The Mooresville Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) states that signs may not be installed “In any public right-of-way, unless specifically authorized by the legislative body or their designee”.
What that means is that no sign can be placed in any public right-of-way without town council permission.
Anyone who wants to place a garage sale sign, vacation bible school sign, little league sign or a political sign, must first go to the town council and ask permission.
“Right-of-Way” also refers to that space in front of your house between the sidewalk and the street.
Imagine how burdensome it must be for realtors that have to go beg the town council to put a sign out by the street for every listing, or for downtown businesses to be forced to get permission to put out a sandwich board on the sidewalk with today’s specials.
This law is unduly burdensome, and it needs fixed.
At the town council meeting on July 21, our own parks department had to be granted permission to place signs inside the park, or maybe they didn’t need permission?
The town attorney struggled to find a clear answer because the law wasn’t clear enough to provide one.
Eventually, the council voted on it just to be sure.
At that same meeting councilman Tom Warthen attempted to approve political signage because we have an election coming up in November.
The town attorney stopped him, advising that the way the law was written they are not allowed to approve a ‘type’ of sign, they can only approve people who come and ask permission. T
his law places the town in a no-win scenario.
Approval of a type of sign is against the law and could be considered discrimination against other types of signs.
Suppose business A requests to put out signs and is approved, but business B is denied, isn’t that also discrimination?
What if the town council approves candidate A, but not Candidate B?
By default, when you approve any sign you are giving them advantage over all other signs.
Should the town council even have that kind of power?
Conversely then, it seems the town council’s only non-discriminatory option under this law is to ban all signs everywhere and never approve any for placement.
That’s what they have been attempting since March.
No more garage sale signs and no more church signs, no businesses can advertise in right-of-way’s in front of their business.
‘Just be Kind’ and ‘slow children at play’ signs have already been removed to enforce this law universally in every corner of our town.
A quick drive around town will tell you it is not working. Signs are still in our town’s rights-of-way.
This law is unenforceable in any practical sense.
Taxpayers would literally need to hire and fund sign police in order to properly enforce this law.
But if they don’t universally enforce it, they are then selectively enforcing the law against some people, and not others.
They are picking winners and losers.
Thus, deciding who gets punished and who gets ignored.
Should the town council even have that kind of power?
Under this law, no matter what the town chooses to do, someone is being unfairly discriminated against.
They are creating a legal liability that someone will eventually call them on.
The town council should not be able to micro-manage advertising.
This law creates a no-win scenario and is unduly burdensome.
Fixing this law to allow for small signage, and removing the town council’s ability to pick winners and losers, is the only proper course forward.
~ By Danny Lundy | Guest Column | Published August 18, 2020 in The Mooresville Times
MOORESVILLE — It was a long night for members of the Mooresville Board of Zoning Appeals and Mooresville Plan Commission. Combined, both groups met for more than three hours and they continued two items until next month.
First, the town’s BZA heard a request from Morgan County Libertarian Party Chairman Danny Lundy for a variance from the town’s sign ordinance that prohibits all signs, including political, from the town’s right of way.
Republican Party Chairman Daniel Elliott was also on the agenda to speak, but due to miscommunication on the time, he did not show up until 6:30 p.m. which was after the discussion on signs.
At issue is the section in the town’s ordinance that prohibits all signs from being placed in the space between the curb and sidewalk, space that is normally considered a public right-of-way.
While in some cases the homeowner does not “own” the area between the curb and sidewalk, they must keep it maintained.
Lundy asked the board to consider granting a variance allowing the placement of political signs in the area.
There was discussion on weather the BZA was the proper agency to hear the request or if the board could hear it because no formal request for the variance had been filed.
The board’s attorney, who was a substitute for the board’s regular attorney, said it could hear the request. She gave a brief history of the ordinance regulating signs.
Basically, the town passed the ordinance in 2018 and it took effect Jan. 1 of 2019.
Lundy said the town began enforcing it in 2020. He felt the ordinance was being selectively enforced by the town.
Town council president Shane Williams said he was told in 2019 he had to remove his signs from the right-of-way.
After discussing the matter at length, the board decided to deny the request. Members felt the ordinance should be reviewed at a later date and possibly be changed after the review.
Storage units cause anger
A request by MS Holdings LLC for three variances for the construction of storage units at 451 E. County Line Road resulted in a group of angry residents who told the board they did not want the project.
Local engineer Ross Holloway represented the company during the meeting.
Holloway said the property is currently zoned Industrial-2 which he said does allow for the construction of storage units. It also allows some industrial uses that would not be compatible with the neighborhood he said.
He said the company wants to rezone the land to Business-3 which is more restrictive in what can be placed on the property. He said the company was going to ask the plan commission, which met after the BZA meeting, to give a favorable recommendation for the rezoning.
Holloway noted if the company did not get the rezoning, it would not need the variances. Holloway said the company wanted to be good neighbors with the residents in the area.
Several neighbors spoke about the request and all were in opposition.
Their reasons included:
The project would destroy property values.
The land is zoned agricultural, not industrial.
The concerns about drainage.
The project would take away an area used by wildlife.
The “fence” some residents shared with the property would be removed.
The units would bring crime to the area.
The neighbors did not want to look at the back of the buildings.
The project would bring more traffic to the area.
Holloway assured the neighbors the property is zoned for industrial use, not for agriculture.
He said the company would have to meet the town’s drainage ordinance requirements and not allow their water to run off the property.
Holloway added the company would leave the existing fences in place, and according to the Mooresville Police Department, there is very little crime reported around storage units in the area.
He reminded both the board and the neighbors that under the industrial zoning, they could go ahead and place the storage units on the property, the company just has to get approval from the drainage board and meet the requirements of the industrial zoning section.
After nearly an hour of discussion, the board voted to table the matter until next month to allow Holloway to give them more information.
Plan Commission
A request to replat and rezone land near the intersection of Northeast Street and Indianapolis Road brought anger from a resident who did not want to see a multi-family apartment constructed on the land.
According to John Larrison, from Holloway Engineering and Surveying, the property is completely useless as it sits now. It consists of two small lots, each one too small to build on.
The owner wants, Larrison said, to combine the two lots into one lot, then rezone it to Residential-3 to allow construction of a three unit apartment on it.
One person expressed opposition to the rezone request. He did not want the board to allow a multi-family rental unit in an area that had single family homes.
He cited the city of Martinsville which, he said, had around 47 to 48 percent rental properties. He said Mooresville is currently around 33 to 35 percent rentals.
He said many of those apartments have low income families who can bring problems to the area.
After much discussion, commission members approved the replat but it decided to send the rezone request to the town council with no recommendation.
A request to replat several lots on Arrival Parkway in North Madison Crossing brought an angry resident to the meeting.
At issue is a request to combine two lots, one that is too small to build on, into one lot. The resident said the commission was making changes that will affect the homeowner’s association effort to collect fees from property owners. He asked if the new owner would pay two fees because he has two lots or will he pay one fee for both lots.
There was some discussion about past commission actions that may have had an effect on the subdivision.
He was told the commission does not enforce homeowner association rules and regulations.
The commission approved the replatting.
The next scheduled meetings for both the Mooresville BZA is at 6 p.m. on Thursday, Sept. 10 with the plan commission meeting taking place after.
Both meetings will take place at the Mooresville Government Center, 4 E. Harrison St.
MARTINSVILLE — The Martinsville Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approved an extension for a variance it approved in August 2019.
During that August 2019 meeting, Derick Fabert, a real estate representative with Reagan Outdoor Advertising, gave a presentation about a proposed digital billboard that would be located along Robert Curry Drive near the future I-69.
At the time, the BZA unanimously approved the variance.
On Tuesday night, Fabert returned to the BZA to request an extension of that variance.
According to Fabert, the digital billboard is intended to replace another billboard that was removed because of the I-69 project.
“Building a billboard along the interstate also requires a permit from INDOT,” Fabert told members of the board Tuesday evening.
He noted that the company began working on that permit request with the state last fall.
“And we completed the process in early December,” Fabert said. “However, INDOT did delay the approval due to concerns with the final positioning of I-69.”
The delay was extended even further when an INDOT official who issues the permits left his employment with the state.
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has also caused delays in the permitting process for the billboard.
“We come here today, requesting an extension of the variance from the BZA,” Fabert said.
Once the permit is granted, the company will need time for the billboard to be constructed, and then installed at the site.
When the BZA approved the variance back in 2019, it gave the company one year to construct the billboard.
That one year is coming up, which led the company to request a one-year extension to its initial request.
“We would have to have it built, technically, by the end of this month,” Fabert said. “Honestly, we don’t think a permit will come in the next few days. We would like a one-year extension.”
Both BZA attorney Dakota VanLeeuwen and chairwoman Anne Marvel told Fabert that the board can only grant an extension of up to one year.
“This is only going to last you one year,” Marvel told Fabert.
BZA member Tom Hacker asked about the I-69 corridor plan that was adopted by the county in November 2019.
Gary Oakes, the city’s interim director of planning and engineering, said that the city approved the same corridor plan.
“Both of those corridor plans require a half a mile on the highway for any sign placement,” Oakes said.
The proposed billboard, Oakes noted, would be well within that half mile zone from the interstate.
Oakes also noted that the city did consider potential safety concerns related to the billboard.
“We want the driver on the highway paying attention to what is going on in the road, and not reading a sign that is changing periodically as they go by,” Oakes said.
But, since the application was presented to the city, the Grand Valley Overpass bridge has been completed.
Because of that bridge, the visibility of the sign in southbound lanes of traffic is reduced.
“It is going to be very visible to see from northbound traffic,” Oakes noted.
Members of the BZA approved the variance extension unanimously, 5-0.
The next meeting of the Martinsville Board of Zoning Appeals is scheduled for 6 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 25, in council chambers at Martinsville City Hall, 59 S. Jefferson St.
MOORESVILLE — The Mooresville Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), specifically with regards to signage in town rights-of-way and property, was a topic of discussion at Tuesday night’s town council meeting.
Mooresville parks superintendent Brent Callahan said that there was a sign located at the intersection of Indianapolis Road and Samuel Moore Parkway that advertised a concert series at Pioneer Park.
That sign, Callahan noted, was in violation of the town UDO but the parks was not aware it was actually in violation.
The UDO states that signs cannot be placed in public rights-of-way unless authorized by the town council or its designee.
The ordinance also bans signs from public parks.
Callahan said that the sign was a moveable-letter sign that the parks have used for a number of years to advertise different activities.
He also noted that the parks have been putting signs on its property requesting that visitors maintain a six-foot distance during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The parks superintendent was asking permission to reinstall the moveable letter sign to advertise park events, and to install the temporary signs that request the six-foot distance.
Mooresville Town Council President Shane Williams said that the ordinance was passed in 2018 and went into effect in 2019.
Williams said that in 2019, he was told that he could not install campaign signs on public property when he ran for his current seat.
Town councilman Dustin Stanley asked Williams who in the town told him that he could not install campaign signs on public property.
“I didn’t come to the council, I came to the administrator,” Williams responded.
Williams then noted that he emailed Mooresville Building Official Tim Bennett.
The council president later noted that Mooresville Public Works Superintendent Dave Moore was the administrator.
Williams also said that it is up to the town’s board of zoning appeals to grant a variance to the UDO.
Stanley then asked town councilman Tom Warthen to discuss the UDO and how it relates to signs.
Warthen said that a UDO is a living, breathing document and that when the council approved the ordinance it intended to have campaigns and political parties ask permission place signs in rights-of-way.
He also noted that campaigns did install signs in public rights-of-way through the town in 2019, just not at the island near Samuel Moore Parkway and Indianapolis Road.
“The intentions were to give a set of guidelines that ‘yes you can put your political signs with the state’ and they have to match the state’s requirements at all times, which are also ever-changing,” Warthen said.
Warthen also noted that he believes anybody should be able to put a sign on their property, as long as it meets certain standards, including the town of Mooresville.
Williams responded that the ordinance does not matter how it is interpreted, it’s how it is written.
“I disagree with that,” town councilman Jeff Cook responded pointing to a discussion of a nepotism policy at the July 7 meeting. “It was good before, but not today. So yesterday it was good, but not today. We’re finding that out with all of these. It is how you interpret it.”
Attorney Beth Copeland said that she was having a hard time believing that the UDO does not allow a Mooresville governmental entity like the parks needing to ask permission from the town council to install signage on its own property.
During the meeting, the council voted 4-1 in favor of allowing the moveable letter sign to be installed in the public right-of-way by the park.
“I’m going to vote no, because I think we need to be consistent,” Williams said after the vote.
Members of the council also discussed their want to potentially amend the town’s UDO concerning signs.
The council also voted to allow the parks to install signs on park property, 4-1.
“I’m voting no for the same reason, I think the ordinance needs amended,” Williams said.
Public comment
Later in the meeting, local resident Justin Sprinkle discussed the recent removal of signs in town rights-of-way throughout the town — including strips of grass between a sidewalk and town street.
“This is the first time we have seen this ordinance enforced on such a grand scale,” Sprinkle said. “And I think any reasonable person seeing a ‘Just Be Kind’ sign removed from a small garden next to a mail box or a ‘Drive Slow Children Playing’ sign being removed is left shaking their heads that something is wrong here.”
Sprinkle argued that while a strip of grass between a sidewalk and town street may technically be a town right-of-way, it is generally maintained by the property owner on the other side of the sidewalk.
“While this current body may not be responsible for the crafting and passing of these laws, you are responsible for the decision to enforce these laws,” Sprinkle said.
He thanked members of the council for wanting to look into amending the ordinance.
“We should not live in a town where you can’t put a “Just Be Kind’ sign next to your mailbox,” Sprinkle said. “I hope you look at that as you guys look at this ordinance in the future.”
MARTINSVILLE — The future Martinsville Dairy Queen location hit a snag Tuesday night after the city’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) denied a land use variance for the business.
Request history
The former Dairy Queen location in Martinsville closed about one year ago due to the I-69 Finish Line project.
In February, the Schwab Family Associates — represented by Ross Drapalik from Drapalik Survey and Engineering — came before the board to request that the restaurant’s lowest finished floor be built at just one foot above the base floor elevation.
The owner of the restaurant is planning on building the new Dairy Queen at 1810 Ohio Street.
According to the current city zoning codes, the structure would have to be built at two feet above the base flood elevation.
The current base flood elevation for the parcel of land is 603.5 feet above sea level, so under city ordinance the Dairy Queen would have to be built at 605.5 feet.
At the February meeting, Drapalik noted that the developers had been looking at the site for about six months.
He said that one reason the developers wanted to build at just one foot above base flood elevation was to make the Dairy Queen be at the same level as the neighboring Burger King restaurant.
Officials from the city, including interim planning and engineering director Gary Oakes who said that he was worried that if the BZA approved the variance, believes approval of the variance would set a precedent for future development.
During that meeting in February, members of the board took two votes on the variance request.
One vote was on a motion made by Tom Hacker to deny the request, which was seconded by Katy Barnard and the vote ended tied 2-2.
Subsequently, BZA member Marilyn Siderewicz made a motion to approve a variance for one and a half feet above the base flood level, which was seconded by Anna Elliott.
That motion also ended in a tied vote 2-2.
Board member Ann Marvel was not present at the meeting.
Because the motions both ended tied, Schwab Family Associates was given a second opportunity to present its case before the BZA on Tuesday night.
Tuesday’s meeting
All members of the BZA were in attendance during Tuesday’s meeting.
Marvel and Hacker were both at city hall — while Siderewicz, Elliott and Barnard were all present virtually due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
One thing that Marvel is concerned about is the explanation of the hardship the current zoning ordinance has on the developers.
“You have to prove a hardship,” Marvel said.
She added that in the minutes from the February meeting that Drapalik noted that the developers were planning on constructing the Dairy Queen regardless of the BZA approving its variance.
Marvel also expressed concerns that the BZA approving the variance could be setting a bad precedent.
Later in the meeting, Drapalik explained what he believes is a hardship and the precedent that some in the city have expressed concern about.
“The hardship was, is when they purchased the property (there was) no flood plains,” Drapalik said.
According to Drapalik, the Schwab Family Associates have owned the property since the 1970s.
Drapalik said that the Dairy Queen being built at just one foot above the flood elevation will not add any extra water in the area.
He also believes the BZA would not be setting a precedent because “each case is taken independently.”
“If that is the case, then the first time the board of zoning appeals allowed for a house to develop closer then the front-yard set back, that would meant that no other person would have to apply to the board of zoning appeals to ask for a variance for a front-yard set back,” Drapalik said.
By the end of the meeting, though, the board voted to deny the variance request 3-2 with Marvel, Hacker and Barnard voting against the request and Elliott and Siderewicz voting in favor.
The next meeting of the Martinsville Board of Zoning Appeals is scheduled for 6 p.m. on Tuesday, May 26, in Martinsville City Hall, 59 S. Jefferson St.
Mooresville removes election signs from public property
MOORESVILLE — Campaign signs are often found alongside local roads and streets during an election cycle, but Mooresvile Town Council President Shane Williams has put an end to that practice — at least on town property.
In recent weeks, candidates for office at the county and state level have been placing signs throughout Morgan County in anticipation of the Indiana primary.
Originally, the primary was set for May 5, but has been rescheduled for June 2 due to the COVID-19 outbreak.
While campaign signs can be found throughout Morgan County, residents in Mooresville may have noticed a few less signs in town.
Campaign signs were recently removed after Williams directed the town’s public works superintendent Dave Moore to have the signs taken down that were placed in town rights of way.
Signs on private property were not affected by the request.
On March 20, Moore sent an email to Morgan County’s political party chairmen requesting that the campaigns remove the signs.
In his email to Republican chairman Daniel Elliott, Libertarian Party chairman Danny Lundy and Democrat chairman Tom Wallace, Moore gave the campaigns three days to remove the signs, saying they were in violation of the town’s unified development ordinance (UDO), specifically the section that addresses general signage in the town, as there’s no language that specifically addresses election signs.
Williams said that he has noticed during the last few campaign cycles that candidates have placed the signs on public property without seeking permission from the town.
The town council president noted that when he ran for is current spot on the council, he asked permission to place campaign signs on public property and was denied.
Williams sent text messages — which he later posted on social media — to all four other members of the council notifying them of his directive to have political signs removed.
“I’m having Dave Moore remove the political signs, following our UDO procedures, from public property. They didn’t let me put signs up in my campaign. I’ve consulted the attorney and he agreed with my position,” Williams said in text messages to councilmembers Jessica Hester, Dustin Stanley and Tom Warthen, adding the specific citation in the town’s ordinance.
He sent a similar text message to Jeff Cook, but made it plural.
“They didn’t let us put signs up,” Williams said in his text to Cook, as both ran for the respective spots on the town council in 2019.
According to Williams, the town cited the UDO when Williams was denied placing his campaign signs on public rights of way.
Now that he’s council president, he wants the town’s UDO to be applied across the board, including campaign signs.
“I want it to be fair to all campaigns, and for all campaigns to get the same answer from the town,” Williams said.
He pointed to a part of the UDO that allows Moore to remove signs “with the consent of the President of the legislative body.”
The town’s UDO does state that the town’s legislative body — in this case, the town council — does have the authority to allow signs in right-of-ways, but the council has yet to weigh in on the issue publicly.
“Signs may not be installed at any of the following locations: In public right-of-ways, unless specifically authorized by the legislative body or their designee,” the UDO states.
One particular area in question is an island near the intersection of Indianapolis Road and Samuel Moore Parkway, as well as the Ind. 67/144 intersection.
On Friday, Elliott, Wallace and Lundy met together to discuss some ideas they would present to the town council.
“What we are going to present to the town council is to allow candidates to put signs at Samuel Moore Parkway and State Road 67, Samuel Moore Parkway and Indianapolis Road, the (Mooresville) Government Center and State Road 67 and State Road 144,” Elliott said Friday.
At the Ind. 67/144 intersection, the three chairmen will request that larger campaign signs be installed with the smaller yard signs being allowed at the other locations.
State code
State Rep. Peggy Mayfield (R-60), who’s running for reelection this year, pushed back against Williams on social media, pointing to Indiana Code 36-1-3-11, which notes that a town or county’s sign ordinance “is unenforceable” 60 days prior to an election and six days after that election.
For Mayfield, that section of Indiana Code “supersedes local ordinance,” and she said she’d be putting her signs back up after April 2.
Elliott noted that most campaigns begin placing signs within about 60 days of any election.
“I’m pretty confident that if we wanted to argue the point that we could put signs up there, that would be our right to do,” Elliott said.
But, Elliott is hoping to find a middle ground with the proposal that the party chairmen will present during the town council’s April 7 meeting.
Until the Indiana Election Commission chose to move the primary election from May 5 to June 2 on Wednesday, March 25, campaigns were well within the 60-day time frame.
Now that the new date has been set, that 60-day time frame will begin again by the end of this week.
“If they hadn’t moved the date to June, we’re in the middle of the political season for that,” Lundy said Friday. “To change the rules mid-stream, it just does not feel right.”
While some believe that campaigns can place signs in Mooresville rights of way because of the Indiana Code, Beth Copeland from Taft Stettinius and Hollister LLP disagrees. Copeland practices with the same law firm as Mooresville’s town attorney Chou-il Lee, and Lee requested that she offer her opinion.
In an email sent to town officials, Copeland said that IC 36-1-3-11 does not require the town to allow political signs on public property.
That is because, according to Copeland’s email, Mooresville’s UDO prohibits all signs on public rights of way.
Lundy, though, believes that the Indiana Code allows candidates to put out campaign signs during the 60-day window around an election.
“That is supposed to trump local ordinance,” Lundy said. “And I believe there is precedent for that.”
Hamilton County case
In 2018, a judge in Hamilton County struck down a sign ordinance in that locale that attempted to ban signs along right-of-ways of roadways.
The judge believed that specific sign ordinance would have a negative effect on freedom of speech.
In his judgement from that 2018 case, Hamilton County Superior Court III Judge William Hughes wrote “The U.S. Supreme Court’s free speech jurisprudence establishes that government restrictions on speech like the ones at issue in this case must satisfy a very high bar to pass constitutional muster.”
Hughes based his ruling on a 2015 United States Supreme Court case which struck down a Gilbert, Arizona sign ordinance that targeted political signs.
Williams said he felt there are a number of differences between the Mooresville UDO and the ordinance from the Hamilton County case.
Based on what Williams read in newspaper coverage from the time, Hamilton County’s ordinance specifically targeted political signs, whereas Mooresville’s UDO limits all signs.
“Ours is signs in general,” Williams said on Friday.
During a trip through town on Sunday, however, the Reporter-Times noticed a number of signs still promoting local businesses in town rights of way, including at the intersection of Samuel Moore Parkway and Indianapolis Road.
The three party chairmen are expected to present their request during the next meeting of the town council.
That meeting will take place at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7, at the Mooresville Government Center, 4 E. Harrison St.
The Libertarian Party of Morgan County condemns the removal of a citizen from a public hearing
For immediate release: 3/16/2020
Libertarians have a saying, “Good ideas don’t require force,” and it’s true. Persuasion is far more effective than forcing people to do what you want. It’s a guiding principle for us. On Thursday March 12th at a Public Hearing in Madison Township force was used to make a point. After several hours of hearing a presentation and listening to government officials dodge questions Mr Harrison had had enough. He spoke up expressing his displeasure with the board, their proposal, and their refusal to answer the public’s questions. Sure, it was not ‘his turn’ to speak. He was ‘out of order’, but he’s also a taxpayer. He deserves to be heard. Rather than rely on the merits of their arguments, or even using basic customer service skills, the board chose to have him forcibly removed from the meeting.
This use of force to silence a taxpaying citizen is very troubling. Whether intended or not, this action impresses on citizens that the board is not actually interested in the public’s input. It also serves the purpose of intimidation as every other taxpayer with an opposing view has seen what will happen if they don’t follow the rules to the board’s satisfaction. The premise behind such an act implies that the board does not believe their proposal is a ‘Good Idea’ or else they wouldn’t need force to sell it. At the end of the day government officials should always seek to resolve conflicts through civil discourse and good customer service. Force has no place in a public hearing where no one was being threatened by anything other than an opposing idea.
The Libertarian Party of Morgan County seeks a principled and innovative approach to local government, inclusive communication with the public, and accountability for our officials.
Madison, Harrison townships meeting draws public fire
MADISON TOWNSHIP — Normally, meetings of the Madison Township Advisory Board are held in the training room behind the Landersdale Fire Station.
For Thursday night’s combined meeting of the board and the Harrison Township Fire District Board, the public hearing was moved inside the fire station in the truck bay. The combined boards met to discuss the proposed formation of the Northern Morgan County Fire Territory.
It was a good thing the meeting was moved because more than 150 people packed the area to hear about the proposed establishment of a fire territory between the two townships.
The three Madison Township board members attended the meeting, along with three of the five Harrison Township Fire Board members.
And most people in the audience were not happy with what they heard during the three and a half hour meeting.
Most of the questions raised by the audience were about the costs of the territory and how it would affect them, how the territory would be administered, and what the future held. Other concerns raised by the audience included accusations of theft, conflict of interest, holding illegal meetings, immorality and not being transparent with the process.
The meeting began with a statement from the Madison board that members of the audience would each be given three minutes to address the board during public comment. Board members asked that questions be held until that time so the information they had could be presented to the audience.
Due to the size of the room, several people said they had trouble hearing what was said. Also several people wanted to know where the Madison Township Trustee, Scott McDonough, was. Someone said he was at work and could not attend the meeting.
It was also said the combined boards would meet again March 27 to vote on the matter. According to attorney Jeffrey M. Bellamy, of the firm Thrasher, Buschmann, and Voeklel, PC, the state requests approval by April 1 for the territory to go into effect July 1.
Accountant’s presentation
Nichole A. Franklin, of Peters Municipal Consultants, LTD, gave the financial overview of the territory and how it would be funded. Franklin began with an explanation on the proposed three-year budget. She said the state would be the final authority on both the budget and the tax rate.
She tried to explain the process the state would use in their determinations on the tax rate and budget, but she was interrupted numerous times by residents. Her estimates on the possible tax increase were met with skepticism by numerous audience members.
Franklin said there would be two funds — an operating fund for the department’s day to day operations and an equipment replacement fund. Each fund would have its own tax rate, she said.
Several members of the audience were openly hostile to Franklin’s estimates on their tax increases. They felt her numbers did not reflect the reality of their property. As one member of the audience said several times during the meeting, his home is valued at $347,000 not the $100,000 value Franklin was using.
Fire chief speaks
Next up was Madison Township Fire Chief Mike Lang.
Lang explained that at this time, the township has two stations — the main station on Landersdale Road and a second smaller station on Kitchen Road. He said there are four people at the Landersdale Road station and three at the Kitchen Road station.
Lang said based on the National Fire Prevention Association guidelines, for low hazard fires, such as a single-family home, they need 15 firefighters there within eight minutes of the call. He said a medium hazard fire, such as a strip mall or three-story apartment fire, calls for 28 firefighters.
He said they are badly understaffed and need more firefighters. Lang said he has a problem keeping firefighters because they do not have benefits and their pay is lower than other departments. Lang said in the last couple of years, he has had a 200-percent turnover in staff. Lang said they have a new truck on order. He did not say when they would receive it.
The chief said the department equipment, with a couple of exceptions, had passed inspections. The one major exception is the department’s radios, which were purchased in 2008 by a grant. He said the radios are no longer being made or supported by the manufacturer and will have to be replaced.
Lang said in many cases, they cannot meet the standards for responding to emergencies. He said their response time is affected by dispatch. He said the “clock” begins when dispatch receives the call, not when they dispatch it for response. He said sometimes a full minute can go by before the call is dispatched.
Harrison Twp: no assets
The meeting Thursday night with the combined boards of Madison Township Advisory Board and Harrison Township Fire District drew more than 150 people, leaving many standing where they could, including the staircase.
Lang said Harrison Township does not own any fire department equipment. Land said the department, called The Harrison Township Volunteer Fire Department, is a privately owned company. All the equipment, including the fire station, is owned by the company.
Lang said the territory would have to negotiate a long-term lease with the company for the use of the fire station and its equipment.
Lang went on to say the fire station is not complete and will need work. He said the estimated cost to finish the station is around $200,000. (According to records from the Morgan County Plan Commission, the station has never received a certificate of occupancy, which is needed for the building to be used.)
Also, most of the company’s equipment — including the turnout gear, hose, ladders, trucks and air packs — is either out of date or has not passed reinspection.
Lang said the company’s hose is 35 years old. He said they tracked the age because Madison Township gave its hose to Harrison Township some years ago. He said Madison Township received that hose from a township fire department in Marion County years before that.
Lang said the turnout gear had expired in September 2019 and would have to be replaced. He said all vehicles and equipment would have to be tested to make sure they meet the standards. Lang said the air packs fire crews used to fight fires needed to be tested to make sure they met standards.
Lang said a new pumper was needed in Harrison Township. He said the company had taken out a loan and was having a new truck built. He did not know the extent of the loan or what the truck would be used for.
Lang said the territory would use the firefighters from Harrison Township for the first year or so to cover their area. He said until the tax rate comes into effect, there would be no funds available to pay for improvements for at least a year.
Lang said Harrison Township had asked the county council several times for additional funds but had been refused.
Morgan County Councilman Daniel Elliott attended the meeting. After it concluded, Elliott said he had asked for information about department membership and other information about the department before he would vote for additional funding. Elliott said the council has yet to receive the information requested.
Lang said Harrison Township does have a drone that can be used in emergencies and also has a water rescue unit.
Lang said the Waverly/Harrison Township area will be affected by the development of I-69. A new sewer system is currently under construction, he said. That system, along with the interstate, will bring more development to that area.
Lang said he and his department want to “operate in a safe efficient manner and provide good service.”
Lang was continually interrupted by questions on who would be “in charge” of the new territory and what the salaries of the fire crews would be.
While Lang was able to answer some questions, there were a few that he could not answer.
Lang said he did not know any of the financial matters involving the Harrison Fire Co. He did now know the status of any loans or grants. He did say that Harrison was attempting to obtain some grants for some items. He did not say what those items were.
Harrison Township Fire District Board member Mike Jackson spoke about the matter. He said after hearing the tax impact on Madison residents, he could not support the territory. Jackson said he couldn’t impose those financial increases on his neighbors in Madison Township.
Lots of questions, few answers
Audience members peppered the board members with lots and lot of questions.
Some of them included:
Newley appointed Madison Township Board member Larry Ellis then spoke to the audience. He was selected by caucus, in February, to fill a vacancy on the board. He was not happy with the way this discussion came about. He felt the matter had not been discussed in public and was not in favor of it.
• Harrison Township pays the county emergency medical service tax rate while Madison Township does not. Will the rate be removed form Harrison Township residents tax bill or with they continue paying for it?
According to different people who are on the boards, Madison Township pays for its ambulance from the fire budget, which is in the tax rate. The state will not allow for double taxation for the same service.
There were some who felt it would be dropped with others felt the money would go to the new territory. There was discussion of the county taking over ambulance coverage in Madison Township.
• The meetings are illegal because they were not advertised correctly.
Madison Township resident Gregg Terhune told board members they failed to follow state law in advertising the meetings. He said the first meeting, which was held on Feb. 21, was advertised in the Feb. 12 edition of the Mooresville-Decatur Times. He said state law required the meetings to be advertised 10 days in advance and they only advertised nine days.
Terhune said, based on the law, the meetings are illegal and should not be taking place. Terhne also brought up at least two additional problems he said that did not allow the board to consider forming a territory. His words were drowned out by audience members who began shouting the meeting was illegal and should be stopped.
The board stopped long enough to ask its attorney, Bellamy, if the meetings were properly advertised. After briefly checking something, Bellamy said, in his opinion, the meetings were properly advertised. That brought several requests from the audience for him to provide the information he was using to come to his decision.
Bellamy said it was in the state law that Terhune had described.
• Wait until next year.
Many in the audience kept asking why the rush to install a fire territory. They felt with the number of unanswered questions, it would be wise to wait until they has answers. There were concerns about allegedly mismanagement of resources in the Harrison Township Fire Department. There were allegations of theft in the department and questions of the grant that was used to build the new station.
As for the Madison Township Department, there were questions about the actions of past board members, past trustees and fire officials. Several people brought up the past financial problems of the department and that one official was caught in his vehicle with a woman who was not his spouse.
There were multiple questions from many people about the cost to Madison residents. One person in the audience brought laughter and applause from nearly everyone when he yelled out, “Give us Bernie (Sanders) and it will be free!”
Several expressed concerns that “Madison Township adopts Harrison Township, and it will have to take care of it forever.”
There were questions on having the matter placed on the May or November election ballot. It was explained to them by the board that state law does not allow for people to vote on matters like that.
Near riot occurs
At one point, a person identified at Rick Harrison, became involved in an argument with a Madison Township board member, identified as Amy Russell.
Harrison never left his seat but continued to argue with Russell. Russell asked Harrison to either be quiet or leave the meeting. When he refused, Russell asked two Morgan County Sheriff’s Deputies to escort him from the meeting. When deputies asked him to leave, Harrison refused.
He was then grabbed by the arms and escorted from the meeting. Harrison was not charged, and he returned at the end of the meeting.
Many of the audience came to their feet to protect Harrison’s removal. For a short time, it appeared the audience was going to get out of control but several people in their group were able to get the group under control.
This came after a Madison board member, Angie Turley, left the meeting citing a family matter. That angered several people in the audience who felt she should stay and listen to them.
A request from an audience member for those who were against the merger brings a near unanimous response from the audience at the March 12 public hearing.
One person asked for a show of hands in the audience who were Madison Township residents and were for the merger. No one raised their hand.
When asked for a show of hands for those who were against the merger, nearly everyone raised their hand.
Several people continued to ask who began this discussion.
At one point, Lang’s name was brought up as one person who had begun discussion. A second person, Kelly Alcala, was also mentioned as a person who had begun the discussion. Alcala was not at the meeting. She is a former Madison Township Board member and is currently a county council member. She is currently working as the Madison Township clerk.
Many questioned the funding, expressing concerns about their property taxes going up. Several said they were retired and on fixed incomes. They felt they could not afford any increase.
At one point, a resident accused both boards with trying to “ramrod” the residents.”
“You don’t have answers,” they said.
There were some who were former firefighters who expressed their understanding of what Lang wanted to do. But they were concerned with the increase in taxes and a couple did not like working with the Harrison department.
At the end of the meeting, most people asked the boards to wait until next year and get more answers.
The next public hearing was scheduled for March 27, but trustee McDonough announced late Friday the hearing is canceled and the township will not be pursuing a fire territory this year.
~ By Lance Gideon | Reporter | Published March 13, 2020 in The Reporter Times
Millis picked as Libertarian’s ninth district nominee: Will run against Republican and Democratic nominees in November
Over the weekend, Lawrence County resident Tonya Millis was selected to serve as the Libertarian Party’s candidate in Indiana’s 9th Congressional District for the U.S. House of Representatives during the party’s state convention in Indianapolis.
Millis is a resident of Lawrence County and realtor with Suddarth and Company Real Estate in Mitchell.
“I am pleased to get the nomination from the Libertarian Party to represent Indiana’s 9th District as a U.S. Congressional candidate,” Millis said in a news release “I look forward to talking with the people and am excited about my message out to the community.”
Millis will face the Republican and Democratic nominee in the race during the General Election on Tuesday, Nov. 3.
Currently, there are five Democrats running for the party’s nomination during the May 5 Primary.
Incumbent Trey Hollingsworth (R-District 9), is the lone Republican running in the GOP’s Primary Election.
The state’s 9th Congressional District includes portions of Morgan County.
The state’s Libertarian Party also selected Don Rainwater as its nominee for governor and William Henry as Rainwater’s running mate.
The Libertarian Party of Morgan County was also honored at the state convention as the Bill Bean County Affiliate of the Year.
Dairy Queen seeks variance: Two votes on request end in ties
MARTINSVILLE — After two votes ended in ties during Tuesday’s meeting of the Martinsville Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), the developers of the city’s future Dairy Queen site left with no clear answers for its future.
During the meeting, Ross Drapalik from Drapalik Surveying and Engineering represented Schwab Family Associates — the restaurant’s developer.
The request made at the meeting was to allow the restaurant’s lowest finished floor to be constructed one foot above the base flood elevation, as opposed to two feet above the base flood elevation.
The former Martinsville Dairy Queen closed in May 2019 because it needed to be relocated due to the I-69 project.
The new Dairy Queen is expected to be constructed at 1810 S. Ohio Street, which is directly north of the Martinsville Burger King.
According to Drapalik, when the developers started looking at the site about six months ago, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources said the restaurant could not be moved to that the parcel of land since it was designated as a floodway — as opposed to a flood plain.
“A floodway is where the water goes to a flood elevation, and then moves like a river,” Drapalik said.
A flood plain, though, is where water backs up and stands.
The variance request presented Tuesday night is based on a future flood elevation, which is expected to be lowered because of the updates to Ind. 37 as it becomes I-69.
On that parcel of land, once the construction on I-69 is complete, the base flood elevation will be at 603.5 feet above sea level.
In order to obtain a federally-backed mortgage, the developers would have to follow city ordinance, which currently requires any new construction to have its lowest finished floor elevation be two feet above the base flood level, in this case 605.5 feet above sea level.
“The owners are not intending to get a mortgage, they will be paying for this with cash,” Drapalik said. “And so, we are looking at some relief from the city to lower this by a foot.”
He later noted that if the city were to approve a building to be constructed below the base-flood elevation, the city would be jeopardizing the participation with the national flood insurance program.
“We don’t feel that (the zoning request) jeopardizes the city’s participation in the national flood insurance program,” Drapalik said.
Drapalik said the Burger King’s finished floor elevation is at 601.01 feet above sea level, and the Dairy Queen would be built at a higher elevation.
Drapalik noted that the developers believe that lowering the Dairy Queen’s floor elevation closer to that of the Burger King’s would be a better aesthetics “transition.”
Martinsville’s Interim Planning and Engineering Director Gary Oakes pointed to the fact that the floor elevation for the Dairy Queen is based on the future base floor elevation of 603.5 feet above sea level.
“We have over 70 residents in the city that take part in the national flood insurance program,” Oakes said, adding that he does not want the city to endanger the city’s participation in the program.
The city’s contracted engineer Troy Swan, from HWC Engineering, said that typically when someone is requesting a variance, a hardship has to be presented.
“The question I have is what hardship is that, based on the request as it stands today?” Swan asked.
Drapalik responded that one hardship is that when the developers purchased the property, it was not part of a flood plain.
BZA attorney Dakota VanLeeuwen said that she had an issue with that hardship.
“That is not anything based on a statutory hardship that this board can grant,” VanLeeuwen said.
VanLeeuwen later said that even without the variance, the lot would not be uninhabitable.
Drapalik agreed with VanLeeuwen that the property would still be developable.
“In this case, like I said, we would like it,” Drapalik said. “Is it going to stop us it from happening, I seriously doubt it. But, we would just like to get some relief to help with the development cost.”
BZA member Tom Hacker made a motion to deny the request, with member Katy Barnard seconding.
That vote ended with a tied vote, 2-2.
Members Marilyn Siderewicz and Anna Elliott voted against Hacker’s motion.
BZA member Ann Marvel was not present at the meeting.
Siderewicz asked if there was a potential compromise, and offered the idea of constructing the lowest floor base elevation at one and a half feet above the flood level, as opposed to one foot.
Oakes responded that setting a floor elevation below what the city has set would establish a precedent.
Siderewicz made a motion to issue the variance for one and a half feet above the base flood elevation, which was seconded by Elliott.
That motion, like the previous motion, ended with a tied vote 2-2 with Hacker and Barnard voting against.
After the second tied vote, Martinsville Mayor Kenny Costin said that he agreed with Oakes, that the BZA could be setting a precedent by voting to approve the variance.
“If I was going to vote, I would vote no,” Costin said.
After the meeting, VanLeeuwen sent an email, which noted that she had spoken to one of her “advisors” to discuss the tie.
“What I have learned is that we must offer Mr. Drapalik and (Schwab) Family Assoc. the option to come back next month first,” VanLeeuwen wrote in the email. “This is an opportunity to have the full board present.”
The variance request has been added to the board’s March meeting.
That meeting is currently scheduled for 6 p.m. on Tuesday, March 24, in council chambers at Martinsville City Hall, 59 S. Jefferson St.
Plan Commission
The Martinsville Plan Commission would normally have also met Tuesday night, but that meeting was cancelled due to a lack of agenda items.
The next scheduled meeting of the Martinsville Plan Commission is set for 7 p.m. on Tuesday, March 24, in council chambers at Martinsville City Hall, 59 S. Jefferson St.
