A APC Review Draft
Below is the link to the APC Review Draft, which will be presented to the Area Plan Commission at their meeting on February 22, 2011. All previous changes, additions and corrections have been incorporated into this draft. The Table of Uses is included as Appendix A.
Please note that this is a large file (> 1.4 MB)
Carroll County Zoning Ordinance -with Table DRAFT 02-18-11
Overview and Introduction
2011 Carroll County Zoning OrdinanceOverview and Introduction1
Jim Tarnowski said,
March 1, 2011 at 3:31 am
Can parts of properties in Agriculture zoned areas be converted to land trusts that are not farmed without a zoning change?
lawlady1 said,
March 1, 2011 at 2:32 pm
As long as the proposed use of the property is either allowed, allowed by special exception, or not prohibited in the Agriculture District (see the proposed Comprehensive Table of Uses), real estate that formerly was used for row-crop or other traditional agriculture uses can be placed in a land trust for some other use. You could not put an industrial facility on the site, but you could (for example), allow the land to revert to a pre-agriculture state, or construct a small business enterprise as allowed in the Table of Uses — all without applying for a change of zoning.
Michael Jones said,
April 25, 2011 at 2:01 am
Can we please have communication tower lighting be flashing RED rather than the white strobe lights. White strobe lights adversely affect night vision, whereas red lights do not. White strobe lights detract from the enjoyment of the night sky.
lawlady1 said,
April 25, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Regulation of communication tower lighting is beyond the jurisdiction of the County. Tall structures are governed by the Indiana Tall Structures Act (I.C. 8-21- 10) and FAA regulations, and the County cannot interfere with those standards.
Rob Ives said,
April 26, 2011 at 11:39 pm
The draft I have seen has a lot of typographical errors, e.g. the use of the word centiorari (presumably “certiorari”) and reference to a 500 year flood as being a 2% flood. I assume it should be a .2% flood.
I strongly oppose the creation of a framework for “Historic Overlay District”(s). Why should 75% of one’s neighbors be allowed to control the another person’s peaceful use of property? Perhaps the neighbors of the proponents of such an ordinance should be allowed to determine what color the proponents’ houses should be, or whether or not they will be allowed to add on to their residence? I would hate to see this sort of “Big Brother” government come to Carroll County.
Tim Myets said,
April 27, 2011 at 1:13 pm
I agree with Rob Ives. If a person wants to build on or improve there property this should be a good thing. No one seems to say anything to people when they trash or don’t upkeep there property.
lawlady1 said,
April 27, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Carroll County and several of its communities have a rich historic and cultural heritage. Many folks purchase homes in historic areas because of the historic character. Where a community or collection of adjoining landowner wish to come together and protect and preserve that character, there should be a means for them to do so.
The proposed language does not require or guarantee that it will happen; it only enables the process.
Rob Ives said,
May 1, 2011 at 12:18 am
Well, the proposed ordinance would allow a person’s neighbors to remove part of the owner’s control of their property, and it is not based upon a health or safety consideration. I find that repugnant. If any group of people wants to VOLUNTARILY give up a part of their ownership rights (such as by subdivision covenants), that is just wonderful. The ordinance would allow 3/4 of a neighborhood to impose aesthetic rules on someone against their will. In my view, an evil idea.