The
Ellettsville, Indiana
Roll Call: Members
present were: Terry Baker, Vice
President, Dan Swafford, Don Calvert,
Approval of the Minutes
None
Old Business
None
New Business
Request to have the property at 5858 and
5920 West SR 46 Rezoned from R-1 to C-3
Dave Keister petitioner-Approval
Frank Nierzwicki, Director of Planning
Services
When
the notice was advertised in the Journal newspaper it was listed incorrectly as
5290 W. SR 46, instead of 5920 W. SR 46. The notification in the paper had the
correct petitioner’s names, and no address is currently listed for 5290 W. SR
46.
I
wanted to point that out to you, staff recommends approval from a R-1 to a C-3
zone. The parcel numbers are
Any
questions?
Don Calvert- Is there sufficient room for parking there?
Frank Nierzwicki- Yes.
Dan Swafford- When you listed this in the paper, 5920, it was put
in the paper as 5290?
Frank Nierzwicki- Yes, that is correct.
Dan Swafford- Was a letter sent to 5290?
Dan Swafford- I think we need to correct that and relist it.
Phill Smith- Which one is the wood shop?
Frank Nierzwicki- 5920.
Dan Swafford- So, they are not aware of this at all?
Frank Nierzwicki- Yes, they brought it to our attention.
Dan Swafford- Are they here?
Frank Nierzwicki- Yes.
Dan Swafford- If the people are here, do you have a problem with
this listing. If you do I will suggest
that we table this and relist it correctly.
Mrs. Richardson- Everyone that needed to get the notice, were actually
notified. And that property doesn’t
exist that was listed improperly, and this wasn’t our fault, so we would like
to have this go thru.
Frank Nierzwicki- It was my fault that it was listed incorrectly.
Dan Swafford- (Speaking to adjacent property owners) Do any of you
have any problems with the antenna going in next to you?
Not
known who was speaking- We don’t have a problem with a 40’ tower.
Terry Baker- Any other comments?
Seeing none. I would entertain a
motion.
Terry
Baker- yes
Phill
Smith- yes
Dan
Swafford- yes
Don
Calvert- yes
Terry Baker- Motion carries.
Next
item on the agenda is potential town code changes.
We
can go ahead and get started.
We
will start with chapter 93 health and sanitation.
Frank Nierzwicki- Connie go ahead and start.
Connie Griffin- The deputy health officer is currently Jim Ragle,
the Street Commissioner. Prior to our
work session, Jim Ragle mentioned that he would like to be removed as the
deputy health officer.
At
the work session we decided to increase the number of deputy health
officers. By code, 93.16 D, all street
department employees are listed as deputy health officers, as well as the town
marshal and deputies that he gives power and authority to.
One
of the proposed changes that I think should be made is that all planning staff
should be appointed as deputy health officers and we would have identification
badges with photo for all people that are conducting enforcement, and we also
need the ability to issue fines.
93.17
Removal of Excessive Weeds and Vegetation
(B)
It would be correct to add: or any deputy health officer, because our code
currently states just the Town Health Officer.
This should be clarified in several places if we increase the number of
deputy health officers and include planning staff.
The
posted fine notice, that we would like you to consider, this will eliminate
double handling, and going back and forth on inspections. When we see tall grass or a violation, this
notice can be posted that day, which means the abatement days start the day the
violation notice is posted. That gives
us more time to go back to the office and get the letters ready to get those
mailed. This would start the clock
ticking, and would prevent us
from
going back and forth to make sure I’m not sending a violation letter to someone
that has corrected the violation.
The
last change in this section is to eliminate sending the violations by certified
mail. We would like to cut costs by
sending the letters regular mail. We can
eliminate sending the letter by certified mail at this stage of the enforcement
process, and reserve sending the fine notice as a certified piece after the ten
day abatement has ended and the violation hasn’t been corrected.
Part
(c) Right now it states in that the
If
a cleanup is required at a property, then a lien is placed on the property. If the lien isn’t filed in time, the property
could sell or a reason could come up that we can’t collect from the property
owner, so I would like to suggest that a certified statement be prepared by the
clerk treasurer within 10 days of submission of the cleanup charges.
(E)
Under section E, if we allow a posted notice to be displayed, as a new process
in enforcement, then this would need to be added to section E, that any person
who has received a posted fine notice or a written notice to remove grass….
Don Calvert- If we have to send out a certified letter can you
state that it will be charged to them on a violation notice.
Connie Griffin- It’s in code that a property in violation, which
requires town cleanup, would incur all expenses of the cleanup, including all
street department and planning department charges.
Frank Nierzwicki- If we send out a letter certified, and they comply
and abate the violation, we do not charge for the certified letter expense.
Darlyne Sowder- Discussed posting violations. Are you posting it or handing it to them.
Connie
Darlyne Sowder- Say they are on vacation for three weeks and they
went on a cruise to the
Connie Griffin- So, you are saying that they haven’t made
arrangements to have their grass mowed during the three week period?
Darlyne Sowder- Well, they may have.
Maybe they guy that was going to mow the lawn got sick.
Frank Nierzwicki- We have a lot of people going on trips, we’ve listed
the times when we’ve visited these places and we’ve had four or five times that
we’ve gone back to the same property.
Frank Nierzwicki- We send the photo with the letter.
Dan Swafford- Where do you post the notice?
Connie Griffin- We put them on their doors, where they will see
them.
Connie Griffin- We would like to see all addresses be posted on the
homes. We have several homes, which are mostly the ones that have violations,
which do not have visible numbers on their homes. This creates a safety issue, and it is also
hard for us to identify the home address.
Dan Swafford- Discussed green address identifiers on mail boxes,
they are nice and consistent looking.
Connie Griffin- Parking Loading and Driveways
(B)
We don’t have a number limiting on-site storage of motor vehicles; I propose we
actually put a number to this code to limit the number of vehicles on a
property.
Phill Smith- Would it make sense to say the vehicles have to be
parked on a driveway or something like that?
Connie Griffin- That’s a good idea, but most of the time they are
parked half way on the street and half way on the drive.
Dan Swafford- Then this gets into parking on the grass issue.
On
the other hand a lot of average families have three children, and they are all
driving age, and there are five vehicles.
How can you put a limit on it?
Connie Griffin- This is for inoperable vehicles that are just sitting
there.
The
issue on some of this is, it’s an issue for some people in the community. What is the difference between that and a
junk yard storage facility? I understand
the number of vehicles with kids, but we’ve had some complaints about this,
especially if you live next to someone that has 20 cars in their backyard.
Dan Swafford- It’s not a pleasant site; I think the non-working
vehicles, if broken down needs to be parked in the driveway, and not on the
street. This is more incentive to have
the car repaired. I don’t know if you
should number it, or just say, if you have a
non-working vehicle it needs to be in the driveway, with current plates,
and I think we already have something about plates.
(7)
Parking within a landscaped area or lawn
Parking
within a landscaped area is strictly prohibited and we propose to strike number
7. Parking on the lawn causes erosion
issues, and just because you don’t see gullies or mudslides doesn’t mean
erosion isn’t occurring. Sign of exposed
roots, splashing of soil or mud on pavements is a sign of erosion.
152.150
discuss parking and erosion issues.
Frank Nierzwicki- What we are looking at with the inspections, I’ve
been through this for the last two to three years. I’m trying to get this in compliance. We talked about this at the work session, and
basically this code is unenforceable as it is written at this time.
We
propose to look at this from an erosion issue.
It would require a new section.
We do have erosion control over 1,000 square feet in a construction
area. What we are looking at is having
it less than 1,000 square feet in a non-construction area. The issue on this is we are not going to be
out there looking for how long you have your car parked in the yard to wash it,
but if the ground cover is gone, erosion and ruts, then we will look at this
and fine the individual. The other item
on this, with fees fines and enforcement, right now we have a $5.00 driveway
permit, we propose that this goes to $25.00.
Phill Smith- Frank, if someone went to the county to get a
driveway permit, would they automatically send them out here?
Frank Nierzwicki- The county shouldn’t be taking money from individuals
for driveway permits. I tell them to
come here. Some people are confused and
don’t know the boundary of Ellettsville.
In
new developments the driveways are approved from the beginning during the
review process.
Dan Swafford- Do you charge the contractor for each individual
driveway?
Frank Nierzwicki- We indirectly charge them, because we have a fee on
the plat. Each lot has a fee that they
pay, and there is a flat fee that they pay on top of that.
Dan Swafford- Does size and number of lots have anything to do with
it?
Frank Nierzwicki- The more lots you have the more you pay.
We
also have problems with people that put a driveway in, and don’t maintain it,
and it has grass growing in it. We’ve
sent letters on that.
Russ Ryle- My house was built in 1987, I can’t tell you if a
driveway permit was required in 1987.
The issue I have is what is the beginning date, when the Town of
Connie Griffin- I agree, it was passed on
4-16
passed
Phill Smith- I have one suggestion on B.
I
think it should say a posted notice or a written letter sent by regular mail.
Russ Ryle- I would like to make one comment about a posted
notice. In this day and age a property
owner needs to be careful when they are gone from home for an extended period
that their property doesn’t look like it is unoccupied. I’m concerned that a posted notice says this
is a home that is unoccupied?
Dan Swafford- That is a good point.
Political
signs- we’ve received some complaints in the past that 30 days from display
prior to an election isn’t fair, because of absentee voting. So, I called and talked to Sandra Hash about
voting time frames. Sandra said March 1st
would be a good date to use for Primary and September 1st for the
general election. With all signs being
removed right after the election. Special
promotion signage. We run into
monitoring the time frame on this sign type.
I propose we require a permit for each display usage. By requiring a permit a specified time frame
would be written on the permit. The way
the code reads now, is a special promotion sign can’t be displayed for more
than a two weeks, not more than four weeks total per year. They can display the sign as often as they
want for a two week time period as often as they want for 10.00 each time. This will allow us to monitor the dates.
Phill Smith- What prevents someone from getting 26 permits?
Connie
Frank Nierzwicki- It is the same fee for a temporary sign, there is
talk that it’s too much, we are trying to be more open, and look at this from a
different perspective. We are trying to
have more options for people to advertise in this way.
Russ Ryle- My concern is public safety. The reason a town has a right to regulate
grass, signs and other issues are safety and health and well being. I’ve seen some of these signs in such a way
that a driver can’t see the stop sign. They
can’t see oncoming traffic or pedestrians.
I think we need a minimum setback from the right of way or relative to a
stop sign at an intersection.
Russ Ryle- Define the code so they have to have the sign set
back and it’s not right on the pavement.
Dan Swafford- I think Indiana Code will help us here. Any sign that is blocking view it is already
in code. That is where they specify you
can’t block the view.
Russ Ryle- But anyone that is looking for Ellettsville sign
code, will go to your web site.
Connie Griffin- We could add in code that we have adopted certain
Additional
proposed sign code changes
(2)
Width
There
currently isn’t a limit on sign width.
You could have a 1” sign 80 feet long.
Frank Nierzwicki- We wanted to ask if there was a special reason for
not specifying width regulations.
Terry Baker- Terry recalled a sign of short height that ran along
the whole length of an area. That is why
the regulation was written like this.
Frank Buczolich- Is there a safety issue with this being abused in any
way shape or form?
Frank Buczolich- Well, you have a way to deal with it if it’s a safety
issue.
Don Calvert- We should just state that a sign can not impede the
view of the intersection or road way, and then we won’t tie our hands.
Dan Swafford- Refer to state code on this one.
Connie Griffin- (E) Maintenance and removal.
We
do not specify a time period that a closed business can keep a sign up on
display. If a business closes there
isn’t anyone to maintain the sign. We
have a couple of areas where the signs look bad, and the businesses are no
longer open. I propose we give them a
certain length of time that we give them to remove the sign once the business
has closed.
Dan Swafford- If you make it to long after a business has closed,
they are probably done, and there will be no way that you will get them to
remove the sign.
Phill Smith- I like the sentence you added, all signage after
close of business shall be removed 30 days from the closing day of the
business, but you need to add or will be removed by the town of
Ellettsville.
Connie Griffin- Some signs have a plastic removable front piece, and
this could be re-worked to be used again, so there is a fine line, if someone
can reuse the sign and it isn’t broken, we could allow a sign like that to be
used again.
Frank Buczolich- the property owners typically don’t disappear, so they
could be billed for the removal of the sign.
We
have a scrolling sign in the muffler shop and in the Mexican restaurant and
during tax time you will see small signs.
Russ Ryle- What about an old fashioned barber’s pole sign that
rotates?
Phill Smith- Well, it’s behind glass.
Frank Nierzwicki- The issue why they wanted to do this is because they
didn’t want to have a lot of things flashing and blinking and not being able to
see street lights and other things. That
was the whole idea behind this code.
Russ Ryle- I’m not sure how to word this, but anything that is a
distraction to a motorist is prohibited?
Phill Smith- Yes, but who defines that?
Dan Swafford- Behind glass, what if I want to put in a 6’ TV
monitor on a sign behind glass.
Connie Griffin- That is why I say we add a size restriction.
Dan Swafford- Maybe it should say in the interior of the building or
something like that, instead of behind glass.
Frank Nierzwicki- This is why we need input from you and the public on this;
we aren’t just doing one meeting.
Connie Griffin- The last proposed change I have on sign permits is we
waive the sign permit fee for all non-profits and schools.
Terry Baker- It was talked about, but when it was written it got
dropped out, because we had always had conditional use.
Frank Nierzwicki- Yes.
Dan Swafford- Good job on this.
Russ Ryle- I want to compliment you for the work you’ve done
here. You’ve cleaned up a lot of nagging
issues that have created grief and a lot of work that has not been to fruitful
for your office, Frank and Connie. I
would like you to consider what can be done for lighted and flashing signs
within a given distance of an intersection; something needs to be done to
prevent distractions to drivers.
Dan
you brought up Indiana Code and line of site, wouldn’t that also apply to all
other signs?
Dan Swafford- I think it applies to any sign or structure that
would prohibit your view.
Russ Ryle- Then the simple solution would be to cite Indiana
Code and nothing in the ordinance supersedes Indiana Code, which prohibits
signage, which is by
Don Calvert- Is there one here in town that you can think of that applies?
Russ Ryle- No, not right now.
I too have been in places where you can’t see at an intersection.
Frank Nierzwicki- As technology changes we need to keep up with the
times.
Russ Ryle- At what point does Ellettsville want to address the
coming technologies of these big, back lighted video digital electronic
billboards.
Frank Nierzwicki- We now have code for not allowing animated
signs. How long a sign pauses before it
changes come into consideration. I try
to check the planning documents nationwide and standards at conferences. I’m watching it.
E-mail
me your comments, and I’ll have this ready in two weeks for the next
Privilege of the Floor- Non Agenda Items
-None
Adjournment -Terry Baker- I
would entertain a motion.
Next
meeting will be