[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6244865,"mediaKeyId","3228443-ee97b738bf30f99e94f471612ac6b990","parentId",3228443,"title","Planning Commission reviews proposed changes to impervious cover limits; debate centers on driveways and gravel","audioSeconds",556,"startMs",876000,"endMs",1432000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3228443-ee97b738bf30f99e94f471612ac6b990&start=876&end=1432","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3228443-ee97b738bf30f99e94f471612ac6b990/thumbnail_876000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6244865/Monroe-County/Indiana/Planning-Commission-reviews-proposed-changes-to-impervious-cover-limits-debate-centers-on-driveways-and-gravel","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6244865-bba80b4ff890a7b08eb1c340146c8a5b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770659306&Signature=IlaaneAp3vNfW5zLjY3dfoFkc0Oa97JjtjPT8hT22aOvnOZYhLqAX5VMW78rIIOL6Ie8hxCwdnOB9sD6cPPn8di5rAlVeFGsx8MSXntf85RNFPJxTj5DIqMMyn1ZXouilpXs58UvZm9oCRpxo8X2FJQGY9~8EWn4Nu4RlG3BbZdYRe9McoMm3jEnDIZ6LWNoVw-mPguH4PHP9eZFLkGtM5~HQgpwYd-KuKtD2RfSHKANNNVp8K-97kshhYHoUdShpJ1yY3Ibp6pmmauJbwqL9z7mFexI2rMku1G9e9fJmxtwBMORfEIfnilQ-HsOZ5zxSU0~qzvhuoEhhiceYDwhmw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Monroe County IN","date","2025-05-07T14:01:05Z","article","At the May administrative meeting, planning staff updated the Planning Commission on ZOA-25-2, a proposed text amendment to the County Development Ordinance (CDO) that would revise maximum impervious cover limits by zoning category and add clarifying exceptions.

Why it matters: the amendment is intended to reduce the number of variances sought for impervious coverage, align rules with stormwater goals, and make administration more predictable. Changes would affect how much of a lot may be covered by roofs, driveways, parking areas and other hard surfaces—factors that influence stormwater runoff, buildability and property design.

Summary of the proposal
Staff said the draft separates lots by acreage bands (for example, 0–2.5 acres, 5–20 acres, and over 20 acres) and adjusts percentage and square-foot caps by zone (AGR, FOR, CVR, R and H, residential and others). Staff added superscript exceptions and revised the impervious‑cover exception section (8.13) to simplify administration. Key proposed exemptions and clarifications in the draft include:
- Exempting driveways that existed on March 11, 2024 (the date of the last high-quality aerial flyover used by staff).
- Exempting driveways that had proper approvals for installation prior to Dec. 19, 2024.
- Treating driveways serving an existing lot of record as exempt.
- Exempting sidewalks on private property that are for public use.
- Confirming that agricultural buildings are excluded from the impervious calculation (agriculture-related buildings would not be counted as impervious under the draft).

Staff also explained that for many zones staff retained both a percent and a square-foot cap on smaller lot-size bands to avoid producing counterintuitive results on substandard lots.

Commission discussion and concerns
Commissioners broadly supported reducing the number of variances but raised several recurring issues:
- Driveway surface and definition: Commissioners asked whether gravel/crushed limestone driveways should count the same as asphalt or concrete. Staff said the current draft excludes only gravel used for landscaping applications and that gravel driveways are typically counted; converting an existing gravel driveway to asphalt usually would not trigger planning review unless a new structure or other improvement was proposed.
- Rural versus urban application: Several commissioners said rural property owners often need larger driveways, pole‑barn access and space for farm equipment. They cautioned against rules that would feel like ‘‘micromanagement’’ in rural areas while acknowledging denser areas pose different challenges.
- Enforcement and future fees: Commissioners asked how an impervious-cover definition would align with any future stormwater fee that might be assessed on impervious area. Staff said the county’s stormwater program intends to use a consistent definition and that staff want to avoid divergent definitions that would cause public confusion.
- Data and examples: Commissioners requested additional illustrative diagrams and aerial examples showing typical lot sizes and how the proposed numbers would apply. Staff said they would include overhead imagery and examples in the packet for the May 20 meeting.

Next steps
Staff said ZOA-25-2 will be on the May 20 Planning Commission agenda as a final hearing; staff invited commissioners to submit suggested revisions by email before that meeting. Staff also said it could add background materials (such as a 2010 drainage memo discussing driveways and impervious area) and provide updated floodplain mapping information where relevant.

Why it’s unresolved: the meeting was an administrative update and not a final vote; commissioners asked for more examples, clarification on gravel, potential coordination with the stormwater program on future fee methodology, and additional discussion of rural exemptions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Monroe County Plan Commission Administrative Meeting, May 6, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Planning staff presented proposed CDO amendments to change impervious cover maximums by zone and add exceptions; commissioners debated driveway definitions, gravel surfaces and rural impacts.","taxTitle","Monroe County, Indiana","taxId",3534,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6244871,"Planning Commission approves release of $1.53 million performance bond for North Park subdivision",426,184000,610000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3228443-ee97b738bf30f99e94f471612ac6b990&start=184&end=610","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3228443-ee97b738bf30f99e94f471612ac6b990/thumbnail_184000.jpg","/articles/6244871/Monroe-County/Indiana/Planning-Commission-approves-release-of-153-million-performance-bond-for-North-Park-subdivision","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6244871-eabdfd2b2614054cd25aec4afda1cd8a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770659306&Signature=daRzasC4yXDa2yuaJVVM8U7LGUjGOhCgMWd6~EKcuqxpSSL6AGofIDCWSR6ilFxF-1PD7QXc1bnJVasVd-VUJxqZ3LnTKHLgnkeSrIltkwKEPV8A60RqzeUaxSbMzYvg0JO0xPVY6bm-NQczoTxfCVNFNiZBrGBn0jQuKgRuYiQuWRGJR6vlbTPdypHslDCy4E8SfrIgO3~NPxulD8zrh9Yg8758pa4BXE~s-JZCJqh7rYvjGXwtGOUuh2A4Eo-toq2D~d1w-lxEQMSpYADGvZLJYm0X5ldnAWZvV6HdAPw9XkbvTCuMM4ixPrho7aNsd0l1ujBAuWeyChkyp5cadg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the May administrative meeting of the Planning Commission, members voted to approve the release of a $1,528,240.69 performance bond for public improvements in the North Park Office State Road 46 Subdivision (SIA-22-31).

The allocation will be returned to the developer on condition that the developer post a two-year maintenance bond and that remaining administrative items are completed. County staff reported that the Monroe County highway department and the stormwater program manager inspected the completed roadway and drainage, and the highway department accepted the road into the County Road inventory in April 2025.

Why it matters: releasing the performance bond shifts responsibility from the county’s performance guarantee back to the developer while requiring a maintenance bond to ensure short-term corrections. That maintenance bond is intended to cover repairs found after the county accepts the infrastructure into its inventory.

Staff presentation and conditions
Staff told the commission the developer had completed substantial road construction in Tract B-2 (parcels 2A and 3) and that no liens, waivers or affidavits remain on the subdivision. Staff said a highway department letter confirming acceptance into the County Road inventory dated April 2025 is on file. The packet also includes staff findings that the subdivision meets the applicable standards in the County Development Ordinance (CDO).

Staff requested the developer post a two‑year maintenance bond in the amount of $122,257.37. At the meeting staff said they would like to have the maintenance bond in hand by July 10, 2025; the motion recorded at the dais included a deadline of June 10, 2025. The commission’s approval was conditioned on the county receiving the maintenance bond before the county releases the current letter of credit.

Vote and next steps
The commission approved the release 8-0. The recorded roll call during the vote included David Bush, Margaret Clements, Trona Enright Randolph, Scott (surname recorded variously in the roll call), Bree/Rudy Fields (recorded in roll), David Henry, Jeff Morris and Julie Thomas voting to approve. Staff will confirm receipt of the maintenance bond and both the highway department and stormwater staff will complete any remaining inspections before the county returns the letter of credit to the developer.

Background and timeline
The item was presented as an administrative request; staff noted the county’s inspection and acceptance into the county road inventory as the key milestones that support the release. Staff also advised that, once the maintenance bond is posted and inspections are complete, the county would return the performance guarantee.","At the May administrative meeting, the Planning Commission voted to release a $1,528,240.69 performance bond for public improvements in the North Park Office State Road 46 Subdivision, conditioned on the developer posting a two‑year maintenance bond and satisfaction of final inspections.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6244860,"Staff recommends completion, not extension, for remaining improvements at Stone Lake Park Phase 6",123,3465000,3588000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3228443-ee97b738bf30f99e94f471612ac6b990&start=3465&end=3588","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3228443-ee97b738bf30f99e94f471612ac6b990/thumbnail_3465000.jpg","/articles/6244860/Monroe-County/Indiana/Staff-recommends-completion-not-extension-for-remaining-improvements-at-Stone-Lake-Park-Phase-6","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6244860-352800eaf5d8e9cc17cc7d2d850586d9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770659306&Signature=ELP27HDmMZSxxjdp46Wm~UVpGqr1jPwokbOiX5OOe3Hg~TUKr~rknI898cIlo9RHDriGsxooLDPRjMmtt3JA8Wl6-3rGy9DdS4NFuGFHnzo8MhRK0Y~WGK88O3zLXaH74lLUyWYUopOMIU0BKQ4nbXrGSm7EJFbIo8Lr6GprzBB74Noy32awYBxD-zRWF~Z90d24dzBecuMYkHIrRPpQAICWB69lrjcEDrx8~96viHMMcQgm~WaOp5fiz~YxuYHM4rD7FjjPxln7ORNGlqOdosTjb41RMlifcSnN1h9cMcVHxD8zcA421BL-5v5EY~Ecr2sKWpwPs31w8TcEUhnALA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the May administrative meeting, planning staff briefed the Planning Commission on a petition seeking an extension of the performance period for Stone Lake Park Phase 6 (SIA-22-20). Staff said they were unable to reach the petitioner’s representative before the meeting; the developer’s original representative is reportedly in poor health and a family member is assisting.

Why it matters: the request concerns enforcement of conditions in a recorded plat and the county’s interest in ensuring public improvements are completed in a timely manner.

Staff findings and recommendation
Staff reported that the remaining work on the development consists principally of sidewalks, street tree plantings, inlet repair, vegetation and pond/swale repair. A county stormwater inspector visited the site and took photos of the areas in question. Based on staff estimates and the existing financial guarantees on file, staff believes the remaining work could be completed by this summer and that the current funds on file are greater than the estimated cost to finish the improvements.

For those reasons staff said they would prefer not to extend the letter of credit and instead to press the developer to complete the items before the existing guarantee expires. Staff recommended a performance period extension request to Aug. 15, 2026 would be considered only if necessary; staff said they would attempt to contact the developer or their representative before the next formal meeting.

Next steps
Staff indicated they will try to contact the developer’s representative before the May 20 Planning Commission meeting and will report back. No formal decision on the extension was taken at the administrative meeting; the item is pending further coordination and potential action at a future meeting.","Planning staff reported that most work at Stone Lake Park Phase 6 is finished and that remaining items (sidewalks, street trees, inlet and pond/swale repairs) could be completed this summer; staff recommended against extending the letter of credit and estimated existing funds on file exceed the cost to finish.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission reviews proposed changes to impervious cover limits; debate centers on driveways and gravel

Planning Commission approves release of $1.53 million performance bond for North Park subdivision

Staff recommends completion, not extension, for remaining improvements at Stone Lake Park Phase 6