Tuesday, September 25, 2007

24 Sept 2007 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting

24 Sept 2007 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting

Present: Hall, Chairman, Held, Cheek, Nelson, Thompson, and Kraus, Jr.
Absent: De Maynadier, Feiss, and Laws.
Also present: McGill, Attorney, McCormack, Planning Director, Rademacher, Enforcement Officer and Planner, and Ionna, Ass’t Planner.

The sound system wasn’t working right- used the tape instead to start the meeting.

Old Business on White Farm Development remains tabled until Oct 22 meeting.

New Business:

Primary approval for 8-lot subdivision- Perfect View. Owner: Tom Kent/H Wayne Ferguson, Jr. Family Ltd. On Cambridge Road in Miller Township- on 115.93 acres. They rezone on this land to Residential is not complete yet as all the commitments for that rezone have not been fulfilled to date. For the purposes of this request the land is considered as Ag zone.
This was moved to a major subdivision request because it included an extension of a public road. [NOTE: If the access into the 8-lot subdivision had been a private drive, would this have come to the PC or just tech and adm. review?]

Cambridge Rd is a 9.8-11 foot one-lane road.
It’s about 0.4 miles long with 4 homes on it.
A building permit has been issued for the 5th home to be built at the end of the road. [NOTE: Interesting that the ordinances somehow allow for a permit to build a home on a substandard road, but they won’t allow an extension of that road for a subdivision. It would seem the same rules SHOULD apply to both requests.]

There are site distance issues at Cambridge and Georgetown both entering and leaving Cambridge. The dip in the road and the curve at the entrance are contributing factors.
There is a separate entrance to Cambridge that has been opened by the neighbors there- it is actually the original Cambridge Road as shown on the 1937 aerials. This entrance also is one-lane “gravel.”
There are issues with ROW acquisition- as there is 25 ft on one side of the road and the Craig family does not want to give any land to ROW.

Kent is willing to upgrade Cambridge to county specs but will increase the lots to 14 at 5 acres each to compensate for the expense.

The extension of Cambridge does not exceed the 25 homes per one entrance requirement per Listerman.

Three members of the Craig family spoke at the meeting. They emphasized the danger at the intersection with Georgetown, they have right of first refusal on the Baker home at the corner there and stated she is also not inclined to give ROW. School buses turn around in driveways at end of Cambridge. The Craigs cut the old road bed out and it is private property- not Cambridge Road. [NOTE: If the road has been publicly used for a long time- it may no longer be private property (squatter’s rights) and if there is no record of vacating the old road- that may also be an issue.]
Craig indicated that he’d recorded that part of the “road” at the courthouse- it is his road.
The newer section of Cambridge was cut through by BE Jackson (whose Dad owned Jackson Hardware per Craig) with the county.
Davis Family owns part of the side road Craig cut through.

Cheek asked about one lane and if it was part of county inventory.

Held noted that ordinance says we can’t permit access unless there is 2-way traffic.

Thompson noted the site distance issues and said he liked the plan and that “8 lots beats the hell out of 55.” He asked about putting a road up from Salt Fork. (steeper)

Nelson- wondered if fixing the dip would fix site distance issues.

Kraus, Jr.- doesn’t think there is enough ROW.

Kent said without ROW we’ll have to build road from Salt Fork. The first aerial of county in 1937 shows the south entrance as the real Cambridge Road. They own the property and have to do something with it. He is willing to bring Cambridge to county specs.

Cheek said it was too bad the parties couldn’t cooperate.

Thompson motioned and Nelson 2nd to deny because of site distance and ROW issues on Cambridge. 5 ayes. Primary Plat denied.

Ferguson stated- someone is building back there NOW!- they will have 5 homes on this street and we asked for 8 more. Building permit was issued for a one- lane road.

Tape ran out and the sound system wasn’t fixable- PC took a recess during this time.
It was decided to have the rest of the meeting rescheduled.
Article 4 ordinance changes will move to Oct 22 meeting.

The master plan will be at a special meeting and will be FIRST on the agenda on Oct 29 at 7 PM. There may be an OKI presentation AFTER that.

ADMINISTRATIVE:

1. Letter to INDOT on issues with I-74 Bridge REHAB project will be sent to other higher up officials as the Seymour office did not seem to want to listen to the County input. County is concerned that the bridge rehab is insufficient to hold what is planned for that area.

2. OKI will meet with the county and discuss the funding of their fiscal planning. They think our dollar amount will be minimal for this.

3. Earl Dawson asked about the TIF zone being in St. Leon’s buffer area and how the county was handling that. It seems the landowners can remonstrate but county can’t.

4. St. Leon Comp plan meets Oct 3rd again on buffer zone issues.

5. Wade Hummel of Hummel Electric presented disturbing information on Sugar Ridge PUD owner Mike Macke. Apparently, Hummel Electric is not getting paid for installing the light at Stateline and Stephens and Macke’s bond lapsed. He will be pursuing him in civil suit. Macke told Hummel his business associate Carl F Tuke ran off business and now Macke is insolvent. The 60 days for Macke to get bonds covered is up in early Oct. Nelson motioned and Cheek 2nd to go to commissioners in support of them holding ALL permits for Sugar Ridge except those for single-family homes currently under construction. He referenced his motion previously in the August meeting minutes to be included as part of this motion.All ayes- unanimous.

Meeting adjourned 9:20 PM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Macke told Hummel his business associate Carl F Tuke ran off business and now Macke is insolvent."

Hopefully, his "connected" local attorney, was paid up front, for peddling her influence?

Anonymous said...

Who's job is it to make sure the room is ready for a meeting and why are they not accountable? No one is accountable anymore.

Anonymous said...

"No one is accountable anymore."

What can you do?

If you fire this incompetent person...the DCRSD will only hire her next week as a secretary!

Alan S. Freemond, Sr. said...

5. Wade Hummel of Hummel Electric presented disturbing information on Sugar Ridge PUD owner Mike Macke. Apparently, Hummel Electric is not getting paid for installing the light at Stateline and Stephens and "Macke’s bond lapsed."

"Macke’s bond lapsed." Huh? What kind of a bond is that? The incompetents are too easy on these kinds of birds. To post a bond we should have collateral of 120% of the the bond's face value, it should be guaranteed by whatever assets the guy has, his house, his life insurance, his pension or 401K plan and other investments. If he can't do that then he's not to be a player in this county. The collateral must be maintained at 120% AND the bond should be guaranteed for the duration of the project until all debts are paid. The bond should be held by the treasurer of the County, or by an out of county bank.

This is rediculous,

What's going on here? Who gets to pay for that light? I'll give you 14 1/2 guesses.

HHM said...

These are performance bonds. They are like an insurance policy. They cost about 2% of the total value. They are not backed by assets.

And since they have lapsed, the County and Wade Hummel are going to be left holding the bag!

Alan S. Freemond, Sr. said...

Well we don't need such bonds nor such people. If they can't pay their way forget it.

If this guy can't come up with 2% of the cost of installing a light we don't need him around here. Well we could use him, is he any good flipping burgers, or bussing tables? Rumpke needs guys I assume.

I want collateralized bonds for this county, collateralized by personal assets of the guys who want bonds. This goes for the TIF bonds also. Look what they've done to my friends and neighbors with the revenue bonds up in St.L for the developer's sewers.

I don't understand the concept of making the taxpayers pay for these outrages, nor even assuming the risk for these DCDEI and C of C folks.

Anonymous said...

Mike Macke, disturbing information?

If someone had checked around they would have found out this is nothing new!

Anonymous said...

2% bond?, somehow I think his profits were far greater. Doesn't matter the taxpayer will cover it.
Did this happen under Benning rule?

Anonymous said...

Benning: All development, no matter the ultimate costs to the taxpayer, is wonderful!!!

Benning: The number one stooge and tool of Development!!!

Until she lost her re-election bid!!!

Then the first Democrat stooge to come along was good enough for her Masters!!!