A small group of residents, living off of Old Ind. 60 again huddled into a Clark County meeting Thursday to oppose a development near their homes.
The homeowners have turned away repeated attempts to build on a 6.7-acre lot - once in 2006 with plans to build a 96-unit apartment complex and the second request to build a two-story, 58-unit apartment complex by Herman & Kittle Properties in November.
But in January, the Clark County Planning, Zoning and Building Commission finally offered a favorable recommendation to a group known as 403 Properties LLC, along with Dan Cristiani Excavating Inc., to change the zoning change from agricultural - A1 - to patio home residential - RP.
Final approval still needed to be granted by the Clark County Commissioners, which that board did at its Thursday meeting. Dan Cristiani was seeking the patio-home zoning designation for land he originally acquired in a trade with Greater Clark County Schools because he did not believe it was economically feasible to build single-family homes - which would total 21 lots - on the land.
Neighbors of the 6.7-acre property have been vocal in opposition to placing anything but single-family dwellings at the site.
That's what they are getting, in a sense.
A debate has erupted over the definition of a patio home, which could either allow for buildings with a shared wall or essentially single-family homes on a small, 50-foot lots. Cristiani says his plan is to build the single-family style of the patio homes. With the "RP" classification and building single-family patio homes, Cristiani would be able to put a maximum of 35 lots in the space.
"I've looked at this property and [the] economics is driving us to go with the 35 lots," Cristiani said at a previous meeting. "I don't think we'll ever make it 35 lots, because with drainage we're going to have to put retention basins in.
"We're probably going to lose at least one more lot, maybe two, but we set a maximum at 35."
The proposed cost of the homes when completed was estimated to be in the range of $150,000, he said.
"[I want to] make it a first-time homebuyer type of home," Cristiani said.
Both definitions fit county zoning law, but for the residents and some county officials and maybe even the zoning board, a single, separate, building may not be consistent with the intentions of the patio-home designation.
An expectation is that the zoning board may revisit the current "RP" zoning law to close that loophole in the designation of a patio home.
"I've also been made aware at the next planning commission meeting they're going to try and tighten the rules up on this RP zone," said Commissioner Mike Moore.
Commissioner Ed Meyer, who is the commissioners representative on the zoning board, said he was not sure if the action will be taken, but a clarification on the patio-home designation has been discussed.
"All you're dealing with is the land use that will be permitted," said Greg Fifer, attorney for the commissioners. "If you zone it RP, then it is permitted as a matter of right for patio homes detached or patio homes attached."
Fifer also urged commissioners to not consider possible changes to the ordinance when they voted on the zoning change at their Thursday afternoon meeting.
In an attempt to wait to see what the planning commission will do with the ordinance at its March meeting, Moore made a motion to table the decision, which failed for the lack of a second. The commissioners approved the ordinance 2-1, with Moore voting against.
Even if the planning commission changes the ordinance at its next meeting it would not affect the approval made at Thursday's meeting.
"It would take a period of time [and] my opinion is it could not be completed by April, that amendment process," Fifer said. "Today, it permits either attached or detached. If that application gets filed before the ordinance change is affected, then it would be up to the plan commission to decide, but it would still allow as a matter of right a detached patio home."
