on the property.

Guy Gentry stated this Board has already found him in violation of the ordinance.

The Executive Director stated if he has any additional items that she didn’t address in her report then he can file another complaint in the office.

Mr. Mullen stated the wood chips were on the original complaint and he was found in violation back in 1992. He stated there are also abandoned vehicles back in the woods and he just wanted to get it on the record. He stated Mr. Williams is trying keep the interest only on the part that is zoned “C-4” but there is also a back part that is zoned Agriculture and then to the south are outlots of Sudamar Heights Subdivision. He stated he wanted to make sure the Board is aware there are other problems.

Being no other business the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

________________________

Guy Gentry, President

ATTEST:

_________________________

Sherri Phillips, Executive Director