18 December 2023 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes
Present: Dennis Kraus, Jr., Chairman, Mark Lehman, Joe Vogel, Jake Hoog, Dan Lansing, and Eric Lang. Jim Thatcher arrived at 6:17PM
ABSENT:Jeff Hermesch and Russell Beiersdorfer
Also Present: Nicole Daily, Planning and Zoning Director, and Andy Baudendistel, Attorney.
Baudendistel read the Title VI statement as legally required.
ACTION ON MINUTES- October 23rd and November 27th minutes were Approved.
OLD BUSINESS: none
NEW BUSINESS:
Hickory Acres Minor Subdivision Primary Plat -- Appeal--Located at 13272 Asche Road requested by Scott Green for a 6-Lot Minor Subdivision in an Agriculture District. Parcel #15-04-02-500-008.004-009 within Jackson Township.
Dennis Kraus Jr stepped down and left the room as he had a conflict of interest. Mark Lehman is acting chair.
Nicole Daily- said as they do minor subdivision reviews wit 8 lots or less. There is a 10 day appeal process for adjoining property owners if they disagree wit the tech review for the subdivision. In this case there is a property line dispute.
Daily showed the pictures of the lots along Asche Rd and stated the neighbors had been notified of the appeal. Lot 1 and 6 have homes on them. All lots have Health dept approvals for septic systems. Material that tech review considered was included in their packets.
Lehman- They could have 8 lots but only asking for 6. This process provides more information than if they did it piecemeal. Daily said all the driveway locations are set within the parameters for the road and the regulations. The driveway locations are specified on the plat. Lang- 5 acres and 300 plus ft of frontage. This is no where near the density we could have.
Baudendistel- read the state rules that if the subdivision meets the subdivision ordinance - they have to grant primary approval. This constitutes an administerial act.If you plan on speaking tonight, you need to cite where it does not meet the ordinance.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Matt Hountz- opposed- doesn’t meet the rural character of the area. The part property has already been divided twice and now this section. Scott Green- developer, and owner Susan Devore- the developers are actually circumventing a major subdivision review.
Martha Woodlock- Infrastructure regardless of what you see. There is no evidence that there is enough road clearance on parts of this. 2nd Rd is Lake Tambo and Asche- and views blocked so safety is issue here. To widen the road the neighbors will lose 10 ft of the land and their culverts and concrete. Road widening brings taxes so that will be paid by everyone. Issues with people who have wells here. They will bring city water to the new subdivision. Sewage will pollute if drainage is not fixed. And she is the person with the property dispute. I will lose about 2 acres along my entire property. 20 ft for 2 miles of her property line. Its a safety issue- with the 12 ft road with blind spots.
CLOSED PUBLIC DISCUSSION
They don’t have a tract rule anymore- Daily. Lang- this has already been thru tech review. Lehman- doesn’t see how they can do much more dense use with the topography issues without getting a zone change. That’s a whole different matter . Lang asked about the property line dispute. Daily said a survey was done - it’s not a loss of property- still the same acreage- but the line was located with fence. Lang- so this is a civil matter to decide if it is occupational or incorrect. Lang said it seems to meet subdivision regulations. Lehman agreed. The traffic issues etc are not involved. Lehman we have not found that it is a direct violation of whatever infrastructure that we have here. Or they would have limited lots perhaps. This is basically a gut check on tech review. Lang motioned to approve and say they found no deficiencies and ??someone Seconded. Approved
7 PM-Denny Kraus, Jr returned as Chairman
ADMINISTRATIVE
Dearborn County Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
Daily asked if the board had any more changes for her with the way the map is.
Lang and Lehman tied the previous cases minor subdivision issues to Ag H not being in place yet. Using all the ways a minor subdivision can work out and what happens with that versus the large subdivisions that do it all at once.
Hoog- If I were the property owner and I wanted to Make it Ag even if Ag Homestead might be proposed does it hurt anyone financially, emotionally, physically or otherwise if it is Ag ? Or does it hurt the neighbor? Probably not. If they want to change it later - with 60 houses- they can do it with a zone change.
Nicole Daily- I understand where you are coming from- but when we started the process we thought how we would handle certain comments and the “free rezone” that we talked about . Who gets the free rezone in the process.
Who gets it? We were trying to tread lightly on that issue working with maps. Trying to be cautious with both sides coming in.
Hoog- Property is residential now and they have been farming it and there plan is to do it for the next 20 -30 years- I don’t see where it is harmful to do that for them to be Ag - I don’t see that as a free rezone. [NOTE: Any non-conforming use change is not a FRE REZONE- It’s a CORRECTION.]
Daily- Well we have had people who come in within the last year and they cannot do it. I told a gentleman to wait- and he could get it done after the maps …
Hoog- If its zoned ag - I would not up the zone, as an upgrade to Ag Homestead or R. I think we’ve done decent job on that.
[NOTE: So following that rule Daily is referencing and the board agrees - why are they rezoning upward from Ag to Ag H for Sawyers and for Folkes?]
Daily- as we go thru the process- we heard their issues- you can voice your opinion but it is fair game what the other stuff that is involved. Then - whether we sit on this map for another year or…
Lansing- I guess you all got my email before this meeting on my thoughts. What are your thoughts on that?
Lang- I don’t think anyone is trying to ask anyone into anything. We are not going more than one notch down for the zone. We did that. We are treating people equal pretty much.
Lehman- Most of us siting up here are very detail oriented- we have to remember this process is at the 50,000 ft elevation level- we’re here for this map and it actually looks like you think a zoning map should look. Right around the cities [NOTE: For the record- Lawrenceburg city limits only touch our farm for 500 ft. on the South east corner. Everything else is county land as the west side of Pribble Rd is county past our farm and the east side is Lawrenceburg.] there is residential bands, and then there is Ag Homestead bands, where you have larger acres of family subdivisions that have gone on for a period of time. Then you go from least intense where you have least intense agriculture [NOTE: what is least intense Ag?] to most intense where you have Industrial it certainly does not fall into the category spot zone where you have someone come in and drag a sewer way out 12 miles and make it work.
Kraus- anything more?
There are people who want to speak here probably so maybe we should open public discussion. Board agreed to open public discussion.
PUBLIC
Jeff Meinders- had the board bring up the map and showed them where the property was concerned that he was using along US 50 near Mount Tabor Road and Huseman Road. Residential our current zoning is residential and allows for 9000 ft.² and your proposing for our the square footage is 21,000 ft.² so this more than doubles the property used per Home we are closer to 7500 ft.² for home we're not asking for free zone. We're just asking to get it closer to what our current zoning would have allowed for the square footage, and that is actually having to go to R2 rather than stay as R1. this actually went backwards quite a bit so when we bought the property we were planning to do it this way.
Lehman-are you talking? Are you 40% of that area?
Meinders- talked about the sewage and the layout there and the topographical map and the three locations for the sewer availability. He also noted that he could cluster the homes in a certain area to keep away from the steep areas. He has not researched what the density is for the adjoining areas that have subdivisions by him when asked about this by the board. He did talk about again about the 9000 versus 21,000 square footage and how that changes when he can do. US 50 is a four-lane highway there's natural gas and sewage so none of those are problems.
Lang- Nicole what is our lot size in residential levels.
Meinders - 7500 sg ft is smaller than I would like but closer to 9000 10,000 is what I'd like and I'd like to fit into the zone that could accommodate that. I'd like you to give consideration to that.
Lang-looked around at the lots surrounding it to see what the ones are around it and how this will fit in. Look down to Dead Man's Hollow.
Lang asked Nicole if they had created an R2 zone area that wasn't already R2. The answer was no that they had placed it over areas that were already in use that way. Except one up and Bright that is phased and so they made it to before it was built out to match the first phase. [NOTE:They did not name the subdivision and they were talking about.]
Board talked about not going two zones up.
Lehman- this is kind of along the same lines as the one who bought property to be able to divide with the kids in Ag and needed it to be a minor subdivision, so had to be asked to go up to Ag homestead in order to do that.They granted that on the map prior to this meeting. [NOTE: He’s talking about Jeff Lyness property in York Township.]
Lang- this was originally yellow but we had moved it to light green and then it was communicated early on about this problem that he does have the sewers and so forth so it should stay residential so this move would only be one zone up. Not two from the light green that was here in the beginning.
Meinders- those upgrades would be on us to fix the sewer to fit our density. I get where I'm going
Pretty hard to resurrect that property back into Ag. Density in a particular area is going to take the pressure off of Ag lands.
Lang and Lehman went back and forth talking about ways he could develop the land around the hillsides.
Meinders- appreciated their time and wanted something closer to 9,000 sq ft to match up to the old R1 math. Board seems to understand his issues.
Chris Mueller- Passed out a short legal article on Grandfathering and non-conforming uses for Ag land and gave the board a couple minutes to read it. Our family farm started in 1937 and We’ve been in this grandfathered situation since 1965 to R and stayed that way in the 1978-80 maps as R. The point we are trying to make on our farm is we are are already in a grandfathered use, we can legally do what we are doing, no matter what you call us. There is one part of us that you need to understand I when you talk about expanding- it’s in that section where you flip the page- it says Indiana case law does not provide a bright line rule regarding expansion of a legal, nonconforming use. So that basically tells you that there is not a clear line- or a clear set if rules when you want to expand an operation and you are now non-conforming. What happens when we decide to do more things there? We want to be able to be legally doing those things under your zoning law, and legally doing this under your zoning law does not happen when you're situated with an Ag Homestead situation that talks about “less intense uses” in the first paragraph about less intensity. That's what part of it is so if you read the first paragraph of your text is regarding Ag Homestead we don't fit that right now. So when you make us Ag homestead we are technically still grandfathered. I guess if we if we can't get past that point, we stay grandfathered forever and we would like to see that that gets fixed.
Lehman -So in an Ag Homestead district. What more intense use could you possibly do that would make you be non-conforming?
Chris Mueller- There’s lots of things you could do to make want to do necessarily but there are things that could be done that would not fit an Ag homestead and then there's a situation, and I don't know if you guys know what it is because we don't have those things at Dearborn County, but when you have a situation where you get a certain intensity of animals in a confined area, whether it's confined like those big feed lots that are just gross and you know what I'm talking about - or you get into a situation where you just expand more - and what we currently have right now- if we decide we want to have more or if we added to it property wise and so forth I guess my question to you is how do we cover that? How do we cover being a non-conforming use. In the text you use the terms when you define the Ag homestead - you use that words “less intense." Less intense agricultural uses- into transition zone where people there are doing less intense agricultural uses. And I'm telling you that most people would look at us and not call this less intense with the way it is right now because of the number of animals that are there. And there are ways to do an operation on a farm where you can increase the number of animals and use your fields in a different way particularly if you bring in your hay from outside rather than doing it on your land so I'm telling you if we expand that we will not be conforming. So thats our basic question.
I was looking at that conditional uses from the master plan and you were talking about not setting anything as R2 or R3 on the map. What happened to some apartment buildings like that out there and Bright?
Kraus- explained that they didn’t add new R2 or R3,but did fix the ones the exist.
Chris Mueller OK - you fixed the ones that were already there only - OK. I didn't catch that and I want to make sure it was right there. I thought I saw them but it might have changed since then.
I thought part of the original purpose of this was to correct these things and I know that surrounding us we have some situations where people were Ag and now they’ve been changed to Ag Homestead on my street. Behind our farm’s 1/2 mile western border is Ag. I should say even on your proposed map they are Ag. I know the Folke property is Ag. I know that the Rais- now Sawyer- property and the property that was behind them - Mack property was all Agricultural - not Residential - in that 1965 map even, so those people were asking to stay what they are. They weren't asking to be changed. If you put that property and Folke’s Farm as they are in the current map along with our piece and the property behind it - It doesn't look spotty when you do it that way.
Are there any non-conforming uses that you're not allowing besides this one ? No answer.
Daily- (no answer) What are you doing that is now non-conforming for Ag Homestead? [Note: This question is continuing to be asked as if they think the NUMBER of animals is not a problem due to the acreage. What they don’t like consider is future generations and uses and future boards and master plans and changes in text. It’s better to overbuild something than to underbuild it. That same principle works for proper zoning.]
Chris Mueller- Residential or Ag homestead - the same thing - it’s because of what your definition of Ag homestead is, When I look at Ag homestead and when people want to be zoned Ag homestead, they're talking about dividing things that we don't talk about- like dividing. [NOTE: The implied purpose of the Ag H zone is transition- and staging for developmental creep into Ag areas. Much of this discussion on the wonders of Ag Homestead is about the removal of minor subdivisions from Ag and placing them into the new Ag H.In reality you could eliminate the Ag H if that had not been done.]
Daily - In Ag Homestead if someone had a complaint what would be non conforming use that would not be covered be in the new rules.
Chris Mueller- Probably be in relation to the animal concentrations that we are doing along the farm towards the winter time and when we do the feed out times,
Daily- I believe the rules are related to your acreage where they are on your acreage. It was by the state feeding operation that would be where the state comes in and says certain regulations have to be followed here.
Chris Mueller-The intention for Ag Homestead is not the same as our intention or use of the land for agricultural use. You seem to be trying to get me to say I'm violating this. I'm violating Residential- obviously.
Daily- if that's all I was asking for clarification what are you doing?
Chris Mueller- That would be right now related to the intensity of what we do that would be the thing that would cause people to possibly have a problem. If for example, if somebody decided to build a subdivision that would probably be an issue but again…
Baudendistel- interrupting- You would be protected by state law- You would be protected by state law.
Chris Mueller- I know that - you’re back to certain kinds of situations that can happen as we decide what we're going to do. You are limiting our agricultural operation expansion if we want to do it by making us Ag homestead. I can continue to do it because it says I can continue to do it, (talking over Baudendistel who is interrupting again ) it would be better to make us what we are!
Baudendistel- You come to all these meetings and you talked about how there may be separate parcels but you are one big family and you all engage in the farming activity. So how many acres are we talking, because I think that what Nicole is trying to tell you is you have enough acreage that you can do everything in Ag Homestead that you can do in Ag.
Chris Mueller-Until you change Ag Homestead- ( scoffing from Baudendistel) No - seriously - you guys have to look at it from the standpoint of a farmer.
I know you like to talk about divisions and how things can change and what you can do to develop. I'm telling you that in our situation we're looking at it completely 180 degrees different from what your mindset is. We look at it as how can we do this stuff, still be good neighbors, and stay be within the parameters of the law and stay within the rules. And it’s hard to do things when you are constantly not being labeled appropriately.
Baudendistel- But the changes here would put you within the parameters of the ordinance? Right?
The proposed change to Ag Homestead you would no longer have to rely on articles to say you are a legal non-conforming use because your zoning district would permit what you do
Chris Mueller. if we decide …
Baudendistel- what- to do a CAFO 10 years from now?
Chris Mueller- No- Not a CAFO- I think if you live on a farm you would understand better, what I'm trying to say is we would like to have it be ..
Kraus- I know what you want.
Chris Mueller- Agricultural.
Kraus- polled the board-asking what they want for us to be. [NOTE: Which, mercifully, shut down the discussion that should have been between us and the board and not us and the Planning Director and Board Attorney.]
[NOTE: So-we should settle for Ag Homestead, even though we can also do everything we want in Ag and perhaps more. If a business or industry came into the county- not only would they get properly zoned, they would roll out TIFs and abatements. But a farmer…… ?]
Terry Sawyers- Carrie Drive-…however my parents owned that farm and it has always been Ag even with that old subdivision on it. So I wanted it to be documented that we just want this to remain in agricultural. We don't want it developed or going into Ag Homestead. And its not going to be developed. We want to be Ag. Thank you for listening to all my request and we very much appreciate it.
End Public Discussion
Kraus- I guess we should wait until next meeting until we have a full board to entertain any changes.
Lang- That seems t be the right thing to do since it appears to be close.
Kraus- we will be taking votes on the text and then map and potentially forwarding it to the commissioners with a favorable recommendation as written and as mapped or amended text or amended map
January 22- there is nothing else on the agenda but this.
Meeting adjourned at 8:05 PM.
Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township
