Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

APC tables Tiptop Homes parking/easement complaint pending superior‑court ruling

Warrick County Area Planning Commission · January 13, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The APC tabled Complaint 2507, involving Tiptop Homes LLC’s claim for 18–20 parking spots blocked by a fence, and asked parties to return with any superior‑court order; the commission said it would revisit the item at its Feb. 9 meeting.

Members of the Warrick County Area Planning Commission on Jan. 12 tabled a zoning complaint concerning Tiptop Homes LLC and an alleged parking easement dispute after hearing testimony from the plaintiff and town counsel.

Toby Shaw, representing the applicant, said a fence installed across a platted alley has blocked access to what his client believes are 18–20 parking spaces approved by a 1994 site plan. Shaw told the commission he filed a complaint Nov. 26 (cause No. 87D022511PL2139) and that the sheriff’s office served the defendant Dec. 22; he said he intended to pursue a default judgment shortly if no answer is filed.

Chris Wisher, attorney for the town of Lynnville, reviewed historical site plans and told the APC he found no express recorded easement and questioned whether an implied easement could be sustained based on the documentation. Wisher asked the commission to require clear evidence of compliant parking if the applicant cannot establish an easement.

Members and counsel agreed it would be prudent to await the superior court’s decision or any default judgment before making a zoning determination. The APC moved, seconded and voted to table Complaint 2507 and scheduled its next consideration for Feb. 9, when staff expects to distribute any court order to commissioners.

The commission emphasized that the board’s zoning review is distinct from the civil property dispute before the court and that any judge’s order could alter the APC’s options.