Zoning change for car lot raises concerns

JEFFERSONVILLE — Two zoning changes and an ordinance regulating door-to-door sales passed through the Jeffersonville City Council on Monday.

Despite favorable votes from the council, not all of the ordinances presented were well-received and revisions may be made before their final adoption.

The first ordinance presented to the city council was a request for a zoning change that came from the city’s planning and zoning commission with no recommendation.

The property in question is 828 Spring St. and a request was made to allow for a zoning change from C1 to a C2 zoning designation.

Attorney Greg Fifer, representing the property owner, John Wolpert, said “the types of commercial uses that are permitted in those districts are pretty darn similar. The problem is that under your ordinance ... it limits an auto sales limit to the C2 zone.”

The request would allow the property to become a small used car lot, which would be operated by Ed Henley, who formerly owned a used car lot at 211 W. Court Ave. The property along Court Avenue was taken by the city as part of its long-term flood control plan to mitigate combined sewer overflows.

City Councilman Nathan Samuel said the city displaced Henley and pointed out that the city has gone out of its way to help other folks in similar situations who have been displaced relocate their businesses.

But some questions about locating a used car lot along an entrance corridor to the city were raised.

Wayne Estopinal, owner of The Estopinal Group, which is located across from the proposed car lot, entered a letter in opposition to the Jeffersonville Planning and Zoning Commission for the zoning change requested.

“My response to that would be to certainly acknowledge the impact of the ... improvements through that region is going to cause a dramatic redevelopment of that entire area,” Fifer said.

Because of concerns voiced about the lot being located along a main corridor, Fifer offered a voluntary zoning commitment that the change last for 10 years then would come back for another approval for the zoning of the business.

Another sticking point was the lack of a positive recommendation from the planning and zoning commission.

“I don’t know of any time we’ve gone against planning and zoning,” said City Councilman Mike Smith.

The vote from the planning and zoning commission to offer a favorable recommendation to the change was 2-3. A majority of four votes is required to offer a recommendation one way or another and because there were only five of the seven planning and zoning commission members present when the vote was taken, no recommendation was offered.

City Council President Ed Zastawny said even with the approval Monday, a development plan along with a request for a special variance would still have to go back to the planning and zoning commission for approval.

“To me, what I see here is an improvement from what we have now,” Samuel said.

To help ease some concerns, City Councilwoman Connie Sellers requested a compromise of six years for the zoning change, at the end of which the business would have 60 days to resubmit its zoning request.

The request passed on its first reading 6-2, with Smith and Zastawny voting against.

Another zoning change that will pave the way for two new fast food restaurants was unanimously approved

The restaurants, which will be connected to each other, will be located at 2711 E. 10th St. One of restaurants is going to be a Dunkin’ Donuts and the second business has not been disclosed yet, said Jeffersonville Corporation Attorney Tom Lowe.

The only request to go along with the zoning change was that the businesses construct a brick wall to match the adjacent business, in order to create a barrier for local residents.

The zoning change was given a favorable recommendation by the planning commission and was unanimously passed by the council.

Door-to-door restrictions

The first draft of an ordinance — 2012-OR-36 — that would help restrict illicit door-to-door sales was presented to the city council Monday night.

Lowe said in preparing the ordinance the definitions of the classes of individuals that may try to sell something door-to-door were more appropriately defined. In addition, an exemption was outlined for door-to-door advocates like religious or political groups because of first amendment allowances.

Other provisions included that those wishing to sell products or services door-to-door would have to pay a licensing fee and would be subject to a background check.

According to the draft ordinance, the licensing fee for one month would cost $100, for three months it would cost $200, for six months it would cost $300 and for a year the cost would total $500. The background check cost would also cost $100 per application.

Lowe said the police will use a third-party vendor to complete the checks and the fee is to cover those costs. Once completed a full application would be presented to the city’s Board of Public Works.

“Final approval of the license would fall to the board of public works,” Lowe said.

Questions persisted on how the ordinance may affect some groups that go door-to-door.

“I’m just looking for simple wording in there that allows the girl scouts to sell girl scout cookies,” said City Councilman Bryan Glover.

Lowe pointed to the provision that excluded girl scouts and others from paying the license fees, but admitted they would still have to go through the process to get a license.

Concerns were offered about making nonprofit groups to go through the licensing process even without the fee and the impact the ordinance will have on legitimate businesses.

“I have a hard time getting behind something that is really just punishing people that are honestly doing business,” said City Councilman Zach Payne. “We’re putting $600-a-year on someone who is possibly doing honest business and a criminal is not going to sign up for this, not going to go through the process and they’re still going to be knocking on doors.”

Lowe offered that if Individual citizens are concerned they can still limit people that come to their door by posting a no soliciting sign on their property.

“If they don’t want these people coming to their door period, they can certainly post that on their property and this ordinance not only restricts them from going to a door ... it also makes it a violation,” he said.

A motion was offered by the council, but it was agreed some of the concerns would still have to be resolved.

“I’m sure there’s going to be some changes along the way before we get a final reading,” Smith said.

The ordinance passed on its first reading 7-1, with Payne voting against.

Clark County

Search Results

Discussion

Zoning change for car lot raises concerns

Door-to-door ordinance passes on first glance

Site Map

Contact Us