Welcome to the Monday, October 6, 2025 Finance Utilities and Rules Committee meeting.

We'll call the meeting to order at 302 p.m.

First item that we will address today is ordinance D-2780-25.

It's an ordinance amending section 3-44, which removes the requirement that common council publish notice for zoning map changes.

The Plan Commission already publishes notices for zoning map changes.

So the couple of changes take place in subsection B, which I believe starts at line 39.

So the recommendation here is what we ted about this.

It's just to give us a little bit of flexibility as and when the Indiana legislature decides that they wish to change requirements from time to time, then we put in a placeholder.

So language already exists on the first line and on the second line, which is noticeable the public hearing on an ordinance seeking to change the official zoning map, and then go to the second line shall be given and then insert new language in conformance with Indiana law.

So it it doesn't put up a requirement upon this body upon the council beyond what Indiana law requires, and it's just there's a little bit of a catch to the extent that requirements come in down the road.

The language in uh compliant in conformance with uh Indiana law is already used on line, I believe it's 48 in my version for the other notice requirement.

On that other notice requirement for the uh annex of real property, the notice requirement is on the petitioner.

And um just uh Mike Holobaugh, uh Director of Community Services.

He uh made a request, and I I think it's an advisable request, which has there being it says it shall be the responsibility of such persons to provide proof of publication of the notice required here into the clerk prior to the hearing date, and he recommended that you provide um a buffer of time before the hearing date, something akin to 48 hours.

So what I have uh tentatively put in here is required here in provide notice required here into the clerk at least 48 business hours prior to the hearing date.

So that there is that that time frame in place.

That can be shortened to 24 business hours, it can be you can call it business days, you can it's really up to you what you want to call it.

Um, but it's just that extra buffer.

Um Mike was thinking because this would take place at a council meeting um on a Monday evening, um, something the Friday before.

Um so you mean you can frame it however you wish, but that that's um the recommendation is to have some kind of buffer there.

Discussion about ordinance 2780-250.

Uh Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, sir.

Uh so what um can just for those that might be watching, what are we trying to accomplish here and what was the complaint or what what made this happen?

Uh because, and the reason I'm asking that is you know, uh more notice is always better for me.

There are multiple times in my world where I find someone that says I didn't know anything about this.

And this is, you know, I just I had no idea.

So I want to um understand what problem we're fixing and how this came about.

And I'm not sure who to uh address that to because I so it looks like you're one of the sponsors.

President Austin and I are both here.

Yeah.

So um Councillor Austin, did you want to I can hit on it too?

But yeah, so and uh Council Rawl, thank you for your thoughts too.

Um this is kind of a conversation starter ordinance, um, which how do we uh improve the process of making sure that we have so here's the complaint that started this?

Um as you might know when and I I apologize if I just walked in if we're repeating something you covered here.

Um items when they come from the plan commission to the council, there is a 90-day ticking clock.

Um items when they come from the plan commission to the council, there is a 90-day ticking clock, and um there are times that members of the land use committee have expressed frustration to me that um they don't that first of all the they wish that we could change the 90 days in general.

That's state statute.

Um so there's nothing we can do there.

Um we um could items somehow get to us faster from plan commission to council to allow more of the 90 days to be used by land use to discuss a matter?

There are times where they've thought because of a shortened clock, um, they couldn't request changes to a PUD, and this is what they were telling me.

Um, and or the the petitioner didn't have time to incorporate changes into the project, and they felt like it was an almost an updown, or there wasn't as much time for public input at that.

So we looked at solutions.

This is the only solution that I could come up with was well, we do have an extra layer of reporting there between plan commission and council.

We already required at the plan commission level, and um nothing would preclude us from one um still holding a public hearing um at the council level.

It would just it's that reporting requirement because we often use the weekly publication.

Um they have a very advanced um uh deadline for getting ads into the paper.

Um if we missed the deadline, or even if we get it, that can add 10 days, and then we have the meetings.

So in theory, it could add subtract 20 days that the council could have from that window that they could be discussing and trying to improve a um a PUD.

I don't want to do anything that um removes public comment or makes it feel like we're trying to hide something from the public.

Uh this was to give the public more chance with it at council to kind of have those discussions.

That being said, um I think some had talked about having some changes to what we've presented to ensure that council didn't move too fast.

You know, um now we already have one protection that it takes unanimous vote to act on first reading for a PUD, and that's already one protection the public has.

So if it came out of the public hearing and it it comes to us, it would take a you every counselor to say yes, we don't want to act on it.

We want to act on first reading for it suddenly to be acted on immediately.

So that is a protection that already exists.

But um, Councilor Taylor, I mean, you've worked with other communities.

I don't know if you had additional thoughts on this.

Sort of unique to Carmel because of the reasons why you highlighted that the plan commission is already noticing.