[0:00] went from five to three

[0:04] or excuse me the quorum went from three of five to two of three. That's the new

[0:10] quorum under that 20 25-1. Every every PLA standard we apply this

[0:17] morning reads word for word as it has since 2012 the 2012 ordinance. Now what

[0:25] is not before us? This is not a reasonzoning and it does not approve the

[0:32] applicant to build construction and street plants. The final drainage plan,

[0:37] the on lot sewage design with soil borings, erosion control and the

[0:43] performance guarantees all come at final plat under article 8 and 11. They are

[0:50] not missing today. They are not due today. Nothing is sowed, recorded, or

[0:56] granted by anything that happens here this morning.

[1:01] That state law that I referenced earlier, 36732,

[1:08] limits the commissioners. You may approve or disapprove only on whether

[1:13] the plat complies with the statutory requirements and with the county

[1:17] subdivision standards as contained in its ordinance. The applicant carries the

[1:23] burden of showing that it does conform. The subdivision review committee's

[1:27] report is evidence. It does not bind us. If the plat does conform, we do have

[1:34] discretion to deny it because of general o we do not have discretion to deny it

[1:39] because of general opposition. If though we do disapprove the law does require

[1:44] written findings naming the provisions the plat fails.

[1:51] Now round rules for the room for the public comment section. First you're

[1:55] going to come up to the podium. You're going to state your name and address for

[1:58] the record. Right now I have allotted three minutes per speaker. Does

[2:03] everybody feel like three minutes is enough? And if not we can perhaps agree

[2:07] on a larger amount of time. Yes, Mr.

[2:11] » Claymore. >> Yeah, you're fine for for now. Yes.

[2:39] » Keep it all together. Okay. Are you representing more than

[2:44] just

[2:48] » Okay. But you anticipate that what you're going to say may be echoled by

[2:52] some of the other remmonstrators. >> Okay. So, I I'm going to

[3:02] » Well, we're not going to y You're not going to be able to yield somebody's

[3:05] time to someone else, so we won't do that.

[3:07] probably five or six. >> You can do it in five or six.

[3:11] » Okay. >> All right.

[3:15] Um Okay. We'll give Mr. Clayborn six

[3:20] minutes. We'll give you six minutes. Anybody else expect to go over three

[3:24] minutes? Also, if somebody has already

[3:29] communicated a point that you agree with, we don't need you to repeat that

[3:32] point. Just say, "I agree with soand so. So, those will be the ground rules. Uh,

[3:40] three minutes unless you're one of the two individuals that I specifically

[3:44] provided six minutes to.

[3:57] You can also submit written comments if you get them up here quick enough. If

[4:02] you do want if you don't want to speak publicly, but you do want to say

[4:05] something, you can get that to the auditor at the end of the table, Mike

[4:10] Watkins, as long as you get to it it to him in time and then he'll bring it to

[4:14] me and I'll read it at some point in the meeting.

[4:23] So what we can act on is the lot layout, the street width and the culdeac,

[4:29] drainage soils and the septic suitability notice and conformity with

[4:34] the ordinance. What we cannot act on, however, however strongly you feel about

[4:40] it, is property values, a general preference that the ground stay

[4:44] farmland, or who supported whose campaign, we will listen, but the law

[4:51] does not let us vote on that

[4:56] order of procedure, which should follow your agenda that you've received. We're

[5:01] going to receive a report from the from the subdivision review committee, Scott

[5:04] Martin. We will then receive remarks from the applicants.

[5:10] Then on 6.3, excuse me, you don't have this that I'm

[5:14] reading from. After the applicant's uh representative, we'll have agency input,

[5:20] which could be highway department, could be three engineering, could be drainage,

[5:24] health department, EMA. And then 6.4, we get to the public comment section.

[5:32] 6.5 will be the applicant's response to the public comment section if so

[5:37] desirous. 6.6 we're going to close the public

[5:41] comment section before deliberating and say out loud that the public comment

[5:47] is closed.

[5:51] So with that we will go to the agenda and I've me mentioned

[5:58] the preliminary matters. It was decided to not continue.

[6:02] I've mentioned the purported conflict of interest to Mr. Lewis um which he's well

[6:09] aware of the allegation. And so we'll now go to item three on the

[6:14] agenda which is the statement of the purpose of the special meeting and

[6:17] recitation of notice given. This is a subdivision request by Elite Companies,

[6:24] Inc. asking to subdivide 34 lots on 22.51

[6:29] acres. Parcel number currently assigned to the 22.5 acre parcel is

[6:35] 26-9-30-400-002.209-025.

[6:47] I went over the ground rules with you. So, we'll go down to number five.

[6:53] And Mr. Martin, if you want to come forward and give the report of the

[6:57] subdivision review committee.

[7:05] Um, good morning. My name is Scott Martin with the sub the subdivision

[7:10] review committee. Um, I'm going to read the report to the

[7:14] commissioners on Southern Hills, uh, primary plat.

[7:21] Per the review procedure of the major subdivision primary plat section of

[7:26] ordinance 25-1, the subdivision review committee shall

[7:31] make a report to the commissioners per article 7 section B.

[7:37] A. If the subdivision review committee finds that the primary plat has been

[7:42] prepared in accordance with the terms of this ordinance, it shall forward a

[7:47] report stating so to the commissioners for

[7:53] consideration. B. If the subdivision review committee

[7:57] finds that the primary plat has not been prepared in accordance with the terms of

[8:02] this ordinance, it shall return the plat to the subdivider with a written

[8:07] specification of the items in non-conformance and shall submit a copy

[8:11] of the same to the commissioners. The primary plat for Southern Hills

[8:16] Crossing was received on July 31st, 2026 and resubmitted on August 18th, 2026.

[8:26] The newly revised primary plat addresses the concerns raised in the 20 in the

[8:32] august 12th, 2020 6

[8:37] subdivision review committee's report. At this time, it is our view that the

[8:43] Southern Hills primary plant has been prepared in accordance with the terms of

[8:47] this ordinance. The health department, sheriff's

[8:51] department, EMA, and local fire departments have been sent a copy of the

[8:56] plant for the review and comment. It will go before the drainage board at

[9:02] the September 1st drainage board meeting where any drainage issues can be

[9:06] discussed at that time. To be able to properly advertise the primary plat

[9:12] hearing, the subdivision review committee will set the date for which

[9:16] the proposed plat can be publicly ex examined in front of the commissioners

[9:21] on Tuesday, September 8th at 8:15 a.m. in the Southwest Annex. Sincerely, the

[9:29] subdivision review committee.

[9:34] » Thank you, Scott.

[9:48] I'm my name is Jim Moley Jr. I'm the project engineer

[9:52] and uh just to make sure we're all on the same page, I

[9:59] have an exhibit I'd like to pass out if that be okay.

[10:13] And uh it's just a quick exhibit on the front page uh just kind of shows where

[10:17] we're at in the county we're talking about. So this project is about halfway

[10:21] between Hopst and Fort Branch. And then if you flip it over to the back side is

[10:26] just kind of a a blow up of that area. Uh you can see it's kind of right there

[10:32] uh near the intersection there. And so I just wanted to make sure everybody was

[10:36] kind of on the same page as far exactly where we're located at. Um so

[10:41] uh this is a nice project. Uh all the lots uh are at least a half acre in size

[10:47] that have septic systems on each lot. Um relative to development in the world

[10:54] today, these are actually pretty big lots. Uh most subdivision lots we design

[10:59] uh these days are about I could fit about three of them for every one of

[11:03] these lots. And so these are pretty big lots in the world of developments today.

[11:07] Uh but we think it's a real nice project. It's a nice area. Um you can

[11:11] see on the primary plat uh you can see where the roads the detention basins um

[11:17] the the detention let me if could I can I approach? Sure. Is that okay?

[11:21] » Just to make sure everybody remembers. There's a detention basin over here kind

[11:25] of along the highway and then another detention basin in this area here. And

[11:30] then obviously road comes up through these kind of rectangular boxes that are

[11:36] all kind of sitting there kind of cattywampus like that. Uh those are all

[11:39] the septic systems. And the reason they sit like that is septic systems have to

[11:44] be lined up with the contours of the ground. Uh and so if you look at that

[11:48] and say, "Boy, what were they thinking?" They're all over the place. Uh that's

[11:51] kind of the way the contours lie on that ground and so that's why they're shaped

[11:55] that way. Um we feel like it's a real nice project. We met uh met or exceeded

[12:01] all of the uh county requirements and uh we would ask for your approval.

[12:09] » I do have a I do have a question and I maybe I'd prefer we can talk about it

[12:14] after you vote on the plat. Uh, but I do have a question about the road plan

[12:17] approval process relative to what they call the final plat. But we can if it'd

[12:22] be okay we could do that after the so so we don't get things confused.

[12:26] » Yeah, that's probably better. Yes. >> Yeah, that's all I have. I we think it's

[12:30] a real great project. We think there's a demand for housing in Gibson County

[12:33] which is good. Uh it's good to see Gibson County growing.

[12:43] » Jason we're we're doing is preliminary plan, not the final.

[12:48] » That's correct. >> Okay,

[12:49] » that's correct. Yes, >> we'll make sure that

[12:55] » anybody have any questions. >> Thank you.

[12:59] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[13:05] » Okay, agency input.

[13:13] » Wilder. design. I reviewed the drainage plans and report uh they are in

[13:19] accordance with the drainage ordinance. Uh the main goal of the ordinance is to

[13:24] control runoff providing detention storage to slow down runoff from

[13:29] developed condition to pre-developed condition. And in doing so, you analyze

[13:34] a 100-year storm on developed condition and then control the release rate down

[13:40] to a 10-year storm of undeveloped condition. And that was done for both

[13:46] 100year compared to 10 year and then also 10year compared to twoyear.

[13:52] In addition, I know I had a comment about 90 acres of offsite upstream

[13:57] drainage and per the ordinance off-site drainage

[14:02] can be bypassed from the detention basin and does not need to be attenuated.

[14:08] That's all I have. If you have any questions about it,

[14:12] » just to reiterate, you believe in conformance.

[14:14] » Yes.

[14:18] » So according to you, everything looks good as far as that

[14:22] » they followed the drainage ordinance. >> Okay.

[14:25] » Um meaning the main goal of it to provide detention storage and followed

[14:29] using the equations, calculations, um coefficients per the ordinance.

[14:38] » Okay. >> Thank you.

[14:41] » Thank you. Any other agent? Do you have any?

[14:47] » Thank you.

[14:51] » Matt Holden with the highway department. Um, so I know there's a question in here

[14:54] when the actual roadway plans get approved. That's what one they have.

[14:58] We've talked about it a little bit, but um, uh, they have they have abided to

[15:04] the subdivision control ordinance, which states in there the two there's two

[15:08] different ordinances it talks about. one goes back to 1973, I believe. But their

[15:12] plans currently do for the for the design uh do meet those requirements of

[15:18] of the subdivision control ordinance that deal with the roadway that they're

[15:21] going to be build building. Um keep in mind that involved with that is also the

[15:27] construction inspection when the roadway is being built. Um so, uh it actually

[15:32] wouldn't be 100% approved. That's why we're talking about the approval process

[15:35] of all this, how this actually works because I will have to be there or

[15:39] someone one somebody have to be there at certain times during the construction of

[15:42] the roadway. So I want to keep that in mind that you know while construction is

[15:46] going on there's some presence and some testing has to be done and verified

[15:50] during the construction. So >> but as of right now

[15:54] » as of right now >> preliminary perspective yes it conforms.

[15:58] » That's correct. Thank you, Mayor.

[16:11] » Are there any other agencies that want to have input?

[16:17] Hearing none, we will now go to >> Do you have the timer?

[16:22] » I got you. >> All right. Public comment. Looks like

[16:27] Josh is up first, so he'll have six minutes.

[16:29] » I'll let him know under about a minute left as well.

[16:33] » Before I sp speak and before you start that timer, I do want to hand out some

[16:37] written comments, too. Jason, I'll be sure to email those to you. Okay.

[16:53] » All right. Thank you. Uh, my name is Joshua Clayborn. um law firm is Shiloh

[16:57] Council. I'm here on behalf of Darla and Aaron Keiesel. Although, as noted

[17:01] earlier, there are several other um remmonstrators, I guess you can call

[17:06] them, uh that I think uh will share some of these uh thoughts. Um importantly, uh

[17:14] there are several things that are issues with this plat that I think need to be

[17:17] addressed before you guys approve them. You certainly took a vote on continuing

[17:21] this or delaying this vote. doesn't stop you from doing that a second time after

[17:25] you hear these comments. And obviously, I hope you do that. First, although the

[17:29] state code says that septic systems have to be five feet from the property line,

[17:35] and I believe Mr. Moley has made sure this plat does that. Your own county

[17:40] code says in article 11D2 that in no case will any part of the

[17:46] private system, including seepage field or leeching field, be located closer

[17:50] than 10 ft to a property line or within 50 ft of a private well. Now, I've done

[17:56] some math and you'll find that in the letter that I've included there. My math

[18:00] indicates that's not possible as this plat is written. And even if it is, it's

[18:04] not quite clear from the drawings um that that it is the necessary 10 feet

[18:09] according to your own boundaries. So I don't think that this can be adopted

[18:14] under your own ordinance without being in violation of it.

[18:17] » Let's go. >> Can I stop you? Where are you at?

[18:19] » And I'm sorry I skipped the page three on mine because I wanted to go to the

[18:23] most important point here. I've reordered them. So you'll see uh Roman

[18:28] numeral 3 article 11 D2 cannot be verified from the drawing. And although

[18:33] I was not a math major, uh, when I did that and did the math of of each each

[18:37] plot, um, including where those septic systems are, they're not going to meet

[18:41] that 10 ft setback requirement from the lot lines.

[18:46] That's a fatal flaw in what you guys have going on right now. If we go back

[18:49] to page two of this letter that I've sent out, I want to point out some other

[18:52] issues as well. Uh so issue number two that makes this fa fatal and that is

[18:58] that this plat as currently written does not encompass all of the contiguous

[19:02] parcels that are um owned or under the control of the subdivider. And you can

[19:08] look at article 7 A2 of your ordinance that shows that is required although the

[19:13] owners are labeled in some cases. Uh, and it goes without saying, I guess you

[19:18] all know this, uh, SPM Development is the owner of this the subdivider. Up in

[19:24] the northwest corner there, you'll see that they have, uh, parcel one, two,

[19:29] three, and four. Um, there is also um, parcel five, which is the one before

[19:35] you. There is more land to the north of here that isn't encompassed in this

[19:39] plat. And that is important when it's all owned by the same person because the

[19:43] policy behind that code is you don't want to have pick and choose just

[19:47] peacemeal what's being subdivided. If we know there is the likelihood or the

[19:52] strong potential for other pieces that are owned by that same owner to be

[19:55] subdivided at a future date. We can't fully assess that. That's not here on

[19:59] the plat. It can't be fully reviewed. Again, this is fatal under the county's

[20:03] own ordinance because it's not fully uh platted and and indicated on the plaque.

[20:11] Two other issues that I think are worth noting that prevent a vote, at least to

[20:15] the extent you want to follow your own ordinance today. Second, again, that's

[20:19] on page two. The health department has not verified and signed this plat. Um

[20:24] neither has the surveyor. And there may be an argument as to timing. Well, that

[20:27] doesn't happen till after you guys approve that. I think if you turn to

[20:31] page three, uh, second to last paragraph there, I talk about how article 7 A2W

[20:38] places the perlot septic designation at the primary stage by its own terms. And

[20:43] then that in uh 7B3 defines the primary approval as an expression of approval to

[20:50] the layout submitted on the primary plat. That is what this is today, which

[20:54] tells me according to your ordinance that this needs to be signed by the

[20:58] health department, by the surveyor before you guys approve it. In part

[21:02] because some of these issues we've raised need to be addressed. So part

[21:06] four, if you turn to page four of my initial letter there, you'll see that

[21:09] the engineering feasibility report um needs to be completed and with that is

[21:15] four components. a letter from the accepting sewage or water authority, a

[21:19] community system study where connection is not feasible, a drainage study, and a

[21:23] preliminary street construction report based on resolution 1973-1.

[21:29] Now, I have requested these some time ago in a public records request. I

[21:33] understand that you guys had under law time to get that to me, but at the same

[21:38] time, we're not in a position to review that if we haven't received that. Jason

[21:42] was kind enough to send some stuff on Friday. I went through as much of it as

[21:45] I could. It's possible that's in there, but again, this was on late in the day

[21:49] on a Friday before a holiday weekend. We're meeting here the morning of the

[21:52] very next business day. Um, I did not see that engineering feasibility report

[21:56] or those necessary requirements which are required before you guys approve

[22:00] that. Go down to the bottom of page four under subsection five. You'll see things

[22:05] like street design, entrances, water systems. There are a lot of questions

[22:08] and concerns about all of this. Is there sufficient space and room for emergency

[22:13] vehicle personnel to get in there and handle things that are going on? Are the

[22:17] entrances sufficient? And I will tell you, this should be no surprise to many

[22:20] of you. I was involved in this litigation back in 2022. Um, these were

[22:25] significant issues that you as a body rejected this development for this

[22:29] reason. So, I think it's incumbent upon you to

[22:32] make sure this is right. approving this this morning is rushing

[22:37] through it and not ensuring that all of these things are right. Um, so we have

[22:42] significant issues that are wrong or problematic with the plat on the

[22:47] county's own ordinances and I want to end with something that was addressed

[22:51] earlier and that was Mr. Lewis took a pretty substantial campaign contribution

[22:57] from this developer. In fact, it it it is one of his is his his highest

[23:02] contributions that needs to be disclosed and the court of appeals has already

[23:05] decided that is an apparent conflict of interest that should be disclosed.

[23:08] » Thank you.

[23:13] » I'm going to respond to the conflict of interest. Uh I've sent Mr. Clayborn a

[23:17] response on my take on the laws that he referenced. uh this the conflict of

[23:22] interest that the court of appeals addressed were interest in contracts uh

[23:27] and other peuniary interests but not campaign contribution. So I think this

[23:32] back pattern is distinguishable from the cases that were referenced and I've

[23:37] shared that information with commissioner Lewis. Okay, with that

[23:40] we'll go to the next person that wants to come up and I said I was giving you

[23:44] six or five. Six. >> Six hopefully but I might make it in

[23:47] five. We'll see. I can talk best. I'm Debbie Greece. U my address is 19 East

[23:52] 925 south. I am adjacent on the southwestern edge of this um subdivision

[23:58] plat where the line angles out a little bit. That's our property there. Um and I

[24:05] too went through and revised what I have here. So um a couple of questions that

[24:10] we had were um we reviewed the drainage plan the

[24:15] final drainage revision two. Um, it states that the existing swale on the

[24:20] west side of the site is to remain as it is now

[24:24] and that the proposed swailes number two and five

[24:29] will tie into that existing swale. Okay. Well, right now there is no swale on the

[24:34] west side of this of this proposed development. There is a small county

[24:40] ditch there. So my question is to whomever might be the one to answer

[24:46] that is that are they counting the little county ditch as a swale because

[24:53] those are technically two different things. So that is the question I have

[24:57] about that that we had and swale two no swale five runs across

[25:04] the northern side of our property boundary with that the other question I

[25:09] had was is this swale is it only on that northern side where the arrow points to

[25:15] I am looking at the swale drainage map that you guys have already seen because

[25:19] you guys have already had this to you um there's an arrow pointing to the

[25:23] northern sides of our part of the property

[25:26] saying 5 is there, but then that dark line goes around the property and then

[25:32] across the southern boundary of the subdivision.

[25:37] So, I'm curious how far that swale actually goes.

[25:46] » So, do we think anybody would have an answer?

[25:52] » Okay. Okay, that's fine. um that and then when it also talked about that

[25:57] existing swale on the west side of the site, it also shows a culvert that

[26:02] they're going to put in there. Um like just north of our property, which is

[26:06] fine, but so is it going to be a culvert? Is it going to be a swale? Is

[26:11] it just the ditch that's already there? >> That's what I'm trying to figure out so

[26:15] that we can think about how that's going to drain.

[26:20] Um okay a couple other things

[26:25] let's see we we

[26:30] many of us but especially my husband and I do not feel that ignoring the 89 acres

[26:37] of water flow drainage that flows it does flow into the subdivision even

[26:45] though I know when we addressed this issue last week we were told it goes

[26:49] around it, but the culvert that runs under the road does not contain that

[26:55] water. Now, when we have heavy rain and it and it does affect this. So, that

[27:01] was none of that 89 acres was in that drainage plan. It just said that they

[27:06] included the drainage area south of this. And we think that is a big

[27:14] omission on the part because it does run into

[27:19] the northern area of the subdivision. And part of the drainage that they have

[27:24] shown here, which is probably by swale 4, is very

[27:29] close to where that ditch would be. Well, no, not swale four. Sorry.

[27:37] The the top edge of swale 3 might be where that's at.

[27:41] Okay. So,

[27:46] in the in Gibson County storm water management ordinance, it says that

[27:51] Gibson County has the authority to modify grant exemptions andor wave any

[27:56] and all the requirements of the ordinance and its associated technical

[28:00] standards document. It really is kind of illogical to have

[28:05] an ordinance that you can then bypass if you're looking out for the

[28:11] environmental effects um from all the the rainwater that's

[28:16] going to go through there. So, we think that

[28:20] plus um one second.

[28:31] It also says that um in a disclaimer of liability in that ordinance that any

[28:38] storm water drainage problems associated with the project and it goes on to say

[28:43] caused by poor construction by the contractor. But if the county

[28:47] commissioners and the drainage board, which I found out when I was online

[28:52] looking through Gibson County's website, are the same three people. I did not

[28:55] realize that. I thought the drainage board was made up of people that had

[28:59] more of a a land and a water flow background. I guess um

[29:06] it says that the county will not be liable for that. However, if the county

[29:10] bypasses their own ordinance and doesn't have the developer follow

[29:16] the ordinance, then the county definitely could be liable for that.

[29:20] Okay. And the only other thing is just to come out, but what somebody else

[29:24] said, um, the roadway inside the subdivision

[29:28] right now is wider than our current road. And it's my understanding that

[29:33] that you're not allowed to do it that way. It's my understanding that when you

[29:37] put a development in, that roadway is not allowed to be wider than the main

[29:43] road that it's coming off of.

[29:49] Thank you. >> I'm going to read a public comment into

[29:54] the record because I think this would be the right time. I believe this was the

[29:57] last speaker's husband coming from Donald Greece. His correspondence reads,

[30:01] "Gent, see attached image. I cannot see where Bley's drainage plan accounts for

[30:06] the water coming from the north side of the county road. There are nearly 90

[30:11] acres that don't seem to be accounted for, but that will be a part of this

[30:15] record as well. And I will pass this desk.

[30:28] Well, I know this the county road is not in a flood plane,

[30:33] » but it is very often flooded, you know, because we got, you know, I've worked

[30:40] for the county for 36 years, so I've seen that road flooded many times.

[30:45] And uh I don't know how that's this is going to affect it. It's not going to

[30:50] help it, I'm sure.

[31:03] » Any other? >> Um hi, I'm Becky Man, 211 East, 925

[31:08] South. My property is directly northeast of the proposed subdivision. Um I'm my

[31:13] main concern is the safety of the road. Um I know adding this number of houses

[31:18] to that road with traffic is going to be a lot for that structure of the road. My

[31:24] main concern is there is a very steep blind hill at the very where the 925

[31:29] south comes up off Highway 41 heading west. There's been a number of times

[31:34] where I myself have been run off the road by cars. You can't see anybody

[31:37] coming. Both of us are keeping over. The road's not wide enough. I don't feel

[31:42] it's a very safe situation. Uh if you drive up that hill, you will see signs

[31:47] that say keep right. A lot of times those sides are leaning because

[31:50] something has hit it because you're trying to avoid oncoming traffic. Um and

[31:55] there's also a lot of farmers that use that road to get to their fields. Their

[31:58] equipment hits those. The road just is not designed to handle more traffic. And

[32:04] so I wondered if you guys had any plans in mind for how you're going to resolve

[32:08] that situation because it's I don't want anybody any of my neighbors getting

[32:12] hurt. I don't want anybody coming down the road getting hurt because of the

[32:16] situation of that road.

[32:29] » Usually not. Well, if you're still within Do we know how much time she had

[32:33] left? Yeah, about a minute left. >> Okay.

[32:35] » Okay. Okay. Well, my piggyback off of that is it appears that the state

[32:40] highway right ofway stops part of the way up that hill. It does not go all the

[32:46] way to the peak of the hill. So, could that hill if that's county if that's the

[32:50] county ground, not the state highway ground? Why can't you chop it off

[32:56] and get rid of the worst part of that hill then so that people can see across

[33:02] it? Anyone

[33:16] else for public comment?

[33:26] » Hi, Tammy Hack with Gibson County Economic Development and I just want to

[33:31] from an economic development standpoint, we obviously Gibson County is in dire

[33:37] need of more homes. Um, so you know, as for economic development, we would

[33:44] support a new subdivision.

[33:49] » Thank you.

[33:57] » Hello, >> Darla Key with meats. Um, I think it's

[34:01] very clear here, and I've mentioned this numerous time, and I'm going to continue

[34:04] to mention it. We are working on the legalities and making sure everything

[34:08] follows the the appropriate structure. What we are not addressing is ethics

[34:15] because you cannot address ethics besides within your own heart.

[34:20] Our road and our houses flood now. We flood now. So, we're going to put

[34:28] however many houses, 30 something houses, and we are expecting it not to

[34:34] flood. They will. We are expecting them not to have mold. They will. Every one

[34:40] of us struggles with flooding, struggles with mold.

[34:45] I have a very hard time believing that no matter what engineer firm, no matter

[34:51] what drainage board we go to, that area that is farm ground that we are planning

[34:58] on putting houses on is magically just not going to flood. It's going to. And I

[35:03] want to make sure this is in the record because when those poor people that buy

[35:07] these houses are flooded and they have mold and I suspect they are not taken

[35:14] properly care of by Ryrecks that it's not going to be put back on

[35:19] Gibson County. I don't want it to be put back on Gibson County, but it is not

[35:22] these people's faults. They don't know. The rest of us that live on this road

[35:26] know. It's very concerning to me and it goes back to ethics.

[35:31] » Thank you. Anyone

[35:36] else?

[35:52] I'm Larry Mikl. I'm a Gibson County taxpayer.

[35:57] I don't have any property right around here.

[36:01] I'm familiar with it. I want I'm right very close to it.

[36:06] Every one of these uh every one of these residents

[36:11] I spoke I agree 100% with everything they're saying.

[36:16] Um as a Gibson County taxpayer

[36:20] I'm also concerned about Gibson County. I like

[36:26] I like that last lady said it's going to come back on the county.

[36:34] the developers to kind of walk away from it. Any any discrepancies,

[36:40] uh the traffic,

[36:44] the the water flow, I deal with drainage all the time.

[36:49] Like I like they said, 90 acres is a lot of water to come down through this area.

[36:56] the kind of people that's going to buy these homes,

[37:02] the first person that said there's a lot smaller

[37:06] lots and a half an acre. Well, they can have those and it's going to come back

[37:12] to haunt them. If you take the perimeter off as

[37:16] required from the highway from the road frontage and the 10acre limits and

[37:22] everything and you build a house on it and you build a septic system on it,

[37:27] you're going to be running out of room and that's going the people that come in

[37:31] and buy a house, a lot of them are young and they don't know

[37:36] what the heck they're getting into. So the county has a responsibility

[37:43] of looking through these requirements and get it

[37:47] done right so it doesn't come back on the county uh just like some of the

[37:52] other subdivisions that the roads are put in improperly

[37:57] and there's potholes and everything else after a few years.

[38:01] There are a lot of problems with this area

[38:04] but 34 homes on 22 and a half acres is ridiculous.

[38:09] It's it's going to be bad for the area. It's

[38:14] going to be bad for the people who buy it. And sooner or later, it's going to

[38:18] come back to haunt everybody, including Gibson County.

[38:22] » Thank you.

[38:37] » Hello. I'm Jessica Kramer. I'm the Union Township Trustee. Um myself and my fire

[38:43] chief are here. Our main concerns are the width of the road. Is that going to

[38:48] be wide enough with there not being another way out?

[38:52] You've got big fire equipment coming in and going out. And then you also have

[38:56] the hill. The hill is a big issue. We know I think everyone knows that that

[39:00] road isn't traveled >> no

[39:02] » as much. And with 34 new houses, it's going to be traveled a lot more. Um, and

[39:07] then if you've got two vehicles, because I'm sure there's not going to be enough

[39:11] parking, so there's going to be two vehicles on each side of the road. You

[39:14] take that away from where they're going to be driving and you turn a big 75 foot

[39:20] ladder around. I don't do that because you wouldn't want me to,

[39:24] but um that that's our concern. And then whether or not there was going to be any

[39:29] fire hydrants or anything put out there. Um, so we just kind of wanted to put

[39:32] that to be put on record. Um, because without the fire hydrants, all of those

[39:38] lots, their insurance will be way high. It'll be no different than Indian Hills

[39:43] is at the moment. >> Thank you.

[39:48] » Thank you. Thank you,

[39:55] » Julie Ellsworth, the Gibson County Health Department administrator. Um,

[39:59] back when this happened on the ordinance stating the how much feet should be with

[40:05] the septic system, county ordinances should not be stricter

[40:11] than the state and the state's 5 foot. Um, that Indiana code is 16-41-25-7.

[40:19] Um, if anybody wants to look into that, you cannot do that. I mean, you guys can

[40:23] make your ordinances. I don't know who was in charge at that time and made that

[40:28] ordinance, but really they should have worked with that department and and

[40:32] everybody sure worked together to make sure that was correct. So that may need

[40:35] to be changed, but state rule it should be five feet, not 10. Your guys should

[40:41] not be stricter than the state. That's all I have to say.

[40:52] Anyone else?

[41:00] Yeah.

[41:06] Another issue. I sold my I sold a house to one of my daughters.

[41:18] They paid to sell her that house. I had to

[41:21] subdivide that 40 acres. I had to get the health department

[41:29] to give an okay there was two spots per seed.

[41:36] Has this been done yet? Does all those lots have

[41:44] protest

[41:48] needs to be done before this gets done as well. And I disagree

[41:56] as last speaker the county or is what was written and

[42:02] that's what Gibson County

[42:20] just

[42:29] talked about this before. I think there should be

[42:33] so much

[42:46] I just wanted to knew why that You have to do that. You

[42:51] do not have to do that.

[43:00] » So, from the health department's perspective, and I know you're not the

[43:04] you're the sanitation person, >> has this checked all of the boxes at the

[43:09] subdivision review? >> As far as Yes. I mean, everything has

[43:13] checked out with that. She's actually

[43:19] looking So I mean everything is checked out as

[43:22] far as septics go. We are in line with what we need to do. It's not a community

[43:27] thing. I don't think that should be ever done. It just causes problems dealing

[43:32] with something like that. But septics wise as far as all the other stuff I

[43:36] don't know about the just as far as on the septic end it is.

[43:54] I was just up here to safety concerns and I

[44:02] have five acres there. My backyard it's

[44:11] our house is that big one the front ditch it was flooded over top my lane it

[44:17] just rushes through it. had several come out to fix it. It's just going to be an

[44:23] issue every time.

[44:30] » Thank you.

[44:39] » Any other public comment?

[44:45] You want to come back up? We'll wait till Commissioner Burns gets back out

[44:50] here. But um I would like if you would

[44:56] start off responding to Mr. Clayborn's allegations,

[45:01] including the 10- foot language. Um and if you need to go through those one by

[45:06] one, we can have him. >> Yeah, I did too, but it was too fast for

[45:11] me.

[45:46] Jim, the junior project engineer tried to take notes best I could miss.

[45:53] Please let me know. I'll try to do the best I can. There was a question about

[45:58] the septic systems and how close they were property line. All of ours are

[46:05] either at least 10 ft from the property line. As I pointed out on there earlier,

[46:11] they're kind of in there.

[46:14] parallel property.

[46:34] There's a question about tax

[46:43] side of the road

[46:48] to build houses on the other side

[46:53] questions.

[47:02] design street

[47:11] project like this.

[47:16] There's a question about ditches

[47:20] and such.

[47:31] We caught water

[47:38] around the subdivision to catch that water as it comes toward houses.

[47:44] We're not blocking it. We receive it

[47:52] around that subdivision so that used to go to the ditch still goes to

[48:00] the big ditch on the north. However, the water is on this property actually goes

[48:06] to detention bas

[48:10] and so county

[48:19] or not in this county

[48:24] what some of the surrounding count And so you provide I'll say your

[48:30] provides

[48:35] members if you will extra protection for the citizens of Gibson County.

[48:52] We don't that's just It's an existing ditch that

[48:56] we're not sending extra water into it. It's just

[49:02] that we detention basins first and then those detention based

[49:18] on the same page and understands works. um

[49:23] use fake numbers just to prove a point if you will. Um you may have two 30in

[49:31] pipes that come into a detention base but you only have one 12in pipe that

[49:35] comes out and so what happens if you have 100 gallons coming in 10 gallons

[49:40] going out that will start to fill up and then come

[49:45] back down of time. So what that does is

[49:52] It slows how fast water goes into the north side. And so technically,

[49:59] yeah, over

[50:05] it doesn't go there fast. And so you're actually

[50:17] currently all that water now.

[50:24] And so instead

[50:33] discharge that water goes up and down.

[50:42] If you go to one side of the pond, dump five gallons of water in one side, the

[50:46] guy over can't water right away, you know.

[50:51] in it doesn't run out. It kind of comes out if you will. That's kind of the way

[50:58] and so all that water is being slowed down through process and so I will tell

[51:05] you we probably

[51:10] design

[51:19] people to me and say, "Hey, I didn't believe it when you said it, but

[51:24] actually my situation

[51:28] is something that we pay attention to

[51:34] folks that mainressed

[51:51] We looked at all. Some of it goes through

[51:57] waterath

[52:15] appropriately and

[52:27] There's a question about roadways.

[52:32] I've never heard a rule that says road has to be narrow.

[52:39] That's not what I'm tell

[52:46] street. the county

[52:52] until you go unless you go street

[52:58] anytime you're out in the county

[53:12] I would guess

[53:16] that's the situation.

[53:29] There's more questions about the tension again

[53:34] the whole

[53:45] is a true statement to say that run off this property faster.

[53:53] But that's why it's partaining

[54:12] water that doesn't happen. There is rel gives you

[54:22] a flavor

[54:30] and so that's why I say Gibson County

[54:46] subject system

[55:04] for people to park in a question about roads and fire trucks

[55:12] for fire trucks to drive up and down. We

[55:27] I think that was it. I'm not sure if I missed something. Please let me know.

[55:36] » Any questions for Mr. Moley or any of our agencies?

[55:46] Sorry sir, this is for the commissioners only to ask.

[55:53] » I will say I'll make myself available.

[56:01] » So, do the commissioners have any questions?

[56:03] » Do the commissioners have any questions for the other?

[56:06] » No. >> No. No.

[56:09] Okay, then we're gonna we're going to close.

[56:15] Sir, did you have a question for him? Is that what it was? Or did you have a

[56:18] comment? A question.

[56:23] » Okay, we're going to close the public hearing

[56:28] public comment section of this meeting. We'll now go to deliberations and action

[56:33] on the primary plat commissioners. You have a few options.

[56:40] Your choices for voting on this are to approve it,

[56:46] to approve it with conditions or restrictions. That's option two. Option

[56:50] three would be to disapprove it.

[57:01] Is there a motion or any discussion on those three options? Approve. approve

[57:06] with conditions or disapprove. >> Jason, I do have a question just from uh

[57:12] the Shiloh council. Um I mean are we meeting everything that we need to meet

[57:18] for this whole project? I mean that's the from what he was what he stated

[57:22] earlier and I mean do we feel like everything is said we don't want to rush

[57:26] we definitely don't want to rush it but I want want to make sure that you feel

[57:29] feel like everything legally is being done correctly. I I do with with uh

[57:35] obviously the guidance and consultation of our uh our department heads and and

[57:42] consultants. I I feel comfortable. Yes.

[57:53] Tell you I'd like to really see I wish the county could afford to widen that

[57:58] road. That would help out immensely and take that hill down.

[58:04] » But to widen the road, you have to get people to give the property to us.

[58:10] Otherwise, it's not going to happen. You know,

[58:15] we can't just take it.

[58:23] » Yeah, I know. >> I know what you're saying.

[58:26] I think I was I was in the audience before um before I became a

[58:30] commissioner. Mr. Holden, this ever said something

[58:36] about maybe like a um just a oneway or anything. Have you ever thought about

[58:42] that?

[58:50] traffic,

[58:58] » right? >> I know there's not a lot of traffic on

[59:01] that road, but you get 32 more houses, there's going to be a lot of traffic.

[59:20] All you have to have

[59:34] every time shut down, everybody's on every other

[59:47] Yeah, that

[59:51] hard to talk about because that's what

[59:58] that's hard.

[1:00:03] I know I have talked to about that.

[1:00:09] on the road in the near future.

[1:00:15] They come up

[1:00:34] daily traffic

[1:00:39] service. So

[1:00:44] once you get 5,000,000

[1:01:02] It's not

[1:01:33] Are you a one? >> Yeah, I want to do a roll call vote. Uh

[1:01:38] once we're once a motion has been made. Again, your options are approve, approve

[1:01:45] with limitations or restrictions and then disapprove. So,

[1:01:50] if somebody could make a motion, if one of those three things, we can move this

[1:01:53] along.

[1:01:58] I guess I I'm definitely thinking about the conditions that that's where I'm

[1:02:02] hung up at is the conditions. I mean, I definitely want growth and everything

[1:02:06] else, but I want to be proper proper growth as well. But I think for this

[1:02:12] project though, I think it's just more we're only really voting on I mean the

[1:02:17] can't I mean, can we do We I mean I'd like to see something done more with the

[1:02:22] with the roadway, but I mean I don't know, Matt, what's what else can be said

[1:02:27] about this?

[1:02:40] ilities. I'm sure

[1:03:00] » you have

[1:03:04] you know commit to something also they're going to look at it right now

[1:03:07] and say

[1:03:18] 10, 20, 30,000 days. They're having issues that they're trying to resolve

[1:03:23] this

[1:03:31] hard.

[1:03:57] Yeah. If it does become a problem, what what would be the next steps if it does?

[1:04:02] I mean, like I said, we go by data. So if it becomes a problem, what what would

[1:04:06] be the steps that we would have to do for that?

[1:04:24] I think

[1:04:40] volume.

[1:04:58] The traffic exists to warrant

[1:05:12] So they're still trying to exist.

[1:05:28] It's currently

[1:05:33] smooth.

[1:05:51] » Commissioner Burns, you asked a good fair question. I do want to reiterate

[1:05:58] something that was mentioned earlier. So, construction and three plans, the

[1:06:01] final drainage plan, the one lot sewage design with so soil borings, erosion

[1:06:06] control, and the performance guarantees. Those all come at the final plat review

[1:06:11] under the Arctic weight and 11. So that that is something that will be

[1:06:19] evaluated more thoroughly, but is not part of the analysis for

[1:06:25] today.

[1:06:40] I will go through the three options at this time in reverse order. Is there

[1:06:47] a motion to disapprove preliminary plat approval?

[1:06:56] Hearing none, I'll move on to the second option again in reverse order. Is is

[1:07:00] there a motion to approve the preliminary plat approval with

[1:07:03] restrictions?

[1:07:07] Hearing none, I'll go to the first option. Is there a motion to approve the

[1:07:10] preliminary plat as presented? >> Well, I tell you the way I look at it,

[1:07:17] our engineer says it's all good. The health department says it's good

[1:07:23] and that's the main I mean other than the flooding and the narrow road was

[1:07:30] preliminary plat I'm going to have to agree to

[1:07:35] just for the blendment area I mean just the first stage of it but

[1:07:43] » okay so that is a a motion then commissioner McGomery

[1:07:47] » yes >> okay there's a motion on the floor to

[1:07:50] approve the preliminary plat as presented is there a second to that

[1:07:54] motion >> I Second that.

[1:07:55] » There is a motion and a second on the floor. Now, we're going to do roll call

[1:07:59] vote and go in go in the order from right to left as we normally would.

[1:08:03] Commissioner, President Burns, how do you vote? Yay or nay?

[1:08:06] » Uh, yay. >> Commissioner McGomery, how do you vote?

[1:08:09] Yay or nay? >> Yay.

[1:08:11] » And Commissioner Lewis, how do you vote? Yay. Nay.

[1:08:14] » I will abstain. >> Okay. Let the record reflect that

[1:08:17] Commissioner Lewis has abstained. And the votes are there for preliminary plat

[1:08:22] approval.

[1:08:35] Hold on.

[1:08:45] » After adjournment. Um, well, if you can talk with one commissioner at

[1:08:50] a time. Yes.

[1:08:55] Can I ask questions

[1:09:02] about the road plans and the final plan?

[1:09:16] » When that happens,

[1:09:20] they need to have approved set

[1:09:35] a little confusing

[1:09:39] question

[1:09:48] accepted for public

[1:09:52] That's what they approved is typically in process of development

[1:10:00] once we've done that typically

[1:10:07] get approved and then builds that design and then

[1:10:16] go out and look at it. Expect it.

[1:10:21] and say, "Yeah, this all looks good."

[1:10:30] » Inventory. >> Yes.

[1:10:32] » So, so you're you're basically suggesting that we do this through uh

[1:10:36] three phases. The preliminary plan that we did today, the road phase two, and

[1:10:40] then final. >> How how do we get to having an approved

[1:10:46] set of road design?

[1:10:51] because you don't want them to build something that's not an approved design.

[1:11:03] It's missing the step of approving

[1:11:08] and I'm talking about the interior subdivision street designed

[1:11:13] that I think you're okay with everything.

[1:11:19] But the code doesn't have doesn't have a process for approving the

[1:11:26] so

[1:11:32] » interior roads only >> interior roads only

[1:11:36] go

[1:11:44] there's a road in front of Okay, now we're start building

[1:11:51] tough to sell a house. >> We've got a meeting next Tuesday. We'll

[1:11:56] put this on the agenda. Give me a time some time to look at it and talk with

[1:12:00] Matt and uh see see how to handle it.

[1:12:05] » I'm happy to come back for that. >> Probably plan on doing so. So that would

[1:12:09] be the 4:45 meeting that day. >> Oh, that would be the early meeting. I'm

[1:12:14] sorry.

[1:12:17] 445 >> we already have

[1:12:25] » that process works that's just for whatever reason I think it's a step

[1:12:33] » Jason do um this do we at this time do we or is that

[1:12:39] the final um how do we have maybe ly keep an eye on this project. How do we

[1:12:45] go about that? >> Have his word on the project.

[1:12:48] » Have lot of three I keep an eye on the progress of the project. Make sure

[1:12:52] they're meeting everything. Make sure they're meeting their ordinance and

[1:12:55] everything happen. >> Yeah, they they will continue to have

[1:12:58] interactions, mandatory interactions with them for now. They're not they're

[1:13:02] not at construction yet. So, I think you're asking for once they get

[1:13:06] to that construction phase, but they got to get through final plat approval

[1:13:09] before uh before before we're in a position to have some oversight.

[1:13:14] » Okay. >> Okay.

[1:13:18] » All right. >> Make a motion to adjourn.

[1:13:20] » I'll make a motion to second. All in favor signify

[1:13:24] by saying I. I.

9/08/2026 Commissioners Meeting

Transcript