« Ind. Courts - "ACLU suit targets state welfare fixes" | Main | Ind. Courts - Tippecanoe County Sheriff's Department to list active warrants online »

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Ind. Courts - "Setback requirement deals setback to Randolph County courthouse project"

Joy Leiker of the Muncie Star-Press reports today:

WINCHESTER -- The Randolph County Board of Commissioners was denied a zoning variance for its much debated courthouse project Monday night, putting its fall groundbreaking in jeopardy.
Advertisement

It's the latest of many delays and doubts cast over the renovation and expansion of the 131-year-old courthouse.

The board of zoning appeals voted 5-1 against a request from commissioners to allow a courthouse annex be built less than 25 feet away from the street right of way.

Drawings show the two-story annex to be built on the south side of the courthouse is 10 feet, 4 inches away from the sidewalk. At two points, near the southeast and southwest corners of the proposed building, the distance is even shorter -- just 6 feet, 4 inches.

"I don't know why this community would want the great wall of Winchester to go up," said downtown business owner Ken Madler.

"(It) will destroy the town's square," Winchester businessman Mike Wickersham wrote in a letter that was presented to the board Monday night.

And that's a familiar argument. In January 2005 Wickersham was an organizer of Stop Courthouse Annex Now (SCAN). After four years of twists and turns, the current courthouse plan looks a lot like the old plan.

The resistance returned Monday night. Opponents outnumbered supporters among the 50 who attended the meeting. The crowd included a who's who of Winchester business leaders, as well as all three county commissioners, the county auditor, attorney and courthouse architect and project manager.

Ultimately, the zoning board sided with the majority of those who spoke. Of the five votes against the ordinance, all five cited a rule that a variance can only be approved if it will not "be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community." Only Charles Addington voted in favor of granting the variance.

When asked by Addington what the county would do if denied the variance, County Attorney John Tanner said commissioners could file a lawsuit to get a court opinion, or file a request with the Area Planning Commission to be rezoned a government property, as opposed to a commercial property.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 20, 2008 10:11 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts