Get Adobe Flash player

APC MEETING May 12, 2014

The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday, May 12, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

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

Also attending were Executive Director Joe Rogers, and Building & Planning Dept. Secretary, Tina Cronkhite.  Attorney, Abigail Diener, was absent.

Visitors attending were:  Tim & Shelley Burnside, Larry A Norris, and Lisa & Roy Beuerman.

The meeting was called to order by President, James Mann.

****

Opening Business:

Minutes: There was a motion by Richard Lynn and a second by Jim Annis to approve the meeting minutes of 04/14/2014 as written; so moved.

****

Rezones:

#1019– Burnside, Timothy A & Shelley R - Request for a rezone from I-1, Light Industrial District to RR, Rural Residential District.

Owner, Tim Burnside was present to request the rezone.  The rezone request was applied for in order to obtain a building permit for a room addition.  The current zone is not compliant for residential use.  See Letter of Intent - Exhibit B

Joe Rogers presented history on the parcel, whereas the property was rezoned to I-1 to previously allow the former owner, Matthew Zook, to operate a machine shop from one of the garages.  The property continued as a primary residence.  The property has not been used for industrial purposes since 2008 and rezoning the parcel would bring it into compliance with the current Zoning Ordinance.

There being no additional questions or comments, ballots were passed to board members by Joe Rogers.

Ballot Summary:

1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals, objective, and policies of the White County Strategic Plan and any other applicable planning studies and reports, as adopted and amended from time to time.  8 agree; 0 no opinion; 0 disagree

2. The proposed rezoning is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.  8 agree; 0 no opinion; 0 disagree

3. The proposed rezoning is the most desirable use for which the land in the subject property is adapted.  8 agree; 0 no opinion; 0 disagree

4. The proposed rezoning will not have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction.  8 agree; 0 no opinion; 0 disagree

5. The proposed rezoning reflects responsible standards for growth and development.  8 agree; 0 no opinion; 0 disagree

President, Jim Mann announced the results, as follows: 8 votes cast; 8 in favor - 0 opposed – 0 Abstentions.  Rezone request will be certified to the appropriate legislative body with a “Favorable” recommendation.

#1020– Norris, Larry A & Lucille E- Request for a rezone from B-1, Neighborhood Business District to R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential District.

Owner, Larry Norris was present to request the rezone.  The rezone request was applied for in order to return the lot back to the original residential zone in order to make the lot marketable as residential and/or to build a home on the site.  See Exhibit C – Letter of Intent

Joe Rogers presented a history of the zoning on the parcel and indicated to the Board that the applicant had applied for two setback variances to be heard at the upcoming BZA hearing.

The parcel was assigned a base line zoning of R-2, Single and Two Family Residential.  In 1976, IOOF Lodge #107 was granted a rezone from R-2 to B-1 to allow for the proposed building of a lodge (Rezone File #128).  There is not record of said construction ever being built or of any other development of the site.

There being no additional questions or comments, ballots were passed to board members by Joe Rogers.

Ballot Summary:

1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals, objective, and policies of the White County Strategic Plan and any other applicable planning studies and reports, as adopted and amended from time to time.  8 agree; 0 no opinion; 0 disagree

2. The proposed rezoning is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.  8 agree; 0 no opinion; 0 disagree

3. The proposed rezoning is the most desirable use for which the land in the subject property is adapted.  8 agree; 0 no opinion; 0 disagree

4. The proposed rezoning will not have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction.  8 agree; 0 no opinion; 0 disagree

5. The proposed rezoning reflects responsible standards for growth and development.  8 agree; 0 no opinion; 0 disagree

President, Jim Mann announced the results, as follows: 8 votes cast; 8 in favor - 0 opposed – 0 Abstentions.  Rezone request will be certified to the appropriate legislative body with a “Favorable” recommendation.

Other Business:

Beurman, Lisa – Change of use request in R-2 zone to include a tattoo parlor.

The current White County Zoning Ordinance does not allow for the use of a tattoo parlor in a Residential District.  Lisa and Roy Beurman were in person to request a change in the use chart.  The Beurman’s described the intent to operate a tattoo parlor operation from an RV on their property.  Joe Rogers explained to the APC Board Members the process that would be necessary in changing the ordinance to allow this use.  After asking several questions regarding how difficult the process would be and reviewing the options for consideration, a motion was made by Dave Stimmel to not consider this request.  This motion was seconded by Denny Sterrett and all in favor by a show of hands.  Change of Use request will not be considered.

Bees: Joe Rogers presented research findings regarding Beekeeping and any possible ordinance requirements to consider.

See Exhibit D

Committee Updates:

Board Expansion Subcommittee – See Exhibit E

Split Zoning Subcommittee – See Exhibit F

Budget – Joe Rogers requested a task force to discuss salaries as a separate item from the rest of the budget.  Jim Mann volunteered to head up the Salary Budget Task Force and was joined by Mark Bentlage, Don Ward, and Richard Lynn.  The Task Force will meet in the near future regarding salaries for the Building and Planning Dept.****

There being no further business, Dave Stimmel moved that the meeting be adjourned; Brad Ward seconded and with all in favor, Vice President, James Mann adjourned the meeting at 6:53 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Donald W. Ward, Secretary

White County Area Plan Commission

Joseph W. Rogers, Executive Director

White County Area Plan Commission

Document Prepared By:  White County Area Plan Assistant, Tina Cronkhite “I AFFIRM, UNDER THE PENALTIES FOR PERJURY, THAT I HAVE TAKEN REASONABLE CARE TO REDACT EACH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IN THIS DOCUMENT, UNLESS REQUIRED BY LAW.”   

 

Exhibit D

White County Area Plan Office

Internal Memo

Let Bees Be

From the information I’ve gathered, below is an overview of ordinances, regulations and articles I’ve researched related to Beekeeping.  It would be my recommendation that if we are going to pursue this, it be done under a Micro-Livestock section of the ordinance.  That way, when we decide to address residential allowance of rabbits, chickens, pigs or whatever, the ordinance is already structured in incorporate those areas.

Beekeeping ordinances commonly include requirements on the following:

1) Classification of Bees

2) Definitions

3) Lot Size and Colony Density

4) Setbacks

5) Flyway Barriers

6) Access To Water

7) Permits &  Registration Requirements

8) Signage & Identification

9) Fire Safety

10) Nuisances

11) Educational Requirements

12) Violations

1) Classification of Bees – The only reference to bee classification specified “…the common honey bee, limited to the Apis mellilfera species…”; also, “…the common domestic honey bee, limited to Apis mellifera species, specifically excluding the African honey bee, Apis mellifera scutellata, or Africanized honey bee or any hybrid thereof”.

2) Definitions – Common definitions included apiary, beekeeper, bee keeping equipment, colony, flyway barrier, hive, honey bee & lot.

3)  Lot Size & Colony Density – 4,350 to 7,500 square feet for the first hive; one additional hive for every 4,350 to 5,000 square feet of additional lot size.  Maximum number of colonies allowed regardless of the lot size is 8.

4) Setbacks – 4 to 25 feet from property lines, 10 to 30’ from any public sidewalk; also, restricted to be at least 150 feet from any school, public park, church or playground.

5) Flyway barriers – minimum 6 feet in height; 4 to 10 feet from colony, also in front of entrance; extending 2 to 10 feet in both directions from the bee hive centerline.

6) Required in all cases, but no details provided with the exception of one case which required the water source be no further from the beehive than 10 feet.

7) Permits & Registration Requirements – Some require state registration, some local some with a government agency such as the Dept of Natural Resources; some do not require registration.  In the chicken ordinance recommendation made to Burnettsville, we had suggested a $100 permit/license fee due to the fact that it was planned to have Area Plan do an initial on-sight inspection of facilities to confirm compliance to ordinance requirements.  I would recommend the same for beekeeper sites.

8) Signage & Identification – Some require signage which provides the owners name and contact information.

9) Fire Safety – “Smokers” may be restricted, in one case a 30’ perimeter firebreak was required, vegetation in the perimeter was restricted to 6” in the first 10’ of area, max’d at 1 foot otherwise.

10) Nuisances – Ordinances declared the use a nuisance if the bees become aggressive or swarm on neighboring properties; nuisances were generally injury oriented.

11) Educational requirements – normally some type of certification from a state beekeepers association or equivalent is required (this requirement would be part of the registration or permitting process).

12) Violations – I would recommend violations be handled as our office had recommended for the chicken regulation guidelines we provided earlier; the procedure would follow the same procedure as any other violation except that the assessed fine would be fixed by ordinance at $100/day and revocation of their beekeepers license/permit.

There are other details addressed in the various ordinances, but the above should provide a general overview of the types of issues a bee ordinance would need to cover if you elected to go that route.

I did speak with Greg Bossaer.  Greg spoke with a Dr. Greg Hunt of Purdue.  Greg feels he is the most knowledgeable of this topic.  Dr. Hunt indicated that he is not aware of any community in Indiana which prevents bee keeping on a lot.  He indicated this is allowed even in Lafayette.  He said honey bees are not aggressive; they operate within about a one mile radius.  He sees no problem with this allowance but you might want to include some type of insurance stipulation just in case someone would find themselves with an odd ball, ninja bee in their hive.

Exhibit E

White County Area Plan Office

Internal Memo

Board Expansion/Alternatives

Town Meeting Summaries

Subcommittee Members:

Denny Sterrett, Richard Lynn, Joe Rogers and Dave Stimmel

March 4, 2014 – Met w/town of Reynolds.  The town council felt participating on the subcommittees would be the most beneficial avenue for increasing participation by the smaller communities.  Their second choice would be to change the Small Town Advisory Committee member tenure to two year terms with no consecutive reappointments.

They were advised that the town clerk meetings and personal presentation of new amendments would continue and that the office would not personally certify all rezones also.

March 11, 2014 – Met w/town of Burnettsville.  The town council did not like the idea of alternates.  They felt that the substitutions would be too infrequent to be of any value.  They also felt the advisory council was of no value unless there were going to be periodic meetings.  The choice they thought would be of most value was participating on subcommittees.  They did not offer any other solutions.

They were advised that the town clerk meetings and personal presentation of new amendments would continue and that the office would not personally certify all rezones also.

April 15, 2014 – Met w/town of Chalmers.  The town council supported the subcommittee participation as the leading choice of ideas for small town involvement; however, there was a caveat, they would like to see the participants compensated.  There second choice is to require the Advisory Council member to schedule quarterly meetings to provide updates to the small town members.

The third choice was to add alternates for APC members, with those alternates coming from the Advisory Council, followed by increasing the APC Board size with the last choice being joint meetings of the APC and the advisory council.  They offered no other alternatives.

Any questions?

Joe Rogers

Also, I believe the Board should require the Advisory Council on Small Town Affairs conduct their first meeting of the year just prior to the first APC meeting of the year.

Exhibit F

White County Area Plan Office

Split Zoning Evaluation

Subcommittee Members:

Mike Smolek, Jim Mann, Brad Ward, Mark Bentledge & Joe Rogers

Meeting Date: Monday, March 10, 2014

Attending: Mike Smolek, Jim Mann, Joe Rogers

Absent: Brad Ward, Mark Bentledge

After the APC meeting, Joe shared with Mike and Jim some examples of existing split zoned parcels.

The full subcommittee will be called back together once Joe has an answer from Abigail Diener on whether or not the there is a legal requirement to combine parcels regardless of zoning.

In the meantime, the mood of the group appears to be to continue to ban split zoned parcels and to recommend that the home occupation rules be reviewed to provide relief for business operating on home sites in a rural setting.

Self-appointed secretary,

Joe Rogers

WHITE COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE OF REGULAR SESSION

 

May 12, 2014 - 6:00 p.m.

2nd Floor Conference Room

White County Building

Monticello, IN  47960

******************************************************************************

AGENDA

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 – April 14, 2014

REZONINGS –


#1019 – Burnside, Timothy A & Shelley R: Rezone I-1 (Light Industrial District) to RR (Rural           Residential District)

#1020 – Norris, Larry A & Lucille E: Rezone B-1 (Neighborhood Business District) to R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential District)

BUSINESS –

1.   Beurman, Lisa – Change of Use request in R-2 Zone to include a tattoo parlor.

2.   Bees

3.   Committee Updates:

Board Expansion Subcommittee

Split Zoning Subcommittee