Tuesday, January 24, 2006

23 January 2006 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

23 January 2006 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

Present: Mark Mitter, Chairman, Jeff Hughes, Mike Hall, Nick Held, Jane Ohlmansiek, and Dennis Kraus, Jr.
Absent: Patrick deMaynadier, Robert Laws, and Tarry Feiss,
Also Present: Arnie McGill, Attorney and Mark McCormack, Enforcement Officer.

Old Business:

1. PC Chairman Mark Mitter States He Will Submit VRUC Letter to the County Prosecutor for Charges of Submission of False Information and Possible Fraud.

In the hour long discussion of the sewer issues for the 156 lot Sugar Pines Sub’n on Stateline Road, PC members wrestled with a series of 6 letters with conflicting information regarding sewer service availability to Sugar Pines. Andy Temmel, the developer presented the 7th letter – a Dec 30, 2005 letter from Floyd Ogden that certifies that sewer is available through VRUC. The letter stated that Ogden represented VRUC and that he certified numerous things about their sewer capabilities. It ended with a statement of Indiana Code and certified that he was aware of the penalties for submitting false information. He signed the letter.

Richard Butler (Greendale attorney) with backup from Steve Lampert (Greendale’s Utility Director) were present to present Greendale’s position on potential sewer service and refuted VRUC’s claims unequivocally. Per Butler- three things are necessary to show service- a VRUC letter showing that they can collect the sewage, a Greendale letter (or some entity) showing they can transport, and SDRSD letter showing they have capacity to treat. The only letter they had was VRUC. He also showed that Bitner from VRUC requested 48,000 gal from Greendale and Greendale’s minutes show that it was NOT GRANTED.

Maria LaRosa presented the huge proxy list to form a new VRUC board and reiterated that OKI did not grant them the ability to treat under OKI’s 208 water mgmt plan.

Jim Maupin- requested a summary of the letters in the packet, which Mitter provided to the audience. He also stated that he intends to submit Ogden’s letter to the prosecutor for possible charges of submission of false information and possible fraud. [NOTE: Audience reaction to this statement was positive. It should be noted that this letter repeated uses the word- “I certify” and in its entirety appears to be either perjury or a deliberate attempt to mislead the board. It was commented by one of the PC members that perhaps Ogden was threatened with job termination. The response was that it’s better to be fired than to sign false statements.]

Linda Mitchell reminded them of the ordinance code that was quoted in the last meetings, showing that the sewer letters do not meet the code requirement under 216 of the subdivision ordinance.

Hall motioned and Held 2nd to deny under section 216 as sewer availability is not proven. They also stated that sewer availability would be considered to be a major change if they reapply. All ayes to deny.

[NOTE: This item had been tabled twice already. The applicant seemed to want an approval so that he could proceed and hope that sewers would come through before secondary approval. In this case the board probably protected the applicant- an approval would have caused more expenditure of money on a project where the sewer issues seem to be drawing out to a tangled legal knot. Leaving it on the table would have been a better option for him, but options on the land may have run out in the meantime. In any event, the developer wanted a form answer – which he got.]

New Business:
Rohe Development Condos on Mt Pleasant Are Required to Comply with County Sidewalk Code.

Rohe Development with Bayer Becker presented this for Pleasant Woods Condos across from the Farm Golfcourse.
This item was an appeal for a waiver on sidewalks to eliminate them altogether and leave an exercise trail through the wooded area. The board was concerned with safety issues and connectivity as well as the sidewalk actually being an amenity for the condo owners. Owners stated they wanted to give up the clubhouse then. They also stated that Tucker’s development on Jamison didn’t have sidewalks. [NOTE: That development occurred under the old ordinance- not the new one. It was one of the last ones that came in befor ethe new one took effect.]

The board went as far as trying to put them on one side of the street only, but that failed by 4 – 2 vote. Tabling failed by a 3-3 vote. Denying the variance failed for lack of a second. This meant the ordinance stands as Travis Miller had stated to the applicant, which caused the appeal to the board. Sidewalks on both sides of the road are required.

[NOTE: In this discussion it was clear that there were money issues with the applicant and they repeatedly commented that they had to keep putting in things – sewer lines, landscaping and buffer strips, and clubhouse, and sidewalks. It was also stated they could try the permeable sidewalks as an option, which were cheaper, but Rosenberger of Bayer Becker shot that down as being not aesthetically suitable. It was suggested also that when you are the first person in an area developing ahead of time, you will have additional expenses, particularly when your plans are not in character with the existing neighborhood. Their option would be to sit on the property and wait for other development to share the costs of infrastructure. It should be noted that putting in condos and high-density development is the highest use and could net the highest potential profit for the developer. To do things cheaply would spoil the plans and the potential sale of the properties. Safety for residents and the ability to walk to the pool and clubhouse were also important factors. Suggesting that they DRIVE to these amenities within their 32-acre development was a stretch. The road was narrow to discourage parking on the streets and also to keep it slower. This leaves less room for walking safely on the street.]

Mark McCormack had no enforcement report this month due to his vacation and the holiday.

The PC plans for a working session on Feb 15th to discuss changes in the ordinances, some of which were discussed at the commissioner’s meeting last week regarding parent tract language.

PC may extend the application period for another month for the Plan Director, depending on what the final results are at the Feb 1st deadline for resumes.

Preceding this meeting was an executive session regarding possible GIS dept. changes.

Meeting adjourned at 10 PM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township

No comments: