WARSAW — A division of one lot into two and discussion on further study into a 4 ½-year-old sign ordinance were the only topics before the Warsaw City Planning Commission Monday evening, Nov. 14.

The subdivision was unanimously approved and the further study of the ordinance rejected. But neither came without discussion.

Neighbors across from the property south of Country Club Drive South attended not to object to the division of 41.42 acres into two lots, but to ask questions. Their questions appeared to be an attempt to learn if there would be a mobile home park on the larger of the two lots.

Scott Silveus petitioned the commission for the subdivision and was represented by Tom Hardy, with John Kimpel & Associates Inc., Warsaw. The request was to make one lot 8.93 acres and the second lot 31.41 acres. A single family home would be built on lot one or the smaller of the two.

Jeremy Skinner, city planner, reported the lots meet all of the development standards for a subdivision in a R-1 zoning district. It has the ability to obtain access from Country Club Drive South as well as obtain utilities present along Country Club Drive South.

Further, Skinner noted the plat included a 25-foot right of way south of the road centerline, a 20-foot sewer easement along the east property line and a 10-foot storm water drainage easement on the north property line.

The focus of Heather McGuire, Country Club South, was on the number of homes to be built on the lot, where the construction entrance will be and if the entire road would be dug up to tap onto the sewer provided. McGuire was informed in a R-1 zoned area only single family dwellings can be built per lot and she was assured any cuts to the roadway or to the road would have to follow city standards.

Mary Stage, County Club East, and Chris Rankin, Country Club South, asked in a roundabout way if the second lot could be developed into a mobile home park. It was stated at this time the only issue was dividing the lot from one to two and a single family dwelling allowed on each lot was reiterated. Any other use would require notification of the neighbors and the matter reviewed by the appropriate city commissions.

Mike Valentine, city attorney, stated while there is no current risk for a 40 house subdivision, there needs to be recognition possibilities exist. However, plans would be reviewed and a zoning request would have to be made.

No Change In Ordinance

The sign ordinance discussion was initiated by a request from the city’s board of zoning commission. That commission had received a request to place a vinyl sign inside a permanent frame, changed once in several years or longer. The ordinance states vinyl signs are temporary signs and could not remain in place longer than 180 days.

While mention was made vinyl sign manufacturing technology has changed, along with potential amendments to the ordinance, the commission stayed steadfast in not changing the ordinance, revised 4 ½ years ago. Suggestions of looking at requests case by case, testing the gauge of the vinyl, making the owners of the sign responsible to replace it if in disrepair, were all discussed.

Tom Allen, commission president, noted he has seen signs he didn’t know were vinyl and he is sure these had not gone through the bureaucracy and following rules.

James Emans, commission member, stated “the strength of the matter is it is not to be long term. It (vinyl) is not intended to last 50 years … it sounds like it (the ordinance) was written well if you don’t limit the frame.”