Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission orders Tip Top Homes to show parking plan, cut units to 15 pending proof of compliance
Summary
After testimony from property owner Crystal Smith and debate over notice and easements, the commission voted 4–3 to require Tip Top Homes LLC to submit a site plan showing parking for 15 permitted apartments, to reduce occupied units to 15 within 30 days or seek permits for additional units, and to instruct counsel to pursue legal action if ordinances are not met.
The Warrick County Area Planning Commission opened a hearing on complaint 2507 concerning 207 Main Street (Tip Top Homes LLC) and, after testimony and legal discussion, voted to require the owner to file a compliant site plan and reduce occupied apartments to the 15 permitted unless further permits and inspections are obtained.
Counsel reported that the abutting property owner, Crystal Smith, retained counsel on Jan. 14 and that a motion to enlarge time to answer the complaint extended the response deadline to Feb. 13. Smith told the commission she was not properly notified of earlier proceedings, said a pending lawsuit has cost her a home sale and financial hardship, and described installing a fence after repeated safety incidents involving others driving through her property.
During deliberations a commissioner moved that the Tip Top owners be instructed to submit a site plan designating the number of parking spaces available, immediately reduce the number of apartments to the 15 that have been permitted (and show they have adequate parking for those 15), and that counsel be instructed to begin legal action if the property does not conform to county ordinances. A second supported the motion. The motion passed 4–3.
Board counsel said the court could issue a stay that would prevent the commission from acting while litigation proceeds, but no judicial stay was in place at the time. Commissioners also discussed potential conflict‑of‑interest rules; counsel said Indiana conflict statutes focus on personal financial interest and did not identify an automatic disqualification simply because a board member was the complainant.
The commission set expectations that the owner produce a site plan matching 15 apartments by the commission’s next meeting (March 9) and that if additional units remain occupied without permits, the owner must eliminate them or face enforcement and possible legal action. Parties in the record indicated they could seek a court‑issued stay; the commission did not postpone its action at the meeting.
