APC Meeting Notes, Internally Lit Signs, Comp Plan, Code and Zoning Enforcement

Uncategorized

Last updated: Oct 1 , 2024  

Sep 24, 2024 Meeting. APC voted not to recommend approval of the ordinance as written. They reinforced their justification for their vote on Aug 27, 2024. 

    • Audio of the Meeting. Includes discussion on survey results. They had 66 responses with the majority voting No.

August 27 2024 APC Agenda (image also provided below)

Audio of the Meeting 

APC – Special Meeting, Thursday, Sept 5, 4:30 – Select a consultant for the development of the  County Comprehensive Plan.   

SUMMARY

    • 55 second mark. Lit Sign Ordinance Change- discussion starts at the beginning of the meeting. Vote to table is at 1:02:40 followed by a brief discussion on follow-up ideas.
    • Comprehensive Plan – Budget Challenge — 80K vs $36,750.
      • 1:11:35 – Pete Olsen, Veridus Group in partnership with Contacts Design. Three required items: (1) Statement of objectives for future development,  (2) Statement of policy for land use development, and Statement of policy for public ways, land, structure, and utilities.
      • 1:48:11 – Kevin Allen, EGIS Group. Starts off with a discussion on the format of a comprehensive plan.
    • 2:31:00  Health Code and Zoning Enforcement. When a property owner may be in violation of zoning and/or health codes (such as a full-time camping without a septic system or pump and haul permit), resolving the situation can be a long process and ultimately may require the county to incur the expense of litigation.

MORE DETAIL

Internally LIT Signs.  The APC tabled the decision for 60 days. Hard to see how this ordinance change as written should ever be approved. Board members asked good questions and provided insightful comments. They also reinforced the need for more meetings to gather citizen input on the change. Opponents reinforced that internally Lit signs may represent current technology but would make us the same as any other community.

    • A community discussion on external vs internal Lit signs could be included as part of the community discussion supporting the development of the new County Comprehensive  Plan.  Opponents of the changes to the ordinance reinforced that the external lighted signs are part of the Brown County aesthetic and contribute to our uniqueness, which residents, visitors, and tourists appreciate.

    • Comments at the meeting and on social media: 

      • The existing sign ordinance has been effective in maintaining the aesthetic quality, safety, and overall character of our area. The proposed loosening of these restrictions threatens to undermine the careful balance that has been achieved.

      • The current sign regulations have served our community well by ensuring that signage remains tasteful, unobtrusive, and in harmony with our local environment. These standards have helped to prevent visual clutter, preserve the distinctive
        charm of our county, and contribute to the safety of pedestrians and drivers alike.

      • By loosening these restrictions, we risk opening the door to a proliferation of larger, more intrusive signs that could detract from the character of our community. This could lead to a more commercialized and less cohesive appearance, which is believed not to be in the best interest of our residents or our long-term planning goals.  

      • Although greater flexibility in signage supports local businesses,  the current ordinance strikes an appropriate balance between business needs and community values. The regulations in place have not only preserved the visual integrity of our county but have also contributed to a sense of place that residents and visitors alike appreciate. The possibility of “animated” or moving display signs is also a concern.

County Comprehensive Plan (CCP).  APC is in the process of selecting a consultant.

Commentary.  The Comp Plan falls under the responsibility of the commissioners.  A first step would be for the commissioners to identify a vision for the county.  The APC then supports action to ensure the plan meets the needs of the county and has community support.

    • We are among the most heavily forested counties in the state. Over 50% of our land is non-taxable and owned by state, federal, and non-profits. Landowners can also choose to designate land as “classified forest,” which lowers the property tax.  Although non-taxable land reduces the tax base, it is what retains and attracts new residents!  
    • Who are we?  We are a bedroom and retirement community with tourism.  “77% of the earnings realized by local residents originate elsewhere. “
      • GDP – County Economic and Income Base.  The GDP of the five surrounding counties is 29.5 billion.  The GDP of Brown County is $362 million.
      • Tourism (Rockport Analytics Study) brings in 12.2 million in taxable wages. The gross taxable income of all residents is $550 million.
      • The county is funded primarily by income and property tax. The county tax policy: County income tax is among the highest in the state; property tax is among the lowest.
      • We are also a regional tourism destination.  Attractions include forests and landscape, the historic town (artist colony) of Nashville, Brown County State Park, art galleries,  hiking and biking (mountain and road), camping, shops, restaurants, wineries, distillery, resorts, Brown County Music Center.
      • What is the optimum balance between residents and visitors/tourists?
      • The justification for the new traffic light at the North Gate of the park included the increase in traffic volume that affects safety.  Will a light also be required at some point at 46/135 South?  Where else?   The new traffic/pedestrian lights in Nashville and at 46/135 North also indicate an increase in pedestrian volume and safety concerns. The two-lane roads in Brown County do identify a constraint.

Current Plan – Revised 2011, 14 pages.  Although the plan meets the minimum requirements to support zoning, it is too general in many areas, and good arguments for or against a project can be made.   When applying for grants from various sources – a current plan – no older than 5 years, is expected.

The Comp Plan identifies what citizens want and do not want regarding Quality of Life/Place and Economic Development. It supports zoning, which affects the tax base.  Commissioners have the final vote on approval of the plan.

The recent discussion on allowing internal Lit sighs as opposed to the current external Lit identified citizens with changing the 

Reference: 2023 Indiana Code (IC), Title 36. Local Government, Article 7. Planning and Development Chapter 4. Local Planning and Zoning, 36-7-4-501. Comprehensive Plan; Requirement; Approval;

Funding.  The cost of a plan is estimated at $80,000.  The APc has 37K.

    • APC – $10k is available.
    • Community Foundation – $26,750. Contingent on a commitment to spend by the end of the year. (Extending the deadline is being reviewed).
    • Office of Community and Rural Affairs (OCRA) – $60K.  Qualifying for this grant requires a low to moderate income level (LMI) of 51%. It was estimated that the county may be at 50.5 percent if rounded, which would meet the requirement. There is an action to get a decision from OCRA. In 2017, the county’s LMI was 53.1%.

Consultants. Both consultants stated that 37K could be used to update the current plan to reinforce the minimum state requirements.  Generally, a current plan (no older than 5 years) is required by various funding agencies to qualify for grants. Grants are expected to be available to support further upgrades to the comprehensive plan.

Camper Discussion 2:31:00.  Health Code and likely  Zoning Violations.

APC Meeting Agenda 2024_08_27

Leave a comment