October 24, 2011
The Ellettsville, Indiana,
Roll Call: Members present were David Drake, President; Dianna Bastin; Phillip Smith and Dan Swafford. Scott Oldham was absent. Sandra Hash, Clerk-Treasurer; Darla Brown, Town Attorney, and Rick Coppock, Bynum Fanyo, Town Engineer, were also present.
Approval of Minutes
David Drake entertained a motion for the approval of the minutes for the Regular Meeting on October 10, 2011. Dianna Bastin so moved. Phillip Smith seconded. Motion carried.
Accounts Payable Vouchers
David Drake entertained a motion for action to pay Accounts Payable Vouchers. Dianna Bastin so moved. Dan Swafford seconded. Motion carried.
Autumn Ridge Sidewalks
Darla Brown, Town Attorney – Utilities finished the grading and the seeding work. Michael Farmer has given her an invoice for Utilities’ labor, equipment and parts. The invoices total $4,348.84. Dan Swafford commented the work looks very nice. Mr. Swafford asked if the Town gets reimbursed from the letter of credit. Ms. Brown replied she will deduct the $4,348.84 from the letter of credit and return the letter of credit to the bank. Mr. Swafford stated before she returns the letter of credit to the bank he would like to make sure from Rick Coppock that everything is 100% complete. Mr. Swafford requested Ms. Brown contact Mr. Coppock to make sure everything has been completed before she returns the letter of credit. Ms. Brown responded she would do so.
Sandra Hash – There was a vendor who came to Town Hall and presented some bills for the actual concrete work. Rick Coppock had sent an email to her stating the work was done and the invoice could be paid. If 100% of the bond is returned, where does that leave the person who poured the sidewalks? Mr. Swafford stated the Town did not hire that person, and nor should it pay them. For any kind of warranty the Town should not get involved. Ms. Brown stated the attorney for Autumn Ridge has requested that the money be returned to the bank. She would like to do this and let Autumn Ridge pay the individuals who poured the sidewalks. Ms. Hash asked if she should return the invoices and tell them to bill Autumn Ridge. Ms. Brown replied to go ahead and do what she had suggested. Ms. Brown requested a copy of the invoices.
Dan Swafford – Asked Rick Coppock if all of the improvements on Autumn Ridge had been completed of if there is anything outstanding. Mr. Coppock replied he doesn’t know of anything else outstanding. The street trees have been put in. He understands there are more street trees they have paid that have not been put in yet, which is under the control of the homeowners association. The sidewalk and the other public improvements which are the sewer and water lines are in. The surface coat has been put on. Outside of those things, he knows of nothing else. Dan Swafford asked Mike Farmer if the rubbish on the corner lot had been cleaned up. Mr. Farmer replied they cleaned it up and left only the building blocks that could be used for future construction activity. They removed the spoiled dirt and concrete construction debris. There were 10 to 11 tri-axle loads removed. Mr. Swafford asked Mr. Coppock if the Town has concluded its responsibility. Mr. Coppock stated he would say that’s correct. The person who poured the concrete for the sidewalk had talked to him about being paid for the work. He told her to contact Sandra Hash. Mr. Swafford said this was discussed prior to his arrival and they are going to return the money to the bank that is leftover after payment to Utilities and let them take care of the contractors. Mr. Swafford asked if there is any money that should be kept back for a warranty. Mr. Coppock replied the surface course has been on for awhile. If the sidewalks break up or something like that it would be the Town’s responsibility to fix them. This is common with any subdivision project. Mr. Swafford commented the payment will be made to the Utilities and the balance will be returned to the bank. He reiterated it looked nice when he looked at it a week ago. Dianna Bastin asked Mike Farmer to thank the guys who worked on it. They did a good job.
Eastern Richland Sewer Corporation Update – Larry Barker
Larry Barker, President of Eastern Richland Sewer Corporation (“ERSC”) – As part of the agreement they are to keep the Town apprised of upcoming events and repair work. A week prior, they signed a contract with Miller Pipe for a little under $750,000 to line over 6 ˝ miles of petrified clay pipe. They will start immobilizing on October 26, 2011 and they have up to 180 days to complete the process. ERSC will keep the Town apprised of events as they continue.
David Drake – Asked what the percentage of work is compared to
the total amount of pipe that may need to be fixed. Mr. Barker responded this is a continuous
process with their infrastructure. This
is why they have proceeded with buying a Vactor truck and their own camera
truck to maintain their 40 miles of sewer.
This will line at least 35% to 40% of the petrified clay. Mr. Drake asked if this process could be done
during the winter. Mr. Barker responded
they can do the work to 25° and then they will have to stop. When they bring the heated material outside
the truck and then down into the manhole the temperature radiant cools too fast
and it won’t fit through the manhole into the lines. They will start work on the northern section
which is next to west
Dan Swafford – Asked if the repair work will inconvenience customers. Mr. Barker replied there will be a few above ground spot repairs but 90% of the work will be done underground. They will notify customers in advance of the repairs.
Planned Unit Development Petition No. 9122012-2-Pipjay Properties, LLC/Burch Enterprises, Inc., Chad Stephens and Roger New: Petitioner’s Proposal for a Rezone Ordinance Rezoning His Property from C3 to PUD/Proposed Ordinance 2011-10.
Director of Planning – The Planning
Department was first contacted about the Petitioner, Chad Stephens, adding fill
next to Jack Defeat’s Creek in October 2009 and May 2010. Additional complaints include a potential
land use violation which is the operation of a salvage facility in July
2010. Cars were observed stacked on top
of one another and loud sounds could be heard as observed from McNeely and
Matthews. The Department of Natural
Resources (“DNR”) and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(“IDEM”) were contacted in approximately May through December 2010 as well as
the Secretary of State’s office. The
Planning Department requested a right of entry to conduct an inspection at the
business on September 13, 2010. During
the inspection, piles of mixed metals and the following items were observed: vehicles
stacked on top of one another, dismantled engine parts, fluid extraction,
recent grading and the placement of a detention pond. An additional inspection was conducted on
August 3, 2011. This inspection revealed
grading, fluid stains on the gravel and salvaging operations with stacked
vehicles. One roll off dumpster had oil
and fluid sludge at the base of the dumpster.
There was a crack where the door shuts on the dumpster. During a rain event those fluids could be washed
onto the ground. The adjacent land uses
were reviewed. On September 13, 2010, a
code violation was issued based on the inspection findings. In October 2010, the Ellettsville Plan
Commission requested Mr. Stephens to appear before the commissioners to discuss
the land use violation letter and to better understand how the property is
currently being used. A valid
· Prohibited land use in a C-3 zoning classification per Ellettsville Town Code 1966 through current Town zoning. The code requires Industrial 2 with a Board of Zoning Appeals special exception approval by §152.085.
· In 2010 new businesses were added: salvage business and recycle yard.
They filled in the floodplain with no grading permit issued by the Town
1. Whether or not the project will adversely affect the efficiency of or unduly restrict the capacity of the floodway.
2. Whether or not the project will constitute an unreasonable hazard to the safety of life and property.
3. Whether or not the project will result in unreasonable detrimental effects upon fish, wildlife or botanical resources.
· Performance standards differ in the Act than the Town Code. The Town Code is more restrictive. Code 152.105(b) states “the total cumulative effect of the proposed development when combined with all other existing anticipated development shall not increase the regulatory flood elevation more than 1/10th or 1.2 feet and shall not increase flood damages or potential flood damages.” Performance standards in I.C. 14-28-1 allows for 1.8 feet.
The State of
· Ellettsville Town Code-Draining site plan: §152.145, Code stipulations under §152.296(i)(j).
Findings of Fact: According to I.C. 36-7-4-603, the following criteria are addressed as part of rezone protocol:
· Criteria 1: The Comprehensive Plan.
· Criteria 2: Current conditions and the character of the current structures and uses in each district.
· Criteria 3: The most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted.
· Criteria 4: The conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction.
· Criteria 5: Responsible development and growth.
1. The Director of Planning’s Findings of Fact - it is not consistent with the land use policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
· Industrial areas are to be located west of Ellettsville for light industry. (Page 22- Industry)
· Town Code shall prohibit heavy industries that would likely create a known health or explosive hazard for nearby residents. (Page 22-Industry)
Encourage pedestrian style commercial development along and between the
one-way pair of S.R. 46 with special attention to
· Support the Heritage Trail using old rail beds as a linear pedestrian pathway. Salvage yards are not a good adjacent land use for a trail. (Page 23 – Transportation and Traffic Plan)
· Improve the environmental quality of Jack’s Defeat Creek. One reason why code prohibits salvage yards next to floodways. (Page 24 – Environmental Issues and Trees)
Seek guidance from similar communities concerning codes. (Page
31 – first paragraph) Different communities prohibit salvage yards
in commercial areas. They all want those
five acres in size and 1,000 feet from residential. In the City of
2. The Director of Planning Findings of Fact - the Conditions have changed in the area since the original zoning was established:
· Conditions have changed in the area because there are additional uses that have been added to the PUD application area which has strayed away from the original intent of the code. More residential development has transpired on McNeely (Stoneview Condos-PUD R-3, as well as additional subdivisions east of the site which is more residential land uses).
3. The Director of Planning Findings of Fact - the Community
facilities are available. The area is
serviced with Town water and wastewater treatment services and McNeely is a
4. The Director of Planning Findings of Fact - The proposed rezoning will not establish a desirable precedent in the area because the Comprehensive Plan states light industry zoning should be developed west of Ellettsville (pages 22, 31 and 36). Zoning shall prohibit heavy industries that would likely create a known health or explosive hazard (page 31). Restrict areas within the 100 year floodplain hazard area to park land use (page 31). It will be mandatory to control pollution from entering streams by stopping unclean discharges of stormwater at or near their source (page 32). Soil erosion control measures should be carefully planned, implemented and monitored (page 32).
5. The Director of Planning Findings of Fact -The proposed rezoning is not compatible with surrounding land uses. The Comprehensive Plan states Land Use Recommendations for Ellettsville. Three conditions for Good Land Use should be considered (page 26). Ellettsville should measure each and every one of the land use recommendations on the basis of these considerations.
· Does each and every lot in Town or parcel of land near Town have utilization compatible with its neighbor?
· Is each land use the highest and best land use possible given the present market economies?
· In what way can Ellettsville land parcels attract additional investment?
· What needs to be done to upgrade the value of surrounding property?
· What kind of image does the visual scene portray? Does the built environment give a good first impression?
The thoroughfare plan as within the Comprehensive Plan states that Matthews and McNeely are both classified as minor collectors where it discusses using major collectors for such use. The PUD application area will be presented from the hydrology study. Rick Coppock will be discussing the hydrology study as well. The Town is required to enforce the Floodplain Ordinance. The Town has a national flood insurance program and if the Town does not withhold the floodplain ordinance then it can jeopardize the program. It is in the professional opinion of the Town Planner that this is not an approved use for this location. Salvaging is a good use and is a good environmental friendly use but it does need to be located in the appropriate place and the findings state that it is not.
Rick Coppock, Bynum Fanyo, Town Engineer - The report for the flood study was performed by MS Consulting and has been submitted to the DNR for their review. He looked at the report and since DNR has the final jurisdiction they look at the methodology and the findings of the report. What the report looks at is what fill has been presently placed on the site. It indicates they will have a .02 increase in the base flood elevation. What this means is that it is within the Town Code according to the report. Even with the fill that is there now, at the center of the site would still be subject to flooding at 4.75 feet and this is based on the hydrology report turned into the DNR. This is something the Town needs to consider. This is not taking the site out of the floodplain it is merely acknowledging what is there. They’re having it reviewed by the DNR so they do not have to remove what’s been placed in the floodplain to date. DNR reviews take quite a bit of time. They’re certain MS Consulting is working with the DNR to get their report finalized and reviewed.
Dan Swafford – Asked how much it would flood in the center. Mr. Coppock replied the amount of flood
waters would be 4.75 feet that’s calculated for the center of their site. The site comes up from
David Drake – There are several different operations going on at the site. There is a towing company and vehicle repair company. He asked if they’re dealing with just the salvage operation and are there any additional things beyond that. Connie Griffin replied that is correct. The Commercial 3 uses are approved uses at that location. Salvaging requires it to be an Industrial 2 classification with border zoning special exception. Mr. Drake stated the Town isn’t telling them that they cannot operate their business; what is being decided at this meeting is whether they can expand and continue the salvage operation only. Ms. Griffin confirmed that is correct. They can still continue the trucking industry but the salvage and recycling operation would have to cease and desist. Mr. Drake explained the procedure for the petitioner to present his petition.
Mike Carmin, Attorney for Petitioner – Present with him at the
meeting is Chad Stephens, Petitioner, and Bernie Guerrettaz and Brad Myrick of
Bledsoe and Guerrettaz. What is being
decided is not a question of expansion of a business. What is being decided is whether or not a
recycling and salvage operation can continue.
Without rezoning it cannot continue as far as the Town Council is
concerned. He presented a photograph
from 1988 when Roger New started the operation.
The photograph shows the vehicles he was salvaging in 1988. For 25 years this has been the site of a
recycling and salvage operation. This
isn’t something Chad Stephens started a couple of years ago. What Chad Stephens did do several years ago
was to clean up the site. A Google 2011
photo update was presented. This is what
got his attention brought to everyone as well as the fill activity. They are not at the meeting to prove 25 years
of use. That’s a battle for another day
and depending on what happens at this meeting it may have to be litigated. There is an issue of whether or not the Town
can stop an activity that 25 years ago was allowed to happen and continue. They’re at this meeting for the PUD
petition. They’re talking about
livelihoods. It’s not a Monopoly board;
it is people’s lives and the livelihood of 14 employees. It is projected that
· Absolutely no automobile processing will occur. When a vehicle is purchased it will be removed within 48 hours to a main yard outside of Ellettsville for processing.
· Absolutely no automobile fluids will be stored in the recycle yard.
· Absolutely no torching down of heavy equipment or equipment containing fluids. All of this equipment will be hauled off-site within 48 hours.
· Motor blocks, iron and aluminum, will remain in sealed containers under roof as previously committed.
· The development plant will be a feeder yard for a facility located outside of Ellettsville.”
This will move some jobs outside of Ellettsville corporate limits but it will leave this yard as a feeder yard with a greatly reduced scope of operations. Even with the commitment on the operations, if it were to remain as the main yard, it addresses every environmental concern that anybody has broached. The feeder yard which now looks to be a reality is a greatly reduced operation that allows the purchase and collection of materials which is processed and moved off-site. This removes a little bit of economic impact from the community. It also removes from the site those items people have expressed some concern in the form of spillage, runoff and floodplain issues. The DNR after the fact permit is still being processed and it is a slow process. A question was asked what all of that means. An after the fact permit says is “you’ve already done it, you didn’t have the permit you should have had to do it, we look at what you did and we evaluate and had you come to us before you did that we would have approved it.” This is all that’s going on and they’re waiting for the final answer. All indications are it meets the criteria of the DNR for that permit and it will be issued. It’s just a matter of time. In summary, the council has been given several things to consider when doing the rezoning:
· Comprehensive Plan. There is a whole lot of things in the Comprehensive Plan that this petition clearly meets. There are a couple of things that it does not clearly meet. One of which is the concept of industrial zoning being west of Town based outside of Ellettsville. He thinks the I-1 zone north of this site was an issue and has never been challenged. The C-3 zoning went in there a long time ago. The first Comprehensive Plan in 1963 addressed that point. The Comprehensive Plan is a guide. Give it reasonable regard and they can still find it can be done.
· The character of the current uses: This has been there for 25 years. No new structures are proposed. There will be a concrete pad with a cover over it to do the processing but not a new closed structure that would require a permit.
· Desirable use: They are continuing a use that is there already. The towing and truck service continues as a C-3 zoning and they’re adding a couple of uses for
· The recycle and salvage. The problem he has every time he uses the word “salvage” is that he hates using it because he knows what happens. In their minds they conjure up what he calls the Bloomington Auto Parts yard on north 37. You can’t drive by there without seeing acres and acres of stacked rusted hulks. There is no storage of vehicles at this site. There hasn’t been and there will not be and there is a commitment for that.
· Conservation of property values: Property values have already been set for what is already there.
· Responsible development: There are environmental protections in the plan that are not being met by any other petition ever seen in the community. There are promises and safeguards in the form of the Commitment which becomes an enforceable contract. It is enforceable by the Town and interested parties.
Bernie Guerrettaz, Bledsoe and Guerrettaz – They are the land
surveyors and engineers that did the site work.
They prepared the mapping for the outline plan. They have been coordinating with Sean Arden
of MS Consultants who did the floodplain study.
They are asking for an outline plan approval. This is the second step of a four step
process. Every single step the Town
Council has control over. The review has
been done by the staff and Town Engineer who has read the report and has tried
to understand what the modeling says and he has done that. He spoke with the Town Engineer and he thinks
they’re on the same page which is what the report states. The report developed by Mr. Arden says with
the after the fact fill the increase in the flood elevation amounts to 0.02
feet. This is the depth on the floodplain
change after the fill was placed on site holding
a small stack of business cards as a demonstration of .02 feet. This is how the 100 year floodplain
changed. Once that gets the approval it
goes through the construction process. They
will file for the construction permit for the floodway. Right now they’re looking at not increasing
that flood elevation by .04 of a foot.
As far as any buildings on the site, the building they show on the site
will have elevated sides at least 4.75 feet that is where the 100 year flood
comes up on the property. What will
happen is the water can go through the areas and the water will go underneath
the covered tubs. They won’t be
submerged under that water level. Before
the fill was put in place the area would have been 10 feet under water. Now they’re already 4.97 feet. All of that activity over the years past
would have been 9 to 10 feet under water.
What Chad Stephens has done, without condoning the after the fact
process but it is a legal process, has brought the fill up so the likelihood of
any of that work being out of Jack’s Defeat Creek has actually come in to
play. A lot of work done in that area is
not in the floodway any more. They are
downstream of the entire Town of
Dan Swafford – Asked Mike Carmin if the water testing has been done and is continuously being done. Mr. Carmin replied it has been done. IDEM rules require periodic testing under Rule 6 because it is industrial use and they require it to be done annually. Field’s Environmental has already done the testing on the pond. Mr. Swafford asked if that was the only area that was tested. Mr. Carmin responded yes. Mr. Swafford asked if he had copies of all the testing reports. Mr. Carmin replied he didn’t have copies of the reports with him. Mr. Swafford requested copies of the reports. Mr. Carmin stated Mr. Swafford would have to have someone who could interpret the reports for him because they’re all numbers. Mr. Swafford asked if the creek has had any testing done. Mr. Carmin answered no.
Phillip Smith – Confirmed Mr. Carmin’s statement that there’s a pretty good chance the after the fact permit was going to be approved. Mr. Carmin advised they fully expect it to get approved because it meets all of the criteria. Mr. Smith stated on the same fact, the Council does not know this. Mr. Carmin stated if it doesn’t get approved then he will be required to remove fill and it doesn’t affect the zoning. Mr. Smith commented Mr. Carmin also stated the dismantling of vehicles has been going on since 1988. It appears since 1988 it has been done illegally. Mr. Carmin stated it depends on how you look at it. They all have the same problem in proving it. Roger New told him in 1983 he was assured by the Town he could do that at that location and been doing it continually since then. He understands the minutes do not reflect this. Mr. Smith stated he has to go by the minutes. Mr. Carmin stated this issue will not get resolved at this meeting. It may be a different battle they’ll end up fighting some day. It can’t be disputed it has been occurring. Whether or not it was occurring illegally can certainly be a question. The fact that it was occurring for 25 years and no one said anything. No one came along to shut it down or tell him to stop. Chad Stephens buys the property and take over an ongoing operation the whole Town knows is there. He knew it was ongoing and no one told him no and that he couldn’t do it. He asked Mr. Smith what he would think. Mr. Smith responded he would check to see if it could be done. Mr. Drake commented he would probably check before he started filling in areas around the floodplain. Mr. Carmin commented the fill is a different issue and the floodplain has nothing to do with the use. Mr. Swafford asked Mr. Carmin how long it will take to get the impact or environmental study. Mr. Carmin responded the process is slow. Sean Arden of MS Consultants has advised everything has been submitted and they’re waiting on the DNR. Mr. Swafford asked what the DNR report is to say. Mr. Carmin replied it will say whether or not they will approve the after the fact permit. If it is approved, there are no requirements for removing the fill that is there now. If the DNR denies the after the fact permit, he will basically end up with an order to remove the fill. Mr. Swafford asked if that is all the study is going to say. Mr. Carmin answered the DNR deals with the activity in the floodplain and IDEM deals with water quality. IDEM monitors through Rule 13, water quality coming off of any commercial industrial site. Mr. Swafford stated he has been on site several times and has seen the pond and has noticed there is no drainage of any kind. It’s just a hole and the water sets there. Mr. Swafford asked Mr. Carmin if there are plans to modify the pond. Mr. Carmin replied it is a holding pond and not a detention pond where it releases out into the creek. It is intended to retain the water. Mr. Swafford asked if it would ever present any kind of leeching and if there’s been a study of how it would be absorbed into the land. Mr. Carmin replied his understanding is they’re primarily evaporation and not absorption. It has a clay liner, not a synthetic liner. Dianna Bastin asked where the pond is located. Mr. Carmin showed where the pond is located on a photograph.
Dan Swafford – Asked Bernie Guerrettaz if he had the dimensions of the pond and how it was installed. Mr. Guerrettaz showed a map of the pond and the direction of the flow. It currently stores 66 thousand gallons of water. It is 8,800 cubic feet. He showed the location of the proposed building on the map. In a 100 year flood, the water will pass through at 4.97 feet as predicted. Sandra Hash asked what the elevation of the pond area is in reference to the 100 year flood. Mr. Guerrettaz answered the pond is lower than the rest of the site so the pond is below that elevation. Ms. Hash asked if there was a 100 year flood would the pond area be co-mingled with the rest of the area. Mr. Guerrettaz replied in that 1% frequency event if the maintenance wasn’t done on a two acre site, that’s very close to the location of the operation, then the water could go, yes. Remember in that 1% frequency storm event everything in Ellettsville is 10 feet under water. Mr. Swafford commented it seems to him maybe the water should be tested upstream and then test it below stream for a base level before this continues. Mr. Swafford asked Rick Coppock his thoughts on the testing. Mr. Coppock replied they have water quality information upstream and downstream of that site for the stormwater quality program for the previous four or five years. Mr. Swafford asked if there was any noticeable difference between upstream and downstream. Mr. Coppock responded he would have to look at the reports. Mr. Swafford asked who has all of the information. Mr. Coppock answered he has the information. Mr. Swafford stated he would very interested in seeing the reports. Mr. Coppock stated he would provide the reports if they aren’t on the website. There was a lot of testing done at the sewage treatment plant as part of a different program. In subsequent years they have done testing whenever there’s a big rain event. Once a year they’ve done some testing both upstream and downstream for the water quality tests. Mr. Swafford stated he noticed a photograph is dated May 4, 2011. The photograph shows the site is completely under water. Has there been any testing after May 4, 2011? Connie Griffin explained the photograph is not part of this case. It is only a representation and not a photograph of the site. Mr. Coppock reiterated they have water quality information upstream and downstream for at least four to five years. They test for metals and a lot of other things.
David Drake – Asked Mr. Carmin why it was filed as a PUD rather
than a rezone. He was on the Plan
Commission for several years.
Traditionally, a PUD was a collection of different properties with
different uses. In other words, there
was some residential, some multi-family and possibly some commercial all
benched together which was the traditional concept of a PUD. Mr. Carmin replied there are several
differences. First, the vehicle
servicing that’s ongoing on the building closest to
Dianna Bastin – Asked what is on the Pip Jay property. Mr. Carmin replied it is vacant right now. Ms. Bastin asked if it is just a lot. Mr. Carmin answered yes, it’s the long narrow lot between the abandoned railroad and Jack’s Defeat Creek.
David Drake – Adjourned meeting for a break.
David Drake – Called meeting back to order. There will be a 30 minute public comment period with a maximum of three minutes per person.
Mae Cassady and Mike Cassady – They are adjoining property owners and have been for approximately 20 years. They don’t have an issue with it.
Pat Gray, Ellettsville – His dad was Sam
Gray. There’s an old adage that says if
a tree falls out in the woods and nobody is there to hear it does it make any
noise. All of the stuff brought forth scares
him half to death. He has 20
grandkids. He wants some land and some
environment. When he was a kid they
could drink out of any stream they wanted to.
They felt safe. They could go
mushroom hunting and get a drink of water.
When he was a kid, born in 1945, his dad already had one junkyard at 10th
and Morton. His dad didn’t have to apply
for permits, zoning or anything, he just started buying junk. He was very successful. Nobody stopped him. There was no testing or nothing. He was asked to keep the fires down when he
burned copper and cut something up with the torch. They moved to 12th and
William Jans, Ellettsville – Whenever it floods he likes to take his canoe down Jack’s Defeat Creek. It runs right beside the scrap yard. He didn’t smell any diesel, didn’t see any oil, didn’t see any antifreeze and didn’t see any signs of a junkyard, salvage yard or anything. The only thing he smelled was sewer. There is sewer dumping into the creek. The salvage yard isn’t putting anything in there and he has played in the creek since he was a little kid. This creek is not contaminated. He fed his family last winter by selling scrap.
Carolyn Sue Grasley, Solsberry – Comes to Ellettsville
Andy Minnick, Spencer – He and his son make a
living off of this. Last Saturday
Tom Byrum, Spencer – Owns a salvage operation and does business
Jim Reynolds, Spencer – Retired Marine, scraps at
Amanda Martin, Ellettsville – Employee of
Jennifer Harper, Solsberry – Office Manager for
more business potential for Ellettsville.” This tells her that
David Drake – It’s been 30 minutes. There are four more people to speak.
Bill Pennington, Ellettsville – Last winter,
James Drake – Works for
Dan Farley – Operations Manager at
Dianna Bastin – Asked Connie Griffin if she has any reports on
contamination in Jack’s Defeat Creek.
Ms. Griffin replied no, not on this particular case. Ms. Bastin asked as a direct result of Asher
Dan Swafford - Asked if Ms. Griffin had copies of the
report from the surprise inspections.
Ms. Griffin replied she has a copy of the IDEM inspection. Mr. Swafford asked if it was true
Phillip Smith – This is not against
David Drake – He’s all for supporting business. This isn’t about
Dan Swafford – Asked the opinion of Darla Brown, Town Attorney, on the code violations and any input on what has been said before the Town Council. Ms. Brown stated she would answer specific questions.
Dianna Bastin – Has been trying to come up with a reason not to
support the Plan Commission. She understands
they need the money and it’s their jobs.
Mike Carmin – It was his impression this issue may be tabled for further information and act on it next month. The Town Council has 90 days to act from the date of the Plan Commission decision. Mr. Drake stated it was either “yes” or “no” based on the Plan Commission recommendation. This is not correct. They have lots of options. One of which is they can oppose conditions or approval. They’ve already suggested conditions in the commitment. The Town Council can send it back to the Plan Commission with specific guidance on additional text. With regard to the comments “do they keep breaking the law” he explained the following code violations:
· The grading permit issue is being dealt with by the DNR.
· The salvage license is a done deal. Everyone keeps saying it’s “conditional” but it’s a done deal conditioned only if there is no salvage operation there you don’t need a license. This is what makes it conditional.
· §152.105(b) Cumulative Effect was cited and the Town Council has never been told they are in violation of this code. It’s the cumulative effect of .1 feet and not 1.2 feet. It’s 1.2 inches. There’s no evidence they’re in violation. So, there is no violation.
· A grading permit wasn’t drawn. That is a violation. This is an issue to be resolved. The Town Council’s decision does not effect this.
· Not a permitted land use. Absolutely. This is one reason they’ve filed the PUD. That violation is cured by the PUD approval. The bottom line is of all the code violations they were given, the only one that is not answered with the PUD being approved is in DNR’s control or to come back for the drainage site plan. This will be part of the development plan process that will have to be acted on by the Plan Commission. There is no issue of “do we say just continue to the violate the law” because this cleans the slate subject to DNR finalizing the after the fact permit and then they come back for the development plan. Code violations are not a reason to deny the PUD.
Dan Swafford – His suggestion is to table this for a couple of reasons. The couple of things he brought up that he wants the engineer to help with on the reports and also the fact there isn’t a full Town Council. This is a very important meeting. All members of the Town Council need to be present to make the decision. He would like to see the DNR report and no one has given him a date. He has been asking for the report from day one. He understands it takes a long time but he wants to see the DNR report before he makes a decision.
David Drake – If this is tabled then Mr. Swafford needs to make sure he has what he needs before the next meeting. Mr. Swafford stated he would like to get with Rick Coppock to help him interpret reports. Hopefully, the DNR report will be within two weeks. If someone could continuously check on the report and show they have been checking on it at the next meeting. Mr. Drake commented he’s not big on tabling something just so they can avoid making a decision. Mr. Swafford stated there were two things he asked and he will probably go back to the minutes to recall the questions he brought up and discussed with Rick Coppock.
David Drake entertained a motion to table this to the next meeting. Dan Swafford made a motion to table this to the next meeting. Dianna Bastin seconded. Roll Call Vote: David Drake – yes; Dianna Bastin – yes; Phillip Smith – yes and Dan Swafford – yes. Motion carried 4-0.
David Drake – Announced this will be on the agenda for the next meeting.
Mike Farmer, Ellettsville Utilities – Jean Ramsey is retiring on Friday, October 28, 2011. She has been working for Ellettsville Utilities for 21 years and he thanked her for her dedication and service to the community. She will be missed. There will be an open house on Friday, October 28, 2011, beginning at 11:30 a.m.
Dan Swafford – Thanked Mike Farmer for taking care of the sidewalk issue at Autumn Ridge.
Sandra Hash – Property and liability insurance is getting ready to renew. The May Agency gave her the equipment and property lists. She made copies and distributed them to all of the supervisors for verification.
David Drake – There’s bulky item drop off days with the Monroe County Solid Waste on Friday, October 28, 2011, and Saturday, October 29, 2011, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Fairgrounds.
Dianna Bastin made a motion to adjourn. Dan Swafford seconded. Motion carried. David Drake adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m.