Monday, September 26, 2016

26 September 2016 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

26 September 2016 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

Present: Dennis Kraus, Jr., Chairman, Russell Beiersdorfer, Mark Lehman, Mike Hornbach, Art Little, Jake Hoog, Dan Lansing, Jim Thatcher, and Eric Lang
Also Present: Mark McCormack, Plan Director, Nicole Daily, taking minutes, and Andy Baudendistel, Attorney.
Baudendistel read the Title VI statement as required by law.
ACTION ON MINUTES-  Minutes from the August 22, 2016 meeting were approved. 


1. Request: Requesting 2 Waivers; (1) Create two access points which do not meet
the minimum driveway spacing requirements. (2) Create a direct access
point onto SR 48. (Tabled at last meeting)
 Applicant: Justin Noppert
 Owners: Justin and Natalie Noppert (1/3), Andrew and Susan Long (1/3), and
Jeremy and Sonya Strom (1/3)
 Site Location: SR 48
 Legal: Sec. 35, T 6N, R 2W, Parcel# 15-05-35-300-046.000-019
 Sec. 2, T 5N, R 2W, Parcel# 15-08-02-200-002.000-019
 Township: Manchester
 Zoning: Agricultural Size: 40 Ac

Additional items requested at the last meeting were submitted per Kraus, Jr. 
McCormack then presented the case with additional slides. Applicant submitted drawings of the future structures on the sites. The concept plan for the future homes was drawn out. 
Justin Noppert spoke about their plans and how the septics could be fit into the plans. Soil analysis etc were done by John Grace of Health Dept. Homes will be 3 bedrooms and 2 baths with etc traditional septic field. Below are the staff reports on this request. 


RE: Noppert Access Waiver(s) Case; September Plan Commission Meeting
Please note that for the above-referenced case—which was continued by the Plan Commission at its August 22nd, 2016 public hearing—the Applicant has supplied an updated plan / drawing
from Hrezo Engineering (dated 09.14.16). Please note this drawing / plan indicates the proposed access drive locations, as well as the location / sites for the proposed homes and septic areas for future development of Tract 1, as referenced in the original development concept plan submitted for the August P.C. meeting. **As a reminder, the Applicant is not proposing to subdivide Tract 1 into another possible lot until some point in the future—perhaps a few years down the road, if plans don’t change somewhere along the way.
The Applicant has not supplied any other photographic evidence as of yet—but he may do so
before the September public hearing. Otherwise, the Plan Commission staff will be attempting to
provide some additional photographic materials for the board and public to review at the
September 26th public hearing.
In the meantime, if you have any questions, comments, or concerns about this case, or any other business / agenda item for this month, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience.
As always, thank you or your time and attention.
Mark McCormack
Director of Planning & Zoning 

Staff Report:
1) The affected property, which contains a total of 40 acres, is located in Section 35, Township )
6N, Range 2W and Section 2, Township 5N, Range 2W of Manchester Township—and is
located within an Agricultural (A) Zoning District.
2) The Applicant, Justin Noppert, is requesting two (2) waivers of the Dearborn County 
Subdivision Control Ordinance. The first waiver request is:
To create two access point(s) onto an Arterial road (State Road 48) which do not meet the
driveway spacing requirements.
3) Please refer to Article 24, Section 2406 of the Dearborn County Zoning Ordinance
regarding the Minimum Spacing of Driveways.

4) Please refer to Article 24, Section 2408 of the Dearborn County Zoning Ordinance
regarding the Minimum Corner Clearances of Driveways.

*Please note:
The Applicant’s proposed access for Tract 1 is approximately 164 feet from the proposed
access to Tract 2 and the remaining property (proposed in the land division concept). This
makes the access point for Tract 1 approximately 111 feet deficient / short (to the east) of
meeting the driveway spacing standards set forth in Article 24, Table 24.4 of the Zoning
As an additional note: A panhandle tract was created in 1987 (when current access standards
were not in effect) immediately to the west of the Applicant’s proposed Tract 1. The driveway
location for the panhandle tract, if / when developed, would be approximately 171 feet away
from the Applicant’s proposed access for Tract 1—which would make this access point
approximately 104 deficient / short (to the west) of meeting the driveway spacing standards
set forth in Article 24, Table 24.4 of the Zoning Ordinance (assuming that a 12-foot wide
driveway is constructed).
The Applicant’s proposed access for Tract 2 and the remaining property (proposed in the land
division concept)—which already exists and has been approved by INDOT in 2014—is
approximately 87 feet from the existing property to the northeast. This makes the access
point for Tract 2 and the remaining property approximately 188 feet deficient / short of
meeting the driveway spacing standards set forth in Article 24, Table 24.4 of the Zoning

5) The Applicant’s second waiver request, with respect to the Dearborn County Subdivision
Control Ordinance, is:
To create one (1) direct access point onto a Category II Arterial Road.
 SECTION 305 - Street Design
B. Access to Arterial or Collector Streets
“…Where a Subdivision borders on or contains an existing or proposed Arterial roadway—or
a Collector roadway that exceeds 1000 vehicle trips per day—individual lots shall not be
permitted direct access to such streets without approval of the Commission (Please refer to
Article 24 of the Dearborn County Zoning Ordinance)…Direct access to an arterial or
collector roadway shall only be permitted if the other access scenarios such as local street
access, frontage roads, shared driveways and other forms of access control are unacceptable,
unsafe or inappropriate as determined by the Commission.
*Please note: According to the Applicant’s prepared statement, the “Owners are requesting a
direct access point on Tract # 1 to have accessibility for one additional tract split in the
future. The direct access point would then be used as a shared driveway for the two lots.”

6) Please refer to Article 24, Section 2410 of the Dearborn County Zoning Ordinance
regarding the Minimum Sight Distances.

*Please note: The Applicant’s proposed access points for both Tract 1 and Tract 2 (and the :
remaining lands), exceed the required sight distances set forth in this Section for the
proposed residential uses.

7) Please refer to Article 24, Section 2416 of the Dearborn County Zoning Ordinance
regarding the Number and Location of Access Points.
SECTION 2446 – Waiver of Requirements
The Plan Commission may reasonably waive or modify, with conditions, the requirements of
this Article, if it is determined that such action is warranted given the nature of an individual
project and such action will serve to preserve the purpose and intent of these regulations. 

9) Staff Comments:
At the time of County staff’s inspection, there were a couple of site-specific issues that
were identified that will likely need to be addressed during a subsequent platting
process (through staff review):
o The primary onsite sewage disposal system for the existing house on Tract 2 (as
proposed) as well as the planned secondary area for a septic system are located
in an area where the proposed property / lot lines for Tract 2 and the remaining
property may have to be reconfigured—or otherwise the planned secondary area
may need to be relocated to another portion of Tract 2.
o There are 2-3 buildings on Tract 2 that do not appear to have been constructed in
accordance with any Improvement Location Permit on file with the County. One
of these structures appears to be very near, if not within, the existing or planned
septic area(s) associated with this particular proposed lot. These structures
must be addressed prior to the approval of any subsequent survey plat—and will
be treated as an enforcement issue if they remain otherwise (as-is).
o The adjoining property owner / neighbor to the west of proposed Tract 1
(Schuh) indicated during a conversation with County staff that he has concerns
with the storm water runoff associated with this property and any additional
development—particularly as it pertains to the drainage along the front of his
property. Staff recommends that with respect to this particular item, that the
Applicant be advised to either direct any additional storm water volumes or
velocities towards the rear of the Owners’ property (involved with this request)
and / or that improvements be required that will reduce the impact (volumes and
/ or velocities) to pre-development rates, if not improve existing conditions.
o In March of 2016, a new 1.005-acre parcel was created through a certified
survey process. As part of the condition of approval of this particular plat, the
applicant was required to note on the survey that the existing barn was being
demolished, to address a non-compliant building setback that was being created
as a result of the parcel split. At the time of the County staff’s inspection, this
building remained on the property in a non-compliant area. Therefore, this
building must be removed—or the proposed land configuration must be changed
so that the existing building meets the County’s side and rear setback
requirements (of 5 feet). It is not known whether this latter item is possible or
achievable, with the new house on the adjoining southern property and its
associated septic areas.

10) *Please refer to the County Engineer’s report, dated August 8th, 2016.

11) Please refer to Article 1, Section 160 of the Dearborn County Subdivision Control
Ordinance regarding Appeals and Waivers.
SECTION 160 – Appeals and Waivers
“…Upon written request to the Commission, an applicant can seek a waiver of any of the
Subdivision regulations in this Ordinance. The individual request shall be reviewed and
granted only under unusual or extreme circumstances or if an equal or better alternative can
be provided that is not in agreement with this Ordinance…The Plan Commission shall
review and take action on all waiver requests that involve the Subdivision Control

12) Please refer to the Applicant’s proposed concept plan (including sight distance
information), and other enclosure materials.

Lehman wondered about the state allowing driveway access and then the spacing doesn’t match our ordinances that the state requested we use. Beiersdorfer said the site distance was good per Highway Engineer. The problem was more of one with etc first driveway that was already installed- than the second one. McCormack said it was an issue of not continuing the wrong pattern. Lansing noted that there are numerous problems with driveway spacing along the area of SR48. Comparisons with Stateliness and Bridgetown Roads and speed issues restricting how to get out and into driveways. What to do about the state allowing driveways where we wouldn’t? Noppert said that Mark Brunner of INDOT talked at length about these driveways and he noted the amazing amount of site distance they had. McCormack also noted that some structures on the site have to come down or be permitted. That will have to be done before any more surveys are signed off by the board. Noppert understood it. And he said they could tack it onto this. It would save him form being the bad guy. This is separate from the driveway request. 
Public discussion was opened and no one spoke so it was closed. 
Lang motioned to approve both waiver requests citing the INDOT mishandling of the driveway application permit process and the existing site topography as having extremely unusual circumstances. Beiersdorfer 2nded it. All ayes. Passed. 


1. Request: Requesting a Zone Map Amendment from B-1 to B-2
 Applicant: Terry Sillis / Bright Enterprises, LLC
 Site Location: Jamison Drive
 Legal: Sec. 34, T 7N, R1W, Parcel #15-01-34-404-009.000-006
 Township: Harrison
 Zoning: Restricted Business (B-1) Size: 2.46 ac, Being Lot 2
 Picnic Woods, Sec.

McCormack presented slides showing many small businesses in this area. Medical offices, vets, hardware store, pizza place, car wash, auto repair, etc. Picnic Woods apt area is to the SW and there are some single family areas also in the area. 70 % of the area will be a mini warehouse area. The remainder does not have an intended use - YET. Applicant has submitted a packet of some intended uses. Some were struck out of the B-2 list. They could also get the mini-warehouses in as a conditional use in a B-1 if this is not granted. Vinyl privacy fence proposed and landscaping with a buffer yard of evergreens.If future uses become intensive they should have to do a traffic study first to get approval. Drainage issues may exist here to some degree. Listerman stated they should share the strip mall driveway access. McCormack said 10 letters were mailed and one was returned. The returned one with a wrong address was contacted by a Council member and SHE ( Must be Morris) informed him of the item and also sent him a link to get the info on the P&Z website. Outside storage items like boats and RVs are large. Screening may be necessary. McCormack said there is another call regarding storage units. This will be the third one he’s had regarding storage units in the Bright area. There is an existing one in the saloon area coming into Bright. McCormack said it will be interesting to see if Bright needs all these storage spots. The market will probably sort that out. 

Terry Sillis- applicant- strip center was one of the first out there and he has been there for over 30 years. He tries to keep things up. When Dan and Tony approached him with the storage units he heard their concept and will help them with it once it gets approved. He talked about one possible use for the rest of the plot. He has no specific plans but he doesn’t want to tie his hands. The other uses he lined out wouldn't work there. He says with the new homes and building in Bright this is a good use to help out there. He doesn’t want to have an eyesore. The hardware store may use part to take deliveries for his business. The doctors office would have most impact if the outside storage held big boats. 

NATURE OF REQUEST: To REZONE a portion of a Restricted Business (B-1) District
to a General Business (B-2) District
 Zone Map Amendment:
The Applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 2.463 acres from Restricted Business (B-1) to a General Business (B-2) Zoning District to allow: a mini-warehouse / storage use to be situated on approximately 70% of the acreage; and a variety of other possible uses on the remaining 0.74 acres.
The Applicants are requesting the Plan Commission to forward a recommendation (either
favorable or unfavorable) for a Zone Map Amendment to the Dearborn County Board of
Commissioners, who will ultimately make the final decision on this request.
1) Please refer to Article 5, Section 540 of the Dearborn County Zoning Ordinance regarding
the criteria that the Plan Commission and Board of Commissioners must pay reasonable regard
to in the examination of a Zone Map Amendment request.
 SECTION 540 - Findings Necessary for Map Amendment
In preparing and considering proposals for zoning text and map amendments, the Plan
Commission and the legislative unit shall pay reasonable regard to the following:
1. The Comprehensive Plan;
2. Current conditions and the character of current structures and uses in each district;
3. The most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted;
4. The conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction;
5. Responsible development and growth.

2) Please refer to Article 5, Section 520 of the Dearborn County Zoning Ordinance
concerning the minimum requirements for an application for a Zone Map Amendment that
involves a Concept Development Plan.

Staff Report: September 2016
3) This property—which contains approximately 2.463 acres—is located in Section 34, Township
7, Range 1 of Harrison Township approximately 300-400 feet northwest of the Stateline Road
and Jamison Road intersection. The parent parcel, as it presently exists, is currently located
within Picnic Woods in a Restricted Business (B-1) Zoning District.
4) During the Comprehensive Plan Update process (from 2007-2009), the Plan Commission staff
identified the aforementioned parcel as being used for Commercial purposes. In fact, at present,
the parcel is a vacant lot. The proposed development site is bordered to the north, south, east,
and west by Commercial Uses; there is a High-Density Residential Use approximately 100 feet
to the southwest of the subject property (which consists of the apartment units within the Picnic
Woods Subdivision).
5) The Applicant’s proposal estimates that this development would generate approximately 50
vehicle trips per day for the mini-warehouse / storage use—based on the projected volume(s) of
that particular business use. As some of the commercial uses associated with this site—
specifically for the ~0.74 acre remaining lot / area—have not been specifically limited /
identified, additional traffic analyses may be required by the Plan Commission during a
subsequent plan review process. The Dearborn County Technical Review Committee also has
the authority to require a full Traffic Study (in accordance with Article 23, Section 2320 of the
Zoning Ordinance) during a Site Plan Review process, if necessary or applicable. **Staff
recommends that this item be addressed as a written commitment if this application receives
a favorable recommendation.
6) Please refer to Article 25, Table 25.1 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the minimum
dimensional standards and maximum density requirements for a General Business (B-2)
District. A General Business (B-2) zoning classification would allow for a maximum building
density of 10,000-15,000 square feet per acre. At this time, the Applicant’s building density is
projected to be 11,607 square feet per acre for the 1.723-acre tract, which is within the
acceptable building density that would be permitted in a General Business (B-2) Zoning
District. The Applicant has not indicated that there are any immediate plans for any buildings
on the ~0.74-acre remainder tract. 

7) Please refer to the Goals and Strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, pages 59, 72-74, 95,
110, 116, 121, 148-149
8) Land Use Designation Criteria:
Please refer to the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, pages 124, 142-149
 Moderate and Steep Slopes: As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, slopes with
gradients over 20% should be avoided for clearing, re-grading, or construction. There
appear to be no areas identified in this project that are intended to be developed that
meet or exceed this (20%) threshold.
 Floodplain/Flood Prone areas: The project site is not situated within (either) a one
hundred (100) year flood hazard area (Flood Hazard Zone “A”) or the five hundred
(500) year flood hazard area (Flood Hazard Zone “B”)—as determined by the
applicable FIRM Community Panel Map.
 Transportation Infrastructure / Functional Roadway Classifications:
 Jamison Road, is a Category I Arterial Road—with a paved width ranging
from 18 to 20 feet in this particular section.*
*The transportation figures included in this section have been determined by referencing both
the Dearborn County Transportation Assessment and from County staff’s observations. These
measurements are not intended to imply that there are uniform conditions on the roadways
 Sanitary Sewer: This property is proposed to connect to the LMH sanitary sewer
facility. The proposed mini-warehouse / storage use is not proposed or anticipated to
connect to the sewer system. The letter from LMH has been provided with respect to the
remainder tract and its potential future user(s).
Technical Review Committee Recommendations and Findings:
9) Please refer to the Technical Review Report / letter from the August 15th, 2016 Technical
Review Committee Meeting. Please note that as of Friday, September 9th, these items remain in
 As noted earlier, the only specific, proposed uses for the site at this time have been
identified as the mini-warehouse / storage use for the ~1.723-acre portion of the parent
parcel. Although the Applicant has removed / stricken some of the permitted uses
allowed in a General Business (B-2) Zoning District for the proposed remainder tract,
beyond these acknowledgements, there are no specific restrictions regarding the
commercial uses associated with a General Business (B-2) Zoning District designation
for this development.
10) Please refer to the County Engineer’s letter / report with respect to this case.
11) Please refer to the Applicant’s Zone Map Amendment statement(s) and enclosures.

SECTION 540 - Findings Necessary for Map Amendment
In preparing and considering proposals for zoning text and map amendments, the Plan
Commission and the legislative unit shall pay reasonable regard to the following:
1. The Comprehensive Plan;
2. Current conditions and the character of current structures and uses in each district;
3. The most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted;
4. The conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction;
5. Responsible development and growth.
The above criteria shall be the basis for findings of fact in a map amendment and shall be
recorded in the minutes and records of the Plan Commission and the legislative unit.

PUBLIC DISCUSSION was opened and closed as no public wanted to discuss. 

Board discussion- 
Art Little said this is 300 ft from the new intersection that they spent lots of money improving. He personally doesn't want them in downtown Bright. 

Thatcher agreed with Little. He would like it to remain B-1. 

Lehman agrees that it seem odd to  have a storage unit place near the doctor office. B-2 is right there with the auto repair shop. This is also allowed as an accessory use in B-1. We just had a major upgrade on the streets  there so traffic flow will be better. Thatcher said it is also surrounded by B-1. Lehman said this should be considered under the state law criteria for a zone change. 

Lang agreed with Lehman. Thatcher interrupted Lang to plead his case more. Lang talked about it seeming to be obstructing development. Lang’s in-laws live where they can view the hardware lot- and it’s not much different from this. He thinks it can be made to look right. 

Hoog says they must play reasonable regard to the 5 items in Section 540. Done right it would be OK. He thinks it’s in character there. He doesn’t think this is out of the question here. 

Lansing- there are new homes and acts there that need this- but he is worried about the outside storage. 10 years from now- I’d like to see something else there. He sees the need. 

Hornbach- more concerned with the outside storage. And a another business there might be better, but… 

Beiersdorfer- This is their property- and it isn’t that far off from what is already there. He is concerned with the outside storage. This could be a good way to transition to the residential area. Especially if it’s done right and not trashy. If Bright wants to be a town- then incorporate - step up to the plate like St Leon, Dillsboro, etc. 

Kraus, Jr. - This might not be the highest and best use and best uses don’t always come knocking at the gate. This is what is coming in. Doesn’t think it’s that far of a stretch form other uses in the area. 

Thatcher- is OK with units - wished it was on outskirts of town. Trying to see some continuity in Bright. We have  to look 10 years out. 

Mr Sillis- had this property for 30 years Tried to get IGA up there, retail and doctors. We have Physical therapy. I just can’t get the kind of retail while its too close to Harrison and Lawrenceburg. I work hard to keep the tenants I have. It’s just not there. If it gets there- these guys will tear it down and sell it for a million bucks. He will see to it that it is done right. Just like Russell said before. I am on that page. 
The 2 buyers are aware of the buffers needed. 

Board very concerned with buffer yard increase on the west side. Trying to increase the requirement as a part of the recommendation for zone change. 

Lehman motioned to favorably recommend zone change B-1 to B-2 with conditions:
  1. Detention facility adequately sized for potential runoff
  2. Increase buffer zone to Level 2 with all evergreen trees on the south and west property lines
  3. Outdoor stage issue has to be addressed by the buffer yard height has to match the height of the outdoor storage items.
Seconded by Beiersdorfer. Nays, Little Thatcher, and Lansing. Rest are ayes. Passed to the commissioners next.


Proposed ordinance changes to the Dearborn County Zoning Ordinance and Administrative Items. Trying to fix up the location of accessory structures to side and rear yards. They are running into trouble on these items with enforcement. They were seeking advice on how to work on this to make it clearer. 

I left the meeting at this point before administrative was completed. 9:45 PM

Meeting adjourned after 9:45 PM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township

No comments: