Tuesday, June 20, 2017

COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE: 2017 Modernizing the Document Recording Process – Changes in Fee Structures –

   May 4, 2017

2017 Modernizing the Document Recording Process
– Changes in Fee Structures –

Senate Bill 505 was recently passed by both the Indiana Senate and the House of Representatives, signed into law by Governor Eric Holcomb on April 21, 2017, and will take effect on July 1, 2017.
This bill was supported by the Association of Indiana Counties, the Indiana Attorney General, the Indiana Land Title Association, the Indiana County Councils Association, the Indiana Association of County Commissioners, the Indiana County Auditors Association, the Indiana County Surveyor’s Association, the Indiana Society of Professional Land Surveyors, the Indiana Mortgage Bankers Association, the Indiana Credit Union League, the Indiana Bar Association and the Hoosier Press Association.
SB 505 specifically addresses the following:
  • Replaces the current confusing fee structure with a more predictable and transparent “flat” fee for documents filed with the county recorder; 
  • Modernizes the bulk user statute to reflect changes in the industry while ensuring the preservation of the public record; and 
  • Allows for the electronic recording of public documents to increase efficiencies. 
This legislation modernizes the document recording process and fee structures making it easier for Hoosiers to record public documents, while also reflecting the increased costs incurred to satisfy this important public service. It is our hope to make this transition for our submitters and other interested parties as smooth as possible with the goal of consistency among our 92 counties.
Predictable Fees: As of July 1, 2017, the current confusing fee structure will be replaced with a more predictable and transparent “flat” fee for documents filed with the county recorder, which will benefit document submitters, county officials, and other interested parties.
The request for predictable fees was initiated by recent federal regulations imposed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  The CFPB now requires accurate recording fee costs on loan estimate statements.  Inaccurate fee estimates can delay property sales closings and may result in significant fines. Several other logical reasons also made it clear that it was time to implement predictable fees.
Indiana now joins ten (10) states and jurisdictions that have enacted a predictable fee schedule.  The fees also help cover increased costs incurred by county recorders for preserving the public record, investing in technology upgrades, and covering general operating costs.

More specifically, SB 505 will make the following fee changes: 
  1. Mortgages will be assessed a $55 flat fee. This fee includes subordinate mortgages, and re-recorded mortgages.

  1. Deeds and all other instruments, including re-recorded instruments will be assessed a $25 flat fee, which includes the first oversized page (defined as pages exceeding 8½” x 14”) in any document.

  1. Additional oversized pages contained in any document will be charged at $5 each.  

  1. UCC fees remain the same.

  1. The $2.00 fee for extra mail outs on mechanics liens remains in place.

  1. Marion County will have an additional $10 per document charge on all recordings, which will flow into the housing trust fund established by Ordinance in that county.

  1. The certification of document fee remains the same at $5 each.  

  1. I.C. 36-2-7-10(3) defines a “multiple transaction” document as a document containing two (2) or more transactions of the same type.  I.C. 36-2-7-10(c)(4) states that documents shall be charged as $25 for the first page including one cross reference and additional cross references will be charged at $7.00 each. 

  1. The recording requirements under I.C. 36-2-11-16.5 pertaining to font, paper weight, ink, and legibility must be met.

  1. Pursuant to I.C. 36-2-7-10(l) for cross references not otherwise required by statute or county ordinance, the person submitting the document for recording shall clearly identify on the front page of the instrument the specific cross-reference(s) to be included with the recorded document(s).

  1. Copy fees have slightly changed:  copies 11” x 17” and smaller will be charged at $1 each and copies larger than 11” x 17” will be charged at $5 each. 


Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have
regarding these upcoming legislative changes.
Dearborn County Recorder
  • Glenn Wright, 812-537-8818, gwright@dearborncounty.in.gov 
IN Recorders Association President
  • Jon C. Miller, Porter County, 219-465-3476, recorder@porterco.org
IN Recorders Association Legislative Committee co-chairs

  • Brook Cleaver, Howard County, 765-456-2057, brook.cleaver@co.howard.in.us
  • Lori Draper, Wabash County, 260-563-0661, ext 1264, recorder@wabashcounty.in.gov

(Effective July 1, 2017)

Mortgages (including Subordinate Mortgages) and
re-recorded mortgages $55.00
Deeds and all other instruments, including re-recorded
instruments (fee includes 1 oversize page) $25.00
Additional pages exceeding 8 ½” x 14” within any
document shall be charged: $5.00 each 

Mechanic’s Lien including one mail out $25.00
Each additional mail out $2.00 

Uniform Commercial Code:
UCC, 2 pages or less $9.00
3 pages or more $13.00

UCC Continuation, amendment or
  assignment, 2 pages or less $9.00
3 pages or more $13.00

UCC-11 Information Request, per debtor name $10.00
Each additional name $5.00

Copies 11” x 17” or smaller, per page $1.00
Copies larger than 11” x 17”, per page $5.00
Certification of Document $5.00

AGENDA June 22 Bill Paying only Commissioners Meeting

AGENDA June 22 Bill Paying only Commissioners Meeting

June 22, 2017 
9:00 a.m., Commissioners Room
County Administration Building
215 B West High Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana




V. ADMINISTRATOR – Terri Randall

VI. AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington
1.  Claims/Minutes
VII. ATTORNEY – Andy Baudendistel




Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Commissioners Meeting Cancelled and Changed to Thurs June 22.


The Tuesday, June 20, 2017 6:00 p.m. meeting of the Dearborn County Commissioners has been cancelled due to conflict in schedules that will result in not having a quorum.

The BOC have scheduled a meeting for Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.
This meeting will be for the purpose of housekeeping and approval of claims.

The meeting will be held at the
 Administration Building,
215 B West High Street,
Lawrenceburg, IN 47025

Tuesday, June 06, 2017

6 June 2017 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes

6 June 2017 Dearborn County Commissioners Meeting Notes

Present: Shane McHenry, President, Art Little, and Kevin Lynch

Also present: Gayle Pennington, Auditor, Andy Baudendistel, Attorney, and Terri Randall, Administrator

Baudendistel read the Title VI statement as required by law.

ACTION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Commissioners certified that they only discussed what was advertised and the attorney is to file a motion on their behalf.


Change Orders Chris Grabowski, Assistant Construction Manager- Maxwell Construction
Bruns-Gutzwiller- change order #5 of $9796.02 additional  and 2 deducts of $1400 and $936.70 = an additional of $7459.32 total. 
Access Interior Systems-  Change order #1- switching flooring types and tiles etc. - $4039 deducted.
Overall project update- finishing prime paint on 1st floor, limestone started on east and brick on west completed. Roof completed and working on upper windows. They also fixed a clean out in the sewer lines buried 15 ft underground. McHenry thanked the staff for their patience for a couple days as they cleaned it out and repaired it. 

Text Amendments in Zoning Ordinance - P&Z Director, Mark McCormack:
Article 24 section 2430, Driveway Design- Ordinance to amend Article 24- a lot of this was imported from Boone County and text was cleaned up to make it clearer and allow for certain types of variance requests under certain conditions. No public comment. The commissioners approved the amendments and signed the ordinance to Amend Article 24 of the  Zoning Ordinance. 
McHenry said he was going on record that this was the shortest Planning and Zoning decision ever.

HIGHWAY DEPT. Todd, Listerman, County Engineer- Randall presented in Listerman’s vacation absence - Railroad  CSX agreement for Bridge 24 Cold Springs Road- Baudendistel has reviewed. Road is our responsibility and RR tracks are the railroads responsibility. $32,081 is reimbursed. Approved.
Contract for Construction Inspection for Bridge 24 Cold Springs Road- Commissioners approved contract with Certified Engineering Inc. that Baudendistel had reviewed. It’s a NTE (not to exceed) $125,000 amount. 

Water Rescue- Bill Black Jr.- Vehicle Transfers- Agreement and Ordinance to transfer personal property to water rescue- Ordinance 2017-004 per Baudendistel. Since they were incorporated - they are a separate entity. They had vehicles in water rescue that were titled to Commissioners or EMA. This tarsiers them all to Water Rescue so they can be insured etc by Water Rescue appropriately. Water rescue is a 501c3. There are 12 vehicles and 2 need titles created as the originals were not found. Mostly this cleans things up legally. These  were bought thru different grant processes in the past. McHenry said there were multiple eyes on this to be sure the grant specifications were ok with this. Commissioners approved with no public wanting to comment. Baudendistel also had an agreement for McHenry and Black, Jr. to transfer the vehicles.
There is a memorandum of understanding with EMA and Water Rescue regarding one vehicle for EMA to use also. 

ADMINISTRATOR- Terri Randall- SunmanDearborn Schools #19 and LHS #21 in the tristate schools. Top communities were rated- Lawrenceburg city came in #29 in the tristate area. Batesville Products had received an award - one of 6 companies in manufacturing excellence for innovation. Williams was pictured- children's walkers on the legs ended a new product to modify the walkers and also with color choices. They were able to retain employees with this increased production. 
UCBank was also recognized as one of the great places to work in the region- per Lynch.

AUDITOR- Gayle Pennington- Claims and Minutes from May 16th meeting were approved. Settlement is done and we are first in the state again. 

ATTORNEY- Andy Baudendistel- none

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS- Lynch- today is June 6th- D-Day. Thanking all the vets who continue to remind us. I will miss the next meeting on a well-deserved vacation. Can be reached via phone.

Little- had breakfast with a D-Day vet- who was in the 2nd wave. Appreciate all they had to do.

McHenry- attended Memorial Day ceremony at Riverview with Bill Ewbank speaking there. Took one of his kids to help put things in perspective for our kids. Some of our vets have life-long effects of different things form etc wars. He will also be out of town for our next meeting. The next meeting will be a pay claims only meeting with he and Art at some other date.  He is sure everyone is aware of Terri’s news. ( She is leaving to become head of One Dearborn EDI) He thinks what the board has accomplished as a team. His favorite word is team. He thinks the three of them have different skill sets and Terri complemented that helping to push things forward Times have not been always easy. Putting things out there- you sometimes meet with some resistance. We will continue our relationship with this.



Meeting Adjourned at 9:15 AM.

Christine Brauer Mueller

Monday, June 05, 2017

Dearborn Economic Development Organization Opens July 17

News Release
June 5, 2017
Media Contact:  John Browner
One Dearborn Board of Directors
Phone: (812) 537-1921

Dearborn Economic Development Organization Opens July 17 

One Dearborn, the new Dearborn County Economic Development organization, will officially open for business on July 17.  The organization’s mission is to create a laser focus on economic development efforts through collaboration across the private sector, municipalities, the county and several non-profit organizations.  

One Dearborn has signed a lease agreement with Ivy Tech and its office will be located in the Ivy Tech Lakefront Campus on Industrial Drive in Lawrenceburg. This will facilitate more communication around workforce development at the heart of Ivy Tech’s Advanced Manufacturing training facility and where Indiana Work One offices are located as well. 

The Board of Directors is made up of private-sector investors. An active Advisory Group that includes representatives from each municipality, the county and other partners will provide feedback on strategy and priorities.

The Board of Directors has named John Browner, President of Sycamore Gas, as acting board chair, and Terri Randall as President and CEO. Randall is currently the Dearborn County Administrator and Economic Development Officer.  One Dearborn’s first priorities will be marketing and developing available sites and building inventory as well as building a business retention program that bridges important communication with existing businesses in Dearborn County. This will include creation of a new economic development website that is more responsive to the needs of site selectors and real estate developers. Also, One Dearborn plans to create educational programs for elected officials and others regarding best practices in economic development early in its operations.

“One Dearborn will be action-oriented and results-driven, focusing on business retention, attracting new business, addressing workforce problems and helping lead quality-of-place initiatives in conjunction with not-for-profit organizations such as the Dearborn County Chamber of Commerce, the Dearborn County Convention and Visitors Bureau, United Way and others,” Browner said.  “The possibility of a Port in Lawrenceburg, the new Amazon Prime Hub planned at CVG and the momentum that is occurring as the municipalities make strides on quality-of-place improvements to attract more residents to Dearborn County make this the right time to invest even more resources into economic development. We simply have to be prepared and  ready to take advantage of the opportunities ahead,” he said.

More than 20 local businesses – including utilities companies, healthcare, engineering, construction and other industries -- have committed more than $125,000 in financial support for One Dearborn.  Along with their partners in the municipalities, the county and the Convention and Visitors Bureau, One Dearborn plans to hit the ground running in the days ahead. 


The Dearborn County Recorder’s Office will be closed all day Thursday June 8th  for training regarding Senate Bill 505. This Bill pertaining the predictable fees which will take effect on July 1, 2017.
We will be open on Friday June 9th.”  Glenn Wright, Recorder

For more information contact the Dearborn County Recorder’s Office 812-537-8818 .

AGENDA June 6 Commissioners Meeting

June 6, 2017 
8:30 a.m., Commissioners Room
County Administration Building
215 B West High Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana





1.  Change Orders – Chris Grabowski, Asst. Construction Mgr. Maxwell Construction

2.  Text Amendments to Zoning Ordinance – P&Z Director, Mark McCormack
1.  Article 24, Section 2430 – Driveway Design
2.  Ordinance to Amend Article 24 
3.  Highway Items Presented by Terri Randall 
1.  Railroad Agreement for Bridge #24
    2.  Contract for Construction Inspecting for Bridge #24

4.  Vehicle Transfers to Water Rescue – Bill Black, Jr.
1.  Agreement to Transfer Personal Property
2.  Ordinance Transferring Personal Property to Water Rescue


VII. AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington
1.  Claims/Minutes
VIII. ATTORNEY – Andy Baudendistel




Thursday, June 01, 2017

1 June 2017 Dearborn County Redevelopment Meeting Notes

1 June 2017 Dearborn County Redevelopment Meeting Notes

Present: Jim Deaton, Chairman, Dave Deddens, Jim Helms, John Rahe, Alan Goodman, and Jamie Graf (non- voting school board member)

Also present: Terri Randall, county administrator and economic development director, Andrea Ewan, attorney, Sue Hayden, minute taker, Gayle Pennington, Auditor and DCRC treasurer.
This meeting was preceded by an executive session at 8 AM
ACTION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION- Jim Deaton verified that executive session only discussed items that were advertised. Board decided to revise the offer for the land acquisition.
Deaton read the title VI statement as legally required.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES- May 18th minutes approved
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:One Dearborn Contract Tabled from April 20th and May meeting also. John Browner present for One Dearborn. 
Two changes needed- the effective date should be the date when they begin operation with a director hired and or Sept 1. The DCRC should also have their economic development plans revised to allow for paying them out of TIFs. This will require PC and Commissioners approvals too. 
The second should be for one year for a total of $40,000. 
Full disclosure- per Pennington - she said she will put a disclaimer on the bottom of every One Dearborn claim. [NOTE: When the Auditor does this- it means that the responsibility for the claim will now shift to DC Redevelopment Commission- and that board is responsible for any issues.]
Nevertheless, DCRC voted to approve the contract when all the above is accomplished. 
Duke Energy Site Readiness Program- Randall said she has filled out the grant for this program on the DCRC’s behalf. This was to go for the Stone property and the part that was to be Skally’s. Duke’s consultants will do the studies - and have started that as they have already gotten the award. [NOTE: How can they start without approval from DCRC? Is this an Open Door Violation?]
McCollum Sweeney will be getting an RFI and they will generate a response as if it is to an actual lead. They will have  plans to market the property and give an additional $10,000 to implement the program. You have to agree to be engaged with their process. Duke sent a letter of intent for site readiness. Duke provides the energy to the site. This agrees that they will be industrial sites only on that section and marketed as such. They submitted the Stone site for a period of 3 years. They may be required to reimburse Duke for expenses if they have to get out of it early for a max of $20,000. The Skally land and the Stone site will have 55 acres to market. Stone and the DCRC both have to sign off on this. [NOTE: If this is through One Dearborn, why are they not responsible?] 
The West Aurora TIF has been revised to include Kaiser Pickles lands per Deaton and Randall. 
3 years and paying $20,000 back were questioned by Deddens and he wanted to wait to sign this.
Randall said they have already started.
Deddens wants Misty from Duke to come to answer questions. 
It was also questioned by Andrea Ewan. What if retail vs industrial? 
They want their questions answered by Helms.
Andrea Ewan said One Dearborn should be partner to this also. 
There needs to be another meeting and soon per Randall. [NOTE: Why the big hurry again?]
Deddens wants to have several bids on the West Aurora sign. They don’t want to be in the sign business. Or the mowing business, another DCRC member chimed in. The business owners need to be involved in that. Randall to work on that.  
CLAIMS AND FINANCIALS- No general fund claims 
TIF fund claims- from West Aurora TIF- Barnes and Thornburg paid. [NOTE: In a previous meeting Barnes and Thornburg represents the county and Randall and Browner also indicated they were the attorney’s that One Dearborn Consulted. Is this a conflict of interest?]
Financials- copies passed out- nothing changed from last time.
Plan is to set another meeting and also get started on quickly changing all the TIF documents with PC and Commissioners needing public hearings to approve the language to allow TIF money for service contracts like the one with One Dearborn.[ NOTE: This will decrease money for infrastructure that the TIF money was originally slated to cover. Though $40,000 seems small, once they start down this path, that money may no longer provide the foundation for site readiness so that businesses WANT to come here, rather than needing a pie of tax incentives to lure them here. ]
Christine Brauer Mueller

Lawrenceburg Township

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

AGENDA- June 1 DC Redevelopment Commission Meeting

June 1, 2017
8:30 a.m., 3rd Floor Commissioners Room
County Administration Building
215 B West High Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana


  1. Call to order

  1. Actions of Executive Session

  1. Approval of Minutes
May 18, 2017 Meeting

  1. Claims & Financials
1. No General Fund Claims
2. TIF Fund Claim
3. Financials 

  1. Unfinished Business
1.  One Dearborn Contract Tabled from April 20, 2017

2.  Duke Energy Site Readiness Program

  1. New Business

  1. Economic Development Officer’s Report

  1. Attorney’s Report
  1. Other Business

  1. Adjournment

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

30 May 2017 Dearborn County Council Meeting Notes

30 May 2017 Dearborn County Council Meeting Notes
Present: Liz Morris, President, Dennis Kraus. Sr., Dan Lansing, Charlie Keyes, Ryan Brandt, Alan Goodman, and Bill Ullrich. 
Also present: Gayle Pennington, Auditor
 ABSENT: Teresa Randall, County Administrator
Morris read the Title VI statement as required by law.
COMMISSIONERS- Terri Randall- Gayle Pennington presented in Randall’s absence -Courthouse Annex Project. $3 million draw requested to get them through September-October. Coming in smaller increments to keep the most in the bank as some are making a little over 1%. They will keep it invested as long as possible before spending. Goodman motioned and Brandt 2nd. All ayes except for Lansing and Kraus, Sr. 
AUDITOR- Gayle Pennington:
Minutes from May 2 approved with minor corrections made previous to meeting. Lansing abstained as he wasn't present at that meeting. 

3 Grant Proposals for Health Dept- Normally the health dept presents but Mary Calhoun was working on festival season. Pennington presented: 
$15,183- for part time staff benefits, meeting expenses, wifi, copier, etc. - Ullrich motioned and Kraus, Sr. 2nd - approved.
$ 49,000 - assist and purchase 2 weather sirens and verbal messages - combined with 911 for this grant. The new system we bought for emergency management and 911- will be getting some equipment and bull horns. Brandt motioned and Lansing 2nd. approved.
$19,376- main health dept staff- general office supplies, travel and meeting expenses etc. She noted the health dept pretty much runs on grants. Kraus, Sr, motioned nd Goodman 2nd. Approved. 

SBOA - State Board of Accounts Audit- Morris presented 2014 -2015 was the time period. County has to provide space for them to audit. Only the Home dock can revenue share. That would be Lawrenceburg. The County is not supposed to be revenue sharing. This has been a problem for several years. Morris received an email from SBOA- and all was considered confidential for 45 days ( but ended up being longer) until mid May. The corrections are being advised- and they checked with the county attorney to review the findings. She said she swore to uphold the laws of the state of IN and the attorney found nothing in law to contradict what the SBOA was advising that they do. Either we obey the laws of the state or we get the consequences including financial penalties now. IC 4-33-12- there are no provisions allowing them to revenue share as we have been doing. 1997 agreement- was the first one to revenue share. Attorney said they should repeal the 1997 resolution. 
Brandt noted that other counties don’t have the municipalities that Dearborn has. This came up before per Ullrich and Kraus, Sr. and no teeth in the law before this. They basically said no law said they could, but no law said they couldn’t ( home rule?) Ullrich doesn’t want to cut them off at the knees now. June 2002 amendments in that law to sections and also in 2007 per Pennington in answer to Keyes question. Exit interviews are every year for these audits. In 2013 there was a law saying we had to create and follow internal controls. This was to protect the taxpayer’s money.
Lansing said he thought the idea was to share the wealth. Morris said- that Lawrenceburg does to these same municipalities also. Kraus read the statement and that they can fine up to $50,000. It passed in 2017 per Morris. 

Alan Weiss - Greendale mayor urged them to get another opinion from other counties. He noted what Ohio County does with sharing with Aurora and Ripley County. Morris noted that was dictated by the state when they set up the riverboat. Not imitated by Ohio County. Ullrich said if they repeal the resolution and find out that they can do something to get it back to them they could change it later then. He didn’t want team to act on it tonight. 

Emery - Add of Aurora said that she thought that a Memorandum of understanding or something could be taken on to remedy that. Brandt said that they could only change internal controls for NON-GOVERNMENTAL entities. She thought maybe they could do it thru the separate fire and EMS entities. Pennington said that was a totally different tax than the admission tax. 

Dillsboro said this would cut 45% of all they receive from Riverboat. They use it for their parks etc. Wanted them to consider holding off this year. There has to be a way to do this. What was the intent? 

Morris spent some time stating why she did not want to be out of compliance with SBOA and the law. 

Dillsboro - cities and towns are the hubs for all of the county. 
We have been good stewards - it’s about sharing. take your time- get a second opinion. We just heard about this about a week or so ago. 

Morris- there has been no rush to judgement. We have to able the laws.

Weiss- Greendale- with all the numbers you gave about how much money we all have in our accounts form the riverboat. We always try to make sure we save 25%- and are good stewards of the money. He wants a written copy of Baudendistel’s opinion to let their lawyers look it over too. 

Chris Mueller- - I recapped some of the original sharing agreements and then asked if there could be a way that Lawrenceburg could keep some of this money and distribute it instead of sending it to us. Answer from Morris was no- because the state distributes it to us from what casino sends. I noted that the municipal entities were all here to get their first checks years ago- they were all pretty happy. They aren’t going to be so happy now.

Dillsboro- - reiterated that these entities all pay county taxes and are part of the county.

Morris noted that HVL and Bright are part of the county and they don’t get any distribution. And they do a lot in their communities. 

Another citizen said what happens to the money? It gets spent in the county. 

Lansing said- maybe we should let them do their homework and see what happens. That’s all they are asking. 

Tom Walker- Dillsboro- are you in contempt of court if you don’t pass this tonight? Is there no grace period?  Morris said we have 10 days. It has been ignored for several years but now they have put teeth in this. Have patience for  little time. 

Pennington- taking off auditor hat and putting on her taxpayer hat- can we work harder at budget time to find a way to disburse these funds in legal ways. 

Emery- not implying that they should do anything illegal - but take the time to get more information. 
Morris - not been in a rush- but we have swept this under the rug for a while. We need to rescind the resolution from 1997 to keep us within the law. Ullrich said we can come up with another resolution at budget time. Lansing wants to see what other counties are doing to correct this. Find a county that is a recipient but not a home dock to compare.
Morris said rescinding the 1997 would be effective at the end of 2017.
Keyes said he works for town of West Harrison. He wants to see the original agreement and also the law. Too much at stake - so we should take the fine if that happens.
House Bill 1031 effective July 1

Morris asked to either rescind resolution 7-1997 which set aside 25% of gaming  revenue to divide among the municipalities by % of population - or table this. IC 4-33-12 can be viewed online. 
Brandt- before we make the motion- we have heard from 3 of the municipalities. The law is the law- but I need more time - to get more information. 
Brandt motioned and Lansing 2nd to TABLE until June meeting on the 27th - TABLED . 
[NOTE: Is the county in need of more revenue with all the recent spending on capital projects?]

Resolution- Investment of Public Funds- Every two years- they need a resolution to authorize the investment of public funds. Treasurer unable to be here. Same as last one. This allows banks outside the political subdivision to submit quotes for the county funds for CDs. Ullrich motioned and Goodman motioned to authorize as read. Passed. Also allowed the terms of investments to go out for a max of 5 years as they have done for past several years. 

Council wants Baudendistel to attend the June meeting. Pennington will do that.  

Meeting adjourned at 8:05 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller

Lawrenceburg Township

AGENDA- May 30 County Council Meeting

Tuesday, May 30, 2017
6:30 p.m., Commissioners Room
County Administration Building
215 B West High Street, Lawrenceburg, Indiana


            Courthouse Annex Project

AUDITOR – Gayle Pennington
Minutes from May 2, 2017
            3 Grant Proposals for Health Department
            SBOA audit
            Resolution – Investment of public funds



Monday, May 22, 2017

22 May 2017 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

22 May 2017 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes
Present: Dennis Kraus, Jr., Chairman, Russell Beiersdorfer, Mark Lehman, Jake Hoog, Dan Lansing, Jim Thatcher, and Eric Lang
ABSENT: Art Little and the County Extension Member (not appointed yet)
Also Present: Mark McCormack, Plan Director, and Andy Baudendistel, Attorney.
Baudendistel read the Title VI statement s required by law.
ACTION ON MINUTES- April 24 minutes approved with corrections.
OLD BUSINESS: TO REMAIN TABLED  Request: Requesting 2 Waivers; (1) Create an access point which does not meet the minimum driveway spacing requirements. (2) Create a direct access point onto Jamison Road. Applicant / Owner: Judy Traynor Site Location: 24140 Mayfield Lane / Jamison Road Legal: Sec. 35, T 7N, R 1W, Parcel# 15-01-35-300-026.001-006 Township: Harrison Zoning: Agricultural (A) Size: 6.449 Acres 
  1. Request: Primary approval to re-plat Lot 156 of the Villages of Sugar Ridge, a proposal which involves the creation of 22 residential units as well as waiver requests for: 1) a waiver to not construct sidewalks within the proposed development area; 2) a waiver to not install curbs and gutters for the proposed residential street, as required by Article 3 of the Dearborn County Subdivision Control Ordinance. Applicant / Owner: GMT Enterprises, LLC Site Location: Augusta Drive, approx. 1000 feet from the northern Augusta Drive / Stateline Road intersection (on the eastern portion of Augusta) Legal: Sec. 13, T 6N, R 1W, Parcel# 15-06-13-400-037.000-020 Township: Miller Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD); Residential Size: 7.013 Acres
Discussion was held about whether to hear this item on Sugar Ridge because there was evidence that proper notification was not given. There were no green cards in the file showing that the letters were sent to adjoining property owners, when McCormack checked after he returned from vacation. Three residents came to the meeting who had not been notified , but heard about it by word of mouth. 
Beiersdorfer motioned and Lansing 2nd to table. TABLED until June 12, 2017 meeting at 7 PM which will be called for this request only. 

Staff notes are below on this item which will be considered June 12th:

The Applicant is requesting to re-plat Lot 156 of the Villages of Sugar Ridge Subdivision— specifically, the Applicant is seeking to: 1) create 22 single-family homes in accordance with the “Parcel C” standards outlined in the approved Concept Development Plan for the P.U.D.; and 2) obtain 2 waivers pertaining to sidewalks, curbs, and gutters not being installed within the development area. 

Please refer to Article 2, Section 288 of the Dearborn County Subdivision Control Ordinance regarding revisions to approved Primary Plats. SECTION 288 - Revisions to Approved Primary Plats and/or Improvement Plans In certain cases, a Developer or Applicant may find it necessary to make changes to the arrangement, size, number, or location of individual lots, streets, or utilities. These changes are recognized as a typical part of the development process. In general, the Improvement Plan, and Secondary Plat should be the same in design and layout as the approved Primary Plat. Any changes that are made to the approved Primary Plat shall be submitted to and reviewed by the Planning Director or his designee to determine if these changes are major or minor in scope. Major changes will require a new public hearing as identified in Section 208. Any changes made to the Improvement Plan shall be submitted to and reviewed by the staff to determine if the changes are major or minor. Major changes will require the developer to reapply under the Improvement Plan procedure identified in Section 228. Minor changes shall be submitted as an as-built plan. Major changes shall consist of any substantial increase in density, elimination of roadway connections, major realignment of roadways, major reconfiguration of lots and similar type changes. 

Background / General Information: The affected property (Lot 156), which contains 7.013 acres, is located on the eastern portion of Augusta Dr., approximately 1,000 feet from the northern intersection of Augusta Dr. and Stateline Rd., in Section 13, R 6N, 1W of Miller Township. 

 Historical Timeline, Villages of Sugar Ridge
This property is located within the 315-acre confines of the Villages of Sugar Ridge, a semi-mixed use development that was rezoned as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Residential District (as recommended favorably, by a 7-0 vote by the Plan Commission) from June to August of 2003. 
The (original) Applicants for the Villages of Sugar Ridge were approved for a maximum build-out of 315 residential units, in accordance with a Concept Development Plan that specifically identified detached, single family areas, duplexes, multi-family residential condominium and townhouse areas, commercial areas, and open space / recreational areas. The above-referenced, approved plans also articulated building setbacks and densities for the above-referenced areas, among other items. 
The (original) Applicants for the Villages of Sugar Ridge received Primary Plat Approval to develop one-hundred-and-forty-eight (148) lots in September of 2003. 
The Planning & Zoning staff administered minor changes to the approved Concept Development Plan and Primary Plat in April of 2004 and December of 2005. Although the above-referenced, approved changes did not increase the overall density or change building setbacks, it is important to note that land use areas were shifted or reshaped within the overall development. 

As stipulated in the approved and effective Concept Development Plan, the building setback and density requirements for the portion of the Villages of Sugar Ridge that involves Lot 156 (known as Augusta Point on the current plans) are as follows: 
Front Yard setbacks = 25 feet from the right-of-way / property line 
Side Yard setbacks = 20 feet total between buildings; 0 feet minimum from line 
Rear Yard setbacks = 25 feet from the property line 
The maximum approved density = *4.28 units / acre (*per a previously-approved plan in July of 2007) Re-plat / Waiver Requests: 

 As a result of the numerous, cumulatively significant modifications to the approved Villages of Sugar Ridge Concept Development Plan(s) and Primary Plat from 2003-2005, the Plan Commission advised the staff in October of 2006 to forward any and all applications involving further (significant) changes to this subdivision to the Board for its consideration. In accordance with this mandate and as a result of the waiver requests necessary to process this application, the ‘Augusta Point’ project for Lot 156 is being forwarded for the Plan Commission’s review at its May, 2017 public hearing. 6) For the Pointe at Sugar Ridge, the Applicant is requesting the following items in reference to the approved (and revised) Concept Development Plan(s): 
Front Yard setbacks = 30 feet from the right-of-way / property line* *A five-foot (5’) increased setback to match the nearby homes along Augusta Drive 
Side Yard setbacks = 10 feet total / 5 feet minimum* *No minimum distance between buildings but setbacks are comparable to current, approved side yard setbacks 
Rear Yard setbacks = 25 feet from the property line* *Same setback as current, defined setback 
Density = 3.14 units / acre (which is 1.14 units / acre less than the previous plan approved in July of 2007) 

The Applicant is seeking two waivers in association with this development proposal. The first waiver is with respect to the installation of sidewalk improvements. According to Article 3, Section 305 R. Sidewalks: “All Subdivisions or developments shall have sidewalks constructed according to the following standards: a. Sidewalks shall be required along both sides of all local streets in new residential Subdivisions that have an average density of two (2) dwelling units per acre or greater… e. A subdivider can propose paths or trails as substitutes for conventional sidewalks if the alternative system provides the same or better level of pedestrian access, upon approval by the Commission… h. 

The Commission, upon request of the subdivider can grant waivers of the sidewalk requirements, if extreme grading or construction techniques would be necessary to accommodate the sidewalks. In addition, the Commission can grant a waiver upon request, if the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for the Subdivision is less than 250 trips per day…” In this case, the Applicant is seeking a full waiver to not install sidewalks within the proposed development of Lot 156. 

Staff Comments: In the original Concept Plan—and subsequent Improvement Plan—for the Villages of Sugar Ridge, there was a multi-use 8-foot wide bike and pedestrian trail planned for the entire length of Augusta Drive. This trail improvement is currently not in place, but longterm trail (concept) plans for the County have identified Augusta Drive as an area of opportunity, with respect to the creation of a trail in this part of the County—eventually serving as a connector between Bright and Hidden Valley Lake, Greendale, and the State of Ohio (and future Hamilton County trails). If a trail on Augusta Drive is created in the future, a sidewalk or trail connection from the development area of Lot 156 could benefit all of the residents on Muirfield Point (which could conceivably be extended in the future and also affect sidewalk / trail connectivity to Lots 157 and 181). 

The Applicant’s second waiver request involves the installation of curbs and gutters. Specifically, the Applicant does not want to place curb and gutter improvements within the street, as set forth in Article 3, Section 305 W. Curb and Gutter Requirements: “All residential streets that have an average lot frontage of one hundred (100) feet or less shall be required to install curb and gutter according to Appendix C….Residential collector streets shall not be required to provide curb and gutter unless determined to be necessary by the County Engineer because of drainage, maintenance or safety concerns.” In this case, the Applicant is seeking a full waiver to not install curbs and gutters within the proposed development of Lot 156. Staff Comments: There are no other curb and gutter improvements for the public or private streets within the Villages of Sugar Ridge Subdivision. In this case, the Applicant’s request is consistent with the development patterns of the rest of the subdivision, to date. 

An additional note: If this re-plat / primary plat of Lot 156 is approved, the Applicant must still receive a variance from the Dearborn County Board of Zoning Appeals (in an additional, separate public hearing process) for the front yard setback on Lots 22 and 23 to be reduced to 10 feet—as they are both considered corner lots as they are presently conceived. Lot 23 is a corner lot in association with this request, with the creation of Muirfield Point and with Augusta Drive adjoining the western portion of the proposed tract. Lot 22 is anticipated to be a corner lot as well, with the establishment of Muirfield Point and a future private access—which is presumably a future private street for all intents and purposes (until or unless this 50-foot ingress and egress easement is eliminated or relocated). 

 Please refer to Article 1, Section 160 of the Dearborn County Subdivision Control Ordinance. SECTION 160 - Appeals and Waivers “…Upon written request to the Plan Commission, an applicant can seek a waiver of any of the Subdivision regulations in this Ordinance. The individual request shall be reviewed and granted only under unusual or extreme circumstances or if an equal or better alternative can be provided that is not in agreement with this Ordinance… The Plan Commission shall review and take action on all waiver requests that involve the Subdivision Control Ordinance…As a condition of granting a waiver under this Section, the Plan Commission may allow or require a commitment to be made (as outlined in IC 36-7-4- 1015).” 

Please refer to the Technical Review Committee Report from April 3, 2017. With respect to the items in this report, the items below remain in question or of note: 
Lot #1, as it is currently labeled, is a non-buildable lot—so it must be transferred or retained by an adjoining property owner. At this time, it is unclear who the intended owner of this lot will be. 
The lots of the proposed development area must be renumbered in accordance with the sequence / assignment approved by the Dearborn County Auditor’s Office—and this area must be referenced as being within / part of the Villages of Sugar Ridge Subdivision. (Augusta Point may need to be removed from subsequent plans and plats, based on the County’s standards for naming development areas within Subdivisions.) 
The primary utility layout does not include electric and gas utilities—but the service lines are anticipated to be within easements or right-of-way (and will be required to be shown on any subsequent Improvement Plan submittal for this property). 
The width of the “existing golf cart easement” that is intended to remain on the property is approximately 20 feet wide--but this easement does not appear to be defined or recorded on a plat or deed at this time. The golf cart easement may be relocated more towards the rear / north of the northern proposed lots, if possible with the golf course ownership. 
At this point, the existing joint access easement for Lots 156, 157, and 181 is slated to remain in its current, platted location—which was established between 2005 and 2006 and was evaluated during the Plan Commission’s review of a project called “The Pointe at Sugar Ridge” in 2007. 

 Please refer to the Applicant’s statement(s) and enclosures. 
 The County Engineer’s report on this request is forthcoming and will be included as a separate enclosure, when it is received by the Planning & Zoning. 


Bonds are good until September. Notices will be sent out by July for those.
Proposed ordinance changes to Article 20, regarding signage requirements, of the Zoning Ordinance:
Discussion items brought up: Board questioned the temporary sign time limits and Agricultural U-pick signs. Also restrictions on semi trailers with signs painted on them and parked. Sign restrictions on residential properties could be a gray area as to legality with Supreme Court decisions on those. Weather takes care of many temporary signs. They don’t last. Electronic message boards are mostly located in Bright, St. Leon, and one in Manchester and located on arterial roads in those areas. Signs prohibited include ones that distract by moving in many directions. See section 2020. Sight distance issues being created by signs is being referenced also. There could be massive enforcement issues if they don’t do things right. Temporary signs for real estate were discussed as to permitting over 90 days. The driver for these changes seems to be the supreme court decisions on signs. Commercial signs can be regulated more than free speech. Took park benches out of the ordinance so as to allow businesses etc to sponsor park benches. All removed bus stops as there are none in the county jurisdiction. 2055 leave as is and 2065 also. 
The board is to consider all the items in the proposed sign ordinance language for the next month or two and send comments to McCormack so that he can rewrite and get a vote on it in June or July.
Section in Article 13 in Manufacturing districts which has been a problem for BZA. 1304- #2 So they want to strike out some issues listed there. they will be taking a look at that later.  
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM 
Christine Brauer Mueller

Lawrenceburg Township