TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. December 3, 2007

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. December 3, 2007"

Transcription

1 TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION December 3, 2007 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, December 3, In attendance were Mr. Satterfield, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Kirchoff and Ms. Whicker. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Mr. Carlucci administered the Roll Call. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 5, 2007 Plan Commission meeting as submitted. Second by Mr. Gibbs. Motion carried. OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ms. Whicker reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. I believe we are starting off tonight with continued petitions from November 5 th. Mr. James said our first request tonight is the Quaker Ridge proposal. This request was continued from the November Plan Commission meeting. This request actually requires four actions by the Plan Commission. The first action is to rezone approximately 62.2 acres from Agricultural and General Commercial to the Quaker Ridge PUD. The second action is for a Primary Plat on acres to allow 286 apartment units. The third action is to Primary Plat acres for approximately 86 single and two-unit structures and then the fourth and final action is to Primary Plat approximately acres to create an incremental commercial subdivision on the west side of SR267. I m going to give a quick planning overview in case there are members in the audience who were not present at the November meeting. Before I do that I will pass out this amendment; there is a minor modification made to the PUD Ordinance. The modification dealt with the two-storage square footage or the maximum or minimum square footage required for the patio condominiums in Area A. So, this property, the 62 acres, is located north and south of Reeves Road and west of SR267. Adjacent properties are the Providence Estates Subdivision to the north of Area A, which is the proposed condominium units, patio homes. You ve got the new Plainfield High School campus just to the west of this property and then along SR267 you have property that is already zoned General Commercial. They are proposing doing an incremental plat of that property. The compatibility, you have Providence Estates, adjoining property to the north, zoned R-2 with the density of 1.5 units per acre. And you have the high school campus to the west across the creek. There is a lot of floodplain, floodway associated with the three creeks that traverse throughout the property. Development standards; this is a PUD, a Planned Unit Development so they are creating their own standards. PUDs are used to give flexibility when you have property with certain characteristics that is probably not suitable for basic zoning districts. So, Area A, here is the property, 62 acres, Reeves Road, SR267 and you get to the Providence Estates zoned R-2 and then this is all of the high school campus, which was given the S, School zoning earlier this year. The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial for this area. Here is the new concept plan. They have made some changes since the November meeting. Here is Area A, which is north of Reeves Road. You have Providence Estates here. They have reduced this by 10 units. They dumped 96 units to 86 units and instead of doing one to three units they will now only do one and two unit buildings. Area B is for the proposed apartments south of Reeves Road and again over here you have the high school campus and this property along here along 1

2 SR267 is already zoned General Commercial and they are going to incrementally plat this for commercial lots. So, since it is a PUD they are creating their own standards. We have compared them to the R- 5 standards in the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance; it s Area A and then Area B we compared that to the R-6 standards with development incentives since the density would be over eight units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial and they are proposing to dedicate 17.2 acres for park use and they would also build a path on the east side of the creek. These are the issues from the November 5 th Plan Commission meeting. There is a concern about the apartments next to the high school. Was that an appropriate use next to the high school? A lot of time and effort was went into choosing the high school site and would apartments next to the school diminish that site? Also, would the mass and the height of the apartments tarnish the vista of the school campus from SR267 and Reeves Road? Providence Estates had some concerns; they wanted to have a 1,500 square foot minimum for Area A, a living area minimum. They wanted to increase the setback to 60 feet and add a six foot tall berm and they wanted to make sure that the existing trees along the fencerow were preserved. There were some density issues. The gross density was over 14 units per acre. For the apartments overall I think it was over eight units per acre. And did the density cause a lack of open space that was recommended based on our residential design guidelines. And would this density cause some traffic impacts at this location next to the high school? The Plan Commission wanted to see what other uses could be substituted for Area B. They have made some changes. Since the last Plan Commission meeting they reduced the total number of units from 404 to 372. Changes in Area A they reduced the units from 96 to 86. They are now only proposing one and two unit structures. The minimum lot size has been changed. For one-family it is 5,000 square feet and for twofamily it is 2,000 square feet. The lot width is now at 60 feet for one family and 85 feet for two-family and they have added lot coverage at 40%; that is a 40% maximum. These standards are the same as the R-5 District in our Zoning Ordinance. The setbacks in Area A are the same as our R-5 District. They have added a 60 foot setback to the north perimeter away from Providence Estates. They have added a 40-foot perimeter landscaping in this setback so you have a 40-foot wide landscape easement and then you have another 20-foot building setback, which gives you the 60-foot setback from Providence Estates. They have added a six-foot tall berm 10 feet south from the property line that abuts Providence Estates. This will maintain the trees along that fencerow. They have also increased the perimeter landscaping in this north perimeter. They went from six trees per 100 feet to 10 trees per 100 feet. This takes the perimeter landscaping from a Level 3 to a Level 5.75; that s with the berms added and that does not include the existing trees along the fence line. The minimum living area has been increased to 1,500 square feet and then the second-story option has been redefined, which I just passed that out to you and I will let Mr. Tuohy go into more detail about that. Area B they have eliminated a 22-unit building that was adjacent to Reeves Road so this reduces the number of units from 308 to 286. They feel that by removing this building adjacent to Reeves Road it has helped open up the vista some and it has created more open space. How have the reduction in the number of units changed the density? The gross density; that is looking at the total acreage area at 2.6 and the net density is at 3.14 and that net density takes into account floodway acres, retention pond acres and right-of-way. Area B is now at a net density of units per acre and the total density is at 7.6 units per acre. Again, this is Area A the one and two-unit patio homes, 86 units and then the apartments in Area B south of Reeves Road. The development standards and architectural standards have not changed other than the change in lot size and the minimum floor area for Area A. I left that in there in case anybody wanted to go back and look at them. The architectural standards for the apartments did not change; they have stayed the same as last month. As I mentioned, they have changed the perimeter landscaping for Area A and for Area B they have added some more landscaping where 2

3 the one building was. Open space; Area A we are still about two and a half acres short because several of the acres are in the floodway and then Area B we are about 8.9 acres short. Here s the elevations for Area A they haven t changed since last month, elevations for the apartments. They have a type one and a type two building. One is just a little bit larger than the other type. Here s a photograph of the same elevation. This is the clubhouse; elevation for the clubhouse and then the elevation for the garage. They added a two-foot modulation that was recommended by the Design Review Committee. Here is the landscape plan; I don t think I showed that last month. They have done significant landscaping for Area B and then this is where they removed the one building and increased that landscaping in here. Here is a closer rendering of the landscaping. Here is where they removed the building and increased the landscaping. They also added landscaping to screen the trash compactor over here and we got some parking and the trash compactor too. The discrepancies with the Town standards; Area A the minimum garage size is still at 423 square feet and the minimum living area at 1,500 square feet. Area B the upper floor brick is at 40% where I think the R-6 recommends 60% and then the clubhouse and garage are less than 85% brick total. Only 23.8% of the units have garages where our R-6 development incentives recommend 40% have garages. Open space; because much of the property is in the floodplain they are actually short about 6.2 acres and that is including the increased open space due to the removal of the one building. Transportation; Southfield Drive will be extended from the property line; it will be a collector as recommended in the Transportation Plan. No lots in Area A will have direct access to Southfield Drive and a traffic impact analysis has been submitted. It recommends turn lanes for all approaches at Southfield and the Reeves Road intersection and then INDOT will install a traffic signal at the Reeves Road and SR267 intersection. The apartments have two emergency entrances as required. School impact; they have changed a little bit since they reduced the number of units. Now the total number of school age children that could be generated has gone from 140 to 128. Again, here is the site plan and the Primary Plat for the apartments. This is where they have eliminated the one building. This is the Primary Plat for Area A, the patio homes and also the incremental commercial sub lots along SR267. Here are the commercial lots south of Reeves Road. Here is a photograph of the site looking back toward the northwest and this is looking from the school. This would be Area A and this would be Area B. The drainage; they are going to do on the site. Natural features; they would preserve trees along the creek banks; that would be some of the dedicated parkland and then the primary plats comply with the standards and adequate provisions have been made for public ways and access utilities and drainage. Staff Comments: Standards are written per the PUD but compared to Town standards. Commercial development along the SR267 will have to comply with Gateway Corridor standards. Area A complies with the residential design guidelines except for the garage size and minimum living area. In Area B the Central Park Apartments were used as a baseline with the design improvements and the apartments comply with 14 of the 16 development incentives. Required for density is over eight units per acre; if zoned R-6; that is a comparison. The reduced density of the one building does that alleviate concerns about the impact on the apartments next to the high school? Is it an appropriate land use next to the high school? Has the modified language addressed concerns about the two-story in unit A and the marketability of that product in Area A and since Area B is currently zoned General Commercial are the apartments more appropriate given the alternatives allowed in the General Commercial. So, with that I will turn it over to Mr. Tuohy. 3

4 Mr. Brian Tuohy said I m an attorney with my office at 50 S. Meridian. Thank you for hearing our case and allowing us to come back again this month. Here with me tonight is Jeff Banning from Banning Engineering, Steve Daum who is a broker involved in this deal and whose family is involved with the ownership of the land. Also, here is Joe White, Austin Carmony and Jim Crossin from Flaherty and Collins. The developer is not here this evening because he threw his back out picking up Sunday s paper and he is on his back I m told all day and into this evening. So, we will press on without him. Mr. James, of course, did a fine job describing the case and maybe I will summarize some of the changes or the highlights. Here is an outline of the site and as we talked about last month, it is a pretty unusual site. It is setting on a State highway and it has three creeks running through the center of it and then over to the left side or west side there is the new high school. So, we have a creek and a creek and then we have the State highway right here with Reeves bisecting the site. So, this is sort of an aerial view of the site, which includes all of the adage that we just discussed. Here is the new high school right here; here is Providence Estates up here and here are the Passage condominiums and I think they are here tonight. They are represented by Mr. Black, at least Providence Estates is, and they are here tonight and here is our development. The things that we changed; the outline is still about the same; there is commercial uses proposed along here, which is one of the plats that we are looking for tonight. Here is Reeves Road heading west into the high school and here is the Area A, which when I was here the last time, we said those could be one, two or three-unit residential dwellings and they could either be on lots or condominiums; we weren t sure which way we would go on that. After hearing some of the concerns that were expressed we have eliminated those three units and brought those down to just one or two units that would be on platted lots as Mr. James described or if it is an overall condominium development, then it would still meet the standards as set forth in the Planned Unit Development. It is now 86 units as opposed to 96 units, which we were here on before. Now down here in Area B, which is the apartments, we had a building up in this area right here and there was some concern about how that would affect the vista coming down Reeves Road and I suppose leaving the high school. So, we eliminated a unit right here, a building, which resulted in a reduction of 22 units overall. So, it went from 304 to 276 units. The commercial area would stay the same and the general layout of the patio homes up here would stay the same. I m going to talk about a change up there in a second. So, we have sort of a unique site that is bordered by a high school, bordered along here by a State highway and then we have commercial zoned property along here and then we transition into these patio homes and into these apartment homes. I think it was suggested the last time that it is sort of a classic step-down zoning where you would go from a major transportation type road, a highway arterial, if you will, with a road bisecting it. Here you would have your commercial, as you might expect, along a major highway and then you would have a couple of different types of residential housing and then you would get back into an institutional use, in this case it happens to be a school. I also suggested that one of the things that you have to consider, all zoning cases, you folks have done this a long time, are sort of balancing issues and you have to sort of balance whether is a use that is appropriate against maybe the largest public use in the City, the new high school. This shows the calculation of the acreage; there are 62 acres overall in the PUD of the patio homes and the apartments. I think there are 27 acres up here in the commercial. You can see the current zoning is General Commercial up here and AG down here and General Commercial up here and here is our school right here. This is the new plan, a better example of it where we have removed the building here to open up that area. So, as you are coming down Reeves Road, this area has a sizable amount of green space, as Mr. James mentioned, a pretty heavy landscaping. I believe the landscaping exceeds what is recommended and then over here after speaking with the folks at Providence Estates this area along here would be a 60-foot wide buffer. So, between the property line at Providence Estates and the back of these homes, which are no more than paired or duplex homes, they could be single homes, there would be a 60-foot wide area. And 4

5 within that area the developer has committed to build a six-foot high mound. This six-foot high mound would be south of the tree line that is existing in there. So, that tree line would be preserved, the sixfoot high mound would be south of that and then on top of that six-foot high mound I think he agreed that he would put 10 trees per every 100 feet, which is an increase of the number of trees that spoke of the last month that we were here. Of course, there are still about 17 acres I think of park area that would be dedicated in this area and there is a trail that would be installed along here that would run from the apartments all the way along the north/south cordial on the west and then run north along the west border of the patio homes. The homes in the patio home area would have no vinyl on any of the elevations of those homes and there would be no vinyl on the elevations of the apartments, not that there is anything wrong with vinyl but it was suggested to us that it was something that the Town was looking for. The square footage of the homes up here would be a minimum of 1,500 square feet and the buildings that the apartments would be built of would be both a brick a cementious siding, a building as you saw in the photograph that Mr. James put out. I think that the proposed development meets all the basic standards of the RDG on the north side up here, the residential design guidelines except the design guidelines call for a minimum of 1,700 square feet on the first floor and we have suggested that 1,500 square feet is perhaps a more sellable size unit. Also, Mr. James mentioned that the language changed slightly. When we looked at the language that referenced what might happen on the second floor, frankly it just wasn t very good English and it was hard to understand. So, the way that we have rewritten that is that there would be at all times a minimum of 1,500 square feet on the main floor and you could have a second floor bonus room of say 1,000 square feet. The developer is married to the idea of even having a second floor if that is important to the Plan Commission, if they just want main floor housing but they have learned in this market that there are some homes in a couple different areas that have bonus rooms upstairs, kind of a loft arrangement. So, they thought it would be good to have that flexibility if that is acceptable to the Plan Commission. There are things like minimum roof pitch that meet the design guidelines and the use of materials meets the design guidelines. As to Area B the apartments here I believe Mr. James captured that it met almost all of the incentives except for the number of garages on the site and the amount of open space dedicated. I think Mr. James would agree, if I respectfully suggested it, that if you were able to include the floodway and the park area into that calculation, I believe it would meet the open space. Unfortunately, there s just not enough land in the site that is not floodway impacted to meet that. The apartment buildings would be sprinkled, they would be high-end apartment buildings with rather expensive rent. They would range in size from about 760 square feet to about 1,350 square feet. The comment was made, and I m sure it was accurate, about the projected school children. This developer is the same developer who developed Central Park and the number of school children in Central Park is about on 264 units so far. So, if you took that same calculation, if these apartments have the same number of school children that Central Park does, that same ratio, their monthly rent would be the same as Central Park or slightly higher, then it is expected that there would be about children from that site. Everybody in Indiana is concerned about property taxes these days and if that would turn out to be accurate, that is if there were about 16 children at Quaker Ridge, Quaker Ridge would be expected to generate about $343, in tax revenue. That is based on $1, per unit and the school would receive about $188, of that tax revenue. That is 55% or so of the $343,000.00, which is expected to be the tax bill. Distilling all of that down if you have about 16 children out of that school and you break that out amongst the high school and the middle school and the elementary school, there is a total cost, using Plainfield s estimate, of about $76, to educate 16 children, So, if you would deduct that $76, from the portion that the school would be expected to receive, about $188, of tax revenue, there would be about $112, $110, difference. To sort of summarize all of that math what I think it boils down to is if these apartments are as expensive as Central Park and if the trend in Central Park runs true to these apartments, so we have to make those assumptions, which we don t know for certain, then there would be about 16 children that could live in these apartments and those 16 children would cost about $76, $77, to educate in the various schools, elementary, middle and 5

6 high school. That would leave an additional tax revenue over and above the cost of about $112, Summarizing it is certainly possible that the apartments may have a tax benefit in the sense that there may be more revenue from the property tax than there are children generated. Additionally, as to Area B if I didn t mention, there is about 10.4 acres of park that would be dedicated along that area. There were 16 development incentives suggested in this area and this area meets 14 of the development incentives. There is more parking than required in an R-6 District; the minimum floor area for the units exceeds the R-6 District. There are more trees and more perimeter landscaping than required. So, we have an excess of parking and an excess of perimeter landscaping and we have a larger unit size than would be allowed under the R-6 and the amenities proposed, the clubhouse with its pool and fire pit, which is an outdoor grill type area, and also a theater and a side bar café. I think those exceed what would be expected under the ordinance. To sort of summarize we appreciate again you hearing our case again. We have a 62-acre site that is between SR267 and the high school and it is currently zoned both for Agricultural and General Commercial. We would propose in that 62 acres with this Planned Unit Development you would know that there would be not more than 372 families; that would be 86 on the north side and 276 on the south side. That would be the limit of development on that 62 acres. We believe this meets or exceeds the quality of development of Central Park, which has been a successful development over in the Metropolis and would be another high-end rental apartment in Plainfield as well as potentially successful sort of active adult living area, neighborhood on the north side. Which would pair up against Providence Estates, which may be one of the things that I could say in support of that is Mr. Daum recently bought a home in Providence Estates knowing at least this was a possibility. The summary of changes; we have reduced the number of overall units from 304 to 276 and we increased the square footage of the patio homes to 1,500 feet. We separated Providence Estates from the patio homes with a 60-foot buffer and a six-foot high mound. We took the units from triplexes to two duplexes or singles. There is more green space as Mr. James indicated. We have tried to approve the vista coming west on Reeves Road so that your view on this side and this side is one of the landscaped areas. I would respectfully suggest at some point this is likely to be developed into commercial so if there are buildings across here, that would be your first view as you come off SR267. By removing those buildings and those units we have increased the green space, open space and lowered the density of the overall development. Again, thank you for your time and consideration of our case and we would respectfully request your approval and, of course, will try to answer any questions that you may have. Ms. Whicker asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Mr. Greg Black at 1647A E. Main, Plainfield and a lawyer in Plainfield said I m here for Chuck Mead of the homeowners association of Providence and I simply want to say, and may it please the commission and madam chair, not so much that Mr. Mead is in favor of this but Providence would just as soon have deer and antelope and meadow to our south in a very pristine environment but we know with the attractive community that something is going to come here. Mr. Tuohy and Mr. Banning have been very amenable to request; as you can see by the presentation of your Staff, the six-foot high berm or mound is there. The trees are being increased; a promise that we are very thrilled to get and want to make sure that we get. We are interested in preserving our values and keeping away noise and keeping Providence the way that we wanted to be and the way that it is. The 1,500 square feet minimum pleases us; we asked for it and the 60-foot setback we also asked for and we received. So, sometimes you need to settle for the devil you know instead of anticipating the devil you do not and Mr. Daniel who knows a lot more about this than I do knows that you cannot keep out everything. If you and your Staff are satisfied with this, we certainly are to and that is the extent of my comments and I would thank all of you for your attention. I speak for Mr. Mead; I do not know about the rest of the members; not the members; he has not turned this over to all of the owners. There may be other owners here against 6

7 this but as for Mr. Mead we are satisfied with what they have done. Thank you. Ms. Pat Adams at 1223 Providence Pass said I m in the Providence Estates. I ve listened to both presentations and I have some points of contention that I would like to bring forward. Statements have been made that the condos or the apartments have a minimum increase on the student population but that hasn t been substantiated. The comparison has been made to Central Park Apartments that are not close to a school so I think it is not a fair comparison to say that there is only a certain amount of students over in the Central Park area; it s not right next to a school. If you had apartments next to a school district, as a parent, I think that would be a site for them to want to contend with; it is walking distance. Putting a berm adjacent to a floodplain area interferes with the natural drainage topography and isn t a good solution. It would also increase the side of the bank where the drainage goes down into that creek that is adjacent to Providence Estates and if we had heavy rain flow or any kind of water accumulation, it could create some problems and issues of where you had a higher bank on one side than the other because of the six-foot berm obstructing the natural drainage flow that was coming in there and the other side; it wouldn t be equal. So, I would like to see more studies on that as far as the environmental impact on that. You do have a floodplain area and there s a minimum shortage on open space requirements that aren t being met. My contention would be why not redesign your plan to make sure that you meet the current standards? A 1,700 foot requirement on the first floor they are saying there is only a 200 foot difference; well that is a requirement, meet it. The number of garages; I mean there are all sorts of holes in their proposal here that aren t meeting the current zoning requirements. The other thing that really bothers me is the school; it is just drop dead gorgeous. We have put a lot of taxpayer dollars in there and personally I think that it is a great opportunity to build a nice neighborhood around schools and provide the kind of community that Plainfield represents. It is a quiet kind of community; it has its industry on one side and it has its industry purposes but for the most part we would like to see things more like residents and homes and much like Providence Estates where we have neighborhoods verses high-density places where we are stacking and racking the population. A statement was made that commercial entities such as drug stores and other discount businesses are a possible alternative and although those are possible it does not insure probability. So, I felt like those weren t even warranted in the topic of discussion. What we are discussing is this proposal at hand and not what could be in the future. I feel like the zoning committee from the comments that I have heard are responsible people in this community and that they have a vision of what Plainfield is and what it should be. Statements made that adding these units would provide a minimal impact on traffic, all of those go right into that central zone and then they flow right onto SR267. That is a huge population coming out at seven or eight o clock in the morning right when school is coming in there. Parents are going to be traveling down that road to get to the high school too so I didn t feel that was well addressed as well. I feel like there is so much more that they could do with this property and they haven t addressed it accordingly. Mr. Leroy Durkos at 1184 Creekside Lane, Plainfield said I would like to thank the lady for a great presentation. I wish I was half as eloquent as she was. As you all have a letter that I put together last night, it says, to the Plainfield Planning Commission I m returning tonight to again protest the development of an apartment complex near the new Plainfield High School. I don t think apartments so close to a high school are good ideas as I previously stated at the last meeting. At the last Planning Commission meeting I spoke of living in the Phoenix or Meadows Apartments in Indianapolis in 1965 and Since that last meeting a little girl was murdered in the building that I 7

8 lived in. Think about it? The City of Indianapolis is contemplating taking over these apartments for the safety of the residents and to rid the area of the drugs and violence that occurs there. This is what the Town of Plainfield has to look forward to in the next years. With the warehouse district so close those people will eventually move there with two or three families per unit to make them affordable. This will negate any tax revenue earned by the Town. We already have apartments on the west side of Town around Saratoga and some new ones going on over and around the Metropolis and Gladden Farms. I m not opposed to the condos proposed at Reeves Road. I think that is a good idea. Why not extend those condos south of Reeves Road? This would make an attractive entrance to our community. If not the condos, I think the best alternative would be for the Town and the school board to purchase this land together and save it for our future. You can also keep it zoned as Agricultural and get tax from that. As a Plan Commission member, I would not be intimidated or threatened by the counsel for developers. Their threat to put a car dealership on that land would be welcomed to me. A dealership like Stoops Buick would be more attractive than three-story apartments that would hide our new school and it would probably generate more tax money. The choice is now up to you. Would you rather have your legacy read like the Phoenix Apartments or like my suggestions? Remember they are here to sell their property at the highest price they can get without regard to the future of the community. They will have plenty of money and just move on down the road leaving the future generation to contend with the mess that they created. As an addendum, I would like to say I have no personal or financial interest in this land. I would just like to see something that is good for Plainfield and its future. I would like to get a little clarity on Mr. James presentation. I thought he said something with 126 students. Mr. James said around there. Mr. Durkos said he said 126 students; that s six classrooms. Eventually that would mean a new school and based on what I have heard about our tax increase from our new high school we would all pay more in taxes than what we are paying now than the units would generate. Also, the apartments started with 308 units and they eliminated one unit, which is 22. According to my addition and subtraction that is 286 units and not 276 units. If they think the only way to get 16 children out of 286 units, I don t think so; I think you are going to get a lot more than that. So, these are all things to think about and again it is up to you. What will our community look like 30 years from now? It is a great community now; I ve lived here since We are proud of the community and that s why I m here; I want to keep it that way. Thank you. Ms. Whicker said with no one else coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing. Mr. Tuohy said we appreciate Ms. Adams and Mr. Durkos comments and maybe I will try to sort of respond to those. As to the issue about building berms in the floodway, this is something that I don t know a heck a lot about. I don t have an engineering degree but fortunately Jeff Banning does and he advised me that we are not building any berms in the floodway. The berm runs along the north edge of the development here so he tells me that it should not be an issue. I m sure Ms. Adams is correct that it could be a problem but I believe Banning has experience in those matters and he tells me that won t be an issue on this site. As sort of an add on to that, this land is so well located I think we would all agree, that certainly something is going to come in there. As it sits today, your Comprehensive Plan calls for General Commercial along that site. General Commercial tends to generate a lot of off-site drainage so there would be drainage issues on this site whether it is developed residentially as we propose or whether it is developed commercially. As to studying the environmental impact, of course, any development on this site, whether it would be commercial or residential, would have to go through the normal approval process. I would have to believe that would include some sort of assessment on the impact along those water sites. There was a suggestion, a comment was made, that there may be a lot of holes in our development. I would respectfully disagree with that. That is really what you get with a Planned Unit Development and what you don t get with a site that is zoned either General Commercial or any other type of residential 8

9 development with a Planned Unit Development you have, instead of holes, you have collars all around your development standards. They are very clearly set out so you can understand what your buildings are going to look like and you can understand how they are going to sit on the site and you can understand how traffic and pedestrians are going to move to and fro on the site because they give you a plan. Not that there is anything wrong with a different kind of development, that is just a general rezoning, but you don t tonight understand how that will look. I can t tell you precisely how each tree will look but that pond will be exactly like those photos but that is what you obtain with a Planned Unit Development. You obtain some certainty so I would respectfully suggest that there are not holes in that site. As to the high school being drop dead gorgeous, I have no objection and completely agree with that. I would have to say that those apartment buildings that they have shown and the buildings that they built in Central Park are extremely high quality and do not, in my estimation; detract from the fact that the high school is a beautiful facility. As to whether there will be murderers in this development, there has been no murderers in Central Park. I m certain that there are problems in the aging apartments that he spoke of but let s step back a second on that. There are sort of two issues; the projected rents of these apartments are $ a month to $1, a month so those are the kind of rents that you would have in a nice single-family upscale subdivision. As to the number of children in the development, there are only 14 three-bedroom units. If the concern of the school children is that high, we can eliminate those 14 three-bedroom units. If that is a driving factor, deciding factor, we can change those to a twobedroom unit if we have to but there are only 14 three-bedroom units in the whole development. The rest of them are one and two bedroom units. Certainly homes with one or two-bedrooms could have children and certainly this site is next to the high school; we have no disagreement about that but Central Park is not very far and I think what the apartment developers would tell you is if your rent is $ to $1, a month, you just don t get a lot of families in those types of developments. If you look at the clubhouse at Central Park and the amenities at Central Park, there s no swing sets; there s no sand pits; it is not set up for children. It is set up for yuppies; is what it is set up for. It has cyber cafes; it has movie theaters; it s got a fitness center so it is set up for people that are getting out of college and coming to Town; maybe newly formed households and it s just not very kid friendly. I can t say there wouldn t be any children there but I don t think there are going to be a hundred some children because that just hasn t been the experience in this precise type of building. In summary we think we ve fit a development into a piece of land that is between a highway and as I said, maybe the most important asset of the public holdings of the Town in that the development fits into that site. And we think maybe a better use than commercial use, which is what is proposed now. Not that there is anything wrong with commercial use but again you get some uncertainty in that and you get the attendant issues that come with large parking lots. If I said or threatened a car dealership, I did not intend to do that. I have no idea that a car dealership would have any interest in that site at all. It is zoned commercial now and those are the kinds of uses that could go in there. It could stay, as Mr. Black suggested, filled with deer and antelope, I think he said, but I don t think that is likely. There is too much happening on that stretch of road and this Planned Unit Development allows you to see what would happen and have several restraints on that. They meet a lot of the development incentives; I think 14 out of 16. It will generate taxes for Plainfield; we believe in excess of its cost in schools. As to traffic, there has been a traffic study done, and I believe it has passed the muster that needed to pass. If it was developed commercially, of course, you would have traffic there too with any commercial development. So, there is going to be traffic generated off of that site. At this rate you would know that it would be limited to the number of families at the maximum that this would allow. I thank you again for allowing us to respond and be here tonight. Mr. Carlucci said I have one question for Mr. Tuohy. The numbers that you quoted for the taxes was that off a tax bill from the Central 9

10 Park Apartments? I m just kind of curious how you came up with those numbers. Mr. Tuohy said the number that was estimated by the Central Park folks was to use 286 units at $1, a unit so the total tax revenue would be $343, I can give you the calculations. Mr. Carlucci asked, but is this what they paid in taxes? Mr. Tuohy said it has not been assessed yet. Mr. Carlucci said since we don t know what it is it is hard to pinpoint what the numbers are and if for every assessed value we got we could keep all of the money we could generate from it, it would be great but we don t get to do that. So, I m not trying to criticize you but I m just saying I m a little dubious about the numbers since it hasn t even been assessed and we don t know what we are looking at in terms of numbers and applying those directly to the children. So, it is not meant to be a criticism; I was just curious how you came up with it. Mr. Jim Crossin with Flaherty Collins Properties at 8900 Keystone and the Crossing, Indianapolis said you are right; determining what the assessed value is going to be in Indiana is very much in the air right now. We used $1, a unit, which, in our experience, has been a very conservative per unit guess at what we think the assessment will be. We have other new apartment communities that we have built that are not as nice that have paid taxes in Marion County, for example, more in the order of $1, or $1, a unit. So, we used a number conservatively to not be pumping the number up and overshooting what we thought Quaker Ridge would contribute to the properties. And then we used, based from the public records that showed the 55% of those taxes go to the school system. Mr. McPhail said I tried to make some notes as we were going through the presentation. I m concerned about the density of units per acre; we are still 6.2 acres short of our target of open space according to the presentation. I believe 286 is the correct number of units. I think we got off on 276; that being an error. I m somewhat disturbed by attempting to calculate a school financial impact based on numbers considerably different than the school impact study. The school impact study is 128; obviously the 16 students that they projected out of the apartments doesn t cover the whole site but certainly a vast difference between the 128 from the school impact study and I would be very uncomfortable trying to balance those two situations. So, that was a big concern. It appears that they have one three-bedroom unit in each building. The apartment rents obviously are going to disqualify low-income people from living in those; there is no question about that. I made some notes when Ms. Adams was speaking and I think they addressed the drainage; I don t believe that is an issue to be concerned with in regards to the berm. Open space, she commented about that. There was a comment about traffic and wanting the whole area to be residential. It is currently zoned commercial so for us to hope that we are going to tie in a residential community through there is probably not a real sure bet. I do believe that the traffic impact will be no more severe with this type of proposal than it would be if it was completely built out commercial development. But given that those were just some comments from notes that I made. I would be interested in what other thoughts are around the table. Mr. Gibbs said I too have some concerns about the density. Some of the notes I made I m not sure were really addressed and that was the concern of diminishing the school site by just removing that one building. I think overall at the last meeting it was this site and SR267 and the school and the three-story buildings, apartment units. I don t think that was really addressed here tonight. Mr. James this question is more to you; in our report this evening I didn t see anything here that really tells us of all the standards that are not being met for RDG or an R-6 in relations to their request for a PUD. It seems to me there are a lot of things that have come up this evening and last month as for standards that haven t been met, for example, the garage. I still haven t heard that being addressed. If we don t know what those single and duplexes are on the north side of that road, why the request for 432 square feet verses our basic standard of 484? I 10

11 haven t heard that addressed. I still haven t heard why the request for not meeting the green space. To me it hasn t been addressed why we would allow such a thing; why request that for that shortage. So, for me I m very concerned about those standards not being addressed up front this evening for a request for a PUD. One other thing; can you go back to your Staff comment and things that you put up on the screen this evening? Because those did not match what I have in my report this evening. I think I had an issue on number one. Mr. James said we compared them to the residential design guidelines and also to the R-5 District, which would allow one or twofamily dwellings. And then for the apartments we compared them to the R-6 District with development incentives required for densities greater than eight units per acre. So, comparing it to Area A, the proposed patio homes, their garage size is at 423 square feet where the design guidelines recommended 484 for a single-family home. However, you can have less than 484 square feet if you go on and add additional design elements that are recommended in our design guidelines. These would be like door transom, window cornice, additional architectural elements. But this is just if it doesn t meet the basic standards, which are about five items. As far as the open space, there are three creeks that go throughout the property and we have a lot of floodway and if the floodway acres are wide, it doesn t meet the open space. Using our design guidelines based on the number of units it recommends about 10.6 acres and they propose to donate 17.2 acres as parkland but a lot of those acres are in the floodway. That is why they don t meet our open space recommendation. Mr. Kirchoff said help me understand because first of all I don t know why we want to take that land off the tactual and if we would decline their donation, then do they meet the requirements? Mr. James said it is still open space. this? Mr. Kirchoff said so no matter who owns it they are not meeting Mr. James said yes. Mr. Carlucci said I go back to the density issues with this too and I know Brian mentioned earlier that the developers, when we calculate units per acre, we automatically eliminate anything that you can t build on it. So, that is one problem but they knew they had that problem going in. They weren t going to meet the open space because you can t build in that area so it can t be considered open space. But it does go to density. I guess what my thoughts are on a PUD is when they come in, are they just trying to avoid the R-5s and R-6s of the world under the Zoning Ordinance, I usually don t think on the dark side all of the time, but I sometimes think they are just trying to get more density and that is the way the developers are; they try to get more density in there. So, what I look at is yes they can meet certain requirements if you went to an R-5 and then you can meet certain requirements and you can get this. You can meet certain incentives and for an R-6 you can get this. What I always try to go back to is if you did that, we would all probably be happier because the density numbers would be a lot lower and in the PUD you are not restricted by the R-5 or R-6 incentives. You decide what the incentives are. They can meet all of those but again the density, especially the apartments and school, do you remember the density? Mr. Gibbs said Mr. Carlucci said but the most you could have gotten under the R- 6 was what Mr. James? Mr. James said eight units without the incentives and 12 units with the incentives. Mr. Carlucci said so the difference is between 12 and There was a comparison to Central Park if it was completely built out with those units per acre, do you remember what those were? Mr. James said it was approved at 15 but actual I m going to say what I call gross density, that s including all of the acreage, is 11

12 about 9.5. This gross density would be at 9.8. I don t know the acreage in Central Park that was needed for right-of-way or drainage or if any of that acreage was in the floodway or floodplain. Mr. Kirchoff said as I prepared for this and read through this, it was like Mr. James really didn t have to change his report. You could just go page by page; it was verbatim almost to what we had before. Yeah, we went from 96 to 86; we went from 308 to 286. I question why the Town would want to accept land and take it off the property values. They don t need it but they want to give it to us. I have the same concern about the garages. As I read through this, I just feel like we are being toyed with. We expressed real serious concerns the last time about this is not the kind of project on the south side of Reeves that we want, three-story apartments going in by a brand new beautiful high school. I just didn t see enough change here to be able to support it anymore than I had a lack of support a month ago. Mr. James said I know you wanted to see a 3D fly-by so we could get a better maybe sense of how it would look next to the high school. I don t know if they were able to do that. Mr. Brandgard said that is one of the things that I was going to bring up. We asked basically for a virtual view as you are going down Quaker Boulevard, what do you see coming west. Ms. Whicker asked, wasn t that in the minutes that it was requested that they bring that tonight? Mr. Brandgard said yes. Mr. Kirchoff said one of the things that you asked for was that they consider extending Area A south of Reeves Road and all they did was take one building out and make a big deal about that. Mr. James asked, in the Staff Comments? Mr. Kirchoff said it s in your report, the location next to the high school, the square footage, screening and buffering, density issues, consider alternatives for apartments and we have heard nothing along that line. It s just we take one building out and call that a significant change. Mr. James said I m going to try to give a sense of what it might look like as far as elevations. The General Commercial does allow up to 75 feet and this is capped at 48 feet at the apartments. And then maybe Mr. Banning can address the elevations. I think it does slope to the creek so that might help the height issue. Mr. Kirchoff said I ve driven that road and when you leave SR267 and head to the high school, you go up. So, you are putting apartments on the highest elevation on the site. Mr. Carlucci said even the General Commercial, because it s on a Gateway Corridor, they have to go through the Design Review Committee and development plan approval, which we control a lot of items just through that process. Mr. James said I don t think we would control the height. Mr. Carlucci said you would still control what goes there in terms of what it looks like. Mr. James said yes. It is a unique piece of property and with the three creeks that is why we get the open space numbers we get. Mr. Satterfield said you said if we made it commercial, we have control. Just how much control do we have if they meet the ordinances that are specified now? Mr. Carlucci said the development plan approval was kind of an interesting process so they can come in and show you the design, the landscaping, lay out what the building looks like and at the end of the day, and I think I m correct on this, is that even though you may meet the requirements it may not be something you want that looks good along that corridor. That is why we have the development plan approval 12

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. March 15, 2004

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. March 15, 2004 TOWN OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS March 15, 2004 The Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, March 15, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Monnett, Mr. Blevins, Mr. Shrum, Mr. Haase and Mr.

More information

PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS February 21, :00 p.m.

PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS February 21, :00 p.m. PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS February 21, 2013 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Duffer: Good evening, I will now call to order the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals for February 21, 2013. ROLL CALL/DETERMINE

More information

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION September 9,

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION September 9, PLAINFEILD PLAN COMMISSION For September 9, 2010, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Mr. Gibbs: I d like to call to order the September 9 th Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Carlucci would you poll the Board to determine

More information

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION March 4, :00 PM

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION March 4, :00 PM PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION March 4, 2013 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Mr. Gibbs: I would like to call to order the Plan Commission meeting for March 4, 2013. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Mr. Gibbs: Jill

More information

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. April 7, 2003

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. April 7, 2003 PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION April 7, 2003 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, April 7, 2003. In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Ward and

More information

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. April 10, 2008

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. April 10, 2008 TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION April 10, 2008 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Thursday, April 10, 2008. In attendance were Mr. Satterfield, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Dunkin, Mr. Kirchoff and Mr. Gibbs.

More information

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. February 5, 2007

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. February 5, 2007 TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION February 5, 2007 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Gibbs, Mr.

More information

BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THURSTON COUNTY

BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THURSTON COUNTY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Cathy Wolfe District One Diane Oberquell District Two Robert N. Macleod District Three Creating Solutions for Our Future HEARING EXAMINER BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THURSTON COUNTY

More information

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION September 8, :00 p.m.

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION September 8, :00 p.m. PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION September 8, 2016 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Gibbs: I would like to call to order the Plainfield Plan Commission meeting for September 8, 2016. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF A

More information

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. April 15, 2002

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. April 15, 2002 TOWN OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS April 15, 2002 The Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, April 15, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Blevins, Mr. Haase and Mr. Matrana. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION

More information

PETITIONS CONTINUES TO NOVEMBER 16, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING

PETITIONS CONTINUES TO NOVEMBER 16, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS October 19, 2015, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Monnett: The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for October 19, 2015. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Mr. Monnett: I will

More information

CITY OF KENT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING & BUSINESS MEETING. October 15, 2012

CITY OF KENT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING & BUSINESS MEETING. October 15, 2012 CITY OF KENT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING & BUSINESS MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Paul Sellman Dave Mail Diane Werner Elizabeth Howard Steve Balazs Arrived at 7:09 p.m. Heather Phile,

More information

BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOONE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BOONE COUNTY FISCAL COURTROOM BUSINESS MEETING MARCH 9, :00 P.M.

BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOONE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BOONE COUNTY FISCAL COURTROOM BUSINESS MEETING MARCH 9, :00 P.M. BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOONE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BOONE COUNTY FISCAL COURTROOM BUSINESS MEETING MARCH 9, 2016 6:00 P.M. Mr. Whitton called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS

More information

JANICE MENKING - Chair CHARLIE KIEHNE CHRIS KAISER STEVE THOMAS RON WOELLHOF JASON HELFRICH MATT LINES BJORN KIRCHDORFER

JANICE MENKING - Chair CHARLIE KIEHNE CHRIS KAISER STEVE THOMAS RON WOELLHOF JASON HELFRICH MATT LINES BJORN KIRCHDORFER STATE OF TEXAS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION COUNTY OF GILLESPIE December 7, 2011 CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG 5:30 P.M. On this the 7 th day of December, 2011, the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION convened in

More information

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 12, 2014

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 12, 2014 OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 12, 2014 Agenda MOPHIE, LLC -REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A PROPOSED 37,000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING

More information

CITY OF BOISE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

CITY OF BOISE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT Rich Demarest, Chair Milt Gillespie, Vice-Chair Stephen Bradbury Douglas Gibson Jennifer Stevens Tamara Ansotegui Garrett Richardson (Student) III. REGULAR AGENDA CPA15-00008

More information

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. May 1, 2006

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. May 1, 2006 TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION May 1, 2006 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, May 1, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Gibbs, Mr.

More information

May 2, Chairman Ken Dull, Vice Chairman Jim Smith, Susan Snider, Vivian Zeke Partin, Janice Clark, David Culp, Jeff DeGroote

May 2, Chairman Ken Dull, Vice Chairman Jim Smith, Susan Snider, Vivian Zeke Partin, Janice Clark, David Culp, Jeff DeGroote WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 321 Causeway Drive, Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 May 2, 2017 The Town of Wrightsville Beach Planning Board met at 6:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers located

More information

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING June 4, :00 p.m.

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING June 4, :00 p.m. PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING June 4, 2015 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Brouillard: Welcome everybody. I would like to call to order the Plainfield Plan Commission Special meeting for June

More information

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION August 7, :00pm

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION August 7, :00pm PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION August 7, 2017 7:00pm CALL TO ORDER Mr. Smith: I d like to call the meeting to order. Welcome to the August 7 th meeting of the Plainfield Planned Commission. We have a long

More information

Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2014 Page 1

Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2014 Page 1 Page 1 CVA14-00030 / SCOTT STEWART Location: 1493 W. Saint Patrick Street VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE STREET-SIDE SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 2 FEET AND REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO APPROXIMATELY

More information

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF NORTHVILLE Zoning Board of Appeals October 17, 2018

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF NORTHVILLE Zoning Board of Appeals October 17, 2018 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF NORTHVILLE Zoning Board of Appeals October 17, 2018 DATE: October 17, 2018 APPROVED: November 14, 2018 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: Northville Township Hall 44405 Six Mile Road CALL TO ORDER:

More information

Town of Northumberland Planning Board Minutes Monday, July 16, :00 pm Page 1 of 6 Approved by Planning Board with corrections

Town of Northumberland Planning Board Minutes Monday, July 16, :00 pm Page 1 of 6 Approved by Planning Board with corrections Page 1 of 6 Present: Lofgren Patricia Bryant, Chairperson, James Heber, Susan Martindale, Kevin Pumiglia, Joseph Kowalewski and CJ Absent: Brit Basinger, Vice-Chairperson, Jeff King and Wayne Durr Town

More information

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. November 5, 2001

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. November 5, 2001 PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION November 5, 2001 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, November 5, 2001. In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Ward

More information

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE VILLAGE OF NEW LENOX PLAN COMMISSION. Held in the New Lenox Village Hall, 1 Veterans Parkway

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE VILLAGE OF NEW LENOX PLAN COMMISSION. Held in the New Lenox Village Hall, 1 Veterans Parkway CALL TO ORDER MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE VILLAGE OF NEW LENOX PLAN COMMISSION Held in the New Lenox Village Hall, 1 Veterans Parkway Tuesday, June 16, 2015 7:00 p.m. #15 6 B A regular meeting

More information

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. January 4, 2001

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. January 4, 2001 PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION January 4, 2001 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Thursday, January 4, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Cavanaugh,

More information

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. November 29, 2001

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. November 29, 2001 PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION November 29, 2001 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Thursday, November 29, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Ward, Mr. Cavanaugh,

More information

PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS January 16, :00 p.m.

PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS January 16, :00 p.m. PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS January 16, 2017 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Monnett: I will now call to order the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for January 16, 2017. SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBERS

More information

Allie Brooks Dwight Johnson Linda Borgman Doris Lockhart Karon Epps Jeffrey Tanner Ted Greene. Mark Fountain

Allie Brooks Dwight Johnson Linda Borgman Doris Lockhart Karon Epps Jeffrey Tanner Ted Greene. Mark Fountain Minutes Regular Meeting of the Florence County Planning Commission Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. County Complex, Room 803 180 N. Irby St., Florence, South Carolina 29501 The Florence County Planning

More information

URBANDALE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES. June 27, 2016

URBANDALE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES. June 27, 2016 URBANDALE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES The Urbandale Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on Monday,, at the Urbandale City Hall, 3600 86 th Street. Chairperson Wayne Van Heuvelen

More information

City of Lilburn 76 Main Street Lilburn, GA City Council Meeting Agenda

City of Lilburn 76 Main Street Lilburn, GA City Council Meeting Agenda City of Lilburn 76 Main Street Lilburn, GA 30047 City Council Meeting Agenda Auditorium Monday, May 11, 2015 7:30 p.m. Council Johnny Crist, Mayor Teresa Czyz, Post 1 Scott Batterton, Post 2 Eddie Price,

More information

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. December 4, 2006

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. December 4, 2006 TOWN OF PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION December 4, 2006 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, December 4, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Kirchoff

More information

Planning Board Meeting Monday, August 10, 2015 Council Chambers, City Hall at 7:00 PM. MINUTES Approved 8/24/2015

Planning Board Meeting Monday, August 10, 2015 Council Chambers, City Hall at 7:00 PM. MINUTES Approved 8/24/2015 Planning Board Meeting Monday, August 10, 2015 Council Chambers, City Hall at 7:00 PM MINUTES Approved 8/24/2015 I. Roll Call Present: David Putnam, James Short, Victor Bergeron, Bruce Kolenda, Neil Ward,

More information

MINUTES PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MADISON REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 1, 2015

MINUTES PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MADISON REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 1, 2015 MINUTES PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MADISON REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 1, 2015 A regular meeting of the of the Borough of Madison was held on the 1st day of December 2015 at 7:30 P.M., in the Court

More information

Planning and Zoning Staff Report Corp. of Presiding Bishop LDS Church - PH

Planning and Zoning Staff Report Corp. of Presiding Bishop LDS Church - PH Planning and Zoning Staff Report Corp. of Presiding Bishop LDS Church - Hearing Date: February 1, 2018 Development Services Department Applicant/Property Owner: Corp of the Presiding Bishop LDS Church

More information

LIBERTY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Minutes of December 3, 2013

LIBERTY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Minutes of December 3, 2013 LIBERTY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Minutes of December 3, 2013 The Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals held a meeting and Public Hearing on December 3, 2013, in the Liberty Township Administrative

More information

PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPPEALS For June 18, 2012, 7:00 PM

PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPPEALS For June 18, 2012, 7:00 PM PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPPEALS For June 18, 2012, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Mr. Monnett: I will now call to order the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for June 18, 2012. ROLL CALL/DETERMINE

More information

Department of Planning & Development Services

Department of Planning & Development Services Department of Planning & Development Services S T A F F R E P O R T August 27, 2014 CASE NO: PROJECT: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: DETAILS: ZA14-023 Preliminary Plat for Silver Ridge Addition Phase III The applicant

More information

Minutes: Watersmeet Township Planning Commission Regular Meeting of September 10, 2014

Minutes: Watersmeet Township Planning Commission Regular Meeting of September 10, 2014 Minutes: Watersmeet Township Planning Commission Regular Meeting of September 10, 2014 Watersmeet High School Library 1) Meeting called to order by Chairman Roy D Antonio at 6:30 PM. 2) Pledge of Allegiance

More information

BILLERICA PLANNING BOARD Town Hall 365 Boston Road Billerica, MA Fax

BILLERICA PLANNING BOARD Town Hall 365 Boston Road Billerica, MA Fax BILLERICA PLANNING BOARD Town Hall 365 Boston Road Billerica, MA 01821 978-671-0962 978-670-9448 Fax Marti Mahoney, Chair Vincent D. MacDonald Matthew K. Battcock, Vice Chair Gary DaSilva Patricia Flemming,

More information

Town of Phippsburg Public Hearing / Remand of Lesser Buffer Permit Popham Beach Club August 29, 2006

Town of Phippsburg Public Hearing / Remand of Lesser Buffer Permit Popham Beach Club August 29, 2006 Town of Phippsburg Public Hearing / Remand of Lesser Buffer Permit Popham Beach Club August 29, 2006 Note: The Phippsburg Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board approved a New Business application for

More information

June 6, Chairman Ken Dull, Vice Chairman Jim Smith, Vivian Zeke Partin, Janice Clark, Jeff DeGroote

June 6, Chairman Ken Dull, Vice Chairman Jim Smith, Vivian Zeke Partin, Janice Clark, Jeff DeGroote WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 321 Causeway Drive, Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 June 6, 2017 The Town of Wrightsville Beach Planning Board met at 6:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers

More information

MINUTES OF THE WORK MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF GARDEN CITY, UTAH

MINUTES OF THE WORK MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF GARDEN CITY, UTAH MINUTES OF THE WORK MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF GARDEN CITY, UTAH The Garden City Planning Commission held a work meeting on Wednesday, November 6, 2013 at the Garden City Lakeview Building located

More information

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH P.O. BOX 898 WINDHAM, NH 03087

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH P.O. BOX 898 WINDHAM, NH 03087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053 DATE: MAY 20,

More information

OAK RIDGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, :00 P.M. OAK RIDGE TOWN HALL

OAK RIDGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, :00 P.M. OAK RIDGE TOWN HALL OAK RIDGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 7:00 P.M. OAK RIDGE TOWN HALL MINUTES Members Present Ron Simpson, Chair Bobbi Baker, Vice Chair Nancy Stoudemire Steve Wilson Larry Stafford

More information

GREENWOOD CITY COUNCIL. October 17, :35 p.m. MINUTES

GREENWOOD CITY COUNCIL. October 17, :35 p.m. MINUTES GREENWOOD CITY COUNCIL October 17, 2005-5:35 p.m. MINUTES PRESENT Council Members: Mayor Nicholson, Niki Hutto, Linda Edwards, Betty Boles, Herbert Vaughn, Johnny Williams, and Barbara Turnburke; City

More information

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. October 16, 2006

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. October 16, 2006 TOWN OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS October 16, 2006 The Plainfield Board of Zoning appeals met on Monday, October 16, 2006. In attendance were Mr. Monnett; Ms. Duffer; Mr. Cavanaugh; Mr. Gibbs

More information

Chairman Sandora: Please stand for the Opening Ceremony, the Pledge of Allegiance.

Chairman Sandora: Please stand for the Opening Ceremony, the Pledge of Allegiance. The North Royalton Planning Commission met in the North Royalton Council Chambers, 13834 Ridge Road, on Wednesday, April 6, 2011, to hold a Public Hearing. Chairman Tony Sandora called the meeting to order

More information

Present: Bob Bacon Guests: Kevin & Michelle Webb

Present: Bob Bacon Guests: Kevin & Michelle Webb Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting June 24, 2015 APPROVED Present: Bob Bacon Guests: Kevin & Michelle Webb John Holtz Phil Sommer-Code Tom Burgie, Chairman Enforcement Officer Bert Crofton Jon Gage Absent:

More information

Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!1

Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!1 CALL TO ORDER PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS For August 15, 2011, 7:00 PM Mr. Monnett: I now call to order the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals for August 15, 2011. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM

More information

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 11, :00 P.M. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Darby.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 11, :00 P.M. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Darby. AUGUST 11, 2015 7:00 P.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Darby. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Richard Bauer, Don Darby, Robert Diehl, Carolyn Ghantous,

More information

Historic District Commission January 22, 2015 City of Hagerstown, Maryland

Historic District Commission January 22, 2015 City of Hagerstown, Maryland Michael Gehr, chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 22, 2015, in the Conference Room, Fourth Floor, City Hall. A roster of the members of the commission and the technical

More information

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053 DATE: AUGUST 19,

More information

THE ALLEY SHOPS PORTFOLIO SALE

THE ALLEY SHOPS PORTFOLIO SALE THE 1326-1330 & 1420-1426 REISTERSTOWN ROAD, PIKESVILLE, MD 21208 Gilbert R. Trout 443.921.9332 gtrout@troutdaniel.com Table Of Contents Conidentiality & Disclaimer All materials and information received

More information

CAUCUS PRIOR TO STRONGSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING & BUILDING CODE APPEALS Meeting of November 20, :30 p.m.

CAUCUS PRIOR TO STRONGSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING & BUILDING CODE APPEALS Meeting of November 20, :30 p.m. CAUCUS PRIOR TO STRONGSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING & BUILDING CODE APPEALS Meeting of 7:30 p.m. Board of Appeals Members Present: Kenneth Evans, Richard Baldin, John Rusnov, David Houlé, Tom Smeader Administration:

More information

Present: Tom Brahm Guests: Nathan Burgie

Present: Tom Brahm Guests: Nathan Burgie Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 21, 2011 DRAFT Present: Tom Brahm Guests: Nathan Burgie Tom Burgie Jack Centner Ken Hanvey, Chairman Brian Malotte Sandra Hulbert Mitch Makowski Joe Polimeni Scott

More information

MINUTES KAMAS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, :00 p.m. Kamas City Hall, 170 N. Main Kamas, UT 84036

MINUTES KAMAS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, :00 p.m. Kamas City Hall, 170 N. Main Kamas, UT 84036 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 MINUTES KAMAS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY, 01 :00 p.m. Kamas City Hall, N. Main Kamas, UT Mayor Marchant opened the meeting welcoming those in attendance: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

More information

BRACCHITTA, ERICKSON, KUBISKY, WOLFSON, ZAPF, DUBOWSKY (ALT. #1) AND ZALEWSKI (ALT. #2) BOORADY, ENGINEER AND ALEXANDER (FILLING IN FOR LORBER)

BRACCHITTA, ERICKSON, KUBISKY, WOLFSON, ZAPF, DUBOWSKY (ALT. #1) AND ZALEWSKI (ALT. #2) BOORADY, ENGINEER AND ALEXANDER (FILLING IN FOR LORBER) MINUTES OF REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2015 Vice Chairman Zapf called to order the regular meeting of the Board and announced the meeting was duly advertised

More information

RYE PLANNING BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Monday, September 25, :00 p.m. Rye Town Hall

RYE PLANNING BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Monday, September 25, :00 p.m. Rye Town Hall RYE PLANNING BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Monday, September 25, 2017 3:00 p.m. Rye Town Hall Members Present: Chair Patricia Losik, Jeffrey Quinn and Steve Carter Others Present: Zoning Administrator

More information

REGULAR MEETING OF LURAY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 13, 2014

REGULAR MEETING OF LURAY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 13, 2014 REGULAR MEETING OF LURAY PLANNING COMMISSION The Luray Planning Commission met on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in regular session. The meeting was held in the Luray Town Council Chambers at

More information

OCEANPORT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 24, 2012

OCEANPORT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 24, 2012 OCEANPORT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 24, 2012 Chairman Widdis called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. and announced that the meeting had been advertised in accordance with the Open Public Meetings

More information

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. June 16, 2008

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. June 16, 2008 TOWN OF PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS June 16, 2008 The Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, June 16, 2008. In attendance were Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Gibbs and Ms. Duffer. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION

More information

MINUTES PITTSBURG PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES PITTSBURG PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PITTSBURG PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 2001 A regular meeting of the Pittsburg Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Holmes at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday,

More information

GEORGIA PLANNING COMMISSION May 1, :00 pm

GEORGIA PLANNING COMMISSION May 1, :00 pm GEORGIA PLANNING COMMISSION May 1, 2018 7:00 pm Board Members Present: Peter Pembroke, Suzanna Brown, Tony Heinlein, Maurice Fitzgerald, and Lary Martell. Absent: George Bilodeau Staff Present: Ryan Bell,

More information

Motion was made by Mr. Robinson to approve the minutes as presented and carried as follows:

Motion was made by Mr. Robinson to approve the minutes as presented and carried as follows: A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NEW KENT WAS HELD ON THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY IN THE BOARD ROOM OF THE COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING.

More information

Cheryl Hannan: Is the applicant here? Could you please come up to the microphone and give your name and address for the record.

Cheryl Hannan: Is the applicant here? Could you please come up to the microphone and give your name and address for the record. The North Royalton Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on January 29, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 13834 Ridge Road, North Royalton, Ohio. Chairperson Cheryl Hannan called the meeting

More information

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH LOUIS DE LA FLOR 116-B ROCKINGHAM ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH LOUIS DE LA FLOR 116-B ROCKINGHAM ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053 DATE: JULY

More information

Chairman, John Spooner opened the meeting at 6:03 PM and introduced the (3) members of the Zoning Board of Appeals which constitutes a quorum.

Chairman, John Spooner opened the meeting at 6:03 PM and introduced the (3) members of the Zoning Board of Appeals which constitutes a quorum. At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of East Aurora, New York, held at the Village Hall, East Aurora, New York on the 21 st day of May, 2015 PRESENT: John Spooner, Chairman Michael

More information

FRANCIS CITY Planning Commission Meeting. Wednesday April 24, Recreational Building 2319 South Spring Hollow Road Francis, UT

FRANCIS CITY Planning Commission Meeting. Wednesday April 24, Recreational Building 2319 South Spring Hollow Road Francis, UT FRANCIS CITY Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday April 24, 2013 Recreational Building 2319 South Spring Hollow Road Francis, UT The Francis City Planning Commission convened in regular session Wednesday,

More information

Mr. Oatney called the meeting to order and explained the procedures of the meeting.

Mr. Oatney called the meeting to order and explained the procedures of the meeting. The Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 7:00 pm in the Lancaster City Schools Education Service Center, 111 S Broad Street, Lancaster, Ohio. Members present were Tim Oatney, Preston

More information

PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS April 16, 2012, 7:00 PM

PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS April 16, 2012, 7:00 PM PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS April 16, 2012, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Mr. Monnett: I will now call to order the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals for April 16, 2012. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM

More information

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. November 4, 2002

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION. November 4, 2002 PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION November 4, 2002 The Plainfield Plan Commission met on Monday, November 4, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Thibo, Mr. Matrana, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Ward and

More information

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053 DATE: APRIL

More information

Tooele City Council Business Meeting Minutes. Chairman Pruden called the meeting to order at 7:00

Tooele City Council Business Meeting Minutes. Chairman Pruden called the meeting to order at 7:00 Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Tooele City Hall, Council Chambers 90 North Main Street, Tooele, Utah City Council Members Present: Steve Pruden Brad Pratt Dave McCall Scott Wardle

More information

PLANNING, ZONING & BUILDING COMMISSION. CITY HALL August 11 14

PLANNING, ZONING & BUILDING COMMISSION. CITY HALL August 11 14 The City of Cortland Planning, Zoning & Building Commission met on Monday, August 11, 2014 at 6:30 P. M. at the City Administration Building, 400 N. High Street, Cortland, Ohio. In attendance were the

More information

City of Clermont MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, Page 1

City of Clermont MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 3, Page 1 Page 1 The meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. by Chairwoman Cuqui Whitehead. Other members present were William Henning, Jr., Bernadette Dubuss, Raymond

More information

Department of Planning & Development Services

Department of Planning & Development Services Department of Planning & Development Services S T A F F R E P O R T January 28, 2015 CASE NO: PROJECT: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: DETAILS: ZA14-115 Specific Use Permit for Above Ground Cisterns at Stadium Southwest

More information

MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF GARDEN CITY, UTAH

MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF GARDEN CITY, UTAH MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF GARDEN CITY, UTAH The Garden City Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on Thursday, August 27, 2009 at the Garden City Lakeview Center located

More information

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD TOWN COUNCIL. April 25, 2005

TOWN OF PLAINFIELD TOWN COUNCIL. April 25, 2005 TOWN OF PLAINFIELD TOWN COUNCIL April 25, 2005 The Plainfield Town Council met on Monday, April 25, 2005. In attendance were Mr. Gaddie, Mr. Brandgard, Mr. Fivecoat, Mr. McPhail and Mr. Kirchoff. PLEDGE

More information

KANE COUNTY COUNTY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY, MAY 17, County Board Room Minutes 10:30 AM

KANE COUNTY COUNTY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY, MAY 17, County Board Room Minutes 10:30 AM KANE COUNTY COUNTY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2016 County Board Room Minutes 10:30 AM 1. Call to Order Kane County Government Center, 719 S. Batavia Ave., Bldg. A, Geneva, IL 60134 Chairman

More information

1 P age T own of Wappinger ZBA Minute

1 P age T own of Wappinger ZBA Minute 1 P age T own of Wappinger ZBA Minute 9-8 - 15 MINUTES Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals September 8, 2015 Time: 7:00PM Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY Summarized Minutes Members:

More information

**TOWN OF GRAND ISLAND** ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. MINUTES November 2, 2017

**TOWN OF GRAND ISLAND** ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. MINUTES November 2, 2017 **TOWN OF GRAND ISLAND** ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES November 2, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Marion Fabiano, Betty Harris, Bob Mesmer, Tim Phillips, Alternate Dan

More information

Minutes of the Salem City Council Meeting held on March 19, 2008 in the Salem City Council Chambers.

Minutes of the Salem City Council Meeting held on March 19, 2008 in the Salem City Council Chambers. Minutes of the Salem City Council Meeting held on March 19, 2008 in the Salem City Council Chambers. Work Session: Nancy Hardman, from CUWCD, came and discussed water conservation to the council. Miss

More information

Mayor Mussatto Thank you very much for that. Is there a presentation by staff? Mr. Wilkinson, are you doing a staff presentation?

Mayor Mussatto Thank you very much for that. Is there a presentation by staff? Mr. Wilkinson, are you doing a staff presentation? TRANSCRIPT OF THE PUBLIC MEETING HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL, 141 WEST 14 th STREET, NORTH VANCOUVER, B.C., ON MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2012 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS Mayor D.R. Mussatto

More information

TOWN OF DOVER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, September 17, 2008, AT 7:00 PM AT THE DOVER TOWN HALL:

TOWN OF DOVER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, September 17, 2008, AT 7:00 PM AT THE DOVER TOWN HALL: APPROVED 10/15/08 TOWN OF DOVER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, September 17, 2008, AT 7:00 PM AT THE DOVER TOWN HALL: PRESENT: Chair Marilyn VanMillon Member George Wittman

More information

RESCHEDULED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS JULY 5, 2006

RESCHEDULED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS JULY 5, 2006 RESCHEDULED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS JULY 5, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT: The Board of Directors of the City of Texarkana, Arkansas, convened in rescheduled regular

More information

TWIN EAGLES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE RULES AND GUIDELINES

TWIN EAGLES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE RULES AND GUIDELINES TWIN EAGLES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE RULES AND GUIDELINES Approved April 18, 2016 Twin Eagles Neighborhood Association, Board of Directors As authorized by, Article

More information

St. Vincent Martyr Church, Madison, NJ

St. Vincent Martyr Church, Madison, NJ Design Vision for St. Vincent Martyr Church, Madison, NJ JAMES HUNDT LITURGICAL DESIGN CONSULTANT 426 State Street, 3 rd Floor Schenectady, New York (518) 372-3655 THE EXISTING SPACE The current worship

More information

GREENWOOD CITY COUNCIL. February 28, :32 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING

GREENWOOD CITY COUNCIL. February 28, :32 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING GREENWOOD CITY COUNCIL February 28, 2005-5:32 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING PRESENT Council Members: Mayor Nicholson, Niki Hutto, Linda Edwards, Betty Boles, Herbert Vaughn, Johnny Williams and Barbara Turnburke;

More information

William Kramer, Code Enforcement Officer Wendy Potter-Behling, Secretary

William Kramer, Code Enforcement Officer Wendy Potter-Behling, Secretary PRESENT: John Spooner, Chairman John Pagliaccio Mary (Molly) Flynn Bruce Mitchell Michael (Mike) Croft At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of East Aurora, New York, held at the Village

More information

WHITE OAK BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES HELD JULY 2, 2009

WHITE OAK BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES HELD JULY 2, 2009 WHITE OAK BOROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES HELD JULY 2, 2009 Planning Commission Members Present: Al Lebedda Helen Stratigos Paul McCarthy Tony Villinger Glenn Beech Planning Commission Members

More information

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053 DATE: APRIL 21, 2010 CASE NO.: 4/21/2010-4 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053 APPLICANT: LOCATION: 5 M S REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC 33 NASHUA ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053 33

More information

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053 DATE: AUGUST 18, 2010 CASE NO.: 8/18/2010-3 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053 APPLICANT: LOCATION: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: REQUEST: FORTIER ENTERPRISES, INC.

More information

PLANNING, ZONING & BUILDING COMMISSION. CITY HALL August 14 17

PLANNING, ZONING & BUILDING COMMISSION. CITY HALL August 14 17 The City of Cortland Planning, Zoning & Building Commission met on Monday, August 14, 2017 at 6:50 P. M. at the City Administration Building, 400 N. High Street, Cortland, Ohio. In attendance were the

More information

SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 18, 2015

SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 18, 2015 SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 18, 2015 Call to Order: Chairperson Wendt called the March 18, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:30pm at the Springfield Township Civic

More information

Feasibility study. Christ the king parish for Christ the king school Madisonville, Kentucky

Feasibility study. Christ the king parish for Christ the king school Madisonville, Kentucky Feasibility study Christ the king parish for Christ the king school Madisonville, Kentucky March 13, 2018 0 Christ the King Parish Feasibility Study Specific for Christ the King School Christ the King

More information

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION December 7, :00 p.m.

PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION December 7, :00 p.m. PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION December 7, 2015 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Gibbs: I will call to order the Plainfield Plan Commission meeting for Monday, December 7, 2015. ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM

More information

Present: Tom Brahm Guests: Jack Centner

Present: Tom Brahm Guests: Jack Centner Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting August 25, 2010 DRAFT Present: Tom Brahm Guests: Jack Centner Tom Burgie Glenn Dunford Ken Hanvey, Chairman Glenn Steed Sandra Hulbert Joe Polimeni Scott Wohlschlegel The

More information

Meridian City Council March 29, 2016

Meridian City Council March 29, 2016 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday,, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Joe Borton, Ty Palmer, Anne Little Roberts

More information

MINUTES OF MEETING HOOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MINUTES OF MEETING HOOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING HOOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Date: Time: 5:30 PM Place: Hoover Municipal Center Present: Mr. Mike Wood, Chairman Mr. Ron Harris Ms. Mari Morrison Mr. Kelly Bakane Mr. Allen

More information