Get Adobe Flash player

APC MEETING October 14, 2014

The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday October 14, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were: Charles Anderson, James Annis, Mark Bentlage, Richard Lynn, Jim Mann, Dave Rosenbarger, Dennis Sterrett, Dave Stimmel, Brad Ward, and Donald Ward. Absent member(s) were: Mike Smolek. Also attending were Attorney, Abigail Diener, Executive Director Joe Rogers, and Building & Planning Dept. Secretary, Tina Cronkhite.

Visitors attending were: Brooke Johnson, Judy Bertram, Christine Craig, Shannon Turner, Patricia Rowlands, Cheryl Helderle, Georgia Sanderlin, David Baird, Rex Hageman, and Rob Hancock.

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


Opening Business:

****


Minutes: There was a motion by Don Ward and a second by Jim Annis to approve the meeting minutes of 09/08/2014 as written; so moved.

****

Rezones:

#1023 – Clint Judd: I-1 (Light Industrial District) to R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential District).

Executive Director, Joe Rogers, notified the board of the call log history relating to the rezone (see Exhibit A). Judy Bertram was present to represent Clint Judd in the rezone request. The purpose for this rezone request was to acquire a mortgage loan on the existing dwelling. The mortgage company required the dwelling be zoned residential. Patricia Rowlands, a neighbor to an adjoining parcel to the north, questioned if the adjoining parcel was also being rezoned and may have future development. The parcel to the north, also owned by Clint Judd is not included in this rezone request. Christine Craig, a representative from the neighboring Ball Corporation, was present with a letter from the main office that was read into record opposing the rezone request (Exhibit B). It is the opinion of the board that Ball Corporation was not fully aware of the specifics included in the rezone request and the fact that the parcel already had a dwelling. This parcel also sits on the west end of a residential district neighborhood. Joe Rogers stated that this rezone request would bring the property into compliance with the current use.


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

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. 9 agree; 1 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. 9 agree; 1 no opinion; 0 disagree; Comments: House already built on lot

3. The proposed rezoning is the most desirable use for which the land in the subject property is adapted. 6 agree; 4 no opinion; 0 disagree; Comments: Brings house into compliance; Existing home

4. The proposed rezoning will not have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction. 8 agree; 2 no opinion; 0 disagree

5. The proposed rezoning reflects responsible standards for growth and development. 8 agree; 2 no opinion; 0 disagree

President, Jim Mann announced the results, as follows: 10 votes cast; 10 in favor - 0 opposed – 0 Abstentions. Rezone request will be certified to the appropriate legislative body with a “Favorable” recommendation.

#1024 – HR Land LLC: A-1 (Agricultural District) to B-3 (Highway Business District). Executive Director, Joe Rogers, notified the board of the call log history relating to the rezone. (See Exhibit C) David Baird was present to represent Rex Hageman (also present) in the rezone request. Mr. Hageman also owns the adjoining parcel to the south which is zoned B-3 and the request is to combine the parcels and sell as a commercial lot. The proposed use this site would be a highway business such as a restaurant, gas station, hotel, etc. The 1995 Comprehensive Plan targeting this area as a suggested development area for general commercial/industrial facilities as well. Rob Hancock, a notified adjoining property owner, was in person to question what the proposed use was for the parcel and if there would be an environmental impact created by the rezone. Sheryl Helderly was present and voiced concerns regarding water drainage and stated her desire to see the parcel remain zoned Agriculture. Property owner, Rex Hageman, listed various reasons that the land is no longer viable to use as agricultural, in addition it is not part of a larger agricultural operation.

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

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. 10 agree; 0 no opinion; 0 disagree; Comments: Comp plan targets area for business


2. The proposed rezoning is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 9 agree; 1 no opinion; 0 disagree; Comments: Has been used as a construction site in past

3. The proposed rezoning is the most desirable use for which the land in the subject property is adapted. 10 agree; 0 no opinion; 0 disagree; Comments: See #1

4. The proposed rezoning will not have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction. 6 agree; 4 no opinion; 0 disagree; Comments: Should not

5. The proposed rezoning reflects responsible standards for growth and development. 10 agree; 0 no opinion; 0 disagree; Comments: Interstate & State Highway

President, Jim Mann announced the results, as follows: 10 votes cast; 10 in favor - 0 opposed – 0 Abstentions. Rezone request will be certified to the appropriate legislative body with a “Favorable” recommendation.

Other Business:

1. TIF District AmendmentMid-America Commerce Park: There was no one present to represent this amendment. Dennis Sterrett made a motion to table the business until a later date, seconded by Mark Bentlage.

2. Brooke Johnson – Childcare Parking Facilities: Owner/Operator of Little Ras-kels Daycare, Brooke Johnson, was in person to petition for an amendment to the White County Zoning Ordinance to exempt the off-street parking requirements for Child Care Home and Child Care House businesses. The off-street parking requirements trigger ADA compliance which is unrealistic to these types of businesses and is prohibiting a valuable service of childcare in the county. Joe Rogers met with Cathy Gross, City of Monticello ADA Coordinator, and confirmed that Cathy is not opposed to such an amendment. The Board was asked to consider if it was reasonable to consider a change to the ordinance that allows exemption for the off-street parking requirements for small home occupation businesses. Director Rogers clarified for the Board that such an amendment would not alleviate any site from ADA Compliance. In Director Rogers’ opinion, the Area Plan Commission cannot pre-empt federal law. Any ADA requirements applicable to this site or any other site, would still be required of the property owner. An amendment of the type discussed here only eliminates a local ordinance developmental standard from triggering a zoning enforcement action related to ADA. A motion was made by Dave Stimmel for Joe Rogers to draft an amendment for approval, with a second by Dave Anderson. With all in favor, the motion was passed.

3. Planning Maps –Joe Rogers stated that maps need to be updated and read aloud the considerations in designing of the new maps. Maps need to be created with input from the towns and presented to the APC for consideration and incorporated into a new Comprehensive Plan or an amendment to the current one. With no objections, Joe will move forward and begin with development of updated maps.

4. Comprehensive Plan Update – A committee meeting was held on 9/29/14 (Exhibit D). The group conducted a general discussion on the “mission statement” Joe prepared. It was recommended Joe prepare a more concise version of the statement to give the full Board a


couple of approaches to consider. (Exhibits E & F) The exploratory task force will reconvene to establish a recommendation of the next course of action to consider.

5. Micro-Livestock – A potential Amendment to Chapter 4 of the White County Zoning Ordinance was presented by Joe Rogers that includes provisions for micro-livestock including bees and 4-H animals (Exhibit G). Director Rogers asked the Board if they were ready for him to prepare this document for the amendment process. Director Rogers was directed to do so.

6. 2015 APC Meeting Schedule The 2015 Area Plan Commission Meeting Schedule was submitted for approved (Exhibit H). Following a hand vote of 10 in favor, the schedule was approved.

****

There being no further business, President James Mann adjourned the meeting at 7:28 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.”


þÿ


APC Meeting Minutes October 14, 2014


þÿ


Exhibit D

White County Area Plan Office Comprehensive Plan Meeting

Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2014 Attending: Jim Mann, Richard Lynn, Joe Rogers Absent: Mike Smolek, Brad Ward, Charlie Anderson

Group conducted a general discussion the “mission statement” Joe prepared. It was recommended Joe prepare a more concise version of the statement to give the full Board a couple of approaches to consider. Also:

1) It was agreed to present these two statements to the APC at their next meeting. Joe to complete by the end of day Wednesday, 10/1.

2) It was also agreed that the APC pursue a Comprehensive Plan which addresses all elements in State Statute, not just those required. The committee recognizes that some elements may only demand a brief addressing in the plan, but feel each element should at least be considered in the Plan’s preparation.

3) It was also agreed that the committee would recommend to the APC that a new plan be pursued vs modifying the current plan or doing nothing.

No additional meetings are scheduled at this time.

Regards, Joe Rogers


Exhibit E

WHITE COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION

Joseph Rogers

P.O. Box 851

Phone: 574/583-7355

Executive Director

Monticello, IN 47960

Fax: 574/583-1593

The White County Area Plan Commission has elected to pursue a Comprehensive Plan with the intention of uniting the decision makers and forces which influence the direction and development of the County’s resources. It is the mission of this plan to identify the various strengths, weaknesses, goals, objectives and priorities of the County and to create a plan which accounts for the County’s history, analyzes its present day status and provides guidance and direction for its future.

Exhibit F

WHITE COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION

Joseph Rogers

P.O. Box 851

Phone: 574/583-7355

Executive Director

Monticello, IN 47960

Fax: 574/583-1593

The White County Area Plan Commission, in conjunction with the legislative bodies, is chartered with the responsibility of preparing a Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of promoting public health, safety, morals, convenience, order or general welfare and for the sake of efficiency and economy in the process of development (IC 36-7-4-501). Further, the state requires a Comprehensive Plan to contain, at a minimum, three elements: 1) A statement of objectives for the future development of the jurisdiction, 2) A statement of policy for the land use development of the jurisdiction and 3) A statement of policy for the development of public ways, public places, public lands, public structures and public utilities (IC 36-7-4-502). In addition, each Area Plan jurisdiction is encouraged to incorporate other features in their Plan as provided for in IC 36-7-4-503 to assist in achieving organized planning and development of critical functions impacting proper planning within the Community.

In 1971, White County entered the era of county-wide planning via establishment of an Area Plan jurisdiction. On August 18, 1972, the first Comprehensive Plan was finalized. This represented over two years of county-wide effort from both public and private sector resources. This Plan remained intact until 1995, when a second Comprehensive Plan was created. The second Plan has remained in place for the past 19 years.

A Comprehensive Plan is intended to be a roadmap and blueprint for the type of county-wide development desired by the Community. Therefore, the Plan must represent the various strengths, weaknesses, goals, objectives and priorities of the County. This requires a Plan where general belief in and ownership of the Plan is accepted by both the general public and the controlling entities within the County.

The Comprehensive Plan should first establish the mission for planning and development in the County along with the County’s priorities. This plan begins with the identification of a series of broad statements intended to establish general objectives and priorities for the Comprehensive Plan process. This is intended to create the foundation upon which the Community will develop specific goals, objectives, guidelines, tasks and content for fulfilling these objectives and priorities.

It is the desire of White County to:

1) Promote agriculture through the preservation of agricultural land use and to provide means for increasing agricultural activity within the county;

2) Promote and focus travel & tourism in a manner which minimizes incompatible land use alliances and assist in establishing year-round tourism activities;

3) Establish checks and balances for maximizing compatibility of lake area recreational, commercial and residential uses;


4) Prioritize and designate areas to provide adequate lands for commercial development along with establishing the proper regulatory means for promoting “controlled” commercial growth;

5) Promote Downtown revitalization efforts by establishing partnerships between the various county municipalities and the Area Plan Commission utilizing planning tools to advance revitalization efforts;

6) Create a definitive plan for Light and Heavy Industrial development in a manner compatible with other development objectives of the County; and,

7) Undertake costs benefit analysis of regulatory burdens placed on business and individuals with the goal of reducing the regulatory costs where disproportionality exists between the costs of those regulations and the benefits those regulations provide to the community.


Exhibit G

þÿ


þÿ


þÿ


þÿ


þÿ


þÿ


þÿ


þÿ


þÿ


Exhibit H

2015 CALENDAR OF MEETING

& FILING DATES

 

 

APC

 

 

Filing Dates

Meeting Dates

 

 

12/22/14

01/12/15

02/17/15

03/09/15

03/23/15

04/13/15

04/20/15

05/11/15

05/18/15

06/08/15

06/22/15

07/13/15

07/20/15

08/10/15

08/24/15

09/14/15

09/22/15

10/13/15

10/19/15

11/09/15

Amended 01/21/2014: Ordinance No. 14-01-21-01 14.21 of 14.50


WHITE COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE OF REGULAR SESSION

October 14, 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 September 8, 2014

REZONINGS

#1023 – Clint Judd: I-1 (Light Industrial District) to R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential District)

#1024 – HR Land LLC: A-1 (Agriculture District) to B-3 (Highway Business District)

BUSINESS

1. TIF District AmendmentMid-America Commerce Park

2. Brooke Johnson – Childcare Parking Facilities

3. Planning Maps

4. Comprehensive Plan Update

5. Micro-Livestock

6. 2015 APC Meeting Schedule


þÿ