Laserfiche WebLink
Agenda Item 5: October 8, 2025 Minutes <br /> <br /> - 2 - <br /> Mr. Middleton also noted that the term “dwelling, one family” is mentioned only 5 times in the <br />Code, and only in the definition, while “single-family dwelling” is used 31 times. He <br />recommended modifying the definition to read “also known as a single-family dwelling located <br />in a single structure containing only one dwelling unit as defined herein as dwelling units <br />defined, whether detached or where permitted, attached separately by not more than one wall to <br />an accessory dwelling unit." <br /> Mr. Middleton recommended that the code should also be changed to state that the Code <br />Enforcement Officer be appointed by the Mayor instead of designated by the City Council. He <br />noted that this provision was probably a carry-over from the earliest days of the old zoning <br />ordinance and did not reflect current administrative reality. <br /> Extensive discussion was had regarding setback and density requirements for the R-2 zoning <br />district. Mr. Markowski was concerned that the proposed revisions do not clarify the issue as is <br />the goal. It was agreed that the standards should be <br />o for single-family residential plus permitted accessory uses, a proposed minimum lot size of <br />3,000 sq ft with a 30 ft minimum lot width; <br />o single family attached or duplex, 5,000 sq ft with a 50 ft minimum lot width; <br />o for anything exceeding a duplex, 8,000 sq ft plus 2,000 sq ft per unit <br /> Mr. Middleton explained his revisions regarding “front” and “side” yards on corner lots to avoid <br />“double frontage” that setbacks could render a lot undevelopable. <br /> Discussion was had regarding “mobile homes” and “mobile home parks.” Mr. Middleton <br />explained his recommended revisions to clarify that: <br />o “mobile homes” are no longer allowed in Batesville, other than on a nonconforming basis, <br />but that “manufactured homes” are and that the term “mobile home parks” should be <br />changed to “manufactured home parks; and <br />o this section of the code be moved to avoid any perception that a manufactured home park is <br />a separate zoning classification. <br /> There was a brief discussion as to whether the advertised public hearing should be conducted <br />this evening or postponed until November. Mr. Middleton was concerned about tabling a public <br />hearing 3 months in a row. Mr. Baker made a motion to postpone the public hearing to the next <br />meeting scheduled in November; Mr. Bryant seconded the motion. Motion was unanimously <br />approved. <br />7. Draft revisions to zoning code chapter 14.07 (commercial zoning districts) <br /> Mr. Middleton asked if the use “automobile sales, service repair, and storage” still an <br />appropriate provision for T1 (downtown). It was decided that it is still appropriate. <br /> Mr. Middleton explained that in congruence with the state law that if you have an existing <br />single-family residential structure existing in a commercial zone you still have to permit an <br />accessory single-family structure on the lot. <br /> Mr. Middleton explained that a provision in the subdivision regulations required a 40-foot <br />buffer on any commercial property that abutted a single-family residential use or zoning <br />district. He felt that it should also be in the zoning code as well. <br /> Mr. McClure informed the Commission that he has been approached by individuals with <br />potential interest in RV Parks. There was a discussion regarding if a designated use be added to <br />Commercial zoning to allow for that use with proper planning and regulation.