Plan Commission conditionally accepts Mason Park preliminary plat; requests corrected soil report, recorded easement language and legal review

The Owen County Plan Commission voted to accept a preliminary plat for a 20-acre replat within the Mason Park subdivision, subject to specified corrections and legal review, and granted a waiver of the developmental-plat requirement for this submission.

Applicant Bill Folke, identified in the application materials as the property owner, told the commission the parcel his family now owns was purchased from Mason Clark and that the family seeks to subdivide the 20-acre lot into three parcels "for family use, for our children to build homes on." Folke said the packet included a survey and the required application materials, but some submitted documents were inconsistent.

Planning staff and commissioners identified several required corrections before the final plat: the soil survey (perk) report in the application referenced the wrong legal section (it named section 20 on the cover sheet while the lots are in section 23), the survey must include or reference a recorded instrument for a new easement across Lots 4A, 4B and 4C, and a required topographic map was missing from the packet or did not meet the plat submission standards. A staff member recommended, "We should request a corrected version of the soil survey report." The packet includes a soil test dated 02/10/2025 and shows certified professionals named Wade and Jones on the soil report cover.

Commissioners discussed whether the easement already existed on the original Mason Park subdivision and whether the proposed new easement extending off the original must be recorded and its language included in the surveyor's report and the plat. One commissioner explained that "all of the covenants, the easements of the original subdivision apply," while other commissioners and staff said the new easement does not appear in the original recorded documents and must be documented as part of the plat process.

The commission moved to accept the preliminary plat subject to legal review and the noted corrections; the motion was made by Commissioner 1 (unnamed) and seconded by Commissioner 2 (unnamed). Commissioners also debated and approved an amendment to waive the developmental-plat requirement for this submission; the amendment was proposed on the record and seconded. Members directed the applicant to provide a corrected soil survey showing the correct section, to include the easement instrument/number or draft easement language in the surveyor's report, and to supply the required topo documentation with the final submission.

Staff and commissioners clarified recording rules: preliminary plats do not get recorded; final plats (secondary/final) are recorded after approval and are required to contain final legal descriptions and recorded easement instruments. Commissioners instructed the applicant to return with a final plat showing the easement language and corrected supporting documents for recording.

The applicant thanked the commission; staff said the plan commission would seek legal review to confirm whether the developmental-plat requirement could be waived in this case and to ensure the submission meets the standards for a standard (major) subdivision.