Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Warrick County planning commission approves amendments to simplify duplex rules, remove R‑2 setbacks
Summary
The Warrick County Area Planning Commission approved four related amendments to the countycomprehensive zoning ordinance that simplify language around two-family dwellings (duplexes), add a grandfathering clause for existing two-family uses, and remove R‑2 setbacks from the general regulations table.
The Warrick County Area Planning Commission on an August meeting approved four amendments to the countycomprehensive zoning ordinance aimed at simplifying references to two-family dwellings and adjusting R‑2 regulations.
The package included an ordinance to add a grandfathering clause for prior two-family dwellings in R‑2 districts, an amendment to Article 2 (definitions) to replace the phrase "two-family dwelling/duplex" with the single term "duplex," a matching change in Article 10A Section 12 to substitute "duplex" for "two-family dwelling," and a change to Article 21, Development Regulations Section 2, Table B to strike R‑2 setbacks from the general regulations table.
The changes were introduced by county planning staff and moved, seconded and approved by voice vote; commissioners answered a few clarifying questions before each vote. The record shows unanimous "aye" votes for each amendment. The text presented to the commission states the grandfather clause would deem prior two-family/dwelling uses in R‑2 districts "grandfathered in" and exempt them from rezoning requirements in the newly adopted Article 10, with the effective adoption date of that article left blank in the ordinance text.
County staff said the definition edits are intended to simplify terminology so the ordinance consistently uses "duplex" instead of repeating both "two-family dwelling" and "duplex." Commissioners asked whether the definition change would affect condominiums or multiunit buildings; staff responded that condos or buildings with more than two residences are still classified differently and the edits apply only to duplexes.
On the proposal to remove R‑2 setbacks from the general regulations table, staff explained the change would make the code rely on R‑2A or R‑2B subcategories where appropriate rather than a single R‑2 line in the table. Commissioners asked whether yard requirements would disappear; staff replied that other R‑2 subcategories would apply.
Votes at a glance: each ordinance was approved by motion and second with a recorded voice vote of "aye" from the commissioners present.
What changed: the amendments (1) add a grandfathering clause for existing two-family uses in R‑2 districts, (2) standardize the definition to "duplex," (3) replace phrasing in Article 10A Section 12 to match the new definition, and (4) remove the singular R‑2 setback line from the general regulations table so subcategory rules (R‑2A, R‑2B) govern setbacks instead.
No public opposition was recorded during the discussion on these ordinance items. The ordinance texts in the packet left the effective adoption date for the new Article 10 blank.
The full ordinance references were provided in staff materials but the commission did not read a statutory citation on the record beyond "comprehensive zoning ordinance" and the internal article and section numbers shown in the agenda packet.
