Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-08-18 Zoning and Annexation SOUTH Liz,d . cam/ XX 1865 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK KAREEMAH FOWLER, Criry CLERh ZONING &ANNEXATION OCTOBER 8, 2018 4:30 P.M. Committee Members Present: Oliver Davis, John Voorde, Gavin Ferlic, Jo M. Broden, Nanci Yokom (citizen member) Committee Members Absent: None Other Council Present: Regina Williams-Preston, Jake Teshka, Tim Scott, Sharon L. McBride, Karen White (late) Other Council Absent: None Others Present: Kareemah Fowler, Bianca Tirado, Graham Sparks, Bob Palmer, Casey Colvin Presenters: Michael Divita, Jordan Wyatt, Pat Primmer, Brett Burkus, Steve Cardinal Agenda: Bill No. 18-57-Blad Annexation Area Fiscal Plan Bill No. 34-18- Blad Annexation Area Bill No. 18-58- Ceres Annexation Area Fiscal Plan Bill No. 35-18- Ceres Annexation Area Committee Chair Oliver Davis called to order the Zoning and Annexation Committee meeting at 4:30 p.m. He introduced members of the Committee and proceeded to give the floor to the Council Attorney. Bob Palmer, Council Attorney with offices located on the 4th floor of the County-City Building, stated, Both annexations that are on the agenda for tonight are voluntary annexations which are a little bit different than normal annexations that the Council is more accustomed to.As with normal annexations,the fiscal plan has to be passed before the annexation ordinance. The fiscal plan must be in place by resolution before the passage of the annexation ordinance. Because these are voluntary annexations, public notice of the public hearing on the annexations must be out by twenty (20) days before the public hearing. There will be a public hearing and then the Council cannot adopt the annexation ordinance until at least fourteen(14)days after the public hearing. So with these ordinances we have here,if there is any delay as far as passing the annexation ordinance tonight, it will have to be re-advertised and the twenty (20) day period would be reestablished before we can have another public hearing on the annexation. Followed would be another fourteen (14)days before the Council can pass the annexation ordinance. So unless the Council takes action INTEGRITY' SERVICE'ACCESSIBILITY JENNIFER M.COFFMAN BIANCA L.TIRADo JOSEPH R.MOLNAR CHIEF DEPUTY/DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS DEPUTY/DIRECTOR OF POLICY ORDINANCE VIOLATION CLERK EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson Blvd.I South Bend,Indiana 46601 I p 574.235.9221 I f 574.235.9173 I www.southbendin.gov ®CITY OF SOUTH BEND OFFICE OF THE CLERK on these tonight, we are pushing either the last meeting in November or possibly the first (1St) meeting in December. That normally does not seem like much but, in annexations,the annexations cannot become effective in the year preceding a census. Councilmember Karen White arrived at the meeting at 4:33 p.m. Mr.Palmer continued, So,the annexation could not become effective in 2019.If it normally would be effective in that year, it is automatically put out until January 1, 2020, and that is the year the next census will take place. Committeemember Gavin Ferlic asked, So, from the date of passage, is annexation immediate or is there a lag? So say, in early December if we made a decision to annex, would there a twenty (20) day period lag until, so it would be pushed into January? Mr. Palmer replied, It becomes effective when the Mayor signs it. Committeemember Ferlic followed up, So it can be immediate, ok. And I understand there are some time windows if we delay today if we would have to push out. Is there a restriction to a window where we have to hear this within a certain period of time? Mr.Palmer replied,There is a window if it's just an annexation itself but because it involves zoning also, that window doesn't apply. Committeemember Ferlic followed up, So there is no window? Mr. Palmer replied,No,there is not. Committee Chair Davis stated, So therefore, the financial plan that we are looking at today, if we hear some parts and there are some issues of delay on the reason of our discussions,the next time the financial plan would have to be advertised is twenty(20) days from today? Is that what you're saying?If we don't pass the fiscal plan today, when is the next time we have hear the fiscal plans? Mr. Palmer replied, The fiscal plan can be heard at the next meeting, in two (2)weeks. Committee Chair Davis followed up, Then after the fiscal plan is approved, then you have the twenty(20) day window, or what? Mr. Palmer replied, After the fiscal plan is approved, you can have the hearing on the annexation ordinance on the same day, you just cannot pass the ordinance until fourteen(14) days later. Committee Chair Davis stated, Ok. So,the hearing can be dealt with if we are looking at time.And the only reason I share this with you, if you look over the Z & A minutes, there was some issues of contention because we have two (2) different farms that have two (2) different concerns. We have met with some trying to clear up everything else. Personally, when we work with zoning issues as we have done in the past we like to try to clear up as much as we can before we finalize it. I'm at peace. EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson Bvld I South Bend,Indiana 466011 p 574.235.92211 f574.235.91731 TTD574.235.5567I www.southbendin.gov 2 ®CITY OF SOUTH BEND OFFICE OF THE CLERK Mr. Palmer stated, Councilmember Ferlic asked a question and I made a mistake. The Clerk's Office informed me that the annexation would not become effective until thirty(30)days after it's published after the Mayor signs it. So we are pushing time. Committeemember Ferlic asked, So if that date pushes into January, does that mean it doesn't actually take effect until January 1, 2020? Mr. Palmer replied, That is correct. Committee Chair Davis stated, So therefore, the date, again. Committeemember Ferlic asked, Based on this timeline, does the last meeting in November still give us the time? Committee Chair Davis stated, The last meeting in November is the 26th. Mr. Palmer replied, That is correct. Assuming the Mayor would sign it within five (5) days, that would be fine. It would be hard to get the advertisement up immediately after the Mayor signs it. Committeemember Ferlic asked, How many days does it take to advertise? Kareemah Fowler, City Clerk with offices on the 4th floor of the County-City Building, replied, We have a schedule and so if it is submitted on Tuesday, it goes in on Friday. And then it would be thirty (30) days after that. Mr. Palmer stated, And it also depends on when you have the public hearing if you table it. If you table it before the public hearing, yes, we would have to start it again. But if you consider it in Council Portion Only, you can do that. Committee Chair Davis stated, That is my thought and that is what I would suggest if we have a public hearing. If we have a public hearing and hear from people today, and then we table it to work out everything else, we would not necessarily have to advertise it, is that correct? Mr. Palmer replied, Correct. You would then be able to vote on it fourteen (14) days from now and that would give you probably one (1) more meeting. Committee Chair Davis stated, So that gives us the ability to have it fourteen(14) days from now or the November 12th meeting and we are still cool. But we need to have a hearing for today. There are a lot of moving parts on this issue. This is one (1) of the reasons why I prefer these things are notified ahead of time. With all due respect to the Administration,I didn't learn about this situation until I got my Area Plan packet and this is an issue happening in the sixth (6th) District. Ok? And so,therefore,the proper due diligence that I would like to be able to do, we are having to do right here. And on top of that,we have a serious deadline because the Census is coming up and all these other things that are crashing into this. And so, that is why I go back to what I sent out to you all earlier today.Now, onto this issue. EXCELLENCE ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building(227 W Jefferson Bvld l South Bend,Indiana 46601 p 574.235.9221 If574.235.9173TTD 574.235.5567 I www.southbendin.gov 3 CITY.OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK Councilmember Karen White stated, Based on the conversation, and I apologize for coming in late, if we could get the timeline in writing so that I can get a better understanding and make sure we are all on the same page, too. Mr. Palmer confirmed he would provide the timeline in writing to Council. Committeemember Jo M. Broden asked, So Committee-wise, what are we doing? Committee Chair Davis replied, What I would like to do is hear these fiscal plans today and hear from both sides today. Comments can be regarding the fiscal plan or the general nature of it because this is integrated in many ways. Let's hear it today and that gives us a chance given the nature of all these different changes in zoning laws. Committeemember Broden then stated, So typically on each of these we would have favorable, unfavorable or no recommendation. What kind of motion would we need to make? Committeemember Ferlic replied, I think it is the Committee's discretion but I think in a situation like this, especially if there is some time ambiguity, more than likely it will be a no recommendation. But it is up to the Committee's discretion. Committeemember Broden asked, So continuing it is not an option at this juncture? Committeemember Ferlic replied, It is an option but it doesn't seem like it is wise given the time constraints we are operating under. Mr. Palmer stated, If your plan is to have public hearing tonight on both the ordinances and the fiscal plans, we should have no issue with time because you could vote on the ordinances themselves either next meeting or the meeting after that and we would still have time. The ordinance would go to the Mayor, he would have to sign it within ten(10) days and that would be November 22nd. Then the publication date would be the following days after that and that would put us at the 28th or 29th. City Clerk Fowler stated, It is rare we ever have a delay in publication. Committeemember Ferlic stated, And also, the Mayor doesn't always take the ten (10) days to sign. Committee Chair Davis stated, When it comes to zoning issues, I would rather us have clarity in all of our issues in timing and talk to both sides.Now we know the timelines. Bill No. 18-57- Blad Annexation Area Fiscal Plan Michael Divita, Planner for the Department of Community Investment with offices located on the 14th floor of the County-City Building, stated, An annexation has been requested by the property owner of a parcel on the west side of Renewable Road just north of Prairie Avenue near the Ethanol Plant. The proposed annexation area is approximately sixty-one point three (61.3) acres and it meets the State's contiguity requirements. The annexation area contains agricultural land as you will hear in the next item of business. The petitioner proposes to use the site for continued EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson Bvld i South Bend,Indiana 46601J p 574.235.92211f 574.235.9173 TTD574.235.55671 www.southbendin.gov 4 ®CITY OF SOUTH BEND OFFICE OF THE CLERK agricultural use or industrial use. No capital improvements are currently planned by the City as part of this annexation. Water and sewer are available on Renewable Road. The Lift Station along Calvert Street could require upgrades depending on the future use of this site. A question came up in committee, this would be the same Lift Station that was in the Pokagon Agreement. No new streets would be added to the City as part of this annexation. The annexation area will be added to the sixth (6th) Common Council District, served by Police Beat Twenty-Five (25), Fire Station Five (5), Emergency Medics Four (4) or Five (5) and Code Enforcement Area Six (6). No additional equipment will need to be purchased or personnel hired to service the annexation area. These and other non-capital services will be in place within one (1) year of the effective date of the annexation with response times comparable to other areas in the City. I ask for Committee's favorable recommendation for the fiscal plan for this annexation area and I'd be happy to take any questions you might have. Committee Chair Davis asked, When were you notified about this plan? Mr. Divita replied,Upon its filing. It was filed in August 2018. Committee Chair Davis followed up, So you did not know about it in May? Mr. Divita replied, I don't know about the timeline directly. I know there were some rumblings. Committee Chair Davis interrupted, Could you give me that timeline and clarify it for me and send me an email on the timeline you have, please? Including rumblings? Mr. Divita replied, I can do that. Committeemember Broden asked, The Lift Station, dependent on potential development, on Calvert,is that one(1) in the same Lift Station with the Pokagon's and their development or is that a totally different Lift Station?If I recall,part of the Pokagon agreement was an upgrade on a Lift Station. Mr. Divita replied, I'm not positive off the top of my head but I believe that may be the same, but I can verify that and get back with you. Committeemember Broden stated, I would like to understand the timing of that. Phase one (1) of the agreement in terms of their build out and then phase two (2) was their hotel complex. I guess I just want to know what the timing is and then a price tag on that would also be helpful. Committee Chair Davis invited Area Plan Staff to present. Jordan Wyatt,Planner with the Area Plan Commission with offices located on the 11th floor of the County-City Building, stated,The area outlined in red(referencing a slide in a presentation which is available in the City Clerk's Office) is the area being petitioned to be annexed and rezoned into the City from A, Agricultural District in the County to GI, General Industrial District in the City. The parcel is currently zoned A, Agricultural District. To the east are parcels zoned LI, Light Industrial District in the City. To the north is farmland and the Ethanol Plant zoned GI, General Industrial District in the City. To the west is farmland zoned A,Agricultural District. To the south are businesses zoned C, Commercial District in the County and CB, Community Business District EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W Jefferson Bvld I South Bend,Indiana 46601 p 574.235.9221 I f574.235.9173 I TTD 574.235.5567 I www.southbendin.gov 5 CITY OF SOUTH BEND OFFICE OF THE CLERK in the City. On site is currently tilled farmland. There is no proposed site plan for development at this time. Future development will have to adhere to the development standards of the appropriate District. I'm happy to answer any questions and the petitioner is here as well. Committeemember Broden asked, Could you explain the selection for the General Industrial District? I understand that opens up specific opportunities but, since this is an annexation, can you go over the County versus the City capacity to actually have Agricultural zones? Mr. Wyatt replied, The Agricultural use is not currently a use within the City. What I understand is that will remain there until a potential industrial development will come into place. In the City the GI, General Industrial District, because of a text amendment that occurred earlier, would include any of the uses besides residential uses. It would just open it up for just about any development that could occur. Councilmember Jake Teshka stated, So, essentially, GI is sort of a catch-all. Is there any other designation that would allow this current Agricultural use to continue but then later on, if there were to be a development, we could look at it again? Mr. Wyatt replied, Well, the district they are zoning to I don't think is to include the agricultural use. It is just to create the opportunity for whatever kind of development that can come into place there. Maybe the petitioner can speak to that if they have any prospects. Committeemember Broden stated, So during the conversations with the Pokagon development, there were pretty extensive environmental points and one (1)of the recurring issues down south in the ballpark of this particular property and those around it was wetland issues and impact. I mean I see it's agrarian on your slide but in consideration of this going to industrial, what do we know or what have the petitioners presented with regard to making sure there is no adverse impact to wetlands and etcetera. Mr. Wyatt replied, On the site, I'm pretty sure it is not wetlands right now. Are you referring to drainage issues? Committeemember Broden stated, Yes, drainage and yeah. Mr. Wyatt replied, Any development that would occur on this site would have to have approval from City Engineering which would require mitigation of run-off and storm water. That issue will be addressed down the road. Committee Chair Davis asked, In terms of issues regarding the industrial use, was there any consideration for commercial use instead of industrial? Mr. Wyatt replied, I am not aware of any other future plans. Everything I've heard from talking with the petitioners and from the Area Plan meeting was that farming is going to be the continued use of the property and this was just to open up the opportunity for future development. From my understanding,they didn't have any prospects for industrial development at this time. EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W Jefferson Bvld I South Bend,Indiana 46601 1 p 574.235.9221 I f 574.235.91731 TTD 574.235.55671 www.southbendin.gov 6 ®CITY OF SOUTH BEND OFFICE OF THE CLERK Committee Chair Davis then stated, So there isn't a potential use of the land. Is there any way that zoning can take place without having a financial plan in place in terms of issues regarding Census matters? Mr. Wyatt replied, I don't think I really understand your question. Committee Chair Davis stated, We have limitations to annex things prior to December 31, 2018 because of the United States Census. The report given to Area Plan and to my understanding is that there is no current financial or future plan in place regarding future development. So I do understand the need for us to move forward with the issue of the annexation but I'm trying to understand the need for us to do the financial plan right now at this time since there is not a stated timeline for that part. Or if we don't do it at this time, would that affect us if we waited to do that in 2020? I know we have to do the zoning before that but what about the financial plan? To me it is two (2) separate issues. What are your thoughts? Committeemember Broden stated, State Law dictates that, right? The annexation has to have a fiscal plan. Mr. Wyatt stated, The fiscal plan has to be adopted before the annexation part. Committee Chair Davis asked, We can't just do the annexation part of it? Councilmember Teshka stated, According to what Mr. Palmer said earlier, we have to hear the fiscal plan first(1St). Committee Chair Davis stated, So therefore, it all has to be one (1) and it all has to have the issue of the type of zoning that has to go in it.The annexation and the issue of redevelopment plans have to be all in one (1)? Mr. Palmer replied, We do not have to have it combined in these petitions. Committee Chair Davis replied, What do you mean they don't have to be? Mr. Palmer replied, They could choose to go solely for annexation without zoning changes but they went to the Area Plan Commission with a combined petition for annexation and rezoning. Committee Chair Davis stated, Ok, cool. Councilmember Teshka asked, Would we not have to rezone anyhow because we don't have a City designation for Agricultural? Council President Tim Scott replied, Yeah, we do. Mr. Wyatt replied, The rezoning would have to occur because districts from the County are completely different from those in the City.A,Agricultural District doesn't exist in the City. When you annex,you have to have a zone. You can't just leave it up in the air. It has to have a zone when it comes into the City. According to Mr. Divita, if they would annex without choosing a zone, it would come in as Single-Family and Two (2)-Family District. EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson Bvld I South Bend,Indiana 46601 1 p 574.235.92211f 574.235.91731TTD 574.235.5567 I www.southbendin.gov 7 ®CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK Committee Chair Davis stated,Those are theuestions I've been asked and that is ' q why I m asking them. Committeemember Broden stated, We have a petition from the petitioners. They are actually asking us for this particular zoning, I think we have to keep that in mind. So the conversation was had before. As the petitioners, they opted for the GI, correct? Mr. Wyatt replied, Yes, that is what the zoning says on their petition. Committeemember Broden followed up, Otherwise the default would be Single-Family? Mr. Wyatt replied, SF-One (1). Committeemember Broden stated, Ok, I think I got it straight. Thanks. Councilmember Teshka stated, What I would like to hear from the petitioners is why. Pat Primmer, May Oberfell Lorber with offices located at 4100 Edison Lakes Parkway, stated, I am representing Martin Blad Farms. Brent Burkus is the grandson of Martin Blad and he operate the farm. As I think most of you know, Martin Blad Farms has been in operation since the 1940s. It is a farm on the south end of South Bend. It was incorporated in 1959 and has continuously been owned and operated by members of the Blad family. It is their intention to keep farming. They love to farm. It is in their blood. They intend for this generation to continue farming for as long as they live and hopefully for the next generations to follow. They don't have anything planned for the site they are proposing to have annexed. They recognize there is potential for development but for this time, their plan is to continue farming. If something comes up and it makes sense, they would have the opportunity to explore that. They recognize the limitations after this year on being able to annex the property and so that is why they bring the petition forth at this time. Brent Burkus, 60401 Crown Ridge Drive, stated, We see change coming. It is obvious. It makes sense for that area t6 be developed. That said, what we have done as a farm and business is we've got land on the west side of the farm that we've already worked out with the land owner and someday, if that sells, we've got land to back it up. We are actually growing our farm in the westerly direction. So we will continue being a farm and we have no prospects at this time. We will continue to grow corn and soybeans. Committeemember Broden asked, And in the discussions where the default could have been Single-Family Two (2)-Family, and your request for industrial, could you discuss your decision to go with one (1)versus the other? Mr. Burkus replied, When we met with Area Plan, my concern was the taxes not to be raised. To that point, we don't have an Agricultural code for the City. So the logical one (1) was, I believe, the GI. It is kind of a general catch-all from what I understand and we were happy with that. Committee Chair Davis then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the legislation. EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 227 W.Jefferson Bvld I South Bend,Indiana 46601 1 p574.235.92211 f 574.235.9173 I I D574.235.5567 www.southbendin.gov 8 ®CITY OF SOUTH BEND OFFICE OF THE CLERK Tim Corcoran,Director of Planning for the Department of Community Investment with offices on the 14th floor of the County-City Building, stated, I stand before you to speak in favor of this annexation as well as the following but we will get to that when we get to it. There is a lot of talk about why GI. GI does allow for the broadest range of uses. For instance, commercial uses would be allowable in this area if that opportunity came forth.As you know with new development in the City,drainage is a big issue we work on in every project whether it is a rezoning or not. That would carry forward with this project as well. Those issues would be addressed when a project comes forward and how we might address those issues would come out of the nature of the project if, and when, one (1)happens. A little extra information,we have a couple other places in the City where industrial uses are going. Ignition Park is one (1) of them where there is only approximately thirty (30)acres of land available. Portage Prairie is another area we have spoken about many times over the last year. The sites there are approximately ten (10) to thirty (30) acre sites. The advantage of these areas, especially the combined nature of these two (2) annexations, means that we are able to annex two hundred and fifty (250) acres of nearly three hundred and fifty (350) acres of contiguous developable land. It is a voluntary annexation,the only way we tend to annex property into the City. This area is uniquely located with tremendous infrastructure assets that do not exist in other places in St. Joseph County. You may be aware of projects outside the City limits where they are looking to build rail spurs.There are rail spurs here.There are other places that need sewer and water. Sewer and water exists here. Roads exists. Interchange onramps exist. So there is probably no better place in the City of South Bend for this type of development to occur. As the petitioner mentioned, we or they do not have a project in mind but wanted to get ahead of the Census deadline to annex. Change is coming. We are working with people in other areas, like Portage Prairie, where new buildings are being investigated all the time. This is a smart move on their part and, I think, on the City's part to get this included as soon as possible to give us the most amount of flexibility to move forward if, and when, a project becomes available. On that note, we also did bring this forward to Council in a Committee meeting on May 29th, 2018 where we spoke about annexations broadly across the City including areas near the Overlook. This one (1) was mentioned at that time. We were trying to be proactive about this by bringing it to Council very early. Thank you. Steve Matthys, 57572 Mayflower Road, stated, I'm a neighboring farm. Us, the Blads and the Snyders have all been in that same area since the turn of the century. My grandfather started there in 1930 and Martin followed in 1940. I do not disagree that there is developmental purpose for this ground. The Ethanol Plant went in and opened in 1984 which was a big boom for our area farmers. They put in a million dollar street as far as we're concerned so we always figured there would be development there.The ground on the east side of this map(referencing a slide in the presentation), I didn't get the clarification on that if that is zoned industrial or if that is zoned commercial. I mean there is a tire shop, a truck dealership, and a commercial drywall place there, so I didn't hear. It is industrial? (Mr. Wyatt confirmed it was Light Industrial)And we are asking for General Industrial on this piece?And the Ethanol Plant is zoned GI.I guess this is my rebuttal to the whole annexation asking for that zoning. If the Ethanol Plant that created smell pollution to the entire City of South Bend for twenty (20) years, before they ever got their scrubbers in place, is zoned GI, and you allow this parcel and the next parcel to come into the City of South Bend as GI, then what is the neighboring area going to do to stop another smelly Ethanol Plant or a mega-shredding and waste pollution? I do not disagree that this shouldn't be brought into the City. I think maybe it should be a commercial zoning at this point where if anything heavy has to come, they would have to go through rezoning and hear all the neighbors and the complaints that would arise. Also, if this is GI,the Ethanol Plant dumps 2.5 million gallons of water down the ditch that is owned through Ms. EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson Bvld'South Bend,Indiana 466011p 574.235.92211f574.235.91731TTD574.235.55671www.southbendin.gov 9 ®CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK Snyder's property into the Kankakee River, which all those farmers have a really hard time to get the EPA, the DNR and the Army Corps of Engineers together to allow us to clean that river on a regular basis.If this is brought in as GI,more heavy industry can dump millions of gallons of water down the same ditch. We are already wet ground. This is some of the most fertile ground in St. Joseph County and with more water in the ditches, all it does is make it easier to flood. Last February we had record flooding. Most of that ground was under water for weeks. There is nothing we could do to stop the Ethanol Plant from dumping at that point and it created even worse drainage issues for our farms. Luckily that heavy rain we got in one(1)day didn't come in June or we would all be broke. It did come in February with the snow melt and it created tremendous damage to our ground which we saw all the way through the spring as it was not draining properly. Again, I'm opposed to the GI because we do not know what we might get. The other thing is, we have a beautiful new casino right across the road. Beautiful opportunities. We could make this a destination area and not a heavy industrial area. We could have more hotels, shops and something else there at that exit. Maybe this could have been the place South Bend Chocolate Factory built on. Maybe a water park. I don't know what the answers are. There is great possibility with the bypass but I think letting it go into GI will allow it for uses that shouldn't be. That is my take on this. I'm fine with Commercial because if something industrial came, they would have to come and rezone and we would have a chance to come back as neighbors to voice our concerns. This ground is developable. The bypass came through in the early 60s and we all had to struggle with the bypass cutting through. It chopped up fields and screwed up the drainage. We haven't sold for development as of yet. Maybe someday we will have to but we want a good overall plan best for the entire area. We have a beautiful new Martin's on Mayflower Road. We want to raise up the West Side to be more than a dirty industrial sight. I'm sorry to say but the Ethanol Plant doesn't help the looks of the West Side. It has been tremendous for us farmers but as far as looks and smell goes, it is a heavy industrial site. South Bend doesn't need that next to the new casino. We don't need any more water in our ditches. Thank you for your time. Chantelle Synder, 57537 Mayflower Road, stated, I am the President of Arthur Snyder Farms. I agree wholeheartedly with everything Mr. Matthys has said and I'm going to speak very briefly because I did address these issues before and I think they are part of the public record but our farm has been there since 1925. This is a perfect use for agriculture. I agree with Mr. Matthys that this area up for debate is very likely to be the next place developed, but why put industry there? I'm not ready to retire yet. That is fifteen(15) or twenty (20) years out but when I'm ready to retire, if I want to sell my farm, I don't want heavy industry adjacent to property that is going to pull down the value of my farm and the potential for the exchange at Mayflower and the Bypass to be developed in the future. I want to see the farming continue for as long as possible. This is very fertile ground and agriculture is the right use for the area. Obviously with the casino,development is heading that direction and maybe twenty (20) years down the road where my farm is, maybe that will be ready to be developed.But this will potentially damage my ability to see that developed in a good, profitable and responsible way if I've got industry right on the other side of the ditch to my farm property. If I've got heavy industry there, that is going to be damaging for my potential for developing in the future. In the present, we need to know what kind of industry is going to go in there. We need to know what they will put into the air,the water and how it will affect wildlife. I have foxes, hawks, turkeys, deer, coyotes and a variety of wildlife. What kind of damage could industry potentially do to all of those things? I brought these concerns forth at the meeting on September 18th, 2018 so I won't go back through all those details again. What you choose to do with this property now will have impact on my property, on Mr. Matthys' property and others in that direction as well that may not want to see industry go into this location. I totally agree that EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson Bvld l South Bend,Indiana 466011 p 574.235.92211f 574.235.9173 I TTD 574.235.5567 j www.southbendin.gov 10 CITY OF SOUTH BEND 1 OFFICE OF THE CLERK perhaps it should be Commercial.We can see industry go somewhere else.The West Side struggles and we don't need things that arc going to make it more ugly and unattractive both to our citizens and potential companies coming in. I really think GI is a bad idea for all of those reasons as well as everything Mr. Matthys has also said. Committee Chair Davis gave the floor to petitioners for rebuttal. Ms. Primmer stated, I would just like to say that my client doesn't disagree that there were issues with the Ethanol Plant. They were disturbing to the surrounding neighbors but, as I said, they intend to keep farming. They don't want something like that to happen and they will be cautious about what happens with the sale. Additionally, as I think it was already said,this is going to offer a big piece of property and to limit it from being able to go General Industrial will serve to limit the possibility of having two (2) properties together to do something good of the community and, overall, for South Bend. Councilmember Williams-Preston stated, With regard to the testimony, I thought that was a really good point. So the question becomes, with this being rezoned as GI, once that is done, basically once it is sold,the owner can do anything without coming back to the Council, correct? Committee Chair Davis interjected, That is very correct. Councilmember Williams-Preston followed up,So is there any,or has there been any consideration for any other zoning?I know there aren't any plans for it yet. Were they considered and rejected? Committee Chair Davis stated, Your line of thinking is after, with all due respect, at the May 29th meeting is when they talked about that. First (1St) of all, I would encourage that things that are in the district that at least I, or other Council people can speak for themselves, but we need to talk and get some clarification because,you see, each Council person has a vision of their own district. Then we have a City district, ok? And we have all the plans and everything else. The issue that comes in, I believe there needs to be some kind of communication with our people here and then we match that up with where the City issues are, because you are one hundred percent (100%) correct, Councilmember Williams-Preston. If we vote on the GI, everything else that happens won't have to come before us. A few years ago this body had to deal with a car cruncher that the City Administration was trying to put in our district and people said, well y'all are the dumping district anyway. And I was told that, alright? Because we used to be the dumping district where we had all the trash and everything else and we say we try. And we have the Walmart on the south side and it used to be a dump and everything else. And so when you look at all that kind of stuff, yeah,the folks said that is where we dump our stuff, it is in your district.Now you see why I have great concerns of just rushing through with things when we are trying to change our image.None of y'all want to be told that your district is the dumping district by the City Administration people, ok? So, therefore, we have to clarify what kind of zoning, what kind of things, and can they be annexed in, what kind of zoning can we be in and, to my attorney, if they've got a lower rated zoning that we can work through, later on if there is something else that needs to be GI, can we not change that at that time? Mr. Palmer replied, Of course. EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson Bvld I South Bend,Indiana 466011 p 574.235.92211f 574.235.9173'11D574.235.5567 l www.southbendin.gov 11 CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK Committee Chair Davis followed up, So,I mean,I'm going to try to consider those kinds of things. We could go into a lower kind of a situation and then if a big industry comes, then the neighbors and community can come and discuss if they want that. Right now, if we go ahead and vote on this,that discussion doesn't take place. It is all done. Councilmember Teshka asked, So at this point, we can't separate the two (2), correct? • Mr. Palmer replied, Correct. Committee Chair Davis stated, Unless you vote it down. Councilmember Teshka stated, But that would mess up the timeline. And that is what my initial questions were getting at. If we bring this in as GI, we kind of skirt all the discussion around a specific proposal that comes later on down the road. To Mr. Divita's point, if we would have just allowed it to be annexed in and it was defaulted to Single-Family or even Commercial, we would have at least had another chance to come at this when a proposed project comes around. Committee Chair Davis stated, That is my concern. Councilmember Teshka stated, Say we vote this down tonight. That would push this past that deadline? Mr. Palmer replied, If you push it out beyond the deadline, it cannot become effective until 2020. Committee Chair Davis interjected,That is what I was trying to get at. Is there any way this project can still be annexed and we make an amendment to what was done in Area Plan?Do we have that kind of power? If we make any changes, does the whole thing get on out? My thought on it, and I was talking to some people, I haven't talked to everybody but I've talked to some of them about it, the annexation makes sense to me, ok? I think everybody in this whole room, that is not where we are, that's not even a disagreement. But what I've heard from the different farmers and from people who are around there,it is the type of zoning we are planning to give it. That is the concern. When it came back, and I asked this question to Area Plan, is there any particular use for it? They answered no, nothing in the future. To me, it is very concerning for me to leave something that wide open that I voted on in that district that we are trying to build up, and then, boom. Here we are with a second (2nd) car shredder or another something like that and that is not cool. So the question comes in, can we get this through so we can deal with the Census issue and then come back and deal with that? Can we amend that in our power? That's why I said we may need to research that part of it and come back. You see why I wanted to get some time with the attorneys? I really want this thing to annex in but what the use of it will be is the concern that I have. I think the community on the West Side and even the whole community needs to able to weigh in on the type of business that will be utilized there. When people just see a farming thing, they might not even know that and they realize the issue was already down. Prime example,when we did zoning, and most of this Committee wasn't here, for the Oliver Apartments, it was zoned for a grandparent home. That did not materialize and all of the sudden the Oliver Apartments came in there and the neighbors did not know about it but they didn't have to come back because it already had that zone and we found out about it in the news. They asked why it didn't come before the zoning board of the City Council and that was because it was already zoned that way.And so,therefore,a homeless EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson Bvld l South Bend,Indiana 466011 p574.235.92211 f 574.235.91731 TTD 574.235.5567 k www.southbendin.gov 12 _CITY OF SOUTH BEND OFFICE OF THE CLERK home was put into a neighborhood and the neighbors did not have a say so in it, and boy did my phone ring on that. Ok?And so, those are the kinds of things we have to consider. Mr. Palmer clarified, If I understand your question, Vice President Davis, the issue that you want explained is if you can pass the annexation ordinance without passing the rezoning. Committee Chair Davis replied, Yes, sir. Mr. Palmer followed up, I would need to research that issue. I believe you can because it is two different decisions you have to make. If you pass the annexation ordinance at the next Council meeting which would be the earliest you could, it comes in as Single-Family Residential, then anything after that would have to come before the Council for rezoning. Committee Chair Davis stated, There was a question that was raised, in all fairness of the whole discussion,would that be a problem from them tax-wise?Would that cause a problem versus what he would get now? Mr. Palmer replied, I don't believe so. Committeemember John Voorde stated,No. It is assessed as use, not what the zoning is. So if it is used as agriculture, that is what the assessor would look at. Committeemember Ferlic stated,The other point of that is I think we are asking if it can be adopted un-zoned which would put it in Single-Family, but I don't know if agricultural uses are ok. Or, could they amend that to Light Industrial or General Business? Is there the possibility for that amendment?I want to make sure that it is a zoning that certainly allows for agriculture to continue. I wouldn't want to prevent that. Committee Chair Davis interjected, That is what I'm asking. Mr. Palmer stated, Again, I would want to research that but my inclination would be that they would have to go back to the APC to get the approval for whatever zone they want other than what they've proposed here today. Committeemember Ferlic asked, Isn't that just an advisory recommendation? Mr. Palmer replied, The recommendation itself is statutorily required. Committeemember Ferlic asked the Area Plan staff to confirm. Mr. Wyatt stated,The use itself,whether it's allowed or not would be a legal non-conforming use. They wouldn't have to stop farming their land. So the use would be continued on but as far as separating the annexation and the rezoning piece, that is a legal thing and I am not sure if we can do that. That is what I'm understanding that you are wanting to do. Committee Chair Davis interjected, And I don't know, and I think it was suggested to me when you first (1st) raised that issue to me and I was thinking about that. To me, a part of our goal is to have peace in our community and at the same time, with that peace, move forward in terms of EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W Jefferson BvId I South Bend,Indiana 466011 p 574.235.92211f574.235.9173111D574.235.5567Iwww.southbendin.gov 13 ®CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK prosperity. And so, to me, that made sense. We have a Census. We annex this and then see how we can work out the zoning that will be pleasing to all the business, the farmers, the community, and everyone involved. That is what I am hoping for. Mr. Wyatt continued, Yes, they can continue farming whether it gets annexed or not. The use would be allowed to continue. We are not going to make them stop just because it is not a permitted use in that district. Committeemember Ferlic stated, Just as a thought, I think we have some information we need to gather but I think it still would be wise,just in case we can do all these things,to hear this tonight, continue in Council Portion Only, and then if we do have the option, we make some of those changes if that is what the Council wants. I think we have the opportunity to do that. I just don't think we have answers right now but that's ok. Committeemember Broden stated, I would like some clarity. I hear the separation of not going to this higher use, right? And maybe going to the default? It sounds like there is interest on Council and with the adjacent neighbors so I get that question but, whose authority is it to actually trigger that?I don't want to be deciding zoning issues on the fly. Is a higher use going to a lower use good practice? Or is annexing it in into the default? I get what the petitioner is asking but is there a default area? And whose authority is that? I want to be very clear that the petitioner, if it is the petitioner,that they can make that request to Council at this juncture. Councilmember White stated, I think we should ask the petitioner, based on what they've heard, where they are at. Are they still seeking the current designation? Committee Chair Davis interjected, Could we, since we have some time tonight,hear the three(3) others? With all due respect to the public hearing, most of the concerns have been acknowledged. The other three (3) we can get through real quick on my thing and then we can at least get them on record because I think they all have the same concern unless there is some new concern that shows up. I don't think there is, but it's possible. Can we get through that? Can we then have a motion on this from the Committee? What's a safe motion to give this kind of thing? Committeemember Broden made a motion to send Bill No. 18-57 to the full Council with no recommendation. Committeemember Ferlic seconded this motion which carried by a voice vote of five (5) ayes. Bill No. 34-18- Blad Annexation Area Committee Chair Davis stated,Uh,hello?Which one(1)of you are going to do this?34-18?Make it real brief. You don't have to go through the PowerPoint. We all know it. I don't remember the official combining of it but that was my initial question. Mr. Palmer shared with me we had to go through each one (1)them. Mr. Palmer confirmed, You do. Committee Chair Davis stated, So that's why I was trying to combine it but we couldn't combine it so, therefore, I initially stated that but I was advised not to. EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1 227 W.Jefferson Bvld I South Bend.Indiana 466011 p 574.235.92211f 574.235.91731TTD574.235.5567 I www.southbendin.gov 14 CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK Axe Mr. Wyatt stated, This is the same information I just presented about the annexation and rezoning to GI, General Industrial District. This comes to you with a favorable recommendation from the Area Plan Commission. Ms. Primmer referred to her aforementioned remarks for this bill. Committee Chair Davis then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the legislation. Mr. Corcoran made it known that he would like his aforementioned remarks to be part of the public record for support of this bill. Steve Matthys, 57572 Mayflower Road, stated, I am the owner of S&S Matthys Farms and managing partner of Ronald and Beverly Matthys LLC. This property that should be the next slide (referencing the presentation), I presume, showing Ceres. Committee Chair Davis interjected, We are still on Blad. Mr. Matthys stated, If this is GI and they have Fire Station Five (5) which is a single-stall fire station on Prairie Avenue, if they bring large-scale industrial and more than the Ethanol Plant already has,there is no ladder truck there. I think they need to have a lot more infrastructure. As it sits the way it is right now, they will keep farming until they find a buyer but if heavy industrial goes in, it will put a burden on the City that they will have to provide a lot more fire protection. We don't know about the water and the sewer. We don't know if that is adequate to handle whatever GI puts in. Now, it probably can hold what Light Industrial or Commercial does. But heavy industrial, I think the City will be spending a lot more money on infrastructure. Look what they had to do with the Ethanol Plant. When the Ethanol Plant shut down, the City spent, what, $150,000 to drive a few wells that aren't even being used now because the Ethanol Plant is back open. They have so much mixed use there. There are homes along Calvert that should never have been built. The ones that are there should have been bought up if they want this to be heavy industrial or general industrial. Instead, somehow those homes got built, the basements got flooded, the Ethanol Plant got shut down for two (2) years, the water tables rise, and then they spend a bunch of money for wells that probably should have bought the homes up. That would have solved the problem. But to say there will not be any more money by the City if this comes in as General Industrial, and it gets sold and built, we don't know what that could be. It could be a Toyota Plant, a tire shop,warehousing, but it is too vague for it to come in as General Industrial. Committeemember Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No. 34-18 to the full Council with no recommendation. Committeemember Voorde seconded this motion which carried by a voice vote of five (5) ayes. Committee Chair Davis stated Bill Nos. 18-58 & 35-18 will be heard together but voted on separately. He stated, We will hear the public hearing combined on this so we will all be clear on that. Everybody, we are hearing the public hearing combined. Are we all clear? Ok, let's move forward. Thank you. Bill No. 18-58- Ceres Annexation Area Fiscal Plan Bill No. 35-18- Ceres Annexation Area EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson Bvld South Bend,Indiana 466011 p 574.235.92211f574.235.9173',TTD574.235.55671www.southbendin.gov 15 CITY OF SOUTH BEND OFFICE OF THE CLERK Mr. Divita stated, This fiscal plan is for a two hundred and fifty-four point six (254.6) acre annexation that has been requested by the property owner of three (3) parcels at the west end of Calvert Street, west of Renewable Road near the Ethanol Plant. Again, it meets the State's contiguity requirements.No capital improvements are currently planned by the City as part of this annexation. Water is available along Calvert Street and also along Renewable Road. Sewer is available along Calvert Street. The only road being added to the City as part of this annexation is the US 20-31 bypass that will continue being maintained by INDOT. The annexation area will be added to the sixth (6th) Common Council District, served by Police Beat Twenty-Five (25), Fire Station Five (5), Emergency Medics Four (4) or Five (5) and Code Enforcement Area Six (6). I ask for Committee's favorable recommendation for the fiscal plan and I'd be happy to take any questions you might have. Mr. Wyatt stated, The area outlined in red (referencing the presentation) is what the petitioner is asking to annex and rezone to GI, General Industrial District into the City of South Bend. To the east is the parcel from the previous bill. To the north is the Ethanol Plant and farmland currently zoned GI, General Industrial District in the City and A,Agricultural District in the County. To the west is farmland zoned A, Agricultural District in the County and to the south is farmland zoned A,Agricultural District in the County and a business zoned C, Commercial District in the County. On site is currently tilled farmland. There is no proposed site plan for development at this time. Future development would have to adhere to the appropriate district. This comes to you with a favorable recommendation from the Area Plan Commission. I would be happy to answer any questions. Steve Cardinal, 51020 Woods Run Court, stated, So, we're just making this annexation request to explore the opportunities that might come along. I certainly understand everyone's concern about making sure something doesn't go in that would harm the environment or the City. We want to continue with the annexation and right now we are on the phone with Ceres Farm's managers to see if they would explore the other classification. Committee Chair Davis asked, With all due respect, could you give us your relationship to Ceres Farms? Mr. Cardinal replied, I am the Chief Compliance Officer. Committee Chair Davis then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the legislation. Tim Corcoran, Director of Planning for the Department of Community Investment with offices on the 14th floor of the County-City Building, stated,I'm not sure if this is the right time to talk about it but we did discuss and they seem to potentially be willing to go down to the Light Industrial zoning category if it means bringing this through this evening because everybody is worried about the timeframe. If that is something you are willing to do, we can amend this between now and the Council meeting this evening. Committee Chair Davis interjected, I love the sound of that but at the same time, I just want to make sure we are in compliance in terms of the Area Plan issues and attorneys. So between our meetings, can you, their attorneys, all meet? I'm all cool. Does that make sense? EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson Bvld 1 South Bend,Indiana 466011p 574.235.92211f 574.235.9173 I TTD 574.235.5567 j www.southbendin.gov 16 Imo;CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK Mr. Corcoran replied, Yeah, and they're on the phone right now. Committee Chair Davis stated, I like being on the phone. Thank God for the phone. Councilmember Teshka asked, Why Light Industrial? And what uses are allowable under that? Mr. Corcoran replied, Again, it goes back to what I said earlier about the location of the site but also, the nature of the site lends itself to potentially one (1) larger operation rather than cutting it up into smaller parcels like Portage Prairie or Ignition Park. I think that is, probably, the prime advantage of this location is the ability to do something with one (1) user. The other element to that is because of some of the elements people have spoken about, i.e. the water table and stuff like that, it allows for a single solution to happen rather than multiple. Every time one (1) of these projects comes through at Portage Prairie, we talk about drainage, access and all those different elements that we are potentially able to solve in one (1) go rather than each time coming back to the same three (3) questions over and over again. Councilmember Teshka followed up, Things come before us all the time and, since it is zoning, it hasn't seemed to stop developers in the past. Do you see it as a breaking point to not have it be at least Light Industrial to attract the business that would use it as a single use? It sounds like you have some kind of use in mind. Mr. Corcoran replied, I don't. But what I do see is that with all the infrastructure that is there, it has been, essentially, primed for that land use. Whether or not that was the goal of the County as to where the bypass went in, this has got all the elements that other places in the County currently do not have. The County is wanting to spend millions, if not multiple hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure costs, where we have it now. I think that is the biggest element to the location. Councilmember Teshka stated, I think that, in and of itself, is attractive. Correct? Mr. Corcoran replied, Absolutely. Councilmember Teshka followed up, So do we need the LI designation on top of that to attract a business? Mr. Corcoran replied,I see what you're saying.There are two (2) elements to that. One(1),I think the environmental conditions of the land lend itself to something that is a little bit better than a Commercial category. I do think because of its locational attributes, it does, from a financial side, suggest that those are the type of users who would be looking to locate there anyway. So if it were Commercial, it probably doesn't develop as intensely. And when I say intensely, I mean the use of the land at its highest and best use. And we might be back here again in the future rezoning it from Commercial to Light Industrial or General Industrial. But as to Oliver's point, at least you'll be able to see what type of use that will be. You know, today, we do have to look at all the EPA standards. We can't just dump water because it is GI use. That doesn't give anyone any right to pollute the air or water. So those sorts of things have to be considered. Obviously,the City will be working through Engineering issues that come to things like storm water or putting water into the river system. EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson Bvld l South Bend,Indiana 46601 p 574.235.92211f 574.235.9173 I TTD574.235.5567]\ ww.southbendin.gov 17 CITY OF SOUTH BEND OFFICE OF THE CLERK Councilmember Teshka asked,I guess my question,bottom line,is,will Light Industrial be a make or break for this? Mr. Corcoran replied, It is hard for me to say yes to that, but at the same time, could something else be profitable? Potentially, but I think this site is perfectly suited for Light Industrial. Councilmember Teshka interjected,And I agree with you. I understand what you're saying.I mean for us to bring it in as Light Industrial, is that necessary?Because I understand what you're saying about use but to acknowledge Mr. Davis' point, the idea we are bringing this in under this initial GI designation kind of gets around that future input of residents in the area. Mr. Corcoran stated, If it is, for instance, Light Industrial, you could imagine, maybe at its worst, what is happening at Portage Prairie. Whether you think that is good or bad, it has been a truck distribution. It has probably been what most people have been wanting to do. Light Industrial cannot be a Toyota Plant as somebody mentioned. Committee Chair Davis interjected, Could a car cruncher be there? Mr. Corcoran replied, That is a General Industrial use, I believe. It couldn't happen in Light Industrial. Committee Chair Davis stated, Ok,just wanted it to go on the record. What would be nice,just for the record between now and 7:00 p.m. or whenever we have this next discussion,often times when you come down to a lot of zoning issues and these kind of things, could you refresh us through our attorney and everybody else, what the difference is between them? Personally, I would like to consider it coming in as the most restrictive and then as things come, we roll with it and have a better discussion with it from that standpoint. But, I will leave that up to everything else. So those kind of uses, can you send an email real quick so everybody can be refreshed? Committeemember Broden stated, So it seems to me that it is still marketable as, nearly, a shovel- ready site in terms of large tracts bundled together. Additionally, the adjacent area of the earlier petition,adds to that marketability.The hoop we have to jump through at a later date,to me,would be a forty-five (45) day period where this would come before us for a rezoning. So to me, it is a forty-five(45) day question which, I get it, we want to be ready as much as possible to tee this up, but I think we also need to be responsive to the fear of the unknown. I would be inclined to,similar to the other petition,to go with the annexation and be willing to have that tougher discussion down the road for the rezoning at whatever the petitioners would like to do. To me, it's a forty-five (45) day kind of ask. Steve Matthys, 57572 Mayflower Road, stated, Since this is a different tract, I do want to speak on it. We've sold, as a farm and as a family, off property in the past also for development. Usually the developer that has an idea for the parcel comes to us and does the legwork and goes before Area Plan and everything with a use in mind. What scares me on this is this rushed timetable everyone is talking about with no interest in selling it. Both parties say that they want to continue to farm it, which I do believe, but if there isn't anything particular in mind of trying to purchase the property and the whole thing of the Census delaying it, why do we have to rush it? The City contacted me and also Ms. Snyder and they wanted to try and do this for everything from EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson BvId 1 South Bend,Indiana 466011p 574.235.92211f 574.235.91731 TTD 574.235.55671 www.southbendin.gov 18 CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK Mayflower Road east and draw a line across the bypass there too. They contacted us and I had no interest in doing it. I asked what is coming. What do you have in mind? What do you want to attract? They couldn't tell me anything. But, they wanted to discuss it in one (1) or two (2) days and told me about how they have to get it done by the end of this year. Nothing good has ever come by rushing anything. Like I said earlier, the Synders, Blads and us have all been there for a hell of a long time. Ceres just bought the ground two (2) or three (3) years ago. They are new to the neighborhood. And this is a neighborhood. This takes into consideration all of South Bend because when the Ethanol Plant came, yeah it was a west side thing but it stunk up everything all the way to Granger. So I would agree to this if they can change to Light Industrial or Commercial. If something big came,we would have adequate time to get all neighbors involved in that meeting to voice their concerns. As it stands, again, I would like you to oppose this if it stays GI because it is way too vague. I understand there is railroad spur and all that but zone it light and if something comes that wants to use the railroad spur that is heavy industrial, have them come back and have them tell us and the neighbors what that plan is. Mr. Matthys continued, And I don't think the City is being very transparent on what they may have in mind or what somebody has inquired. They are wanting to do this voluntary annexation but why they are all calling all the neighborhood farmers to see if we would voluntarily annex in, I don't know. Progress is great but rushing is not. I hope both petitioners can get it changed to Light Industrial or Commercial for tonight's meeting. I think that would appease a lot of the area. One (1)thing I did notice is the man in the blue shirt talked about drainage and that we can't just dump drainage down ditches anymore. The Ethanol Plant did that in 1985 and I know that was a long time ago. But I also own land out on the west side of St. Joseph County where we just got the Gasification Plant and that dumps 13 million gallons per day down a ditch that the County Drainage Board has not done a darn thing about to improve.And I'll tell you one(1)thing,Portage Prairie is high ground. That is sand. They don't have a drainage issue. We are mud. The ground out there is on mud. When you talk about dumping water, we are thinking this is our livelihood. This is how I go and make money. I where this blue shirt to work every day and I bust my butt out there farming and I don't need to take care of somebody else's darn water that is going to flood my ground. So, again, GI, we have no control over it. Light Industrial, we will have a say in the future and hopefully there won't be a water issue because we sit at the lowest and best ground in St. Joseph County. Committee Chair Davis gave the floor to the petitioners for rebuttal. Mr. Corcoran replied, I just want to say to the drainage issue, again, it is part of the engineering. Every project we go through, all the storm water and all of that must be retained on site. You can't compact other sites. There is an EPA mandate that doesn't allow us to put storm water into the sewer and so it has to be taken care of on site in that regard. So, whatever happens in the future must take care of storm water on site. It is the way it is. Every Light Industrial, General Industrial, Commercial or any other site that comes in must take care of that. And in terms of putting water into the Kankakee River, I think that is not a zoning issue. That is an EPA issue. Committee Chair Davis stated, I would say, in closing and before we go to a vote, I agree that while there are different issues you just shared regarding the drainage,those of us that live out that way, after experiencing, and some of you were on the board, some of you weren't,but everybody heard it in the news, but when you come down to flooding and muck issues, we all who live out there,we went through it just recently.Then you have the potential of,you never know,the Ethanol EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson Bvld I South Bend,Indiana 466011p 574.235.92211f 574.235.91731TTD 574.235.5567 www.southbendin.gov 19 ®CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK Plant might close again and the City had to come through for that. That was pulling teeth for that. We had a whole other budget meeting for that. So, my whole point is,there is a lot of uncertainty, mistrust and a lot of things because of the muck and the nature of where our City is on that. So, this is an interesting discussion. We can either have it later on tonight or have our attorneys go and come back and have it in two (2)weeks. So that is why you saw that. Committeemember Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No. 18-58 to the full Council with no recommendation. Committeemember Voorde seconded this motion which carried by a voice vote of five (5) ayes. Committeemember Ferlic the made a motion to send Bill No. 35-18 to the full Council with no recommendation. Committeemember Broden seconded this motion which carried by a voice vote of five (5) ayes. With no further business, Committee Chair Davis adjourned the Zoning and Annexation Committee meeting at 6:06 p.m. R-# t ly .ubmitted, AI Oliv--.4 avi , Committee Chair • EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1 227 W.Jefferson Bvld l South Bend,Indiana 46601 1 p 574.235.92211f 574.235.9173 I TTD574.235.5567 I www.southbendin.gov 20