Get Adobe Flash player

 

 

 

 

 

APC MEETING – July 10, 2017

 

The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday July 10, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Board Members Present: Charles Anderson, Dennis Sterrett, Doug Pepple, Dave Stimmel, James Annis, Brad Ward, Abbey Gross, & Richard Lynn. Board Members Absent: Dave Rosenbarger and Mike Smolek

Planning Department Representatives: Colin Betts, Executive Director; Tina M. Tiede, APC Secretary; and, Abigail Diener (Attorney)

Registered visitors were: See attached Visitor Registration

 

The meeting was called to order by Charlie Anderson.

 

 

****

Approval Of The Minutes: There was a motion by Doug Pepple and a second by Jim Annis to approve the meeting minutes of the 06/12/17 APC Regular Meeting Minutes, the #337 White Oaks Subdivision Findings of Fact and #338 Stars Subdivision Findings of Fact. Approved unanimously, so moved.

 

 

****

 

OPENING BUSINESS – Consideration of the APC Hearing Examiner and BZA Hearing Officer. (See below)

Rezones:

1) #1066 – City of Monticello: The proposed zoning map amendment involves consideration of a change of the zoning districts within the Monticello Corporate Boundary from: B-1 (Neighborhood Business District) to B-4 (General Business Dense Development District). The purpose of this rezone request is to bring properties into compliance with their actual use or rezoned to a district compatible with site conditions. The intent is to eliminate potential incompatible property uses within the town’s limits and to accommodate business development conditions which are currently in conflict with their district assignment. B-4 is intended to allow for appropriate mixed uses (see Appendix A of the White County Zoning Ordinance). Development standards in the B-4 zoning district are more conducive to reconstruction in case of catastrophic event.

 

Colin Betts read the Staff Report for rezone #1066 into record. There were only two community calls regarding the rezone request and they were simply questions and clarifications. No objections were filed with the office.

Neil Smith, property owner at 107 N Main St., Monticello, asked if the rezone would affect the interior use of his building in the event it would require being rebuilt with the B-4 zoning district and if the change would affect his property value or increase property taxes. He has used the main floor for commercial use and was permitted to have upstairs accessory apartments with the B-1 Zoning. Mr. Smith was informed that the current use of the property, the property value, nor taxes would not be affected by the B-4 Zoning.

 

There being no additional questions, ballots were passed out by Abigail Diener.

Ballot Summary:

1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the White County Strategic (Comprehensive) Plan and any other applicable planning studies and reports, as adopted and amended from time to time. 8 Agree; 0 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

2. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the current conditions (e.g. existing lots, structures and uses) and the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 8 Agree; 0 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

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; APC Comments: None

 

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; APC Comments: None

 

5. The proposed rezoning reflects responsible standard for growth and development. 8 Agree; 0 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

 

President, Charles Anderson announced the results, as follows: 8 votes cast; 8 in Favor - 0 Opposed – 0 No Recommendation. Rezone request will be certified to the appropriate legislative body with a “Favorable” recommendation.

 

The rezone request will go before the Monticello City Council at their next meeting on July 17, 2017 for final approval.

 

2) #1067 – W H Kelley Farms LLC: A-1 District (General Agriculture) to A-2 District (Agricultural Industry) – 800 S, Brookston, IN 47923; Prairie Township. The rezone request is for the purpose of a confined feeding operation. The subject site is a 20 acre parcel located on 800 S about 5 miles west of Chalmers and about 2 miles east of Interstate 65 on Kelley Farms property. The site is subject to the developmental standards for an A-2 district as provided for in the White County Zoning Ordinance sections 2.5.2 and 3.17. The White County Comprehensive Plan identifies the area as for agricultural use. All ordinance standards and requirements for rezoning to an A-2 Agricultural Industry District have been satisfied by the applicant and the request satisfies the general guidelines of the Land Use Plan section of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, County Highway Department approval, County Drainage Board approval, and IDEM approval are required prior to issuance of any building or improvement location permit. The required site plan must also include a landscaped buffer designed in accordance with Chapter 9 & Table 9.1 of the zoning ordinance.

 

Colin Betts read the Staff Report for rezone #1067 into record. Larry Luck, surrounding property owner, called the office requesting the setbacks and developmental standards for an A-2 District/CAFO and emailed a letter objecting to the rezone request (see perm. file) and was read into record by Colin Betts.

Mike Veenhuizen, Livestock Engineering Solutions, Inc., was present to represent the request for rezone, along with property owner Kevin Kelley and partners, Sarah & David Davis. Mr. Veenhuizen presented the proposed operation, consisting or two hog barns typically operating at a capacity of 4,800 head from wean to finish. Mr. Veenhuizen also provided airflow statistics that propose only 7-8% of the anticipated odors will flow to the South toward the property of opposing property owner, Larry Luck. The additional wind patterns would come from the West and go toward the East approximately 18 % of the time, straight West approx. 11% of the time, and Northeast 14-15% of the time. The location of this operation was chosen greatly due to the IDEM requirements for managing nutrients from manure applications, as well as the statistical air flow patterns. Mr. Veenhuizen also provided the APC with a letter from Mike Kyburz, White County Highway Superintendent, with the suggested route of travel. The suggested route listed proposed 600 South to 450 West and then to 800 South per the White County Highway Dept.

 

Larry Kilmer, surrounding property owner, questioned the procedure to notification of surrounding property owners. Mr. Kilmer stated that neighbors approximately ½ mile to 1 mile away did not received notification. Tina Tiede clarified that the legal requirement for notification for all rezones is two (2) parcels or one-eighth (1/8) of a mile, whichever is less (per Indiana Code 36-7-4) in every direction from the subject parcel. Mrs. Tiede also stated that the notification is often expanded for rezones that may be deemed “controversial”, such as rezones for confined feeding operations. A map showing the notification area and the list of notified property owners is available in the perm. file. Property owners may have more than one parcel that falls into the notification area, however for office efficiency, only one notification letter is sent out. A full spreadsheet showing the complete list of surrounding properties/owners is available from the Area Plan office. Mr. Kilmer also questioned the location of the required sign postings. Mike Veenhuizen clarified where the sign was posted and that is was easily visible. Photos of the sign posting are taken by the Area Plan office to verify that it meets the minimum sign posting requirements and are available in the office.

 

Richard Sanbloom, located 1 ½ miles West of the subject parcel, questioned where the manure would be spread. Kevin Kelley, Kelley Farms LLC, stated that the manure from the operation will be knifed into the fields owned and operated by his farm and at this location approximately every 3-4 years. Additionally, there are neighboring property owners interested in manure application on their fields. Doug Pepple, APC, asked Kevin to explain the process of knifing manure into fields for those who were not aware of the process. Kevin Kelley explained that they use a drag line which has a hose that runs to the applicator. The applicator has “knives” that apply the manure from the hose approximately 6-12” below the surface of the ground. This procedure also minimizes odor emissions and no knifing will take place on frozen ground. Manure will hauled by tankers and spills by tankers are possible, yet minimal. Mike Veenhuizen also stated that Kelley Farms is a regulated farm by IDEM and are required to follow very strict regulations. Any spills would be a violation if IDEM regulations and would require following IDEM guidelines for clean-up. The manure will be stored in heavy-duty, water-tight reinforced concrete tanks under the buildings instead of lagoons. The construction methods are such that it minimizes seepage or leaks. Additionally, there is a perimeter tile to manage the seasonal water table and is also used by IDEM and the landowner to provide a monitoring system for any potential leaks. Each tank will hold approximately one year’s worth of manure which is roughly 1.2-1.3 million gallons of the 1.6 million gallon tank capacity. Only in very rare circumstances would manure ever be surface applied according to Mr. Veenhuizen. Manure applications are also only done at certain times of the year and not every month. Typically there are approximately 3-4 weeks in the spring and 6 weeks in the fall where it is ideal to apply manure.

 

Denny Sterrett asked which direction the concrete trucks would come from during construction of the tanks. Mike Veenhuizen laid out construction as part of the plan when speaking with Mike Kyburz, White County Highway Superintendent, in order to find the most suitable routes. Prior to issuance of a building permit, approval from the White County Highway Dept. is required, as previously stated.

 

 

There being no additional questions, ballots were passed out by Abigail Diener.

 

Ballot Summary:

1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the White County Strategic (Comprehensive) Plan and any other applicable planning studies and reports, as adopted and amended from time to time. 7 Agree; 1 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

2. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the current conditions (e.g. existing lots, structures and uses) and the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 7 Agree; 1 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

3. The proposed rezoning is the most desirable use for which the land in the subject property is adapted. 7 Agree; 1 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

 

4. The proposed rezoning will not have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction. 6 Agree; 1 No Opinion; 1 Disagree; APC Comments: “County roads cannot take concrete trucks, feed trucks, & hauling of hogs”

 

5. The proposed rezoning reflects responsible standard for growth and development. 7 Agree; 1 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

 

President, Charles Anderson announced the results, as follows: 8 votes cast; 7 in Favor - 1 Opposed – 0 No Recommendation. Rezone request will be certified to the appropriate legislative body with a “Favorable” recommendation.

 

The rezone request will go to the White County Commissioners at their next meeting for final approval on July 17, 2017.

 

 

3) #1068 – TSCR LLC: B-2 District (General Business) to B-4 District (General Business Dense Development) – 719 N Illinois St., Monticello, IN 47960; Prairie Township. The rezone request is for the purpose of a multi-use commercial building with offices and apartments. Colin Betts, Executive Director, analyzed this parcel with two present significant issues. The first is whether the development standards of the current zone practically allow for development of uses allowed in this zone. The B-4 Zoning District is intended to protect the densely populated downtown businesses (some with historic or cultural value) in the case of a catastrophic event - to be able to rebuild back to the same footprint. Most were previously assigned B-1 (Neighborhood Business District) or B-2 (General Business District) classifications and were considered non-conforming due to their district developmental standards. The developmental standards of the B-4 district are lenient in comparison with other districts. The rear setback for B-2 district is 20 feet but the rear (fire) wall is 3 feet from the rear property line, making this a nonconforming structure. The second issue is allowable uses under the zoning ordinance. The White County Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as B-1 or B-2, prior to the adoption of B-4 zoning. The B-2 district is not meant for mixed uses; it does not permit apartments. A previous Special Exception Use allowed upstairs apartments which would be a non-conforming use under current zoning, and expansion of that use would not be allowed. Currently variances may only be applied to developmental standards. Apartments are allowed as a permitted use in the B-4 district only, and allowed as an accessory use in L-1, A-1, R-R, R-2, R-3, and B-1 districts. An accessory use is “subordinate in area, extent and purpose to the principal use”, usually calculated in terms of floor area or gross sales. The White County Zoning Ordinance does not permit apartments as a principle use in any other district than B-4 (including the R-3 Multi-Family District). Usage restrictions present a practical difficulty in apartment development in White County.

 

Colin Betts read the Staff Report for rezone #1068 into record. Charlie Roberts was present to represent the rezone request. Doug Pepple asked Charlie if the existing building was destroyed and had to be rebuilt, if he could build it back to the same footprint. The existing structure is legally non-forming and in order to rebuild back to the existing footprint, a variance would be required. Mr. Roberts clarified what the intended use for the building is and all parking and landscape plans for the site.

 

Mayor Ken Houston was present and addressed this rezone request relative to the current B-4 Rezone #1066. He stated that the City Council was not in favor of “spot rezoning” to the B-4 Zoning District and would consider expanding the B-4 Zoning further north in the future to encompass this specific parcel. Ralph Widmer, City Council Member, was also present and confirmed that expanding the B-4 zoning was something they would consider in the future but were not in favor of only rezoning certain parcels here and there to the B-4 Zoning District. Any future rezoning to the B-4 Zoning District, outside of the original proposal, would need to be studied further.

 

There being no additional questions, ballots were passed out by Abigail Diener.

Ballot Summary:

1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the White County Strategic (Comprehensive) Plan and any other applicable planning studies and reports, as adopted and amended from time to time. 7 Agree; 1 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

2. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the current conditions (e.g. existing lots, structures and uses) and the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 8 Agree; 0 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

3. The proposed rezoning is the most desirable use for which the land in the subject property is adapted. 6 Agree; 2 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

 

4. The proposed rezoning will not have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction. 7 Agree; 1 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: None

 

5. The proposed rezoning reflects responsible standard for growth and development. 7 Agree; 1 No Opinion; 0 Disagree; APC Comments: “I would like to see the zoning of neighboring parcels reviewed for rezone consideration also.”

 

President, Charles Anderson announced the results, as follows: 8 votes cast; 8 in Favor - 0 Opposed – 0 No Recommendation. Rezone request will be certified to the appropriate legislative body with a “Favorable” recommendation.

 

The rezone request will go before the Monticello City Council at their next meeting on July 17, 2017 for final approval.

Subdivisions: None

Consideration of the APC Hearing Examiner and BZA Hearing Officer. - Current Area Plan Executive Director, Colin Betts, has nominated himself as Hearing Examiner for the APC and Hearing Officer for the BZA in order to hear any and all public meetings without any limitations in the event that the Board could not meet due to lack of quorum. The Board has the option to appoint anyone to this position and delegate or limit specific powers of authority and will need to consider what, if any limitations they would apply to the position. In addition, decisions made by the Hearing Examiner/Officer can be appealed only by the applicant to the APC or BZA in a public meeting.

 

As previously stated, Abigail Diener informed the Board that these are positions created by statute and have been adopted to the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow a person to be appointed with the authority to conduct public hearing meetings required to be held by the Area Plan Commission and/or Board of Zoning Appeals, excluding any authority or decisions provided for in the Subdivision Control Ordinance or the 700 Series, Subdivision Control or State Statute IC 36-7-4. Previously, the APC appointed former Area Plan Director, Joseph Rogers, to these positions on a limited basis. The 09/12/2011 APC Meeting Minutes reflects the following: Director Rogers informed the board that there is baseline zoning (zoning determined with the inception of Area Plan) that, for example, is a business zoning in a residential district.  These homes are legally nonconforming.  Our ordinance does not allow expansion of nonconforming structures, nor does it allow a nonconforming structure to be reconstructed if it should be destroyed.  Lenders are denying funding in these situations. The board agreed the rezone filing fee should be waived in such cases.  The only way to avoid the time delay of possibly two months for a homeowner waiting for a meeting is to implement the Hearing Examiner procedure.  Joe Rogers was nominated as Hearing Examiner.  No other nominations were forthcoming.  Dave Rosenbarger moved that the board vote to appoint Joe as Hearing Examiner.  Dave Scott seconded.  The vote passed 10 – 0. Dave Scott motioned to assign the task of rezoning of baseline errors to the Hearing Examiner.  Dave Rosenbarger seconded.  The motion carried 10 – 0.” Joe Rogers has served as Area Plan Director for approximately five (5) years at the time of this appointment.

 

After some discussion, Brad Ward made a motion to appoint Colin Betts as Hearing Examiner for the APC with the same limitations as the previously allowed to Joe Rogers. The appointment will allow rezoning of baseline errors to the Hearing Examiner. The motion was seconded by Denny Sterrett and by show of hands, all approved. Motion carried. The Board may revisit this issue in a few months and expand the authority of this position.

Amendments

#A51-Cell Towers: CH 3 Specific Use Requirements & Performance Standards & CH 14 Definitions – 3.10.2 New Wireless Support Structures and Wireless Facilities & CH 14 Definitions - State legislation (SB 213) has been passed and is now state law. A draft ordinance is still being finalized and should be ready for APC approval by the August APC Meeting.

Other Business:

1) Comprehensive Development Plan– Ongoing – The final draft for public review has been approved by all of the legislative bodies and we are waiting on final copies from Ratio, pending the clarification of the final invoice.

 

2) 2018 Budget Proposal – Board Review – Colin Betts read the line items for the proposed budget for 2018 and answered questions by Board Members to clarify. The proposed budget is approximately a 20% increase from last year’s budget.

 

 

****

 

 

 

There being no further business, Jim Annis made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:34 p.m., with a second from Brad Ward. President Anderson called the meeting adjourned.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Tina M. Tiede, Board Secretary

White County Area Plan Commission

 

 

Colin Betts, Executive Director

White County Area Plan Commission

 

 

Document Prepared By: White County Area Plan Board Secretary, Tina M. Tiede “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.”

WHITE COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE OF REGULAR SESSION

 

July 10, 2017 – 6:00 p.m.

2nd Floor Conference Room, White County Building

110 N Main St., Monticello, IN 47960

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

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 Approve 06/12/17 APC Regular Meeting Minutes, the #337 White Oaks Subdivision Findings of Fact and #338 Stars Subdivision Findings of Fact.

 

OPENING BUSINESS – Consideration of the APC Hearing Examiner and BZA Hearing Officer – Tabled from the 06/12/17 APC Meeting.

 

REZONINGS –

 

#1066 – City of Monticello: The proposed zoning map amendment involves consideration of a change of the zoning districts within the Monticello Corporate Boundary from: B-1 (Neighborhood Business District) to B-4 (General Business Dense Development District). Maps showing the parcels impacted by this proposal are available for viewing at the Monticello City Hall or the White County Area Plan Office (located on the second floor of the White County Government Center in Monticello) and will be available for the July 10, 2017 public hearing on this matter.

 

#1067 – W H Kelley Farms LLC: A-1 District (General Agriculture) to A-2 District (Agricultural Industry) – 800 S, Brookston, IN 47923; Prairie Township. The rezone request is for the purpose of a confined feeding operation.

 

#1068 – TSCR LLC: B-2 District (General Business) to B-4 District (General Business Dense Development) – 719 N Illinois St., Monticello, IN 47960; Prairie Township. The rezone request is for the purpose of a multi-use commercial building with offices and apartments.

SUBDIVISIONS None

 

AMENDMENTS – #A51-Cell Towers: CH 3 Specific Use Requirements & Performance Standards – 3.10.2 New Wireless Support Structures and Wireless Facilities & CH 14 Definitions – Update on upcoming amendment.

BUSINESS 1) Comprehensive Development Plan – Final Copies for distribution?

 

2) 2018 Budget Proposal – Board Review

Individuals requiring reasonable accommodations for participation in this event should contact the White County Title VI Coordinator a minimum of 48-hours prior to the meeting at: 574-583-4585; Leah Hull, Title VI Coordinator, 110 N MAIN ST, PO BOX 260, MONTICELLO, IN 47960

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PAGE 1

 

 

APC Meeting Minutes – July 10, 2017

Page PAGE 9 of NUMPAGES 9

 

 

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px Arial; min-height: 16.0px} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; font: 14.0px Arial; min-height: 16.0px} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; font: 14.0px Arial} p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'} p.p5 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 16.0px} p.p6 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'} p.p7 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'} p.p8 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 16.0px} p.p9 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px Times} p.p10 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px Times; min-height: 18.0px} p.p11 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; font: 14.0px Times; min-height: 18.0px} p.p12 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; font: 14.0px 'Arial Narrow'} p.p13 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-align: center; font: 14.0px 'Arial Narrow'; min-height: 16.0px} p.p14 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-align: center; font: 14.0px 'Arial Narrow'} p.p15 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 1.0px; text-align: center; line-height: 11.2px; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'} span.s1 {text-decoration: underline} span.s2 {font: 14.0px Times} span.s3 {font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'} span.s4 {color: #ff2600} span.s5 {font: 14.0px Palatino} span.Apple-tab-span {white-space:pre}