HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-05-1990COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA
FEBRUARY 5, 1990
The Common Council of the City of Jeffersonvzll , Indiana met
in regular session in Council Chambers, in the City-County Building in
Jeffersonville, Indiana on the 5th day of February 1990, at 7:30 o'clock
P.M.
The meeting
Richard Spencer Jr. at
Mayor Orem
allegiance to the flag.
The
was called
the desk.
asked all
to order by Mayor Dale Orem and C.
those present to stand and pledge
roll was called and those present were: Councilmen
Caldwell,
Carter, Grooms, Harrod, Perkins,
Absent: None.
Mayor Orem presented the minutes
Williams, and Waiz~
of the meeting of Janury 20,
1990 for consideration by the Council. Councilman Caldwell asked the
minutes be corrected to show on page three the first reading vote for
Ordinance No. 90-OR-2, a vote of 5-1. Councilperson Carter then made
the motion to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by
Councilperson Harrod and carried unanimously.
Councilperson Grooms recognized John Holiday, a Boy Scout
visiting the meeting.
Mayor Orem presented the register of claims for consideration
by the Council. Clerk and Treasurer Spencer presented several
additional claims. Following discussion, Councilperson Carter made the
motion to approve the claims as presented as well as the additional,
seconded by Councilperson Williams and carried unanimously.
Mayor Orem introduced Director Twombley of the Council on
Human Services. Director Twombley explained the services and programs
of the Council's Alcohal & Drug Abuse Center. The Council welcomed
Director Twombley to Jeffersonville and wished him good luck.
Mayor Orem introduced Ordinance No. 90-OR-2, An Ordinance
Concerning Voluntary Annexation Of Contiguous Territory for the third
reading. The question of sewer service to the area was questioned and
Mayor Orem stated the property owner, Mr. Bright, has been put on notice
the City. w~ll not provide service. Councilperson Waiz would like to see
a statement from Mr. Bright that services are not expected. When
PAGE 2
FEBRUARY 5, 1990
questioned, Mr. Bright said he did not intend to use Island View Drive
to access his property. Mayor Orem stated before the property is
developed it would have to go to Planning and Zoning, and he would fight
to keep the traffic out of Island View. Mr. Mike Osterkamp, President
of Island View Association spoke for the Association in oppossition to
the Ordinance, saying
development. Ms.
annexation saying
industrialization.
No.
they do not want any type of commercial
Liz Osterkamp also stated oppossition to this
she believed this annexation is a step to
A roll call vote on the third reading of Ordinance
90-OR-2 was as follows:
Ayes: Councilpersons Waiz and Carter.
Nays: Councilpersons Perkins, Caldwell, Williams, Harrod, and
Grooms.
Ordinance No. 90-OR-2 was defeated by a vote of 2-5.
Councilperson Perkins made the motion to bring Ordinance No.
90-OR-3, An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property From R-2, Residential,
And A-i, Agricultural, (County) to B-2, Service Business, back to the
floor for discussion, seconded by Councilperson Harrod and passing
unanimously. Councilperson Harrod made the motion to pass Ordinance No.
90-OR-3 on the first and second readings, seconded by Councilperson
Perkins. Discussion was then held. Attorney Jim Lang again stated the
feelings of the residents along Utica Pike that they did not want a
business &ccross the street from them, and there is still no Master Plan
for the City. Mr. Lloyd Poore, property owner said he will not be
cutting down any more trees, and he did not want to disturb the land in
front of the neighbors. Me would possibil¥ one day build a house on the
property. The following roll call vote was then taken:
Ayes: Councilpersons Perkins and Harrod.
Nays: Councilperson Caldwell, Williams, and Grooms.
Abstentions: Councilpersons Waiz and Carter.
Because there was not a majority vote of those elected
Councilpersons voting, Attorney Filer informed the Council that the vote
was not a qualified vote and becomes a mm~'issue. The Planning and
Zoning action will be defeated if no official action is taken by the
Council within 90 days from the date of certification. Councilperson
PAGE 3
FEBRUARY 5, 1990
Williams asked if a variance could be requested and Attorney
informed him there would be no prohibition to this.
Councilperson Harrod asked for a 5 minute recess.
Mayor Orem introduced Ordinance No. 90-OR-7, An
Transferring Certain Funds Within The Same Department.
Fifer
Ordinance
Following
discussion, Councilperson Perkins made the motion to suspend the rules,
seconded by Councilperson Harrod, and carried unanimously-
Councilperson Perkins then made the motion to pass Ordinance No.
90-0R-7 on all three readings, seconded by Councilperson Harrod, passing
on the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilpersons Perkins,
Waiz, Caldwell, Carter, Harrod,
Williams, and Grooms.
Nays: None.
Councilperson Grooms introduced Resolution No. 90-R-8, A
Resolution Establishing An Annual Succession Prohibition For Common
Council Members To Serve As President Pro Tempore. Councilperson Grooms
made the motion to pass Resolution No. 90-R-8, stating that all Council
members desiring to would have a better chance regardless of politics,
it would be a more effective position if only for one year, and would
also prevent complacency. The motion was seconded by Councilperson
Caldwell and opened for discussion. Councilperson Perkins voiced his
objections to the Resolution. A roll call vote was called for and
recorded as follows:
Ayes: Councilpersons Caldwell, Williams and Grooms.
Nays: Councilpersons Perkins, Waiz, Carter, and Harrod.
Resolution 90-R-6 failed on a vote of 3-4.
Councilperson Grooms introduced Resolution No. 90-R-7, A
Resolution Supporting The Continued Operation Of The U.S. Army
Grooms made
Ammunition Plant in Clark County, Indiana. Councilperson
the motion to pass Resolution No. 90-R-7, seconded by Councilperson
Perkins, passing with a unanimous vote.
Mayor Orem announced there would be a Board of Fznanc meeting
' ' 1 the Council meeting.
zmmedzate Y following
FEBRUARY 5, 1990
Councilperson Caldwell introduced Ms. Marcella Bratcher, a 14
year resident of Avondale Court. Ms. Bratcher presented a petition
signed by her neighbors asking to "please put some of our tax dollars in
paving our street, also in the drainage problem". This will be looked
into. Councilperson CaldWell also called attention to the drainage
probelm at 210 Hopkins Lane. Mayor Orem will make a personal visit to
the area and Councilperson Caldwell will accompany him. Councilperson
Caldwell mentioned visiting with Representative Wathen and Bill
Shre~sberry while attending the recent Legzslatzv Session in
Indianapolis. He asks that a color drawing of the proposed Duffy's
Landing be placed in the City-County Building. Additional property in
this area may be available. Councilperson Caldwell will proceed with
the drawing. He then presented and reviewed the "wish list" from the
Building Commission Office.
Councilperson Perkins has talked recently with County Auditor
Dick Jones and was informed the Spring Tax Settlement may not be made
until June or July. Spending may have to be curtailed, and other means
of raising funds should be looked at. He asks that serious thought be
given to any additional appropriations requests. There has been an
increase in fine money coming through City Court. Councilperson perkins
asks that Building Commissioner Scales look into the zoning for the
foundry in his district as he does not believe they have proper zoning.
There is a drainage problem at the southwest corner of Chestnut and
Mechanic. He would like to look into the Council Services Contractual
budget to again do the sidewalk program.
Councilperson Harrod will be asking for the funding of a truck
for the Animal Shelter at the next meeting.
Councilperson Grooms invites the Council to take a tour of the
Vehicle Maintenance area and reviewed some of the items on this
department's "wish list". These include a computer system, a freeon
recycling machine, two dump trucks with snow removal equipment, and a
pick-Up truck for daily street use. He then reviewed some of the Parks
Department goals and reminded the Council a decision needs to be made on
the slide. Councilperson Grooms then inquired about the removal of the
bridges at 9th and Spring and 10th and Spring. He also asked if there
was a time limit on a rezoning. This had to do with the VanGilder
rezoning.
pAGE 5
FEBRUARY 5, 1990
Council president Waiz reminded all of
1990,
Treatment Plant Tour scheduled for February 9,
the Waste Water
and requests that a
video tape be made of the tour. There will be a public meeting,
TuesdaY, February 6, at 4:00 p.M. at Redevelopment with the DeMars
' t Waiz then raised the question of the rate
GroUP. CounCil preszden
increase at the landfill and if had an effect on the rate the City pays
to B.F.I. Mayor Orem informed him it had no effect due to the contract-
This contract will be rebid within the next few months- The subject of
recycling was alSO discussed- a
perkins asked if Mr. Carroll Gowens signed for
ollateral~ andcouncilperson
$1~0,000 loan The answer was no,~the lease was used as
a roVaz. CouncilperSOn Perkins asks that
-~s done without Board PP , , ~ ~at constitutes a direct
~A~torney Filer provide something zn writing
or indirect conflict of interest on any vote. ' 't
Mayor Orem explained the status of the 201 Faczlz Y plan grant
· ' n approval may come in May or June, and construction
applzcatzo saying
could start in late 1990. He then reviewed the three options for the
new plant. He will be asking the Council to approve a 5% increase in
the need. Mayor Orem has been
sewer rates, explaining his position and
a golf course. The meeting on
consultz g with local people regarding
the relocation
with about 100
will be
of the sewer plant at Wesley Church was a good meeting
people in attendance- Mayor Orem told the Council what
looked at on the WWTP trip that will take place February 9,
1990.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
Councilperson Harrod made the motion to adjourn at 9:50 P.M., seconded'
by Councilperson Grooms and carried unanimously.
ATTEST:
DALE L. OREM, MAYOR
Once ~gain, we request that you, as City Council, release the irregular zoning classification
which is assigned to the floodway portion of our property an~d replace it w~.th a b~usiness
zoning that will permit use of our riverfront property. Under State of Indiana law,
the R-2 zoning is not a valid zoning classification. Even with a buSiness zoning, the
State of Indiana, the Indiana Depa~L~nt of Natural Resources and the Environmental
Management Department will enforce building and other restrictions that will prevent .
EVEN BUSINESS frcm many activities that fall under normal buSiness classifications.
Mr. T~ng will lead you to believe that the State will walk in after we get a B-2 zoning
and say"Lloyd, I feel real sorry for you, and we're going to let you build a filling
station in that floodway". But that is not going to happen. Letters frcm the State
refer over and over to "only recreational use" of a floodway area.
In our original application four years ago, to the Clark County Planning and Zoning
C~L,L,~ssion, we re~_ested a variance for just such use, based on advice that a variance
best protects neighboring properties .frc~ future abuse of zoning classifications. But
with the State laws governing floodway and riverfront properties, we do not feel a
variance is neces ~sgry. If local zoning laws override State laws, we would be able
to build a home or a camp on that site, just as they did years ago, but now we know
that The State laws are. the ~ing laws. Even with a B-2 zoning, a business will
have to follow State Floodway guidelines for all activities.
Since that original application, the County passed their responsibility for zoning on to
the City, who now, because of lack of a master plan, claims no responsibility. This
lack of master plan made itself known several months ago, yet no plan is yet in existence.
We have city property adjoining our county property, which is also zoned irregular,
preventing its use in a legal manner. So our County/City property sets, with no one
with authority to change it. to a usable form of local zoning. Still governed by the
State and Corps of Engineers, we sit.
We have requested that the Utica Pike frontage, which is just above the 100 yeer flood
level, be left in its present zoning of R-l, knowing of course, when we apply for a
building permit, the opposition will raise up again. This time, it will be sc~s other
reason why we shouldn't use our land. Just what is the real issue here? What will
the opposition' accept? Why can't the 100 foot strip be zoned cc~m~arcial with an
amendment'to the ordinance - tonight! and end this charade. Or why can't the B-2 zoning
be applied to a lesser portion of the riverfront? 400'?- 300' ~
.U~er State_____ ~ Indiana will prohibit abuse of B-2 zoning if it involves constr~?~n,.~_~~
o~ if it does nct meet State guidelines for FLOODWAY use. ~~ ~~
NDIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PATRICK R. RALSTON, DiREC. TOR
Division of Water
2475 Directors Row
Indianapolis, indiana 46241
3t7-232-4t60
Lloyd and Bonnie Poore
P.O. Box 1015
Spring and Riverside Drive
Jeffersonvllle, IN 47131-1015
August 23, 1989
REC~10-890823-1
.Re: Clerk - Jeffersonville
G - Ot~o River
Deer Mr. and Mrs. Poore:
Thank you for your letter of August 4, 1989 requesting information
concerning a tract of land along the Ohio River. This trac= was the
subject of OUr previous letter dated June 23, 1987. Based on your
description the tract, which lies in the Clark Military Grant Section
5, is located between Utica Pike and the Ohio River and extends about
800 feet northeast of Allison Lane, as measured along Utica Pike,
northeast Of Jeffersonville, Clark Count~.
As stated in our previous letter, historic flood information indicates
that the 1937, 1945, and 1913 floods reached elevations of about
462.0, 451.5, and 449.5 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Dat~n of 1929,
(N.G.V.D.), respectively, at the site.
According to the Flood Insurance Study, the lO0-yea= frequency flood
would reach an elevetion of about 451.0 feet, N.G.V.D.~:. at the sits.
The 1945 Flood control Act (IC 13-2-22) prohibits constructing abodes
or residences in or 0n ~ f]°°dway and requires the prior apProVal of'
the Natural Resources Commission for any other type of const~i, ction,
excavation, or filling in or on a floodwaw. To be approvable e pro3ect
should be designed so that it will not' restrict the floodway, be unsefe
to life and property, nor edversely 'affect the,' fish, wildlife, or
botanical resources.
As stated in our previous letter, this entire tract is in the floodway
of the Ohio River, hence an~ projects propose~ for~,this 'tract~would
require the'prior epprovel of the NatUrel ResourCes commission.
ReCreational arees or other similar facilitiRs~hat provide large open
speces, which pk6~ht a m~'i~d~'~'~i~i~]~(~]~ng l~nd gredes, and
flood weters
which are reesonebly tolerent of the presence of% ~ thereby
presenting a low flood damage potential, are a W~e.. alternetive, for
development in a floodway. ..
In answer to your concerns on local zoning laws which affect this
tract, building and zoning regulations are comp!etel~ within the
Jurisdiction of the local authorities.
"EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER~'