Get Adobe Flash player

BZA Meeting

June 21, 2018

The White County Area Board of Zoning Appeals met Thursday, June 21, 2018, at 6:00 pm in the Commissioner’s Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Present: Dennis Sterrett, Randy Conwell, Chris McWhirter, Stan Minnick, and Abbey Gross

Also attending were Executive Director Colin Betts, Board Secretary Sarah Baunach, and Attorney Abigail Diener.

Visitors attending were: Tony Ellis, Steve Klener, Nicole Rodwell, Terry Seal, Pamela Seal, Stephen Smart, Joe Rogers, Gayle Rogers, Sonja Einsele, Robert Kmetz, William, Sassman, Frances Brady, Charles Brady, Ashley Rodwell, Howard Bell, Cindi Day, Richard Day, Greg Louden, Mike Wilson

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dennis Sterrett at 6:01 p.m.

**********

Minutes: There was a motion by Randy Conwell and a second by Chris McWhirter to approve the meeting minutes dated May 17, 2018, as written. Motion was carried unanimously.

Reorganization: Chairman Dennis Sterrett and Executive Director Colin Betts nominated Sarah Baunach as the Secretary for the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. Abbey Gross made a motion to appoint Sarah Baunach as the new Secretary, seconded by Stan Minnick. The motion was passed, and Sarah Baunach was appointed as Secretary.

Note: At the introduction of each case hearing, Director Betts read the Staff Report and affiliated documents into the official record of the meeting, to be used as supporting documents for developing the Findings of Fact for each hearing.

Special Exceptions

Special Exception # 2979

Executive Director Colin Betts read the staff report and presented photos of 6546 N Apple Knob Dr., Monon, IN, Monon Township (Legal Description: Apple Knob Add Lot 48 & Lot 49), owned by Gregory and Kelly Loudon. Director Betts explained that the White County Zoning Ordinance defines the Vacation Rentals as renting single family homes, duplexes, apartment buildings, condominiums, villa, townhome, or any other similar dwelling on a short-term basis, less than 30 days. Short term vacation rentals permitted by Appendix A is a Special Exception Use with the approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Director Betts also stated the Area Plan office received a letter of authorization from the abutting property owners to the south regarding this request and the applicant submitted photos as proof that the property to north of his property is uninhabited and unkept and had received setback information for that issue. The applicant has submitted proof of compliance for the rules and regulations which include maximum occupancy, a setback waiver from an abutting neighbor, smoke detectors, waste management, Twin Lakes Regional Sewer District certification, and fire extinguishers (size & type not specified). There are 3 parking spaces provided, which is sufficient parking for 3 sleeping rooms. The parking area is not hard surfaced or ADA compliant and the home may not be ADA compliant which is not a requirement for residential structures, along with sidewalks, curbing and wheel stops. Director Betts also stated there were no communications from the community regarding this request. However, there was a letter in support of the Special Exception Use request from an Armando Batista, address in Gary, IN, that is a neighbor of the Loudons. There was another letter from Lloyd Cooley, 11388 W 800 S, Lacrosse, IN, who is also in support of the Special Exception Use request. Armando Batista and Lloyd Cooley own properties on Apple Knob Dr. that are neighbors of the subject property. Director Betts informed the board members that all supporting documents and photos should have been included in their board packets that they received by email. He stated the site plan and aerial map shows the house, shed, deck, private well, a ramp and a parking area off of Apple Knob Dr. The parking area is listed as being 40’ wide by 20’ deep, however when Director Betts went and measured the parking area, he measured the area as 18’ deep from the edge of the pavement and the exact right of way is not able to be determined accurately. Betts said that a standard parking size is 9’ wide by 20’ deep, therefore the subject parking area width gives enough room for 4 parking spaces, but the depth is right on the line. Board member Randy Conwell asked what the right of way is for Apple Knob and Director Betts stated that it is 20 feet and the house does meet setback requirements. There were no other questions for the board so Mr. Gregory Loudon, subject property owner, stepped to the podium to represent his request. Chairman Dennis Sterrett stated that he parked his 4-door truck in the subject parking area and his truck stuck out into the roadway a bit. Mr. Louden responded that typically they park at a diagonal and can fit 4 vehicles diagonally, however he agreed that if you pull in straight the larger vehicles will stick out further. Mr. Louden said that there is 3 more feet by the railroad ties that he still needs to fill in and once he fills that area in there will be the 3 more feet to park. Mr. Sterrett asked how many sleeping quarters the home provides and Mr. Betts stated there are 3 sleeping rooms and that the minimum is one parking space per sleeping room. Mr. Loudon stated the home is a 2 bedroom, but they can sleep in the living room as well. Mr. Charles Brady, 6646 N Harris Loop, stepped up to the podium and stated all the nearby residents pitched in to that the road paved and is a mess since the railroad ties have been put in, the grass in never cut, tree limbs are everywhere. Mr. Brady wasn’t sure where the renters put their garbage, but there are wild animals running all over once the renters leave. He also stated there is a small driveway that is overgrown and in front of where the renter park is so overgrown that you can’t hardly walk down there. Mr. Brady believes that the people to the south were complaining because people were driving over the lawn to get to the trailer next door. He said that he is a concerned neighbor and the property owners do not take care of the property. He also stated that Apple Knob is not a county road and they have to maintain it. Mr. Brady said they have to fill the holes in the road with gravel due to the subject property owners tearing up the road when they put the railroad ties in. Robert Kmetz, stepped to the podium and stated that the parking area is not big enough and half the cars that park there are in the road way. He said that cars driving down the road have to go around the parked vehicles and the trees on the road side look awful. He also said there are tree limbs all over, overgrown bushes, and the property owners do not care what the top of the hill looks like. They only maintain the back of the property. Mr. Kmetz said that he used to clean up the property but does not now and the property needs to be cleaned up. He thinks the property should not be used as a vacation rental property because it’s a residential area and only friends and family should be utilizing the property. Next person to speak at the podium was Bill Sassman, 6634 Apple Knob Dr. Mr. Sassman stated that his grandfather built that location because it was a nice and quiet area. He agrees with everything that Robert Kmetz had to say. Mr. Sassman said the parking and weeds have always been an issue and there needs to be more work put into maintaining the subject property. A main concern Mr. Sassman has is the accountability of the renters that come in and out every weekend. He thinks the accountability of renters and the parking issue needs to be heavily considered when the commissioners make their decision. Next speaker was Richard Day, 6780 N Apple Knob Dr., who said that he is a seven-year resident [of the neighborhood] and wanted to testify that what the other residents said is true. He stated that he used to be in construction and the parking area is not deep enough and insufficient. He said that the renters park in all different directions and their vehicles stick out into the road way and cars cannot pass going by that area. Joe Rogers stepped up to the podium with a couple questions and wanted to raise an issue. Joe said “Colin you mentioned in your staff report that there is no ADA requirement for no residential use, correct? So, you are not requiring an ADA space, correct?” Colin stated for a single family residential there is no requirement. Joe asked, “that’s a federal standard, correct?” Colin replied “correct.” Joe said that a local standard can be more restrictive than federal standard and Attorney Abigail Diener agreed. Joe said the zoning ordinance requires an ADA space and Mr. Betts said that it requires spaces. Joe informed it requires an ADA space and for every space required there is a table in the zoning ordinance that says if you have 1 to 25 spaces required you are mandated to have an ADA space. Joe said, “this is the standard that has to be applied in this situation. Secondly, the special exception use criteria that you guys are mandated to follow does not provide that you can grant a variance in the special exception process. So, if the parking does not meet the parking standards then you cannot grant a special exception approval. The parking as it has been stated does not meeting the standards of the zoning ordinance. IC 3.16.9A of the zoning ordinance which covers vacation homes states that parking must comply with Chapter 8 of the White County ADA Zoning Ordinance. It doesn’t say that you can, or that you can consider it, it says that you must comply. It means that they must have 9’ x 20’ parking spaces, they must have a 24’ aisle, and must be paved hard surface. Anything beyond or less than what is in the zoning ordinance requires a variance. So, for this to be approved, this applicant would have to get a variance for their parking by applying for it, have a public hearing, and get approved before they can come back, or you can consider approval. You do not have an option even in your decision criteria that you have for a special exception that again is mandated by the zoning ordinance. It says that your decision criteria is proposed development that conforms to the developmental standards to the White County Zoning Ordinance. It must conform to all the standards of the zoning ordinance or it has to be denied. So my contention is that having been in Colin’s position, I know that the number one objection to these types of facilities and these types of residential areas is always parking and traffic. That’s why it was put in the zoning ordinance to resolve that particular issue to make it harmonious with the community or the neighborhood. It is also a requirement of your special exception consideration, it must be compatible with the neighborhood.” Joe does not believe the commissioners can grant a special exception if it does not comply with the zoning ordinance requirements that have been established by the APC and the legislative bodies for this board to follow. Attorney Abigail Diener asked if the board could consider this special exception with a condition, like a variance and getting the variance passed. Joe explained that they could approve this with the condition that it is approved after the receipt of a variance or bring the parking up to standard. Property owner Gregory Loudon stepped back to the podium and said that the renters parking on other people’s property did happen twice and that certain property owner signed a letter stating that she was okay with it. He stated that the other property owner and he spoke about it and they are okay with it and it has not happened since. Mr. Loudon said that as far as the nature of the property, there is an incline that he likes to keep the grass grown up. He said that it hides the railroad ties and makes things look more natural and the property is well managed and manicured. He was unaware that was an issue with the neighborhood. Mr. Loudon also stated that he has parked 4 vehicles in the parking area with no problems and isn’t sure how the renters are parking and his renters have never had more than 2 vehicles there at once. He apologized if the renters are leaving a mess and thanked the people for helping clean it up. He stated that he and his sister go to the property to clean the house after every renter to get it ready for the next guests. He said the property next to his has been unkept for over a decade and he has filed a complaint about it with no action ever taken. He said he has never received any complaints from the neighbors, so he was unaware of their concerns. Board member Randy Conwell had a few concerns about the parking if and when the renters would bring a boat or if the Fire Department could get to the home if there was ever an emergency. Mr. Loudon was not sure how to respond to the question about the Fire Department being able to get to the home, but he did state that as far as he is aware there has never been an issue with the parking. Attorney Abigail Diener then asked Mr. Loudon what his position is on the ADA parking requirements and Mr. Louden responded that he was not planning on paving the parking area and it is in better condition that the street is. However, he is planning on filling in the area by the railroad ties which will give the parking area 3 more feet, which he believes would take care of the parking needing to be 20’ in depth. He stated he wasn’t sure if he will pave it unless it became an issue and Attorney Diener told him it is an issue and he has to commit to paving it or say he will apply for a variance or they would not be able to put the special exception in place. Mr. Loudon asked what the deadline for paving the parking would be and Attorney Diener said he would not be able to rent the property until he got it done. Chairman Dennis Sterrett asked Joe Rogers if Mr. Loudon needs a handicapped space. Joe confirmed that he will need a handicapped space and have a parking lot aisle because you cannot back into a street. Joe stated that he will need a 9’ x 20’ x 24’ space before he gets to the right of way or he has to have a variance. Joe also stated the standards have been set by the legislative body and in order for the board to deviate from those standards Mr. Loudon would have to request a variance for the pavement and handicap parking and have a hearing. Joe explained that Mr. Loudon can request a variance for the handicap space because there is not a federal standard and if the board waived that then he is not in violation of federal law. Chairman Sterrett asked Mr. Loudon if he would like to table the discussion until he speaks with Director Betts and/ or decides what he wants to do with the parking area and Mr. Loudon said that he wants to table it.

Special Exception # 2979 – Tabled

Special Exception # 2980

Director Betts identified the location address as Lot 10 in the Forest Hill Addition in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana; commonly know as 5953 E Liberty Dr., Monticello, IN 47960, owned by Stephen Smart. The applicant requests the special exception use by owner and the dwelling is used for personal enjoyment and vacation rental. There was a neighbor complaint, File# 258, indicates that the property owners may have already been using the property for a vacation rental and this has presented to be a nuisance to the neighbors. Short term vacation rentals permitted by Appendix A is a Special Exception Use with the approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. In the case of Vacation rental by owners, the Area Plan Commission and legislative bodies have determined that vacation rentals should be submitted for critical review through the special exception process and have provided criteria to facilitate the BZA process, which is found in Chapter 12 and Chapter 3. This includes consistency with the use schedule, developmental standards, and the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. The additional criteria may also require additional public infrastructure which could result in the loss of natural, scenic, or historical features. Also, more specific criteria can be found in Chapter 3, 3.16.9, which includes rules and regulations, safety, contact numbers, maximum occupancy, noise restrictions, waste management, trespassing, fishing, fires. Yard usage, parking setbacks, and sewer septic certification. Director Betts stated that the applicant submitted a statement of intent which provides sufficient motives for their request. He said the applicant also submitted proof of compliance for rules and regulations, contact numbers, safety, waste management, noise, trespassing, setback waiver from abutting neighbors, certification from Twin Lakes Regional Sewer District. Mr. Betts informed them the maximum occupancy should be eight based on the number of sleeping rooms. There are four sleeping rooms, therefore four parking spaces are required. The site plan and photos indicate there is a 26’ x 47’ brick parking area located between the structure and Liberty Dr, which is enough room to accommodate five parking spaces. The parking area does not include sidewalks, wheel stops, curbing, or ADA parking. There were no calls or community communications for letters received in the Area Plan office. One of the letters received was from Steve Klener, 5993 E Liberty Dr., Monticello, stating the road on Liberty Drive does not accommodate parking or the traffic for the rental property and if there were an emergency the authorities would not be able to get through. Mr. Klener stated the amount of people that stay in the rental is beyond hazardous. He also stated the renters speed down the road and the neighboring residents fear for their children and pets safety. Mr. Klener also submitted photos showing the use of the rental property. The second letter received was from Jeff Hagopian, 5977 E Liberty Dr., Monticello, says that he is concerned about the potential effects of the proposed use of his property and neighboring properties. Jeff said that he and the neighbors have already experienced negative effects of other neighboring rentals, apparently without approved special exception use permits. He has noticed three other properties that have been rented throughout the year. The following is what he has observed that should further prohibit residences in the subdivision to be used for vacation rental purposes: having renters in the area contributes to increased traffic and possible roadside pollution, the renters do not respect the community to the same level the homeowners do, and among other considerations. The purpose of the L-1, Lake District, is to provide adequate land for residential development adjacent to lakes, rivers, or other bodies of water. They are also intended to maintain the scenic beauty and character of the surrounding area. The current zoning regulation of this area promotes a health and safety moral and the general welfare of the public. Additionally, it allows for the existing neighborhood properties to remain intact. Mr. Hagopian stated that the use of homes in his neighborhood used for vacation rentals would disrupt the community. Jeff said he has invested interest in the property value and does not want it to be diminished, which is currently zoned for homeowners and property values reflect that. He said the homeowners show respect to other homeowner’s properties and the renters do not adhere to the same standards. Theses short term renters will change the dynamic of owning a home in the area, not allowing for a peaceful experience. He stated there have been incidences where we have passed by the renters that were playing a game in the middle of the road and became upset because they had to stop their game. On several occasions Jeff said he has witnessed renters tossing items into the lake, including beer bottles, trash, and other items that often end up on the beach that the community has to maintain. He stated the renters often trespass while intoxicated, fish by the lake, leave trash behind, and use his chairs. Excessive speed is also an issue even after the homeowners have asked them to slow down. Again, the homeowners fear for the safety of their children and pets. Jeff said there is inadequate parking and the subject property is listed to sleep up to eight. He says it is not uncommon to see cars parked down the road because of the lack of parking. The neighboring house has been listed to sleep up to twenty-eight guests and is usual to see twelve cars parked for that property alone. He said there is already limited parking in this area which cause congestion in the roadway and creates unsafe conditions. The homeowners are paying members to maintain the beach front and have often found renters using the beach for their enjoyment and leave their trash behind. There are nuisance concerns because it is very common for renters to interfere with their right as homeowners to find enjoyment. Their smoky bonfires, bright lights left on all hours of the night, loud noise and talking after 11 pm. Recently, there were renters lighting fireworks into the trees and the hot ashes were falling onto Mr. Hagopian’s roof. Director Betts clarified for the Board purposes of residential zoning districts under Chapter 2 of the White County Zoning Ordinance. Under section 2.4.2, the L-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 residential districts are intended to protect the integrity valued enjoyment of the use of the dwellings in each district. Section 2.5.4 states the regulations of an L-1, Lake District, are intended to accommodate lake front properties while maintaining the scenic beauty and characteristics of the surrounding area. Mr. Hagopian stated the proposed special exception use of the residence in the neighborhood is inconsistent [with]and will frustrate the intentions of those provisions. Section 3.16.9 of the zoning ordinance requires that property owners seek special exception use permits and get approved. In addition, section 3.16.9 states that no vacation home may be located 50’ from an abutting residential property line. The home for which a special exception has been requested is within the 50’ from an abutting property line. The same section further states the maximum occupancy of a vacation home is limited to 2 people per bedroom and/or sleeping room and no more than 12 overnight guests. It appears that the proposed special exception use would not be consistent with these requirements. Section 4.2.3 of the zoning ordinance specifies that the determination of special exceptions shall be contingent of the owners meeting the standards prescribed by this ordinance. Mr. Hagopian believes this proposed use will result in no public benefit and has caused and will continue to cause significant negative local impacts. He stated that he requests the Board of Zoning Appeals to reject the request for special exception use permit and any similar requests for any other propertied in his neighborhood. After Mr. Betts finished reading the letter, Steve Smart stepped up to the podium to state his case. He stated that he is the property owner of 5953 E Liberty Dr., Monticello. Stephen started off by apologizing about his renters using fireworks and said that it is unacceptable. Stephen then started to read a statement that he had prepared, “I am a long-time owner of this residence. A little about me…I grew up in the White County area, my family was from Wolcott, so I feel like I am a part of this community. I came home from the military in 1973 and my father passed away in the same year. My father served on the White County Council for many years and contributed to the planning approval and construction of this fine building that we are in today, that the tornado destroyed…the previous building. In 1974, I purchased this residence in the Forest Hill Addition as a derelict property and I put over $100,000 at that time into the property to add to the area. IN 1974, there was only a dirt road leading to the weekend summer residence and the only way to get there in the winter was by snowmobile. It was a summer retreat only and I don’t remember any full-time residents at that time in the area. Due to the terrible dirt access road, the weekend homeowners went together and contributed $1000. By paving the road at our expense, the county would then maintain the upkeep and plowing in the winter time. After the road was paved, Dr. Hykle (who was a full-time resident) purchased the surrounding property to develop an upscale community with custom built homes called Lake Breeze. This however did not happen, things have changed, and there are now many permanent residents rather than weekend residents in the Lake Breeze subdivision, down the hill and far from my home. I have included in the house rules that the Lake Breeze subdivision is a privately-owned community and the housing area, beach, and boat docking is provided for the Lake Breeze members only, not the guests in my residence. I have always maintained the property to compliment the Forest Hill Addition and the neighborhood. I have recently retired, working until the age of 70, and will be spending more time at this residence enjoying it with family and friends. Since the house on the left and right of mine are no longer being rented, this should help eliminate the stress on the neighborhood. Now about the house… the upper level consists of a large brick parking lot for vehicles, possible 6, and a 4 car garage. You can continue through the breezeway into the garage then down several steps, down to the house on the lake level. The house consists of a lower level with a large kitchen, a 20’ x 20’ living room for entertaining, one bedroom, one bath. The second floor consists of 2 bedrooms. There are sleeping areas for a maximum of 8 people. Off the living is a large deck, approximately 15’ x 30’. There is no fire pit, thank goodness. The river is 12.5’ from the railed deck. One boat may be tied to the seawall for loading and unloading. The deck is shielded by a large hemlock tree to the west for privacy, for respect to the neighbors, and to the east off the deck to the river. Most houses are on the east side are above on the hill. My sister and my brother in law, Pam & Terry Seal, clean and maintain the property to the highest standards and are available 24 hours a day if anything is needed or problems occur. They are within minutes of the residence and often stay there along with other friends of ours. I’m asking the board to review my house, to allow a limited amount of summer guests. Usually there are less than 8 people there and many times it is just a couple couples that stay. Maybe 4 to 6 people, but a maximum of 8. If people are bringing other people in, then those people are not to stay at the residence. They are also not to park in any other area other than the front of my house. Again, I am asking the board to review my home and to allow a limited amount of summer guests the ability to enjoy the summer amenities of White County, which includes Indiana Beach, boating, the calmness of the river, nice eating establishments, and other entertainments available while living in the comfort of a home rather than a rented room. The home will only be rented from April through September and approximately 45 days a year. Our summer guests bring into millions of dollars into White County, helping all of us by spending their money contributing to the local economy so that we can enjoy the prosperity and growth of businesses. With that in mind, please consider my request and I thank you.” Once Mr. Smart was finished, Board Member Randy Conwell asked him if he had started renting it after the remodeling was done and Mr. Smart said that he did not start renting it until about a year ago. Sonja Einsele (Treasurer of Lake Breeze Homeowners Association) wanted to make sure that all 3 homeowners that were listed on the petition, which are Hurbert Nolan, Stephen Smart, Joseph Drish, are being considered. She wanted to make sure that was being considered because the petition [submitted for Nolan, #2978] was for all three properties. Sonja stated there was a complaint violation form that was sent in by Jeff Hagopian as well and wanted to make sure everything was on record. She says her biggest concern is the parking because the road is very narrow, and all the vehicles make the road chaotic, making it unsafe for all the children, pets, and all residents. Sonja stated that vehicles cannot pass each other on that road because it is so narrow. She said the renters have zero respect for the area therefore the homeowners try to avoid that area as much as possible. Sonja stated that she was under the impression that if a home was only 3 bedrooms then the home was only to sleep six. Colin informed her that it depends on the number of sleeping rooms the homeowner has identified. For example, a living room with a pull out couch would be considered a sleeping room. Stephen Smart stated the road you turn onto by his residence is not an official road but is maintained by the county for emergency purposes and snow is plowed if 3 inches deep during the winter. He said that it is a private driveway and not an official road. Steve said that he had contacted the County Highway Dept because he wanted to have stone put down and the county highway representative told him it is a private driveway. He did agree with Sonja Einsele that the road is narrow when people are parked in his driveway. However, he said it is not a public road for people to drive up and down and that the road is for the residents that live there and their guests. Steve Klener, 5993 E Liberty Rd., Monticello, was the next speaker. He said that he has problems with the renters of the vacation homes all the time. He also stated if there were ever an emergency situation the authorities would not be able to get through with all the vehicles parked at the rental homes. Mr. Klener says the renters have no respect for the residents and speed down Liberty Drive causing an unsafe environment. Next nearby resident to speak was Nicole Rodwell. She informed the board that she lives a few houses down from Mr. Smart’s residence and that the road is not a private drive. Nicole stated the renters are noisy, leave trash along the road, and sometimes us their trash cans. She says that they deal with these issues among others nonstop and is tired of it. Director Colin Betts stated, “A public right of way is built and dedicated to the public by instrument. In White County, a lot of areas around Lake fronts that were developed and were sub divided and roads were put in, those roads were not necessarily dedicated to the public, which makes them a private drive. The subsequent owners that purchased properties in those subdivisions and are residents, have interest in that drive. It is a not a public drive, it is actually a private drive.” Resident Ashley Rodwell, 5885 E 800 N, stated there is a lot of noise, loud music, big bonfires, fireworks, people walking up and down the road throughout the night, and heavy traffic. She said the renters use her trash cans and do not close them correctly so the animals get in to it and spread it everywhere. The next person to speak was Tony Ellis, 5585 E Bass Center Rd., Monticello. Tony said he does not want vacation rentals in his community. He stated the traffic gets very heavy in the summer and has all the same concerns the other residents have. Joe Rogers stepped up to the podium and said, “If this site does not meet the developmental standards of the Zoning Ordinance, which is doe not appear to meet the parking requirements and it was stated that it does not meet the setback requirements, then you cannot grant a special exception use. This hearing is premature, with the property has to be brought into compliance or there has to be a variance applied for it and granted before this hearing occurs. At this point you have 2 choices, either deny this special exception or you can continue it like you did the last one and he needs to apply for a variance to identify the inadequacies to the zoning ordinance and get the board to approve those variances before this meeting occurs.” Chairman Dennis Sterrett asked Mr. Smart if he would like to table the hearing until he applies for a variance and Mr. Smart said yes to tabling the special exception.

Special Exception # 2980 – Tabled

Meeting Adjourned at 7:46 pm.

No other Business.

Sarah Baunach, Secretary

Area Board of Zoning Appeals

 

 

 

Colin Betts, Executive Director

White County Area Plan Commission

 

Document Prepared By: White County Area Plan Secretary Sarah Baunach, "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.”