Get Adobe Flash player


The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday, September 9, 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, Dennis Sterrett, Brad Ward, and Donald Ward. Absent members were: Mike Smolek, Dave Rosenbarger, Dave Stimmel.

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

Visitors attending were: Clayton and Nancy Bailey.

The meeting was called to order by President Charles Anderson.


Opening Business:

Minutes: There was a motion by Jim Mann and a second by Mark Bentlage to approve the meeting minutes of 8/12/13 as written; so moved.



#1012 - Bailey, Clayton & Nancy: Requesting a rezone from A-1, General Agriculture District to R-2, Single & Two-Family Residential District.

Director Rogers advised the Board that the parcels involved in this request were laid out prior to White County zoning and were assigned A-1 zoning district assignments with the incorporation of zoning. They do not meet the developmental standards for A-1, and should therefore be rezoned to R-2, the district most appropriate for the area.

Clayton Bailey introduced himself, and shared that he was surprised that any property in this area was zoned for Agriculture. There being no questions or comments from the Commissioners or from the audience, Jim Mann moved that the board vote on the matter. Don Ward seconded, and the ballots were passed to board members by Ms. Diener.

President Anderson announced the results, as follows: 8 votes cast; 8 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, 9/16/13. 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:

Mid-America Commerce Park Zoning (not on the agenda): Director Rogers shared an issue with the Board that had not come up until the morning of the meeting. He summarized as follows:

The Mid-American Commerce Park (formerly known as the Wolcott Corridor) has completed the grant process and is currently exercising options on various properties. The question has arisen as to whether we will create an overlay district to encompass the park's desired restrictions, or go with a completely new zoning designation of I-3. The park area consists of parcels currently zoned A-1, I-1, and I-2; while we would normally apply an overlay district to such a park, this becomes problematic due to the 3 zones containing their own disparate standards. We cannot simply rezone the entire area to one of our existing zoning districts, because the plan is to divide and parcel out the area as each sale is initiated, not before (since each prospective business will have very different plans and requirements for their respective parcels).

The parties involved in planning the park envision heavy industrial business occurring at/near the railroad, while other areas will likely be light industrial.

The office is being asked to present a final plan by October, which is a large task. Therefore, the office is bringing the issue before the Board now so that a direction can be agreed upon before moving forward. While it is conceivably possible to manage 3 zones within an overlay, it is very problematic, since there is no baseline from which to start. The office recommends that a new zoning district of I-3 be created specifically for this park instead, but will follow the Board's lead.

There was much discussion regarding what would be involved in both creating a new I-3 district and managing the restrictions applied to that district. Highlights include:

  • I-3 would allow all uses now allowed in I-1 and I-2, with restrictions as set forth by the park.
  • Park restrictions might include structural, architectural and landscaping features - note that the park does not want businesses to have to meet current tree island standards, so those would be changed for the I-3 district.
  • A PUD would likely not work for this case, since the park wants to stay extremely flexible (no planned development) and allow each property to be parceled out according to a business's wishes at the time of sale.
  • The park wishes to have different setbacks for parking than current business and industrial setbacks; they will be defining their own setbacks for this area, whether via new district or overlay.
  • The new I-3 zone would not be intended for allowance elsewhere; there should not be a precedent set where a rezone from an existing district to an I-3 would be allowed. The new zone is only intended for this park, and possibly for other similar business/industrial parks developed in the future.

Director Rogers advised that, should the Board approve his moving forward with a proposal for the new I-3 zone, he would identify all of the changes required to the current Ordinance to accommodate the addition, and bring a comprehensive proposal and draft ordinance amendment back to the Board in October or November.

The Board voted 8-0 via hand vote to approve Director Rogers' proposal to research the I-3 addition and come back with proposed ordinance amendments.

Amendments - #33 - Recycling Satellite Use: Director Rogers read the following minutes from the Recycling Satellite Use subcommittee meeting, which occurred on 8/20/13, into the record:

Following was the agenda followed for the subcommittee meeting and the results of each consideration:


1) Should recycle satellite locations require a special exception use permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals? Elected to recommend against.

2) Should fencing beyond that required between a site and a residential district be required? Elected to recommend against.

3) Should satellite recycling center sites be restricted to public land properties only? Elected to recommend against; in addition, it was decided to drop the proposed fence requirement between a satellite location and a neighboring residential district. After discussion, it was decided to leave it up to each legislative body to decide what kind of buffering is required for each individual location.

4) Should any additional buffering be required? Elected to recommend against. It will be left to the legislative bodies to decide.

5) Should trash containment features for each site be required? Elected to recommend against.

6) Should some type of site management features be required for each site? Elected to recommend against.

7) Other? No other issues were discussed or considered during this meeting.

The staff has now modified the proposed amendment to account for the recommendations of the subcommittee and presents the revised proposal at this time.

Based on these findings and discussion both last month and following Director Rogers' summary, Don Ward moved that Amendment #33 be approved by the Board as amended; Mark Bentlage seconded. The Board voted 8-0 via hand vote to approve.

Amendments - #35 - Flood Plain Regulations: Director Rogers provided the flood plain ordinance amendment's history to the Board. He advised that, since the Zoning Ordinance was created in 1972, flood plain regulations have been vague at best, and more recently, completely at odds with the Department of Natural Resources and FEMA requirements. When the County was advised by DNR and FEMA that our flood plain ordinance was required to correlate with DNR/FEMA requirements in order for our residents to qualify for flood insurance, it became clear that changes must be made. After several delays, we are now faced with a looming 1/1/2014 deadline to comply.

The amendment before the Board consists of 1) a complete overhaul of Chapter 6, relating to Overlay Districts; and 2) a new Appendix E, which contains the DNR/FEMA model ordinance for Indiana counties. Approval of this amendment will ensure that White County complies with State and Federal regulations, and that our residents then qualify for flood insurance. It also removes the roadblocks we've faced due to fragmented flood ordinances in the past.

Denny Sterrett asked if we would be able to amend the new ordinance in the future if we find that some portions are problematic for White County. Director Rogers replied that we could, as long as no changes were made that contradict the very specific and strict application of DNR and FEMA standards.

Jim Mann moved that Amendment #35 be approved by the Board; Don Ward seconded. The Board voted 8-0 via hand vote to approve.

Tree Islands: Director Rogers shared with the Board that Area Plan receives complaints from businesses regarding the requirement that a tree island be added for every 10 parking spaces in all parking lots. This is a huge expense, and causes serious maintenance issues for businesses (i.e. maneuvering snow plows around the islands). During talks with the Mid-America Commerce Park planning team, Dan Zerner, White County Economic Development consultant, indicated that our tree island requirements are much more demanding than in other counties and should be looked at when developing industrial park developmental standards. Director Rogers wonders what the initial intent was when this requirement was put in place. It might make sense for large retail businesses, such as Walmart or a mall, but it is cost prohibitive and takes up valuable real estate for medium and small businesses. Director Rogers asked the Board for their input - the consensus seems to be that this type of requirement should be up to the builder or the business themselves.

The Board voted to approve Director Rogers' moving forward with research on this matter. He will contact other counties to see what their requirements are, and determine if White County revisions are needed. He will prepare a proposal and bring it back to the APC next month.

Road Center Line/Right-of-Way: Director Rogers advised that the subcommittee formed to study this matter reached a consensus that building setbacks, when property lines are unknown or cannot be determined, will be based on the center of the road, unless there is a known/dedicated right-of-way. The office has adopted this practice, and it will be the standard going forward.

Signs on Farm Property: Director Rogers advised that, because he has received so much positive feedback from county residents since the W Shafer Drive area was cleaned up (signs removed), he has not made any more attempts to revise sign requirements or make allowances for additional signs. He asked the Board if they were amenable to his keeping this issue status quo, unless and until input to the contrary was received from residents. The Board agreed that no further action was required on this issue at this time.

Home Occupation ADA Parking Compliance/Gravel vs. Pavement: Director Rogers shared with the Board that White County's mandatory parking lot paving requirements have become problematic in light of new ADA standards. He provided examples, most significantly area day care centers that are operating as home occupations. Since ADA requires that all paved parking areas meet the very strict (and costly) ADA standards, this means that day care providers working out of their homes are now required to provided paved parking areas with the mandatory minimum of spaces, required ADA signage, etc. These businesses are unable to meet this cost burden; we may find that such businesses are now unable to continue operating.

Director Rogers asked the Board why we required paving in the first place. He thinks that we may be able to circumvent the ADA requirements for parking areas where gravel is used. Therefore, if we allow day care centers to use gravel for their parking areas, they may not be burdened with the cost of meeting ADA standards.

The Board approved Director Rogers' request that he move forward with research in this matter, and bring a recommendation back to the Board in October.


There being no further business, Don Ward moved that the meeting be adjourned; Mark Bentlage seconded. President Anderson adjourned the meeting at 7:01 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Donald W. Ward, Secretary

White County Area Plan Commission

Joseph W. Rogers, Executive Director

White County Area Plan Commission






SEPTEMBER 9, 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):

READING OF THE MINUTES – August 12, 2013


1. Tree Islands

2. Business Continued from 8/12/13:

a) Home Occupation/Residential Districts ADA Parking Compliance

b) Gravel vs. Pavement For Various Home Occupations & Other Situations

3. Business Continued from 6/10/13:

c) Road Center Line/Right-of-Way

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



a. Appendix A – Official Schedule of Uses

b. Chapter 8 – Parking

c. Chapter 14­ – Definitions


a. Chapter 6­ – Overlay Districts

b. Appendix E (new)


1. #1012 - Bailey, Clayton & Nancy: Requesting a rezone from A-1, General Agriculture District to R-2, Single & Two-Family Residential District.