Get Adobe Flash player


The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday, August 12, 2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were: Charles Anderson, Jim Annis, Mark Bentlage, Richard Lynn, Jim Mann, Dave Rosenbarger, Dennis Sterrett, Brad Ward, and Donald Ward. Absent members were: Mike Smolek, Dave Stimmel.

Also attending were Attorney Abigail Diener, Executive Director Joe Rogers, and Administrative Assistant Erin Carlson.

Visitors attending were: See Attached

The meeting was called to order by President Charles Anderson.


Opening Business:

Minutes: There was a motion by Jim Mann and a second by Don Ward to approve the meeting minutes of 6/10/13 as written; so moved.



Prior to moving forward with the 2 rezones on the agenda, Director Rogers wished to advise the Board that we have begun a new practice in regards to preparing for rezone hearings. All rezones are required to be compatible with the White County Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the office is providing a document which serves as a Comprehensive Plan checklist (see "Exhibit B", attached). This will be provided to the Board each time there is a rezone request so that there will be no need to read through the entire Comprehensive Plan to confirm compatibility.

#1010 - Triple R, LLC: Requesting a rezone from R-2, Single & Two-Family Residential District to R-3, Multi-Family Residential District; for duplexes.

President Anderson asked a representative for this petition to approach the podium. Jeff Rider, of Triple R LLC/Rider Partners, introduced himself, and summarized the applicant's wish to rezone this Brookston property and build 2 duplexes upon it. He feels this is the best use of this parcel at this time, so that the northern 6.2 acres of the property can continue to be farmed. While they may choose to subdivide later, as the town grows, they wish to rezone at this time instead. He shared that the old buildings and old house currently on the property will be removed, as they are an eyesore.

Mr. Rider stated that he had met with the Town of Brookston and the utility companies; he received positive feedback from all parties and approval to move forward. He noted they have built 6 other duplexes in Brookston since 1995, and have a good idea what will serve the area best. They maintain their properties well, keep the rents up, and attract good quality tenants, which helps ensure a higher property value than the majority of properties around. They are committed to maintaining this level of quality. The duplexes would be built near 8th Street, spread out across the 353' of road front.

Director Rogers noted that the current structures do not comply with the current ordinance, and are therefore legally non-conforming. This rezone and the placement of new structures would bring the site into compliance, if approved.

Dave Rosenbarger asked Director Rogers if rezoning to R-3 would allow the applicant to place 2 duplexes on the property without subdividing, to which Mr. Rogers replied affirmatively. There was much discussion about how duplexes on an R-3 would not be required to follow specific street/road ordinances, such as those required for a subdivision, and the possible ramifications of this in the future if the property should change hands. It was confirmed that there are multiple R-3-zoned areas in Brookston at this time. Additional concerns were voiced by the Board about how future owners might choose to place multiple duplexes and/or apartments on the parcel. As an R-3, this will always be seen as one lot, vs. multiple lots within a subdivision. Jim Mann reminded all that, since this parcel is within municipal boundaries, any future development would still need to be approved by the Town of Brookston.

Steve Rider, Jeff Rider's brother, addressed the Board and shared some history regarding their cooperation with the town in all aspects of road building in other projects. This ensured that they had to comply with Town stipulations; failure to do so would have meant that they could not obtain the necessary utilities. Should a road be necessary later, if additional development is done, they will only be able to do so with the Town's blessing. Additional discussion regarding a single parcel vs. subdivision requirements and controls followed.

There being no further questions or comments from the Commissioners or from the audience, Dave Rosenbarger moved that the board vote on the matter. Jim Annis seconded, and the ballots were passed to board members by Ms. Diener.

President Anderson announced the results, as follows: 9 votes cast; 9 in favor - 0 opposed. Rezone is approved. Director Rogers advised the applicant that he would be certifying the APC recommendation to the Town of Brookston, after which they have 90 days to act and make a final decision on the matter.

#1011 - Keiser, Bryan & Kathleen: Requesting a rezone from R-2, Single & Two-Family Residential District to L-1, Lakeside District to obtain more appropriate developmental standards for this lot.

Bryan Keiser introduced himself, as the owner at 505 Lakeside Drive. He stated that they are hoping to place a larger, year-round residence on the property, vs. the small fishing cottage now located there. Current R-2 setback restrictions limit the owners' ability to build a larger home at this time. L-1 provides less restrictive side setbacks. He advised that one side has a county drainage easement; the other side has an R-2 home on it.

Director Rogers advised that this request is consistent with what we have been trying to do in other areas, making properties along the lake L-1. This would bring this property into compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.

There being no further questions or comments from the Commissioners or from the audience, Dave Rosenbarger moved that the board vote on the matter. Jim Mann seconded, and the ballots were passed to board members by Ms. Diener.

President Anderson announced the results, as follows: 9 votes cast; 9 in favor - 0 opposed. Rezone is approved. Director Rogers advised the applicant that he would be certifying the APC recommendation to the County Commissioners at their next meeting, Monday, 8/19/13. He announced that the Commissioner’s meeting begins at 8:00 am and that Area Plan is normally scheduled around 8:30 to present. After the recommendation is certified to the County Commissioners, they have 90 days to act and make a final decision on the matter.

Other Business:

Amendments - Recycling Satellite Use: Director Rogers summarized the purpose of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment, which was deemed necessary due to the lack of a permitted use or guidelines covering satellite recycling facilities in the county. This issue impacts all county and municipal recycling satellite locations. Director Rogers' remarks included the following:

Since the issue was brought to Area Plan's attention, meetings between the City of Monticello, Area Plan, Recycling, and other interested parties have taken place to determine the best approach to provide for recycling satellite facilities in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments submitted for APC consideration provide some developmental standards, so that when such facilities locate, if they are abutting residential districts, appropriate buffering is in place to protect nearby homes. The primary purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to protect residential areas and communities; the Staff feels that this amendment does that, providing standards to satellite locations without being too restrictive and hampering recycling efforts.

The Staff feels that this amendment is necessary; without it, recycling satellites in White County are operating as an illegal use. Our office appreciates consideration of this amendment which fills the gap, otherwise makes this an illegal use, if not designated in the zoning Use Chart, it's illegal. We need to legitimize that, there is consensus throughout county that we don't want to hamper recycling efforts.

Audience member Carolyn Vantwoud introduced herself and her husband Tony. They have lived at their current residence for 27 years; there has been a recycling site next to them on E St. Mary's Avenue since 2003. She expressed numerous concerns, and asked the Board to consider these concerns when drafting an ordinance amendment. The Vantwouds' concerns include: People dump items at the site, without placing them within the recycling containers themselves - the items often end up in the residents' yard, down the street in the lake, etc.; the site is not manned 24-hours per day, which the Vantwouds feel it should be; there is often broken glass in the area; non-recyclable material ends up there, such as tires, mattresses, appliances; not enough dumpsters to contain all of the cardboard and other materials people bring there; the fence around the site is unsightly and does not protect the view or stop garbage from blowing around the neighborhood; property values are negatively affected.

Following the Vantwouds' remarks, the Board discussed those concerns presented, ownership of actual recycling sites, and various ideas for mitigation. After lengthy discussion, Director Rogers suggested an alternative for the Board was to set up a subcommittee to review the suggestions made during the meeting and report back to the Board with a recommendation. Director Rogers also suggested that all of the small town and city representatives participate on the subcommittee. Don Ward moved that a subcommittee be established to review this matter further and make recommendations to the Board. Jim Mann seconded. Director Rogers will schedule the subcommittee meeting, said subcommittee to consist of Jim Mann, Dave Rosenbarger, Don Ward, and Jim Annis.

Schaefer Enforcement Concerns: President Anderson advised that several people had called and requested an audience with the Board regarding the Schaefer vacation home rental. Janet Faker, a neighbor of the Schaefer property and a representative of the residents group, introduced herself. She shared that the residents all live on N Shore Acres Ct, and as a group of neighbors wanted to be heard and ask a few questions of the Board.

Ms. Faker posed a number of questions, such as how zoning ordinances are enforced in White County and what happens when such ordinances are not followed (particularly with Vacation Rental By Owner properties such as the one in question). She requested details regarding the current case and its progress through the court system. Director Rogers and attorney Abigail Diener provided as much detail as was feasible at this stage without compromising privilege.

The current status of this case is as follows: There are two open cases - Schaefer vs. White County Area Plan Commission and White County Area Plan Commission vs. Schaefer. The APC is seeking an injunction to stop the Schaefers from violating the ordinance. That case is stalled due to the Schaefer complaint having been moved to Federal Court on constitutional grounds. There has been a motion to dismiss to remove the case from Federal court and back to a White County trial court. This is still pending. The Area Plan Commission's case is now being handled by an Indianapolis attorney hired by the insurance company which represents White County. That attorney will be the primary litigator in this case going forward, with Ms. Diener assisting. Once the case was removed to Federal Court, the Indianapolis attorney advised that the injunction issue should be tabled while we focus on the Schaefer complaint which is now in Federal court.

When asked to do so by Ms. Faker, Ms. Diener summarized possible outcomes of cases such as this one. 1) People can stop violating the ordinance; 2) There can be fines assessed (most people stop voluntarily at some point due to fines and penalties; 3) There can be a court order requiring them to enjoin the behavior and the violation; 4) The matter can be settled out of court. Ms. Diener stressed that there can be any number of outcomes, and that a lot depends on the type of violation.

Ms. Faker closed by asking that the Board continue to pursue the injunction, and that the matter not be settled out of court.

Additional neighbors of the Schaefer property were given the opportunity to introduce themselves and provide input to the Board about their ongoing concerns with this case. Those who spoke included Teresa Stevenson, Bruce Stevenson, Deb Kahler, and Connie Richardson. They shared their concerns regarding ongoing issues with the Schaefers' renters, such as parking in their lawns and driveways, burning unsupervised fires near and even on the neighbors' property, leaving children unattended to wander onto the neighbor's piers, and a case where one guest of the Schaefer's was apprehended outside of one of the neighbor's daughter's bedroom window, and found to be using drugs. Those neighbors who spoke to the Board asked that the injunction against the Schaefers be pursued further, and that their rights as residents be protected.

Eric Burns, attorney for the Schaefers, approached the podium. While he had not made an earlier request to speak before the Board and was therefore not on the agenda, he indicated he would like one minute to speak. He advised his firm is taking over for Mr. Blair, the original attorney representing the Schaefers. He advised that we are in court due to the insurance counsel for the County. He stated that the Board is in a tough position, as it gets to hear from one side only. He has advised his clients, who have 2 lawsuits going, that their place to speak is in the court and that they are "a little hamstrung". He asked that the Board keep an open mind. He understands that this is a very contentious issue; his clients will submit something in writing and ask that that the Board takes that into account in anything they do.


Due to time constraints, remaining business was postponed until a later meeting. Mark Bentlage moved that the meeting be adjourned; Dave Rosenbarger seconded. President Anderson adjourned the meeting at 7:38 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Donald W. Ward, Secretary

White County Area Plan Commission

Joseph W. Rogers, Executive Director

White County Area Plan Commission






August 12, 2013 - 6:00 p.m.

2nd Floor Conference Room

White County Building

Monticello, IN 47960



6:00 P.M.: The White County Area Plan Commission will meet in Regular Session pursuant to Indiana’s Open Meetings Law, I.C. 5-3-1-2 (b):



1. Schaefer Enforcement Concerns – Janet Faker

2. Home Occupation/Residential Districts ADA Parking Compliance

Also - Gravel vs. Pavement For Various Home Occupations

3. Business Continued from 6/10/13:

a) Road Center Line/Right-of-Way

b) Signs on Farm Property - Off-Premise & On-Premise


1. Appendix A – Official Schedule of Uses

2. Chapter 8 – Parking

3. Chapter 9 – Landscaping Standards

4. Chapter 14­ – Definitions


1. #1010 - Triple R, LLC: Requesting a rezone from R-2, Single & Two-Family Residential District to R-3, Multi-Family Residential District.

2. #1011 - Keiser, Bryan & Kathleen: Requesting a rezone from R-2, Single & Two-Family Residential District to L-1, Lakeside District.


All Residential

Environmental Topics

E-1 Locate development, whenever possible, in areas that do not have severe environmental limitations

E-5 Avoid changes to natural stream channels unless it is conclusively demonstrated that:

a) flooding is significantly reduced; and,

b) any increase in erosion or flood velocity will not adversely affect other areas.


E-6 Provide adequate drainage control measures for new development to ensure that:

a) no significant increase in flooding or erosion occurs as a result of the new development;

b) peak storm-water run-off rates after development of the site do not exceed peak rates prior to development; and,

c) storm-water run-off is not a significant source of water pollution.


E-7 Minimize, to the extent possible, grading, cutting, and filling.


E-8 Utilize best management practices for erosion and sedimentation control during and after site preparation and construction activities.

E-9 Buffer lakes and streams from the water pollution effects of site preparation construction activities, on-lot sewage disposal and urban storm-water run-off.

E-14 Take all reasonable actions to reduce air pollution from stationary sources.


E-15 Locate landfills for disposal of solid waste in areas which:

a) are above the elevation of the 100-year flood;

b) have suitable underlying soils and geology to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface streams;

c) are a sufficient distance above aquifers and the seasonal high water table;

d) have soils in sufficient quantity to cover the refuse;

e) area at least 500 feet from any water producing wells;

f) can be screened from public view;

g) can be buffered from adjacent land uses to prevent such nuisances and hazards as methane gas migration problems;

h) are a safe distance from aircraft runway approaches if the landfill will create air navigation problems; and,

i) have adequate access which would not route trucks through existing residential neighborhoods.


E-20 Develop a county-wide plan for disposal of solid waste.

Utilities Topics

U-1 Locate development, whenever possible, in areas fully served by existing utilities rather than in areas requiring utilities extensions.

U-2 Provide that all development has an adequate supply of potable water and water for fire-fighting purposes.


U-3 Provide that all development has adequate means of sewage treatment and disposal to protect public health and protect water quality in lakes and streams.

U-4 Locate only very low intensity land uses on sites which depend solely on on-lot sewage disposal systems or on a private supply of potable water.


Transportation Topics

T-1 Provide that all development and land use changes have adequate street facilities to handle anticipated traffic.


T-2 Provide for the movement of pedestrians through the construction of:

a) walkways from residential areas to recreation areas, schools and shopping facilities in the neighborhood;

b) walkways for access to transit stops;

c) walkways where heavy pedestrian movements may be anticipated between land uses;

d) pedestrian overpasses/underpasses when street closing are impractical and vehicular and pedestrian volumes warrant such separation; and,

e) walkways through expressway interchange areas where appropriate.


T-3 Provide for the movement of bicycles from residential areas to neighborhood recreation areas, schools, shopping facilities and major employment centers.


T-4 Locate high intensity land uses along arterial streets tat have or are scheduled to have public transit service.

T-5 Provide adequate rights-of-way to accommodate required and anticipated roadway, walkway and bikeway improvements through dedication.

T-7 Provide adequate access to, from and through all development for the proper functioning of the streets, walkways, bikeways, and transit systems and for emergency vehicles by linking the interior roadway, walkway, bikeway and transit systems with systems already built or planned in the surrounding area.


T-8 Design the internal circulation of all development for safe and efficient travel movement by all types of transportation.


T-9 Avoid street access to developmental through areas of significantly lower intensity or density development if such access would create significant nuisances.


T-10 Preserve the through traffic capacity of the expressway and arterial street systems by:

a) prohibiting property access a sufficient distance from expressway interchange ramps;

b) placing the first four-way intersection a sufficient distance from interchange ramps;

c) spacing intersections along a major arterial for efficient traffic signal operations; and,

d) using, to the extent possible, local streets or frontage roads for direct access to property along arterials.


T-11 Provide off-street parking and loading of sufficient quantity and adequate design for the type and intensity of development, for the mode of access to the development and for its users.


Residential Topics

R-1 Protect residential neighborhoods from adverse impacts of proposed development and land use changes.

R-2 Create housing redevelopment, rehabilitation and reinvestment opportunities in older and declining neighborhoods.


R-3 Provide adequate buffering, screening or other techniques that mitigate nuisances when a residential development will be next to a land use that produces nuisances.


R-4 Avoid residential development that has a significantly different size, height, mass or scale from adjacent development.

R-5 Develop residential densities that are compatible with adjacent residential areas and other adjacent land uses.

R-6 Evaluate residential development on the basis of the following net density categories:

Extremely low one dwelling unit or less/five acres

Very low grater than one welling unit/ five acres and up to one dwelling unit/acre

Low greater than one and up to five dwelling units/acre

Medium greater than five an dup to twelve dwelling units/acre

High greater than twelve and up to thirty-five dwelling units/acre

Very high greater than thirty-five dwelling units/acre


R-7 Restrict residential density to the extremely low category when:

a) the development will depend solely on septic tanks or to other on-lot sewage disposal systems (except when otherwise allowed by local health standards);

b) only a private supply of potable water will be available to the development;

c) the development will be on unstable soils, very severely eroded soils or soils with very severe erosion potential;

d) adequate fire protection cannot be provided for higher density proposal; or,

e) the development will be outside the area designated for centralized sewer expansion by the year 2000.


R-8 Restrict residential density to the very low category or the lower category when:

a) the development will be in the floodway fringe of the 100-year flood plain;

b) the development will be on soils characterized as wet soils;

c) the development will be on unstable soils, very severely eroded soils or soils with very severe erosion potential so long as appropriate and possible more extensive measures will be taken to mitigate environmental problems; or,

d) adequate fire protection cannot be provided for a higher density proposal.


R-9 Restrict residential density to the low category or lower category when:

a) the development is in the floodway fringe of the 100-year floodplain so long as extensive measures will be taken to mitigate environmental problems;

b) the development will be on soils characterized as wet soils so long as appropriate and possibly more extensive measures will be taken to mitigate environmental problems;

c) the development does not have a collector or higher street type for major access; or,

d) adequate fire protection cannot be provided for a higher density proposal.


R-10 Restrict residential density to the medium category or lower categories when:

a) a collector street is the highest available major access point for the development; or,

b) adequate fire protection cannot be provided for a higher density proposal.

R-11 Locate residential developments of the high density category only when:

a) there is a major access point on or very near an arterial street;

b) there is adequate water pressure and quantity for domestic use and internal fire protection systems;

c) there is adequate fire protection service available;

d) the development will not cause a significant over-crowding of schools in the area; and,

e) the development is now or is scheduled to be served by public transit.


R-12 Locate residential density of the very high category in or very near White County Central Business District.


R-13 Prohibit residential development in:

a) the 40 NEF (Noise Exposure Forecast) zone of any airport; and,

b) the floodway of the 100-year floodplain.


R-14 Design residential development to:

a) provide adequate lot sizes and shapes to accommodate houses;

b) provide planned, usable open spaces of adequate size to serve the needs of residents and assurances that such open spaces, if commonly owned, will be properly maintained;

c) use, where possible, the natural drainage patterns;

d) save, to the extent possible, natural vegetation;

e) create, to the extent possible, street patterns that discourage speeding and through-traffic;

f) provide, where appropriate, trees, landscaping, benches, bus stops, and other site amenities;

g) allow for buffering and screening to provide privacy for residents; and,

h) prevent signs from being a visual nuisance or a safety hazard to vehicular traffic.


R-15 Provide to the extent possible, mixtures of housing types and land uses within planned developments to:

a) utilize cost-effective site layout and design techniques.

R-16 Expand opportunities for people to live in sound, affordable housing in locations of their choice by

a) providing for lower-cost housing in dispersed locations throughout the community, including identification of suitable sites for lower-cost housing and necessary actions to assure construction;

b) using incentives to encourage a mixture of housing types and costs for new housing;

c) upgrading existing housing; and,

d) keeping overall housing cots as low as possible without sacrificing basic health, safety, and welfare objectives.


R-20 Provide, to the extent possible, for residential development in White County Central Business District, including the identification of suitable sites and necessary actions to ensure construction.


Industrial Topics

I-11 Take appropriate action to reserve land that would be most suitable for industrial subdivision

Community Facilities

F-8 Provide that all developments have adequate fire protection.

Government Topics

G-1 Ensure that those who propose new developments bear or reasonable share in the costs of the public facilities and services made necessary by development. When existing essential services are inadequate and public funds are not available to rectify the situation, the developer may be asked to make improvements to eliminate present inadequacies if such improvements would be in the only means by which the development would be considered appropriate at the proposed location.