Plan Comm 10-08-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mooresville Planning Commission, October 8, 2020 Camby, Indiana stated that his mother Nila, owned the property directly east of the proposed Grand Oaks development and stated that at the time of the Eagle Crossing approval, the commitments were debated and very clearly written. Small lot sizes and homes on slabs were rejected as the intent in 2006 was to reduce the number of "vinyl boxes" in this community. He pointed out that Pyatt Homes was developing smaller homes next to North Madison, and Carrington Estates, with more modest homes, is less than half a mile down the road from the proposed Grand Oaks, He believes that young families in Mooresville do not have options for homes that are "the next level up" so they move to Avon, Plainfield or Center Grove. He requested that the member of the Planning Commission who works for Sunco recuse himself, but this request was rejected by the member and Beth Copeland. Eileen Mathers of 4917 Neit'zel Road read a statement to the Planning Commission stating that they had owned their property for over 24 years with a hardwood tree farm, and she had three major concerns regarding the development of Grand Oaks. First, people from the newer Grandview development consistently trespassed, cut down her fences, hunted illegally on their properly and dumped trash. With 16 additional homes from the proposed Grand Oaks development she anticipates her trespass problems will be exacerbated, Second, in the 2006 Eagle Crossing paperwork, it showed surface water drainage would be directed to the northwest corner of their property. Surface water drainage from 190 new homes in Grand Oaks would be problematic. Third, the Planning Commission should review the quality of the homes. She pointed out that Mooresville has invested millions of dollars in parks, sculptures and downtown improvements. The standards accepted in 2006 for this development should stand today. RHE responded that there are no examples of the proposed homes to be developed in 2006, but he and his client believe that the Grand Oaks homes will not be cheap homes. He stated that slab construction is different today than it was 16 years ago and many upscale homes are developed on slabs. In talking to his client during the discussion, he determined that his client was willing to stay with the minimum of 1,800 square feet. Assuming this request will go to the Town Council, the Town Council will have to approve the elements of construction. He and his client are not changing the body of the ordinance, they are changing the exhibit to the Ordinance, Mike Young stated that the Planning Commission has amended PUDs in the past, but any plat changes would go to the Planning Commission. Beth Copeland stated that the fact that the requested changes were attached to an approved ordinance made the next motion tricky. Ross Holloway interjected that he anticipated a favorable recommendation to the Town council as the next motion. Beth Copeland asked for time to do additional research following the vote but asked the members of the Planning Commission if their votes would change based on the outcome of her research. Kimberly Scofield responded that yes, her vote would potentially change based on further legal clarification. Ross Holloway requested that all members be polled, as only a single member had spoken out. Mike Young stated that this is a zoning issue, that they were not changing the restrictions or the covenants. Beth Copeland stated that any minor change to the PUD has to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and she then indicated she may have found the appropriate statute. In the intervening silence, Mike Young then stated "We are perhaps witnessing a collision of two worlds — a developer who has a business agenda; not the interest of the community they live in, in mind. These changes are not acceptable." Mr. Holloway stated that he respectfully disagreed, John Robinson pointed out that there was a great deal of discussion on covenants and restrictions in 2006, and the Planning Commission and Town Council must be cautious about all changes no matter how small. Mike Young, remembering the discussion from 2006 stated that the developer would not have had permission to build this density of homes in 2006 without these restrictions and covenants that protect the quality of homes. Ross Holloway then requested a continuance. Brian Turley from the public requested a vote of the Planning Commission, Mike Young called for a motion to deny or a motion for continuance. Mr. Turley asked for an explanation of the voting procedure and Beth Copeland clarified that she could only give input on 8