27 November 2023 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes
Present: Dennis Kraus, Jr., Chairman, Russell Beiersdorfer, Jeff Hermesch, Mark Lehman, Joe Vogel, Jake Hoog, Dan Lansing, Jim Thatcher, and Eric Lang
Also Present: Nicole Daily, Planning and Zoning Director, and Andy Baudendistel, Attorney.
Baudendistel read the Title VI statement as legally required.
MINUTES: October 23 Minutes -did not have minutes yet.
OLD BUSINESS: none
NEW BUSINESS: none
ADMINISTRATIVE
DEARBORN COUNTY PROPOSED ZONING MAP and TEXT CHANGES – To review and discuss proposed ordinance amendments and updates to the Dearborn County Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, specifically with respect to the text(s) of: Articles 9 and 10, regarding Agricultural and Residential Zoning Districts; Article 25, regarding General Standards and new Use Development Standards; Article 27, regarding Definitions—The proposed Zoning Map will reflect the Board members comments and decisions on public input.
Nicole Daily- said maps were revised due to comments from members and the public. Other emails etc were put into their packets. Do you want to start with discussing the townships? Going in order of the townships.
Caesar Creek- Daily said there are certain subdivisions that had covenants and restrictions that they accommodated with Ag Homestead. They were larger lot subdivisions. No one here to speak on Caesar Creek.
Clay - There were no board comments- there were areas around the industrial area in the NE corner and they requested R-1 but they said Ag H was more appropriate. This was around the round barn. 262 had a subdivision and they added that in based on covenants and restrictions. No public present from Clay.
Washington - Got a new map as the owner (Meinders)wanted it to stay as Residential-1 and not be Ag. The board had said they were OK with this previously. Kraus showed her a couple parcels that was actually contiguous and was separated by a section line. He believes one is actively farmed. And one may be vacant land. They were R And they should be the same so Ag H would be appropriate. Beiersdorfer concurred. They have alpacas. There are sewers there. Beiersdorfer agreed with Ag H as did Hoog. Daily will fix it the Ag H. No public from Washington.
Sparta- Area on Chesterville Rd- there was an Ag request and it was reasonable for the larger lots. One in the subdivision stayed as is. Mr Holland from Sparta. Said the one small lot was obtained on a Commissioners sale.Its a lot that cannot be built on it. He wants it changed to Ag H. He already got the 13 and 28 acres as Ag H. Much back and forth about the original zone of the subdivision and a court case when the rezone was requested for Block Hollow years ago. Holland said it will be a conservation piece. It is contiguous with the piece south of it.This property is owned by his parents. Board decided to keep it R.
Hogan- some people had showed ups early on but not with any specific properties. No changes from the board either. She had no changes as she was looking through subdivisions. No public from Hogan.
Center- Daily said Park Ave near Aurora that was surrounded by Aurora in R1 and R2. Soccer fields across the street. That was changed the last time the they reviewed this. No public spoke from Center township.
Manchester- No comments from the public. Daily checked the subdivisions and some people came on North Hogan and asked about subdivisions there and the Ag H. No public from Manchester.
York- One request from Ag to Ag H ( Lyness) and some Ag H added on subdivisions in that area. No public from York.
Jackson- Some board members had comments on Ag H on SR 46 and those were changed. No public from Jackson spoke.
Harrison- No public but a few comments around Jamison and they previously reduced some R to Ag H. No board discussion or public spoke from Harrison.
Logan- No public comments- down in SE Logan an R-2 was added as it was an approved plat they had missed previously.No bad or public spoke on Logan.
Miller- things along Georgetown were comments on they animal texts and those were revised. No other changes made to the map. No board or public spoke on Miller.
Lawrenceburg- Several comments from the public and a back and forth with map changes- on Pribble and Scenic. Board had mixed uses and put those areas back to Ag H.
Terry Sawyers wants to retain her Ag status. The 95 acres of her property and includes the subdivision which is Ag status. This is going to her children with the same stipulations that her parents gave to them. So it is not going to be sold.
Thatcher - Why wouldn’t AG H be OK if you are never going to sell it?
She said - why change it?
Thatcher - Why wouldn’t Agricultural Residential be OK? [ NOTE: Why did he call it Ag Residential?]
Terry Sawyers- 20 years from now you cannot guarantee that new boards will see it the same for grandfathering. The next group of people might decipher this differently than you do. I just want too be sure it retains the agricultural status that is has. The only flat field is our only flat land and is our hay. The rest is hilly- the cows are happy. But this flat area we need for the hay. Thatcher- I can respect that you want to hand it down. But 20 years from now- if they wanted to sell it then they would have to come in and get a…
Daily stepped in- You could sell those plated subdivision lots as long as you could get sanitary sewer. We couldn’t stop you or your children as long as a sewer was there, because it is a platted subdivision.
Terry- The USDA gave that subdivision a farm number.
Beiersdorfer- The USDA does that for their statistics. When you get a farm number it is dealing with what you do with your property- it does not depend on the zone. Unfortunately you have a subdivision there and we couldn’t stop that from being developed.
Terry Sawyers- It has been Ag, and I would like to leave it Ag.
Marc Lehman- With all the discussion, I forgot what the current zoning is on Carrie Drive.
Daily- It is currently Ag. In hindsight AgH is the current zoning most like Ag.
Lehman- That’s why we keep coming back to Ag H. We still couldn’t stop the house from being built , if your children wanted to build on it. [NOTE: Why would you want to?]
Terry- The road is 50 ft. Legally it needs to be 60 ft.
Lehman- No- if someone wanted to do this they could still do it because they meet all the subdivision regulations.
Terry- Can’t anyone do this?
Lehman- Yes but they have to jump thru a couple hurdles.
Terry- We are back to the same thing. I just want to leave it in Ag. That’s what it is. [NOTE: It is not clear why or how the Plan Commission can take away a CURRENT zone against the property owner’s wishes. ?????]
Steve Perrine- Scenic Dr.- I missed the last meeting- He wants to keep it as Ag and not Ag H. What I would like to know is- What financial incentive or financial detriment does the county have to put me in Ag H or Ag?
Kraus said he did not know or any. What is the reason for Ag H and I don’t want it and it does not hurt the to put it in Ag why not keep Ag. I do not see what the issue is.
Lehman said they are trying to read the Commissioners minds and to get to something the Commissioners will approve. I remember you are close to sewers. So you want to make it easier for developers to do it with sewer close by. If a developer comes in then it’s more steps for developer to come in if it’s Ag versus AgH.
Lehman and he went around ad around about it.
Perrine said- So what yo are saying is that your are making it easier for developers to develop it, regardless of what I want.I sat here when they were talking about the property across the street- you said that of a developer wants to put a subdivision, then there is nothing you can do about it.
Baudendistel- It has to meet code requirements for a subdivision. What I think Mr Thatcher was saying is that we could zone the entire county Residential but if you do not want your property developed, it won’t be developed. The way you are talking about not wanting your property developed, it sounds like you really don’t want your neighbor’s property developed.
Perrine- No- I do not care what my neighbors do I just know that my property has been Ag use 3-400 years. I do not want it to be changed. I am Ag - I do not care what new name you dream up to make it more palatable, I want Ag.
Kraus - lets take a different perspective- said that while he is served by sewer there is not a lot of capacity there. There is Ag H around there. This is not desirable for development due to hills. The people to the west are not planning to develop. It does border Ag on the end. Kraus- your property is not real desirable for development.It would make sense if both yours and neighbors were Ag.
Perrine- So I should just get my neighbor to see if he wants to be Ag too?
Hoog agreed it should be Ag.
Daily- That’s 3 lots now- it was going to be a bigger subdivision but got reduced.
Perrine- This other are his horse property. No other questions from board.
Bill Sawyers- Carrie Drive- when they look at us do they really look at this? Do they look at teh way the land lays? He detailed the towers hills etc.All lots o right side have been taken up by towers easement. It may look desirable on a map- but if they see all those power lines…Gensheimer did the subdivision prior to Raid owning its ( His wife’s parent’s were Rais.) Changing a lot at Ag H. If you realistically look at the power lines - there’s not a lot available for development.
Kraus- It’s hard to change direction now with the subdivision.
Bill Sawyers- Does it state on their that its an Ag subdivision ?
Beiersdorfer- Ag H does not have any CAFO- Confined animal feeding operation- allowed.
Kraus- Ag H we are allowing minor subdivisions without a rezone. Now Ag is proposed to allow only a certified survey for one home lot.
Bill Sawyers- I would still like to keep it Agricultural. Ohio County they don’t want all this growth. Dearborn County wants all this development. They then are having trouble with fire dept coverage.I saw you (Thatcher) on the news about that.
Thatcher- yes- that was for EMS coverage.
Daily- related existing Ag to AgH- If we were to take what we have done and relate it to what we have done - the whole map would be Ag Homestead. We are not changing you really. The dark green is really changing. Maybe look at it that way instead of comparing the 2 Ags.
Terry Sawyer- Ag H text -is that finalized now? So it is not even law now. So it could change? I will be like the people around me. Ag H is the Ag we have now.
Daily reiterated this- Ag has changed.
Terry- when are we going to know what the Ag and Ag H is for sure.
Lang- the text is set- we all agreed that this is good. We cannot do them until we do the maps with it It has NOT been voted on.
Terry- Are you going to review it again?
Lang- no intention to review text.
Chris Mueller- speaking for our entire family farm Willow Brook Acres- on Pribble. First of all- Do you have the statement that was emailed to you from Nick and Jen Wunderlich. Answer- YES. I wanted to make sure that was a part of the public record of our family’s request Secondly- I’d like you to pull up the whole county proposed map- to just our township. It was pulled up. When I look at the map- maybe when you look at it too- I see an awful lot of light green ( Ag H color). And that Ag H- how much of that is replacing what was previously R1.
Kraus- Actually just previously R. It replaced it in areas like New Alsace, Yorkville, most of Guilford, areas that were R but with no access to infrastructure- Lawrenceville.
Daily showed the old existing map and the proposed side by side.
Kraus- small towns that had no sewer. Chris- so not very large areas? Agreed. So not very much R was replaced by AgH.
Daily- I would replace all this with light green and there would be no dark green.
Baudendistel- So the dark green on the proposed map which is most of the county would be a new zoning district that you could not do a minor subdivision on. So most of the county would be a new zoning district that is more heavily restricted than any zoning district that we have currently. And anything that was right green that was previously Ag or R would be able to do a minor subdivision that Ag can do currently.
Daily- In the existing map you could actually do a major and a minor subdivision.
Chris- And here is my point to you- We are all talking about what subdividing you can do in Ag and if you are in Ag you are not usually looking to subdivide. So you are talking about taking away something that we typically as a farmer don’t want to do anyway. Now the next question-
Baudendistel- ( interrupting) But also people keep trying to act like this board is just currying to developers when all of that dark green on the proposed map would not be able to be subdivided. And that’s not currently the case.
Chris - It can be subdivided if they come in here and request a zone change.
Baufdendistel- Right.
Chris- And they can prove to you that it’s terrains, infrastructure, etc. That’s how the Plan Commission maintains control where subdivisions go so that the county doesn’t go broke on roads that are built on steep cliffs and that they have the proper stuff that they should have. If you look at the county- and we did with the master plan, the county does have steep roads and things that you don’t ever want to do for the road issues you will have to maintain. But you also have areas here that you have increased the possibilities of subdivisions.
Daily- We have not - we are making it harder have subdivisions. Because that current map -you can do a major and a minor subdivision in Ag. You can develop anywhere you want!
Chris- If in fact Ag H is the same as the old Ag that we currently have- that you keep telling us- Why did we EVEN NEED to create another zone altogether?
Beiersdorfer- Because some people are trying to control what kind of development can go onto Ag and trying to preserve some of our Ag ground- that is what I have heard. that is why we have an Ag and an Ag Homestead. And Ag H is exactly what we have as Ag right now.
Lang- We would have been better off if we named it Ag and Ag Restricted. It sounds silly- people are getting hung up on a name.
Lehman- Ag Homestead should have been Ag. And Ag should be Ag Restricted.
Chris - And yet when a farmer comes in here and tells you that they want to be Ag and they don’t want to divide their land, which means that they do want the Ag without minor subdivisions in it.
Lang - You mean Ag H.
Chris No - I am talking about in the new situation Ag. Really the only thing you have done that I can see when I compare- I sit there and I line them all up and I said - the only significant thing you have done is you have taken the new Ag and old them- You can no longer do minor subdivisions. Everybody else in the county from Ag H on up through to Industrial can do subdivisions- major and minor.
Daily- NO- Ag H can only do minor subdivisions.
Chris- In Ag H it’s only minor, then.
Daily- So then they will have to request a zone change if they are anything other than Ag H and be rezoned R. The only splits you can do is certified surveys in the new Ag- which is 2 and a remainder. That is all you can do. Ag H has minor and R had majors.
Chris- How does allowing minor subdivisions preserve farmland?
Daily- Because there is not that much Ag H on that map.
Chris- So it still does hurt a farmer. The situation to consider here is that when you are a farmer there are certain operations you are doing where there is an intensity of use. If you do not delineate a difference between those and people that are living close together, you are going to create some incompatibilities of use. I guess what I am saying that we look at our farm and say that we are big enough and there are intensities of use that we want to stay Ag. We think that is appropriate for what we are doing and has been all along. So we are still requesting the Ag. I wanted to clarify in my mind what the Ag H really allows and doesn’t allow.And the other thing that is very clear is that when you write your preamble to the Ag zones, you made it pretty clear that it looks like you are STAGING the Ag H land for development. Because of the way it is worded. It looks like the old R to me. I would come back to the zone maps, typically a defensible zone map should reflect current uses and so even though you might be able to do things and grandfather them all around, for those of us in family farms and things that we have been passed down to us, and we have purchased and our kids are purchasing- we do not want to have grandfathered situations. Its a case where w have to worry about what a text change to Ag H might mean as those things further develop out. I consider the terrain as important as the infrastructure. I think that came up on Pribble Rd. I don’t know how many of you people have been on our are familiar with Pribble Rd. But I know some of you have- some in detail. Others may not be. But if you look at the farms and walk them. There are a lot of power lines - AEP years ago are to my grandparents ant wanted it thru the farm- they were pushed to the west edge. They did not want mess up the entire terrain of the farm. I know it round right next to the North and feeds to Sawyers. They had to add more towers in recent years. Pribble Rd map has been difficult for us to keep track of this across the several years you have been doing this, because it has changed 3 times for us. It was R , Ag and AgH. I wasn’t speaking in the middle as you were showing what we asked for, but now we are AgH.
Daily- No the Ag was when the board asked for maps of the requested zone changes.
Chris -Except when you created that map you included our neighbors who had not requested anything. And it was different than the maps that was presented at public meetings. At that point I was concerned that my neighbors didn’t know what was going to happen to them next so I sent them letters. It’s difficult to keep track of things when they keep changing. From the public perspective- I am now looking at a map that is different from what was presented at the public meetings and workshop. Folke’s are now Ag H and they were Ag. I submit that our farm o the west has Ag properties next to it. There should be no problem requesting Ag this because of what we are near. I want to double check the file to be sure there is a letter there from Nov 2021 - 2 years ago - from all four families on our farm requesting we go to Ag. Answer- Yes. In May of 2022 we had a zone map hearing where we presented materials to back ups the Ag request AND we followed that up with additional information on the 5 criteria for a zone change similar to if we had to go thru a zone change request. And for several more meetings for 1 and half years we have maintained this request and we aer back here again in Nov 2023 now- and we’d like to see if you will consider us for the Ag we are requesting- we are not changing our minds on that. Are there any more questions I can answer?
Mark Lehman- I think when you look at their map at the revision stage- there is not a real good solution but Ag H with it being sandwiched between Perfect North and Lawrenceburg. To put a band of Ag thru there doesn’t make a whole lot of sense because R to south - It seems a natural fit for AgH and why we even drafted Ag H. When you look at it it is what the transitions should look like. And then you transition into something a little more intense like Perfect North.
Chris - Perfect North is highly intense at certain times of the year. And I can assure you that if you put a subdivision next to that they would not like their listing at night.
Mark- Along Pribble it tags into the Ag H along Georgetown Rd.
Chris- It makes a pretty color for you?
Mark- Well it’s not the pretty color- when you look at- we are trying to judge it by this criteria.
Chris- I understand- BUT do you take into consideration what people are actually DOING on their land and want to continue to do on their land.
Mark- That’s why we went with AgH and not R because there is a platted subdivision off of Jim Perfects land. ( Chip?) Currently R now aren’t you. This is the safest smartest zone we have to keep it close to the Ag land that you use.
Chris Is it a way to preserve farmland?
Lehman- Yeah - because you can only do minor subdivisions.
Chris- But if I really want to preserve it I don’t do any subdivisions.
Lehman- Right- its up to you.
Chris - But you have increased pressure - it tends to put a target on the land. That’s why people kept looking at parts of that land across the street from us for believe it or not apartments on 7 acres on a corner because it was zoned R.When you zone it a certain way and you allow divisions it is attractive for developers.
Lehman- And when I worked for Henry Fisher he would not have shied away from typography issues ion this area- He would have used it. Ask for R and He would have put in 3000 units to cover the infrastructure costs to tie it into Perfect North.There is R to South and intense use to North at Perfects- would have been Fishers main argument. We would have 45 maps to ties it in and improve Pribble rd to SR 1. We would have had all those properties under option. That’s the only way it could happen. The Ag H seems to fit better between the city and PNS.
Chris Because Ag seems to be the best between PNS and L-bg, because there is mostly cows being bothered and a few houses..
Lehman- City to the South and more intense issues to the west and north.
Chris - What?- West of our farm is Ag - it stayed Ag.All of that is Ag- You will understand it if you see a topo map.
Lansing agreed-
Chris You have driven back that road haven’t you?
Lansing- And got stuck. [NOTE: West of us is Ag just like what we are requesting - it is not more intense- it matches our request.]
Lehman- (recovering) - all the way back to Keller Rd is Ag H and you could make all of that Ag H.
Chris- And yet you did not.
Lehman- I don’t know why we didn’t.There’s got to be more factors than what I an figuring in now. Must be sewer access or other issues.
Chris -Even our infrastructure has issues. It looks good on paper to say you have sewer and water on a road- the size of the line and amount of people served by the line and so forth. Lawrenceburg had issues years back when they put pressure sewer out 48 and them when they wanted to develop near 148 they realized they needed to do an additional line. The Iines are not the size you would need for development. We are still requesting Ag- we adding Ag to the west, PNS to the north and keeping that less people in order to keep nuisance issues with lighting and snow overblow affecting less people. The people living closest PNS are relatives of Perfects except for one house and Folkes Farm. We are the buffer. Can I answer anything else?
Chris- One last question- When Nicole finished the map Nov 9 -when I saw the maps I requested to know what each of you had sent in as your comments. Lehmans were thinly ones in writing, everyone else was combined into Nicole’s notes. So we have no way of knowing what any of you think about our requests. In terms of transparency and in terms of understanding what the purpose is here - it would be helpful to know the reasoning on how that map came to be. Or is it just “I think it should be this- do you agree or disagree?” I think it needs to be more specific than that. That is all I have. Thank you.
Lehman- I don’t think any evidence tonight is wrong.When we do it from the county point of view- it’s more art than science. Like when you buy or sell a house. You find out other people have different things in mind than what you had in mind in concrete. I used Pre-existig Non-conforming or existing land use or access to infrastructure and preserve agriculture. It cannot be a rigid one size fits all. Zoning from the county is pretty close what I visioned when we did the text.
Lang- we get the most push back on this Ag zone. If we end up going to an Ag restricted you are removing the ability without a zone cage that yeah can do. If Ag H is closest to what is Ag now, understanding how to make this zone map make some sense. Everyone seems to want Ag. If a developer sees a need and dollar signs and then someone will make it work. I don’t think areas are ripe for that- they are going to happen regardless of the color. We have to make sure we are not hurting any individuals. He can respect that want a need to leave property alone. I have to wrestle with what harm is happening if Ag H. None of this is perfect. Nothing we are doing will restrict anyone from doing what they are doing with their property. People are not comfortable with change and respect them wanting to leave it alone. I think someone coming in and asking has to mean something.
Kraus - Is this the consensus of what we want for Lawrenceburg township?
Jake Hoog- I do not have problem with wanting to line up the zone with their use. The west property on Chris’s is Ag. I know you have sewers.
Lehman- Do you feel the same way about Sawyers ?
Hoog Well we cannot change the subdivision. I think we can do Ag that Chris is requesting for their property.
Lehman - do we need a motion?
Beiersdorfer- we have made a change from R to Ag H.
Lansing- Is Folke Residential- thats a 100 year farm. Discussion to see if Folke was Ag and Sawyers was Ag not R from 1965. The subdivision was an Ag subdivision.
Kraus - it was approved prior to 1965- no zoning districts.
Lansing said Perrine’s house is a little bit around house and a hill.
Hoog- Is it going to do any harm to the neighbors or property owners to change to Ag? Lehman- there is a R subdivision on a road for Sawyers. Definitely against a rezone upwards. Willing to go down one but not 2 zones. I understand it makes sense to use existing land use. Having trouble with this.
Frank Brauer - Willow Brook Acres- they put up power lines and you cannot have R as you cannot build a house there. Why not put only the subdivision as AgH and the rest as Ag as it currently is and then put ours as Ag? It would be a major undertaking to get homes on ours. The splits on our farm- they are owned by 4 families- 3 of the four own two sections each. Plus the barn area. I liked the proposed one. Ag H across the street is OK as there is hillside behind. Just about the sewer. The ROW is there- We should have fought these things as all the things you say make it residential. So many things there. Lehman It’s going to be a different kind of land use if you sell. Frank I am not going to sell. The next generation is looking good for this property. It’s been set up that way.
Perrine- can we go back to Scenic?Lang said he can go one step down - If you want to take him to Ag I can go with that. He’s far enough out and nothing in between.
Kraus asked if consensus was to change 2 lots there to Ag? Yes the board agreed.
Kraus- Does anyone have strong feelings on Pribble about Ag H or?
Lehman said his mind was made up he likes Ag H because of Lbg and PNS plus the subdivision on Sawyers.
Terry Sawyers- It sounds lie you are proving development. We broke down the lots and the sewer more than 500 ft away.
Kraus- I do not want to beat on the old subdivision - we need to move forward.
Chris- Greendale open area- this would be AG land if it were in the county. Only one area points to development and that is Lbg to our south. Board left us on Pribble as Ag H.
8:45PM
Kelso- Kraus talked about Bittner and Wessler Rd and the large tracts off land back there.Kraus wants to change that from Ag H to Ag. From the end of Benneker all the way down to Bittner. And hey did.
Angie Whitaker- Kraus Rd- Wants it to be Ag- not Ag H.Wants to continue to hunt and it will be higher fees if not Ag. Hoped to would be honored. Ag H will be ok for that per Beiersdorfer? Changed to Ag
Mark Hall- Hall Lane- thanked Nicole for the job she did looking over all the comments and properties. Representing Paul Rowlett- regarding Bittner area- and they have all done all around him as Ag H- want it to be Ag for him. I have a friend who pays $30,000 in property taxes. These people here have wanted to have their changes, well it is so minor it would be proper to change things for them all.
Greg Hyland- One thing I think needs to be taken into consideration is what people have said here. You need to respect property rights here as we do in the U.S. They are Ag on the map now
Cory Bruns- We are going from Ag to R on Hagar and Sawmill Rd- still using it as a farm. We want to restore Ag H. It’s only one buildable lot. Their neighbors to the east are Ag. Board agreed for 2 lots to Ag H.
No one else spoke for Kelso Township. All requests tonight granted for them.
Jeff Meinders spoke on Washington Township and asked for it to be R-2 rather than R-1. It’s where they are at for the current plans. Just consider it. No discussion on that.
Kraus- More land in Kelso was moved to Ag and some by DogRidge to Ag for Rowlett per Hall’s request due to lot sizes there.
Josh Holland Sparta Township again-wanted to point out the residential zone should be one color - but no sewer exits per Daily. And Block Hollow actually had a rezone to R. No change.
Daily asked if the board will take a vote at the next meeting on the overall zoning map. She will make the changes by Wednesday and will email to the board. There will be hard copies at the Dec meeting. The website will have one county zoning map and then the text now. The township maps will be down.
Baudendistel- there has to be a notice in the paper by Dec 7 for the vote at the Dec. meeting. Discussed meeting in January instead for the vote instead. There is a case in Dec meeting. Nicole will email maps to the email list of citizens she has.
Same meeting schedule for 2024 essentially.
Meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
