[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.